不同等長收縮時間誘發活化後增能作用對仰臥推擲表現之影響

Abstract

目的：探討以不同最大自主等長收縮 (maximal voluntary isometric contraction, MVIC) 時間，誘發活化後增能作用 (postactivation potentiation, PAP) 後，對上肢力量與爆發力表現之影響。方法： 12名男性擲部選手 (年齡，20.8 ± 2.2歲；身高，1.78 ± 0.04公尺；體重，92.2 ± 15.3公斤；仰臥推舉三次最大反覆肌力，110.2 ± 16.2公斤) 自願參與此重複量數且交叉設計之實驗。每位受試者須接受3種不同的實驗處理，包括3組3秒仰臥推舉MVIC處理 (3MVIC) 、3組5秒仰臥推舉MVIC處理 (5MVIC) 與控制處理 (CON) ，每種處理須間隔至少48小時。於實驗處理前 (前測) 與後，受試者須進行3組，每組反覆2次的仰臥推擲 (bench press throw, BPT) 測驗，組間休息4分鐘。本研究以拉線式電位計記錄推擲高度與槓鈴騰空時間，並進一步分析推擲高度，以及速度、力量與功率之平均值與峰值。結果：不論是3MVIC、5MVIC或是CON處理，推擲高度於第4分鐘 (29.87 ± 4.09 cm) 、第8分鐘 (29.44 ± 4.15 cm) 、第12分鐘 (29.30 ± 3.61 cm) 與後測平均值 (29.54 ± 3.87 cm)，均顯著低於前測平均值 (30.99 ± 3.81 cm, p< .05) 。不論是3MVIC、5MVIC或是CON處理，功率峰值於第4分鐘 (1036 ± 97 W) 、第8分鐘 (1022 ± 92 W) 與後測平均值 (1032 ± 92 W)，皆顯著低於前測平均值 (1068 ± 91 W, p < .05) 。不論是3MVIC、5MVIC或是CON處理，力量峰值於第4分鐘、第8分鐘、第12分鐘以及後測平均值，均與前測平均值並無顯著差異。結論：3MVIC處理與5MVIC處理，可能會誘發肌肉疲勞，因此，可能無法提升訓練良好運動員的上肢爆發力表現。

Purpose: To investigate the postactivation potentiation (PAP) effects induced by different maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) times on force and power performance in upper body. Methods: Twelve male throwing athletes (age, 20.8 ± 2.2 years; height, 1.78 ± 0.04 m; body mass, 92.2 ± 15.3 kg; 3 repetition maximum bench press, 110.2 ± 16.2 kg) were voluntarily recruited in this repeated measures and crossover designed study. All participants performed 3 different treatments, included 3×3-s MVIC (3MVIC), 3×5-s MVIC (5MVIC), and control (CON), which separated by at least 48 hours. Participants performed 3 sets of 2 repetitions of bench press throw (BPT) test with 4-min rest interval between sets before (baseline) and after treatment. The throwing height (TH) and flying time of barbell during BPT were measured by linear wire potentiometer to further analyze the TH, average and peak velocity (V), force (F) and power output (PO). Results: Regardless of 3MVIC, 5MVIC or CON treatment, the TH at 4-min (29.87 ± 4.09 cm), 8-min (29.44 ± 4.15 cm), 12-min (29.30 ± 3.61 cm), and average value (29.54 ± 3.87 cm) after treatment were significantly lower than the average value (30.99 ± 3.81 cm) at baseline (p< .05). Regardless of the treatments, peak PO at 4-min (1036 ± 97 W), 8-min (1022 ± 92 W), and average value (1032 ± 92 W) after treatment were significantly lower than the average value (1068 ± 91 W) at baseline (p < .05). Regardless of the treatments, peak F at 4-min, 8-min, 12-min, and average value after treatment were non significantly different from average value at baseline (p > .05). Conclusion: Both of 3MVIC and 5MVIC treatments might induce muscle fatigue, thus could not improve the explosive performance in upper body in well-trained athletes.