男性篮球运动员专项冲刺间歇训练的生理生化适应。
Physiological and Biochemical Adaptations to a Sport-Specific Sprint Interval Training in Male Basketball Athletes.
机构信息
School of Physical Education, Sichuan University of Science & Engineering, Sichuan, China.
Ziliujing District of Shuping Primary School, Zigong, Sichuan, China.
出版信息
J Sports Sci Med. 2023 Dec 1;22(4):605-613. doi: 10.52082/jssm.2023.605. eCollection 2023 Dec.
The present study compared the effects of incorporating traditional sprint interval training (SIT) or basketball-specific SIT (SSIT) into typical off-season training of male basketball players. Adaptations to and effect size (EF) of interventions on aerobic fitness [evaluated using Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test level-1 (Yo-Yo IR1)], change of direction [T-test (TT) and Illinois agility test (IAT)], vertical jump (VJ), standing long jump (SLJ), linear speed, maximal strength [one repetition maximum test in leg press (1RM)], and hormonal status were examined. Male athletes (age = 25.7 ± 2.0 years; height = 188.1 ± 7.9 cm; body mass = 85.9 ± 8.0 kg) were randomly assigned to one of three groups of SIT (n = 10): three sets of 10 × 15 sec intervals with 1:1 recovery between bouts and a 3-min recovery between sets; SSIT (n = 10): the same intervals as SIT + basketball-specific ball drills while running; and CON (n = 10): two sessions per week of regular basketball technical and tactical drills. SIT and SSIT resulted in significant changes compared with baseline in maximal oxygen uptake (4.9%, ES = 2.22 vs. 6%, ES = 2.57), TT (-1.8%, ES =-0.46 vs. -2.7%, ES = -1.14), IAT (-4.5%, ES = -2.01 vs. -5.4%, ES = -1.93), VJ (7.5%, ES = 0.58 vs. 12%, ES = 0.95), linear sprint time (-2.9%, ES = -0.32 vs. -4.3%, ES = -0.69), Yo-Yo IR1 (18.5%, ES = 2.19 vs. 23.7%, ES = 2.56), serum testosterone (28%, ES = 1.52 vs. 29.7%, ES = 1.59), and cortisol (-6.53%, ES = -0.37 vs. -12.06%, ES = -0.64). Incorporating SIT and SSIT into typical off-season basketball training triggers adaptive mechanisms that enhance aerobic and anaerobic performance in male basketball players. The effect size values indicate more significant effects of SSIT than SIT in most physiological and sport-specific adaptations. Such a superior effect could be attributed to the more basketball-specific movement pattern of the SSIT. Such interventions can be used by the coaches and athletes for designing the training load and for better training adaptations throughout the training seasons and competition periods.
本研究比较了将传统冲刺间歇训练（SIT）或篮球专项 SIT（SSIT）融入男性篮球运动员淡季训练对运动员的影响。评估干预措施对有氧适能的适应和效果大小（EF）[使用 Yo-Yo 间歇恢复测试 1 级（Yo-Yo IR1）评估]、变向能力[T 测试（TT）和伊利诺伊敏捷测试（IAT）]、垂直跳跃（VJ）、立定跳远（SLJ）、线性速度、最大力量[腿部按压 1 次重复最大测试（1RM）]和激素状态。男性运动员（年龄=25.7±2.0 岁；身高=188.1±7.9cm；体重=85.9±8.0kg）被随机分为三组 SIT（每组 10 人）：三组 10×15 秒间隔，每组之间 1:1 恢复，每组之间 3 分钟恢复；SSIT（n=10）：与 SIT 相同的间隔+跑步时的篮球专项球训练；CON（n=10）：每周两次常规篮球技术和战术训练。与基线相比，SIT 和 SSIT 对最大摄氧量（4.9%，ES=2.22 对 6%，ES=2.57）、TT（-1.8%，ES=-0.46 对-2.7%，ES=-1.14）、IAT（-4.5%，ES=-2.01 对-5.4%，ES=-1.93）、VJ（7.5%，ES=0.58 对 12%，ES=0.95）、线性冲刺时间（-2.9%，ES=-0.32 对-4.3%，ES=-0.69）、Yo-Yo IR1（18.5%，ES=2.19 对 23.7%，ES=2.56）、血清睾酮（28%，ES=1.52 对 29.7%，ES=1.59）和皮质醇（-6.53%，ES=-0.37 对-12.06%，ES=-0.64）都有显著的变化。将 SIT 和 SSIT 融入典型的淡季篮球训练中会触发适应性机制，从而提高男性篮球运动员的有氧和无氧表现。效果大小值表明，SSIT 比 SIT 在大多数生理和专项适应方面的效果更显著。这种优越的效果可能归因于 SSIT 更具篮球专项的运动模式。此类干预措施可由教练和运动员用于设计训练负荷，以及在整个训练赛季和比赛期间实现更好的训练适应。
Zotero 插件