Suppr超能文献

低强度血流限制运动和高强度抗阻运动对急性神经肌肉适应的影响:有何不同?

Acute Neuromuscular Adaptations in Response to Low-Intensity Blood-Flow Restricted Exercise and High-Intensity Resistance Exercise: Are There Any Differences?

机构信息

CIPER, Faculty of Human Kinetics, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.

European University, Laureate International Universities, Lisbon, Portugal.

出版信息

J Strength Cond Res. 2018 Apr;32(4):902-910. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002022.

Abstract

Fatela, P, Reis, JF, Mendonca, GV, Freitas, T, Valamatos, MJ, Avela, J, and Mil-Homens, P. Acute neuromuscular adaptations in response to low-intensity blood flow restricted exercise and high-intensity resistance exercise: are there any differences? J Strength Cond Res 32(4): 902-910, 2018-Numerous studies have reported similar neuromuscular adaptations between low-intensity (LI) blood-flow restricted exercise (BFRE) and high-intensity (HI) resistance training. Unfortunately, none of these experimental designs individualized blood flow restriction (BFR) levels to each participant. Thus, their findings are difficult to interpret. We aimed at comparing the acute effects of LI BFR (80% of absolute vascular occlusion pressure) with LI non-BFR and HI training on muscle torque, activation, and neuromuscular fatigue. Ten men (23.8 ± 5.4 years) exercised at 20 and 75% of 1 repetition maximum with and without BFR (for LI). Blood flow restriction pressure was determined individually using resting blood-flow measurements. Torque was determined during maximal voluntary contractions (MVCs) at pre-exercise and postexercise time points. Surface electromyographic activity (root mean square [RMS] and median frequency [MF]) was recorded for the rectus femoris (RF) and vastus medialis (VM) muscles, before and after each session of training, during isometric contractions at 20% MVC. Torque decreased post-HI and LI BFR (-9.5 and -7.8%, respectively; p < 0.01), but not after LI non-BFR. The MF was reduced following HI training in the VM and the RF muscles (-5.3 and -12.5%, respectively; p ≤ 0.05). Conversely, the impact of LI BFR on reducing MF was limited to the RF muscle (-10.7%, p ≤ 0.05). Finally, when compared to all other conditions, RMS values were consistently higher during submaximal contractions performed after HI training (p ≤ 0.05). Thus, we conclude that, despite enhancing the acute magnitude of muscular activation and fatigue, LI BFR exercise exerts a less profound impact on neuromuscular function than HI resistance training.

摘要

法特拉、P、雷伊斯、JF、门东卡、GV、弗雷塔斯、T、瓦拉马托斯、MJ、阿韦拉、J 和米尔-霍门斯、P. 低强度血流限制运动和高强度抗阻运动对急性神经肌肉适应性的影响:有何不同?J Strength Cond Res 32(4):902-910, 2018-许多研究报告称,低强度(LI)血流限制运动(BFRE)和高强度(HI)抗阻训练之间存在类似的神经肌肉适应性。不幸的是,这些实验设计都没有将血流量限制(BFR)水平个体化到每个参与者。因此,他们的发现难以解释。我们的目的是比较 LI BFR(绝对血管闭塞压的 80%)与 LI 非 BFR 和 HI 训练对肌肉扭矩、激活和神经肌肉疲劳的急性影响。10 名男性(23.8 ± 5.4 岁)以 20%和 75%的 1 次重复最大值进行 LI 和 HI 训练,其中包括 BFR(LI)。使用静息血流量测量来确定血流量限制压力。在运动前和运动后时间点进行最大自主收缩(MVC)时确定扭矩。在训练后的每个会话期间,在 20%MVC 的等长收缩时,记录股直肌(RF)和股内侧肌(VM)的表面肌电图活动(均方根 [RMS]和中值频率 [MF])。HI 和 LI BFR 后扭矩降低(分别为-9.5%和-7.8%;p<0.01),但 LI 非 BFR 后扭矩没有降低。HI 训练后 VM 和 RF 肌肉的 MF 降低(分别为-5.3%和-12.5%;p≤0.05)。相反,LI BFR 对降低 MF 的影响仅限于 RF 肌肉(-10.7%;p≤0.05)。最后,与所有其他条件相比,HI 训练后进行的次最大收缩时 RMS 值始终更高(p≤0.05)。因此,我们得出结论,尽管 LI BFR 运动增强了肌肉激活和疲劳的急性程度,但对神经肌肉功能的影响不如 HI 抗阻训练深远。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验