1 RM

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    最近的研究表明,当每天用小腿肌肉进行5到120分钟的拉伸时,拉伸介导的最大力量显着增加。然而,由于这些长拉伸持续时间的实际适用性受到质疑,探索对上身的可转移性的研究很少,这项研究的目的是研究使用家庭拉伸计划来诱导最大强度和柔韧性显着增加的可能性。因此,31名娱乐活动参与者(干预组:18,对照组:13)伸展胸大肌15分钟/天,持续八周,结合三种不同的伸展运动。在台式压力机(一次重复最大:1RM)以及使用比例尺进行双侧肩部旋转的肩部运动范围(ROM)中等距和动态地测试了最大强度。使用具有重复测量的双向方差分析(ANOVA),结果显示了高幅度的时间效应(²=0.388-0.582,p<0.001)和组*时间相互作用(²=0.281-0.53,p<0.001-0.002),干预组1RM中增加7.4±5.6%,ROM测试中增加9.8±5.0%。在等距测试中,有一个高幅度的时间效应(²=0.271,p=0.003),然而,组*时间相互作用未能达到显著性(p=0.75)。结果与先前的结果显示下肢牵张介导的最大强度增加的结果一致。未来的研究应该解决潜在的生理机制,如肌肉肥大,收缩条件以及指出强度的相关性,训练频率和伸展持续时间。
    Recent research showed significant stretch-mediated maximum strength increases when performing stretching between 5 to 120 minutes per day with the calf muscle. However, since the practical applicability of these long stretching durations was questioned and studies exploring the transferability to the upper body are scarce, the aim of this study was to investigate the possibility of using a home-based stretching program to induce significant increases in maximum strength and flexibility. Therefore, 31 recreationally active participants (intervention group: 18, control group: 13) stretched the pectoralis major for 15min/day for eight weeks, incorporating three different stretching exercises. The maximum strength was tested isometrically and dynamically in the bench press (one-repetition maximum: 1RM) as well as shoulder range of motion (ROM) performing bilateral shoulder rotation with a scaled bar. Using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures, the results showed high magnitude Time effects (ƞ² = 0.388-0.582, p < 0.001) and Group*Time interaction (ƞ² = 0.281-0.53, p < 0.001-0.002), with increases of 7.4 ± 5.6% in 1RM and of 9.8 ± 5.0% in ROM test in the intervention group. In the isometric testing, there was a high-magnitude Time effect (ƞ² = 0.271, p = 0.003), however, the Group*Time interaction failed to reach significance (p = 0.75). The results are in line with previous results that showed stretch-mediated maximum strength increases in the lower extremity. Future research should address the underlying physiological mechanisms such as muscle hypertrophy, contraction conditions as well as pointing out the relevance of intensity, training frequency and stretching duration.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    The aim of the study was to compare the effects of two different training protocols, which differ in the duration of the eccentric phase, on the one-repetition maximum (1RM), thickness and contractile properties of elbow flexors. Twenty untrained college students were randomly divided into two experimental groups, based on the training tempo: FEG (Faster Eccentric Group: 1/0/1/0) and SEG (Slower Eccentric Group: 4/0/1/0). Training intervention was a biceps bending exercise, conducted twice a week for 7 weeks. The intensity (60-70% RM), sets (3-4) and rest intervals (120 s) were held constant, while repetitions were performed until it was not possible to maintain a set duration. In the initial and final measurements, 1RM, muscle thickness and tensiomyography parameters - contraction time (Tc) and radial deformation (Dm) - were evaluated. An ANCOVA model (using baseline outcomes as covariates) was applied to determine between-group differences at post-test, while Pearson\'s product-moment correlation coefficient was used to investigate the relationship between absolute changes in muscle thickness and Dm. Muscle strength increase was greater for SEG than for FEG (6.0 ± 1.76 vs. 3.30 ± 2.26 kg, p < 0.01). In both groups muscle thickness increased equally (FEG: 3.24 ± 2.01 vs. SEG: 3.57 ± 1.17 mm, p < 0.01), while an overall reduction in Dm was observed (FEG: 1.99 ± 1.20 vs. SEG: 2.26 ± 1.03 mm, p < 0.01). Values of Tc remained unchanged. A significant negative relationship was observed between changes in muscle thickness and Dm (r = -0.763, Adj.R² = 0.560, p < 0.01). These results indicate that the duration of the eccentric phase has no effect on muscle hypertrophy in untrained subjects, but that slower eccentric movement significantly increases 1RM.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:这项研究的目的是比较带有线性编码器的PUSH带式设备在俯卧撑和卧推练习中测量不同负载下的运动速度的有效性和可靠性。
    方法:20名受阻力训练的运动员在四种不同的负荷下进行俯卧撑和卧推练习:没有负重背心,10-20-30公斤重量背心,卧床:50-82%的他们假定的1次重复的最大值(1RM)在10公斤的步骤。线性编码器(Musclelab)和PUSH带在两次练习中都测量了平均和峰值速度。使用几种统计分析来研究带有线性编码器的PUSH带的有效性和可靠性。
