Khodaei Kazem, Mohammadi Abbas, Badri Neda
Physical Education and Sport Sciences Faculty, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran -
Department of Physical Education, Islamic Azad University, Sabzevar Branch, Sabzevar, Iran.
J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2017 Oct;57(10):1237-1244. doi: 10.23736/S0022-4707.17.06901-8. Epub 2017 Jan 23.
The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of assisted, resisted and common plyometric training modes to enhance sprint and agility performance. Thirty active young males (age 20.67±1.12, height 174.83±4.69, weight 63.45±7.51) volunteered to participate in this study that 24 completed testing.
The participants were randomly assigned into different groups: assisted, resisted and common plyometric exercises groups. Plyometric training involved three sessions per week for 4 weeks. The volume load of plyometric training modes was equated between the groups. The posttest was performed after 48 hours of the last training session. Between-group differences were analyzed with the ANCOVA and LSD post-hoc tests, and within-group differences were analyzed by a paired t-test.
The findings of the present study indicated that 0-10-m, 20-30-m sprint time and the Illinois Agility Test time significantly decreased in the assisted and resisted plyometrics modes compared to the common plyometric training mode (P≤0.05). Also, the 0-10-m, 0-30-m sprint time and agility T-test time was significantly reduced with resisted plyometrics modes compared to the assisted and common plyometric modes (P≤0.05). There was no significant difference in the 10-20-m sprint time among the three plyometric training modes.
The results of this study demonstrated that assisted and resisted plyometrics modes with elastic bands were effective methods to improve sprint and agility performance than common plyometric training in active males. Also, the resisted plyometrics mode was superior than the assisted plyometrics mode to improving sprint and agility tasks.
本研究旨在比较辅助式、抗阻式和常规增强式训练模式对提高短跑和敏捷性表现的效果。30名活跃的年轻男性（年龄20.67±1.12，身高174.83±4.69，体重63.45±7.51）自愿参与本研究，其中24人完成了测试。
参与者被随机分为不同组：辅助式、抗阻式和常规增强式练习组。增强式训练每周进行3次，共4周。各增强式训练模式的运动量负荷在各组间保持相等。在最后一次训练课48小时后进行后测。组间差异采用协方差分析和LSD事后检验进行分析，组内差异采用配对t检验进行分析。
本研究结果表明，与常规增强式训练模式相比，辅助式和抗阻式增强式训练模式下0至10米、20至30米短跑时间以及伊利诺伊敏捷性测试时间显著缩短（P≤0.05）。此外，与辅助式和常规增强式训练模式相比，抗阻式增强式训练模式下0至10米、0至30米短跑时间以及敏捷性T测试时间显著缩短（P≤0.05）。三种增强式训练模式在10至20米短跑时间上无显著差异。
本研究结果表明，对于活跃男性，使用弹力带的辅助式和抗阻式增强式训练模式是比常规增强式训练更有效的提高短跑和敏捷性表现的方法。而且，抗阻式增强式训练模式在改善短跑和敏捷性任务方面优于辅助式增强式训练模式。
