A alta frequência do treinamento de força não afeta a magnitude da hipertrofia e os ganhos de força muscular de indivíduos jovens não treinados

• Ano de defesa: 2017
• Autor(a) principal: Barcelos, Cintia Aparecida de Oliveira
• Orientador(a): Libardi, Cleiton Augusto
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de São Carlos; Câmpus São Carlos
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia - PPGFt
• Palavras-chave em Português: Recuperação; Massa muscular; Variáveis do treinamento
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: Recovery; Muscle mass; Training variables
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::FISIOTERAPIA E TERAPIA OCUPACIONAL
• Link de acesso: https://repositorio.ufscar.br/handle/ufscar/8821

The training frequency is a resistance training variable (RT) that can be manipulated to maximize strength and muscle mass gains. Evidence suggests that higher volumes provide greater gains in strength and hypertrophy. Thus, it is possible that RT performed at higher frequencies (e.g., 24h) would result in higher training volumes, leading to adaptations when compared to RT performed less frequently. Objective: To compare the effect of different weekly RT frequencies (5x vs. 3x vs. 2x per week), with equalized and unbalanced VTT, on muscle hypertrophy in young men. As a secondary objective, we compared the effects of these different RT frequencies with equalized and unequalized VTT on muscle strength. Methods: The sample consisted of 19 male subjects divided into three protocols: (RT5, RT3 and RT2 x / week). The RT protocol consisted of three series of 80% 1-RM, between 9 and 12 maximal repetitions until the concentric failure. The cross-sectional area (CSA) and muscle strength (1-RM) were evaluated weekly for a period of 8 weeks. Results: Total equalized volume (RT5 / 4S = 23791 ± 6021, RT3 / 6S = 22531 ± 6087, RT2 / 8 = 20640 ± 3300), there was no significant difference between the protocols (P> 0.05). At the end of 8 weeks of training, the RT5 protocol showed the highest increase (RT5 = 54375 ± 12810 kg, RT3 = 30936 ± 8391 kg, RT2 = 20640 ± 3300 kg, P <0.0001). Regarding the progression of the VTT, there was no difference between the RT5, RT3 and RT2 protocols when equalized (43%, 35% and 34%) and unequalized (57%, 43% and 34%) (P >0.05). All protocols significantly increased the pre-post-training 1-RM values for the equalized VTT (RT5 = 26.00%, RT3 = 31.51%, RT2 = 33.54%) and equalized (RT5 = 43.32%, RT3 = 40.26%, RT2 = 33.53%, main time effect, P <0.0001) There were no significant differences between the protocols in any of the comparisons. In relation to VL CSA, all of them increased from pre- to post-training with equalized VTT (RT5 = 9.85%, RT3 = 10.10%, RT2 = 11.87%, main time effect, P <0.0001) and unbalanced (RT5 = 12.70%, RT3 = 11.75%, RT2 = 11.87%, main time effect, P <0.0001) There were no significant differences between the protocols in both comparisons. Conclusion: A high frequency of resistance training does not affect the magnitude of muscle hypertrophy and the strength gains of untrained young individuals.