Tan Jerrican, Krasilshchikov Oleksandr, Kuan Garry, Hashim Hairul Anuar, Aldhahi Monira I, Al-Mhanna Sameer Badri, Badicu Georgian
Fitness Innovations Malaysia Sendirian Berhad, Petaling Jaya 47820, Selangor, Malaysia.
School of Health Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian 16150, Kelantan, Malaysia.
Healthcare (Basel). 2023 Aug 31;11(17):2443. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11172443.
This study investigated the effects of combined aerobic and heavy resistance training on the variables of body composition, muscle hypertrophy, and exercise satisfaction in physically active adults in comparison with heavy resistance training only (predominantly designed for hypertrophy). Twenty-two healthy male adults between the ages of 18 and 35, who had limited previous experience with muscle resistance training, participated in the intervention program while maintaining their physical activity level. The participants were randomly allocated into two groups: the resistance training group (control group) and the combined training group (experimental group), which involved both resistance training and aerobic training. Aerobic training consisted of 30 min aerobic interval training sessions three times a week with a total of 8 min work bouts in each at 60-70% of heart rate reserve (HRR). The intervention training program lasted for eight weeks. Resistance training consisted of a 3-day muscle group split (2-3 exercises per muscle group, 8 sets per muscle group, 6-12 repetition maximum (RM). Upon completion, body composition, muscle hypertrophy, and exercise satisfaction were analyzed using the mixed-design ANOVA. Variables selected for this study as markers of body composition responded differently to the different interventions and time; however, some trends were not statistically significant. Overall, it is not possible to state unequivocally that one training modality was superior to another in the body composition cluster, for significant improvements were observed within the groups from pre- to post-interventions, but no significant differences were observed between the resistance training and combined training groups, while, both interventions showed improvement with time in some variables of muscle hypertrophy. Compared to baseline, the exercise satisfaction post-intervention improved within the groups. From pre- to post-testing, both resistance and combined training groups improved exercise satisfaction ( < 0.05 in both groups). However, there was no significant difference in exercise satisfaction observed between the resistance training and combined training groups after the training intervention ( > 0.05).
本研究调查了有氧训练与大强度抗阻训练相结合，相较于单纯大强度抗阻训练（主要针对肌肉肥大设计），对身体活跃的成年人身体成分、肌肉肥大及运动满意度等变量的影响。22名年龄在18至35岁之间、此前肌肉抗阻训练经验有限的健康男性成年人参与了干预计划，同时保持其身体活动水平。参与者被随机分为两组：抗阻训练组（对照组）和联合训练组（实验组），联合训练组包括抗阻训练和有氧训练。有氧训练包括每周三次、每次30分钟的有氧间歇训练，每次训练中有总计8分钟的运动时段，运动强度为心率储备（HRR）的60 - 70%。干预训练计划持续八周。抗阻训练包括为期三天的肌肉群分化训练（每个肌肉群进行2 - 3项练习，每个肌肉群8组，每组6 - 12次最大重复次数（RM））。训练结束后，使用混合设计方差分析对身体成分、肌肉肥大及运动满意度进行分析。本研究中选为身体成分标志物的变量对不同干预措施和时间的反应有所不同；然而，一些趋势在统计学上并不显著。总体而言，无法明确指出在身体成分类别中一种训练方式优于另一种，因为从干预前到干预后，两组内均观察到显著改善，但抗阻训练组和联合训练组之间未观察到显著差异，同时，两种干预措施在一些肌肉肥大变量上均随时间显示出改善。与基线相比，干预后两组内的运动满意度均有所提高。从测试前到测试后，抗阻训练组和联合训练组的运动满意度均有所提高（两组均P < 0.05）。然而，训练干预后，抗阻训练组和联合训练组在运动满意度方面未观察到显著差异（P > 0.05）。
