Muñoz de la Cruz Violeta, Agudo-Ortega Aarón, Sorgente Vincenzo, Turner Anthony P, González-Ravé José María
Sports Training Laboratory, Faculty of Sports Sciences, University of Castilla La Mancha, Toledo, Spain.
Kinesiology and Motor Control (Ki Mo Co) Laboratory, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Physiological Sciences Section, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Front Physiol. 2023 Jul 26;14:1241459. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2023.1241459. eCollection 2023.
This study aimed to determine if adjusting the loads via velocity-based training (VBT) in each session is more efficient in monitoring the relative intensity than programming loads assessing 1RM pre-training. To achieve this, six national level sprinters were randomly divided into two groups, i.e., adjusting loads (AL, = 3) and not adjusting loads (NAL, = 3), during twelve sessions of a squat training (ST) program. During this training intervention, the AL group adjusted the intensity for each session in the squat exercise depending on the speed the load was lifted after warmup. The NAL group, instead, progressed in the squat exercise referring to the 1RM estimated at pre-test. In addition, Parallel Squat (PSQ), Countermovement Jump (CMJ), Squat Jump (SJ), 30 m sprint standing start (30S) and 30 m sprint flying start (30F) tests were carried out before and after conducting the ST program. Interestingly, AL performed the ST near their estimated velocities at 70%-75% 1RM, however with a wider gap at 80%-85% 1RM. The NAL group, instead, did not presented such a detectable behaviour across the whole ST. Moreover, both groups demonstrated improved performances in PSQ, CMJ, and SJ, whereas there were little changes in 30S and 30F after ST. Additionally, AL obtained a greater effect size than NAL in PSQ (0.60 vs. 0.35) but lower effect size in CMJ, SJ, 30S, and 30F (0.41 vs. 0.63, 0.30 vs. 0.40, 0.04 vs. 0.28 and 0.22 vs. 0.24). However, percentage change was greater in AL in all tests. Based on these findings, we can conclude that further investigation into the AL strategy in VBT is warranted for sprinter athletes' daily strength practices. The AL technique shows promise as a valuable tool for accurately adjusting and monitoring medium-high training loads to ensure they align with the intended intensity.
本研究旨在确定在每次训练中通过基于速度的训练（VBT）调整负荷，在监测相对强度方面是否比在训练前评估1RM的程序化负荷更有效。为实现这一目标，将六名国家级短跑运动员随机分为两组，即调整负荷组（AL，n = 3）和不调整负荷组（NAL，n = 3），进行为期十二节的深蹲训练（ST）计划。在此次训练干预期间，AL组根据热身之后举起负荷的速度，调整每次深蹲训练的强度。相反，NAL组则参照测试前估计的1RM进行深蹲训练。此外，在进行ST计划前后，进行了平行深蹲（PSQ）、反向纵跳（CMJ）、深蹲跳（SJ）、30米站立起跑短跑（30S）和30米助跑起跑短跑（30F）测试。有趣的是，AL组在接近其估计速度（70%-75% 1RM）时进行ST训练，但在80%-85% 1RM时差距更大。相反，NAL组在整个ST训练中未表现出这种可检测到的行为。此外，两组在PSQ、CMJ和SJ中的表现均有所改善，而在ST训练后30S和30F的变化很小。此外，AL组在PSQ中的效应量大于NAL组（0.60对0.35），但在CMJ、SJ、30S和30F中的效应量较低（0.41对0.63、0.30对0.40、0.04对0.28和0.22对0.24）。然而，在所有测试中，AL组的百分比变化更大。基于这些发现，我们可以得出结论，对于短跑运动员的日常力量训练，有必要对VBT中的AL策略进行进一步研究。AL技术有望成为一种有价值的工具，用于准确调整和监测中高训练负荷，以确保它们与预期强度一致。
