阻力训练期间的知觉和代谢反应:比较低负荷加血流限制与高负荷计划。

IF 2.2 Q2 SPORT SCIENCES
Sports Pub Date : 2025-05-16 DOI:10.3390/sports13050148
Anderson Geremias Macedo, Danilo Alexandre Massini, Tiago André Freire Almeida, Adriana Teresa Silva Santos, Giovane Galdino, David Michel de Oliveira, Dalton Muller Pessôa Filho
{"title":"阻力训练期间的知觉和代谢反应:比较低负荷加血流限制与高负荷计划。","authors":"Anderson Geremias Macedo, Danilo Alexandre Massini, Tiago André Freire Almeida, Adriana Teresa Silva Santos, Giovane Galdino, David Michel de Oliveira, Dalton Muller Pessôa Filho","doi":"10.3390/sports13050148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study analysed perceived exertion (RPE) and blood lactate ([La<sup>-</sup>]) responses to two resistance training protocols planned with high- (HLI) and low-load intensities combined with blood flow restriction (LLI+BFR). Fourteen trained adults (26.2 ± 2.6 years) performed the HLI and LLI+BFR protocols 48 h apart. The HLI was planned with 70% 1RM (one repetition to maximum), three sets, 12 repetitions, 60 seconds (s) of rest between sets and 120 s between exercises; LLI+BFR was performed at 30% 1RM, for three sets, 15 repetitions, and with 30 s of rest between sets and 180 s between exercises. Blood samples (for [La<sup>-</sup>] analysis) and RPE (Borg 0-10 scale) were collected in the first minute after each exercise. A two-way ANOVA compared RPE and [La<sup>-</sup>] responses between exercises in the same protocol, and between protocols comparing the same exercise. RPE increased from the first to the last half (involving upper-limbs and lower-limbs) of exercises in both protocols (<i>p</i> < 0.001). All exercises in HLI elicited higher RPE values than LLI+BFR (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Average RPE scores were higher in HLI than for LLI+BFR (8.1 ± 0.6 > 6.2 ± 1.1, <i>p</i> < 0.001). The [La<sup>-</sup>] also increased throughout the exercises, with a higher peak response in LLI+BFR than for HLI (9.8 ± 1.6 > 7.2 ± 1.3 mmol × L<sup>-1</sup>, <i>p</i> < 0.01). Perceptual and metabolic responses during HLI and LLI+BFR training were distinguishable, despite both protocols characterising a high-intensity stimulus.</p>","PeriodicalId":53303,"journal":{"name":"Sports","volume":"13 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12115933/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perceptual and Metabolic Responses During Resistance Training Sessions: Comparing Low-Load Plus Blood Flow Restriction with High-Load Plans.\",\"authors\":\"Anderson Geremias Macedo, Danilo Alexandre Massini, Tiago André Freire Almeida, Adriana Teresa Silva Santos, Giovane Galdino, David Michel de Oliveira, Dalton Muller Pessôa Filho\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/sports13050148\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study analysed perceived exertion (RPE) and blood lactate ([La<sup>-</sup>]) responses to two resistance training protocols planned with high- (HLI) and low-load intensities combined with blood flow restriction (LLI+BFR). Fourteen trained adults (26.2 ± 2.6 years) performed the HLI and LLI+BFR protocols 48 h apart. The HLI was planned with 70% 1RM (one repetition to maximum), three sets, 12 repetitions, 60 seconds (s) of rest between sets and 120 s between exercises; LLI+BFR was performed at 30% 1RM, for three sets, 15 repetitions, and with 30 s of rest between sets and 180 s between exercises. Blood samples (for [La<sup>-</sup>] analysis) and RPE (Borg 0-10 scale) were collected in the first minute after each exercise. A two-way ANOVA compared RPE and [La<sup>-</sup>] responses between exercises in the same protocol, and between protocols comparing the same exercise. RPE increased from the first to the last half (involving upper-limbs and lower-limbs) of exercises in both protocols (<i>p</i> < 0.001). All exercises in HLI elicited higher RPE values than LLI+BFR (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Average RPE scores were higher in HLI than for LLI+BFR (8.1 ± 0.6 > 6.2 ± 1.1, <i>p</i> < 0.001). The [La<sup>-</sup>] also increased throughout the exercises, with a higher peak response in LLI+BFR than for HLI (9.8 ± 1.6 > 7.2 ± 1.3 mmol × L<sup>-1</sup>, <i>p</i> < 0.01). Perceptual and metabolic responses during HLI and LLI+BFR training were distinguishable, despite both protocols characterising a high-intensity stimulus.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":53303,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sports\",\"volume\":\"13 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12115933/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/sports13050148\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/sports13050148","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究分析了高负荷(HLI)和低负荷强度结合血流限制(LLI+BFR)的两种阻力训练方案对感知运动(RPE)和血乳酸([La-])的反应。14名受过训练的成年人(26.2±2.6岁)间隔48小时执行HLI和LLI+BFR方案。HLI计划为70% 1RM(1次重复至最大值),3组,12组,每组之间休息60秒,每组之间休息120秒;LLI+BFR以30%的1RM进行,三组,重复15次,每组之间休息30秒,每组之间休息180秒。每次运动后1分钟采集血液样本(用于[La-]分析)和RPE (Borg 0-10评分)。双向方差分析比较了同一方案的运动之间和比较相同运动的方案之间的RPE和[La-]反应。在两种方案中,RPE从运动的前半部分增加到后半部分(包括上肢和下肢)(p < 0.001)。所有HLI组的RPE值均高于LLI+BFR组(p < 0.001)。HLI组的平均RPE评分高于LLI+BFR组(8.1±0.6 bb0 6.2±1.1,p < 0.001)。[La-]在整个运动过程中也有所增加,LLI+BFR组的峰值反应高于HLI组(9.8±1.6 bb0 7.2±1.3 mmol × L-1, p < 0.01)。HLI和LLI+BFR训练期间的感知和代谢反应是可区分的,尽管两种方案都具有高强度刺激的特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Perceptual and Metabolic Responses During Resistance Training Sessions: Comparing Low-Load Plus Blood Flow Restriction with High-Load Plans.

