The effects of training with loads that maximise power output and individualised repetitions vs. traditional power training

BackgroundIt has been suggested that strength training effects (i.e. neural or structural) vary, depending on the total repetitions performed and velocity loss in each training set.PurposeThe aim of this study is to compare the effects of two training programmes (i.e. one with loads that maximise power output and individualised repetitions, and the other following traditional power training).MethodsTwenty-five males were divided into three groups (optimum power [OP = 10], traditional training [TT = 9] and control group [CG = 6]). The training load used for OP was individualised using loads that maximised power output (41.7% ± 5.8 of one repetition maximum [1RM]) and repetitions at maximum power (4 to 9 repetitions, or ‘reps’). Volume (sets x repetitions) was the same for both experimental groups, while intensity for TT was that needed to perform only 50% of the maximum number of possible repetitions (i.e. 61.1%–66.6% of 1RM). The training programme ran over 11 weeks (2 sessions per week; 4–5 sets per session; 3-minute rests between sets), with pre-, intermediate and post-tests which included: anthropometry, 1RM, peak power output (PPO) with 30%, 40% and 50% of 1RM in the bench press throw, and salivary testosterone (ST) and cortisol (SC) concentrations. Rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and power output were recorded in all sessions.ResultsFollowing the intermediate test, PPO was increased in the OP group for each load (10.9%–13.2%). Following the post-test, both experimental groups had increased 1RM (11.8%–13.8%) and PPO for each load (14.1%–19.6%). Significant decreases in PPO were found for the TT group during all sets (4.9%–15.4%), along with significantly higher RPE (37%).ConclusionOP appears to be a more efficient method of training, with less neuromuscular fatigue and lower RPE.研究背景：已有研究表明，力量训练的效果（即神经或结构层面的适应性变化）会因单次训练组的总重复次数与速度损失程度而异。 研究目的：本研究旨在对比两种力量训练方案的训练效果，其一采用最大化功率输出的负荷与个体化重复次数，其二遵循传统力量训练模式。 研究方法：本研究纳入25名男性受试者，分为三组：最优功率组（OP，n=10）、传统训练组（TT，n=9）与对照组（CG，n=6）。最优功率组的训练负荷采用个体化设定：以最大化功率输出的负荷为基准（为单次最大重复重量（one repetition maximum，1RM）的41.7%±5.8%），并采用该负荷下可达到最大功率的重复次数（4~9次，简称“次数”）。两组实验组的训练总负荷量（训练组数×每组重复次数）保持一致；传统训练组的训练强度设定为仅能完成最大可能重复次数50%的负荷，即1RM的61.1%~66.6%。本训练方案周期为11周，每周训练2次，每次完成4~5组训练，组间休息3分钟。测试分为前测、中期测试与后测，测试内容包括：人体测量学指标、1RM测试、以1RM的30%、40%、50%负荷进行卧推抛举（bench press throw）时的峰值功率输出（peak power output，PPO），以及唾液睾酮（salivary testosterone，ST）与唾液皮质醇（cortisol，SC）浓度。所有训练课次均记录主观疲劳自觉评分（Rate of perceived exertion，RPE）与功率输出数据。 研究结果：中期测试后，最优功率组各负荷下的峰值功率输出均显著提升（提升幅度10.9%~13.2%）。后测结果显示，两组实验组的1RM与各负荷下的峰值功率输出均显著提升：1RM提升幅度为11.8%~13.8%，峰值功率输出提升幅度为14.1%~19.6%。而传统训练组在所有训练组中，峰值功率输出均出现显著下降（下降幅度4.9%~15.4%），且主观疲劳自觉评分显著升高37%。 研究结论：最优功率训练（OP）是一种更高效的训练方式，其引发的神经肌肉疲劳程度更低，主观疲劳自觉评分也更低。