4.4 Article

Maximal and explosive strength training elicit distinct neuromuscular adaptations, specific to the training stimulus

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 114, 期 2, 页码 365-374

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-013-2781-x

关键词

Resistance training; Rate of force development; Neural activation; Specificity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To compare the effects of short-term maximal (MST) vs. explosive (EST) strength training on maximal and explosive force production, and assess the neural adaptations underpinning any training-specific functional changes. Methods Male participants completed either MST (n = 9) or EST (n = 10) for 4 weeks. In training participants were instructed to: contract as fast and hard as possible for similar to 1 s (EST); or contract progressively up to 75 % maximal voluntary force (MVF) and hold for 3 s (MST). Pre- and post-training measurements included recording MVF during maximal voluntary contractions and explosive force at 50-ms intervals from force onset during explosive contractions. Neuromuscular activation was assessed by recording EMG RMS amplitude, normalised to a maximal M-wave and averaged across the three superficial heads of the quadriceps, at MVF and between 0-50, 0-100 and 0-150 ms during the explosive contractions. Results Improvements in MVF were significantly greater (P < 0.001) following MST (+21 +/- 12 %) than EST (+11 +/- 7 %), which appeared due to a twofold greater increase in EMG at MVF following MST. In contrast, early phase explosive force (at 100 ms) increased following EST (+16 +/- 14 %), but not MST, resulting in a time x group interaction effect (P = 0.03), which appeared due to a greater increase in EMG during the early phase (first 50 ms) of explosive contractions following EST (P = 0.052). Conclusions These results provide evidence for distinct neuromuscular adaptations after MST vs. EST that are specific to the training stimulus, and demonstrate the independent adaptability of maximal and explosive strength.

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