東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁 到查詢結果 [ null ]

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Effects of Three Different Loading M...

Rivera, Orlando,

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Effects of Three Different Loading Models on Strength and Body Composition in Resistance Trained Persons /

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Effects of Three Different Loading Models on Strength and Body Composition in Resistance Trained Persons // Orlando Rivera.
作者:	Rivera, Orlando,
面頁冊數:	1 electronic resource (107 pages)
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-03, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International86-03A.
標題:	Kinesiology. -
電子資源:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31557138
ISBN:	9798384073635

Effects of Three Different Loading Models on Strength and Body Composition in Resistance Trained Persons /
Rivera, Orlando,

Effects of Three Different Loading Models on Strength and Body Composition in Resistance Trained Persons /Orlando Rivera. - 1 electronic resource (107 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-03, Section: A.

Background: Periodization of the annual training plan is a commonly utilized tool within the strength and conditioning community. Within the periodized plan, load is a key variable that is often manipulated to optimize strength development. At the present moment, a common model for load prescription involves the use of a percentage-based training (PBT) plan. However, inherent problems within a PBT loading model may reduce the accuracy of the training stimulus due to various reasons including atypical one repetition maximum (1RM) performance, strength improvements, or an acute decrease in an individual's ability to perform. Thus, autoregulatory loading models may be a more suitable modality for load prescription due to increased individualization of training loads. Purpose: To explore the effects of three different loading models on strength and body composition in resistance trained persons. Methods: An experimental, randomized cross-over design was used consisting of 23 resistance-trained persons. Participants were randomly divided into one of three groups: PBT (8), velocity-based training (VBT = 7), rating of perceived exertion-based training (RPE = 8). An initial assessment measured participants body weight, body composition via skinfold calipers, and 1RM for the barbell back squat, bench press, and deadlift. The training intervention consisted of training 3x/week on non-consecutive days. Following an eight week periodized training intervention, participants returned for a post-test. Results: Significant within group time interactions were observed (P < .0001) for the back squat, bench press, deadlift, and total. No between group significant differences were observed for the back squat (P = .727), bench press (P = .751), deadlift (P = .437), and total (P = .599). Conclusion: Various loading models may be used to increase strength in resistance trained persons. Despite these findings, autoregulatory loading models may still have merit for individualizing training load, particularly in experienced lifters.

English

ISBN: 9798384073635Subjects--Topical Terms:

517627
Kinesiology.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Autoregulation

Effects of Three Different Loading Models on Strength and Body Composition in Resistance Trained Persons /
LDR:03578nmm a22004573i 4500 001 2433667
005 20250903054142.5
006 m o d
007 cr|nu||||||||
008 261011s2024 miu||||||m |||||||eng d
020 $a 9798384073635
035 $a (MiAaPQD)AAI31557138
035 $a AAI31557138
040 $a MiAaPQD $b eng $c MiAaPQD $e rda
100 1 $a Rivera, Orlando, $e author. $0 (orcid)0009-0005-3740-7298 $3 3823383
245 1 0 $a Effects of Three Different Loading Models on Strength and Body Composition in Resistance Trained Persons / $c Orlando Rivera.
264 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2024
300 $a 1 electronic resource (107 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-03, Section: A.
500 $a Advisors: Zipp, Genevieve Pinto Committee members: Boergers, Richard J.; Helms, Eric.
502 $b Ph.D. $c Seton Hall University $d 2024.
520 $a Background: Periodization of the annual training plan is a commonly utilized tool within the strength and conditioning community. Within the periodized plan, load is a key variable that is often manipulated to optimize strength development. At the present moment, a common model for load prescription involves the use of a percentage-based training (PBT) plan. However, inherent problems within a PBT loading model may reduce the accuracy of the training stimulus due to various reasons including atypical one repetition maximum (1RM) performance, strength improvements, or an acute decrease in an individual's ability to perform. Thus, autoregulatory loading models may be a more suitable modality for load prescription due to increased individualization of training loads. Purpose: To explore the effects of three different loading models on strength and body composition in resistance trained persons. Methods: An experimental, randomized cross-over design was used consisting of 23 resistance-trained persons. Participants were randomly divided into one of three groups: PBT (8), velocity-based training (VBT = 7), rating of perceived exertion-based training (RPE = 8). An initial assessment measured participants body weight, body composition via skinfold calipers, and 1RM for the barbell back squat, bench press, and deadlift. The training intervention consisted of training 3x/week on non-consecutive days. Following an eight week periodized training intervention, participants returned for a post-test. Results: Significant within group time interactions were observed (P < .0001) for the back squat, bench press, deadlift, and total. No between group significant differences were observed for the back squat (P = .727), bench press (P = .751), deadlift (P = .437), and total (P = .599). Conclusion: Various loading models may be used to increase strength in resistance trained persons. Despite these findings, autoregulatory loading models may still have merit for individualizing training load, particularly in experienced lifters.
546 $a English
590 $a School code: 0199
650 4 $a Kinesiology. $3 517627
650 4 $a Physiology. $3 518431
650 4 $a Health sciences. $3 3168359
650 4 $a Physical education. $3 635343
653 $a Autoregulation
653 $a Autoregulatory loading models
653 $a Percentage-based training
653 $a Periodization
653 $a RPE
653 $a Velocity-based training
690 $a 0575
690 $a 0719
690 $a 0566
690 $a 0523
710 2 $a Seton Hall University. $b Health and Medical Sciences. $e degree granting institution. $3 3823271
720 1 $a Zipp, Genevieve Pinto $e degree supervisor.
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 86-03A.
790 $a 0199
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2024
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31557138