Effects of Resistance Training Techniques on Metabolic Responses in Trained Males.

Q1 Health Professions
International journal of exercise science Pub Date : 2024-04-01 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01
Alysson Enes, Ragami C Alves, Vinicius Zen, Danilo Fonseca Leonel, Gustavo Oneda, Luis H B Ferreira, Luciano R Guiraldelli, Roberto Simao, Guillermo Escalante, Anderson Z Ulbrich, Tacito P Souzajunior
{"title":"Effects of Resistance Training Techniques on Metabolic Responses in Trained Males.","authors":"Alysson Enes, Ragami C Alves, Vinicius Zen, Danilo Fonseca Leonel, Gustavo Oneda, Luis H B Ferreira, Luciano R Guiraldelli, Roberto Simao, Guillermo Escalante, Anderson Z Ulbrich, Tacito P Souzajunior","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study investigated the effects of biset, drop-set and traditional resistance training (RT) techniques on metabolic responses in resistance-trained males. Fifteen trained males (age 29.7 ± 6.1 years; body mass 83.4 ± 7.6 kg; RT experience 11.4 ± 6.7 years; one-repetition maximum (1RM) barbell bench press: body mass ratio 1.4 ± 0.1 a.u.) were assigned to three experimental conditions, in a randomized crossover design. The experimental conditions were bi-set (3×10 repetitions at 70%1RM in barbell bench press followed by 10 repetitions at 60%1RM in incline bench press), drop-set (3×10 repetitions at 70%1RM followed by 10 repetitions at 50%1RM in barbell bench press) and traditional RT (3×20 at 60%1RM in barbell bench press). A portable gas analyzer was used to assess energy expenditure and maximal oxygen uptake during the experimental protocols. Blood lactate levels were assessed at baseline and 1, 3, and 5 minutes after the training session. There were no differences for total training volume (<i>p</i> = 0.999). Post hoc comparisons revealed that bi-set elicited higher aerobic energy expenditure (<i>p</i> = 0.003 vs. drop-set; <i>p</i> < 0.001 vs. traditional RT) and aerobic oxygen consumption (<i>p</i> = 0.034 vs. drop-set; <i>p</i> < 0.001 vs. traditional RT) than other RT schemes. There were no differences regarding anaerobic EE between-conditions (<i>p</i> > 0.05). There was a main effect of time and condition for blood lactate levels (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Post hoc comparisons revealed that drop-set training elicited higher blood lactate levels than traditional RT (<i>p</i> = 0.009). The results suggest that RT techniques may have a potential role in optimizing metabolic responses in resistance-trained males.</p>","PeriodicalId":14171,"journal":{"name":"International journal of exercise science","volume":"17 2","pages":"576-589"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11164431/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of exercise science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of biset, drop-set and traditional resistance training (RT) techniques on metabolic responses in resistance-trained males. Fifteen trained males (age 29.7 ± 6.1 years; body mass 83.4 ± 7.6 kg; RT experience 11.4 ± 6.7 years; one-repetition maximum (1RM) barbell bench press: body mass ratio 1.4 ± 0.1 a.u.) were assigned to three experimental conditions, in a randomized crossover design. The experimental conditions were bi-set (3×10 repetitions at 70%1RM in barbell bench press followed by 10 repetitions at 60%1RM in incline bench press), drop-set (3×10 repetitions at 70%1RM followed by 10 repetitions at 50%1RM in barbell bench press) and traditional RT (3×20 at 60%1RM in barbell bench press). A portable gas analyzer was used to assess energy expenditure and maximal oxygen uptake during the experimental protocols. Blood lactate levels were assessed at baseline and 1, 3, and 5 minutes after the training session. There were no differences for total training volume (p = 0.999). Post hoc comparisons revealed that bi-set elicited higher aerobic energy expenditure (p = 0.003 vs. drop-set; p < 0.001 vs. traditional RT) and aerobic oxygen consumption (p = 0.034 vs. drop-set; p < 0.001 vs. traditional RT) than other RT schemes. There were no differences regarding anaerobic EE between-conditions (p > 0.05). There was a main effect of time and condition for blood lactate levels (p < 0.001). Post hoc comparisons revealed that drop-set training elicited higher blood lactate levels than traditional RT (p = 0.009). The results suggest that RT techniques may have a potential role in optimizing metabolic responses in resistance-trained males.

阻力训练技术对受训男性代谢反应的影响
本研究调查了双组、落差组和传统阻力训练(RT)技术对阻力训练男性代谢反应的影响。15 名训练有素的男性(年龄为 29.7 ± 6.1 岁;体重为 83.4 ± 7.6 千克;阻力训练经验为 11.4 ± 6.7 年;杠铃卧推一次重复最大重量(1RM):体重比为 1.4 ± 0.1 a.u.)被随机交叉设计分配到三种实验条件中。实验条件分别为双组(杠铃卧推 3×10 次,每次 70%1RM ,然后斜卧推 10 次,每次 60%1RM )、落差组(杠铃卧推 3×10 次,每次 70%1RM ,然后斜卧推 10 次,每次 50%1RM )和传统 RT 组(杠铃卧推 3×20 次,每次 60%1RM )。在实验过程中,使用便携式气体分析仪评估能量消耗和最大摄氧量。在基线和训练后 1、3 和 5 分钟评估血液乳酸水平。总训练量没有差异(P = 0.999)。事后比较显示,双组有氧能量消耗(与空投组相比,p = 0.003;与传统 RT 相比,p < 0.001)和有氧耗氧量(与空投组相比,p = 0.034;与传统 RT 相比,p < 0.001)高于其他 RT 方案。无氧 EE 在不同条件下没有差异(p > 0.05)。时间和条件对血液乳酸水平有主效应(p < 0.001)。事后比较显示,与传统 RT 相比,落组训练引起的血乳酸水平更高(p = 0.009)。结果表明,阻力训练技术在优化男性阻力训练者的代谢反应方面具有潜在作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International journal of exercise science
International journal of exercise science Health Professions-Occupational Therapy
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
47
审稿时长
26 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信