Sports Medicine ( IF 9.3 ) Pub Date : 2022-07-05 , DOI: 10.1007/s40279-022-01717-9 James Steele 1 , Tomer Malleron 2, 3 , Itai Har-Nir 2, 3 , Patroklos Androulakis-Korakakis 1 , Milo Wolf 1 , James P Fisher 1 , Israel Halperin 2, 3
|
Background
Traditionally, the loads in resistance training are prescribed as a percentage of the heaviest load that can be successfully lifted once (i.e., 1 Repetition Maximum [1RM]). An alternative approach is to allow trainees to self-select the training loads. The latter approach has benefits, such as allowing trainees to exercise according to their preferences and negating the need for periodic 1RM tests. However, in order to better understand the utility of the self-selected load prescription approach, there is a need to examine what loads trainees select when given the option to do so.
Objective
Examine what loads trainees self-select in resistance training sessions as a percentage of their 1RM.
Design
Scoping review and exploratory meta-analysis.
Search and Inclusion
We conducted a systematic literature search with PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar in September 2021. We included studies that (1) were published in English in a peer-reviewed journal or as a MSc or Ph.D. thesis; (2) had healthy trainees complete at least one resistance-training session, composed of at least one set of one exercise in which they selected the loads; (3) trainees completed a 1RM test for the exercises that they selected the loads for. Eighteen studies were included in our main meta-analysis model with 368 participants.
Results
Our main model indicated that on average participants select loads equal to 53% of their 1RM (95% credible interval [CI] 49–58%). There was little moderating effect of training experience, age, sex, timing of the 1RM test (before or after the selected load RT session), number of sets, number of repetitions, and lower versus upper body exercises. Participants did tend to select heavier loads when prescribed lower repetitions, and vice versa (logit(yi) = − 0.09 [95% CI − 0.16 to − 0.03]). Note that in most of the analyzed studies, participants received vague instructions regarding how to select the loads, and only completed a single session with the self-selected loads.
Conclusions
Participants selected loads equal to an average of 53% of 1RM across exercises. Lifting such a load coupled with a low-medium number of repetitions (e.g., 5–15) can sufficiently stimulate hypertrophy and increase maximal strength for novices but may not apply for more advanced trainees. Lifting such a load coupled with a higher number of repetitions and approaching or reaching task failure can be sufficient for muscle hypertrophy, but less so for maximal strength development, regardless of trainees' experience. The self-selected load prescription approach may bypass certain limitations of the traditional approach, but requires thought and further research regarding how, for what purposes, and with which populations it should be implemented.
中文翻译：
受训者的举重是否足够？抵抗运动中的自选负荷：范围界定审查和探索性荟萃分析
背景
传统上，阻力训练中的负荷被规定为可以成功举起一次的最重负荷的百分比（即，1 次最大重复 [1RM]）。另一种方法是让受训者自行选择训练负荷。后一种方法有好处，例如允许受训者根据自己的喜好进行锻炼，并且不需要定期进行 1RM 测试。然而，为了更好地理解自选负荷处方方法的效用，有必要检查受训人员在可以选择的情况下选择的负荷。
客观的
检查受训者在阻力训练课程中自行选择的负荷占其 1RM 的百分比。
设计
范围界定审查和探索性荟萃分析。
搜索和收录
我们于 2021 年 9 月使用 PubMed、Web of Science 和 Google Scholar 进行了系统的文献检索。我们纳入了以下研究：(1) 在同行评审期刊上以英文发表或以硕士或博士的身份发表。论文; (2) 让健康的受训者完成至少一次阻力训练，包括至少一组他们选择负荷的练习；(3) 受训者针对他们为其选择负载的练习完成了 1RM 测试。我们的主要荟萃分析模型中包含 18 项研究，共有 368 名参与者。
结果
我们的主要模型表明，平均而言，参与者选择的负荷等于其 1RM 的 53%（95% 可信区间 [CI] 49–58%）。训练经验、年龄、性别、1RM 测试的时间（在选定的负荷 RT 会话之前或之后）、组数、重复次数以及下肢和上肢锻炼几乎没有调节作用。当指定较低的重复次数时，参与者确实倾向于选择较重的负荷，反之亦然（logit(yi) = − 0.09 [95% CI − 0.16 至 − 0.03]）。请注意，在大多数分析研究中，参与者收到了关于如何选择负载的模糊说明，并且只完成了一次使用自选负载的会话。
结论
参与者在整个练习中选择的负荷平均为 1RM 的 53%。举起这样的负荷加上中低次数的重复（例如，5-15 次）可以充分刺激肌肉肥大并增加新手的最大力量，但可能不适用于更高级的受训者。举起这样的负荷加上更多的重复次数以及接近或达到任务失败可能足以使肌肉肥大，但对于最大力量发展而言则不够，无论受训者的经验如何。自选负荷处方方法可能会绕过传统方法的某些局限性，但需要思考和进一步研究应该如何实施、为了什么目的以及针对哪些人群实施。
京公网安备 11010802027423号