在阻力运动中感知杠铃速度损失进行自动调节的准确性和可靠性

IF 1.5 4区 教育学 Q3 HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM
Drumond Gilo da Silva, Rodrigo Fabio Bezerra da Silva, Petrus Gantois, Vitor Bertoli Nascimento, Fábio Yuzo Nakamura, Fabiano de Souza Fonseca
{"title":"在阻力运动中感知杠铃速度损失进行自动调节的准确性和可靠性","authors":"Drumond Gilo da Silva, Rodrigo Fabio Bezerra da Silva, Petrus Gantois, Vitor Bertoli Nascimento, Fábio Yuzo Nakamura, Fabiano de Souza Fonseca","doi":"10.1177/17479541231226413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BackgroundThe perception of bar velocity loss (PVL) can be used as an alternative method for autoregulating intraset repetitions during velocity-based training. This study analyzed the accuracy and reliability of the PVL as a method to autoregulate the intraset repetitions using a moderate velocity loss (VL) threshold (15–30%).MethodsA total of 22 resistance-trained men were familiarized with the PVL in a single session. Test–retest was performed in two sessions 1 week apart, in which participants completed three sets of bench press and back squat at 40, 60, and 80% 1 repetition maximum (1RM). Participants stopped the sets when they reached a moderate VL zone using their PVL. Accuracy was assessed by analyzing whether the mean VL (actual) and the lower and upper limits of the confidence interval (CI) (95%) of each set were within the established VL range and quantifying the relative frequency of correctly interrupted sets. Test–retest reliability was examined by the intraclass correlation coefficient and coefficient of variation.ResultsPVL showed acceptable accuracy in both exercises at 60 and 80% 1RM (50–65% success rate) and retest for all loads (53–76% success rate). Similar PVL percentages were observed between most of the sets for the test and retest ( p > 0.05). Accuracy improved during the retest, especially for bench press (40% 1RM) and back squat (40 and 80% 1RM). PVL was not reliable in the test–retest comparison.ConclusionPVL can be a strategy with acceptable accuracy to autoregulate the intraset repetitions in a moderate zone (VL15–30%), but its reliability does not appear satisfactory after one familiarization session.","PeriodicalId":47767,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching","volume":"242 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy and reliability of perception of bar velocity loss for autoregulation in resistance exercise\",\"authors\":\"Drumond Gilo da Silva, Rodrigo Fabio Bezerra da Silva, Petrus Gantois, Vitor Bertoli Nascimento, Fábio Yuzo Nakamura, Fabiano de Souza Fonseca\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17479541231226413\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BackgroundThe perception of bar velocity loss (PVL) can be used as an alternative method for autoregulating intraset repetitions during velocity-based training. This study analyzed the accuracy and reliability of the PVL as a method to autoregulate the intraset repetitions using a moderate velocity loss (VL) threshold (15–30%).MethodsA total of 22 resistance-trained men were familiarized with the PVL in a single session. Test–retest was performed in two sessions 1 week apart, in which participants completed three sets of bench press and back squat at 40, 60, and 80% 1 repetition maximum (1RM). Participants stopped the sets when they reached a moderate VL zone using their PVL. Accuracy was assessed by analyzing whether the mean VL (actual) and the lower and upper limits of the confidence interval (CI) (95%) of each set were within the established VL range and quantifying the relative frequency of correctly interrupted sets. Test–retest reliability was examined by the intraclass correlation coefficient and coefficient of variation.ResultsPVL showed acceptable accuracy in both exercises at 60 and 80% 1RM (50–65% success rate) and retest for all loads (53–76% success rate). Similar PVL percentages were observed between most of the sets for the test and retest ( p > 0.05). Accuracy improved during the retest, especially for bench press (40% 1RM) and back squat (40 and 80% 1RM). PVL was not reliable in the test–retest comparison.ConclusionPVL can be a strategy with acceptable accuracy to autoregulate the intraset repetitions in a moderate zone (VL15–30%), but its reliability does not appear satisfactory after one familiarization session.