首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research >ACUTE HEART RATE, BLOOD PRESSURE, AND RPE RESPONSES DURING SUPER SLOW VS. TRADITIONAL MACHINE RESISTANCE TRAINING PROTOCOLS USING SMALL MUSCLE GROUP EXERCISES
【24h】

ACUTE HEART RATE, BLOOD PRESSURE, AND RPE RESPONSES DURING SUPER SLOW VS. TRADITIONAL MACHINE RESISTANCE TRAINING PROTOCOLS USING SMALL MUSCLE GROUP EXERCISES

机译:VS超慢期间的急性心率,血压和RPE响应。使用小肌肉群练习的传统机器阻力训练协议

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Acute cardiovascular and perceptual responses to Super Slow resistance training (SS) are not well understood. This study compared blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) between SS and traditional machine (TM) protocols. Participants (n = 20) completed three sessions of elbow flexion (EF) and knee extension (KE). Session 1 consisted of determining 1RM for EF and KE and a familiarization trial for the SS technique. Sessions 2 and 3 were counterbalanced, with subjects completing three sets of SS (10 seconds concentric, 5 seconds eccentric per rep, 40% 1RM) and TM (2 seconds concentric, 4 seconds eccentric per rep, 65% 1RM). Paramount resistance training equipment was used for both exercises. Peak HR was recorded for each set, with recovery HR taken between sets after 3 minutes of rest. Blood pressure was taken after 5 minutes of seated rest, after each set, before sets 2 and 3, and at 2 minutes post set 3. Ratings of perceived exertion for active musculature were obtained three times per set. Although systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) responses were not significantly different between SS and TM for EF or KE, SBP (SS and TM combined) was significantly lower during EF and was significantly higher during KE than resting BP. Diastolic BP (SS and TM combined) was not significantly different from resting BP for EF or KE. Peak HR was significantly greater during TM (vs. SS) for EF and KE. Ratings of perceived exertion were also significantly greater during TM for EF and KE. Even though SBP was greater for SS and TM combined during KE, comparing SS and TM revealed minimal differences in BP. This suggests that, when performing small muscle group exercises with lighter weight at a slow speed, either SS or TM would be appropriate for individuals to whom strength training is not contraindicated. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
机译:对超级慢阻训练(SS)的急性心血管和知觉反应尚不十分清楚。这项研究比较了SS和传统机器(TM)协议之间的血压(BP),心率(HR)和感知劳累(RPE)等级。参与者(n = 20)完成了三个阶段的肘部屈曲(EF)和膝盖伸展(KE)。第一节包括确定EF和KE的1RM和SS技术的熟悉试验。第2节和第3节被抵消,受试者完成了三组SS(同心10秒,每个重复5秒偏心,40%1RM)和TM(同心2秒,每个重复4秒偏心,65%1RM)。两项练习均使用了至高无上的阻力训练设备。记录每组的最高HR,休息3分钟后在两组之间记录恢复HR。坐着休息5分钟后,每组之后,第2组和第3组之前以及第3组之后的2分钟时测量血压。每组获得3次活动性肌肉组织的感知劳累等级。尽管SS和TM的EF或KE的收缩压(SBP)和舒张压(DBP)的响应在EF或KE方面无显着差异,但EF期间SBP(SS和TM组合)显着低于静息BP。舒张压(SS和TM组合)与EF或KE的静息BP并无显着差异。在EF和KE的TM期间(相对于SS),峰值HR明显更高。在TM期间,EF和KE的感觉劳累等级也明显更高。尽管在KE期间SS和TM合并使用SBP更大,但比较SS和TM可以发现BP的差异很小。这表明,当以较慢的速度进行较轻的重量的小型肌肉群运动时,SS或TM都适合于不进行力量训练的个体。 [出版物摘要]

著录项

  • 来源
    《Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research》 |2009年第1期|p.72-79|共8页
  • 作者单位

    P. JASON WICKWIRE,1 JOHN R. MCLESTER,1 J. MATT GREEN,2 AND THAD R. CREWS31 Department of Health, Physical Education, and Sport Science, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, Georgia;

    2 Department ofHealth, Physical Education, and Recreation, University of North Alabama, Florence, Alabama;

    and 3 Department of PhysicalEducation and Recreation, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KentuckyAddress correspondence to P.Jason Wickwire, wickwire@kennesaw.edu.23(l)/72-79;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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