可变阻力训练(VRT)和恒定阻力训练(CRT)对神经肌肉性能的急性影响仍然模棱两可。我们的目标是确定VRT和CRT在力方面的差异,速度,和权力结果。
我们搜索了PubMed,WebofScience,和SPORTDiscus电子数据库的文章,直到2021年6月。交叉设计研究比较力,速度,包括进行VRT和CRT时的功率结果。两名评审员独立应用CochraneCollaboration工具的修改版本来评估偏差风险。使用三级随机效应荟萃分析和荟萃回归来计算标准化平均差(SMD)和95%置信区间。
我们纳入了16项研究,其中207名参与者参与了定量合成。根据汇总的结果,VRT产生了更大的平均速度(SMD=0.675;建议评估的中等等级,开发和评估(等级)质量证据)和平均功率(SMD=1.022;低)比CRT。亚组分析显示,VRT显着提高了相等加载方案中的平均速度(SMD=0.903;中等)和平均功率(SMD=1.456;中等),以及CRT较高加载方案中的平均速度(SMD=0.712;低)。然而,在VRT较高负载方案中,VRT略微显着降低了峰值速度(SMD=-0.481;低)。基于荟萃回归分析,发现平均功率(p=0.014-0.043)受到可变电阻和峰值速度(p=0.018)的正向调节,峰值功率(p=0.001-0.004)和RFD(p=0.003)受到可变电阻设备的正向调节,有利于松紧带。
VRT为从业者提供了强调特定力的手段,速度,和权力结果。不同的策略应该根据个人的需求来考虑。系统审查注册:PROSPEROCRD42021259205。
Acute effects of variable resistance training (VRT) and constant resistance training (CRT) on neuromuscular performance are still equivocal. We aimed to determine the differences between VRT and CRT in terms of force, velocity, and power outcomes.
We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus electronic databases for articles until June 2021. Crossover design studies comparing force, velocity, and power outcomes while performing VRT and CRT were included. Two reviewers independently applied the modified version of the Cochrane Collaboration\'s tool to assess the risk of bias. A three-level random effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were used to compute standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals.
We included 16 studies with 207 participants in the quantitative synthesis. Based on the pooled results, VRT generated greater mean velocity (SMD = 0.675; moderate Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) quality evidence) and mean power (SMD = 1.022; low) than CRT. Subgroup analyses revealed that VRT considerably increased the mean velocity (SMD = 0.903; moderate) and mean power (SMD = 1.456; moderate) in the equated loading scheme and the mean velocity (SMD = 0.712; low) in the CRT higher loading scheme. However, VRT marginally significantly reduced peak velocity (SMD = -0.481; low) in the VRT higher loading scheme. Based on the meta-regression analysis, it was found that mean power (p = 0.014-0.043) was positively moderated by the contribution of variable resistance and peak velocity (p = 0.018) and peak power (p = 0.001-0.004) and RFD (p = 0.003) were positively moderated by variable resistance equipment, favoring elastic bands.
VRT provides practitioners with the means of emphasizing specific force, velocity, and power outcomes. Different strategies should be considered in context of an individual\'s needs. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021259205.