Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the interference effects of various resistance-training (RT) protocols on rowing ergometer performance.
METHODS: Fourteen semiprofessional male rowers randomly completed 5 protocols in separate sessions: (1) control-no RT session was performed, (2) upper-body high-fatigue-4 sets to failure during the bench pull exercise, (3) upper-body low-fatigue-4 sets of 6 repetitions during the bench pull exercise, (4) lower-body high-fatigue-4 sets to failure during the leg-press exercise, and (5) lower-body low-fatigue-4 sets of 6 repetitions during the leg-press exercise. All sets were performed against the 12-repetition-maximum load with 2 minutes of interset rest. Following the completion of the protocols, subjects performed an all-out 1000-m rowing ergometer test.
RESULTS: Compared with the control condition, rowing ergometer performance was not significantly affected after the low-fatigue RT protocols (upper body: P ≥ .487; Δ = 0.0%-0.2%; lower body: P ≥ .200; Δ = -0.2%-0.5%), while it significantly declined following high-fatigue RT protocols (upper body: P ≤ .001; Δ = 1.0%-2.0%; lower body: P ≤ .002; Δ = 2.1%-2.5%). The average heart rate was significantly lower for the control condition compared with all RT protocols (P ≤ .043; Δ = 1.0%-1.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: To minimize interference on rowing performance, coaches should prioritize the level of effort in RT protocols over specific exercises, specifically avoiding high-fatigue protocols that lead to failure before rowing practice.
METHODS: Fourteen semiprofessional male rowers randomly completed 5 protocols in separate sessions: (1) control-no RT session was performed, (2) upper-body high-fatigue-4 sets to failure during the bench pull exercise, (3) upper-body low-fatigue-4 sets of 6 repetitions during the bench pull exercise, (4) lower-body high-fatigue-4 sets to failure during the leg-press exercise, and (5) lower-body low-fatigue-4 sets of 6 repetitions during the leg-press exercise. All sets were performed against the 12-repetition-maximum load with 2 minutes of interset rest. Following the completion of the protocols, subjects performed an all-out 1000-m rowing ergometer test.
RESULTS: Compared with the control condition, rowing ergometer performance was not significantly affected after the low-fatigue RT protocols (upper body: P ≥ .487; Δ = 0.0%-0.2%; lower body: P ≥ .200; Δ = -0.2%-0.5%), while it significantly declined following high-fatigue RT protocols (upper body: P ≤ .001; Δ = 1.0%-2.0%; lower body: P ≤ .002; Δ = 2.1%-2.5%). The average heart rate was significantly lower for the control condition compared with all RT protocols (P ≤ .043; Δ = 1.0%-1.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: To minimize interference on rowing performance, coaches should prioritize the level of effort in RT protocols over specific exercises, specifically avoiding high-fatigue protocols that lead to failure before rowing practice.
摘要：
目的：评估各种阻力训练（RT）方案对赛艇测功机性能的干扰作用。
方法：十四名半职业男性赛艇运动员在单独的会议中随机完成5个方案：（1）进行对照-不进行RT会议，(2)上半身高疲劳——4套在长凳拉运动中失效，（3）上身低疲劳-在板凳拉运动中进行4组6次重复，（4）下半身高疲劳-4套在压腿运动中失败，（5）下半身低疲劳-在压腿运动中进行4组6次重复。所有组均针对12次重复最大负荷进行，并进行2分钟的间歇休息。协议完成后，受试者进行了1000米赛艇测功机测试。
结果：与对照条件相比，低疲劳RT协议后，赛艇测功机性能没有显着影响（上身：P≥.487；Δ=0.0％-0.2％；下身：P≥.200；Δ=-0.2％-0.5％），而在高疲劳RT方案下，它显着下降（上身：P≤.001；Δ=1.0％-2.0％；下身：P≤.002；Δ=2.1％-2.5％）。与所有RT方案相比，对照组的平均心率显着降低（P≤.043；Δ=1.0％-1.5％）。
结论：为了最大程度地减少对划船性能的干扰，教练应该优先考虑RT协议中的努力水平，而不是具体的练习，特别是避免在划船练习前导致失败的高疲劳方案。
方法：十四名半职业男性赛艇运动员在单独的会议中随机完成5个方案：（1）进行对照-不进行RT会议，(2)上半身高疲劳——4套在长凳拉运动中失效，（3）上身低疲劳-在板凳拉运动中进行4组6次重复，（4）下半身高疲劳-4套在压腿运动中失败，（5）下半身低疲劳-在压腿运动中进行4组6次重复。所有组均针对12次重复最大负荷进行，并进行2分钟的间歇休息。协议完成后，受试者进行了1000米赛艇测功机测试。
结果：与对照条件相比，低疲劳RT协议后，赛艇测功机性能没有显着影响（上身：P≥.487；Δ=0.0％-0.2％；下身：P≥.200；Δ=-0.2％-0.5％），而在高疲劳RT方案下，它显着下降（上身：P≤.001；Δ=1.0％-2.0％；下身：P≤.002；Δ=2.1％-2.5％）。与所有RT方案相比，对照组的平均心率显着降低（P≤.043；Δ=1.0％-1.5％）。
结论：为了最大程度地减少对划船性能的干扰，教练应该优先考虑RT协议中的努力水平，而不是具体的练习，特别是避免在划船练习前导致失败的高疲劳方案。
