Determining Strength: A Case for Multiple Methods of Measurement
Determining Strength: A Case for Multiple Methods of Measurement
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s40279-016-0580-3
复制
发表时间：
2017-02-01
期刊：
影响因子：
9.8
通讯作者：
Loenneke, Jeremy P.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Buckner, Samuel L.;Jessee, Matthew B.;Loenneke, Jeremy P.
肌肉力量通常是通过一次最大重复次数(1RM)来衡量的。然而，我们感觉到‘实力’的真正衡量标准仍然难以捉摸。例如，传统阻力训练的低负荷替代训练会导致与传统高负荷阻力训练相似的肌肉肥大变化，而用1RM测量最大力量时观察到的变化不那么强劲。然而，当用两组人都很“天真”的测试来衡量力量时，力量上的差异就变得不那么明显了。我们认为，1RM是一种特殊的技能，当训练结合其练习或在接近最大负荷的情况下完成托举时，1RM将提高最大。因此，如果我们只认识到1RM的增加是力量的指示，我们就会忽视传统高负荷耐力训练的许多有效和多样化的替代方案。我们建议使用多种力量评估方法，以便更全面地了解耐力训练的适应情况。
Muscle strength is often measured through the performance of a one-repetition maximum ( 1RM). However, we that feel a true measurement of 'strength' remains elusive. For example, low-load alternatives to traditional resistance training result in muscle hypertrophic changes similar to those resulting from traditional high-load resistance training, with less robust changes observed with maximal strength measured by the 1RM. However, when strength is measured using a test to which both groups are 'naive', differences in strength become less apparent. We suggest that the 1RM is a specific skill, which will improve most when training incorporates its practice or when a lift is completed at a near-maximal load. Thus, if we only recognize increases in the 1RM as indicative of strength, we will overlook many effective and diverse alternatives to traditional high-load resistance training. We wish to suggest that multiple measurements of strength assessment be utilized in order to capture a more complete picture of the adaptation to resistance training.