1Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, NEW ZEALAND; and 2Department of Kinesiology, Hope College, Holland, MI.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013 Dec;45(12):2322-31. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e31829af603.
Heavy-resistance training and plyometric training offer distinct physiological and neuromuscular adaptations that could enhance running economy and, consequently, distance-running performance. To date, no studies have examined the effect of combining the two modes of training on running economy or performance.
Fifty collegiate male and female cross-country runners performed a 5-km time trial and a series of laboratory-based tests to determine aerobic, anthropometric, biomechanical, and neuromuscular characteristics. Thereafter, each athlete participated in a season of six to eight collegiate cross-country races for 13 wk. After the first 4 wk, athletes were randomly assigned to either heavy-resistance or plyometric plus heavy-resistance training. Five days after completing their final competition, runners repeated the same set of laboratory tests. We also estimated the effects of the intervention on competition performance throughout the season using athletes of other teams as controls.
Heavy-resistance training produced small-moderate improvements in peak speed, running economy, and neuromuscular characteristics relative to plyometric resistance training, whereas changes in biomechanical measures favored plyometric resistance training. Men made less gains than women in most tests. Both treatments had possibly harmful effects on competition times in men (mean = 0.5%; 90% confidence interval = ±1.2%), but there may have been benefit for some individuals. Both treatments were likely beneficial for all women (-1.2%; ±1.3%), but heavy-resistance training was possibly better than plyometric resistance training.
The changes in laboratory-based parameters related to distance-running performance were consistent with the changes in competition times for women but only partly for men. Our data indicate that women should include heavy-resistance training in their programs, but men should be cautious about using it in season until more research establishes whether certain men are positive or negative responders.
大强度抗阻训练和增强式训练可带来明显的生理和神经肌肉适应性改变，从而提高跑步经济性，并最终提高长跑表现。迄今为止，尚无研究检验这两种训练方式相结合对跑步经济性或表现的影响。
50 名大学生男女越野跑运动员进行了 5km 计时赛和一系列实验室测试，以确定有氧能力、人体测量学、生物力学和神经肌肉特征。此后，每位运动员参加了为期 13 周的 6 至 8 场大学越野赛。在前 4 周之后，运动员被随机分配到抗阻训练或增强式抗阻训练加抗阻训练组。在完成最后一场比赛的 5 天后，运动员重复进行相同的一组实验室测试。我们还使用其他队伍的运动员作为对照，估计整个赛季干预对比赛表现的影响。
与增强式抗阻训练相比，抗阻训练使峰值速度、跑步经济性和神经肌肉特征有较小到中等程度的提高，而生物力学测量的变化则有利于增强式抗阻训练。男性在大多数测试中比女性的提高幅度较小。两种处理方式对男性的比赛用时都有潜在的负面影响（平均值=0.5%；90%置信区间=±1.2%），但可能对某些个体有益。两种处理方式对所有女性都可能有益（-1.2%；±1.3%），但抗阻训练可能比增强式抗阻训练更好。
与比赛用时变化相关的实验室参数变化与女性的比赛表现变化一致，但仅部分与男性的比赛表现变化一致。我们的数据表明，女性应在其训练计划中包括抗阻训练，但男性在赛季中应谨慎使用，直到更多研究确定某些男性是阳性反应者还是阴性反应者。
