Aidar Felipe J, Clemente Filipe Manuel, de Lima Luiz Fernandes, de Matos Dihogo Gama, Ferreira Alexandre Reis Pires, Marçal Anderson Carlos, Moreira Osvaldo Costa, Bulhões-Correia Alexandre, de Almeida-Neto Paulo Francisco, Díaz-de-Durana Alfonso López, Neves Eduardo Borba, Cabral Breno Guilherme Araújo Tinoco, Reis Victor Machado, Garrido Nuno Domingos, Nikolaidis Pantelis Theo, Knechtle Beat
Group of Studies and Research of Performance, Sport, Health and Paralympic Sports (GPEPS), Federal University of Sergipe (UFS), São Cristovão 49100-000, Brazil.
Department of Physical Education, Federal University of Sergipe (UFS), São Cristovão 49100-000, Brazil.
Sports (Basel). 2021 Oct 12;9(10):142. doi: 10.3390/sports9100142.
Variable resistance training has recently become a component of strength and conditioning programs.
This randomized counterbalanced cross-over study aimed to investigate the use of elastic bands (EB) and the traditional method (TRAD) and force indicators in a training session.
12 Paralympic athletes (age: 28.60 ± 7.60 years) participated in this three-week study. In the first week, the participants were familiarized with EB and TRAD and were tested for maximal repetition (1-RM). The research occurred in weeks 2 and 3, which included the pre-post training, during which the following measures were extracted: maximum isometric force (MIF), the peak torque (PT), rate of force development (RFD), fatigue index (FI), and time to MIF (Time). The athletes performed two tests, EB and TRAD, separated by a one-week interval.
Significant differences were found between the pre- and post-test for 1RM ( = 0.018, η2p = 0.412), MIF ( = 0.011, η2p = 0.415), PT ( = 0.012, η2p = 0.413), and RFD ( = 0.0002, η2p = 0.761). With the use of EB, there was a difference in RFD between TRAD before and EB after ( = 0.016, η2p = 0.761). There were significant differences in the before and after for FI between TRAD and EB ( < 0.001) and for Time ( < 0.001), indicating that training with the use of elastic bands promotes overload, characterized by increased fatigue and decreased strength.
Training with EB did not decrease 1RM, PT, MIF or RFD, however, there was an increase in fatigue and time to reach MIF when compared to the method with fixed resistance.
可变阻力训练最近已成为力量与体能训练计划的一部分。
这项随机平衡交叉研究旨在调查在一次训练课中弹性带（EB）和传统方法（TRAD）的使用情况以及力量指标。
12名残奥会运动员（年龄：28.60±7.60岁）参与了这项为期三周的研究。在第一周，参与者熟悉了弹性带和传统方法，并进行了最大重复次数（1-RM）测试。研究在第2周和第3周进行，包括训练前和训练后，在此期间提取了以下指标：最大等长力量（MIF）、峰值扭矩（PT）、力量发展速率（RFD）、疲劳指数（FI）以及达到MIF的时间（Time）。运动员进行了两项测试，即弹性带测试和传统方法测试，中间间隔一周。
在1RM（p = 0.018，η2p = 0.412）、MIF（p = 0.011，η2p = 0.415）、PT（p = 0.012，η2p = 0.413）和RFD（p = 0.0002，η2p = 0.761）的测试前和测试后发现了显著差异。使用弹性带时，传统方法之前的RFD与弹性带之后的RFD存在差异（p = 0.016，η2p = 0.761）。传统方法和弹性带之间在FI的前后（p < 0.001）以及Time的前后（p < 0.001）存在显著差异，表明使用弹性带进行训练会促进超负荷，其特征是疲劳增加和力量下降。
使用弹性带进行训练并未降低1RM、PT、MIF或RFD，然而，与固定阻力方法相比，疲劳和达到MIF的时间有所增加。
