RESUMO

INTRODUÇÃO: Estudos comparando modelos de periodização em sequências de treinamento resistido (TR) realizadas do menor para o maior grupo muscular sobre as alterações musculares em indivíduos destreinados em TR são escassos. OBJETIVO: Comparar o efeito da periodização ondulatória (PO) e da periodização linear (PL) sobre a força máxima e hipertrofia muscular em uma sequência de execução dos exercícios dos menores para os maiores grupamentos musculares. MÉTODOS: Vinte e nove homens não experientes em (TR) foram distribuídos aleatoriamente em três grupos: PO (n =10), PL (n = 13) e grupo controle (GC, n = 9). Os indivíduos realizaram o teste de uma repetição máxima (1RM) nos exercícios rosca bíceps (RB), rosca tríceps (RT), puxada aberta (PA) e supino reto (SR), contração isométrica voluntária máxima (CIVM) e espessura muscular (EM) para flexores de cotovelo (FC) e extensores de cotovelo (EC) antes e após o período de 12 semanas de treinamento. O grupo PO variou o volume e a intensidade do treinamento diariamente, e o grupo PL a cada quatro semanas. O GC não realizou TR. Foi realizada uma ANOVA de dois caminhos com medidas repetidas, e cálculo do tamanho do efeito (TE), nas cargas obtidas para analisar o efeito do tratamento sobre as variações pré- e pós-período de TR. RESULTADOS: Os principais achados do estudo foram: 1) o grupo PO apresentou maior TE para 1RM dos exercícios RT e RB e para EM dos FC e EC quando comparado ao grupo PL; 2) não houve diferença no TE para os exercícios SR e PA que finalizavam a sessão. CONCLUSÃO: Ambos os modelos de periodização adotados foram eficientes para promover aumentos de força e hipertrofia muscular. Contudo, segundo o cálculo do TE, a PO promoveu maior incremento da força máxima nos exercícios que iniciaram a sessão e hipertrofia muscular.

---

INTRODUCTION: Studies comparing periodization models in sequences that begin with small muscle group and progressed toward large muscle group in untrained subjects in resistance training are scarce. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of ondulatory periodization and linear periodization models on maximum strength and muscular hypertrophy in a muscle group increasing exercise sequence. METHODS: Twenty-nine men with no experience in RT were randomly assigned into three groups: ondulatory periodization (OP, n = 10), linear periodization (LP, n = 13), and control group (CG, n = 9). The individuals performed 1RM tests in four exercises: biceps curl (BC), triceps extension (TE), lat pull down (LPD) and bench press (BP) and evaluations of maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC), muscle thickness of elbow flexors (EF) and elbow extensors (EE) before and after the 12 weeks of training were carried out. The OP group varied in volume and intensity on a daily basis, while LP group varied every four weeks. The CG did not perform ST. A two-way ANOVA with repeated measures and the effect size (ES) were used to analyze muscle thickness, 1RM load improvement in each of the four exercises and the MVIC between groups. RESULTS: The major findings of this study were: 1) OP showed major ES for 1RM of BC and TE and for muscle thickness of EF and EE when compared with LP. 3) The ES data did not show significant differences for BP and LPD which finished the training session. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that both periodization models were efficient at improving strength gains and muscular growth. However, ES data show that OP promotes major gains in strength for exercises that are positioned at the beginning of the session and hypertrophy.

RESUMO

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of nonlinear periodized (NLP) and linear periodized (LP) resistance training (RT) on muscle thickness (MT) and strength, measured by an ultrasound technique and 1 repetition maximum (1RM), respectively. Thirty untrained men were randomly assigned to 3 groups: NLP (n = 11, age: 30.2 ± 1.1 years, height: 173.6 ± 7.2 cm, weight: 79.5 ± 13.1 kg), LP (n = 10, age: 29.8 ± 1.9 years, height: 172.0 ± 6.8 cm, weight: 79.9 ± 10.6 kg), and control group (CG; n = 9, age: 25.9 ± 3.6 years, height: 171.2 ± 6.3 cm, weight: 73.9 ± 9.9 kg). The right biceps and triceps MT and 1RM strength for the exercises bench press (BP), lat-pull down, triceps extension, and biceps curl (BC) were assessed before and after 12 weeks of training. The NLP program varied training biweekly during weeks 1-6 and on a daily basis during weeks 7-12. The LP program followed a pattern of intensity and volume changes every 4 weeks. The CG did not engage in any RT. Posttraining, both trained groups presented significant 1RM strength gains in all exercises (with the exception of the BP in LP). The 1RM of the NLP group was significantly higher than LP for BP and BC posttraining. There were no significant differences in biceps and triceps MT between baseline and posttraining for any group; however, posttraining, there were significant differences in biceps and triceps MT between NLP and the CG. The effect sizes were higher in NLP for the majority of observed variables. In conclusion, both LP and NLP are effective, but NLP may lead to greater gains in 1RM and MT over a 12-week training period.

