Haff G Gregory, Garcia-Ramos Amador, James Lachlan P
School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA 6065, Australia.
Directorate of Psychology and Sport, University of Salford, Salford, Greater Manchester M5 4WT, UK.
Sports (Basel). 2020 Sep 18;8(9):129. doi: 10.3390/sports8090129.
The primary aim of the present study was to examine the commonly performed training exercise for athlete preparation. Twenty-two recreationally trained males (age: 26.3 ± 4.1 y, height: 1.80 ± 0.07 m; body mass (BM): 87.01 ± 13.75 kg, 1-repetitoon maximum(1-RM)/BM: 0.90 ± 0.19 kg) participated in the present study. All subjects had their 1-RM power clean tested with standard procedures. On a separate testing day, subjects performed three repetitions at 30% and 45%, and two repetitions at 70% and 80% of their 1-RM power clean. During all trials during both sessions, peak velocity (PV) and mean velocity (MV) were measured with the use of a GymAware device. There were no significant differences between the actual and estimated 1-RM power clean ( = 0.37, ES = -0.11) when the load-PV profile was utilized. There was a large typical error (TE) present for the load-PV- and load-MV-estimated 1-RM values. Additionally, the raw TE exceeded the smallest worthwhile change for both load-PV and load-MV profile results. Based upon the results of this study, the load-velocity profile is not an acceptable tool for monitoring power clean strength.
本研究的主要目的是检验运动员备战中常用的训练练习。22名接受过休闲训练的男性（年龄：26.3±4.1岁，身高：1.80±0.07米；体重（BM）：87.01±13.75千克，1次重复最大重量（1-RM）/BM：0.90±0.19千克）参与了本研究。所有受试者均按照标准程序进行了1-RM高翻测试。在另一个测试日，受试者以其1-RM高翻的30%和45%进行三次重复，以70%和80%进行两次重复。在两个阶段的所有试验中，使用GymAware设备测量峰值速度（PV）和平均速度（MV）。当利用负荷-PV曲线时，实际和估计的1-RM高翻之间没有显著差异（=0.37，效应量= -0.11）。负荷-PV和负荷-MV估计的1-RM值存在较大的典型误差（TE）。此外，原始TE超过了负荷-PV和负荷-MV曲线结果的最小有价值变化。基于本研究结果，负荷-速度曲线不是监测高翻力量的可接受工具。
