Root Hayley, Trojian Thomas, Martinez Jessica, Kraemer William, DiStefano Lindsay J
Department of Kinesiology, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
J Athl Train. 2015 Nov;50(11):1149-57. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-50.11.01. Epub 2015 Nov 2.
Injury-prevention programs (IPPs) performed as season-long warm-ups improve injury rates, performance outcomes, and jump-landing technique. However, concerns regarding program adoption exist. Identifying the acute benefits of using an IPP compared with other warm-ups may encourage IPP adoption.
To examine the immediate effects of 3 warm-up protocols (IPP, static warm-up [SWU], or dynamic warm-up [DWU]) on jump-landing technique and performance measures in youth athletes.
Randomized controlled clinical trial.
Gymnasiums.
Sixty male and 29 female athletes (age = 13 ± 2 years, height = 162.8 ± 12.6 cm, mass = 37.1 ± 13.5 kg) volunteered to participate in a single session.
INTERVENTION(S): Participants were stratified by age, sex, and sport and then were randomized into 1 protocol: IPP, SWU, or DWU. The IPP consisted of dynamic flexibility, strengthening, plyometric, and balance exercises and emphasized proper technique. The SWU consisted of jogging and lower extremity static stretching. The DWU consisted of dynamic lower extremity flexibility exercises. Participants were assessed for landing technique and performance measures immediately before (PRE) and after (POST) completing their warm-ups.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): One rater graded each jump-landing trial using the Landing Error Scoring System. Participants performed a vertical jump, long jump, shuttle run, and jump-landing task in randomized order. The averages of all jump-landing trials and performance variables were used to calculate 1 composite score for each variable at PRE and POST. Change scores were calculated (POST - PRE) for all measures. Separate 1-way (group) analyses of variance were conducted for each dependent variable (α < .05).
No differences were observed among groups for any performance measures (P > .05). The Landing Error Scoring System scores improved after the IPP (change = -0.40 ± 1.24 errors) compared with the DWU (0.27 ± 1.09 errors) and SWU (0.43 ± 1.35 errors; P = .04).
An IPP did not impair sport performance and may have reduced injury risk, which supports the use of these programs before sport activity.
作为赛季长期热身的 injury-prevention programs (IPPs) 可提高损伤率、运动表现结果和跳跃着陆技术。然而，对于项目采用存在担忧。确定使用 IPP 与其他热身相比的急性益处可能会鼓励采用 IPP。
研究 3 种热身方案（IPP、静态热身 [SWU] 或动态热身 [DWU]）对青少年运动员跳跃着陆技术和运动表现指标的即时影响。
随机对照临床试验。
体育馆。
60 名男性和 29 名女性运动员（年龄 = 13 ± 2 岁，身高 = 162.8 ± 12.6 厘米，体重 = 37.1 ± 13.5 千克）自愿参加单次训练。
参与者按年龄、性别和运动项目分层，然后随机分为 1 种方案：IPP、SWU 或 DWU。IPP 包括动态柔韧性、强化、增强式和平衡练习，并强调正确技术。SWU 包括慢跑和下肢静态拉伸。DWU 包括动态下肢柔韧性练习。在完成热身前（PRE）和后（POST）对参与者进行着陆技术和运动表现指标评估。
一名评估者使用着陆误差评分系统对每次跳跃着陆试验进行评分。参与者按随机顺序进行垂直跳跃、跳远、穿梭跑和跳跃着陆任务。所有跳跃着陆试验和运动表现变量的平均值用于计算 PRE 和 POST 时每个变量的 1 个综合得分。计算所有测量指标的变化得分（POST - PRE）。对每个因变量进行单独的单因素（组）方差分析（α < .05）。
在任何运动表现指标上各组之间均未观察到差异（P > .05）。与 DWU（0.27 ± 1.09 误差）和 SWU（0.43 ± 1.35 误差；P = .04）相比，IPP 后着陆误差评分系统得分有所改善（变化 = -0.40 ± 1.24 误差）。
IPP 不会损害运动表现，可能还降低了受伤风险，这支持在体育活动前使用这些项目。
