School of Physical Education and Sport, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
J Strength Cond Res. 2013 Jul;27(7):1791-7. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182772da6.
The present study investigated the effects of 2 different power training loading schemes in Brazilian elite soccer players. Thirty-two players participated in the study. Maximum dynamic strength (1RM) was evaluated before (B), at midpoint (i.e., after 3 weeks; T1), and after 6 weeks (T2) of a preseason strength/power training. Muscle power, jumping, and sprinting performance were evaluated at B and T2. Players were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 training groups: velocity-based (VEL: n = 16; age, 19.18 ± 0.72 years; height, 173 ± 6 cm; body mass, 72.7 ± 5.8 kg) or intensity-based (INT: n = 16; age, 19.11 ± 0.7 years; height, 172 ± 4.5 cm; body mass, 71.8 ± 4.6 kg). After the individual determination of the optimal power load, both groups completed a 3-week traditional strength training period. Afterward, the VEL group performed 3 weeks of power-oriented training with increasing velocity and decreasing intensity (from 60 to 30% 1RM) throughout the training period, whereas the INT group increased the training intensity (from 30 to 60% 1RM) and thus decreased movement velocity throughout the power-oriented training period. Both groups used loads within ±15% (ranging from 30 to 60% 1RM) of the measured optimal power load (i.e., 45.2 ± 3.0% 1RM). Similar 1RM gains were observed in both groups at T1 (VEL: 9.2%; INT: 11.0%) and T2 (VEL: 19.8%; INT: 22.1%). The 2 groups also presented significant improvements (within-group comparisons) in all of the variables. However, no between-group differences were detected. Mean power in the back squat (VEL: 18.5%; INT: 20.4%) and mean propulsive power in the jump squat (VEL: 29.1%; INT: 31.0%) were similarly improved at T2. The 10-m sprint (VEL: -4.3%; INT: -1.6%), jump squat (VEL: 7.1%; INT: 4.5%), and countermovement jump (VEL: 6.7%; INT: 6.9%) were also improved in both groups at T2. Curiously, the 30-m sprint time (VEL: -0.8%; INT: -0.1%) did not significantly improve for both groups. In summary, our data suggest that male professional soccer players can achieve improvements in strength- and power-related abilities as a result of 6 weeks of power-oriented training during the preseason. Furthermore, similar performance improvements are observed when training intensity manipulation occurs around only a small range within the optimal power training load.
本研究调查了 2 种不同的力量训练负荷方案对巴西精英足球运动员的影响。32 名运动员参加了这项研究。在赛季前的力量/力量训练前(B)、中点(即第 3 周后;T1)和第 6 周后(T2)评估最大动态强度(1RM)。肌肉力量、跳跃和冲刺表现分别在 B 和 T2 进行评估。运动员被随机分配到 2 个训练组中的 1 个:速度组(VEL:n=16;年龄,19.18±0.72 岁;身高,173±6cm;体重,72.7±5.8kg)或强度组(INT:n=16;年龄,19.11±0.7 岁;身高,172±4.5cm;体重,71.8±4.6kg)。在确定最佳动力负荷后,两组均完成了 3 周的传统力量训练期。此后,VEL 组在整个训练期间进行了 3 周的以速度为主导的训练,强度逐渐降低(从 60%到 30%1RM),而 INT 组则增加了训练强度(从 30%到 60%1RM),从而降低了整个动力训练期间的运动速度。两组均使用负荷在测量最佳动力负荷的±15%以内(范围为 30%至 60%1RM),即 45.2±3.0%1RM。在 T1(VEL:9.2%;INT:11.0%)和 T2(VEL:19.8%;INT:22.1%),两组均观察到相似的 1RM 增加。两组在所有变量上都有显著的改善(组内比较)。然而,未检测到组间差异。在背蹲(VEL:18.5%;INT:20.4%)和跳蹲(VEL:29.1%;INT:31.0%)中的平均动力以及在 T2 时的 10 米冲刺(VEL:-4.3%;INT:-1.6%)、跳蹲(VEL:7.1%;INT:4.5%)和反向跳跃(VEL:6.7%;INT:6.9%)也都有所提高。有趣的是,两组的 30 米冲刺时间(VEL:-0.8%;INT:-0.1%)都没有显著提高。总的来说,我们的数据表明,男性职业足球运动员可以通过赛季前 6 周的以力量为主导的训练来提高力量和相关能力。此外,当训练强度仅在最佳动力训练负荷范围内的小范围内进行调整时,观察到类似的性能提高。