4.4 Article

Effects of squat training with different depths on lower limb muscle volumes

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 119, 期 9, 页码 1933-1942

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-019-04181-y

关键词

Knee extensor; Hamstring; Adductor; Gluteus maximus; Magnetic resonance imaging

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [17H02149]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [17H02149] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of squat training with different depths on lower limb muscle volumes. Methods Seventeen males were randomly assigned to a full squat training group (FST, n = 8) or half squat training group (HST, n = 9). They completed 10 weeks (2 days per week) of squat training. The muscle volumes (by magnetic resonance imaging) of the knee extensor, hamstring, adductor, and gluteus maximus muscles and the one repetition maximum (1RM) of full and half squats were measured before and after training. Results The relative increase in 1RM of full squat was significantly greater in FST (31.8 +/- 14.9%) than in HST (11.3 +/- 8.6%) (p = 0.003), whereas there was no difference in the relative increase in 1RM of half squat between FST (24.2 +/- 7.1%) and HST (32.0 +/- 12.1%) (p = 0.132). The volumes of knee extensor muscles significantly increased by 4.9 +/- 2.6% in FST (p < 0.001) and 4.6 +/- 3.1% in HST (p = 0.003), whereas that of rectus femoris and hamstring muscles did not change in either group. The volumes of adductor and gluteus maximus muscles significantly increased in FST (6.2 +/- 2.6% and 6.7 +/- 3.5%) and HST (2.7 +/- 3.1% and 2.2 +/- 2.6%). In addition, relative increases in adductor (p = 0.026) and gluteus maximus (p = 0.008) muscle volumes were significantly greater in FST than in HST. Conclusion The results suggest that full squat training is more effective for developing the lower limb muscles excluding the rectus femoris and hamstring muscles.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据