Blazevich Anthony J, Wilson Cody J, Alcaraz Pedro E, Rubio-Arias Jacobo A
Centre for Exercise and Sports Science Research (CESSR), School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia.
UCAM Research Center for High Performance Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Catholic University San Antonio, Murcia, Spain.
Sports Med. 2020 May;50(5):943-963. doi: 10.1007/s40279-019-01239-x.
Muscular rate of force development (RFD) is positively influenced by resistance training. However, the effects of movement patterns and velocities of training exercises are unknown.
To determine the effects of velocity, the intent for fast force production, and movement pattern of training exercises on the improvement in isometric RFD from chronic resistance training.
A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to 18 September, 2018. Meta-regression and meta-analytic methods were used to compute standardized mean differences (SMD ± 95% confidence intervals) to examine effects of movement pattern similarity (between training and test exercises; specific vs. non-specific) and movement speed (fast vs. slow vs. slow with intent for fast force production) for RFD calculated within different time intervals.
The search yielded 1443 articles, of which 54 met the inclusion criteria (59 intervention groups). Resistance training increased RFD measured to both early (e.g., 50 ms; standardized mean difference [95% CI] 0.58 [0.40, 0.75]) and later (e.g., 200 ms; 0.39 [0.25, 0.52]) times from contraction onset, as well as maximum RFD (RFD; 0.35 [0.21, 0.48]). However, sufficient data for sub-analyses were only available for RFD. Significant increases relative to control groups were observed after training with high-speed (0.54 [0.05, 1.03]), slow-speed with intent for fast force production (0.41 [0.20, 0.63), and movement pattern-specific (0.38 [0.17, 0.59]) exercises only. No clear effect was observed for slow-speed without intent for fast force production (0.21 [0.00, 0.42], p = 0.05) or non-movement-specific (0.27 [- 0.32, 0.85], p = 0.37) exercises. Meta-regression did not reveal a significant difference between sexes (p = 0.09); however, a negative trend was found in women (- 0.57 [- 1.51, 0.37], p = 0.23), while a favorable effect was found in men (0.40 [0.22, 0.58], p < 0.001). Study duration did not statistically influence the meta-analytic results, although the greatest RFD increases tended to occur within the first weeks of the commencement of training.
Resistance training can evoke significant increases in RFD. For maximum (peak) RFD, the use of faster movement speeds, the intention to produce rapid force irrespective of actual movement speed, and similarity between training and testing movement patterns evoke the greatest improvements. In contrast to expectation, current evidence indicates a between-sex difference in response to training; however, a lack of data in women prevents robust analysis, and this should be a target of future research. Of interest from a training program design perspective was that RFD improvements were greatest within the first weeks of training, with less ongoing improvement (or a reduction in RFD) with longer training, particularly when training velocity was slow or there was a lack of intent for fast force production.
肌肉力量发展速率(RFD)受到抗阻训练的正向影响。然而,训练动作模式和速度的影响尚不清楚。
确定训练动作的速度、快速发力意图以及动作模式对慢性抗阻训练等长RFD改善的影响。
截至2018年9月18日对电子数据库进行系统检索。采用Meta回归和Meta分析方法计算标准化均数差(SMD±95%置信区间),以检验不同时间间隔内计算的RFD的动作模式相似性(训练与测试动作之间;特定动作与非特定动作)和动作速度(快速与慢速与带有快速发力意图的慢速)的影响。
检索到1443篇文章,其中54篇符合纳入标准(59个干预组)。抗阻训练增加了从收缩开始测量的早期(如50毫秒;标准化均数差[95%置信区间]0.58[0.40, 0.75])和晚期(如200毫秒;0.39[0.25, 0.52])的RFD,以及最大RFD(RFD;0.35[0.21, 0.48])。然而,仅RFD有足够的数据进行亚组分析。仅在高速训练(0.54[0.05, 1.03])、带有快速发力意图的慢速训练(0.41[0.20, 0.63])和动作模式特定训练(0.38[0.17, 0.59])后观察到相对于对照组有显著增加。对于没有快速发力意图的慢速训练(0.21[0.00, 0.42],p = 0.05)或非动作特定训练(0.27[-0.32, 0.85],p = 0.37)未观察到明显效果。Meta回归未显示性别间存在显著差异(p = 0.09);然而,在女性中发现了负向趋势(-0.57[-1.51, 0.37],p = 0.23),而在男性中发现了有利影响(0.40[0.22, 0.58],p < 0.001)。研究持续时间对Meta分析结果无统计学影响,尽管RFD的最大增加往往发生在训练开始的前几周。
抗阻训练可使RFD显著增加。对于最大(峰值)RFD,使用更快的动作速度、无论实际动作速度如何都有产生快速力量的意图以及训练和测试动作模式之间的相似性可带来最大改善。与预期相反,当前证据表明训练反应存在性别差异;然而,女性缺乏数据妨碍了有力分析,这应成为未来研究的目标。从训练计划设计角度来看,有趣的是RFD的改善在训练的前几周最大,随着训练时间延长改善较少(或RFD降低),特别是当训练速度较慢或缺乏快速发力意图时。