Amaro-Gahete Francisco J, De-la-O Alejandro, Sanchez-Delgado Guillermo, Robles-Gonzalez Lidia, Jurado-Fasoli Lucas, Ruiz Jonatan R, Gutiérrez Angel
Department of Medical Physiology, School of Medicine, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
PROmoting FITness and Health Through Physical Activity Research Group, Department of Physical Education and Sports, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Front Physiol. 2018 Jun 13;9:720. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.00720. eCollection 2018.
The popularity of whole-body electromyostimulation is growing during the last years, but there is a shortage of studies that evaluate its effects on physical fitness and sport performance. In this study, we compared the effects of a periodized and functional whole-body-electromyostimulation training on maximum oxygen uptake (VOmax), ventilatory thresholds (VT1 and VT2), running economy (RE), and lower-body muscle strength in runners, vs. a traditional whole-body-electromyostimulation training. A total of 12 male recreational runners, who had been running 2-3 times per week (90-180 min/week) for at least the previous year and had no previous experience on WB-EMS training, were enrolled in the current study. They were randomly assigned to a periodized and functional whole-body-electromyostimulation training group (PFG) ( = 6; 27.0 ± 7.5 years; 70.1 ± 11.1 kg; 1.75 ± 0.05 m) whose training program involved several specific exercises for runners, or a traditional whole-body-electromyostimulation training group (TG) ( = 6; 25.8 ± 7.4 years; 73.8 ± 9.8 kg; 1.73 ± 0.07 m), whose sessions were characterized by circuit training with 10 dynamic and general exercises without external load. The training programs consisted of one whole-body electromyostimulation session and one 20-min running session per week, during 6 weeks. The PFG followed an undulating periodization model and a selection of functional exercises, whereas the TG followed a traditional session structure used in previous studies. Both groups were instructed to stop their habitual running training program. VOmax, VT1, VT2, RE, and lower body muscle strength (vertical jump) were measured before and after the intervention. The PFG obtained significantly higher improvements when compared with the TG in terms of VOmax (2.75 ± 0.89 vs. 1.03 ± 1.01 ml/kg/min, = 0.011), VT2 (2.95 ± 1.45 vs. 0.35 ± 0.85 ml/kg/min, = 0.005), VOmax percentage at VT2 (5.13 ± 2.41 vs. 0.63 ± 1.61%), RE at VT1 (-7.70 ± 2.86 vs. -3.50 ± 2.16 ml/kg/km, = 0.048), RE at 90% of VT2 (-15.38 ± 4.73 vs. -3.38 ± 4.11 ml/kg/km, = 0.005), and vertical jump in Abalakov modality (2.95 ± 0.94 vs. 0.52 ± 1.49 cm, = 0.008). Therefore, we conclude that running performance improvements were better after a 6-week program following an undulating periodization and consisting on functional exercises when compared with a 6-week traditional WB-EMS program.
在过去几年中，全身肌电刺激的受欢迎程度不断提高，但评估其对身体素质和运动表现影响的研究却很匮乏。在本研究中，我们比较了周期性功能性全身肌电刺激训练与传统全身肌电刺激训练对跑步者最大摄氧量（VOmax）、通气阈值（VT1和VT2）、跑步经济性（RE）以及下肢肌肉力量的影响。共有12名男性休闲跑步者参与了本研究，他们此前至少一年每周跑步2 - 3次（每次90 - 180分钟），且之前没有全身肌电刺激训练经验。他们被随机分配到周期性功能性全身肌电刺激训练组（PFG）（n = 6；年龄27.0 ± 7.5岁；体重70.1 ± 11.1千克；身高1.75 ± 0.05米），该组的训练计划包括针对跑步者的多项特定练习，或传统全身肌电刺激训练组（TG）（n = 6；年龄25.8 ± 7.4岁；体重73.8 ± 9.8千克；身高1.73 ± 0.07米），该组的训练以10项无外部负荷的动态和常规练习的循环训练为特点。训练计划为每周进行一次全身肌电刺激训练和一次20分钟的跑步训练，持续6周。PFG遵循波动周期化模型并选择功能性练习，而TG遵循先前研究中使用的传统训练结构。两组均被要求停止其惯常的跑步训练计划。在干预前后测量VOmax、VT1、VT2、RE和下肢肌肉力量（垂直跳跃）。与TG相比，PFG在VOmax（2.75 ± 0.89 vs. 1.03 ± 1.01毫升/千克/分钟，p = 0.011）、VT2（2.95 ± 1.45 vs. 0.35 ± 0.85毫升/千克/分钟，p = 0.005）、VT2时的VOmax百分比（5.13 ± 2.41 vs. 0.63 ± 1.61%）、VT1时的RE（-7.70 ± 2.86 vs. -3.50 ± 2.16毫升/千克/千米，p = 0.048）、VT2的90%时的RE（-15.38 ± 4.73 vs. -3.38 ± 4.11毫升/千克/千米，p = 0.005）以及阿巴拉科夫式垂直跳跃（2.95 ± 0.94 vs. 0.52 ± 1.49厘米，p = 0.008）方面取得了显著更高的改善。因此，我们得出结论，与为期6周的传统全身肌电刺激训练计划相比，遵循波动周期化并包含功能性练习的6周训练计划对跑步表现的改善更好。
