与标准化的 1RM 百分比和允许重复次数相比,女性在背深蹲、卧推和举重过程中的举重质量差异

Andy A Wolfe, Ruth Caddell, Gillian Braden, Emma Thornton, Jackson Maynard, Cheyenne Lavender, Micheal Luera, Aaron Rinehart
{"title":"与标准化的 1RM 百分比和允许重复次数相比,女性在背深蹲、卧推和举重过程中的举重质量差异","authors":"Andy A Wolfe, Ruth Caddell, Gillian Braden, Emma Thornton, Jackson Maynard, Cheyenne Lavender, Micheal Luera, Aaron Rinehart","doi":"10.47206/ijsc.v4i1.266","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of the study was to examine the difference between the current norm repetition-intensity recommendations and the performed repetitions of females at concurrent intensities. Females (n = 17) with six-months of consistent resistance training experience completed five testing sessions. Session-one consists of one-repetition maximum (1RM) testing for the squat (SQ), bench press (BP), and deadlift (DL). Sessions 2-5 involved repetition-maximum testing at 65, 75, 85, and 95% 1RM, in the order of SQ, BP, then DL, with 10-15 minutes of rest between exercises. A 3 (exercise) x 4 (percentage-intensity) Mixed Factorial ANOVA determined significant differences in repetitions performed between exercises at each intensity level. A series of one-sample t-tests were performed to indicate female differences between established target repetitions for each exercise across all intensities (65% = 15, 75% = 10, 85% = 6, 95% = 2). Significance level was set at p < .05. There was no significant main effect (p=0.14) between repetitions completed during SQ, BP, or DL at 65% (26.1±6.8, 21.3±6.8, 23.4±6.3, respectively), 75% (18.0±6.2, 14.4±4.2, 15.7±4.7, respectively), 85% (10.3±3.7, 9.0±4.6, 9.6±4.1, respectively), nor 95% 1RM (4.1±2.4, 2.5±2.0, 3.4±2.0, respectively). No significant difference was recognized (p = 0.09) between current norms and female BP repetitions at 95%. Significantly higher repetitions were completed by females at all other percentages during SQ, BP, and DL. These results suggest different resistance training intensity-repetition ratios should be prescribed for females in comparison to current norms; meriting future research aimed at establishing a sex-specific intensity-repetition ratio.","PeriodicalId":170948,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Strength and Conditioning","volume":"8 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in Female Lift Quality During Back Squat, Bench Press, and Deadlift Compared to Standardized Percent of 1RM and Repetitions Allowed\",\"authors\":\"Andy A Wolfe, Ruth Caddell, Gillian Braden, Emma Thornton, Jackson Maynard, Cheyenne Lavender, Micheal Luera, Aaron Rinehart\",\"doi\":\"10.47206/ijsc.v4i1.266\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The purpose of the study was to examine the difference between the current norm repetition-intensity recommendations and the performed repetitions of females at concurrent intensities. Females (n = 17) with six-months of consistent resistance training experience completed five testing sessions. Session-one consists of one-repetition maximum (1RM) testing for the squat (SQ), bench press (BP), and deadlift (DL). Sessions 2-5 involved repetition-maximum testing at 65, 75, 85, and 95% 1RM, in the order of SQ, BP, then DL, with 10-15 minutes of rest between exercises. A 3 (exercise) x 4 (percentage-intensity) Mixed Factorial ANOVA determined significant differences in repetitions performed between exercises at each intensity level. A series of one-sample t-tests were performed to indicate female differences between established target repetitions for each exercise across all intensities (65% = 15, 75% = 10, 85% = 6, 95% = 2). Significance level was set at p < .05. There was no significant main effect (p=0.14) between repetitions completed during