Suppr超能文献

“交叉”模式下的肌肉性能分析:“尽可能多重复次数(AMRAP)”、“每分钟进行一定次数(EMOM)”和“快速完成规定次数(RFT)”配置之间的比较。

Muscular performance analysis in "cross" modalities: comparison between "AMRAP," "EMOM" and "RFT" configurations.

作者信息

Barba-Ruíz Manuel, Hermosilla-Perona Francisco, Heredia-Elvar Juan Ramon, Gómez-González Noelia, Da Silva-Grigoletto Marzo Edir, Muriarte-Solana Diego

机构信息

Department of Physical Activity and Sports Science, Alfonso X El Sabio University, Madrid, Spain.

Facultad de Ciencias de la Vida y la Naturaleza, Universidad Nebrija, Madrid, Spain.

出版信息

Front Physiol. 2024 Mar 5;15:1358191. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2024.1358191. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

In recent years, a surge of interest in high-intensity training methods, associated with "cross" modalities has emerged as a promising approach for improving performance and overall health. Therefore, the main aim of this study was to compare the acute effects on heart rate, mean propulsive velocity and intra and inter-set velocity loss in "Cross" modalities. Twelve athletes, 10 men's and 2 women's (age: 31.5 ± 6.74 years; height: 174.17 ± 6.05 cm; weight: 75.34 ± 7.16 kg) with at least 1 year of experience in "cross" training. The participants performed three different "cross" modalities, Rounds for Time (RFT), Every Minute on the Minute (EMOM) and As Many Rounds As Possible (AMRAP) across three separate days. In each modality participants carried out 10 repetitions of squat, pull-ups, and shoulder press with difference rates of work-rest. Mean propulsive velocity (MPV) and heart rate (HR) were recorded and analysed for each athlete. Repeated measures one-way ANOVA and repeated measures two-way ANOVA were performed to analyse the differences between modalities and subjects. Besides, a Bonferroni analysis was carried out to assess the differences between modalities in each subject. Significant differences in MPV were observed among the modalities. The comparisons between RFT and AMRAP, as well as EMOM and AMRAP, revealed lower MPV in the AMRAP modality ( < 0.01). RFT exhibited the greatest intra-set velocity loss, while EMOM showed the least, with significant distinctions ( < 0.01) between them. Furthermore, significant differences in the HR results were noted among all modalities ( < 0.05). Findings consistently identify the AMRAP modality as having the lowest MPV values due to its prolonged duration, promoting self-regulated tempo for optimal performance and technique, while the RFT modality exhibits higher fatigue and intra-set MPV losses. These insights into propulsive velocity, intensity, fatigue, and pacing across various "Cross" modalities provide valuable guidance for athletes and trainers seeking to enhance their exercise programs.

摘要

近年来,与“交叉”模式相关的高强度训练方法引发了人们的浓厚兴趣,成为提高运动表现和整体健康的一种有前景的方法。因此,本研究的主要目的是比较“交叉”模式对心率、平均推进速度以及组内和组间速度损失的急性影响。12名运动员,10名男性和2名女性(年龄:31.5±6.74岁;身高:174.17±6.05厘米;体重:75.34±7.16千克),至少有1年“交叉”训练经验。参与者在三个不同的日子里进行了三种不同的“交叉”模式,即限时回合(RFT)、每分钟一次(EMOM)和尽可能多的回合(AMRAP)。在每种模式中,参与者以不同的工作-休息率进行10次深蹲、引体向上和肩推。记录并分析了每位运动员的平均推进速度(MPV)和心率(HR)。采用重复测量单因素方差分析和重复测量双因素方差分析来分析模式和受试者之间的差异。此外,进行了Bonferroni分析以评估每个受试者不同模式之间的差异。在不同模式之间观察到MPV存在显著差异。RFT与AMRAP以及EMOM与AMRAP之间的比较显示,AMRAP模式下的MPV较低(<0.01)。RFT组内速度损失最大,而EMOM最小,两者之间存在显著差异(<0.01)。此外,所有模式的HR结果之间也存在显著差异(<0.05)。研究结果一致表明,AMRAP模式由于持续时间较长,具有最低的MPV值,能促进自我调节节奏以实现最佳表现和技术,而RFT模式表现出更高的疲劳和组内MPV损失。这些关于各种“交叉”模式下推进速度、强度、疲劳和节奏的见解,为寻求改进训练计划的运动员和教练提供了有价值的指导。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8aa6/10950031/8adf226ce680/fphys-15-1358191-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验