RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Foam rolling (FR) has become very popular in recent years; however, the practice of FR between sets of resistance training (RT) for the lower limbs needs further examination. PURPOSE: Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to examine the effect of FR for the agonists (quadriceps) and antagonists (hamstrings) between multiple sets of the leg extension on repetition maximum performance (RM), fatigue resistance index (FRI), and muscle soreness (MS). STUDY DESIGN: Quasi-experimental clinical trial. METHODS: Twenty trained men participated in this study (30.35 ± 6.56 years, 1.77 ± 0.05 cm, 87.70 ± 7.6 kg) and attended seven sessions with 48 h between sessions, (one familiarization session; two 10-RM test and retest sessions; and four experimental sessions). The four experimental sessions were performed in random order and included: agonist foam rolling (AFR), antagonist foam rolling (ANTFR), agonist/antagonist foam rolling (A/ANTFR), and traditional control (TP, without foam rolling). All sessions consisted of three sets for maximal repetitions with a 10-RM load for the leg extension. In the AFR and ANTFR sessions, there was a 120 s rest interval between sets, during which FR was done for the agonists or antagonists, respectively. In the A/ANTFR protocol, there was a 120 s rest interval between sets, during which FR was done for the agonists and antagonists. In the traditional protocol (TP), there was a 120 s passive rest interval between sets. RESULTS: Regarding the total training volume (TTV), significant differences were noted between sessions (F3,57 = 11.014; p = 0.0001). The AFR, ANTFR, and A/ANTFR sessions had significantly higher TTV versus the TP (p < 0.05). Regarding the FRI, significant differences were noted between sessions (F3,57 = 2917, p = 0.042). A significantly higher fatigue index was shown for the ANTFR and AFR sessions versus the TP (p < 0.05). Regarding the total number of repetitions, significant differences were noted between sessions (F3,57 = 11.086, p = 0.0001). The total number of repetitions was significantly higher in the A/ANTFR, ANTFR, and AFR versus the TP session (p < 0.05). MS was significantly lower in the A/ANTFR, ANTFR, and AFR sessions versus the TP session (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, foam rolling between sets for the agonist or antagonist separately or in succession, resulted in greater neuromuscular performance and higher fatigue indices, as well as reducing the perception of acute muscle soreness.
RESUMO
This study compared differences in volume load (VL), efficiency and rating of perceived (RPE) exertion between four different workout methods. Twelve trained men selected by convenience (28.1 ± 4.8 years, 1.72 ± 0.6 cm, 72.2 ± 5.5 kg, 24.4 ± 1.4 body mass index) with at least three years strength training experience performed the following exercises: biceps curl with a barbell (BC), triceps press using a pulley with a straight bar (TP), seated leg curl (LC), and seated leg extension (LE). Four different workout formats were performed, in a counterbalanced entrance: the traditional method (TM) - three successive sets of each exercise; the paired agonist-antagonist paired set method (APS) - three sets of each exercise alternating between agonist/antagonist muscles (BC/TP and LC/LE); the paired alternating limb method (PAL) - three sets of each exercise in an upper limb/lower limb interaction (BC/LC and TP/LE); and the circuit method (CM) - one set of each exercise repeated three times (BC, TP, LC, LE). The load was held constant at an absolute 15 repetition maximum previous tested, and with one-minute rest intervals between sets and exercises, characterized as an endurance training. Volume load (set x repetition x load), efficiency (VL/workout time) and RPE were recorded. Significantly higher VL and efficiency were observed for the CM versus the TM and APS (p < 0.05). The CM was not significantly different versus the PAL. The CM resulted in the best performance when compared to the other methods and can be a good alternative to improve workout volume and efficiency
Este estudio comparó las diferencias en la carga de volumen (CV ), la eficiencia y la calificación del esfuerzo percibido (CEP) entre cuatro métodos de entrenamiento diferentes. Doce hombres entrenados, seleccionados por conveniencia (28,1 ± 4,8 años, 1,72 ± 0,6 cm, 72,2 ± 5,5 kg, índice de masa corporal 24,4 ± 1,4) con al menos tres años de experiencia en entrenamiento de fuerza realizaron los siguientes ejercicios: bíceps con barra recta (BC), tríceps presione usando una polea (TP), flexión de rodillas sentado (FR) y una extensión de pierna sentada (EX). Estos ejercicios se realizaron en cuatro formatos de entrena-miento diferentes, en una entrada contrapesada: el método tradicional (MT ): tres series sucesivas de cada ejercicio; el método emparejado de conjunto agonista-antagonista emparejado (AA): tres conjuntos de cada ejercicio alternando entre músculos agonistas/antagonistas (BC/TP y FR/EX); el método de miembro alterno emparejado (AE): tres series de cada ejercicio en una interacción miembro superior / miembro inferior (BC/FR y TP/EX); y el método del circuito (MC): un juego de cada ejercicio repetido tres veces como un circuito (BC, TP, FR, EX). En todos los formatos de trabajo, la carga se estableció en un absoluto 15 repeticiones máximas antes de la prueba, y con un minuto de intervalo entre los sets y los ejercicios, como un entrenamiento de resistencia. Se registró la CV (series x repetición x carga), la eficiencia (CV/tiempo de entrenamiento) y la CEP. Se observó una CV y una eficacia significativamente mayores para el MC frente a MT y AA (p <0,05). El MC no fue significativamente diferente frente al AE. El MC resultó en el mejor rendimiento en comparación con los otros métodos y puede ser una buena alternativa para mejorar el volumen y la eficiencia del entrenamiento
