Lesya Ukrainka Volyn National University, Lutsk, Ukraine.
Dunarea de Jos University of Galati, Galati, Romania.
PeerJ. 2023 Feb 17;11:e14878. doi: 10.7717/peerj.14878. eCollection 2023.
The research was aimed at comparing the effect of using two types of training load different in intensity and energy supply. We studied the influence of the proposed load variations (machine and free weight exercises) on long-term adaptation of the body at the stage of specialized basic training in bodybuilding.
A total of 64 athletes aged 18-20 years were examined. The research participants were randomly divided into four groups, 16 athletes in each group. Athletes of group 1 and 3 used a complex of free weight exercises. Group 2 and 4 participants performed machine exercises. Bodybuilders of group 1 and 2 were trained in conditions of medium intensity training load ( = 0.58) in the anaerobic-glycolytic mode of energy supply. Athletes of the 3rd and 4th groups used high intensity load ( = 0.71) in the anaerobic-alactate mode of energy supply. We managed to determine the nature of adaptation processes using methods of control testing of strength capabilities, bioimpedansometry, anthropometry, biochemical analysis of blood serum (LDH, creatinine).
The study showed that the difference in the dynamics of the participants' maximum strength development (on example of chest muscles) did not depend on the content of machine or free weight exercises, but on the features of training load regimes. Thus, the controlled indicator of strength capabilities in athletes of groups 3 and 4 increased by 5.1% compared to groups 1 and 2. During all stages of the study, the indicators of the projectile working mass in athletes of groups 3 and 4 exceeded the results observed in groups 1 and 2 by 25.9%. At the same time, the amount of load in a set is on average 2 times higher in athletes of groups 1 and 2. Group 4 athletes, who used machine exercises and high intensity training load, increased the circumferential body measurements by 3.8 times (the chest), compared to the results recorded in group 1 athletes. Athletes of group 1 and 2 showed increasing in body fat by 3.4% compared to the initial level on the background of large load volume. The basal creatine level in bodybuilders of groups 3 and 4 increased by 3.7 times after 12 weeks of study, which indicates an accelerated growth of muscle mass.
The most pronounced adaptive body changes in bodybuilders at the stage of specialized basic training occurred during high intensity training load and anaerobic-alactate energy supply mode. Machine exercises contributed to increasing the morpho functional indicators of athletes more than free weight exercises.
本研究旨在比较两种不同强度和能量供应的训练负荷的效果。我们研究了所提出的负荷变化(器械和自由重量练习)对健美专项基础训练阶段身体长期适应的影响。
共检查了 64 名 18-20 岁的运动员。研究参与者被随机分为四组,每组 16 名运动员。第 1 组和第 3 组运动员使用自由重量练习的综合练习。第 2 组和第 4 组运动员进行器械练习。第 1 组和第 2 组健美运动员在中等强度训练负荷( = 0.58)下进行训练,在无氧糖酵解能量供应模式下进行训练。第 3 组和第 4 组运动员采用高强度负荷( = 0.71)在无氧乳酸性能量供应模式下进行训练。我们设法使用力量能力控制测试、生物电阻抗测量法、人体测量法、血清生化分析(LDH、肌酐)等方法确定适应过程的性质。
研究表明,参与者最大力量发展的动态差异(以胸肌为例)不取决于器械或自由重量练习的内容,而取决于训练负荷模式的特征。因此,与第 1 组和第 2 组相比,第 3 组和第 4 组运动员的力量能力控制指标增加了 5.1%。在研究的所有阶段,第 3 组和第 4 组运动员的射弹工作质量指标均高于第 1 组和第 2 组观察到的结果,高出 25.9%。同时,第 1 组和第 2 组运动员的一组平均负荷量高 2 倍。与第 1 组运动员的记录结果相比,使用器械练习和高强度训练负荷的第 4 组运动员的身体围度测量值增加了 3.8 倍(胸部)。第 1 组和第 2 组运动员在大负荷量的背景下体脂增加了 3.4%,与初始水平相比。第 3 组和第 4 组健美运动员在 12 周的研究后,基础肌酸水平增加了 3.7 倍,表明肌肉质量加速增长。
在专项基础训练阶段,健美运动员身体发生的最明显的适应性变化是在高强度训练负荷和无氧乳酸性能量供应模式下发生的。器械练习比自由重量练习更能提高运动员的形态功能指标。