C. Scott, Maegan Chartier, Joshua Hodgkiss, Matthew Mallett, Mikaela Shields
{"title":"相同阻力训练方案的摄氧量差异:组与组","authors":"C. Scott, Maegan Chartier, Joshua Hodgkiss, Matthew Mallett, Mikaela Shields","doi":"10.34256/ijpefs20410","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We examined the energy costs of different resistance training protocols where exercise and recovery periods were equated: 48 total seconds of exercise and 210 seconds of between-set recovery. Two separate investigations were carried out at 65% of a 1 repetition maximum (1RM): back squat (7 men, 3 women) and bench press (9 men). Lifting cadence for concentric and eccentric phases was set at 1.5 sec each with 30 sec between-set recovery periods for the 8 sets, 2 reps protocol (sets) and a 3 min and 30 sec between-set recovery period for the 2 sets, 8 reps protocol (reps). The amount of oxygen consumed during lifting and between-set recovery periods was significantly greater for sets vs. reps protocol for both the back squat (+41%) and bench press (+27%) (p = 0.0001). Moreover, the total aerobic cost including the after-lifting excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC) was larger for the increased sets protocol for both the squat (+27%, p = 0.01) and bench press (+29%, p = 0.04). Total energy costs - aerobic plus anaerobic, exercise and recovery - were not different among sets or reps protocols. We conclude that a greater volume of oxygen is consumed with a lower repetition, increased number of sets resistance training protocol. We suggest that more recovery periods promote a greater potential for fat oxidation.","PeriodicalId":110668,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Physical Education, Fitness and Sports","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in Oxygen Uptake between Equivalent Resistance Training Protocols: Sets vs. Reps\",\"authors\":\"C. Scott, Maegan Chartier, Joshua Hodgkiss, Matthew Mallett, Mikaela Shields\",\"doi\":\"10.34256/ijpefs20410\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We examined the energy costs of different resistance training protocols where exercise and recovery periods were equated: 48 total seconds of exercise and 210 seconds of between-set recovery. Two separate investigations were carried out at 65% of a 1 repetition maximum (1RM): back squat (7 men, 3 women) and bench press (9 men). Lifting cadence for concentric and eccentric phases was set at 1.5 sec each with 30 sec between-set recovery periods for the 8 sets, 2 reps protocol (sets) and a 3 min and 30 sec between-set recovery period for the 2 sets, 8 reps protocol (reps). The amount of oxygen consumed during lifting and between-set recovery periods was significantly greater for sets vs. reps protocol for both the back squat (+41%) and bench press (+27%) (p = 0.0001). Moreover, the total aerobic cost including the after-lifting excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC) was larger for the increased sets protocol for both the squat (+27%, p = 0.01) and bench press (+29%, p = 0.04). Total energy costs - aerobic plus anaerobic, exercise and recovery - were not different among sets or reps protocols. We conclude that a greater volume of oxygen is consumed with a lower repetition, increased number of sets resistance training protocol. We suggest that more recovery periods promote a greater potential for fat oxidation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":110668,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Physical Education, Fitness and Sports\",\"volume\":\"54 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Physical Education, Fitness and Sports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34256/ijpefs20410\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Physical Education, Fitness and Sports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34256/ijpefs20410","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Differences in Oxygen Uptake between Equivalent Resistance Training Protocols: Sets vs. Reps
We examined the energy costs of different resistance training protocols where exercise and recovery periods were equated: 48 total seconds of exercise and 210 seconds of between-set recovery. Two separate investigations were carried out at 65% of a 1 repetition maximum (1RM): back squat (7 men, 3 women) and bench press (9 men). Lifting cadence for concentric and eccentric phases was set at 1.5 sec each with 30 sec between-set recovery periods for the 8 sets, 2 reps protocol (sets) and a 3 min and 30 sec between-set recovery period for the 2 sets, 8 reps protocol (reps). The amount of oxygen consumed during lifting and between-set recovery periods was significantly greater for sets vs. reps protocol for both the back squat (+41%) and bench press (+27%) (p = 0.0001). Moreover, the total aerobic cost including the after-lifting excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC) was larger for the increased sets protocol for both the squat (+27%, p = 0.01) and bench press (+29%, p = 0.04). Total energy costs - aerobic plus anaerobic, exercise and recovery - were not different among sets or reps protocols. We conclude that a greater volume of oxygen is consumed with a lower repetition, increased number of sets resistance training protocol. We suggest that more recovery periods promote a greater potential for fat oxidation.