Alves Ana R, Marta Carlos C, Neiva Henrique P, Izquierdo Mikel, Marques Mário C
1Department of Sport Sciences, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal;2Department of Sport Sciences, Guarda Polytechnique Institute, Guarda, Portugal;3Research Unit for Inland Development, UDI, Guarda, Portugal;4Research Center in Sport Sciences, Health Sciences and Human Development, CIDESD, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal; and5Department of Health Sciences, Public University of Navarre, Navarre, Spain.
J Strength Cond Res. 2016 Dec;30(12):3267-3277. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001431.
Alves, AR, Marta, C, Neiva, HP, Izquierdo, M, and Marques, MC. Does intrasession concurrent strength and aerobic training order influence training-induced explosive strength and V[Combining Dot Above]O2max in prepubescent children?. J Strength Cond Res 30(12): 3267-3277, 2016-The aim of this study was to analyze the interference of strength and aerobic training order over an 8-week period on explosive skills and maximal oxygen uptake (V[Combining Dot Above]O2max) in prepubescent children. One hundred twenty-eight prepubescent children aged 10-11 years (10.9 ± 0.5 years) were randomly selected and assigned to 1 of the 3 groups: intrasession concurrent aerobic before (GAS: n = 39) or after strength training (GSA: n = 45) or control group (GC: n = 44; no training program). The GC maintained their baseline level performance, and training-induced differences were found in the experimental groups. Increases were found in the 1-kg and 3-kg medicine ball throws: GAS: +3%, +5.5%, p ≤ 0.05, p < 0.001; GSA: +5.7%, +8.7%, p < 0.001, respectively; in the counter movement jump height and standing long jump length: GAS: +6.5%, +3.4%, p ≤ 0.05; GSA: +7%, +4.5%, p < 0.001, respectively; in the 20-m shuttle-run time: GAS: +2.3%; GSA: +4.6%, p < 0.001; and, in the V[Combining Dot Above]O2max: GAS: +7.3%, p < 0.001; GSA: +3.8%, p < 0.001 from pretraining to post-training. All programs were effective, but GSA produced better results than GAS for muscle strength variables, and GAS produced better results than GSA for aerobic capacity variables. The present study explored an unknown issue and added useful information to the literature in this area. These training methods should be taken into consideration to optimize explosive strength and cardiorespiratory fitness training in school-based programs and sports club programs.
阿尔维斯，AR、玛尔塔，C、内瓦，HP、伊兹基尔多，M和马克斯，MC。青春期前儿童训练期间同时进行力量训练和有氧训练的顺序会影响训练诱导的爆发力和最大摄氧量吗？《力量与体能研究杂志》30(12): 3267 - 3277，2016年——本研究的目的是分析为期8周的力量训练和有氧训练顺序对青春期前儿童爆发力和最大摄氧量（V̇O₂max）的干扰。随机选取128名10 - 11岁（10.9±0.5岁）的青春期前儿童，并将其分配到3组中的1组：训练期间先进行有氧训练后进行力量训练（GAS：n = 39）或先进行力量训练后进行有氧训练（GSA：n = 45）或对照组（GC：n = 44；无训练计划）。GC组保持其基线水平表现，且在实验组中发现了训练诱导的差异。1千克和3千克药球投掷成绩有所提高：GAS组分别提高了3%、5.5%，p≤0.05，p < 0.001；GSA组分别提高了5.7%、8.7%，p < 0.001；立定跳远和立定跳远长度：GAS组分别提高了6.5%、3.4%，p≤0.05；GSA组分别提高了7%、4.5%，p < 0.001；20米穿梭跑时间：GAS组提高了2.3%；GSA组提高了4.6%，p < 0.001；以及V̇O₂max：从训练前到训练后，GAS组提高了7.3%，p < 0.001；GSA组提高了3.8%，p < 0.001。所有训练计划均有效，但对于肌肉力量变量，GSA组比GAS组产生了更好的效果，而对于有氧能力变量，GAS组比GSA组产生了更好的效果。本研究探讨了一个未知问题，并为该领域的文献增添了有用信息。在学校项目和体育俱乐部项目中，应考虑这些训练方法以优化爆发力和心肺适能训练。
