中文体育类核心期刊

中国人文社会科学期刊AMI综合评价(A刊)核心期刊

《中文社会科学引文索引》(CSSCI)来源期刊

美国《剑桥科学文摘》(CSA)收录期刊

中国高校百佳科技期刊

石林,韩冬,蔡治东,等.可变阻力训练对力量表现干预效果的系统综述与meta分析[J].上海体育学院学报,2022,46(9):90-104. DOI: 10.16099/j.sus.2021.09.22.0005
引用本文: 石林,韩冬,蔡治东,等.可变阻力训练对力量表现干预效果的系统综述与meta分析[J].上海体育学院学报,2022,46(9):90-104. DOI: 10.16099/j.sus.2021.09.22.0005
SHI Lin, HAN Dong, CAI Zhidong, GUO Wei, CHEN Zhenxiang. Effects of Variable Resistance Training on Strength Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis[J]. Journal of Shanghai University of Sport, 2022, 46(9): 90-104. DOI: 10.16099/j.sus.2021.09.22.0005
Citation: SHI Lin, HAN Dong, CAI Zhidong, GUO Wei, CHEN Zhenxiang. Effects of Variable Resistance Training on Strength Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis[J]. Journal of Shanghai University of Sport, 2022, 46(9): 90-104. DOI: 10.16099/j.sus.2021.09.22.0005

可变阻力训练对力量表现干预效果的系统综述与meta分析

Effects of Variable Resistance Training on Strength Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • 摘要:
    目的 系统评价可变阻力训练对最大力量和爆发力表现的急性干预和训练干预效果,为在实践中科学运用可变阻力训练提供证据支持。
    方法 通过CNKI及PubMed、Web of Science、SPORTDiscus等数据库检索文献,采用Brughelli改进的质量评分表评价文献质量。应用Stata 16.0软件分别进行数据合并、亚组分析、绘制森林图、异质性分析、meta回归、发表偏倚评价。
    结果 急性干预共纳入8篇文献,与恒定阻力训练相比,可变阻力训练能更有效地诱导激活后增强效应(postactivation potentiation,PAP)(SMD=0.37,95%CI:0.18~0.56,P<0.001),且采用强度相同的设计方式诱导的PAP有非常显著性差异(P<0.001)。4~7 min间歇时间诱导的PAP趋向显著性(P=0.05),8~12 min诱导的PAP有非常显著性差异(P<0.001)。采用较大的可变阻力诱导的PAP可能更好(P=0.064)。训练干预共纳入12篇文献,与恒定阻力训练相比,可变阻力训练能更有效地提高最大力量表现(SMD=0.25,95%CI:0.05~0.45,P<0.05),且<7周的训练周期(P=0.04)以及使用铁链作为可变阻力设备(P=0.01)的训练效果更佳。可变阻力训练可能更有益于提高爆发力表现(SMD=0.26,95%CI:−0.03~0.55,P=0.08),且强度相同的设计方式以及使用弹力带作为可变阻力设备的训练效果可能更佳(P=0.08)。
    结论 设计可变阻力训练方案时,采用强度相同的设计方式以及较大的可变阻力是诱导PAP的最佳策略,且在干预后4~12 min的效果最佳。<7周以及使用铁链的训练策略对最大力量表现的训练效果更好;采用强度相同的设计方式以及使用弹力带的训练策略对提升爆发力表现可能效果更佳,但可变阻力不宜过大。

     

    Abstract:
    Objective To evaluate the acute intervention and training intervention effects of variable resistance training on maximal strength and power, and to provide strong evidence for the scientific application of performing variable resistance training.
    Methods A literature search was conducted by using the PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus and CNKI electronic databases. A modified version of quality scoring system by Brughelli was used to assess each study. The data combining, subgroup analyses, forest plot, heterogeneity, meta-regression, publication bias were used and assessed with Stata 16.0 version.
    Results 8 studies were included on acute intervention. Compared to constant resistance training, variable resistance training significantly induced larger PAP (SMD=0.37, 95%CI: 0.18-0.56, P<0.001). PAP in 4-7 min recovery intervals tended to be significant (P=0.05), PAP in 8-12 min recovery intervals was significantly larger (P<0.001). The larger contribution of variable resistance could be more beneficial in inducing PAP (P=0.064). 12 studies were included on training intervention. Compared to constant resistance training, variable resistance training significantly improved maximal strength (SMD=0.25, 95%CI: 0.05-0.45, P<0.05); the intervention duration <7 weeks (P=0.04) and using chains as the variable resistance equipment (P=0.01) had a significantly larger effect on maximal strength. Variable resistance training could be more beneficial in improving power performance (SMD=0.26, 95% CI: −0.03-0.55, P=0.08), and the same relative load scheme and elastic band as the variable resistance equipment could be even better (P=0.08).
    Conclusions When manipulating variable resistance training, the same load and larger contribution of variable resistance was an optimal strategy to induce PAP, and the 4-12 min recovery interval was a better choice. Utilizing shorter than 7-week intervention and chains as the variable resistance equipment was an ideal strategy in improving maximal strength performance. Using the same load scheme and elastic band may be an ideal strategy in improving power performance, but the contribution of variable resistance should not be too large.

     

/

返回文章
返回