Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: Kotikangas, J, Walker, S, Peltonen, H, and Häkkinen, K. Time course of neuromuscular fatigue during different resistance exercise loadings in power athletes, strength athletes, and nonathletes. J Strength Cond Res 38(7): 1231-1242, 2024-Training background may affect the progression of fatigue and neuromuscular strategies to compensate for fatigue during resistance exercises. Thus, our aim was to examine how training background affects the time course of neuromuscular fatigue in response to different resistance exercises. Power athletes (PA, n = 8), strength athletes (SA, n = 8), and nonathletes (NA, n = 7) performed hypertrophic loading (HL, 5 × 10 × 10RM), maximal strength loadings (MSL, 7 × 3 × 3RM) and power loadings (PL, 7 × 6 × 50% of 1 repetition maximum) in back squat. Average power (AP), average velocity (VEL), surface electromyography (sEMG) amplitude (sEMGRMS), and sEMG mean power frequency (sEMGMPF) were measured within all loading sets. During PL, greater decreases in AP occurred from the beginning of SET1 to SET7 and in VEL to both SET4 and SET7 in NA compared with SA (p < 0.01, g > 1.84). During HL, there were various significant group × repetition interactions in AP within and between sets (p < 0.05, ηp2 > 0.307), but post hoc tests did not indicate significant differences between the groups (p > 0.05, g = 0.01-0.93). During MSL and HL, significant within-set and between-set decreases occurred in AP (p < 0.001, ηp2 > 0.701) and VEL (p < 0.001, ηp2 > 0.748) concurrently with increases in sEMGRMS (p < 0.01, ηp2 > 0.323) and decreases in sEMGMPF (p < 0.01, ηp2 > 0.242) in all groups. In conclusion, SA showed fatigue resistance by maintaining higher AP and VEL throughout PL. During HL, PA tended to have the greatest initial fatigue response in AP, but between-group comparisons were nonsignificant despite large effect sizes (g > 0.8). The differences in the progression of neuromuscular fatigue may be related to differing neural activation strategies between the groups, but further research confirmation is required.
摘要：
■Kotikangas,J,沃克,S,Peltonen,H,和哈基宁,K.力量运动员在不同阻力运动负荷下神经肌肉疲劳的时间过程，实力运动员,非运动员。J力量CondRes38（7）：1231-1242，2024-训练背景可能会影响疲劳和神经肌肉策略的进展，以补偿抗阻运动中的疲劳。因此，我们的目的是研究训练背景如何影响神经肌肉疲劳的时程，以响应不同的阻力运动。力量运动员（PA，n=8),力量运动员（SA，n=8),和非运动员(NA，n=7)进行肥大负荷(HL，5×10×10RM)，最大强度载荷(MSL，7×3×3RM)和功率负载(PL，1次重复的最大7×6×50％）。平均功率(AP),平均速度（VEL），表面肌电图（sEMG）振幅（sEMGRMS），和sEMG平均功率频率（sEMGMPF）在所有负载集中进行测量。在PL期间，与SA相比，NA中从SET1开始到SET7以及VEL到SET4和SET7的AP下降幅度更大（p<0.01，g>1.84）。HL期间,在集合内和集合之间，AP有各种显著的群体×重复相互作用(p<0.05，ηp2>0.307)，但事后检验显示两组间无显著差异(p>0.05,g=0.01-0.93).在MSL和HL期间，AP（p<0.001，ηp2>0.701）和VEL（p<0.001，ηp2>0.748）发生了显着的集合内和集合间降低，同时sEMGRMS（p<0.01，ηp2>0.323）和sEMGMPF降低（p<0.01，ηp2>0.242）。总之,SA通过在整个PL中保持较高的AP和VEL而表现出抗疲劳性。HL期间,PA倾向于在AP中具有最大的初始疲劳反应，但组间比较并不显著,尽管效应大小较大(g>0.8).神经肌肉疲劳进展的差异可能与组间不同的神经激活策略有关。但需要进一步的研究确认。
