Biology of Physical Activity, Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.
NeuroMuscular Research Center, Jyväskylä, Finland; and.
J Strength Cond Res. 2024 Jul 1;38(7):1231-1242. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004769.
Kotikangas, J, Walker, S, Peltonen, H, and Häkkinen, K. Time course of neuromuscular fatigue during different resistance exercise loadings in power athletes, strength athletes, and nonathletes. J Strength Cond Res 38(7): 1231-1242, 2024-Training background may affect the progression of fatigue and neuromuscular strategies to compensate for fatigue during resistance exercises. Thus, our aim was to examine how training background affects the time course of neuromuscular fatigue in response to different resistance exercises. Power athletes (PA, n = 8), strength athletes (SA, n = 8), and nonathletes (NA, n = 7) performed hypertrophic loading (HL, 5 × 10 × 10RM), maximal strength loadings (MSL, 7 × 3 × 3RM) and power loadings (PL, 7 × 6 × 50% of 1 repetition maximum) in back squat. Average power (AP), average velocity (VEL), surface electromyography (sEMG) amplitude (sEMGRMS), and sEMG mean power frequency (sEMGMPF) were measured within all loading sets. During PL, greater decreases in AP occurred from the beginning of SET1 to SET7 and in VEL to both SET4 and SET7 in NA compared with SA (p < 0.01, g > 1.84). During HL, there were various significant group × repetition interactions in AP within and between sets (p < 0.05, ηp2 > 0.307), but post hoc tests did not indicate significant differences between the groups (p > 0.05, g = 0.01-0.93). During MSL and HL, significant within-set and between-set decreases occurred in AP (p < 0.001, ηp2 > 0.701) and VEL (p < 0.001, ηp2 > 0.748) concurrently with increases in sEMGRMS (p < 0.01, ηp2 > 0.323) and decreases in sEMGMPF (p < 0.01, ηp2 > 0.242) in all groups. In conclusion, SA showed fatigue resistance by maintaining higher AP and VEL throughout PL. During HL, PA tended to have the greatest initial fatigue response in AP, but between-group comparisons were nonsignificant despite large effect sizes (g > 0.8). The differences in the progression of neuromuscular fatigue may be related to differing neural activation strategies between the groups, but further research confirmation is required.
科蒂坎加斯、J、沃克、S、佩尔托宁、H 和哈基宁、K。在力量运动员、力量型运动员和非运动员中，不同阻力运动负荷下的神经肌肉疲劳的时程。J 力量与调节研究 38(7):1231-1242，2024-训练背景可能会影响疲劳的进展和在阻力运动中补偿疲劳的神经肌肉策略。因此，我们的目的是研究训练背景如何影响不同阻力运动中神经肌肉疲劳的时程。力量运动员（PA，n=8）、力量型运动员（SA，n=8）和非运动员（NA，n=7）进行了肥大负荷（HL，5×10×10RM）、最大力量负荷（MSL，7×3×3RM）和功率负荷（PL，7×6×50%的 1 次重复最大值）的深蹲。在所有负荷组中测量平均功率（AP）、平均速度（VEL）、表面肌电图（sEMG）幅度（sEMGRMS）和 sEMG 平均功率频率（sEMGMPF）。在 PL 期间，与 SA 相比，NA 在 SET1 到 SET7 期间和在 VEL 期间到 SET4 和 SET7 期间的 AP 下降更大（p<0.01，g>1.84）。在 HL 期间，AP 存在各种显著的组×重复交互作用（p<0.05，ηp2>0.307），但事后检验并未表明组间存在显著差异（p>0.05，g=0.01-0.93）。在 MSL 和 HL 期间，AP（p<0.001，ηp2>0.701）和 VEL（p<0.001，ηp2>0.748）同时出现显著的组内和组间下降，而 sEMGRMS（p<0.01，ηp2>0.323）和 sEMGMPF（p<0.01，ηp2>0.242）增加在所有组中。总之，SA 通过在 PL 期间保持更高的 AP 和 VEL 来显示出抗疲劳能力。在 HL 期间，PA 倾向于在 AP 中表现出最大的初始疲劳反应，但尽管效应量较大（g>0.8），组间比较仍无显著性差异。神经肌肉疲劳进展的差异可能与组间不同的神经激活策略有关，但需要进一步的研究证实。
