Abstract des Autors

The purpose of this study was to compare training volume, postexercise hypotension (PEH), and heart rate variability (HRV) responses to different strength training methods. Thirteen trained men volunteered for this study. Three training methods were completed in a randomized design, which included: Traditional Set (TS)—3 successive sets for the lying bench press (LBP), lat pulldown (LPD), incline 45° bench press (BP45), seated close-grip row (SCR), triceps extension (TE), and biceps curl (BC), with a 90-second rest interval between sets and exercises; Paired Set (PS)—3 paired sets for the LBP-LPD, BP45-SCR, and TE-BC, with a 90-second rest interval between sets and exercises; and superset (SS)—3 supersets for the LBP-LPD, BP45-SCR, and TE-BC. During the SS session, no rest was permitted between PSs, followed by 180 seconds of rest after each SS. Ten repetition-maximum (RM) loads were adopted for all exercises. Blood pressure (BP) and HRV were measured at baseline, immediately aftersession, and at 10-minute intervals until 60 minutes after session. Significantly greater training volume was noted under the SS method (8,608.6 ± 2,062.2 kg) vs. the TS method (7,527.5 ± 2,365.1 kg), respectively. Significantly greater training volume was also observed under the PS method (8,262.3 ± 2,491.2 kg) vs. the TS method (p ≤ 0.05). No main effects for HRV and PEH were noted between protocols (p > 0.05). However, similar PEH response intraprotocols were observed for the TS, PS, and SS methods (p ≤ 0.05). Considering the duration of the PEH intraprotocol, large effect sizes were noted for the SS and PS methods vs. the TS method in diastolic and mean BP. Therefore, both the PS and SS methods may be an alternative to the TS method to achieve greater total repetitions and training volume with a tendency toward a longer PEH response.