Department of Physical Therapy, University of Florida , USA.
Department of Sports Medicine & Athletic Training, Southwest Missouri State University , USA.
J Sports Sci Med. 2003 Jun 1;2(2):62-9. eCollection 2003 Jun.
Protocols for strengthening muscle are important for fitness, rehabilitation, and the prevention of myotendinous injuries. In trained individuals, the optimal method of increasing strength remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of a traditional method of strengthening with a method that allowed for enhanced-eccentric training, on changes in elbow flexor strength in trained subjects. Thirty-nine (8 male, 31 female) trained subjects with normal elbow function participated in this study. Subjects were rank-ordered according to isometric force production and randomly assigned to one of three training groups: control (CONT), traditional concentric/eccentric (TRAD), and concentric/enhanced-eccentric (NEG). The training groups completed 24 training sessions. An evaluator blinded to training group performed all testing. Mixed model ANOVA techniques were used to determine if differences existed in concentric one repetition maximum strength, and isometric force production among groups. Changes in peak and average isokinetic force production were also compared. Type 1 error was maintained at 5%. While both groups improved concentric one repetition maximum (NEG = 15.5%, TRAD = 13.8%) neither training group statistically differed from changes demonstrated by the CONT group. Nor did either training group show significant improvements in isometric or isokinetic force production over the CONT group. These results do not support the superiority of enhanced-eccentric training for increasing force production in trained subjects.
增强肌肉的方案对于健身、康复和预防肌腱损伤非常重要。在训练有素的个体中，增加力量的最佳方法仍不清楚。本研究的目的是比较传统的强化方法和允许增强离心训练的方法对训练有素的受试者的肘屈肌力量变化的影响。39 名（8 名男性，31 名女性）具有正常肘部功能的训练有素的受试者参加了这项研究。根据等长力量产生对受试者进行排序，并随机分配到以下三个训练组之一：对照组（CONT）、传统向心/离心（TRAD）和向心/增强离心（NEG）。训练组完成了 24 次训练。一位对训练组不知情的评估员进行了所有测试。采用混合模型方差分析技术来确定组间是否存在向心一次性最大力量和等长力量产生的差异。还比较了峰值和平均等速力量产生的变化。一类错误保持在 5%。虽然两组都提高了向心一次性最大力量（NEG=15.5%，TRAD=13.8%），但与 CONT 组相比，两组均未显示出统计学差异。两组在等长或等速力量产生方面也没有显示出比 CONT 组有显著改善。这些结果不支持增强离心训练对提高训练有素的受试者力量产生的优越性。
