La Monica Michael B, Fukuda David H, Miramonti Amelia A, Beyer Kyle S, Hoffman Mattan W, Boone Carleigh H, Tanigawa Satoru, Wang Ran, Church David D, Stout Jeffrey R, Hoffman Jay R
1Institute of Exercise Physiology and Wellness, Sport and Exercise Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida; and 2Faculty of Health and Sport Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.
J Strength Cond Res. 2016 Sep;30(9):2382-91. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001388.
La Monica, MB, Fukuda, DH, Miramonti, AA, Beyer, KS, Hoffman, MW, Boone, CH, Tanigawa, S, Wang, R, Church, DD, Stout, JR, and Hoffman, JR. Physical differences between forwards and backs in American collegiate rugby players. J Strength Cond Res 30(9): 2382-2391, 2016-This study examined the anthropometric and physical performance differences between forwards and backs in a championship-level American male collegiate rugby team. Twenty-five male rugby athletes (mean ± SD; age 20.2 ± 1.6 years) were assessed. Athletes were grouped according to position as forwards (n = 13) and backs (n = 12) and were evaluated on the basis of anthropometrics (height, weight, percent body fat [BF%]), cross-sectional area (CSA), muscle thickness (MT), and pennation angle (PA) of the vastus lateralis (VL), maximal strength (1 repetition maximum [1RM] bench press and squat), vertical jump power, midthigh pull (peak force [PF] and peak rate of force development [PRFD]), maximal aerobic capacity (V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak), agility (pro agility, T test), speed (40-m sprint), and a tethered sprint (peak velocity [PV], time to peak velocity, distance covered, and step rate and length). Comparisons between forwards and backs were analyzed using independent t-tests with Cohen's d effect size. Forwards were significantly different from backs for body weight (90.5 ± 12.4 vs. 73.7 ± 7.1 kg, p < 0.01; d = 1.60), BF% (12.6 ± 4.2 vs. 8.8 ± 2.1%, p ≤ 0.05; d = 1.10), VL CSA (38.3 ± 9.1 vs. 28.7 ± 4.7 cm, p < 0.01; d = 1.26), 1RM bench press (121.1 ± 30.3 vs. 89.5 ± 20.4 kg, p ≤ 0.05; d = 1.17), 1RM squat (164.6 ± 43.0 vs. 108.5 ± 31.5 kg, p < 0.01; d = 1.42), PF (2,244.6 ± 505.2 vs. 1,654.6 ± 338.8 N, p < 0.01; d = 1.32), PV (5.49 ± 0.25 vs. 5.14 ± 0.37 m·s, p ≤ 0.05; d = 1.04), and step length (1.2 ± 0.1 vs. 1.1 ± 0.1 m, p ≤ 0.05; d = 0.80). V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak was significantly (p ≤ 0.05, d = -1.20) higher in backs (54.9 ± 3.9 ml·kg·min) than in forwards (49.4 ± 4.4 ml·kg·min). No differences in agility performance were found between position groups. The results of this study provide descriptive information on anthropometric and performance measures on American male collegiate championship-level rugby players offering potential standards for coaches to use when developing or recruiting players.
拉莫尼卡，医学学士；福田，医学博士；米拉蒙蒂，医学博士；贝耶，医学博士；霍夫曼，医学博士；布恩，医学博士；谷川，医学博士；王，医学博士；丘奇，医学博士；斯托特，医学博士；霍夫曼，医学博士。美国大学橄榄球运动员前锋与后卫的身体差异。《力量与体能研究杂志》30(9): 2382 - 2391，2016年——本研究调查了一支美国男子大学冠军级橄榄球队中前锋与后卫在人体测量学和身体表现方面的差异。对25名男性橄榄球运动员（均值±标准差；年龄20.2±1.6岁）进行了评估。运动员按位置分为前锋组（n = 13）和后卫组（n = 12），并根据人体测量学指标（身高、体重、体脂百分比[BF%]）、股外侧肌（VL）的横截面积（CSA）、肌肉厚度（MT）和羽状角（PA）、最大力量（卧推和深蹲的1次重复最大值[1RM]）、垂直跳跃功率、大腿中部拉力（峰值力[PF]和力发展峰值速率[PRFD]）、最大有氧能力（V̇O₂峰值）、敏捷性（职业敏捷性测试、T型测试）、速度（40米冲刺）以及牵引冲刺（峰值速度[PV]、达到峰值速度的时间、覆盖距离以及步频和步长）进行评估。使用独立样本t检验及科恩d效应量对前锋组和后卫组进行比较分析。前锋与后卫在体重（90.5±12.4 vs. 73.7±7.1千克，p < 0.01；d = 1.60）、BF%（12.6±4.2 vs. 8.8±2.1%，p≤0.05；d = 1.10）、VL CSA（38.3±9.1 vs. 28.7±4.7平方厘米，p < 0.01；d = 1.26）、卧推1RM（121.1±30.3 vs. 89.5±20.4千克，p≤0.05；d = 1.17）、深蹲1RM（164.6±43.0 vs. 108.5±31.5千克，p < 0.01；d = 1.42）、PF（2244.6±505.2 vs. 1654.6±338.8牛，p < 0.01；d = 1.32）、PV（5.49±0.25 vs. 5.14±0.37米·秒，p≤0.05；d = 1.04）以及步长（1.2±0.1 vs. 1.1±0.1米，p≤0.05；d = 0.80）方面存在显著差异。后卫的V̇O₂峰值（54.9±3.9毫升·千克·分钟）显著高于前锋（49.4±4.4毫升·千克·分钟）（p≤0.05，d = -1.20）。在不同位置组之间未发现敏捷性表现存在差异。本研究结果提供了关于美国男子大学冠军级橄榄球运动员人体测量学和表现指标的描述性信息，为教练在培养或招募球员时提供了潜在的参考标准。
