三种广泛使用的力量训练方法的速度特异性适应:随机对照试验

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES
Glenn Trane, Stine Pedersen, Håkon André Mehus, Jan Helgerud, Runar Jakobsen Unhjem
{"title":"三种广泛使用的力量训练方法的速度特异性适应:随机对照试验","authors":"Glenn Trane, Stine Pedersen, Håkon André Mehus, Jan Helgerud, Runar Jakobsen Unhjem","doi":"10.1249/MSS.0000000000003630","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>We examined bench press adaptations to three widely used strength training methods; maximal strength training (MST), hypertrophy training (HT) and explosive strength training (EST). To reflect how these methods are typically applied by practitioners, MST and EST were volume matched, whereas HT were performed at higher volume.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty-three moderately trained subjects (32 males; 31 females) were assigned into 8 weeks of MST, HT, EST or control (CON), 3 sessions/week. MST performed 4 x 4 repetitions bench press at ≥85% of 1RM. HT performed 3 x 8-12 repetitions at ∼70-80% of 1RM. EST performed 4 x 6-7 repetitions bench press throws at 40% of 1RM. Maximal-, explosive- and endurance strength characteristics were assessed, as well as muscle hypertrophy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>1RM increased more after MST (+21.5%) and HT (+17.9%) compared to EST (+5.9%) and CON (all p ≤ 0.001). Rate of force development (RFD) at 50% of 1RM increased more after MST (+58.4%) and HT (+38.9%) compared to CON ( p ≤ 0.001 and p ≤ 0.05, respectively). Mean propulsive velocity (MPV) increased more after MST and HT compared to CON across all loads (20-80% of 1RM), and more than EST at 80% and 60% (all p ≤ 0.05-0.001). MST increased MPV more than EST at 40% of 1RM ( p ≤ 0.05). Δ1RM correlated with ΔMPV at all loads of the L-v profile ( r = 0.40-0.56, p ≤ 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MST and HT were more effective than EST for improving maximal strength and concentric velocity against moderate and high loads. At low loads, EST was not more effective than MST and HT, despite high degree of velocity specificity. Changes in muscle strength appear to be more important than velocity specificity to increase performance across the L-v profile.</p>","PeriodicalId":18426,"journal":{"name":"Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Velocity specific adaptations to three widely used strength training methods.\",\"authors\":\"Glenn Trane, Stine Pedersen, Håkon André Mehus, Jan Helgerud, Runar Jakobsen Unhjem\",\"doi\":\"10.1249/MSS.0000000000003630\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>We examined bench press adaptations to three widely used strength training methods; maximal strength training (MST), hypertrophy training (HT) and explosive strength training (EST). To reflect how these methods are typically applied by practitioners, MST and EST were volume matched, whereas HT were performed at higher volume.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty-three moderately trained subjects (32 males; 31 females) were assigned into 8 weeks of MST, HT, EST or control (CON), 3 sessions/week. MST performed 4 x 4 repetitions bench press at ≥85% of 1RM. HT performed 3 x 8-12 repetitions at ∼70-80% of 1RM. EST performed 4 x 6-7 repetitions bench press throws at 40% of 1RM. Maximal-, explosive- and endurance strength characteristics were assessed, as well as muscle hypertrophy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>1RM increased more after MST (+21.5%) and HT (+17.9%) compared to EST (+5.9%) and CON (all p ≤ 0.001). Rate of force development (RFD) at 50% of 1RM increased more after MST (+58.4%) and HT (+38.9%) compared to CON ( p ≤ 0.001 and p ≤ 0.05, respectively). Mean propulsive velocity (MPV) increased more after MST and HT compared to CON across all loads (20-80% of 1RM), and more than EST at 80% and 60% (all p ≤ 0.05-0.001). MST increased MPV more than EST at 40% of 1RM ( p ≤ 0.05). Δ1RM correlated with ΔMPV at all loads of the L-v profile ( r = 0.40-0.56, p ≤ 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MST and HT were more effective than EST for improving maximal strength and concentric velocity against moderate and high loads. At low loads, EST was not more effective than MST and HT, despite high degree of velocity specificity. Changes in muscle strength appear to be more important than velocity specificity to increase performance across the L-v profile.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18426,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000003630\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000003630","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:研究卧推对三种广泛使用的力量训练方法的适应性;最大力量训练(MST),肥大训练(HT)和爆发力训练(EST)。为了反映这些方法通常是如何被从业者应用的,MST和EST是体积匹配的,而HT是在更高的体积下进行的。方法:中等训练对象63例(男性32例;31名女性)随机分为8周MST、HT、EST或对照组(CON),每周3次。MST以≥85%的强度进行4 × 4次卧推。HT在约70-80%的1RM下进行了3次8-12次重复。EST做了4 x 6-7次重复的卧推抛,强度为40%。评估了最大、爆发力和耐力强度特征,以及肌肉肥大。结果:与EST(+5.9%)和CON(均p≤0.001)相比,MST(+21.5%)和HT(+17.9%)后1RM升高幅度更大。1RM 50%的力发展率(RFD) MST(+58.4%)高于EST (+27.1%, p≤0.01)和CON (p≤0.01),HT(+38.9%)高于CON (p≤0.01)。平均推进速度(MPV)在MST后比CON增加更多(20-80%的1RM),在80% (p≤0.001)和60% (p≤0.01)时比EST增加更多,在40% (p = 0.053)时有很强的趋势。在L-v剖面的所有载荷下,Δ1RM与ΔMPV相关(r = 0.40-0.56, p≤0.001)。结论:MST和HT比EST更能有效地提高中、高负荷下的最大强度和爆炸强度。在低负荷下,EST并不比MST和HT更有效,尽管速度特异性很高。肌肉力量的变化似乎比速度特异性更重要,以提高整个L-v剖面的表现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Velocity specific adaptations to three widely used strength training methods.

