首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 62 毫秒
1.
Abstract

Nine males (age 24.7 ± 2.1 years, height 175.3 ± 5.5 cm, body mass 80.8 ± 7.2 kg, power clean 1-RM 97.1 ± 6.36 kg, squat 1-RM = 138.3 ± 20.9 kg) participated in this study. On day 1, the participants performed a one-repetition maximum (1-RM) in the power clean and the squat. On days 2, 3, and 4, participants performed the power clean, squat or jump squat. Loading for the power clean ranged from 30% to 90% of the participant's power clean 1-RM and loading for the squat and jump squat ranged from 0% to 90% of the participant's squat 1-RM, all at 10% increments. Peak force, velocity, and power were calculated for the bar, body, and system (bar + body) for all power clean, squat, and jump squat trials. Results indicate that peak power for the bar, body, and system is differentially affected by load and movement pattern. When using the power clean, squat or jump squat for training, the optimal load in each exercise may vary. Throwing athletes or weightlifters may be most concerned with bar power, but jumpers or sprinters may be more concerned with body or system power. Thus, the exercise type and load vary according to the desired stimulus.  相似文献   

2.
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   

3.
The purpose of this study was to compare the power expressed during the bench press exercise in resistance-trained men following different pre-activation conditions. Twenty-two trained men (age 24.1?±?1.7 years, height 178.6?±?6.1?cm, body mass 81.1?±?10.6?kg) completed a maximal effort bench press (1-RM) test (100.0?kg?±?8.1?kg). In a subsequent assessment, each participant performed concentric bench press movements with loads of 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% of their 1-RM preceded by either a concentric contraction (CC), a low isometric preload (LIP; 70% 1-RM) or a high isometric preload (HIP; 100% 1-RM) conditions. All movements were performed in a Smith machine with a settable quick-release device. Participants performed all three conditions in randomized fashion. Results indicated that power outputs during the bench press exercise following HIP were significantly (p?<?0.05) greater than CC at 20% 1-RM (+9%), 30% 1-RM (+16%) and 40% 1-RM (+14%), and LIP at 20% 1-RM (+4%), 30% 1-RM (+20%) and 40% 1-RM (+15%). No differences were found between conditions at 50% 1-RM. Area under the force–power curve with HIP was greater (p?<?0.05) than with CC and LIP. In conclusion, results of this study indicate that the use of a HIP (100% 1-RM) in trained participants results in significantly greater power output during the concentric phase of a multi-joint exercise when compared to standard concentric movement.  相似文献   

4.
Nine males (age 24.7 ± 2.1 years, height 175.3 ± 5.5 cm, body mass 80.8 ± 7.2 kg, power clean 1-RM 97.1 ± 6.36 kg, squat 1-RM = 138.3 ± 20.9 kg) participated in this study. On day 1, the participants performed a one-repetition maximum (1-RM) in the power clean and the squat. On days 2, 3, and 4, participants performed the power clean, squat or jump squat. Loading for the power clean ranged from 30% to 90% of the participant's power clean 1-RM and loading for the squat and jump squat ranged from 0% to 90% of the participant's squat 1-RM, all at 10% increments. Peak force, velocity, and power were calculated for the bar, body, and system (bar + body) for all power clean, squat, and jump squat trials. Results indicate that peak power for the bar, body, and system is differentially affected by load and movement pattern. When using the power clean, squat or jump squat for training, the optimal load in each exercise may vary. Throwing athletes or weightlifters may be most concerned with bar power, but jumpers or sprinters may be more concerned with body or system power. Thus, the exercise type and load vary according to the desired stimulus.  相似文献   

5.
Abstract

The objective of this study was to examine the chronic effects on strength and power of performing complex versus traditional set training over eight weeks. Fifteen trained males were assessed for throw height, peak velocity, and peak power in the bench press throw and one-repetition maximum (1-RM) in the bench press and bench pull exercises, before and after the eight-week programme. The traditional set group performed the pulling before the pushing exercise sets, whereas the complex set group alternated pulling and pushing sets. The complex set training sessions were completed in approximately half the time. Electromyographic (EMG) activity was monitored during both test sessions in an attempt to determine if it was affected as a result of the training programme. Although there were no differences in the dependent variables between the two conditions, bench pull and bench press 1-RM increased significantly under the complex set condition and peak power increased significantly under the traditional set condition. Effect size statistics suggested that the complex set was more time-efficient than the traditional set condition with respect to development of 1-RM bench pull and bench press, peak velocity and peak power. The EMG activity was not affected. Complex set training would appear to be an effective method of exercise with respect to efficiency and strength development.  相似文献   

