Suppr超能文献

动态强度指数计算方法的比较

Comparison of Methods of Calculating Dynamic Strength Index.

作者信息

Comfort Paul, Thomas Christopher, Dos'Santos Thomas, Jones Paul A, Suchomel Timothy J, McMahon John J

出版信息

Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2018 Mar 1;13(3):320-325. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2017-0255. Epub 2018 Mar 7.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To determine the reliability and variability of the Dynamic Strength Index (DSI) calculated from squat-jump (SJ) vs countermovement-jump (CMJ) peak force (PF) and to compare DSI values between methods.

METHODS

Male youth soccer and rugby league players (N = 27; age 17.2 ± 0.7 y, height 173.9 ± 5.7 cm, body mass 71.1 ± 7.2 kg) performed 3 trials of the SJ, CMJ, and isometric midthigh pull (IMTP) on 2 separate days. DSI was calculated by dividing the PF during each jump by the IMTP PF.

RESULTS

DSI-SJ exhibited moderate (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = .419) within-session reliability and high variability (percentage coefficient of variation [%CV] = 15.91) during session 1; however, this improved noticeably during session 2 (ICC = .948, %CV = 4.03). In contrast, DSI-CMJ showed nearly perfect within-session reliability (ICC = .920-.952) and low variability (%CV = 3.80-4.57) for both sessions. Moreover, DSI-SJ values demonstrated a small yet significant increase between sessions (P = .01, d = 0.37), whereas only a trivial and nonsignificant increase was observed for DSI-CMJ between sessions (P = .796, d = 0.07). Between-sessions reliability was very high for the DSI-SJ (ICC = .741) and nearly perfect for the DSI-CMJ (ICC = .924). There was no significant or meaningful difference (P = .261, d = 0.12) between DSI-SJ (0.82 ± 0.18) and DSI-CMJ (0.84 ± 0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

Practitioners should use DSI-CMJ, as it is a more reliable measure than DSI-SJ, although it produces similar ratios.

摘要

目的

确定根据深蹲跳(SJ)与反向纵跳(CMJ)的峰值力(PF)计算出的动态力量指数(DSI)的可靠性和变异性,并比较两种方法得出的DSI值。

方法

男性青少年足球和橄榄球联盟运动员(N = 27;年龄17.2±0.7岁,身高173.9±5.7厘米,体重71.1±7.2千克)在两个不同日期进行了3次SJ、CMJ和等长大腿中部拉力(IMTP)测试。DSI通过将每次跳跃时的PF除以IMTP的PF来计算。

结果

DSI-SJ在第1阶段表现出中等的组内可靠性(组内相关系数[ICC]=0.419)和较高的变异性(变异系数百分比[%CV]=15.91);然而,在第2阶段有显著改善(ICC = 0.948,%CV = 4.03)。相比之下,DSI-CMJ在两个阶段均显示出近乎完美的组内可靠性(ICC = 0.920 - 0.952)和较低的变异性(%CV = 3.80 - 4.57)。此外,DSI-SJ值在两个阶段之间有小幅但显著的增加(P = 0.01,d = 0.37),而DSI-CMJ在两个阶段之间仅观察到微小且不显著的增加(P = 0.796,d = 0.07)。DSI-SJ的阶段间可靠性非常高(ICC = 0.741),DSI-CMJ的阶段间可靠性近乎完美(ICC = 0.924)。DSI-SJ(0.82±0.18)和DSI-CMJ(0.84±0.15)之间没有显著或有意义的差异(P = 0.261,d = 0.12)。

结论

从业者应使用DSI-CMJ,因为它比DSI-SJ更可靠,尽管两者得出的比率相似。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验