Pinto Suzy S, Bezerra Ewertton DE S, Silva Keuly G, Ramirez-Campillo Rodrigo, Ben Abderrahman Abderraouf
Higher Institute of Spot and Physical Education of Ksar Saïd, University of Manouba, Manouba, TUNISIA.
Human Performance Laboratory, Federal University of Amazonas, Manaus, BRAZIL.
Int J Exerc Sci. 2022 Feb 1;15(3):399-413. doi: 10.70252/EALQ3542. eCollection 2022.
The aim of this study was to analyse the acute effects of velocity-based resistance training on the physical and functional performance of older adults. Twenty participants (70.4 ± 7.4 years) performed the deadlift exercise, in two different resistance training protocols. The moderate-velocity protocol (MV) predicted maximum loads so that the movement velocity during the concentric phase remained in the range of 0.5 to 0.7 m/s and the high-velocity protocol (HV) predicted maximum loads so that the movement velocity remained between 0.8 and 1.0 m/s. The jump height (cm), handgrip strength (kg), and time (s) to complete the functional tests were assessed before (baseline), and immediately (post), 24-h, and 48-h after the MV and HV protocols. Compared to baseline, both training protocols acutely led to a gradual reduction in walking velocity, with significant values 24 hours after training ( = 0.044), on the other hand, both protocols improved performance in the timed up and go test at post ( < 0.001) and in the sit-to-stand test at 48-h ( = 0.024), although there were no significant differences between them for any times analysed ( > 0.05). No other outcomes exhibited significant changes. Results indicate that neither of the protocols (MV and HV) led to significant impairments in physical function of the older adults, and can be recommended with the safety criterion of at least 48-h of rest between sessions.
本研究的目的是分析基于速度的阻力训练对老年人身体和功能表现的急性影响。20名参与者(70.4±7.4岁)在两种不同的阻力训练方案中进行硬拉练习。中等速度方案(MV)预测最大负荷,以使向心阶段的运动速度保持在0.5至0.7米/秒的范围内,而高速方案(HV)预测最大负荷,以使运动速度保持在0.8至1.0米/秒之间。在MV和HV方案之前(基线)、之后立即(训练后)、24小时和48小时评估跳跃高度(厘米)、握力(千克)以及完成功能测试的时间(秒)。与基线相比,两种训练方案均急性导致步行速度逐渐降低,训练后24小时有显著差异(P = 0.044),另一方面,两种方案均在训练后(P < 0.001)的定时起立行走测试以及48小时(P = 0.024)的坐立测试中提高了表现,尽管在分析的任何时间点它们之间均无显著差异(P > 0.05)。没有其他结果显示出显著变化。结果表明,两种方案(MV和HV)均未导致老年人身体功能出现显著损害,并且可以在每次训练之间至少休息48小时的安全标准下推荐使用。