6.
To investigate the effects of different loads on system and lower-body kinetics during jump squats, 12 resistance-trained men performed jumps under different loading conditions: 0%, 12%, 27%, 42%, 56%, 71%, and 85% of 1-repetition maximum (1-RM). System power output was calculated as the product of the vertical component of the ground reaction force and the vertical velocity of the bar during its ascent. Joint power output was calculated during bar ascent for the hip, knee, and ankle joints, and was also summed across the joints. System power output and joint power at knee and ankle joints were maximized at 0% 1-RM (p < 0.001) and followed the linear trends (p < 0.001) caused by power output decreasing as the load increased. Power output at the hip was maximized at 42% 1-RM (p = 0.016) and followed a quadratic trend (p = 0.030). Summed joint power could be predicted from system power (p < 0.05), while system power could predict power at the knee and ankle joints under some of the loading conditions. Power at the hip could not be predicted from system power. System power during loaded jumps reflects the power at the knee and ankle, while power at the hip does not correspond to system power.  相似文献   

7.
The acute influence of chain-loaded variable resistance exercise on subsequent free-weight one-repetition maximum (1-RM) back squat performance was examined in 16 recreationally active men. The participants performed either a free-weight resistance (FWR) or chain-loaded resistance (CLR) back squat warm-up at 85% 1-RM on two separate occasions. After a 5-min rest, the participants attempted a free-weight 1-RM back squat; if successful, subsequent 5% load additions were made until participants failed to complete the lift. During the 1-RM trials, 3D knee joint kinematics and knee extensor and flexor electromyograms (EMG) were recorded simultaneously. Significantly greater 1-RM (6.2?±?5.0%; p?p?p?>?.05) was found in concentric EMG, eccentric or concentric knee angular velocity, or peak knee flexion angle. Performing a CLR warm-up enhanced subsequent free-weight 1-RM performance without changes in knee flexion angle or eccentric and concentric knee angular velocities; thus a real 1-RM increase was achieved as the mechanics of the lift were not altered. These results are indicative of a potentiating effect of CLR in a warm-up, which may benefit athletes in tasks where high-level strength is required.  相似文献   

8.
The aims of this study were to create a regression model of the relationship between load and muscle power output and to determine an optimal load for maximum power output during a countermovement squat and a bench press. 55 males and 48 females performed power testing at 0, 10, 30, 50, 70, 90, and 100% of their individual one-repetition maximum (1-RM) in the countermovement squat and bench press exercises. Values for the maximum dynamic strength and load for each lift were used to develop a regression model in which the ratio of power was predicted from the ratio of the load for each type of lift. By optimizing the regression model, we predicted the optimal load for maximum muscle power. For the bench press and the countermovement squat, the mean optimal loads for maximum muscle output ranged from 50 to 70% of maximum dynamic strength. Optimal load in the acceleration phase of the upward movement of the two exercises appeared to be more important than over the full range of the movement. This model allows for specific determination of the optimal load for a pre-determined power output.  相似文献   

9.
This study investigated the validity and reliability of the GymAware PowerTool (GPT). Thirteen resistance trained participants completed three visits, consisting of three repetitions of free-weight back squat, bench press, deadlift (80% one repetition maximum), and countermovement jump. Bar displacement, peak and mean velocity, peak and mean force, and jump height were calculated using the GPT, a three-dimensional motion capture system (Motion Analysis Corporation; 150 Hz), and a force plate (Kistler; 1500 Hz). Least products regression were used to compare agreeability between devices. A within-trial one-way ANOVA, typical error (TE; %), and smallest worthwhile change (SWC) were used to assess reliability. Regression analysis resulted in R2 values of >0.85 for all variables excluding deadlift mean velocity (R2 = 0.54–0.69). Significant differences were observed between visits 3-2 for bench press bar displacement (0.395 ± 0.055 m; 0.383 ± 0.053 m), and deadlift bar displacement (0.557 ± 0.034 m; 0.568 ± 0.034 m). No other significant differences were found. Low to moderate TE (0.6–8.8%) were found for all variables, with SWC ranging 1.7–7.4%. The data provides evidence that the GPT can be used to measure kinetic and kinematic outputs, however, care should be taken when monitoring deadlift performance.  相似文献   

