A hipertrofia muscular é afetada pelos modelos de progressão do volume da carga

• Ano de defesa: 2021
• Autor(a) principal: Nóbrega, Sanmy Rocha
• Orientador(a): Libardi, Cleiton Augusto
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de São Carlos; Câmpus São Carlos
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa Interinstitucional de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Fisiológicas - PIPGCF
• Palavras-chave em Português: Falha muscular concêntrica; Prescrição do treinamento de força; Sobrecarga progressiva; Volume de treino
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: Concentric muscle failure; Resistance training prescription; Progressive overload; Training volume
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::EDUCACAO FISICA; CIENCIAS DA SAUDE
• Link de acesso: https://repositorio.ufscar.br/handle/20.500.14289/15954

This exploratory secondary data analysis aimed to compare the effects of a percentage of one-repetition maximum (%1RM) and repetition-zone (RM Zone) progressions models, both performed to concentric muscle failure, on volume load (VL) progression, muscle strength and cross-sectional area (CSA). The sample was composed by twenty-four untrained men separated in two groups: %1RM (n = 14) and RM Zone (n = 10). Ultrasound imaging and 1RM testing were utilized to assess muscle cross-sectional muscle area (CSA) and muscle strength before (Pre) and after 24 training sessions (Post). VL progression (VLProg) and accumulated volume load (VLAccu) were compared between groups. The relationships between VLProg, VLAccu, 1RM, and CSA increases were also investigated. A significance level of p ≤ 0.05 was adopted for all statistical procedures. VLProg was greater for RM Zone compared with %1RM (2.30 ± 4.28 vs 1.01 ± 5.35 %/session; p < 0.05). Significant relationships were found between 1RM and VLProg (p < 0.05), and CSA and VLProg (p < 0.05). No between-groups differences were found for VLAccu (p > 0.05). Both groups increased 1RM from Pre to Post (main time effect; p < 0.05), with no between-group differences (%1RM: 29.60 ± 9.86 % vs RM Zone: 40.26 ± 22.62 %; p > 0.05). CSA increased for both groups, with a greater increase for RM Zone (16.34 ± 4.73 % vs 7.58 ± 4.64 %; group vs time interaction; p < 0.05). In conclusion, RM Zone resulted in a greater VL progression rate and muscle CSA gains compared with %1RM, with no differences in VLAccu and muscle strength gains between progression models.