Efeitos de intervalos fixos e autossugerido no desempenho das séries em sujeitos treinados e não treinados
The rest interval (RI) between sets has been receiving a lot of attention, although little is known about its effects subjects with different experience in strenght training Thus, the objective of the dissertation was to identify the effects of fixed intervals and self-suggested on the performance i...
| Autor principal: | Trancoso Netto, Juarez da Silva |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Dissertação |
| Idioma: | Português |
| Publicado em: |
Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná
2019
|
| Assuntos: | |
| Acesso em linha: |
http://repositorio.utfpr.edu.br/jspui/handle/1/4155 |
| Tags: |
Adicionar Tag
Sem tags, seja o primeiro a adicionar uma tag!
|
| Resumo: |
The rest interval (RI) between sets has been receiving a lot of attention, although little is known about its effects subjects with different experience in strenght training Thus, the objective of the dissertation was to identify the effects of fixed intervals and self-suggested on the performance in trained and untrained subjects. Twenty subjects were separated into two groups, (1) trained and (2) untrained. Both groups performed three sets to cencentric failure with 90% of 1RM in the bench press exercise., Differente RI protocols were adopted, 1 minute (IF1), 3 minutes (IF3) and self-suggested. The number of repetitions performed, the subjective perception of effort (PSE), subjective perception of recovery (PRS) and time spent recovering were collected. The trained group performed a higher number of repetitions in set 2 (4.5 ± 1.5 vs 2.9 ± 1.7 repetitions) and 3 (3.7 ± 1.6 vs 2.3 ± 1.2 repetitions) with IF3 compared to untrained. It was also shown that IAS and IF3 protocols had a higher performance in series 2 and 3 compared to IF1 in trained group, whereas in the untrained group only the IAS was superior to IF1. The time spent recovering was significantly lower with IAS when compared toIF3. The PSE values increased with the sets progression as well as lower PSE were found when adopting IAS compared to IF1. Trained subjects were more sensitive in PRS, and with IAS protocol both groups maintained PRS with the sets progression. In conclusion, IF3 and IAS protocols are better than IF1 for trained and untrained subjects. In addition, when the goals are lower perceived exertion, higher recovery perceptions, and shorter time spent recovering, IAS seems to be the best interval strategy. |
|---|