Metabolism, Nutrition and Strength Training Research Group, Federal University of Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, Brazil.
Sports Center, Department of Physical Education, Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Florianópolis, Brazil.
Percept Mot Skills. 2023 Aug;130(4):1624-1643. doi: 10.1177/00315125231176729. Epub 2023 May 17.
We compared the effects of resistance training (ResisT) to pyramidal and traditional weightlifting sets on men's psychophysiological responses. In a randomized crossover design, 24 resistance-trained males performed drop-set, descending pyramid, and traditional ResisT in the barbell back squat, 45° leg press, and seated knee extension. We assessed participants' rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and feelings of pleasure/displeasure (FPD) at the end of each set and at 10, 15, 20, and 30 minutes post-session. No differences were detected across ResisT Methods in total training volume ( = 0.180). Post hoc comparisons revealed that drop-set training elicited higher RPE ( 8.8 0.7 arbitrary units) and lower FPD ( -1.4 1.5 arbitrary units) values compared to descending pyramid ( Set RPE 8.0 0.9 arbitrary units and Set FPD 0.4 1.6 arbitrary units) and traditional set ( Set RPE 7.5 1.1 arbitrary units and Set FPD 1.3 1.2 arbitrary units) schemes ( < 0.05). In addition, drop-set training elicited higher session RPE ( 8.1 0.8 arbitrary units) and lower session FPD ( 0.2 1.4 arbitrary units) values than descending pyramid and traditional ResisT ( < 0.001). Similarly, descending pyramid training elicited higher session RPE ( 6.6 0.9 arbitrary units) and lower session FPD ( 1.2 1.4 arbitrary units) than traditional set ( Session RPE 5.9 0.8 arbitrary units and Session FPD 1.5 1.2 arbitrary units) training ( = 0.015). No differences were found in the temporality of post-session metrics, suggesting that testing 10 and 15 minutes post-ResisT was sufficient to assess session RPE ( = 0.480) and session FPD ( = 0.855), respectively. In conclusion, even with similar total training volume, drop-set training elicited more pronounced psychophysiological responses than either pyramidal or traditional ResisT in resistance-trained males.
我们比较了抗阻训练(ResisT)与金字塔式和传统举重组对男性心理生理反应的影响。在随机交叉设计中,24 名抗阻训练男性在杠铃深蹲、45°腿举和坐姿腿屈伸中进行了递减组、递减金字塔和传统 ResisT。我们在每组结束时以及在训练后 10、15、20 和 30 分钟时评估参与者的感知用力(RPE)和愉悦/不悦(FPD)感觉。在总训练量方面,三种 ResisT 方法之间没有差异( = 0.180)。事后比较显示,与递减金字塔(Set RPE 8.0 0.9 任意单位和 Set FPD 0.4 1.6 任意单位)和传统组(Set RPE 7.5 1.1 任意单位和 Set FPD 1.3 1.2 任意单位)相比,递减组训练引起更高的 RPE( 8.8 0.7 任意单位)和更低的 FPD( -1.4 1.5 任意单位)值( < 0.05)。此外,递减组训练引起的训练后 RPE( 8.1 0.8 任意单位)和训练后 FPD( 0.2 1.4 任意单位)值高于递减金字塔和传统 ResisT( < 0.001)。同样,与传统组相比,递减金字塔训练引起更高的训练后 RPE( 6.6 0.9 任意单位)和更低的训练后 FPD( 1.2 1.4 任意单位)(训练后 RPE 5.9 0.8 任意单位和 训练后 FPD 1.5 1.2 任意单位)( = 0.015)。在训练后的指标时间性方面没有发现差异,这表明在训练后 10 分钟和 15 分钟测试足以评估训练后 RPE( = 0.480)和训练后 FPD( = 0.855)。总之,即使总训练量相似,递减组训练在抗阻训练男性中引起的心理生理反应也比金字塔式或传统 ResisT 更明显。