不同關節活動角度的阻力訓練對 肌肉適能和身體組成之影響
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2014
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
問題背景：儘管多數教練與學者支持「全關節活動節角度」 (full range of motion, FRM)的阻力訓練原則，但是「限制關節活動角度」 (limited range of motion, LRM) 的訓練方式也獲得少數學者的支持。LRM的訓練在重量負荷上佔優勢，而FRM的訓練在總作功量上佔優勢，由於強度與運動量會影響神經肌肉系統的適應，不同關節活動角度的阻力訓練對肌肉適能與身體組成的影響值得去探討。目的：探討8周不同關節活動角度之蹲舉及仰臥推舉訓練對肌肉適能和身體組成的影響。方法：參與者為17位無阻力訓練經驗的健康男性大學生(年齡 21.8 ± 1.6歲，身高 173.1 ± 3.4公分，體重 69.4 ± 9.4公斤)，在完成肌力測驗後配對分組，分別進行為期8周，每周2-3次(共22次)的全關節活動角度 (n=8，F組) 與限制關節活動角度 (n=9，L組) 之蹲舉及仰臥推舉訓練 (10RM，3組)。所有參與者在訓練前後進行FRM與LRM之蹲舉及仰臥推舉肌力測驗 (10RM) 、下蹲垂直跳、藥球推擲及身體組成的測驗。統計以二因子混合設計變異數分析比較2組別在訓練前後10RM肌力、下蹲垂直跳、藥球推擲及身體組成之差異，顯著水準定為 p ≤ .05。結果：8周的阻力訓練後，F組與L組在全關節和限制關節之蹲舉及仰臥推舉肌力、上下肢肌群爆發力皆顯著提升 (p< .05) ，但F組在全關節之蹲舉10RM肌力顯著大於L組，而L組則在限制關節之蹲舉10RM肌力的增加百分比 (20.0 ± 11.9% vs. 40.0 ± 13.3%) 、限制關節之仰臥推舉10RM肌力的增加百分比和15.5kg (28.6 ± 11.0% vs. 15.3 ± 10.1%) 和下肢肌群爆發力的增加百分比 (9.7 ± 5.9% vs. 4.7 ± 3.1%) 皆顯著大於F組 (p < .05) ；在身體組成方面，兩組別在訓練後肌肉量皆顯著增加，但組別間無顯著差異 (p > .05) 。結論：8周FRM及LRM的阻力訓練皆可提升健康男性大學生的肌力、爆發力和肌肉量，然而，LRM的訓練方式在增加限制關節之蹲舉及仰臥推舉肌力和提升下肢肌群爆發力的效果較FRM的訓練方式顯著；FRM的訓練方式僅在增加全關節之蹲舉肌力的效果較LRM的訓練方式顯著。
Background: Most coaches and researchers support the use of full range of motion (FRM) training, but there was some support for the use of limited range of motion (LRM) training. While LRM training has an advantage on force production, FRM training produces greater total work. Because intensity and training volume play important roles in muscular adaptations, comparison of muscular adaptations between FRM and LRM training is warranted. Purpose: To examine the effects of 8 weeks of FRM or LRM squat and bench press training on muscular fitness and body composition in untrained men. Methods: After completion of strength testing, seventeen untrained college males (21.8 ± 1.6 years, 173.1 ± 3.4 cm, and 69.4 ± 9.4 kg) were matched up and assigned to FRM training group (n=8) or LRM training group (n=9). All subjects performed squat and bench press training 2-3 times per week for a total of 8 weeks (total 22 training sessions) at intensity of 10RM for 3 sets. FRM and LRM squat and bench press 10RM, counter movement jump (CMJ), seated medicine ball pull, and body composition were measured before and after 8 weeks of training. Two-way mixed design ANOVA was used to determine the differences in these measurements between two groups. The significance level was set at p ≤ .05. Results: After 8 weeks of training, significant increases in squat and bench press 10RM, power performance, and muscle mass were observed in both training groups (p<.05). While changes in FRM squat 10RM were significantly greater in FRM training group (39.6 ± 7.5% vs 25.7 ± 15.3%), changes in LRM squat and bench press 10RM were significantly greater in LRM training group (squat 40.0 ± 13.3% vs 20.0 ± 11.9%; bench press 28.6 ± 11.0% vs 15.3 ± 10.1%). In addition, changes in CMJ power were greater in LRM training group. However, there was no significant difference in muscle mass changes between two training groups. Conclusion: Following 8 weeks of FRM and LRM training, strength, power and muscle mass were significantly improved in untrained men. However, PRM training can induce greater gains in PRM squat and bench press 10RM and lower body power performance whereas FRM training can only induce greater gains in FRM squat 10RM.
Background: Most coaches and researchers support the use of full range of motion (FRM) training, but there was some support for the use of limited range of motion (LRM) training. While LRM training has an advantage on force production, FRM training produces greater total work. Because intensity and training volume play important roles in muscular adaptations, comparison of muscular adaptations between FRM and LRM training is warranted. Purpose: To examine the effects of 8 weeks of FRM or LRM squat and bench press training on muscular fitness and body composition in untrained men. Methods: After completion of strength testing, seventeen untrained college males (21.8 ± 1.6 years, 173.1 ± 3.4 cm, and 69.4 ± 9.4 kg) were matched up and assigned to FRM training group (n=8) or LRM training group (n=9). All subjects performed squat and bench press training 2-3 times per week for a total of 8 weeks (total 22 training sessions) at intensity of 10RM for 3 sets. FRM and LRM squat and bench press 10RM, counter movement jump (CMJ), seated medicine ball pull, and body composition were measured before and after 8 weeks of training. Two-way mixed design ANOVA was used to determine the differences in these measurements between two groups. The significance level was set at p ≤ .05. Results: After 8 weeks of training, significant increases in squat and bench press 10RM, power performance, and muscle mass were observed in both training groups (p<.05). While changes in FRM squat 10RM were significantly greater in FRM training group (39.6 ± 7.5% vs 25.7 ± 15.3%), changes in LRM squat and bench press 10RM were significantly greater in LRM training group (squat 40.0 ± 13.3% vs 20.0 ± 11.9%; bench press 28.6 ± 11.0% vs 15.3 ± 10.1%). In addition, changes in CMJ power were greater in LRM training group. However, there was no significant difference in muscle mass changes between two training groups. Conclusion: Following 8 weeks of FRM and LRM training, strength, power and muscle mass were significantly improved in untrained men. However, PRM training can induce greater gains in PRM squat and bench press 10RM and lower body power performance whereas FRM training can only induce greater gains in FRM squat 10RM.
Description
Keywords
重量訓練, 全關節活動角度, 限制關節活動角度, 肌力, 爆發力, weight training, full range of motion, limited range of motion, strength, power