首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到19条相似文献，搜索用时 171 毫秒
1.
为了探究有无抗阻训练经验的男性大学生在四个负荷强度下杠铃深蹲和卧推的最大重复次数差异,将受试者依据有无抗阻训练经验分为两组,测试两组的杠铃卧推和深蹲在95%、85%、75%和65%1RM四个负荷强度下的最大重复次数,并采用两独立样本t检验进行差异分析。研究结果：(1)有抗阻训练经验组在65%和75%1RM强度下杠铃卧推的最大重复次数明显更多(P<0.05),在85%、75%和65%1RM强度下杠铃深蹲最大重复次数明显更多(P<0.05)。(2)有抗阻训练经验组中,65%1RM的杠铃深蹲的最大重复次数明显多于卧推(P<0.05);无抗阻训练经验组中,85%1RM的卧推次数大于深蹲,65%1RM的深蹲次数大于卧推。研究结论：(1)抗阻训练经验是影响最大重复次数的重要因素。(2)有抗阻训练经验的男性大学生在进行中低强度的杠铃深蹲和卧推训练时可完成更多的次数。(3)相同负荷强度下杠铃深蹲和卧推练习之间的最大重复次数存在差异。  相似文献   

2.
抗阻力训练强度与肌纤维适应   总被引：3，自引：0，他引：3  
尽管影响运动成绩的训练因素是很多的,但其中抗阻力训练强度(%1RM)诱导的细胞,分子发生生理性变化是重要的因素.文章综述和分析抗阻力训练对肌纤维产生的适应.当抗阻力训练负荷强度达到18%～35%1RM,即可诱导肌细胞发生肥大反应,而肌纤维类型间的相互转变可能和抗阻力训练负荷强度无关.横向分析优秀举重运动员,表明肌纤维TypeⅡ肥大程度增加最为明显,其抗阻力训练负荷强度在80%～95%1 RM.  相似文献   

3.
核心部位的健身训练受到越来越多健美爱好者的关注。通过对大学生的负荷训练实验,运用数理统计分析等方法,以提供健身负荷训练科学的心率阈,作为评判核心部位健身负荷训练运动强度的量化标准。结果表明:用80%或60%最大负荷强度的杠铃俯立划船训练心率在103～126b/min,大于重锤坐姿胸前下拉、哑铃俯卧飞鸟;站姿比坐姿和卧姿负荷训练心率上升幅度大;相同的练习,8RM或16RM训练的心率高于1RM和3RM训练的心率,健身训练宜采用8RM或16RM强度练习。  相似文献   

4.
力量训练是运动训练的核心环节,负荷安排是力量训练的首要因素,如何配给“剂量负荷”来实现输出功率的最大化是力量训练实践中经常遇到的问题。为进一步明晰不同力量训练手段的最佳功率负荷（Optimal Power Load,OPL）,对现有相关研究成果进行量化与总结,发现不同力量训练手段具有不同的OPL。通常,半蹲跳OPL为0%～30%1RM,半蹲起为50%～70%1RM,卧推为30%～50%1RM,卧推抛为30%～55%1RM,高翻为70%～90%1RM,高位高翻为65%～80%1RM。同时,从运动训练实践角度阐明OPL力量训练对提高运动员基本运动能力、专项竞技能力以及促进训练效应向比赛效应转化方面的启示,并为推进OPL力量训练的实践化提供建议。  相似文献   

5.
运用三维测力台系统和红外光点运动分析系统同步测试的方法,定量测试分析运动员杠铃负重量半蹲练习过程中,人体对地面的跨伸力、对杠铃的作功率和杠铃在人体作用下运动的加速度、末速度、动量等参数指标与负荷重量的相互关系;及各参数指标的最大值与弹跳力的相关关系。为继不同训练水平的运动员发展弹跳力的力量素质训练内容的定向化、负荷重量的定量化提供了科学的理论依据。  相似文献   

6.
马维平 《体育科研》2010,31(5):91-94
用每周一次的肌肉力量训练频率的方法,对高校从未受过常规定期的肌肉力量训练普通大学生,进行在每周一次的体育课上进行了为期10周的肌肉力量训练实验,以观察肌肉力量训练产生的效果。训练前后为他们测试了卧推杠铃和直立杠铃弯举的成绩（1RM）,还分别测量了练习前后大腿围和上臂围等。训练周期以后1RM比开始前增加了10%以上,不管是卧推杠铃还是直立杠铃弯举等项目都有明显的进步。结果表明,每周一次频率的肌肉力量练习确实能增加大学生的肌肉力量,但这种形式的锻炼并未能使身体形态发生明显的变化。  相似文献   

