Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCuevas Aburto, Jesualdo Daniel
dc.contributor.authorJukic, Ivan
dc.contributor.authorGonzález Hernández, Jorge Miguel
dc.contributor.authorJanicijevic, Danika
dc.contributor.authorBarboza González, Paola
dc.contributor.authorChirosa Ríos, Luis Javier
dc.contributor.authorGarcía Ramos, Amador
dc.date.accessioned2022-03-01T16:31:06Z
dc.date.available2022-03-01T16:31:06Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2021, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp. 243–249es_CL
dc.identifier.issn1555-0265
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositoriodigital.ucsc.cl/handle/25022009/2658
dc.descriptionArtículo de publicación ISIes_CL
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To compare the effects of 2 upper-body strength-training programs differing in set configuration on bench press 1-repetition maximum (BP1RM), bench press throw peak velocity against 30 kg (BPT30), and handball throwing velocity. Methods: Thirty-five men were randomly assigned to a traditional group (TRG; n = 12), rest redistribution group (RRG; n = 13), or control group (n = 10). The training program was conducted with the bench press exercise and lasted 6 weeks (2 sessions per week): TRG—6 sets × 5 repetitions with 3 minutes of interset rest; RRG—1 set × 30 repetitions with 31 seconds of interrepetition rest. The total rest period (15 min) and load intensity (75% 1RM) were the same for both experimental groups. Subjects performed all repetitions at maximal intended velocity, and the load was adjusted on a daily basis from velocity recordings. Results: A significant time × group interaction was observed for both BP1RM and BPT30 (P < .01) due to the higher values observed at posttest compared with pretest for TRG (effect size [ES] = 0.77) and RRG (ES = 0.56–0.59) but not for the control group (ES ≤ 0.08). The changes in BP1RM and BPT30 did not differ between TRG and RRG (ES = 0.04 and 0.05, respectively). No significant differences in handball throwing velocity were observed between the pretest and posttest (ES = 0.16, 0.22, and 0.02 for TRG, RRG, and control group, respectively). Conclusions: Resistance-training programs based on not-to-failure traditional and rest redistribution set configurations induce similar changes in BP1RM, BPT30, and handball throwing velocity.es_CL
dc.language.isoenes_CL
dc.publisherHuman Kineticses_CL
dc.source.urihttps://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2019-1005
dc.subjectBench presses_CL
dc.subjectCluster traininges_CL
dc.subject1-repetition maximumes_CL
dc.subjectrest redistribution,es_CL
dc.subjectThrowing velocityes_CL
dc.titleEffect of resistance-training programs differing in set configuration on maximal strength and explosive-action performancees_CL
dc.typeArticlees_CL
dc.identifier.doi10.1123/ijspp.2019-1005


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record