Yang Wen-Chieh, Wang Shin-Yuan, Chiu Chih-Hui, Ye Xin, Weng Ming-Chia, Jhang Jhih-Ciang, Chen Che-Hsiu
Department of Physical Therapy, Hung Kuang University, Taiwan.
Graduate Program in Department of Exercise Health Science, National Taiwan University of Sport, Taichung, 404, Taiwan.
Heliyon. 2024 Jul 19;10(14):e34827. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e34827. eCollection 2024 Jul 30.
This study investigated the effect of different resistance increments during warm-up on snatch performance of male weightlifters. Nine male college weightlifters were recruited. The 3 warm-up protocols were performed every 7 days with a randomized order: 1. Power snatch exercise with 10 % resistance increment (50 %, 60 %, 70 %, and 80 % of one-repetition maximum); 2. Power snatch exercise with 15 % resistance increment (50 %, 65 %, and 80 % of one-repetition maximum); 3. Self-selected resistance increment. Participants were tested based on 85 % maximum weight snatch after warm-up. Snatch performance was measured using peak vertical ground reaction force. Postural stability was measured using center-of-pressure displacement. Activation of seven shoulder, back, and leg muscles was measured using electromyography on the dominant side. In snatch performance, the 10 % increment protocol had a significantly higher peak vertical ground reaction force during the second-pull phase than the 15 % increment (d = 0.92, < 0.05) and self-selected (d = 1.32, < 0.05) protocols. In postural stability, no significant differences in center-of-pressure displacement among the three protocols were observed. For muscle activation, the 10 % increment protocol resulted in significantly higher activation of shoulder (d = 1.2-2.2, < 0.05) during the second-pull phase than the other two protocols and higher activation of hip muscles (d = 1.73, < 0.05) than self-selected protocol. To conclude, a warm-up protocol combining slow progression is preferable in improving power output during snatch in male weightlifters, probably through facilitating the activation of proximal limb muscles. It can enhance training quality while potentially reducing the risk of sports injuries.
本研究调查了热身过程中不同阻力递增方式对男性举重运动员抓举成绩的影响。招募了九名男性大学生举重运动员。三种热身方案每隔7天以随机顺序进行：1. 功率抓举练习，阻力递增10%（一次最大重复量的50%、60%、70%和80%）；2. 功率抓举练习，阻力递增15%（一次最大重复量的50%、65%和80%）；3. 自行选择的阻力递增方式。参与者在热身之后基于85%最大重量抓举进行测试。使用垂直地面反作用力峰值来测量抓举成绩。使用压力中心位移来测量姿势稳定性。在优势侧通过肌电图测量七块肩部、背部和腿部肌肉的激活情况。在抓举成绩方面，10%递增方案在第二次提拉阶段的垂直地面反作用力峰值显著高于15%递增方案（d = 0.92，P < 0.05）和自行选择的方案（d = 1.32，P < 0.05）。在姿势稳定性方面，三种方案之间的压力中心位移未观察到显著差异。对于肌肉激活，10%递增方案在第二次提拉阶段导致肩部激活显著高于其他两种方案（d = 1.2 - 2.2，P < 0.05），并且髋部肌肉激活高于自行选择的方案（d = 1.73，P < 0.05）。总之，结合缓慢递增的热身方案在提高男性举重运动员抓举过程中的功率输出方面更可取，可能是通过促进近端肢体肌肉的激活来实现。它可以提高训练质量，同时潜在地降低运动损伤风险。
