Jiménez-Reyes Pedro, Castaño-Zambudio Adrian, Cuadrado-Peñafiel Víctor, González-Hernández Jorge M, Capelo-Ramírez Fernando, Martínez-Aranda Luis M, González-Badillo Juan J
Centre for Sport Studies, Rey Juan Carlos University, Madrid, Spain.
Department of Physical Education, Sport and Human Motricity, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
PeerJ. 2021 Mar 23;9:e10942. doi: 10.7717/peerj.10942. eCollection 2021.
Strength and conditioning specialists commonly deal with the quantification and selection the setting of protocols regarding resistance training intensities. Although the one repetition maximum (1RM) method has been widely used to prescribe exercise intensity, the velocity-based training (VBT) method may enable a more optimal tool for better monitoring and planning of resistance training (RT) programs. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of two RT programs only differing in the training load prescription strategy (adjusting or not daily via VBT) with loads from 50 to 80% 1RM on 1RM, countermovement (CMJ) and sprint. Twenty-four male students with previous experience in RT were randomly assigned to two groups: adjusted loads (AL) ( = 13) and non-adjusted loads (NAL) ( = 11) and carried out an 8-week (16 sessions) RT program. The performance assessment pre- and post-training program included estimated 1RM and full load-velocity profile in the squat exercise; countermovement jump (CMJ); and 20-m sprint (T20). Relative intensity (RI) and mean propulsive velocity attained during each training session (V) was monitored. Subjects in the NAL group trained at a significantly faster V than those in AL ( < 0.001) (0.88-0.91 vs. 0.67-0.68 m/s, with a ∼15% RM gap between groups for the last sessions), and did not achieve the maximum programmed intensity (80% RM). Significant differences were detected in sessions 3-4, showing differences between programmed and performed V and lower RI and velocity loss (VL) for the NAL compared to the AL group ( < 0.05). Although both groups improved 1RM, CMJ and T20, NAL experienced greater and significant changes than AL (28.90 vs.12.70%, 16.10 vs. 7.90% and -1.99 vs. -0.95%, respectively). Load adjustment based on movement velocity is a useful way to control for highly individualised responses to training and improve the implementation of RT programs.
体能与训练专家通常会涉及阻力训练强度相关方案的量化、选择和设定。尽管单次重复最大重量(1RM)方法已被广泛用于规定运动强度,但基于速度的训练(VBT)方法可能是一种更优化的工具,有助于更好地监测和规划阻力训练(RT)计划。本研究的目的是比较两种仅在训练负荷规定策略上不同(通过VBT每日调整或不调整)、负荷为50%至80% 1RM的RT计划对1RM、反向纵跳(CMJ)和短跑的影响。24名有RT经验的男学生被随机分为两组:调整负荷组(AL)(n = 13)和未调整负荷组(NAL)(n = 11),并进行了为期8周(16节)的RT计划。训练计划前后的性能评估包括深蹲运动中估计的1RM和全负荷-速度曲线;反向纵跳(CMJ);以及20米短跑(T20)。监测每次训练期间达到的相对强度(RI)和平均推进速度(V)。NAL组的受试者训练时的V明显快于AL组(P < 0.001)(0.88 - 0.91对0.67 - 0.68米/秒,最后几节两组之间的RM差距约为15%),且未达到最大计划强度(80% RM)。在第3 - 4节中检测到显著差异,显示与AL组相比,NAL组的计划V与实际执行V之间存在差异,且RI和速度损失(VL)更低(P < 0.05)。尽管两组的1RM、CMJ和T20均有所改善,但NAL组的变化比AL组更大且更显著(分别为28.90%对12.70%、16.10%对7.90%和 - 1.99%对 - 0.95%)。基于运动速度的负荷调整是控制对训练高度个体化反应并改善RT计划实施的有用方法。