Dello Iacono Antonio, Hillan Josh, Watson Kevin
Institute for Clinical Exercise and Health Science, School of Health and Life Sciences, University of the West of Scotland, Hamilton,United Kingdom.
Strength and Conditioning Department, Glasgow School of Sport, Glasgow,United Kingdom.
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2023 Mar 14;18(5):503-511. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2022-0382. Print 2023 May 1.
To compare predetermined and autoregulated resistance training sessions on velocity loss and perceived fatigue.
Twenty-six resistance-trained men completed 3 sessions including the back-squat and bench-press exercises matched for load (75% of 1-repetition maximum), volume (24 repetitions), and total rest (240 s). Sessions were randomly performed as traditional set (TRA), 3 sets of 8 repetitions with 120-second interset rests; cluster interset-rest redistribution (IRR), 6 clusters of 4 repetitions with 48-second between-clusters rests; and autoregulation cluster training (ACT), a personalized combination of clusters, repetitions per cluster, and between-clusters rest regulated on a velocity loss threshold. The comparative effects were evaluated on velocity loss outputs measured with a linear encoder and perceived fatigue responses reported using a single-item scale.
IRR and ACT induced less velocity loss than TRA (b = -2.09, P < .001). ACT also mitigated velocity loss more than IRR (b = -2.31, P < .001). The back squat resulted in greater velocity loss compared to the bench press (b = 1.83, P < .001). Perceived fatigue responses mirrored the pattern observed for the velocity loss outputs (IRR and ACT vs TRA: b = -0.64, P < .001; ACT vs IRR: b = -1.05, P < .001; back squat vs bench press: b = 0.46, P = .005).
IRR and ACT reduced neuromuscular and perceived fatigue, likely due to their cluster-set structures' embedding frequent windows of interset rest. However, the ACT was overall more effective, presumably given its personalized structure.
比较预定阻力训练和自动调节阻力训练对速度损失和感知疲劳的影响。
26名进行过阻力训练的男性完成了3组训练，包括后深蹲和卧推练习，训练的负荷（1次最大重复量的75%）、训练量（24次重复）和总休息时间（240秒）均相匹配。训练随机分为传统组（TRA），即3组，每组8次重复，组间休息120秒；集群组间休息重新分配组（IRR），即6个集群，每个集群4次重复，集群间休息48秒；以及自动调节集群训练组（ACT），这是一种根据速度损失阈值进行个性化调整的集群、每个集群重复次数和集群间休息时间的组合。通过线性编码器测量的速度损失输出以及使用单项量表报告的感知疲劳反应来评估比较效果。
IRR组和ACT组的速度损失比TRA组少（b = -2.09，P <.001）。ACT组比IRR组更能减轻速度损失（b = -2.31，P <.001）。与卧推相比，后深蹲导致的速度损失更大（b = 1.83，P <.001）。感知疲劳反应反映了速度损失输出的模式（IRR组和ACT组与TRA组：b = -0.64，P <.001；ACT组与IRR组：b = -1.05，P <.001；后深蹲与卧推：b = 0.46，P =.005）。
IRR组和ACT组减少了神经肌肉和感知疲劳，这可能是由于它们的集群组结构中包含频繁的组间休息时间。然而，ACT组总体上更有效，大概是因为其个性化结构。
