4.4 Article

Individual Muscle Adaptations in different Resistance Training Systems in Well-Trained Men

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 43, 期 1, 页码 55-60

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/a-1493-3121

关键词

drop-set; crescent pyramid; volume load; one-repetition maximum; muscle cross-sectional area

资金

  1. Sao Paulo Research Foundation -FAPESP [2015/16090-4]
  2. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development CNPq [302801/2018-9, 303085/2015-0]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that all training protocols induced similar effects on muscle cross-sectional area. However, some subjects experienced greater gains in 1-RM when using protocols with heavier loads, such as CP.
Using a within-subject design we compared the individual responses between drop-set (DS) vs. traditional resistance training (TRAD) (n=16) and crescent pyramid (CP) vs. TRAD (n=15). Muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), leg press and leg extension 1 repetition maximum (1-RM) were assessed pre and post training. At group level, CSA increased from pre to post (DS: 7.8% vs. TRAD: 7.5%, P =0.02; CP: 7.5% vs. TRAD: 7.8%, P =0.02). All protocols increased the 1-RM from pre to post for leg press (DS: 24.9% vs. TRAD: 26.8%, P < 0.0001; CP: 27.3% vs. TRAD:2 6.3%, P < 0.0001) and leg extension (DS: 17.1% vs. TRAD: 17.3%, P < 0.0001; CP: 17.0% vs. TRAD: 16.6%, P < 0.0001). Individual analysis for CSA demonstrated no differences between protocols in 15 subjects. For leg press 1-RM, 5 subjects responded more to TRAD, 2 to DS and 9 similarly between protocols. In TRAD vs. CP, 4 subjects responded more to CP, 1 to TRAD and 10 similarly between protocols. For leg extension 1-RM 2 subjects responded more to DS, 3 to TRAD and 11 similarly between protocols. Additionally, 2 subjects responded more to CP, 2 to TRAD and 11 similarly between protocols. In conclusion, all protocols induced similar individual responses for CSA. For 1-RM, some subjects experience greater gains for the protocol performed with higher loads, such as CP.

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