7.
目的:探讨复合训练中抗阻训练模块与快速伸缩复合性练习模块之间的间隔时间对灵敏素质的影响。研究方法:为期6周、每周2次相同负荷的复合训练,单次训练负荷设定为:训练负荷强度为杠铃深蹲最大重量(1RM)的85%,每两周测试一次最大力量。训练人员根据抗阻训练和快速伸缩复合性练习之间的间歇时间,分为即刻组与四分钟组。结果:通过为期6周的复合训练,两组实验组T灵敏成绩都得到明显增长,两组实验组相比,差异并不显著(P>0.05),但即刻组T灵敏成绩平均提升的幅度明显高于四分钟组。结论:在复合训练中,做完一组抗阻训练后立即进行快速伸缩复合练习,对灵敏素质的提高较为明显。  相似文献   

8.
为探讨不同强度训练对运动员肌肉围度的影响,以安徽省优秀男子皮艇运动员为研究对象,进行为期4周的10次重复80%1RM训练。结果表明,在通过4周10次重复80%1RM强度长时间的力量训练后,队员在完成规定的运动强度和运动量,被训练肌群肌肉围度有显著的增长。结论:10次重复80%1RM的强度和1min30s～2min30s的间歇训练可有效的发展肌肉围度,可作为发展肌纤维肥大有效手段。旨在通过可靠地训练强度负荷,探索发展肌纤肥大的有效训练方法。  相似文献   

9.
目的:比较10周不同组数的杠铃负重练习分别对最大力量和无氧耐力的影响,分析不同负荷量的力量训练计划的效果.方法:22名无训练经历的青年男性受试者随机分为3组,均采用80%1RM重量,分别进行8次×1组练习动作、8次x3组练习动作和8次x6组练习动作的负重蹲起训练,每周训练2次,共训练10周,于训练开始前、训练4周、7周、10周共进行4次1RM和标准Wingate测试,比较其差异.结果:不同练习组数的受试者,训练后1RM值和Wingate测试的峰功率及平均功率比训练前均显著增强,但各组之间,其差异不具有显著性意义.结论:无训练经历者在10周期间进行负重重量相同的下肢力量练习,每次多组重复者与每次进行1组练习者相比,最大力量及无氧耐力的增强并未表现出更显著效果.  相似文献   

10.
一、准备期专项力量安排特点 青少年跳远教练员所采取的专项力量训练手段主要为杠铃练习和跳跃练习，其中以杠铃练习为主。杠铃练习时负荷强度为本人最大负荷强度的40％以上，重复4-12次，重复10组以下，练习的持续时间为10-60分钟，组间间歇时间一般为3-5分钟。  相似文献   

11.
周斌 《体育科研》2017,(4):74-78，84
目的：探讨不同离心负荷激活干预对后激活增强效应所产生的影响及有效作用时间。方法：通过对14名普通男性大学生运用肌肉离心收缩激活方式，观察后续纵跳表现的影响。结果：在激活干预后即刻，对照组与离心负荷（105%1RM和125%1RM）激活干预两个实验组纵跳峰值功率和纵跳的高度没有显著差异，激活干预两个组之间的纵跳表现没有显著差异。激活干预的两组在T3和T6时段的纵跳功率峰值均明显高于对照组。在T3时段两个激活干预实验组纵跳高度峰值明显高于对照组，在T6时段，105%1RM激活干预组的纵跳高度明显增加。结论：纵跳测试前加入大强度的离心负荷刺激会小幅度提高纵跳的能力，不同强度离心负荷的激活干预的后激活增强效应差异性不大，采用105%1RM强度的离心负荷激活干预在 3~6 min有明显的后激活增强效应。  相似文献   

