首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Cardiovascular Journal of Africa >Compatibility of concurrent aerobic and resistance training on maximal aerobic capacity in sedentary males
【2h】

Compatibility of concurrent aerobic and resistance training on maximal aerobic capacity in sedentary males

机译:久坐男性同时进行有氧和阻力训练对最大有氧运动能力的兼容性

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

SummaryAerobic and resistance training are often performed concurrently by inactive individuals and those patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation, despite contradictory findings that this mode of training may impair the development of maximal aerobic capacity (VO2max). The aim of the study, therefore, was to compare the effects of 16 weeks of aerobic, resistance and concurrent aerobic or resistance training on VO2max development.Fifty apparently healthy males (25 years ± 8 months) were randomly assigned to a non-exercising control group (NonG) (n = 12), an aerobic training group (AerG) (n = 12), a resistance-training group (ResG) (n = 13), or a concurrent aerobic and resistance-training group (ConG) (n = 13). VO2max was measured pre- and post-experimentally using a continuous on-line oxygen analyser. Aerobic training consisted of exercise using a combination of treadmills, rowers, steppers and cycle ergometers, whereas resistance training consisted of eight prescribed exercises performed for three sets of 15 repetitions at 60% of the estimated one-repetition maximum (1-RM). In an attempt to equalise exercise duration across all three experimental groups, concurrent aerobic and resistance training consisted of a combination of aerobic training at 60% of heart rate maximum, and resistance training for two sets of 15 repetitions at 60% of the estimated 1-RM.The NonG were found to have decreased their VO2max by 3.36%, whereas the ResG increased their mean VO2max by 13.16%. The AerG and ConG increased their mean VO2max by 34.12 and 29.58%, respectively.In conclusion, concurrent training did not significantly interfere with development of aerobic capacity in sedentary males when compared to aerobic training. Therefore, this investigation did not support the concept of the universal nature of the interference effect that supposes the superiority of a single mode of training.
机译:总结尽管有矛盾的发现,这种有氧运动和阻力训练可能会损害最大有氧运动能力(VO2max)的发展,但经常由不活动的人和接受心脏康复的患者同时进行。因此,本研究的目的是比较16周有氧运动,抵抗力以及同时进行的有氧运动或阻力训练对VO2max产生的影响。将50名明显健康的男性(25岁±8个月)随机分配为非运动对照(NonG)组(n = 12),有氧训练组(AerG)(n = 12),抵抗训练组(ResG)(n = 13)或同时进行有氧和抵抗训练组(ConG)( n = 13)。使用连续在线氧气分析仪在实验前后测量最大摄氧量。有氧训练包括使用跑步机,划船器,踏步机和自行车测力计的组合运动,而阻力训练则由八项规定的运动组成,这些运动针对三组15次重复进行,每次重复的最大估计次数为60%(1-RM)。为了使所有三个实验组的运动时间均等,同时进行的有氧运动和阻力训练包括组合有氧运动(最大心率的60%)和两组阻力训练,每组15次重复(估计的心率的60%) RM.NonG的最大VO2max降低了3.36%,而ResG的平均VO2max降低了13.16%。 AerG和ConG的平均VO2max分别增加了34.12和29.58%。总而言之,与有氧训练相比,同时训练对久坐的男性的有氧能力发展没有显着干扰。因此,本研究不支持假设单一训练模式具有优越性的干扰效应的普遍性概念。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号