10.
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether using different focus affects electromyographic (EMG) amplitude and contraction duration during bench press performed at explosive and controlled speeds. Eighteen young male individuals were familiarized with the procedure and performed the one-maximum repetition (1RM) test in the first session. In the second session, participants performed the bench press exercise at 50% of the 1RM with 3 different attentional focuses (regular focus on moving the load vs contracting the pectoralis vs contracting the triceps) at 2 speed conditions (controlled vs maximal speed). During the controlled speed condition, focusing on using either the pectoralis or the triceps muscles increased pectoralis normalized EMG (nEMG) by 6% (95% CI 3–8%; p = 0.0001) and 4% nEMG (95% CI 1–7%; p = 0.0096), respectively, compared with the regular focus condition. Triceps activity was increased by 4% nEMG (95% CI 0–7%; p = 0.0308) at the controlled speed condition during the triceps focus. During the explosive speed condition, the use of different focuses had no effect. The different attentional focus resulted in comparable contraction duration for the measured muscles when the exercise was performed explosively. Using internal focus to increase EMG amplitude seems to function only during conditions of controlled speed.  相似文献   

11.
In this study we investigated if the occurrence of the sticking region was a result of diminishing potentiation (coinciding delayed muscle activation) or the result of a mechanically poor region in which the muscles can produce less force. A regular one-repetition maximum (1RM) free-weight bench press was compared with isometric bench presses performed at 12 different positions. A lower force at the sticking region compared to the other regions in the isometric bench presses would confirm the mechanically-poor-position hypothesis. Twelve resistance-trained males (age 21.7 ± 1.3 years, mass 78 ± 5.8 kg, height 1.81 ± 0.05 m) were tested in 1RM and in isometric contractions in bench press in 12 different positions, indicated by the vertical distance between barbell and sternum, covering the whole range of motion during the concentric phase. Barbell kinematics and muscle activity were registered. In both types of executions a region of lower force output was observed, which supports the mechanically-poor-position hypothesis. Electromyographic activity of four muscles showed the same pattern in the isometric and 1RM attempts. It was concluded that diminishing effect potentiation could not explain the existence of the sticking region.  相似文献   

12.
Evaluations were made of the stability reliability of force measurements obtained from an Ariel dynamometer, the test -- retest reliability of force and power data for bench presses using the same dynamometer at multiple velocities, and the logical (face) validity of force and power output using the same instrument and exercise. Stability reliability of the dynamometer was determined from daily duplicate force calibration checks using two standard loads. Intra- and intertest coefficients of variation ranged from 0.07% to 1.16%. The test -- retest reliability of the bench press force and power outputs of 33 young men as well as the logical validity of their bench press force and power outputs were assessed at 0.0, 0.124, 0.496, and 0.868 m · sec-1, respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficients for force and power ranged from .95 to .99. Plots for both force and power were similar to those expected for analogous single-joint exercises. Therefore, data presented here support the stability reliability of the dynamometer for force measurements, the reliability of the bench press protocol, and the face validity of force outputs over a velocity spectrum.  相似文献   

13.
The aim of this study was to examine the occurrence of the sticking region by examining how three different grip widths affect the sticking region in powerlifters’ bench press performance. It was hypothesised that the sticking region would occur at the same joint angle of the elbow and shoulder independent of grip width, indicating a poor mechanical region for vertical force production at these joint angles. Twelve male experienced powerlifters (age 27.7 ± 8.8 years, mass 91.9 ± 15.4 kg) were tested in one repetition maximum (1-RM) bench press with a narrow, medium and wide grip. Joint kinematics, timing, bar position and velocity were measured with a 3D motion capture system. All participants showed a clear sticking region with all three grip widths, but this sticking region was not found to occur at the same joint angles in all three grip widths, thereby rejecting the hypothesis that the sticking region would occur at the same joint angle of the elbow and shoulder independent of grip width. It is suggested that, due to the differences in moment arm of the barbell about the elbow joint in the sticking region, there still might be a poor mechanical region for total force production that is joint angle-specific.  相似文献   