12.
The aim of this study was to compare the effect of 6 weeks of resistance training to volitional failure at low (30% 1 repetition maximum (RM)) or high (80%1RM) loads on gains in muscle size and strength in young women. Thirteen women (age: 29.7 ± 4.7years; height 166.7 ± 6.4cm; weight 64.2 ± 12.2kg) completed 2 training sessions per week for 6 weeks and muscle strength (1RM), muscle thickness (ultrasound) were measured before and after training. Training comprised 1 set to volitional failure of unilateral leg extensions and bicep curls with each limb randomly assigned to train at either 80% 1RM or 30% 1RM. Increases in muscle thickness [arms: 6.81 ± 3.15% (30% 1RM), 5.90 ± 3.13% (80% 1RM) and legs: 9.37 ± 5.61% (30% 1RM), 9.13 ± 7.9% (80% 1RM)] and strength [arms: 15.4 ± 12.2% (30% 1RM), 18.26 ± 12.2% (80% 1RM) and legs: 25.30 ± 18.4 (30% 1RM), 27.20 ± 14.5 (80% 1RM)] were not different between loads. When resistance exercise is performed to volitional failure gains in muscle size and strength are independent of load in young women.  相似文献   

13.
The aim of the present study was to investigate loading effects on kinematic and kinetic variables among elite-weightlifters in order to identify an optimal training load to maximize power production for clean-movement. Nine elite-weightlifter (age: 24 ± 4years, body-mass: 77 ± 6.5kg, height: 176 ± 6.1cm and 1RM clean: 170 ± 5kg) performed 2 separate repetitions of the clean using 85, 90, 95% and 100%, in a randomized order, while standing on a force platform and being recorded using 3D-capture-system. Differences in kinematics (barbell displacement, velocity and acceleration) and kinetics (power, vertical ground reaction force (vGRF), rate of force development (RFD), and work) across the loads were statistically assessed. Results revealed significant load effects for the majority of the studied parameters (p < 0.01) and showed that typical bar-displacement, greatest bar-velocity and peak-power were achieved at 85 and 90% 1RM (p < 0.001). Additionally greater average power was shown for 90 and 95% (p < 0.01) and greater work and vGRF were shown for 90, 95 and 100% than 85% 1RM (p < 0.05). Load had no significant effect on peak-vGRF and peak-RFD (p > 0.05). The results of this study, suggest 90% 1RM to be the most advantageous load to train explosive-force and to enhance power-outputs while maintaining technical efficiency in elite-weightlifters.  相似文献   

14.
This study examined the impact of load on lower body performance variables during the hang power clean. Fourteen men performed the hang power clean at loads of 30%, 45%, 65%, and 80% 1RM. Peak force, velocity, power, force at peak power, velocity at peak power, and rate of force development were compared at each load. The greatest peak force occurred at 80% 1RM. Peak force at 30% 1RM was statistically lower than peak force at 45% (p = 0.022), 65% (p = 0.010), and 80% 1RM (p = 0.018). Force at peak power at 65% and 80% 1RM was statistically greater than force at peak power at 30% (p < 0.01) and 45% 1RM (p < 0.01). The greatest rate of force development occurred at 30% 1RM, but was not statistically different from the rate of force development at 45%, 65%, and 80% 1RM. The rate of force development at 65% 1RM was statistically greater than the rate of force development at 80% 1RM (p = 0.035). No other statistical differences existed in any variable existed. Changes in load affected the peak force, force at peak power, and rate of force development, but not the peak velocity, power, or velocity at peak power.  相似文献   

15.
This study aimed to determine the suitability of the load-velocity relationship to prescribe the relative load (%1RM) in women, as well as to compare the load-velocity profile between sexes and participants with different strength levels. The load-velocity relationship of 14 men (1RM: 1.17 ± 0.19) and 14 women (1RM: 0.66 ± 0.13) were evaluated in the bench press exercise. The main findings revealed that: (I) the load-velocity relationship was always strong and linear (R2 range: 0.987–0.993), (II) a steeper load-velocity profile was observed in men compared to women (Effect size [ES]: 1.09), with men showing higher velocities for light loads (ES: ? 0.81 and ? 0.40 for the y-intercept and 30%1RM, respectively), but women reporting higher velocities for the heavy loads (ES: 1.14 and 1.50 at 90%1RM and 100%1RM, respectively); and (III) while the slope of the load-velocity profile was moderately steeper for weak men compared to their strong counterpart (ES: 1.02), small differences were observed between strong and weak women (ES: ? 0.39). While these results support the use of the individual load-velocity relationship to prescribe the %1RM in the bench press exercise for women, they also highlight the large disparities in their load-velocity profile compared to men.  相似文献   

