Hoffman Jay R, Ratamess Nicholas A, Klatt Marc, Faigenbaum Avery D, Ross Ryan E, Tranchina Nicholas M, McCurley Robert C, Kang Jie, Kraemer William J
Department of Health and Exercise Science, The College of New Jersey, Ewing, New Jersey, USA.
J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Jan;23(1):11-9. doi: 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181876a78.
The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of periodization and to compare different periodization models in resistance trained American football players. Fifty-one experienced resistance trained American football players of an NCAA Division III football team (after 10 weeks of active rest) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups that differed only in the manipulation of the intensity and volume of training during a 15-week offseason resistance training program. Group 1 participated in a nonperiodized (NP) training program, group 2 participated in a traditional periodized linear (PL) training program, and group 3 participated in a planned nonlinear periodized (PNL) training program. Strength and power testing occurred before training (PRE), after 7 weeks of training (MID), and at the end of the training program (POST). Significant increases in maximal (1-repetition maximum [1RM]) squat, 1RM bench press, and vertical jump were observed from PRE to MID for all groups; these increases were still significantly greater at POST; however, no MID to POST changes were seen. Significant PRE to POST improvements in the medicine ball throw (MBT) were seen for PL group only. The results do not provide a clear indication as to the most effective training program for strength and power enhancements in already trained football players. Interestingly, recovery of training-related performances was achieved after only 7 weeks of training, yet further gains were not observed. These data indicate that longer periods of training may be needed after a long-term active recovery period and that active recovery may need to be dramatically shortened to better optimize strength and power in previously trained football players.
本研究的目的是检验周期化训练的效果，并比较不同周期化训练模式对接受过抗阻训练的美式橄榄球运动员的影响。一支美国大学体育协会（NCAA）三级橄榄球队的51名有经验的接受过抗阻训练的球员（经过10周的积极休息）被随机分配到3组中的1组，这3组仅在为期15周的休赛期抗阻训练计划中训练强度和训练量的安排上有所不同。第1组参与非周期化（NP）训练计划，第2组参与传统的线性周期化（PL）训练计划，第3组参与计划性非线性周期化（PNL）训练计划。在训练前（PRE）、训练7周后（MID）以及训练计划结束时（POST）进行力量和功率测试。所有组从PRE到MID，深蹲最大重复次数（1RM）、卧推1RM和垂直纵跳均显著增加；在POST时这些增加仍然显著更大；然而，从MID到POST没有变化。仅PL组在药球投掷（MBT）方面从PRE到POST有显著改善。结果并未明确表明对于已经接受过训练的橄榄球运动员，哪种训练计划对增强力量和功率最有效。有趣的是，仅经过7周训练就实现了与训练相关表现的恢复，但未观察到进一步的提升。这些数据表明，在长期积极休息期后可能需要更长时间的训练，并且可能需要大幅缩短积极休息时间，以便更好地优化先前接受过训练的橄榄球运动员的力量和功率。