14.
ABSTRACT

This study examined the reliability and validity of three methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise. Twenty-six men (22 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental loading test until reaching their 1RM, followed by a set of repetitions-to-failure. Eighteen participants were re-tested to conduct the reliability analysis. The 1RM was estimated through the lifts-to-failure equations proposed by Lombardi and O’Connor, general load-velocity (L-V) relationships proposed by Sánchez-Medina and Loturco and the individual L-V relationships modelled using four (multiple-point method) or only two loads (two-point method). The direct method provided the highest reliability (coefficient of variation [CV] = 2.45% and intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.97), followed by the Lombardi’s equation (CV = 3.44% and ICC = 0.94), and no meaningful differences were observed between the remaining methods (CV range = 4.95–6.89% and ICC range = 0.81–0.91). The lifts-to-failure equations overestimated the 1RM (3.43–4.08%), the general L-V relationship proposed by Sánchez-Medina underestimated the 1RM (?3.77%), and no significant differences were observed for the remaining prediction methods (?0.40–0.86%). The individual L-V relationship could be recommended as the most accurate method for predicting the 1RM during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise.  相似文献   

15.
A range of force (F) and velocity (V) data obtained from functional movement tasks (e.g., running, jumping, throwing, lifting, cycling) performed under variety of external loads have typically revealed strong and approximately linear F–V relationships. The regression model parameters reveal the maximum F (F-intercept), V (V-intercept), and power (P) producing capacities of the tested muscles. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the level of agreement between the routinely used “multiple-load model” and a simple “two-load model” based on direct assessment of the F–V relationship from only 2 external loads applied. Twelve participants were tested on the maximum performance vertical jumps, cycling, bench press throws, and bench pull performed against a variety of different loads. All 4 tested tasks revealed both exceptionally strong relationships between the parameters of the 2 models (median R = 0.98) and a lack of meaningful differences between their magnitudes (fixed bias below 3.4%). Therefore, addition of another load to the standard tests of various functional tasks typically conducted under a single set of mechanical conditions could allow for the assessment of the muscle mechanical properties such as the muscle F, V, and P producing capacities.  相似文献   

16.
This study aimed to examine the reliability of different power and velocity variables during the Smith machine bench press (BP) and bench press throw (BPT) exercises. Twenty-two healthy men conducted four testing sessions after a preliminary BP one-repetition maximum (1RM) test. In a counterbalanced order, participants performed two sessions of BP in one week and two sessions of BPT in another week. Mean propulsive power, peak power, mean propulsive velocity, and peak velocity at each tenth percentile (20–70% of 1RM) were recorded by a linear transducer. The within-participants coefficient of variation (CV) was higher for the load–power relationship compared to the load–velocity relationship in both the BP (5.3% vs. 4.1%; CV ratio = 1.29) and BPT (4.7% vs. 3.4%; CV ratio = 1.38). Mean propulsive variables showed lower reliability than peak variables in both the BP (5.4% vs. 4.0%, CV ratio = 1.35) and BPT (4.8% vs. 3.3%, CV ratio = 1.45). All variables were deemed reliable, with the peak velocity demonstrating the lowest within-participants CV. Based upon these findings, the peak velocity should be chosen for the accurate assessment of BP and BPT performance.  相似文献   

17.
We tested a simple and compact device designed for manual resistance training in conditions of microgravity (Self-Powered Rope Trainer Duo (SPoRT Duo)) to increase muscle performance. Twenty-four participants (20.8 ± 2.1 years) were randomly assigned to a manual resistance group (n = 12) and a free-weight group (n = 12). Participants performed eight exercises (three sets; 8–12 efforts) either with free weights or the SPoRT Duo twice a week for 6 weeks. Maximal isometric force of trunk flexion, back extension and chest press increased (P at least 0.01, d at least 0.52) both in the manual resistance group (18.4% ± 15.0%; 32.7% ± 22.7%; 15.3% ± 9.7%) and free-weight group (18.0% ± 13.9%; 26.6% ± 28.9%; 13.3% ± 7.6%). The change in maximal isometric force of wide grip row in both groups (d at best 0.38) did not reach statistical significance (P at best 0.08). The squat one-repetition-maximum increased in the manual resistance group (29.8% ± 22.1%) and the free-weight group (32.4% ± 26.6%). Jump height, determined by a jump-and-reach test, increased in the free-weight group (9.8% ± 13.2%) but not in the manual resistance group (2.0% ± 8.5%). Manual resistance training was equally effective in increasing strength as traditional resistance training with free weights. This apparatus is a useful addition to current in-flight exercise systems.  相似文献   

