Jones R Murry, Fry Andrew C, Weiss Lawrence W, Kinzey Stephen J, Moore Christopher A
Human Performance Laboratories, The University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.
J Strength Cond Res. 2008 Nov;22(6):1785-9. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318185f068.
The purpose of this investigation was to compare the kinetic characteristics of the power clean exercise using either free weight or machine resistance. After familiarization, 14 resistance trained men (mean +/- SD; age = 24.9 +/- 6.2 years) participated in two testing sessions. During the initial testing session, one-repetition maximum performance (1RM) was assessed in either the free weight or machine power clean from the midthigh. This was followed by kinetic assessment of either the free weight or the machine power clean at 85% of 1RM. One week after the initial testing session, 1RM performance, as well as the subsequent kinetic evaluation, were performed for the alternate exercise modality. All performance measures were obtained using a computer-interfaced FiTROdyne dynamometer (Fitronic; Bratislava, Slovakia). Maximum strength (1RM) and average power were significantly greater for the free weight condition, whereas peak velocity and average velocity were greater for the machine condition (p < 0.05). Although peak power was not different between modalities, force at peak power (free weights = 1445 +/- 266 N, machine = 1231 +/- 194 N) and velocity at peak power (free weights = 1.77 +/- 0.28 m x s(-1), machine = 2.20 +/- 0.24 m x s(-1)) were different (p < 0.05). It seems that mechanical limitations of the machine modality (i.e., lift trajectory) result in different load capacities that produce different kinetic characteristics for these two lifting modalities.
本研究的目的是比较使用自由重量器械或器械阻力进行高翻练习的动力学特征。在熟悉阶段之后,14名有阻力训练经验的男性(均值±标准差;年龄 = 24.9±6.2岁)参加了两次测试。在初始测试阶段,从中大腿高度开始,对自由重量器械或器械高翻的一次重复最大力量(1RM)进行评估。随后,以1RM的85%对自由重量器械或器械高翻进行动力学评估。在初始测试阶段一周后,对另一种练习方式进行1RM表现以及随后的动力学评估。所有表现指标均使用计算机接口的FiTROdyne测力计(Fitronic;斯洛伐克布拉迪斯拉发)获得。自由重量器械条件下的最大力量(1RM)和平均功率显著更高,而器械条件下的峰值速度和平均速度更高(p < 0.05)。尽管不同方式之间的峰值功率没有差异,但峰值功率时的力(自由重量器械 = 1445±266 N,器械 = 1231±194 N)和峰值功率时的速度(自由重量器械 = 1.77±0.28 m·s⁻¹,器械 = 2.20±0.24 m·s⁻¹)存在差异(p < 0.05)。似乎器械方式的机械限制(即提升轨迹)导致了不同的负荷能力,从而为这两种提升方式产生了不同的动力学特征。