Saeterbakken Atle Hole, Loken Jorund, Solstad Tom Erik Jorung, Stien Nicolay, Prieske Olaf, Scott Suzanne, Andersen Vidar
Department of Sport, Food, and Natural Sciences, Faculty of Education, Arts, and Sports, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway.
Division of Exercise and Movement, University of Applied Sciences for Sports and Management Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.
Front Physiol. 2022 Jun 6;13:899078. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2022.899078. eCollection 2022.
The aims of this study were to compare power output during a bench press throw (BPT) executed with (BPT) and without (BPT) the barbell bounce technique, and examine the effect of cueing different barbell descent velocities on BPT power output in resistance-trained males. In total, 27 males (age 23.1 ± 2.1 years; body mass 79.4 ± 7.4 kg; height 178.8 ± 5.5 cm; and 4.6 ± 1.9 years of resistance training experience) were recruited and attended one familiarization session and two experimental sessions (EXP 1 and EXP 2). The force-velocity profile during maximal BPT and BPT (randomized order) under different loads (30-60 kg) was established (EXP 1), and the effect of varying external barbell descent velocity cues "slow, medium, and as fast as possible" (i.e., "fast") on the power output for each technique (BPT and BPT) was examined (EXP 2). Comparing two BPT techniques (EXP 1), BPT demonstrated 7.9-14.1% greater average power ( ≤ 0.001, ES = 0.48-0.90), 6.5-12.1% greater average velocity ( ≤ 0.001, ES = 0.48-0.91), and 11.9-31.3% shorter time to peak power ( ≤ 0.001-0.05, ES = 0.33-0.83) across the loads 30-60 kg than BPT. The cueing condition "fast" (EXP 2) resulted in greater power outcomes for both BPT and BPT than "slow." No statistically significant differences in any of the power outcomes were observed between "medium" and "slow" cuing conditions for BPT ( = 0.097-1.000), whereas BPT demonstrated increased average power and velocity under the "medium" cuing condition, compared to "slow" ( = 0.006-0.007, ES = 0.25-0.28). No statistically significant differences were observed in barbell throw height comparing BPT and BPT under each cuing condition ( = 0.225-1.000). Overall, results indicate that both bouncing the barbell and emphasizing barbell descent velocity be considered to improve upper body power in athlete and non-athlete resistance-training programs.
本研究的目的是比较在使用杠铃反弹技术(BPT)和不使用杠铃反弹技术(BPT)进行卧推投掷(BPT)时的功率输出,并研究提示不同的杠铃下降速度对有阻力训练的男性BPT功率输出的影响。总共招募了27名男性(年龄23.1±2.1岁;体重79.4±7.4千克;身高178.8±5.5厘米;有4.6±1.9年的阻力训练经验),他们参加了一次熟悉训练课程和两次实验课程(实验1和实验2)。建立了在不同负荷(30 - 60千克)下最大BPT和BPT(随机顺序)过程中的力-速度曲线(实验1),并研究了不同的外部杠铃下降速度提示“慢、中、尽可能快”(即“快”)对每种技术(BPT和BPT)功率输出的影响(实验2)。比较两种BPT技术(实验1),在30 - 60千克的负荷下,BPT的平均功率比BPT高7.9 - 14.1%(P≤0.001,效应量ES = 0.48 - 0.90),平均速度高6.5 - 12.1%(P≤0.001,效应量ES = 0.48 - 0.91),达到峰值功率的时间短11.9 - 31.3%(P≤0.001 - 0.05,效应量ES = 0.33 - 0.83)。提示条件“快”(实验2)导致BPT和BPT的功率结果都比“慢”时更高。对于BPT,在“中”和“慢”提示条件之间,任何功率结果均未观察到统计学上的显著差异(P = 0.097 - 1.000),而与“慢”相比,BPT在“中”提示条件下平均功率和速度增加(P = 0.006 - 0.007,效应量ES = 0.25 - 0.28)。在每种提示条件下比较BPT和BPT的杠铃投掷高度时,未观察到统计学上的显著差异(P = 0.225 - 1.000)。总体而言,结果表明,在运动员和非运动员的阻力训练计划中,考虑杠铃反弹和强调杠铃下降速度都有助于提高上身力量。