Assuntos

Força Muscular , Músculo Esquelético/anatomia & histologia , Músculo Esquelético/fisiologia , Treinamento Resistido/métodos , Adulto , Braço/fisiologia , Humanos , Masculino , Músculo Esquelético/diagnóstico por imagem , Ultrassonografia , Adulto Jovem

RESUMO

Strength training generates alterations in muscle geometry, which can be monitored by imaging techniques as, for example, the ultrasound (US) technique. There is no consensus about the homogeneity of hypertrophy in different muscle sites. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the muscle thickness (MT) and pennation angle (PA) in 3 different sites (50, 60, and 70% of arm length) of the biceps brachii and triceps brachii after 12 weeks of strength training. Forty-nine healthy untrained men were divided into 2 groups: Training Group ([TG, n = 40] 29.90 ± 1.72 years; 79.53 ± 11.84 kg; 173 ± 0.6 cm) and Control Group (n = 9 25.89 ± 3.59 years; 73.96 ± 9.86 kg; 171 ± 6 cm). The TG underwent a strength training program during 12 weeks, which included exercises such as a free-weight bench press, machine lat pull-down, triceps extension in lat pull-down, and standing free-weight biceps curl with a straight bar. A US apparatus was used to measure the PA and MT at the 3 sites. The maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVC) test was conducted for each muscle group. After 12 weeks of training, a significant difference was observed between MT in biceps brachii, with an improvement of 12% in the proximal site, whereas the distal site increased by only 4.7% (p < 0.05). For the long head of the triceps brachii, the MT and PA at the 3 sites presented significant increases, but no significant variation was observed among them, probably because of the pennated-fiber arrangement. The MVC increased significantly for both muscle groups. The results indicated that the strength training program was efficient in promoting hypertrophy in both muscles, but with dissimilar responses of the pennated and fusiform muscle architecture at different arm sites.

Assuntos

Músculo Esquelético/fisiologia , Treinamento Resistido , Adulto , Braço/diagnóstico por imagem , Braço/fisiologia , Humanos , Contração Isométrica/fisiologia , Masculino , Força Muscular/fisiologia , Músculo Esquelético/diagnóstico por imagem , Ultrassonografia

RESUMO

The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of exercise order on strength and muscle volume (MV) after 12 weeks of nonlinear periodized resistance training. The participants were randomly assigned into 3 groups. One group began performing large muscle group exercises and progressed to small muscle group exercises (LG-SM), whereas another group started with small muscle group exercises and advanced to large muscle group exercises (SM-LG). The exercise order for LG-SM was bench press (BP), machine lat pull-down (LPD), triceps extension (TE), and biceps curl (BC). The order for the SM-LG was BC, TE, LPD, and BP. The third group did not exercise and served as a control group (CG). Training frequency was 2 sessions per week with at least 72 hours of rest between sessions. Muscle volume was assessed at baseline and after 6 weeks and 12 weeks of training by ultrasound techniques. One repetition maximum strength for all exercises was assessed at baseline and after 12 weeks of training. Effect size data demonstrated that differences in strength and MV were exhibited based on exercise order. Both training groups demonstrated greater strength improvements than the CG, but only BP strength increased to a greater magnitude in the LG-SM group as compared with the SM-LG. In all other strength measures (LPD, TE, and BC), the SM-LG group showed significantly greater strength increases. Triceps MV increased in the SM-LG group; however, biceps MV did not differ significantly between the training groups. In conclusion, if an exercise is important for the training goals of a program, then it should be placed at the beginning of the training session, regardless of whether or not it is a large muscle group exercise or a small muscle group exercise.

Assuntos

Força Muscular/fisiologia , Músculo Esquelético/fisiologia , Treinamento Resistido/métodos , Tecido Adiposo/fisiologia , Adulto , Estatura/fisiologia , Peso Corporal/fisiologia , Humanos , Masculino , Músculo Esquelético/anatomia & histologia

RESUMO

Traditional exercise order dictates large muscle group or multijoint exercises should be performed before small muscle group or single joint exercises. The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of exercise order on strength and muscle thickness (MT) in untrained men after 12 weeks of linear periodized resistance training. The participants were randomly assigned into three groups. One group began with large and progressed toward small muscle group exercises (LG-SM) while another started with small and advanced to large muscle group exercises (SM-LG). The exercise order for LG-SM was bench press (BP), lat pull-down (LPD), triceps extension (TE), and biceps curl (BC). The order for the SM-LG was BC, TE, LPD, and BP. The third group served as a control group (CG). Training frequency was two sessions/week with at least 72 hours between sessions. One repetition maximum (1RM) for all exercises, biceps and triceps MT (assessed by ultrasound techniques) were collected at baseline and after 12 weeks. After 12 weeks, all exercises for both training groups presented significant 1RM strength gains when compared to CG with exception of BC in LG-SM. Between baseline and post training, all exercises for both training groups presented significant strength gains with exception of BC in LG-SM and BP in SM-LG. Triceps MT for both training groups were significantly higher when compared to the CG, but with no significant differences between them (p > 0.05). Significant differences in MT from pre- to post-training were found only for the SM-LG group (p < 0.05), while the biceps MT presented significant differences only between LG-SM and CG (p < 0.05), Effect size data demonstrated differences in 1RM and triceps MT based on exercise order. In conclusion, if an exercise is important for specific training goals, it should be performed at the beginning of the training session, whether or not it is a large or a small muscle group exercise. Key pointsThe two linear periodized resistance training programs utilized promotes strength and muscle volume gains in untrained men.Exercise order may be particularly important to improve strength during 12 weeks of linear periodized resistance training.If an exercise is important for the training goals of a program, then it should be placed at the beginning of the training session, whether or not it is a large or a small muscle group exercise.