18.
Abstract

The aim of the study was to examine the sticking region and concomitant neuromuscular activation of the prime movers during six-repetition maximum (RM) bench pressing. We hypothesised that both peak velocities would decrease and that the electromyography (EMG) of the prime movers (deltoid, major pectoralis and triceps) would increase during the pre-sticking and sticking region during the six repetitions due to fatigue. Thirteen resistance-trained males (age 22.8 ± 2.2 years, stature 1.82 ± 0.06 m, body mass 83.4 ± 7.6 kg) performed 6-RM bench presses. Barbell kinematics and EMG activity of pectoralis major, deltoid anterior, and triceps brachii during the pre-, sticking and post-sticking region of each repetition in a 6-RM bench press were analysed. For both the sticking as the post-sticking region, the time increased significantly from the first to the sixth repetition. Vertical barbell height at the start of sticking region was lower, while the height at the end of the sticking region and post-sticking region did not change during the six repetitions. It was concluded that in 6-RM bench pressing performance, the sticking region is a poor mechanical force region due to the unchanged barbell height at the end of the sticking region. Furthermore, when fatigue occurs, the pectoralis and the deltoid muscles are responsible for surpassing the sticking region as indicated by their increased activity during the pre- and sticking region during the six-repetitions bench press.  相似文献   

19.
This study determined whether backward grinding performance in America's Cup sailing could be improved using a training intervention to increase power capability in the upper-body pull movement. Fourteen elite male sailors (34.9 ± 5.9 years; 98.1 ± 14.4 kg; 186.6 ± 7.7 cm) were allocated into experimental (speed-focussed) and control groups. Grinding performance was assessed using a grinding ergometer and an instrumented Smith machine measured force, velocity and power during the bench pull exercise. Conventional training produced significant improvements in bench pull 1 RM (5.2 ± 4.0%; p = 0.016) and maximum force production (5.4 ± 4.0%; p = 0.014). Speed-focussed training improved maximum power (7.8 ± 4.9%; p = 0.009), power at 1RM (10.3 ± 8.9%; p = 0.019) and maximum velocity (8.4 ± 2.6%; p = 0.0002). Backward grinding performance showed greater improvements in the experimental group than the control group for moderate (+1.8%) and heavy load (+6.0%) grinding. Changes in maximum power output and power at 1 RM had large correlations (r = 0.56–0.61) with changes in both moderate and heavy load grinding performance. Time to peak force had the strongest relationship, explaining 70% of the change in heavy load grinding performance. Although the performance benefit was not entirely clear the likelihood of a detrimental effect was low ( < 5%) and therefore implementation could be recommended.  相似文献   

20.
For simplicity of biomechanical analyses, the weightlifting barbell is typically modelled as a rigid, non-deformable object. Most coaches and weightlifters, however, are aware of the elastic nature of the barbell, and its influence on the successful completion of lifting attempts. Variables such as velocity, work performed, and power output are indicators of the quality of performance during the snatch, clean, and related weightlifting pulling movements. The aim of this study was to establish whether differences exist in determining these biomechanical parameters when the centre of the barbell is analysed compared with each end of the barbell. Nine men performed three maximal-effort repetitions in the clean pull exercise at 85% of their self-reported single repetition maximum (1-RM) clean (90–155 kg) using a barbell instrumented for mechanical analysis. Results indicated that peak barbell speed was 5–30% (P < 0.05) lower for the centre of the barbell than the ends. Although differences (P < 0.05) in kinetic and potential energy were found between the centre and ends of the bar, differences between total work performed were small ( < 6%; P < 0.05) and no differences were observed for average power (P > 0.05). Although approximately the same work and power occur for the centre and ends of the barbell, they manifest as different kinematics as a result of the elastic nature of the equipment. The elastic characteristics should be considered when selecting instrumentation and variables for research involving barbells. Coaches should be aware of the elasticity of barbells, including selecting appropriate viewing angles as well as understanding how deformation may affect the ends of the barbell relative to the centre.  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