Aim: We examined bench press adaptations to three widely used strength training methods; maximal strength training (MST), hypertrophy training (HT) and explosive strength training (EST). To reflect how these methods are typically applied by practitioners, MST and EST were volume matched, whereas HT were performed at higher volume.

Methods: Sixty-three moderately trained subjects (32 males; 31 females) were assigned into 8 weeks of MST, HT, EST or control (CON), 3 sessions/week. MST performed 4 x 4 repetitions bench press at ≥85% of 1RM. HT performed 3 x 8-12 repetitions at ∼70-80% of 1RM. EST performed 4 x 6-7 repetitions bench press throws at 40% of 1RM. Maximal-, explosive- and endurance strength characteristics were assessed, as well as muscle hypertrophy.

Results: 1RM increased more after MST (+21.5%) and HT (+17.9%) compared to EST (+5.9%) and CON (all p ≤ 0.001). Rate of force development (RFD) at 50% of 1RM increased more after MST (+58.4%) and HT (+38.9%) compared to CON ( p ≤ 0.001 and p ≤ 0.05, respectively). Mean propulsive velocity (MPV) increased more after MST and HT compared to CON across all loads (20-80% of 1RM), and more than EST at 80% and 60% (all p ≤ 0.05-0.001). MST increased MPV more than EST at 40% of 1RM ( p ≤ 0.05). Δ1RM correlated with ΔMPV at all loads of the L-v profile ( r = 0.40-0.56, p ≤ 0.001).

Conclusion: MST and HT were more effective than EST for improving maximal strength and concentric velocity against moderate and high loads. At low loads, EST was not more effective than MST and HT, despite high degree of velocity specificity. Changes in muscle strength appear to be more important than velocity specificity to increase performance across the L-v profile.

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
7.70
自引率
4.90%
发文量
2568
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise® features original investigations, clinical studies, and comprehensive reviews on current topics in sports medicine and exercise science. With this leading multidisciplinary journal, exercise physiologists, physiatrists, physical therapists, team physicians, and athletic trainers get a vital exchange of information from basic and applied science, medicine, education, and allied health fields.
×
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