Efecto de la realización de series tradicionales versus series alternas emparejadas entre ejercicios para extremidades opuestas sobre el rendimiento neuromuscular

Abstract

This Thesis is made up of two studies carried out consecutively and related to the strength training area (Study 1 and Study 2). Study 1: This study aimed to compare the effect on bar execution velocity and number of repetitions between two velocity-based resistance training protocols only differing in the set configuration of the full squat (SQ) and bench press (BP) exercises. Method: Nineteen moderately strength-trained men were assigned into a traditional (TS, n= 9) or alternating sets (AS, n= 10) configuration group to perform four testing sessions against different relative loads (55-60-65-70% 1RM). Relative load, magnitude of intra-set velocity loss (15% and 20% VL for SQ and BP, respectively), number of sets (3), inter-set recovery time (3 min), and exercise order (SQ followed by BP) were matched for both groups in each session. Mean propulsive velocity of the first repetition (MPVfirst), average number of repetitions per set (NRS), total number of repetitions (TNR) and total training time per session (TT) were measured. Results and Conclusions: Training sessions performing AS between SQ and BP exercises with moderate relative loads (55-70% 1RM) and %VL (15-20%) result in similar bar execution velocity and volume, but in a more time-efficient manner, than the traditional set configuration approach. Study 2: This study aimed to compare the effect of two velocity-based resistance training (VBRT) programs only differing in the set configuration on muscle strength, muscle endurance and jump performance. Method: Seventeen moderately strength-trained men were assigned into a traditional (TS, n= 8) or alternating sets (AS, n= 9) configuration group to perform a 6-week VBRT program using the full squat (SQ) and bench press (BP) exercises. Training frequency (2 sessions/week), between-sessions rest periods (72-96 hours), relative load and distribution along the training period (55-70% 1RM), exercise order (SQ followed by BP), number of sets (3), magnitude of velocity loss (%VL) within the set (15% and 20% for SQ and BP, respectively) and inter-set recovery time (3 min) were matched for both groups in each sessions. Countermovement jump height (CMJ), load(kg)-velocity relationship, estimated 1RM, and muscle endurance for each exercise were evaluated at pre- and post-training. Results and Conclusions: These findings indicate that training programs performing AS between SQ and BP exercises with moderate relative loads (55-70% 1RM) and a low degree of fatigue (%VL) incurred in the set (² 20%) induce similar muscle strength and vertical jump improvements, but in a more time-efficient manner, than the traditional approach. Therefore, practitioners should consider implementing AS during time-constrained training periods.