Suppr超能文献

变阻力训练与等阻力训练对最大力量的影响:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Effects of Variable-Resistance Training Versus Constant-Resistance Training on Maximum Strength: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

机构信息

Department of Public Instruction, Tourism College of Zhejiang, Hangzhou 311231, China.

Student Affairs Office, Medical College, Shandong Yingcai University, Jinan 250104, China.

出版信息

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jul 13;19(14):8559. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19148559.

Abstract

Greater muscular strength is generally associated with superior sports performance, for example, in jumping, sprinting, and throwing. This meta-analysis aims to compare the effects of variable-resistance training (VRT) and constant-resistance training (CRT) on the maximum strength of trained and untrained subjects. PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were comprehensively searched to identify relevant studies published up to January 2022. Fourteen studies that met the inclusion criteria were used for the systematic review and meta-analysis. Data regarding training status, training modality, and type of outcome measure were extracted for the analyses. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the risk of bias. The pooled outcome showed improved maximum strength with VRT, which was significantly higher than that with CRT (ES = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.42−1.19) for all the subjects. In addition, trained subjects experienced greater maximum-strength improvements with VRT than with CRT (ES = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.22−0.93). Based on subgroup analyses, maximum-strength improvement with a VRT load of ≥80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) was significantly higher than that with CRT (ES = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.37−1.16) in trained subjects, while no significant differences were found between VRT and CRT for maximum-strength improvement when the load was <80% (ES = 0.00; 95% CI: −0.55−0.55). The untrained subjects also achieved greater maximum strength with VRT than with CRT (ES = 1.34; 95% CI: 0.28−2.40). Interestingly, the improved maximum strength of untrained subjects with a VRT load of <80% of 1RM was significantly higher than that with CRT (ES = 2.38; 95% CI: 1.39−3.36); however, no significant differences were noted between VRT and CRT when the load was ≥80% of 1RM (ES = −0.04; 95% CI: −0.89−0.81). Our findings show that subjects with resistance training experience could use a load of ≥80% of 1RM and subjects without resistance training experience could use a load of <80% of 1RM to obtain greater VRT benefits.

摘要

更大的肌肉力量通常与优秀的运动表现相关,例如跳跃、短跑和投掷。本荟萃分析旨在比较变阻力训练(VRT)和恒阻力训练(CRT)对训练有素和未经训练的受试者最大力量的影响。使用PubMed、Web of Science 和 Google Scholar 全面搜索,以确定截至 2022 年 1 月发表的相关研究。有 14 项符合纳入标准的研究用于系统评价和荟萃分析。提取了有关训练状态、训练方式和结果测量类型的数据进行分析。使用 Cochrane 协作工具评估偏倚风险。汇总结果显示,VRT 可显著提高最大力量,其效果明显优于 CRT(ES = 0.80;95%CI:0.42-1.19)。此外,训练有素的受试者使用 VRT 获得的最大力量增强明显高于 CRT(ES = 0.57;95%CI:0.22-0.93)。基于亚组分析,VRT 负荷≥1 次最大重复(1RM)的 80%时,训练有素的受试者的最大力量增强明显高于 CRT(ES = 0.76;95%CI:0.37-1.16),而当负荷<80%时,VRT 与 CRT 之间的最大力量增强无显著差异(ES = 0.00;95%CI:-0.55-0.55)。未经训练的受试者使用 VRT 获得的最大力量也明显高于 CRT(ES = 1.34;95%CI:0.28-2.40)。有趣的是,VRT 负荷<80%1RM 的未经训练受试者的最大力量增强明显高于 CRT(ES = 2.38;95%CI:1.39-3.36);然而,当负荷≥80%1RM 时,VRT 与 CRT 之间无显著差异(ES = -0.04;95%CI:-0.89-0.81)。我们的研究结果表明,有抗阻训练经验的受试者可以使用 1RM 负荷的≥80%,而没有抗阻训练经验的受试者可以使用 1RM 负荷的<80%,以获得更大的 VRT 益处。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/78de/9317775/7b37b5d9c1c0/ijerph-19-08559-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验