Suppr超能文献

自主调节在训练有素的男性混合周期阻力训练方案中不会提供额外的益处。

Autoregulation Does Not Provide Additional Benefits to a Mixed Session Periodized Resistance Training Program in Trained Men.

机构信息

Department for Life Quality Studies, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy; and.

Department of Physical Therapy, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel.

出版信息

J Strength Cond Res. 2024 Sep 1;38(9):1535-1542. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004836. Epub 2024 May 30.

Abstract

Bartolomei, S, Francesco, L, Latini, D, and Hoffman, JR. Autoregulation does not provide additional benefits to a mixed session periodized resistance training program in trained men. J Strength Cond Res 38(9): 1535-1542, 2024-The aim of this investigation was to study how autoregulation impacted training volume, performance, and muscle size on a 10-week mixed session periodized (MSP) resistance training program, characterized by the inclusion of different training foci in each session. Twenty-four resistance trained men were assigned to an autoregulated mixed session periodized (AMSP group; n = 13; age = 26.2 ± 4.9 y; body mass = 82.0 ± 8.7 kg; height = 176.8 ± 6.0 cm) or into an MSP ( n = 11; age = 24.0 ± 2.6; body mass = 81.3 ± 10.5 kg; height = 174.0 ± 5.4 cm) group. Subjects in both groups trained 5 days per week for 10 weeks and performed the same exercises. The difference between the groups consisted in the use of a perceived recovery-based scale to adjust the individual training volume in the AMSP program. Maximal strength (bench press and squat 1 repetition maximum), power (bench press throw and countermovement jump), and muscle architecture (muscle thickness [MT] of biceps brachii, trapezius, vastus lateralis and vastus medialis) were collected before and after the 10-week training period. In addition, training volume and session load were calculated for each training session. A higher total training volume ( p < 0.001) was seen in AMSP program compared with MSP program, but no differences ( p > 0.05) were noted in the average session load. No significant differences between the groups were detected for MT of both upper-body and lower-body muscles ( p's > 0.05) and lean body mass ( p = 0.681). No significant differences between the groups were detected for any strength or power measurements. Results of this study indicate that a perceived recovery-based AMSP training program was not more effective than an MSP training program for increasing muscle size and performance in resistance trained men.

摘要

巴托洛梅伊、S、弗朗切斯科、L、拉蒂尼、D 和霍夫曼,JR. 自主调节并不能为训练有素的男性的混合周期抗阻训练方案提供额外的益处。J 力量与体能研究 38(9):1535-1542,2024-本研究旨在研究自主调节如何影响 10 周混合周期(MSP)抗阻训练方案的训练量、表现和肌肉大小,该方案的特点是在每个训练中包含不同的训练焦点。24 名有经验的抗阻训练男性被分配到自主调节混合周期(AMSP 组;n = 13;年龄 = 26.2 ± 4.9 y;体重 = 82.0 ± 8.7 kg;身高 = 176.8 ± 6.0 cm)或 MSP(n = 11;年龄 = 24.0 ± 2.6;体重 = 81.3 ± 10.5 kg;身高 = 174.0 ± 5.4 cm)组。两组受试者每周训练 5 天,共 10 周,进行相同的运动。两组之间的区别在于使用感知恢复的量表来调整 AMSP 方案中个体的训练量。最大力量(卧推和深蹲 1 次最大重复次数)、力量(卧推投掷和反向跳跃)和肌肉结构(肱二头肌、斜方肌、股外侧肌和股中间肌的肌肉厚度[MT])在 10 周训练期前后进行了收集。此外,还计算了每个训练课程的训练量和课程负荷。与 MSP 方案相比,AMSP 方案的总训练量更高(p < 0.001),但平均课程负荷没有差异(p > 0.05)。两组之间上半身和下半身肌肉的 MT(p's > 0.05)和瘦体重(p = 0.681)均无显著差异。两组之间的任何力量或力量测量值均无显著差异。本研究结果表明,基于感知恢复的 AMSP 训练方案并不比 MSP 训练方案更有效地增加抗阻训练男性的肌肉大小和表现。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d43c/11343444/adbae3076c7a/jscr-38-1535-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