• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Medicine and science in sports and exercise >Influence of strength on magnitude and mechanisms of adaptation to power training.
【24h】

Influence of strength on magnitude and mechanisms of adaptation to power training.

机译：力量对力量训练的大小和适应机制的影响。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

PURPOSE: To determine whether the magnitude of performance improvements and the mechanisms driving adaptation to ballistic power training differ between strong and weak individuals. METHODS: Twenty-four men were divided into three groups on the basis of their strength level: stronger (n = 8, one-repetition maximum-to-body mass ratio (1RM/BM) = 1.97 +/- 0.08), weaker (n = 8, 1RM/BM = 1.32 +/- 0.14), or control (n = 8, 1RM/BM = 1.37 +/- 0.13). The stronger and weaker groups trained three times per week for 10 wk. During these sessions, subjects performed maximal-effort jump squats with 0%-30% 1RM. The impact of training on athletic performance was assessed using a 2-d testing battery that involved evaluation of jump and sprint performance as well as measures of the force-velocity relationship, jumping mechanics, muscle architecture, and neural drive. RESULTS: Both experimental groups showed significant (P < or = 0.05) improvements in jump (stronger: peak power = 10.0 +/- 5.2 W.kg, jump height = 0.07 +/- 0.04 m; weaker: peak power = 9.1 +/- 2.3 W.kg, jump height = 0.06 +/- 0.04 m) and sprint performance after training (stronger: 40-m time = -2.2% +/- 2.0%; weaker: 40-m time = -3.6% +/- 2.3%). Effect size analyses revealed a tendency toward practically relevant differences existing between stronger and weaker individuals in the magnitude of improvements in jump performance (effect size: stronger: peak power = 1.55, jump height = 1.46; weaker: peak power = 1.03, jump height = 0.95) and especially after 5 wk of training (effect size: stronger: peak power = 1.60, jump height = 1.59; weaker: peak power = 0.95, jump height = 0.61). The mechanisms driving these improvements included significant (P < or = 0.05) changes in the force-velocity relationship, jump mechanics, and neural activation, with no changes to muscle architecture observed. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of improvements after ballistic power training was not significantly influenced by strength level. However, the training had a tendency toward eliciting a more pronounced effect on jump performance in the stronger group. The neuromuscular and biomechanical mechanisms driving performance improvements were very similar for both strong and weak individuals.
机译：目的：确定强者和弱者之间的性能改善幅度和驱动适应弹道力量训练的机制是否不同。方法：将二十四名男性根据其力量水平分为三组：较健壮（n = 8，一次重复最大体质量比（1RM / BM）= 1.97 +/- 0.08），较弱（ n = 8，1RM / BM = 1.32 +/- 0.14）或对照（n = 8，1RM / BM = 1.37 +/- 0.13）。强弱小组每周训练3次，每周10周。在这些阶段中，受试者以0％-30％1RM进行最大努力跳蹲。训练对运动成绩的影响是通过2D测试电池评估的，该电池包括对跳跃和短跑性能的评估，以及对力-速度关系，跳跃力学，肌肉结构和神经驱动力的测量。结果：两个实验组均显示跳跃的显着改善（P <或= 0.05）（更强：峰值功率= 10.0 +/- 5.2 W.kg，跳跃高度= 0.07 +/- 0.04 m;较弱：峰值功率= 9.1 + / -2.3 W.kg，跳高= 0.06 +/- 0.04 m）和训练后的短跑表现（更强：40米时间= -2.2％+/- 2.0％;较弱：40米时间= -3.6％+ / -2.3％）。效应大小分析显示，在跳跃表现的改善幅度上，强者和弱者之间存在着实际相关差异的趋势（效应大小：强者：峰值功率= 1.55，跳跃高度= 1.46;弱者：峰值功率= 1.03，跳跃高度= 0.95），尤其是在训练5周后（效果大小：更强：峰值功率= 1.60，跳跃高度= 1.59;更弱：峰值功率= 0.95，跳跃高度= 0.61）。推动这些改善的机制包括力速关系的显着变化（P <或= 0.05），跳跃力学和神经激活，而未观察到肌肉结构的变化。结论：弹道力量训练后的改善幅度不受强度水平的显着影响。但是，训练倾向于在更强的群体中对跳跃表现产生更明显的影响。无论是强者还是弱者，促进性能改善的神经肌肉和生物力学机制都非常相似。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号