Zhang Xing, Li Hansen, Bi Shilin, Luo Yong, Cao Yang, Zhang Guodong
Department of Basketball and Volleyball, Chengdu Sport University, Chengdu, China.
Key Lab of Physical Fitness Evaluation and Motor Function Monitoring of General Administration of Sports of China, College of Physical Education, Institute of Sports Science, Southwest University, Chongqing, China.
Front Physiol. 2021 Mar 12;12:651112. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2021.651112. eCollection 2021.
The auto-regulation method is a rising training strategy to improve strength and motor performance, and the Autoregulatory Progressive Resistance Exercise (APRE), Rating of Perceived Exertion program (RPE), and Velocity-Based Training (VBT) are the three common auto-regulation programs. However, whether the auto-regulation method is more effective than the traditional strength training (the fixed-loading method) in maximum strength training is still unclear. The present study searched the Pubmed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, Cochrane, CNKI, and CQVIP databases, and included eight related studies published between 2010 and 2020, with a total of 166 subjects including division 1 college players and athletes with at least 1-year training history, and interventions ranging from 5 to 10 weeks. A meta-analysis was performed to check the difference between the two training methods, and analyzed the differences in the existing auto-regulation programs' effectiveness. The overall results showed that the auto-regulation method was more effective than the fixed-loading method in maximum strength training (effect size = 0.64; < 0.001; = 0%). In specific, the pooled results in subgroup analysis indicated that the auto-regulation method may effectively improve the strength performance in squat (effect size = 4.64; < 0.05; = 54%) and bench press (effect size = 3.21; < 0.05; = 62%). Greater benefits of the auto-regulation method on strength improvement could be achieved in an 8-week or even shorter training (effect size = 0.87; < 0.001; = 0%) compared with those of 8-10 weeks (effect size = 0.32; < 0.001; = 0%). The APRE is the most effective training program among the three auto-regulation programs (effect size = 0.78; < 0.001; = 0%). In conclusion, the auto-regulation method could be more effective than the fixed-loading method in maximum strength training. The APRE is a convenient and effective training program that may be considered a practical training program to replace traditional training in athletes.
自动调节方法是一种新兴的用于提高力量和运动表现的训练策略，而自动调节渐进性抗阻训练（APRE）、主观用力程度分级方案（RPE）和基于速度的训练（VBT）是三种常见的自动调节方案。然而，在最大力量训练中，自动调节方法是否比传统力量训练（固定负荷方法）更有效仍不明确。本研究检索了PubMed、SPORTDiscus、科学网、Embase、EBSCO、Cochrane、中国知网和维普数据库，纳入了2010年至2020年间发表的八项相关研究，共有166名受试者，包括一级大学运动员和至少有一年训练历史的运动员，干预时间为5至10周。进行荟萃分析以检验两种训练方法之间的差异，并分析现有自动调节方案有效性的差异。总体结果表明，在最大力量训练中，自动调节方法比固定负荷方法更有效（效应量=0.64；P<0.001；I²=0%）。具体而言，亚组分析的汇总结果表明，自动调节方法可能有效提高深蹲（效应量=4.64；P<0.05；I²=54%）和卧推（效应量=3.21；P<0.05；I²=62%）的力量表现。与8 - 10周的训练（效应量=0.32；P<0.001；I²=0%）相比，自动调节方法在8周或更短时间的训练中对力量提升有更大益处（效应量=0.87；P<0.001；I²=0%）。在三种自动调节方案中，APRE是最有效的训练方案（效应量=0.78；P<0.001；I²=0%）。总之，在最大力量训练中，自动调节方法可能比固定负荷方法更有效。APRE是一种方便有效的训练方案，可被视为一种实用的训练方案，用于替代运动员的传统训练。