This study analysed perceived exertion (RPE) and blood lactate ([La-]) responses to two resistance training protocols planned with high- (HLI) and low-load intensities combined with blood flow restriction (LLI+BFR). Fourteen trained adults (26.2 ± 2.6 years) performed the HLI and LLI+BFR protocols 48 h apart. The HLI was planned with 70% 1RM (one repetition to maximum), three sets, 12 repetitions, 60 seconds (s) of rest between sets and 120 s between exercises; LLI+BFR was performed at 30% 1RM, for three sets, 15 repetitions, and with 30 s of rest between sets and 180 s between exercises. Blood samples (for [La-] analysis) and RPE (Borg 0-10 scale) were collected in the first minute after each exercise. A two-way ANOVA compared RPE and [La-] responses between exercises in the same protocol, and between protocols comparing the same exercise. RPE increased from the first to the last half (involving upper-limbs and lower-limbs) of exercises in both protocols (p < 0.001). All exercises in HLI elicited higher RPE values than LLI+BFR (p < 0.001). Average RPE scores were higher in HLI than for LLI+BFR (8.1 ± 0.6 > 6.2 ± 1.1, p < 0.001). The [La-] also increased throughout the exercises, with a higher peak response in LLI+BFR than for HLI (9.8 ± 1.6 > 7.2 ± 1.3 mmol × L-1, p < 0.01). Perceptual and metabolic responses during HLI and LLI+BFR training were distinguishable, despite both protocols characterising a high-intensity stimulus.

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
Sports
Sports SPORT SCIENCES-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
7.40%
发文量
167
审稿时长
11 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