    结果:这项研究的主要发现表明,在两种运动的平均速度(r=0.62,0.70)和峰值速度(r=0.46,0.49)方面,PUSH波段和线性编码器之间仅有中等关联。此外,在两个测量设备之间观察到良好的一致性(峰值速度:ICC=0.60,0.64;平均速度:ICC=0.77,0.78).然而,在两种练习中,使用PUSH波段测量的速度值均较低,存在显著偏差.在俯卧撑中,线性编码器和PUSH波段都被认为非常可靠(ICC>0.98;变异系数(CV):5.9-7.3%)。PUSH波段的台式压力机可靠性下降(ICC<0.95),速度测量的变异系数增加到(12.8-13.3%)。用两个设备计算的1RM对于俯卧撑是相同的,与线性编码器相比,在台式压力机中,PUSH带低估了1RM14kg。
    结论:得出的结论是,PUSH带将显示出在卧床运动中由于速度测量而降低的可靠性,并低估了基于1RM预测的负载速度。为了培训,PUSH波段可以在俯卧撑期间使用,然而,当使用该设备时,建议在增加负荷的情况下在卧推机上进行反馈。
    BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the validity and reliability of a PUSH band device with a linear encoder to measure movement velocity with different loads during the push-up and bench press exercises.
    METHODS: Twenty resistance-trained athletes performed push-up and bench press exercises with four different loads: without weight vest, 10-20-30 kg weight vest, bench press: 50-82% of their assumed 1 repetition maximum (1 RM) in steps of 10 kg. A linear encoder (Musclelab) and the PUSH band measured mean and peak velocity during both exercises. Several statistical analyses were used to investigate the validity and reliability of the PUSH band with the linear encoder.
    RESULTS: The main findings of this study demonstrated only moderate associations between the PUSH band and linear encoder for mean velocity (r = 0.62, 0.70) and peak velocity (r = 0.46, 0.49) for both exercises. Furthermore, a good level of agreement (peak velocity: ICC = 0.60, 0.64; mean velocity: ICC = 0.77, 0.78) was observed between the two measurement devices. However, a significant bias was found with lower velocity values measured with the PUSH band in both exercises. In the push-up, both the linear encoder and PUSH band were deemed very reliable (ICC > 0.98; the coefficient of variation (CV): 5.9-7.3%). Bench press reliability decreased for the PUSH band (ICC < 0.95), and the coefficient of variance increased to (12.8-13.3%) for the velocity measures. Calculated 1 RM with the two devices was the same for the push-up, while in bench press the PUSH band under-estimated the 1 RM by 14 kg compared to the linear encoder.
    CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that the PUSH band will show decreased reliability from velocity measures in a bench press exercise and underestimate load-velocity based 1 RM predictions. For training, the PUSH band can be used during push-ups, however caution is suggested when using the device for the purposes of feedback in bench press at increasing loads.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    A group of 7 subjects underwent an experimental procedure which studied the potential changes in the maximal strength of the non-dominant arm elbow flexors. The programme duration was limited to 6 weeks during which the subjects practiced exercises 3 times a week, 3 series, on a Scott bench. Individual approach was applied to the external load and it was designed so that the weight being lifted would increase if the number of lifts in one series would exceed 3. The subjects were monitored through the one-repetition maximum 1 RM motor test and the isokinetic tests performed on biodex system, tested in 3 time periods (at the beginning, after 3 weeks, and after the 6th week). Of the 6 isokinetic tests, only the test for the maximum torque and the time for achieving the maximum torque have shown statistically important changes in terms of reduction in values, which was not expected. The one-repetition maximum test, unlike the isokinetic tests, has shown statistically important increase of the maximal muscle strength of 32.1% after the third week of exercising, and 46.8% after the six weeks of exercising. The statistical test for the correlation between the two variables has shown low correlation between these two tests. The values of the data of the two test types have not shown any correspondence among the subjects possibly due to the type of performance of the maximal muscle load during exercises, performed in conditions identical to the one-repetition maximum test, with similar and yet different conditions in the case of isokinetic tests. Most probably, due to the conditions in which the exercises and the tests took place, there is difference in the obtained results.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

公众号