GENUD Toledo Research Group, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain.
CIBER of Frailty and Healthy Aging (CIBERFES), Madrid, Spain; and.
J Strength Cond Res. 2022 Aug 1;36(8):2094-2101. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003826. Epub 2020 Sep 16.
Rodriguez-Lopez, C, Alcazar, J, Sánchez-Martín, C, Ara, I, Csapo, R, and Alegre, LM. Mechanical characteristics in heavy vs. light load ballistic resistance training in older adults. J Strength Cond Res 36(8): 2094-2101, 2022-Although power-oriented resistance training (RT) is strongly recommended to counter age-related neuromuscular function declines, there is still controversy about which intensities of load should be used to elicit optimal training adaptations. Knowledge of the mechanical characteristics of power-oriented RT performed at different intensities might help to better understand the training stimulus that triggers load-dependent adaptations in older adults. Using a cross-over design, 15 well-functioning older volunteers (9 men and 6 women; 73.6 ± 3.8 years) completed 2 volume × load-matched ballistic RT sessions with heavy (HL: 6 × 6 × 80% 1-repetition maximum [1RM]) and light-load (LL: 6 × 12 × 40% 1RM) on a horizontal leg press exercise. Electromyographic (EMG) and mechanical variables (work, force, velocity, and power) as well as intraset neuromuscular fatigue (i.e., relative losses in force, velocity, and power) were analyzed. More concentric mechanical work was performed in the LL training session, compared with HL (36.2 ± 11.2%; p < 0.001). Despite the higher mean EMG activity of the quadriceps femoris muscle (13.2 ± 21.1%; p = 0.038) and greater concentric force (35.2 ± 7.6%; p < 0.001) during HL, higher concentric velocity (41.0 ± 12.7%, p < 0.001) and a trend toward higher concentric power (7.2 ± 18.9%, p = 0.075) were found for LL. Relative velocity losses were similar in both sessions (≈10%); however, relative force losses were only found in LL (7.4 ± 6.5%, p = 0.003). Considering the greater mechanical work performed and concentric power generated, ballistic RT using LL may, therefore, represent a stronger stimulus driving training adaptations as compared with volume × load-matched heavy-load training. Relative losses in force and power should be monitored in addition to velocity losses during ballistic RT.
罗德里格斯-洛佩兹 C、阿尔卡萨尔 J、桑切斯-马丁 C、阿拉尔 I、克萨波 R 和阿莱格雷 LM。老年人重负荷与轻负荷弹道式阻力训练的力学特性。J 力量与调节研究 36(8):2094-2101,2022-尽管以力量为导向的阻力训练 (RT) 强烈推荐用于对抗与年龄相关的神经肌肉功能下降,但对于应使用哪种负荷强度来产生最佳的训练适应性仍存在争议。了解在不同强度下进行的以力量为导向的 RT 的力学特性可能有助于更好地理解触发老年人负荷依赖性适应的训练刺激。使用交叉设计,15 名功能良好的老年人志愿者(9 名男性和 6 名女性;73.6±3.8 岁)完成了 2 次体积×负荷匹配的弹道式 RT 训练,分别在水平腿推练习中使用重负荷(HL:6×6×80%1 次重复最大重量 [1RM])和轻负荷(LL:6×12×40%1RM)。分析了肌电图(EMG)和力学变量(功、力、速度和功率)以及组内神经肌肉疲劳(即力、速度和功率的相对损失)。与 HL 相比,LL 训练中进行了更多的向心机械功(36.2±11.2%;p<0.001)。尽管股四头肌肌肉的平均 EMG 活动更高(13.2±21.1%;p=0.038),HL 中的向心力更大(35.2±7.6%;p<0.001),但 LL 中的向心速度更高(41.0±12.7%,p<0.001),向心功率呈上升趋势(7.2±18.9%,p=0.075)。在这两个训练中,相对速度损失相似(约 10%);然而,仅在 LL 中发现相对力损失(7.4±6.5%,p=0.003)。考虑到所进行的更大机械功和产生的向心功率,与体积×负荷匹配的重负荷训练相比,使用 LL 的弹道式 RT 可能代表更强的刺激,推动训练适应性。在进行弹道式 RT 时,除了速度损失外,还应监测力和功率的相对损失。