16.
The aim was to compare exercise with and without different degrees of blood-flow restriction on perceived exertion (RPE) and discomfort. Participants were assigned to Experiment 1, 2, or 3. Each completed protocols differing by pressure, load, and/or volume. RPE and discomfort were taken before and after each set. For pressure and RPE, the 20% one repetition maximum (1RM) blood-flow restriction conditions were affected by increasing the pressure from 40% to 50% blood-flow restriction (~12 vs. ~14). This did not appear to happen within the 30% 1RM blood-flow restriction conditions or the higher pressures in the 20% 1RM conditions. The similar RPE between 20% and 30% 1RM to failure was expected given both were to failure. For discomfort, ratings were primarily affected by load at the lowest pressure. Increasing pressure to 50% blood-flow restriction increased discomfort at 20% 1RM (~2.6 vs. ~4). There was a further increase when increasing to 60% blood-flow restriction (~4 vs. ~4.8). The high-load condition had the lowest discomfort, while ratings were highest with 20% 1RM to failure. In conclusion, exercise with blood-flow restriction does not appear to augment the perceptual response observed with low-load exercise to failure.  相似文献   

17.
ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to examine load-dependent differences in lower-extremity biomechanics between the back squat (BS) and front squat (FS) exercises. Eleven NCAA Division-I athletes performed three repetitions of the BS and FS at loads of 40%, 60%, and 80% of their FS one repetition maximum (FS-1RM). Kinematic and kinetic data were collected during each squat repetition and used to calculate lower extremity peak joint angles and peak net joint moments (NJM). Peak angles and NJM were compared with a 2 × 3 repeated measures ANOVA. Peak hip extensor NJM were greater during the BS at 60% and 80% of FS-1RM. In comparison, peak knee extensor NJM were greater during the FS at 80% of FS-1RM. However, regression-based prediction of NJM at 100% of FS and BS 1RM indicated that at maximal loads, peak knee NJM are (~3%) higher during the BS. The experimental results suggest that when performed at the same absolute load, the BS and FS are characterized by greater respective mechanical demands imposed on the hip and knee extensors muscles groups. However, prediction-based results suggest that the knee extensor NJM demands are comparable when performed at the same relative load (i.e., with respect to each exercise’s RM).  相似文献   

18.
Understanding how loading affects power production in resistance training is a key step in identifying the most optimal way of training muscular power – an essential trait in most sporting movements. Twelve elite male sailors with extensive strength-training experience participated in a comparison of kinematics and kinetics from the upper body musculature, with upper body push (bench press) and pull (bench pull) movements performed across loads of 10–100% of one repetition maximum (1RM). 1RM strength and force were shown to be greater in the bench press, while velocity and power outputs were greater for the bench pull across the range of loads. While power output was at a similar level for the two movements at a low load (10% 1RM), significantly greater power outputs were observed for the bench pull in comparison to the bench press with increased load. Power output (P max) was maximized at higher relative loads for both mean and peak power in the bench pull (78.6 ± 5.7% and 70.4 ± 5.4% of 1RM) compared to the bench press (53.3 ± 1.7% and 49.7 ± 4.4% of 1RM). Findings can most likely be attributed to differences in muscle architecture, which may have training implications for these muscles.  相似文献   

19.
Power is a fundamental component for many sporting activities; while the load that elicits peak power during different exercises and differences between sexes remains unclear. This study aims to determine the effect of sex and load on kinematic and kinetic variables during the mid-thigh clean pull. Men (n = 10) and women (n = 10) performed the mid-thigh clean pull at intensities of 40%, 60%, 80%, 100%, 120%, and 140% of one repetition maximum (1RM) power clean in a randomised and counter-balanced order, while assessing bar velocity, bar displacement, power, force, and impulse. Two-way analysis of variance revealed that men demonstrated significantly greater (p < 0.05) values for all variables across loads, excluding bar velocity. Men demonstrated significantly greater (p < 0.05) bar velocities with 40–80% 1RM; in contrast, women demonstrated significantly (p < 0.05) higher velocities with 120–140% 1RM. Irrespective of sex significantly greater (p < 0.05), system peak power, bar velocity, and displacement occurred with 40% 1RM. In contrast, peak force and impulse were significantly (p < 0.05) greater with 140% 1RM. When performing the mid-thigh clean pull, to maximise system power or bar velocity, lower loads (40–60% 1RM) are recommended. When training force production or impulse, higher loads (120–140% 1RM) are recommended, when using the mid-thigh clean pull.  相似文献   

设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号