Adaptations in athletic performance and muscle architecture are not meaningfully conditioned by training free-weight versus machine-based exercises: Challenging a traditional assumption using the velocity-based method

BackgroundAlthough the superior effectiveness of free-weight over machine-based training has been a traditionally widespread assumption, longitudinal studies comparing these training modalities were scarce and heterogeneous.ObjectiveThis research used the velocity-based method to compare the effects...

ver descrição completa

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autores: Hernández-Belmonte , Alejandro, Buendía Romero, Ángel, Franco-López , Francisco, Martínez Cava, Alejandro, Pallarés , Jesús G
Formato: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2023
País:España
Recursos:Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha
Repositorio:RUIdeRA. Repositorio Institucional de la UCLM
OAI Identifier:oai:ruidera.uclm.es:10578/43807
Acesso em linha:https://hdl.handle.net/10578/43807
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palavra-chave:Fascicle length
Jump
Pennation angle
Sprint
Training modality
id ES_2989b58cec0142e0579a8b8d4ef51310
oai_identifier_str oai:ruidera.uclm.es:10578/43807
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling Adaptations in athletic performance and muscle architecture are not meaningfully conditioned by training free-weight versus machine-based exercises: Challenging a traditional assumption using the velocity-based methodHernández-Belmonte , AlejandroBuendía Romero, ÁngelFranco-López , FranciscoMartínez Cava, AlejandroPallarés , Jesús GFascicle lengthJumpPennation angleSprintTraining modalityBackgroundAlthough the superior effectiveness of free-weight over machine-based training has been a traditionally widespread assumption, longitudinal studies comparing these training modalities were scarce and heterogeneous.ObjectiveThis research used the velocity-based method to compare the effects of free-weight and machine-based resistance training on athletic performance and muscle architecture.MethodsThirty-four resistance-trained men participated in an 8-week resistance training program allocated into free-weight (n = 17) or machine-based (n = 17) groups. Training variables (intensity, intraset fatigue, and recovery) were identical for both groups, so they only differed in the use of a barbell or specific machines to execute the full squat, bench press, prone bench pull, and shoulder press exercises. The velocity-based method was implemented to accurately adjust the planned intensity. Analysis of covariance and effect size (ES) statistics were used to compare both training modalities on a comprehensive set of athletic and muscle architecture parameters.ResultsNo between-group differences were found for any athletic (p = 0.146) and muscle architecture (p = 0.184) variable. Both training modalities significantly and similarly improved vertical jump (Free-weight: ES = 0.45, p = 0.001; Machine-based: ES = 0.41, p = 0.001) and lower limb anaerobic capacity (Free-weight: ES = 0.39, p = 0.007; Machine-based: ES = 0.31, p = 0.003). Additionally, the machine-based group meaningfully enhanced upper limb anaerobic power (ES = 0.41, p = 0.021), whereas the free-weight group significantly improved the change of direction (ES = -0.54, p = 0.003) and 2/6 balance conditions analyzed (p = 0.012). Changes in sprint capacity (ES = -0.13, p = 0.274), fascicle length, and pennation angle (ES = 0.19, p = 0.129) were not significant for either training modality.ConclusionAdaptations in athletic performance and muscle architecture would not be meaningfully influenced by the resistance modality trained.WILEY202520252023info:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttps://hdl.handle.net/10578/43807reponame:RUIdeRA. Repositorio Institucional de la UCLMinstname:Universidad de Castilla-La ManchaInglésinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:ruidera.uclm.es:10578/438072026-05-27T07:36:41Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Adaptations in athletic performance and muscle architecture are not meaningfully conditioned by training free-weight versus machine-based exercises: Challenging a traditional assumption using the velocity-based method
title Adaptations in athletic performance and muscle architecture are not meaningfully conditioned by training free-weight versus machine-based exercises: Challenging a traditional assumption using the velocity-based method
spellingShingle Adaptations in athletic performance and muscle architecture are not meaningfully conditioned by training free-weight versus machine-based exercises: Challenging a traditional assumption using the velocity-based method
