首页> 外文期刊>Biology of sport >A comparison of low volume 'high-intensity-training' and high volume traditional resistance training methods on muscular performance, body composition, and subjective assessments of training
【24h】

A comparison of low volume 'high-intensity-training' and high volume traditional resistance training methods on muscular performance, body composition, and subjective assessments of training

机译:小容量“高强度训练”与大容量传统阻力训练方法对肌肉性能,身体成分和主观训练评估的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Most studies of resistance training (RT) examine methods that do not resemble typical training practices of persons participating in RT. Ecologically valid RT programs more representative of such practices are seldom compared. This study compared two such approaches to RT. Thirty participants (males, n = 13; females, n = 17) were randomised to either a group performing low volume 'High Intensity Training' (HIT; n = 16) or high volume 'Body-building' (3ST; n = 14) RT methods 2x/week for 10 weeks. Outcomes included muscular performance, body composition, and participant's subjective assessments. Both HIT and 3ST groups improved muscular performance significantly (as indicated by 95% confidence intervals) with large effect sizes (ES; 0.97 to 1.73 and 0.88 to 1.77 respectively). HIT had significantly greater muscular performance gains for 3 of 9 tested exercises compared with 3ST (p < 0.05) and larger effect sizes for 8 of 9 exercises. Body composition did not significantly change in either group. However, effect sizes for whole body muscle mass changes were slightly more favourable in the HIT group compared with the 3ST group (0.27 and -0.34 respectively) in addition to whole body fat mass (0.03 and 0.43 respectively) and whole body fat percentage (-0.10 and -0.44 respectively). Significant muscular performance gains can be produced using either HIT or 3ST. However, muscular performance gains may be greater when using HIT. Future research should look to identify which components of ecologically valid RT programs are primarily responsible for these differences in outcome.
机译:大多数抵抗训练(RT)的研究方法都与参加RT的人的典型训练方法不同。很少比较具有生态实践意义的RT程序,这些程序更能代表这种做法。这项研究比较了两种这样的RT方法。 30名参与者(男,n = 13;女,n = 17)被随机分为进行低强度“高强度训练”(HIT; n = 16)或高强度“健美”(3ST; n = 14)的一组)RT方法每周2次,持续10周。结果包括肌肉表现,身体组成和参与者的主观评估。 HIT组和3ST组均显着改善了肌肉性能(如95%的置信区间所示),且效果尺寸较大(ES;分别为0.97至1.73和0.88至1.77)。与3ST(P <0.05)相比,HIT在9个测试运动中有3个具有明显更大的肌肉性能提升,在9个运动中有8个具有更大的效果量。两组的身体成分均无明显变化。但是,除了全身脂肪量(分别为0.03和0.43)和全身脂肪百分比(-)外,HIT组与3ST组相比,全身肌肉质量变化的效果大小稍好一些(分别为0.27和-0.34)。分别为0.10和-0.44)。使用HIT或3ST可以显着提高肌肉性能。但是,使用HIT时,肌肉性能的提高可能更大。未来的研究应着眼于确定生态上有效的逆转录疗法方案的哪些成分是造成结果差异的主要原因。

著录项

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