INTRODUCTION The fitness fatigue model has been used for decades to provide insight in the training process. For this model to properly function one needs a valid training load (TL) as input. This TL has to accurately represent how fatiguing a training is for an athlete. For endurance sports there is a wide range of scientifically validated TL`s. However, this is not the case for strength training. Therefore it was the goal of this thesis to develop a validated TL for strength training by comparing fatigue induced from different training sessions. METHODS Seven male, physically active subjects participated in a 3 week long study consisting of two baseline test days and four training sessions. The baseline tests consisted of a RAMP incremental exercise test and one repetition maximum (1RM) determination for leg extension (LE) and leg press (LP) exercise. Three different LE training sessions were executed and one LP training. The first LE training was 5 sets of 12 repetitions at 70% of 1RM (LE_HYP_5x12), the second was 8 sets (LE_HYP_8x12) and the third 5 sets of 4 repetitions at 90%1RM (LE_MAX_5x4). The LP training (LE_HYP_5x12) had the same modalities as LE_HYP_5x12. Fatigue was quantified with pre-post and continuous measurements. The pre-post measurements were performance loss on a 5 second isometric knee extension maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), changes in blood lactate concentration (delta La-), rate of perceived exertion (RPE) scores, and a 3km maximal time trail (TT). The continuous measurements were those of velocity, power, force, displacement and electromyography (EMG). We calculated Spearman correlations between possible TL`s and the MVC and/or delta La-. RESULTS Hedges` G effect size was calculated with LE_HYP_5x12 as reference point. Where the MVC force loss, delta La-, average power, force and velocity loss were larger for LE_HYP_8x12 but smaller for LE_MAX_5x4. All having medium to large effect sizes. The TT, total and muscular RPE showed a large effect size between LE_HYP_5x12 and LE_HYP_8x12 but not LE_MAX_5x4. Respiratory fatigue failed to quantify fatigue. Additionally average power, force and velocity loss all showed a significant correlation with MVC force loss and delta La- (P<0.05). The same was seen for time under tension (TUT) and delta La-. CONCLUSION TUT best represents volume parameter for a TL formula. For every volume parameter the number of repetitions should be stressed more than the number of sets. We could not provide evidence for an optimal intensity parameter but suggest the use of %1RM. In every TL formula the volume parameter should have a greater weighing factor than the intensity parameter. Practitioners that want to use RPE as TL, should use the muscular RPE in combination with a volume parameter. Lastly, velocity loss can be used as TL measure that incorporates both volume and intensity.
© Copyright 2024 Veröffentlicht von Faculteit Geneeskunde en Gezondheidswetenschappen. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.