Hernández-Belmonte , Alejandro
Fascicle length
Jump
Pennation angle
Sprint
Training modality
title_short Adaptations in athletic performance and muscle architecture are not meaningfully conditioned by training free-weight versus machine-based exercises: Challenging a traditional assumption using the velocity-based method
title_full Adaptations in athletic performance and muscle architecture are not meaningfully conditioned by training free-weight versus machine-based exercises: Challenging a traditional assumption using the velocity-based method
title_fullStr Adaptations in athletic performance and muscle architecture are not meaningfully conditioned by training free-weight versus machine-based exercises: Challenging a traditional assumption using the velocity-based method
title_full_unstemmed Adaptations in athletic performance and muscle architecture are not meaningfully conditioned by training free-weight versus machine-based exercises: Challenging a traditional assumption using the velocity-based method
title_sort Adaptations in athletic performance and muscle architecture are not meaningfully conditioned by training free-weight versus machine-based exercises: Challenging a traditional assumption using the velocity-based method
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Hernández-Belmonte , Alejandro
Buendía Romero, Ángel
Franco-López , Francisco
Martínez Cava, Alejandro
Pallarés , Jesús G
author Hernández-Belmonte , Alejandro
author_facet Hernández-Belmonte , Alejandro
Buendía Romero, Ángel
Franco-López , Francisco
Martínez Cava, Alejandro
Pallarés , Jesús G
author_role author
author2 Buendía Romero, Ángel
Franco-López , Francisco
Martínez Cava, Alejandro
Pallarés , Jesús G
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Fascicle length
Jump
Pennation angle
Sprint
Training modality
topic Fascicle length
Jump
Pennation angle
Sprint
Training modality
description BackgroundAlthough the superior effectiveness of free-weight over machine-based training has been a traditionally widespread assumption, longitudinal studies comparing these training modalities were scarce and heterogeneous.ObjectiveThis research used the velocity-based method to compare the effects of free-weight and machine-based resistance training on athletic performance and muscle architecture.MethodsThirty-four resistance-trained men participated in an 8-week resistance training program allocated into free-weight (n = 17) or machine-based (n = 17) groups. Training variables (intensity, intraset fatigue, and recovery) were identical for both groups, so they only differed in the use of a barbell or specific machines to execute the full squat, bench press, prone bench pull, and shoulder press exercises. The velocity-based method was implemented to accurately adjust the planned intensity. Analysis of covariance and effect size (ES) statistics were used to compare both training modalities on a comprehensive set of athletic and muscle architecture parameters.ResultsNo between-group differences were found for any athletic (p = 0.146) and muscle architecture (p = 0.184) variable. Both training modalities significantly and similarly improved vertical jump (Free-weight: ES = 0.45, p = 0.001; Machine-based: ES = 0.41, p = 0.001) and lower limb anaerobic capacity (Free-weight: ES = 0.39, p = 0.007; Machine-based: ES = 0.31, p = 0.003). Additionally, the machine-based group meaningfully enhanced upper limb anaerobic power (ES = 0.41, p = 0.021), whereas the free-weight group significantly improved the change of direction (ES = -0.54, p = 0.003) and 2/6 balance conditions analyzed (p = 0.012). Changes in sprint capacity (ES = -0.13, p = 0.274), fascicle length, and pennation angle (ES = 0.19, p = 0.129) were not significant for either training modality.ConclusionAdaptations in athletic performance and muscle architecture would not be meaningfully influenced by the resistance modality trained.
publishDate 2023
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2023
2025
2025
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/10578/43807
url https://hdl.handle.net/10578/43807
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Inglés
language_invalid_str_mv Inglés
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv WILEY
publisher.none.fl_str_mv WILEY
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:RUIdeRA. Repositorio Institucional de la UCLM
instname:Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha
instname_str Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha
reponame_str RUIdeRA. Repositorio Institucional de la UCLM
collection RUIdeRA. Repositorio Institucional de la UCLM
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869405010332221440
score 15,228081

Registos relacionados