不同關節活動度的阻力運動對無阻力訓練者肌力與向心作功量之影響
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2013
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
背景：在進行阻力訓練時，多數教練及學者都支持全關節活動度(full range of motion)的訓練方式，但是也有研究結果傾向支持限制關節活動度(limited range of motion) 的訓練方式。過去文獻多數在探討進行不同關節活動度之仰臥推舉運動時，力量峰值(peak force)與平均向心作功量(concentric work)的差異，但目前針對上半身與下半身大肌肉群的阻力運動，特別在無阻力訓練者上之差異則尚未明瞭。目的：探討無阻力訓練者在全關節活動度與限制關節活動度下進行蹲舉與仰臥推舉的阻力運動時，其肌力、力量峰值與平均向心作功量的差異。方法：本實驗採用平衡次序及重複量數的方法，讓12名男性參與者(24.2 ± 1.4歲)分別在全關節活動度及限制關節活動度下，進行10RM(repetition maximum)的蹲舉與仰臥推舉運動測驗，過程中以高速攝影機全程拍攝。統計分析以相依樣本t檢定考驗肌力、力量峰值與平均向心作功量在不同關節活動度下之差異，顯著水準定為α= .05。結果：在仰臥推舉時，肌力在限制關節活動度下顯著高於全關節活動度(63.8 ± 8.6公斤與48.3 ± 7.5公斤，p< .05)；在蹲舉時，肌力在限制關節活動度下也顯著高於全關節活動度(110.8 ± 20.3公斤與67.9 ± 8.4公斤，p < .05)。仰臥推舉的力量峰值，在全關節活動度下(1094.3 ± 306牛頓)顯著大於限制關節活動度(937.4 ± 231牛頓)(p< .05)，然而蹲舉的力量峰值，則是在全關節活動度下(1254.4±215.9牛頓)顯著小於限制關節活動度(1951.4 ± 569.9牛頓)(p < .05)。在蹲舉與仰臥推舉運動下，平均向心作功量都是在全關節活動度下顯著高於限制關節活動度(仰臥推舉全關節與限制關節活動度分別為191.9 ± 31.8焦耳與139.6 ± 19.7焦耳；蹲舉則分別為286.3 ± 48.9焦耳與239.7 ± 44.9焦耳)。結論：在進行阻力運動時，儘管肌力表現在全關節活動度下顯著小於限制關節活動度，但是平均向心作功量則顯著大於限制關節活動度。不過，無阻力訓練者在進行仰臥推舉時，其力量峰值在全關節活動度下卻顯著大於限制關節活動度，阻力訓練經驗可能會影響到不同關節活動度下力量峰值的產生。
Background: Most coaches and researchers support the use of full range of motion (ROM) resistance training. However, some research findings indicate the positive results from utilizing limited ROM resistance training. Previous studies have mainly examined the peak force and concentric work during variable range of motion resistance training on bench press exercise. The comparison on squat resistance exercises remains unknown. Purpose: To investigate the differences in strength, peak force and concentric work between full ROM and limited ROM resistance exercises in resistance untrained men. Methods: Twelve male subjects (age 24.2 ± 1.4 years) performed 10RM squat and bench press tests utilizing both full and limited ROM in a counter-balance and repeated measure manner. Performance was recorded by a high-speed camera during exercises. A paired sample t-test was used to determine the differences in loading, peak force and average concentric work between full ROM and limited ROM resistance exercises. The significance level was set at 0.05. Results: In bench press, strength in limited ROM was significantly greater than in full ROM (63.8 ± 8.6 kg vs 48.3 ± 7.5 kg, respectively)(p< .05). In squat, strength in limited ROM was also significantly greater than in full ROM (110.8 ± 20.3 kg vs 67.9 ± 8.4 kg, respectively). In bench press, the peak force was significantly greater in full ROM (1094.3 ± 306 N) when compared to limited ROM (937.4 ± 231 N). However, the peak force in full ROM squat (1254.4 ± 215.9N) was significantly lower when compared to limited ROM (1951.4 ± 569.9N). In both bench press and squat, the average concentric work was significantly higher in full ROMthan in limited ROM (191.9 ± 31.8J vs 139.6 ± 19.7J for full and limited ROM in bench press; 286.3 ± 48.9J vs 239.7 ± 44.9J for full and limited ROM in squat). Conclusion: Despite the fact that strength in full ROM was significantly lower than in limited ROM, the average concentric work was significantly greater in full ROM when compared to limited ROM. However, the peak force was significantly greater in full ROM when compared to limited ROM in resistance untrained men when performing bench press. Resistance training experience may influence the peak force performance during variable ROM resistance exercise.
Background: Most coaches and researchers support the use of full range of motion (ROM) resistance training. However, some research findings indicate the positive results from utilizing limited ROM resistance training. Previous studies have mainly examined the peak force and concentric work during variable range of motion resistance training on bench press exercise. The comparison on squat resistance exercises remains unknown. Purpose: To investigate the differences in strength, peak force and concentric work between full ROM and limited ROM resistance exercises in resistance untrained men. Methods: Twelve male subjects (age 24.2 ± 1.4 years) performed 10RM squat and bench press tests utilizing both full and limited ROM in a counter-balance and repeated measure manner. Performance was recorded by a high-speed camera during exercises. A paired sample t-test was used to determine the differences in loading, peak force and average concentric work between full ROM and limited ROM resistance exercises. The significance level was set at 0.05. Results: In bench press, strength in limited ROM was significantly greater than in full ROM (63.8 ± 8.6 kg vs 48.3 ± 7.5 kg, respectively)(p< .05). In squat, strength in limited ROM was also significantly greater than in full ROM (110.8 ± 20.3 kg vs 67.9 ± 8.4 kg, respectively). In bench press, the peak force was significantly greater in full ROM (1094.3 ± 306 N) when compared to limited ROM (937.4 ± 231 N). However, the peak force in full ROM squat (1254.4 ± 215.9N) was significantly lower when compared to limited ROM (1951.4 ± 569.9N). In both bench press and squat, the average concentric work was significantly higher in full ROMthan in limited ROM (191.9 ± 31.8J vs 139.6 ± 19.7J for full and limited ROM in bench press; 286.3 ± 48.9J vs 239.7 ± 44.9J for full and limited ROM in squat). Conclusion: Despite the fact that strength in full ROM was significantly lower than in limited ROM, the average concentric work was significantly greater in full ROM when compared to limited ROM. However, the peak force was significantly greater in full ROM when compared to limited ROM in resistance untrained men when performing bench press. Resistance training experience may influence the peak force performance during variable ROM resistance exercise.
Description
Keywords
蹲舉, 仰臥推舉, 阻力訓練, 全關節活動度, 限制關節活動度, squat, bench press, resistance training, full range of motion, limited range of motion