Cargando…

Heavy Resistance Training in Hypoxia Enhances 1RM Squat Performance

Purpose: To determine if heavy resistance training in hypoxia (IHRT) is more effective at improving strength, power, and increasing lean mass than the same training in normoxia. Methods: A pair-matched, placebo-controlled study design included 20 resistance-trained participants assigned to IHRT (FIO...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Inness, Mathew W. H., Billaut, François, Walker, Emily J., Petersen, Aaron C., Sweeting, Alice J., Aughey, Robert J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5093137/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27857693
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2016.00502
_version_ 1782464853922807808
author Inness, Mathew W. H.
Billaut, François
Walker, Emily J.
Petersen, Aaron C.
Sweeting, Alice J.
Aughey, Robert J.
author_facet Inness, Mathew W. H.
Billaut, François
Walker, Emily J.
Petersen, Aaron C.
Sweeting, Alice J.
Aughey, Robert J.
author_sort Inness, Mathew W. H.
collection PubMed
description Purpose: To determine if heavy resistance training in hypoxia (IHRT) is more effective at improving strength, power, and increasing lean mass than the same training in normoxia. Methods: A pair-matched, placebo-controlled study design included 20 resistance-trained participants assigned to IHRT (FIO2 0.143) or placebo (FIO2 0.20), (n = 10 per group). Participants were matched for strength and training. Both groups performed 20 sessions over 7 weeks either with IHRT or placebo. All participants were tested for 1RM, 20-m sprint, body composition, and countermovement jump pre-, mid-, and post-training and compared via magnitude-based inferences. Presentation of Results: Groups were not clearly different for any test at baseline. Training improved both absolute (IHRT: 13.1 ± 3.9%, effect size (ES) 0.60, placebo 9.8 ± 4.7%, ES 0.31) and relative 1RM (IHRT: 13.4 ± 5.1%, ES 0.76, placebo 9.7 ± 5.3%, ES 0.48) at mid. Similarly, at post both groups increased absolute (IHRT: 20.7 ± 7.6%, ES 0.74, placebo 14.1 ± 6.0%, ES 0.58) and relative 1RM (IHRT: 21.6 ± 8.5%, ES 1.08, placebo 13.2 ± 6.4%, ES 0.78). Importantly, the change in IHRT was greater than placebo at mid for both absolute [4.4% greater change, 90% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.0:8.0%, ES 0.21, and relative strength (5.6% greater change, 90% CI 1.0:9.4%, ES 0.31 (relative)]. There was also a greater change for IHRT at post for both absolute (7.0% greater change, 90% CI 1.3:13%, ES 0.33), and relative 1RM (9.2% greater change, 90% CI 1.6:14.9%, ES 0.49). Only IHRT increased countermovement jump peak power at Post (4.9%, ES 0.35), however the difference between IHRT and placebo was unclear (2.7, 90% CI –2.0:7.6%, ES 0.20) with no clear differences in speed or body composition throughout. Conclusion: Heavy resistance training in hypoxia is more effective than placebo for improving absolute and relative strength.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5093137
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50931372016-11-17 Heavy Resistance Training in Hypoxia Enhances 1RM Squat Performance Inness, Mathew W. H. Billaut, François Walker, Emily J. Petersen, Aaron C. Sweeting, Alice J. Aughey, Robert J. Front Physiol Physiology Purpose: To determine if heavy resistance training in hypoxia (IHRT) is more effective at improving strength, power, and increasing lean mass than the same training in normoxia. Methods: A pair-matched, placebo-controlled study design included 20 resistance-trained participants assigned to IHRT (FIO2 0.143) or placebo (FIO2 0.20), (n = 10 per group). Participants were matched for strength and training. Both groups performed 20 sessions over 7 weeks either with IHRT or placebo. All participants were tested for 1RM, 20-m sprint, body composition, and countermovement jump pre-, mid-, and post-training and compared via magnitude-based inferences. Presentation of Results: Groups were not clearly different for any test at baseline. Training improved both absolute (IHRT: 13.1 ± 3.9%, effect size (ES) 0.60, placebo 9.8 ± 4.7%, ES 0.31) and relative 1RM (IHRT: 13.4 ± 5.1%, ES 0.76, placebo 9.7 ± 5.3%, ES 0.48) at mid. Similarly, at post both groups increased absolute (IHRT: 20.7 ± 7.6%, ES 0.74, placebo 14.1 ± 6.0%, ES 0.58) and relative 1RM (IHRT: 21.6 ± 8.5%, ES 1.08, placebo 13.2 ± 6.4%, ES 0.78). Importantly, the change in IHRT was greater than placebo at mid for both absolute [4.4% greater change, 90% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.0:8.0%, ES 0.21, and relative strength (5.6% greater change, 90% CI 1.0:9.4%, ES 0.31 (relative)]. There was also a greater change for IHRT at post for both absolute (7.0% greater change, 90% CI 1.3:13%, ES 0.33), and relative 1RM (9.2% greater change, 90% CI 1.6:14.9%, ES 0.49). Only IHRT increased countermovement jump peak power at Post (4.9%, ES 0.35), however the difference between IHRT and placebo was unclear (2.7, 90% CI –2.0:7.6%, ES 0.20) with no clear differences in speed or body composition throughout. Conclusion: Heavy resistance training in hypoxia is more effective than placebo for improving absolute and relative strength. Frontiers Media S.A. 2016-11-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5093137/ /pubmed/27857693 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2016.00502 Text en Copyright © 2016 Inness, Billaut, Walker, Petersen, Sweeting and Aughey. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Physiology
Inness, Mathew W. H.
Billaut, François
Walker, Emily J.
Petersen, Aaron C.
Sweeting, Alice J.
Aughey, Robert J.
Heavy Resistance Training in Hypoxia Enhances 1RM Squat Performance
title Heavy Resistance Training in Hypoxia Enhances 1RM Squat Performance
title_full Heavy Resistance Training in Hypoxia Enhances 1RM Squat Performance
title_fullStr Heavy Resistance Training in Hypoxia Enhances 1RM Squat Performance
title_full_unstemmed Heavy Resistance Training in Hypoxia Enhances 1RM Squat Performance
title_short Heavy Resistance Training in Hypoxia Enhances 1RM Squat Performance
title_sort heavy resistance training in hypoxia enhances 1rm squat performance
topic Physiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5093137/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27857693
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2016.00502
work_keys_str_mv AT innessmathewwh heavyresistancetraininginhypoxiaenhances1rmsquatperformance
AT billautfrancois heavyresistancetraininginhypoxiaenhances1rmsquatperformance
AT walkeremilyj heavyresistancetraininginhypoxiaenhances1rmsquatperformance
AT petersenaaronc heavyresistancetraininginhypoxiaenhances1rmsquatperformance
AT sweetingalicej heavyresistancetraininginhypoxiaenhances1rmsquatperformance
AT augheyrobertj heavyresistancetraininginhypoxiaenhances1rmsquatperformance