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47767,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching\",\"volume\":\"242 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541231226413\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541231226413","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景 杠铃速度损失感知(PVL)可作为基于速度的训练中自动调节组内重复次数的替代方法。本研究分析了 PVL 作为一种使用中等速度损失(VL)阈值(15%-30%)自动调节组内重复的方法的准确性和可靠性。测试-复测在相隔一周的两次训练中进行,参与者分别以 40%、60% 和 80% 的单次最大重量(1RM)完成三组卧推和深蹲。当参与者使用其 PVL 达到中等 VL 区时,即停止该组训练。准确性是通过分析每组的平均 VL(实际值)和置信区间 (CI) 的下限和上限(95%)是否在既定的 VL 范围内,以及量化正确中断组数的相对频率来评估的。通过类内相关系数和变异系数对测试-重测可靠性进行了检验。结果PVL 在 60% 和 80% 1RM 的两种练习(成功率为 50%-65%)和所有负荷的重测(成功率为 53%-76%)中均显示出可接受的准确性。在测试和复测的大多数组间观察到相似的 PVL 百分比(p > 0.05)。在复测中,准确率有所提高,尤其是卧推(40% 1RM)和深蹲(40% 和 80% 1RM)。结论 PVL 可以作为一种策略,以可接受的准确性自动调节中等区域(VL15-30%)内的组内重复次数,但在一次熟悉训练后,其可靠性似乎并不令人满意。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Accuracy and reliability of perception of bar velocity loss for autoregulation in resistance exercise
BackgroundThe perception of bar velocity loss (PVL) can be used as an alternative method for autoregulating intraset repetitions during velocity-based training. This study analyzed the accuracy and reliability of the PVL as a method to autoregulate the intraset repetitions using a moderate velocity loss (VL) threshold (15–30%).MethodsA total of 22 resistance-trained men were familiarized with the PVL in a single session. Test–retest was performed in two sessions 1 week apart, in which participants completed three sets of bench press and back squat at 40, 60, and 80% 1 repetition maximum (1RM). Participants stopped the sets when they reached a moderate VL zone using their PVL. Accuracy was assessed by analyzing whether the mean VL (actual) and the lower and upper limits of the confidence interval (CI) (95%) of each set were within the established VL range and quantifying the relative frequency of correctly interrupted sets. Test–retest reliability was examined by the intraclass correlation coefficient and coefficient of variation.ResultsPVL showed acceptable accuracy in both exercises at 60 and 80% 1RM (50–65% success rate) and retest for all loads (53–76% success rate). Similar PVL percentages were observed between most of the sets for the test and retest ( p > 0.05). Accuracy improved during the retest, especially for bench press (40% 1RM) and back squat (40 and 80% 1RM). PVL was not reliable in the test–retest comparison.ConclusionPVL can be a strategy with acceptable accuracy to autoregulate the intraset repetitions in a moderate zone (VL15–30%), but its reliability does not appear satisfactory after one familiarization session.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
15.80%
发文量
208
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching is a peer-reviewed, international, academic/professional journal, which aims to bridge the gap between coaching and sports science. The journal will integrate theory and practice in sports science, promote critical reflection of coaching practice, and evaluate commonly accepted beliefs about coaching effectiveness and performance enhancement. Open learning systems will be promoted in which: (a) sports science is made accessible to coaches, translating knowledge into working practice; and (b) the challenges faced by coaches are communicated to sports scientists. The vision of the journal is to support the development of a community in which: (i) sports scientists and coaches respect and learn from each other as they assist athletes to acquire skills by training safely and effectively, thereby enhancing their performance, maximizing their enjoyment of the sporting experience and facilitating character development; and (ii) scientific research is embraced in the quest to uncover, understand and develop the processes involved in sports coaching and elite performance.
×
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