Učinkovitost dvije metode propisivanja opterećenja na razvoj maksimalne snage: sistematski pregled.
Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)
Sažetak istraživanja
Pozadina Optimalno propisano opterećenje za vježbu otpora (kg) je bitno za razvoj maksimalne snage. U praksi se najčešće koriste dvije metode bez jasnog konsenzusa o najefikasnijem pristupu za poboljšanje maksimalne snage.
Cilj Primarni cilj ovog pregleda bio je da se uporedi efikasnost procenta 1RM (% 1RM) i maksimalnog broja ponavljanja (RM) kao metoda propisanog opterećenja za razvoj maksimalne snage.
Metode Pretraživanje elektronske baze podataka MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, Scopus i CINAHL Complete obavljeno je u skladu sa PRISMA smjernicama. Studije su bile prihvatljive za uključivanje ako je korištena direktna mjera maksimalne snage, kontrolna grupa koja nije trenirala je bila komparator, intervencija treninga je trajala > 4 sedmice i bila je replicirana, a učesnici su definirani kao zdravi i u dobi između 18-40 godina. Metodološki kvalitet studija ocjenjivan je korištenjem modificirane Downs and Black kontrolne liste. Izračunati su postotak promjene (%) i 95% intervali povjerenja (CI) za sve grupe treninga zasnovane na snazi. Statistički značaj (p
Rezultati Utvrđeno je da 22 studije koje se sastoje od ukupno 761 učesnika (585 muškaraca i 176 žena) ispunjavaju kriterijume za uključivanje. 12 studija je vraćeno za % 1RM, sa 10 za RM. Sve studije su pokazale statistički značajna poboljšanja maksimalne snage u grupama za obuku.3%%CI±311; 33,1-29,5%) Prosječna ocjena kvaliteta za sve studije je bila 17,7 ± 2,3, a ostatak je klasifikovan kao umjeren heterogenost je bila prisutna u okviru ovih podataka. Čini se da su vežbe za donji deo tela i više zglobova prikladnije za razvoj maksimalne snage u definisanju optimalnih recepata za trening, fizioloških adaptacija i statusa treninga.
Prikaži originalni naslov i sažetak na engleskom
The Effectiveness of Two Methods of Prescribing Load on Maximal Strength Development: A Systematic Review.
Background Optimal prescription of resistance exercise load (kg) is essential for the development of maximal strength. Two methods are commonly used in practice with no clear consensus on the most effective approach for the improvement of maximal strength.
Objective The primary aim of this review was to compare the effectiveness of percentage 1RM (% 1RM) and repetition maximum targets (RM) as load prescription methods for the development of maximal strength.
Methods Electronic database searches of MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, and CINAHL Complete were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies were eligible for inclusion if a direct measure of maximal strength was used, a non-training control group was a comparator, the training intervention was > 4 weeks in duration and was replicable, and participants were defined as healthy and between the ages of 18-40. Methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using a modified Downs and Black checklist. Percentage change (%) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all strength-based training groups were calculated. Statistical significance (p
Results Twenty-two studies comprising a total of 761 participants (585 males and 176 females) were found to meet the inclusion criteria. 12 studies were returned for % 1RM, with 10 for RM. All studies showed statistically significant improvements in maximal strength in the training groups (31.3 ± 21.9%; 95% CI 33.1-29.5%). The mean quality rating for all studies was 17.7 ± 2.3. Four studies achieved a good methodological rating, with the remainder classified as moderate.
Conclusions Both % 1RM and RM are effective tools for improving maximal strength. % 1RM appears to be a better prescriptive method than RM potentially due to a more sophisticated management of residual fatigue. However, large heterogeneity was present within this data. Lower body and multi-joint exercises appear to be more appropriate for developing maximal strength. Greater consensus is required in defining optimal training prescriptions, physiological adaptations, and training status.
Izvorni podaci
- DOI
- 10.1007/s40279-019-01241-3
- PMID
- 31828736
- PMCID
- PMC7142036
- Provjereno
- 2026-07-26
Naslov i sažetak prevedeni su automatski i prijevod može sadržavati netačnosti ili neprecizne stručne izraze. Za sve detalje, citiranje i medicinsko tumačenje pregledajte originalnu englesku verziju članka. Ne donosite zdravstvene odluke samo na osnovu ovog prijevoda.
Pregledaj originalni članak na engleskom