| 赛艇运动员准备期不同供能能力训练比例的量化安排及效果研究 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 张英平,郑晓鸿,黄小平,毕学翠,苏辉,李小华,唐桥.赛艇运动员准备期不同供能能力训练比例的量化安排及效果研究[J].首都体育学院学报,2021(2). |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 张英平 郑晓鸿 黄小平 毕学翠 苏辉 李小华 唐桥 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 首都体育学院;陕西省篮球排球运动管理中心;陕西省水上运动管理中心;重庆师范大学体育与健康科学学院 |
| |
| 基金项目： | 北京市属高校青年拔尖人才培育计划项目(CIT&TCD201804093)。 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 依据赛艇运动员不同供能能力水平的测试评定结果,探究赛艇运动员准备期不同供能能力训练比例的量化安排,比较运动员训练前后不同供能能力的变化及对2000 m成绩的影响。方法:以17名陕西省赛艇男子运动员(11名公开级、6名轻量级)为测试对象,在2018赛季准备期(12周)的起、止各1周用赛艇测功仪测试体现运动员不同供能能力水平的100 m、500 m、2000 m、6000 m,60 min划行的平均功率,依据“黄金标准”和“时间-功率”拟合曲线及相关算法评定运动员供能能力水平,根据第1次测试结果对不同供能能力训练比例进行量化安排。结果:1)2次测试“时间-功率”拟合幂函数曲线分别是y=1146x-0.188,R2=0.9939;y=1052x-0.172,R2=0.9925,根据函数式推算“黄金标准”中的10 s、60 s划行的平均功率。2)最大无氧非乳酸训练占比为0.003%,最大无氧训练占比为0.020%,最大有氧训练占比为0.120%,最大无氧阈训练占比为2.627%,有氧耐力训练占比为80.569%,力量训练占比为16.662%。3)运动员第2次测试10 s,6000 m,60 min划行的平均功率与2000 m划行的平均功率的比值更为接近“黄金标准”,60 s划行的平均功率偏离“黄金标准”。4)运动员测功仪2000 m划行的平均功率提高了1.98%(p<0.01),100 m划行的平均功率下降了5.14%(p<0.01),6000 m划行的平均功率提高了2.54%(p<0.01),60 min划行的平均功率提高了3.52%(p<0.01)。结论:准备期针对性量化安排赛艇运动员不同供能能力训练比例发展方案,能有效调控样本运动员不同供能能力水平,促进赛艇2000 m成绩提高。“黄金标准”“时间-功率”函数曲线对赛艇运动员不同供能能力水平的评定和训练调控具有理论意义和实践指导意义。
|
| 关 键 词： | 赛艇 有氧训练 无氧训练 训练比例 量化安排 |
Study on Quantitative Arrangement and Effect of Training Proportion of Rowers with Different Energy Supply Capacity in Preparation Period |
| |
| ZHANG Yingping,ZHENG Xiaohong,HUANG Xiaoping,BI Xuecui,SU Hui,LI Xiaohua,TANG Qiao.Study on Quantitative Arrangement and Effect of Training Proportion of Rowers with Different Energy Supply Capacity in Preparation Period[J].Journal of Capital College of Physical Education,2021(2). |
| |
| Authors: | ZHANG Yingping ZHENG Xiaohong HUANG Xiaoping BI Xuecui SU Hui LI Xiaohua TANG Qiao |
| |
| Institution: | (Capital University of Physical Education and Sports,Beijing 100191,China;Shaanxi Basketball and Volleyball Management Center,Xi’an,Shaanxi 710068,China;Shaanxi Water Sports Management Center,Xi’an,Shaanxi 712100,China;College of Physical Education and Health Science,Chongqing Normal University,Chongqing 401331,China) |
| |
| Abstract: | According to the test and evaluation results of different energy supply capacity levels of rowers,this paper explores the quantitative arrangement of different energy supply capacity training proportion of rowers during the preparation period,and compares the changes of different energy supply capacity before and after training and their impact on the 2000 m performance.Method:Taking 17 male rowing athletes from Shaanxi Province(11 heavyweight rowers and 6 lightweight rowers)as test objects.The average power of 100 m,500 m,2000 m,6000 m and 60 min of different energy supply capacity levels of athletes is measured by rowing ergometer from the beginning to the end of 2018 season preparation period,according to the‘gold-standard’and‘time-power’fitting curves and related algorithms to evaluate athletes’different ability levels,according to the test results of the first test for different energy supply capacity training proportion making quantitative arrangements.Results:1)The‘time-power’fitting power function curves of the two tests are y=1146x-0.188,R2=0.9939;y=1052x-0.172,R2=0.9925,R2 which are close to 1,according to the function formula the 10 s and 60 s average power in the‘gold-standard’.2)Maximum anaerobic non-lactic acid training accounts for 0.003%,with maximum anaerobic training accounting for 0.020%,maximum aerobic training accounting for 0.120%,maximum anaerobic threshold training accounting for 2.627%,aerobic endurance training accounting for 80.569%,and strength training accounting for 16.662%.3)The proportion of 10 s average power,6000 m average power,60 min average power and 2000 m average power is closer to the“gold standard”in the second test,and the 60 s average power deviates from the“gold standard”.4)When the average power of the athlete dynamometer at 2000 m increases by 1.98%,with a very significant difference(p<0.01),the average power at 100 m decreases by 5.14%,with a very significant difference(p<0.01);the average power at 500 m decreases by 1.58%,without significant difference(p>0.05);6000 m average power increases by 2.54%,with a very significant difference(p<0.01);60 min average power increases by 3.52%,with a very significant difference(p<0.01).Conclusions:In the preparation period,quantitatively arranging the development plan of rowing athletes with different energy supply capacity training ratios can effectively regulate different energy supply capacity levels and promote the improvement of the rowing performance of 2000 m.The“gold standard”and“time-power”function curves have theoretical and practical guiding significance for the evaluation and regulation of rowers’different energy supply levels. |
| |
| Keywords: | rowing aerobic training anaerobic training training proportion quantitative arrangement |
| 本文献已被 维普 等数据库收录！ |
|
