Cargando…

Time Course of Recovery Following Resistance Exercise with Different Loading Magnitudes and Velocity Loss in the Set

The aim of this study was to compare the time course of recovery following four different resistance exercise protocols in terms of loading magnitude (60% vs. 80% 1RM—one-repetition maximum) and velocity loss in the set (20% vs. 40%). Seventeen males performed four different protocols in full squat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pareja-Blanco, Fernando, Villalba-Fernández, Antonio, Cornejo-Daza, Pedro J., Sánchez-Valdepeñas, Juan, González-Badillo, Juan José
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6473797/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30836680
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/sports7030059
_version_ 1783412509979443200
author Pareja-Blanco, Fernando
Villalba-Fernández, Antonio
Cornejo-Daza, Pedro J.
Sánchez-Valdepeñas, Juan
González-Badillo, Juan José
author_facet Pareja-Blanco, Fernando
Villalba-Fernández, Antonio
Cornejo-Daza, Pedro J.
Sánchez-Valdepeñas, Juan
González-Badillo, Juan José
author_sort Pareja-Blanco, Fernando
collection PubMed
description The aim of this study was to compare the time course of recovery following four different resistance exercise protocols in terms of loading magnitude (60% vs. 80% 1RM—one-repetition maximum) and velocity loss in the set (20% vs. 40%). Seventeen males performed four different protocols in full squat exercise, which were as follows: (1) 60% 1RM with a velocity loss of 20% (60-20), (2) 60% 1RM with a velocity loss of 40% (60-40), (3) 80% 1RM with a velocity loss of 20% (80-20), and (4) 80% 1RM with a velocity loss of 40% (80-40). Movement velocity against the load that elicited a 1 m·s(−1) velocity at baseline measurements (V(1)-load), countermovement jump (CMJ) height, and sprint time at 20 m (T20) were assessed at Pre, Post, 6 h-Post, 24 h-Post, and 48 h-Post. Impairments in V(1)-load were significantly higher for 60-40 than other protocols at Post (p < 0.05). The 60-20 and 80-40 protocols exhibited significant performance impairments for V(1)-load at 6 h-Post and 24 h-Post, respectively (p < 0.05). CMJ height remained decreased for 60-20 and 60-40 until 24 h-Post (p < 0.001–0.05). Regarding T20, the 80-40 protocol resulted in higher performance than 60-40 at 24 h-Post and the 80-20 protocol induced a greater performance than 60-40 protocol at 48 h-Post (p < 0.05). A higher velocity loss during the set (40%) and a lower relative load (60% 1RM) resulted in greater fatigue and slower rate of recovery than lower velocity loss (20%) and higher relative load (80% 1RM).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6473797
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64737972019-04-29 Time Course of Recovery Following Resistance Exercise with Different Loading Magnitudes and Velocity Loss in the Set Pareja-Blanco, Fernando Villalba-Fernández, Antonio Cornejo-Daza, Pedro J. Sánchez-Valdepeñas, Juan González-Badillo, Juan José Sports (Basel) Article The aim of this study was to compare the time course of recovery following four different resistance exercise protocols in terms of loading magnitude (60% vs. 80% 1RM—one-repetition maximum) and velocity loss in the set (20% vs. 40%). Seventeen males performed four different protocols in full squat exercise, which were as follows: (1) 60% 1RM with a velocity loss of 20% (60-20), (2) 60% 1RM with a velocity loss of 40% (60-40), (3) 80% 1RM with a velocity loss of 20% (80-20), and (4) 80% 1RM with a velocity loss of 40% (80-40). Movement velocity against the load that elicited a 1 m·s(−1) velocity at baseline measurements (V(1)-load), countermovement jump (CMJ) height, and sprint time at 20 m (T20) were assessed at Pre, Post, 6 h-Post, 24 h-Post, and 48 h-Post. Impairments in V(1)-load were significantly higher for 60-40 than other protocols at Post (p < 0.05). The 60-20 and 80-40 protocols exhibited significant performance impairments for V(1)-load at 6 h-Post and 24 h-Post, respectively (p < 0.05). CMJ height remained decreased for 60-20 and 60-40 until 24 h-Post (p < 0.001–0.05). Regarding T20, the 80-40 protocol resulted in higher performance than 60-40 at 24 h-Post and the 80-20 protocol induced a greater performance than 60-40 protocol at 48 h-Post (p < 0.05). A higher velocity loss during the set (40%) and a lower relative load (60% 1RM) resulted in greater fatigue and slower rate of recovery than lower velocity loss (20%) and higher relative load (80% 1RM). MDPI 2019-03-04 /pmc/articles/PMC6473797/ /pubmed/30836680 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/sports7030059 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Pareja-Blanco, Fernando
Villalba-Fernández, Antonio
Cornejo-Daza, Pedro J.
Sánchez-Valdepeñas, Juan
González-Badillo, Juan José
Time Course of Recovery Following Resistance Exercise with Different Loading Magnitudes and Velocity Loss in the Set
title Time Course of Recovery Following Resistance Exercise with Different Loading Magnitudes and Velocity Loss in the Set
title_full Time Course of Recovery Following Resistance Exercise with Different Loading Magnitudes and Velocity Loss in the Set
title_fullStr Time Course of Recovery Following Resistance Exercise with Different Loading Magnitudes and Velocity Loss in the Set
title_full_unstemmed Time Course of Recovery Following Resistance Exercise with Different Loading Magnitudes and Velocity Loss in the Set
title_short Time Course of Recovery Following Resistance Exercise with Different Loading Magnitudes and Velocity Loss in the Set
title_sort time course of recovery following resistance exercise with different loading magnitudes and velocity loss in the set
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6473797/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30836680
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/sports7030059
work_keys_str_mv AT parejablancofernando timecourseofrecoveryfollowingresistanceexercisewithdifferentloadingmagnitudesandvelocitylossintheset
AT villalbafernandezantonio timecourseofrecoveryfollowingresistanceexercisewithdifferentloadingmagnitudesandvelocitylossintheset
AT cornejodazapedroj timecourseofrecoveryfollowingresistanceexercisewithdifferentloadingmagnitudesandvelocitylossintheset
AT sanchezvaldepenasjuan timecourseofrecoveryfollowingresistanceexercisewithdifferentloadingmagnitudesandvelocitylossintheset
AT gonzalezbadillojuanjose timecourseofrecoveryfollowingresistanceexercisewithdifferentloadingmagnitudesandvelocitylossintheset