4.4 Article

Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation enhances strength training volume but not the force-velocity profile

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 120, 期 8, 页码 1881-1891

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-020-04417-2

关键词

Non-invasive brain stimulation; Bench press; Performance; Movement velocity; Ratings of perceived exertion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose This study aimed to explore the acute effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on the force-velocity relationship, strength training volume, movement velocity, and ratings of perceived exertion. Methods Fourteen healthy men (age 22.8 +/- 3.0 years) were randomly stimulated over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex with either ANODAL, CATHODAL or SHAM tDCS for 15 min at 2 mA. The one-repetition maximum (1RM) and force-velocity relationship parameters were evaluated during the bench press exercise before and after receiving the tDCS. Subsequently, participants completed a resistance training session consisting of sets of five repetitions with 1 min of inter-set rest against the 75%1RM until failure. Results No significant changes were observed in the 1RM or in the force-velocity relationship parameters (p >= 0.377). The number of repetitions was higher for the ANODAL compared to the CATHODAL (p = 0.025; ES = 0.37) and SHAM (p = 0.009; ES = 0.47) conditions. The reductions of movement velocity across sets were lower for the ANODAL than for the CATHODAL and SHAM condition (p = 0.014). RPE values were lower for the ANODAL compared to the CATHODAL (p = 0.119; ES = 0.33) and SHAM (p = 0.150; ES = 0.44) conditions. No significant differences between the CATHODAL and SHAM conditions were observed for any variable. Conclusion The application of ANODAL tDCS before a resistance training session increased training volume, enabled the maintenance of higher movement velocities, and reduced RPE values. These results suggest that tDCS could be an effective method to enhance resistance-training performance.

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