Efeitos de diferentes métodos de treinamento de força sobre parâmetros morfológicos e força máxima
Ficheiros
Data
2014-07-23
Autores
Título da revista
ISSN da revista
Título do Volume
Editora
Resumo
O objetivo deste estudo foi comparar a influência de diferentes métodos
de treinamento de força nas adaptações morfológicas e força máxima no
período de 12 semanas. Participaram do estudo 54 indivíduos do gênero
masculino com idade de 24,0 ± 2,6 anos e com 7,4 ± 0,9 meses de prática de
exercícios resistidos. Os indivíduos foram separados aleatoriamente em quatro
grupos: grupo controle (GCO) que não treinou; grupo circuito (GCT) que
cumpriu este método de treino; grupo bi-set (GBS) cujo treinamento foi
baseado no método bi-set; e o grupo convencional (GCV) onde se executaram
as tradicionais séries múltiplas. Em todos os grupos os indivíduos treinaram
durante 12 semanas, três vezes por semana. Foi analisada antes e após o
período de treino a força máxima de membros superiores e inferiores, a massa
magra, a massa gorda, o índice de massa corporal (IMC), a relação cinturaquadril
(RCQ), a circunferência de tórax e de coxa. O resultado no IMC foi de F
= 16,316; p = 0,000; ƞ2 = 0,495; Potência = 100%, com diferenças significativas
entre todos os grupos, com exceção para GCT e GBS. A medida de massa
magra estimada foi de F = 22,157; p = 0,000; ƞ2 = 0,571; Potência = 100%,
com diferenças significativas entre todos os grupos, com exceção para GCV e
GCT. Já para a massa gorda estimada, os resultados da medida foram de F =
26,002; p = 0,000; ƞ2 = 0,609; Potência = 100%, com diferenças significativas
entre todos os grupos, com exceção para GCV e GCT. A análise do efeito
grupo nos resultados da medida de RCQ foi de F = 27,985; p = 0,000; ƞ2 =
0,627; Potência = 100%, com diferenças significativas entre GCV e GCT e GCT
e GBS. A análise do efeito grupo nos resultados da medida circunferencial do
tórax foi de F = 33,618; p = 0,000; ƞ2 = 0,669; Potência = 100%, com
diferenças significativas entre todos os grupos, com exceção para GBS e GCO.
Nos resultados da medida circunferencial de coxa apresentou-se F = 38,032; p
= 0,000; ƞ2 = 0,695; Potência = 100%, com diferenças significativas apenas
entre os grupos GCT e GBS. Já a análise do efeito grupo nos resultados da
medida do exercício supino e leg press foi de, respectivamente, F = 3,697; p =
0,018; ƞ2 = 0,182; Potência = 77,3%, e F = 18,951; p = 0,000; ƞ2 = 0,532;
Potência = 100% com diferenças significativas entre todos grupos. Os
resultados se mostram mais favoráveis à utilização dos métodos bi-set e
circuito uma vez que esses métodos de treinamento se mostram mais eficazes
no sentido de alcançar os objetivos propostos dentro de um programa de
treinamento, principalmente quando estes visam o aumento de força, aumento
de massa magra e diminuição da massa gorda.
The aim of this study was to compare the influence of different methods of strength training on maximum strength and morphological adaptations over a period of 12 weeks. The study included 54 male subjects aged 24.0 ± 2.6 years and with a 7.4 ± 0.9 months of resistance exercise experience. Subjects were randomly assigned into four groups: control group (COG) who did not train, group circuit (GCT) which performed this type of training, the bi-set (GBS) whose training was based on the bi-set method, and the conventional group (GCV) where typical multiple sets were performed. In all groups individuals trained for 12 weeks, three times per week. Before and post the training period, it was assessed the maximum strength of upper and lower limbs, the lean mass, the fat mass, the body mass index (BMI), the waist-hip ratio (WHR), the circumference of chest and thigh. It was concluded that the results of BMI was F = 16.316, p = 0.000; ƞ2 = 0.495; Power = 100%, with significant differences between all groups, except for GCT and GBS. The measure of lean mass was estimated to be F = 22.157, p = 0.000; ƞ2 = 0.571, power = 100%, with significant differences between all groups, except for GCV and GCT. As for the estimated fat mass, the measurement results were F = 26.002, p = 0.000; ƞ2 = 0.609, power = 100%, with significant differences between all groups, except for GCV and GCT. The analysis of group effect on the results of measurement of WHR was F = 27.985, p = 0.000; ƞ2 = 0.627, power = 100%, with significant differences between GCV and GCT and GCT and GBS. The analysis of group effect on the results of the circumferential extent of the thorax was F = 33.618, p = 0.000; ƞ2 = 0.669, power = 100%, with significant differences between all groups, except for GBS and GCO. The results of the circumferential extent of the thigh showed F = 38.032, p = 0.000; ƞ2 = 0.695, power = 100%, with significant differences only between groups GCT and GBS. The analysis of group effect on the results of the measure of bench press and leg press was, respectively, F = 3.697, p = 0.018; ƞ2 = 0.182, power = 77.3%, and F = 18.951, p = 0.000; ƞ2 = 0.532, power = 100% with significant differences between all groups. The results show the superiority of the bi-set and the circuit methods once these methods shown to be more suitable to increase strength, lean mass and decrease fat mass.
The aim of this study was to compare the influence of different methods of strength training on maximum strength and morphological adaptations over a period of 12 weeks. The study included 54 male subjects aged 24.0 ± 2.6 years and with a 7.4 ± 0.9 months of resistance exercise experience. Subjects were randomly assigned into four groups: control group (COG) who did not train, group circuit (GCT) which performed this type of training, the bi-set (GBS) whose training was based on the bi-set method, and the conventional group (GCV) where typical multiple sets were performed. In all groups individuals trained for 12 weeks, three times per week. Before and post the training period, it was assessed the maximum strength of upper and lower limbs, the lean mass, the fat mass, the body mass index (BMI), the waist-hip ratio (WHR), the circumference of chest and thigh. It was concluded that the results of BMI was F = 16.316, p = 0.000; ƞ2 = 0.495; Power = 100%, with significant differences between all groups, except for GCT and GBS. The measure of lean mass was estimated to be F = 22.157, p = 0.000; ƞ2 = 0.571, power = 100%, with significant differences between all groups, except for GCV and GCT. As for the estimated fat mass, the measurement results were F = 26.002, p = 0.000; ƞ2 = 0.609, power = 100%, with significant differences between all groups, except for GCV and GCT. The analysis of group effect on the results of measurement of WHR was F = 27.985, p = 0.000; ƞ2 = 0.627, power = 100%, with significant differences between GCV and GCT and GCT and GBS. The analysis of group effect on the results of the circumferential extent of the thorax was F = 33.618, p = 0.000; ƞ2 = 0.669, power = 100%, with significant differences between all groups, except for GBS and GCO. The results of the circumferential extent of the thigh showed F = 38.032, p = 0.000; ƞ2 = 0.695, power = 100%, with significant differences only between groups GCT and GBS. The analysis of group effect on the results of the measure of bench press and leg press was, respectively, F = 3.697, p = 0.018; ƞ2 = 0.182, power = 77.3%, and F = 18.951, p = 0.000; ƞ2 = 0.532, power = 100% with significant differences between all groups. The results show the superiority of the bi-set and the circuit methods once these methods shown to be more suitable to increase strength, lean mass and decrease fat mass.
Descrição
Dissertação de Mestrado em Ciências do Desporto, Especialização em Avaliação e Prescrição de Atividade Física
Palavras-chave
Treino de força , Morfologia