Department of Health and Exercise Science, Exercise Physiology Laboratory, Rowan University, Goassboro, NJ 08028, USA.
Department of Health, Exercise Science, & Recreation Management, Kevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, The University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677, USA.
Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2020 May;45(5):463-470. doi: 10.1139/apnm-2019-0470. Epub 2019 Sep 25.
The objective of this study was to determine differences in 2 distinct resistance training protocols and if true variability can be detected after accounting for random error. Individuals ( = 151) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: () a traditional exercise group performing 4 sets to failure; () a group performing a 1-repetition maximum (1RM) test; and () a time-matched nonexercise control group. Both exercise groups performed 18 sessions of elbow flexion exercise over 6 weeks. While both training groups increased 1RM strength similarly (∼2.4 kg), true variability was only present in the traditional exercise group (true variability = 1.80 kg). Only the 1RM group increased untrained arm 1RM strength (1.5 kg), while only the traditional group increased ultrasound measured muscle thickness (∼0.23 cm). Despite these mean increases, no true variability was present for untrained arm strength or muscle hypertrophy in either training group. In conclusion, these findings demonstrate the importance of taking into consideration the magnitude of random error when classifying differential responders, as many studies may be classifying high and low responders as those who have the greatest amount of random error present. Additionally, our mean results demonstrate that strength is largely driven by task specificity, and the crossover effect of strength may be load dependent. Many studies examining differential responders to exercise do not account for random error. True variability was present in 1RM strength gains, but the variability in muscle hypertrophy and isokinetic strength changes could not be distinguished from random error. The crossover effect of strength may differ based on the protocol employed.
本研究的目的是确定两种不同的抗阻训练方案的差异，以及在考虑随机误差后是否能检测到真正的变异性。个体（= 151）被随机分配到 3 个组之一：（）进行 4 组至力竭的传统运动组；（）进行 1 次重复最大（1RM）测试的组；和（）进行时间匹配的非运动对照组。两个运动组在 6 周内进行了 18 次屈肘运动。虽然两个训练组的 1RM 力量都有类似的增加（2.4 公斤），但只有传统运动组存在真正的变异性（真正的变异性= 1.80 公斤）。只有 1RM 组增加了未训练手臂的 1RM 力量（1.5 公斤），而只有传统组增加了超声测量的肌肉厚度（0.23 厘米）。尽管这些平均值有所增加，但在任何训练组中，未训练手臂的力量或肌肉肥大都没有真正的变异性。总之，这些发现表明，在分类不同反应者时，考虑随机误差的大小非常重要，因为许多研究可能将高反应者和低反应者分类为具有最大随机误差的人。此外，我们的平均值结果表明，力量主要受任务特异性的驱动，力量的交叉效应可能取决于负荷。许多研究检查了对运动的不同反应者，没有考虑随机误差。1RM 力量增加存在真正的变异性，但肌肉肥大和等速力量变化的变异性无法与随机误差区分开来。力量的交叉效应可能因所采用的方案而异。
