Unit of Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Alliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition, and Activity, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
J Strength Cond Res. 2024 Nov 1;38(11):1917-1923. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004888. Epub 2024 Aug 14.
Luders, J, Garrett, J, Gleadhill, S, Mathews, L, and Bennett, H. Comparative effects of complex contrast training and traditional training methods on physical performance within female, semiprofessional Australian Rules Football players. J Strength Cond Res 38(11): 1917-1923, 2024-This study aimed to explore whether complex contrast training (CCT) would elicit greater strength and power adaptations than traditional (TRAD) training methods using a volume- and intensity-matched design. Fourteen semiprofessional female Australian Football players completed the study. Both CCT and TRAD saw improvements in all performance outcomes: 1 repetition maximum (1RM) back squat (21.3 ± 8.2 and 16.7 ± 6.8 kg), 1RM bench press (5.3 ± 3.6 and 2.1 ± 4.0 kg), 1RM trap bar deadlift (5.0 ± 6.6 and 11.3 ± 2.5 kg), 5 m sprint (0.002 ± 0.09 and 0.02 ± 0.2 s), 10 m sprint (0.04 ± 0.17 and 0.02 ± 0.1 s), 15 m sprint (0.009 ± 0.15 and 0.08 ± 0.2 s), countermovement jump (CMJ) height (230 ± 150 and 340 ± 390 cm), CMJ absolute peak power (158.5 ± 69.6 and 235.6 ± 229.6 N), CMJ relative peak power (3.46 ± 4.1 and 2.68 ± 1.4 N·kg -1 )), and plyometric push-up peak relative power (20.5 ± 13.4 and 15.2 ± 13.5 N). There were no between-group differences except for TRAD recording slightly greater improvements in 1RM Trap bar deadlift (Bayes factor [BF 10 ] = 1.210). Complex contrast training completed sessions on average ∼7 minutes quicker than TRAD (BF 10 = 5.722), while both groups reporting similar ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) with CCT (± SD ) 58.4 ± 6.7 minutes and TRAD 65.5 ± 4.8. Based on the results, CCT training provides the same performance outcomes as traditional training methods across a period of 8 weeks, while taking less time to achieve these outcomes and with similar RPE.
吕德斯、J、加勒特、J、格莱德希尔、S、马修斯、L 和贝内特、H. 比较复杂对比训练和传统训练方法对女性半职业澳式足球运动员体能的影响。J 力量与调节研究 38(11):1917-1923,2024-本研究旨在探讨复杂对比训练 (CCT) 是否会比传统训练方法 (TRAD) 产生更大的力量和力量适应性，采用了等容量和等强度的设计。14 名半职业女性澳大利亚足球运动员完成了这项研究。CCT 和 TRAD 都看到了所有表现结果的改善：1 重复最大 (1RM) 深蹲 (21.3 ± 8.2 和 16.7 ± 6.8 公斤)、1RM 卧推 (5.3 ± 3.6 和 2.1 ± 4.0 公斤)、1RM 陷阱杆硬拉 (5.0 ± 6.6 和 11.3 ± 2.5 公斤)、5 米冲刺 (0.002 ± 0.09 和 0.02 ± 0.2 秒)、10 米冲刺 (0.04 ± 0.17 和 0.02 ± 0.1 秒)、15 米冲刺 (0.009 ± 0.15 和 0.08 ± 0.2 秒)、反向跳跃 (CMJ) 高度 (230 ± 150 和 340 ± 390 厘米)、CMJ 绝对峰值功率 (158.5 ± 69.6 和 235.6 ± 229.6 N)、CMJ 相对峰值功率 (3.46 ± 4.1 和 2.68 ± 1.4 N·kg -1 )和增强式俯卧撑峰值相对功率 (20.5 ± 13.4 和 15.2 ± 13.5 N)。除了传统训练方法 (TRAD) 记录的 TRAD 硬拉 1RM 稍高外 (贝叶斯因子 [BF10] = 1.210)，两组之间没有差异。复杂对比训练的平均完成时间比传统训练方法快约 7 分钟 (BF10 = 5.722)，而两组报告的感觉用力 (RPE) 相似，CCT 为 58.4 ± 6.7 分钟，TRAD 为 65.5 ± 4.8。基于结果，在 8 周的时间内，CCT 训练提供了与传统训练方法相同的性能结果，同时花费的时间更少，并且具有相似的 RPE。
