Li F Y, Guo C G, Li H S, Xu H R, Sun P
College of Physical Education and Sports, Beijing Normal University, North Taipingzhuang Street, Beijing, 100875, China.
BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2023 Aug 29;15(1):106. doi: 10.1186/s13102-023-00703-6.
To evaluate the effects of different warm-up methods on the acute effect of lower limb explosive strength with the help of a reticulated meta-analysis system and to track the optimal method.
R software combined with Stata software, version 13.0, was used to analyse the outcome metrics of the 35 included papers. Mean differences (MD) were pooled using a random effects model.
The results of this review indicate that static stretching reduced explosive performance, while the 2 warm-up methods, namely dynamic stretching and static combined with dynamic stretching, were able to significantly improve explosive performance, with dynamic stretching being the most stable and moderated by multiple variables and dynamic stretching for 7-10min producing the best explosive performance. In the future, high-quality studies should be added based on strict adherence to test specifications.
借助网状Meta分析系统评估不同热身方法对下肢爆发力急性效应的影响,并探寻最佳方法。
运用R软件结合Stata 13.0软件对纳入的35篇论文的结局指标进行分析。采用随机效应模型合并均值差异(MD)。
1)在提高反向纵跳高度(厘米)方面,静态拉伸结合动态拉伸[MD = 1.80,95%CI:(0.43,3.20)]和动态拉伸[MD = 1.60,95%CI:(0.67,2.60)]显著优于对照组,动态拉伸的效果受拉伸时长(I = 80.4%)、研究人群(I = 77.2%)和年龄(I = 75.6%)作为调节变量的影响,动态拉伸时间为7 - 10分钟时效应量最为显著。2)在提高短跑时间(秒)方面,仅动态拉伸[MD = -0.08,95%CI:(-0.15,-0.008)]显著优于对照组,而静态拉伸[MD = 0.07,95%CI:(0.002,0.13)]显示出显著的负面影响。3)没有结果表明其他方法,如泡沫轴滚动,与对照组之间存在显著差异。
本综述结果表明,静态拉伸会降低爆发力,而动态拉伸以及静态拉伸结合动态拉伸这两种热身方法能够显著提高爆发力,其中动态拉伸最为稳定且受多个变量调节,动态拉伸7 - 10分钟产生的爆发力最佳。未来应在严格遵循测试规范的基础上增加高质量研究。