Prieske Olaf, Krüger Tom, Aehle Markus, Bauer Erik, Granacher Urs
Division of Training and Movement Sciences, Research Focus Cognition Sciences, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.
Front Physiol. 2018 Mar 2;9:156. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.00156. eCollection 2018.
Power training programs have proved to be effective in improving components of physical fitness such as speed. According to the concept of training specificity, it was postulated that exercises must attempt to closely mimic the demands of the respective activity. When transferring this idea to speed development, the purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of resisted sprint (RST) vs. traditional power training (TPT) on physical fitness in healthy young adults. Thirty-five healthy, physically active adults were randomly assigned to a RST ( = 10, 23 ± 3 years), a TPT ( = 9, 23 ± 3 years), or a passive control group ( = 16, 23 ± 2 years). RST and TPT exercised for 6 weeks with three training sessions/week each lasting 45-60 min. RST comprised frontal and lateral sprint exercises using an expander system with increasing levels of resistance that was attached to a treadmill (h/p/cosmos). TPT included ballistic strength training at 40% of the one-repetition-maximum for the lower limbs (e.g., leg press, knee extensions). Before and after training, sprint (20-m sprint), change-of-direction speed (T-agility test), jump (drop, countermovement jump), and balance performances (Y balance test) were assessed. ANCOVA statistics revealed large main effects of group for 20-m sprint velocity and ground contact time (0.81 ≤ d ≤ 1.00). tests showed higher sprint velocity following RST and TPT (0.69 ≤ d ≤ 0.82) when compared to the control group, but no difference between RST and TPT. Pre-to-post changes amounted to 4.5% for RST [90%CI: (-1.1%;10.1%), d = 1.23] and 2.6% for TPT [90%CI: (0.4%;4.8%), d = 1.59]. Additionally, ground contact times during sprinting were shorter following RST and TPT (0.68 ≤ d ≤ 1.09) compared to the control group, but no difference between RST and TPT. Pre-to-post changes amounted to -6.3% for RST [90%CI: (-11.4%;-1.1%), d = 1.45) and -2.7% for TPT [90%CI: (-4.2%;-1.2%), d = 2.36]. Finally, effects for change-of-direction speed, jump, and balance performance varied from small-to-large. The present findings indicate that 6 weeks of RST and TPT produced similar effects on 20-m sprint performance compared with a passive control in healthy and physically active, young adults. However, no training-related effects were found for change-of-direction speed, jump and balance performance. We conclude that both training regimes can be applied for speed development.
力量训练计划已被证明在提高身体素质的各个方面（如速度）方面是有效的。根据训练特异性的概念，有人推测练习必须尝试紧密模拟相应活动的要求。当将这一理念应用于速度发展时，本研究的目的是检验抗阻冲刺训练（RST）与传统力量训练（TPT）对健康年轻成年人身体素质的影响。35名健康、积极运动的成年人被随机分为RST组（n = 10，23±3岁）、TPT组（n = 9，23±3岁）或被动对照组（n = 16，23±2岁）。RST组和TPT组进行为期6周的训练，每周训练3次，每次持续45 - 60分钟。RST包括使用连接在跑步机（h/p/cosmos）上的阻力逐渐增加的拉伸系统进行的正面和侧面冲刺练习。TPT包括下肢以一次最大重复量的40%进行的爆发性力量训练（如腿举、膝关节伸展）。在训练前后，评估了短跑（20米短跑）、变向速度（T型敏捷测试）、跳跃（纵跳、反向纵跳）和平衡能力（Y平衡测试）。协方差分析统计显示，组间对20米短跑速度和地面接触时间有较大的主效应（0.81≤d≤1.00）。检验表明，与对照组相比，RST组和TPT组的短跑速度更高（0.69≤d≤0.82），但RST组和TPT组之间没有差异。RST组的前后变化为4.5%[90%置信区间：（-1.1%；10.1%），d = 1.23]，TPT组为2.6%[90%置信区间：（0.4%；4.8%），d = 1.59]。此外，与对照组相比，RST组和TPT组在短跑过程中的地面接触时间更短（0.68≤d≤1.09），但RST组和TPT组之间没有差异。RST组的前后变化为-6.3%[90%置信区间：（-11.4%；-1.1%），d = 1.45]，TPT组为-2.7%[90%置信区间：（-4.2%；-1.2%），d = 2.36]。最后，变向速度、跳跃和平衡能力的影响从小到大都有。目前的研究结果表明，在健康、积极运动的年轻成年人中，6周的RST和TPT与被动对照组相比，对20米短跑成绩产生了相似的影响。然而，在变向速度、跳跃和平衡能力方面未发现与训练相关的影响。我们得出结论，两种训练方式都可用于速度发展。
