Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Although the superior effectiveness of free-weight over machine-based training has been a traditionally widespread assumption, longitudinal studies comparing these training modalities were scarce and heterogeneous.
OBJECTIVE: This research used the velocity-based method to compare the effects of free-weight and machine-based resistance training on athletic performance and muscle architecture.
METHODS: Thirty-four resistance-trained men participated in an 8-week resistance training program allocated into free-weight (n = 17) or machine-based (n = 17) groups. Training variables (intensity, intraset fatigue, and recovery) were identical for both groups, so they only differed in the use of a barbell or specific machines to execute the full squat, bench press, prone bench pull, and shoulder press exercises. The velocity-based method was implemented to accurately adjust the planned intensity. Analysis of covariance and effect size (ES) statistics were used to compare both training modalities on a comprehensive set of athletic and muscle architecture parameters.
RESULTS: No between-group differences were found for any athletic (p ≥ 0.146) and muscle architecture (p ≥ 0.184) variable. Both training modalities significantly and similarly improved vertical jump (Free-weight: ES ≥ 0.45, p ≤ 0.001; Machine-based: ES ≥ 0.41, p ≤ 0.001) and lower limb anaerobic capacity (Free-weight: ES ≥ 0.39, p ≤ 0.007; Machine-based: ES ≥ 0.31, p ≤ 0.003). Additionally, the machine-based group meaningfully enhanced upper limb anaerobic power (ES = 0.41, p = 0.021), whereas the free-weight group significantly improved the change of direction (ES = -0.54, p = 0.003) and 2/6 balance conditions analyzed (p ≤ 0.012). Changes in sprint capacity (ES ≥ -0.13, p ≥ 0.274), fascicle length, and pennation angle (ES ≤ 0.19, p ≥ 0.129) were not significant for either training modality.
CONCLUSIONS: Adaptations in athletic performance and muscle architecture would not be meaningfully influenced by the resistance modality trained.
OBJECTIVE: This research used the velocity-based method to compare the effects of free-weight and machine-based resistance training on athletic performance and muscle architecture.
METHODS: Thirty-four resistance-trained men participated in an 8-week resistance training program allocated into free-weight (n = 17) or machine-based (n = 17) groups. Training variables (intensity, intraset fatigue, and recovery) were identical for both groups, so they only differed in the use of a barbell or specific machines to execute the full squat, bench press, prone bench pull, and shoulder press exercises. The velocity-based method was implemented to accurately adjust the planned intensity. Analysis of covariance and effect size (ES) statistics were used to compare both training modalities on a comprehensive set of athletic and muscle architecture parameters.
RESULTS: No between-group differences were found for any athletic (p ≥ 0.146) and muscle architecture (p ≥ 0.184) variable. Both training modalities significantly and similarly improved vertical jump (Free-weight: ES ≥ 0.45, p ≤ 0.001; Machine-based: ES ≥ 0.41, p ≤ 0.001) and lower limb anaerobic capacity (Free-weight: ES ≥ 0.39, p ≤ 0.007; Machine-based: ES ≥ 0.31, p ≤ 0.003). Additionally, the machine-based group meaningfully enhanced upper limb anaerobic power (ES = 0.41, p = 0.021), whereas the free-weight group significantly improved the change of direction (ES = -0.54, p = 0.003) and 2/6 balance conditions analyzed (p ≤ 0.012). Changes in sprint capacity (ES ≥ -0.13, p ≥ 0.274), fascicle length, and pennation angle (ES ≤ 0.19, p ≥ 0.129) were not significant for either training modality.
CONCLUSIONS: Adaptations in athletic performance and muscle architecture would not be meaningfully influenced by the resistance modality trained.
摘要：
背景：尽管自由重量训练优于机器训练的有效性一直是传统上普遍的假设，比较这些训练方式的纵向研究是稀缺和异质的。
目的：这项研究使用基于速度的方法来比较自由重量和基于机器的阻力训练对运动表现和肌肉结构的影响。
方法：34名接受阻力训练的男性参加了为期8周的阻力训练计划，分为自由体重（n=17）或基于机器的（n=17）组。训练变量(强度，内部疲劳,和恢复）两组相同，所以他们只在使用杠铃或特定机器来执行全蹲时有所不同，台式压力机,俯卧拉,和肩部按压练习。实现了基于速度的方法，以准确地调整计划强度。使用协方差和效应大小（ES）统计量的分析来比较两种训练方式的综合运动和肌肉结构参数。
结果：没有发现任何运动（p≥0.146）和肌肉结构（p≥0.184）变量的组间差异。两种训练方式均显着且相似地改善了垂直跳跃（自由体重：ES≥0.45，p≤0.001；基于机器的：ES≥0.41，p≤0.001）和下肢无氧能力（自由体重：ES≥0.39，p≤0.007；基于机器的：ES≥0.31，p≤0.003）。此外,基于机器的小组有意义地增强了上肢无氧能力（ES=0.41，p=0.021），而自由体重组显着改善了方向的变化（ES=-0.54，p=0.003）和分析的2/6平衡条件（p≤0.012）。冲刺能力的变化（ES≥-0.13，p≥0.274），束长,两种训练方式的训练角度（ES≤0.19，p≥0.129）均不显着。
结论：运动表现和肌肉结构的适应不会受到训练的阻力模式的有意义影响。
目的：这项研究使用基于速度的方法来比较自由重量和基于机器的阻力训练对运动表现和肌肉结构的影响。
方法：34名接受阻力训练的男性参加了为期8周的阻力训练计划，分为自由体重（n=17）或基于机器的（n=17）组。训练变量(强度，内部疲劳,和恢复）两组相同，所以他们只在使用杠铃或特定机器来执行全蹲时有所不同，台式压力机,俯卧拉,和肩部按压练习。实现了基于速度的方法，以准确地调整计划强度。使用协方差和效应大小（ES）统计量的分析来比较两种训练方式的综合运动和肌肉结构参数。
结果：没有发现任何运动（p≥0.146）和肌肉结构（p≥0.184）变量的组间差异。两种训练方式均显着且相似地改善了垂直跳跃（自由体重：ES≥0.45，p≤0.001；基于机器的：ES≥0.41，p≤0.001）和下肢无氧能力（自由体重：ES≥0.39，p≤0.007；基于机器的：ES≥0.31，p≤0.003）。此外,基于机器的小组有意义地增强了上肢无氧能力（ES=0.41，p=0.021），而自由体重组显着改善了方向的变化（ES=-0.54，p=0.003）和分析的2/6平衡条件（p≤0.012）。冲刺能力的变化（ES≥-0.13，p≥0.274），束长,两种训练方式的训练角度（ES≤0.19，p≥0.129）均不显着。
结论：运动表现和肌肉结构的适应不会受到训练的阻力模式的有意义影响。