SQ, BP, or DL at 65% (26.1±6.8, 21.3±6.8, 23.4±6.3, respectively), 75% (18.0±6.2, 14.4±4.2, 15.7±4.7, respectively), 85% (10.3±3.7, 9.0±4.6, 9.6±4.1, respectively), nor 95% 1RM (4.1±2.4, 2.5±2.0, 3.4±2.0, respectively). No significant difference was recognized (p = 0.09) between current norms and female BP repetitions at 95%. Significantly higher repetitions were completed by females at all other percentages during SQ, BP, and DL. These results suggest different resistance training intensity-repetition ratios should be prescribed for females in comparison to current norms; meriting future research aimed at establishing a sex-specific intensity-repetition ratio.\",\"PeriodicalId\":170948,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Strength and Conditioning\",\"volume\":\"8 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Strength and Conditioning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47206/ijsc.v4i1.266\",\"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 Strength and Conditioning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47206/ijsc.v4i1.266","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这项研究的目的是检测当前标准重复强度建议与女性在同时强度下所做重复次数之间的差异。有六个月持续阻力训练经验的女性(n = 17)完成了五个测试环节。第一节包括深蹲(SQ)、卧推(BP)和举重(DL)的单次最大重量(1RM)测试。第二至第五次测试分别以 65%、75%、85% 和 95% 的单次最大重量进行,顺序依次为深蹲、卧推和举重,每次练习之间休息 10-15 分钟。3(练习)×4(强度百分比)混合因子方差分析确定了在每个强度水平下不同练习之间重复次数的显著差异。进行了一系列单样本 t 检验,以确定在所有强度下(65% = 15、75% = 10、85% = 6、95% = 2),每项练习的既定目标重复次数之间的女性差异。显著性水平设定为 p < .05。在 65%(分别为 26.1±6.8、21.3±6.8、23.4±6.3)、75%(18.0±6.2、14.4±4.2、15.7±4.7)、85%(分别为 10.3±3.7、9.0±4.6、9.6±4.1)或 95% 1RM(分别为 4.1±2.4、2.5±2.0、3.4±2.0)。在 95% 的重复次数上,现行标准和女性 BP 之间无明显差异(P = 0.09)。在其他所有百分比的 SQ、BP 和 DL 中,女性完成的重复次数明显更高。这些结果表明,与目前的标准相比,应为女性规定不同的阻力训练强度-重复比率;值得在未来开展研究,以确定针对不同性别的强度-重复比率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Differences in Female Lift Quality During Back Squat, Bench Press, and Deadlift Compared to Standardized Percent of 1RM and Repetitions Allowed
The purpose of the study was to examine the difference between the current norm repetition-intensity recommendations and the performed repetitions of females at concurrent intensities. Females (n = 17) with six-months of consistent resistance training experience completed five testing sessions. Session-one consists of one-repetition maximum (1RM) testing for the squat (SQ), bench press (BP), and deadlift (DL). Sessions 2-5 involved repetition-maximum testing at 65, 75, 85, and 95% 1RM, in the order of SQ, BP, then DL, with 10-15 minutes of rest between exercises. A 3 (exercise) x 4 (percentage-intensity) Mixed Factorial ANOVA determined significant differences in repetitions performed between exercises at each intensity level. A series of one-sample t-tests were performed to indicate female differences between established target repetitions for each exercise across all intensities (65% = 15, 75% = 10, 85% = 6, 95% = 2). Significance level was set at p < .05. There was no significant main effect (p=0.14) between repetitions completed during SQ, BP, or DL at 65% (26.1±6.8, 21.3±6.8, 23.4±6.3, respectively), 75% (18.0±6.2, 14.4±4.2, 15.7±4.7, respectively), 85% (10.3±3.7, 9.0±4.6, 9.6±4.1, respectively), nor 95% 1RM (4.1±2.4, 2.5±2.0, 3.4±2.0, respectively). No significant difference was recognized (p = 0.09) between current norms and female BP repetitions at 95%. Significantly higher repetitions were completed by females at all other percentages during SQ, BP, and DL. These results suggest different resistance training intensity-repetition ratios should be prescribed for females in comparison to current norms; meriting future research aimed at establishing a sex-specific intensity-repetition ratio.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信