Zhang Mingyang, Liang Xingyue, Huang Weifeng, Ding Shicong, Li Guoxing, Zhang Wei, Li Chao, Zhou Yanfeng, Sun Jian, Li Duanying
Digital Physical Training Laboratory, Guangzhou Sport University, Guangzhou, China.
School of Athletic Training, Guangzhou Sport University, Guangzhou, China.
Front Physiol. 2023 Jan 10;13:992655. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2022.992655. eCollection 2022.
The study compared the effects of 6-week (2 sessions/week) velocity-based resistance training (VBRT) and percentage-based resistance training (PBRT) on athletic performance in Sport-College female basketball players. Fifteen participants were assigned to the VBRT ( = 8) or PBRT ( = 7) groups. The load in VBRT group were determined through the sessional target velocity and velocity loss monitoring, whereas PBRT group used a fixed-load based on percentage of 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Both groups completed intervention that involved the free weight back squat and bench press using the same relative load (linear periodization from 65% to 95% 1RM). Training loads data was continuously recorded. Measurements at baseline (T0) and post-training (T2) included 1RM, countermovement-jump (CMJ), squat-jump (SJ), eccentric-utilization-ratio (EUR), drop-jump height and reactive-strength-index (DJ, DJ-RSI), plyometric-push-up (PPU), 505 change-of-direction (COD), 10-m、20-m sprint (T-10、T-20), 17 × 15 m drill-lines (17-drill), Hexagon agility, and functional movement screen (FMS). A mid-term (T1) assessment was included to investigate the short-term effects of both methods and the fluctuation of personalized 1RM. No between-group differences were observed at T0 for descriptive variables ( > 0.05). Both groups showed significant improvement in strength gains for back squat and bench press, but VBRT showed t favorable improvements in CMJ, SJ, EUR, DJ-RSI, Hexagon and COD among athletic performance. The VBRT showed to improvements in 17-drill and DJ, while PBRT showed effects. The lifted weights adjusted by VBRT method were higher than prescribed by PBRT ( < 0.05) for the same subjects. Compared with fixed-load PBRT, VBRT enhanced power and athletic performance despite similar strength gains. VBRT can be regarded as a more functional resistance-training method under linear periodization.
该研究比较了为期6周（每周2次）的基于速度的阻力训练（VBRT）和基于百分比的阻力训练（PBRT）对体育学院女子篮球运动员运动表现的影响。15名参与者被分配到VBRT组（n = 8）或PBRT组（n = 7）。VBRT组的负荷通过训练目标速度和速度损失监测来确定，而PBRT组则使用基于1次重复最大值（1RM）百分比的固定负荷。两组均完成了涉及自由重量深蹲和卧推的干预，使用相同的相对负荷（从65%到95% 1RM的线性周期化）。持续记录训练负荷数据。在基线（T0）和训练后（T2）的测量包括1RM、反向纵跳（CMJ）、深蹲跳（SJ）、离心利用率（EUR）、跳深高度和反应力量指数（DJ，DJ-RSI）、增强式俯卧撑（PPU）、505变向（COD）、10米、20米短跑（T-10、T-20）、17×15米折线跑（17-折线跑）、六边形敏捷性和功能性动作筛查（FMS）。纳入中期（T1）评估以研究两种方法的短期效果以及个性化1RM的波动情况。在T0时，描述性变量在组间未观察到差异（p > 0.05）。两组在深蹲和卧推的力量增长方面均表现出显著改善，但VBRT在运动表现的CMJ、SJ、EUR、DJ-RSI、六边形敏捷性和COD方面显示出更有利的改善。VBRT在17-折线跑和DJ方面显示出改善，而PBRT则无效果。对于相同的受试者，VBRT方法调整后的举起重量高于PBRT规定的重量（p < 0.05）。与固定负荷的PBRT相比，尽管力量增长相似，但VBRT增强了功率和运动表现。在线性周期化下，VBRT可被视为一种更具功能性的阻力训练方法。
Zotero 插件
