Comparação dos efeitos dos protocolos de progressão da sobrecarga do treinamento de força nos ganhos de força e hipertrofia muscular: um estudo uni-cego, randomizado, controlado intra-sujeito
Abstract
This was a single-blind, randomized, within-subject controlled study that aimed
to compare the effects of overload progression protocols by intensity (progINT) and
volume (progVOL) on muscle strength and muscle cross-sectional area (MCSA).
Thirty-nine volunteers (20 men and 19 women) had their legs randomized to progINT
and progVOL. Both training protocols were performed unilaterally on the knee
extension machine, 2-3 times per week for 10 weeks. The progINT protocol consisted
of using a previously determined maximal repetition zone (i.e., 9 to 12 repetitions), and
load was adjusted only when the individual performed more or fewer repetitions than
previously stipulated. For the progVOL, load was not altered, but repetitions were
increased whenever the moment of concentric muscular failure was prolonged. The
primary outcomes (muscle strength and MCSA) were evaluated before and after 23
training sessions. Muscle strength was evaluated through the one-repetition maximum
test (1RM) on the knee extension machine, and lateral vastus MCSA was evaluated by
ultrasound. To compare the volume load (i.e., sets x repetitions x weight [kg] [VL])
accumulated between the protocols, the sum of the VL of all training sessions was
considered. To compare the VL progression between the protocols, the average VL of
the first three and last three sessions of the experimental period was considered.
Evaluators were blinded to the allocation of legs. A significance level of p < 0.05 was
adopted. Both protocols promoted increases in 1RM values from pre (progINT: 52.90 ±
16.32 kg; progVOL: 51.67 ± 15.84 kg) to post (progINT: 69.05 ± 18.55 kg, progVOL:
66.82 ± 17.95 kg), with no difference between them (p > 0.05). Both protocols
promoted increases in MCSA values from pre (progINT: 21.34 ± 4.71 cm²; progVOL:
21.08 ± 4.62 cm²) to post (progINT: 23.53 ± 5.41 cm², progVOL: 23.39 ± 5.19 cm²),8
with no difference between them (p > 0.05). There was no difference between protocols
in accumulated VL (progINT: 53,703 ± 17,390 vs. progVOL: 52,528 ± 18,283 kg; p =
0.34) or in progression VL (progINT: 882 ± 491 kg vs. progVOL: 1,107 ± 586 kg; p =
0.084). We found no differences between overload progression protocols by intensity
and volume in gains of strength and muscle hypertrophy in untrained individuals.
Collections
The following license files are associated with this item: