Help Center for Sports Performance (CAPS), Free University of Brussels (ULB), Brussels; and.
Laboratory of Applied Biology and Neurophysiology, Free University of Brussels (ULB), Brussels.
J Strength Cond Res. 2020 Jun;34(6):1503-1510. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003604.
Laurent, C, Baudry, S, and Duchateau, J. Comparison of plyometric training with two different jumping techniques on Achilles tendon properties and jump performances. J Strength Cond Res 34(6): 1503-1510, 2020-This study compared the influence of 10 weeks of plyometric training with 2 different jumping techniques on Achilles tendon properties and the height achieved in drop jumps (from 20, 40, and 60 cm) and countermovement jumps (CMJ). Subjects were allocated to 2 training groups (n = 11 in each group) and 1 control group (CON, n = 10). One training group kept the knees extended (KE) during ground contact, whereas the other training group flexed the knees to ∼80-90° (KF). Achilles tendon stiffness was assessed with ultrasonography, and jump performance was derived from force platform recording. Training increased jump height (p < 0.01) in both groups. The increase for the 20-cm drop jump was greater (p < 0.05) for the KE group (11.3%) thanfor the KF group (6.3%), with no statistical difference between groups for the 40- and 60-cm drop jumps. Contact time during the 20-cm drop jump decreased (∼8%; p < 0.01) after training, with no difference between the training groups. The increase in CMJ height was greater (p = 0.05) for the KF group (17.5%) than for the KE group (11.8%). Achilles tendon stiffness increased (32%; p < 0.001) for the KE group but not for the KF group (11%; p = 0.28). There was a positive association (p < 0.001) between the changes in tendon stiffness and jump height for 20-cm drop jump in both KE group (r = 0.49) and KF group (r = 0.62). None of these parameters changed in CON group. In conclusion, the extent of increase in jump height (20-cm drop jump and CMJ) and in Achilles tendon stiffness after training differed between the 2 jumping techniques.
劳伦特、S. 博德里和 J. 杜恰特比较了两种不同的跳高技术的弹震训练对跟腱特性和跳跃表现的影响。《力量与调节研究杂志》34(6):1503-1510,2020-这项研究比较了 10 周的弹震训练和两种不同的跳高技术对跟腱特性和从 20、40 和 60 厘米高处跳下的高度(从 20、40 和 60 厘米高处跳下)和反向跳跃(CMJ)的影响。受试者被分配到 2 个训练组(每组 11 人)和 1 个对照组(CON,10 人)。一个训练组在地面接触时保持膝盖伸展(KE),而另一个训练组将膝盖弯曲到约 80-90°(KF)。使用超声评估跟腱硬度,从力台记录中得出跳跃表现。训练增加了跳跃高度(p<0.01),两组均增加。KE 组 20 厘米跳高处的增加(11.3%)大于 KF 组(6.3%)(p<0.05),而 40 和 60 厘米跳高处两组之间没有统计学差异。20 厘米跳下落的接触时间减少(约 8%;p<0.01),两组之间没有差异。KF 组 CMJ 高度的增加(17.5%)大于 KE 组(11.8%)(p=0.05)。KE 组跟腱硬度增加(32%)(p<0.001),而 KF 组则没有(增加 11%)(p=0.28)。KE 组(r=0.49)和 KF 组(r=0.62)在 20 厘米跳下落时,跟腱硬度变化与跳跃高度变化之间存在正相关(p<0.001)。CON 组的这些参数均无变化。结论:两种跳高技术训练后,跳跃高度(20 厘米跳下落和 CMJ)和跟腱硬度的增加幅度不同。