PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: Optimizing training adaptations is of the utmost importance for the strength and conditioning professional. The pre-season of any sport is particularly important to ensure preparedness of the athletes. In DIII Collegiate Football pre-season consists of approximately 3 weeks. The abbreviated time of the pre-season increases the importance of optimizing training using safe methods, including alternative loading strategies. The purpose of the current study was to determine if a 3-week variable resistance training VRT during an undulating (UL) resistance training program elicited a greater increase in back squat strength compared to traditional loading methods.
UNASSIGNED: Forty DIII Football players (age range: 18-25 years) participated in a 3-week UL bilateral back squat (BBS) program. Both groups performed the BBS 3 times per week with a minimum of 24 hours between exercise sessions. The control group (C) (n = 20) (height = 182.3 + 5.1 cm, body mass: pre = 102.8 ± 17.7 kg, post = 104.1 ± 17.8 kg) used traditional loading methods (i.e., Olympic weights only) and the experimental group (E) (n = 20) (height = 180.7 ± 8.0 cm, body mass: pre = 100.3 ± 27.1 kg, post = 101.0 ± 27.7 kg) used traditional loading methods and variable resistance (i.e., resistance bands). The variable resistance accounted for approximately 20% of the total resistance while 80% of the resistance was supplied by traditional loading methods.
UNASSIGNED: When all data was pooled, subjects had a significant increase (p < 0.05) in 1-RM BBS from pre (154.2 + 26.1 kg) to post (166.8 + 26.2 kg), with a percent increase of 8.13% at the completion of the 3-week training program. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between the C and E groups for muscular strength, muscular power, or vertical jump. Volume-loads were not significantly (p > 0.05) different between groups for any of the weeks (C: Week 1 = 858.1 + 101.3, Week 2 = 588.6 + 69.2, Week 3 = 332.5 + 38.9, Total = 1179.2 + 209.4 vs. E: Week 1 = 835.2 + 179.7, Week 2 = 572.2 + 123.4, Week 3 = 323.5 + 68.8, Total = 1730.9 + 371.8) or for the pre-season as a whole.
UNASSIGNED: A traditional UL resistance training program and training program with variable resistance are both effective methods at increasing back squat strength during 3 weeks of training. Resistance band variable resistance (VR) does not enhance training effects within a 3-week mesocycle greater than traditional resistance.
UNASSIGNED: Forty DIII Football players (age range: 18-25 years) participated in a 3-week UL bilateral back squat (BBS) program. Both groups performed the BBS 3 times per week with a minimum of 24 hours between exercise sessions. The control group (C) (n = 20) (height = 182.3 + 5.1 cm, body mass: pre = 102.8 ± 17.7 kg, post = 104.1 ± 17.8 kg) used traditional loading methods (i.e., Olympic weights only) and the experimental group (E) (n = 20) (height = 180.7 ± 8.0 cm, body mass: pre = 100.3 ± 27.1 kg, post = 101.0 ± 27.7 kg) used traditional loading methods and variable resistance (i.e., resistance bands). The variable resistance accounted for approximately 20% of the total resistance while 80% of the resistance was supplied by traditional loading methods.
UNASSIGNED: When all data was pooled, subjects had a significant increase (p < 0.05) in 1-RM BBS from pre (154.2 + 26.1 kg) to post (166.8 + 26.2 kg), with a percent increase of 8.13% at the completion of the 3-week training program. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between the C and E groups for muscular strength, muscular power, or vertical jump. Volume-loads were not significantly (p > 0.05) different between groups for any of the weeks (C: Week 1 = 858.1 + 101.3, Week 2 = 588.6 + 69.2, Week 3 = 332.5 + 38.9, Total = 1179.2 + 209.4 vs. E: Week 1 = 835.2 + 179.7, Week 2 = 572.2 + 123.4, Week 3 = 323.5 + 68.8, Total = 1730.9 + 371.8) or for the pre-season as a whole.
UNASSIGNED: A traditional UL resistance training program and training program with variable resistance are both effective methods at increasing back squat strength during 3 weeks of training. Resistance band variable resistance (VR) does not enhance training effects within a 3-week mesocycle greater than traditional resistance.
摘要：
■优化训练适应对于力量和调理专业人员来说至关重要。任何运动的季前赛对于确保运动员的准备尤其重要。在DIII大学足球赛中，季前赛大约包括3周。季前赛时间的缩短增加了使用安全方法优化训练的重要性,包括替代加载策略。当前研究的目的是确定与传统的加载方法相比，在起伏（UL）阻力训练计划中进行3周的可变阻力训练VRT是否会引起后蹲强度的更大增加。
■40名DIII足球运动员（年龄范围：18-25岁）参加了为期3周的UL双边后深蹲（BBS）计划。两组每周进行BBS3次，每次锻炼之间至少24小时。对照组(C)(n=20)(身高=182.3±5.1cm,体重：pre=102.8±17.7kg，post=104.1±17.8kg)使用传统的加载方法(即仅奥运体重）和实验组（E）（n=20）（身高=180.7±8.0cm，体重：pre=100.3±27.1kg，post=101.0±27.7kg)使用传统的加载方法和可变电阻(即，阻力带)。可变电阻约占总电阻的20%,而80%的电阻由传统加载方法提供。
■当所有数据被汇集时，受试者在1-RMBBS中从前（154.2+26.1kg）到后（166.8+26.2kg）显着增加（p<0.05），在完成为期3周的培训计划时，增长了8.13%。C组和E组肌力无显著性差异(p>0.05),肌肉力量,或垂直跳跃。在任何一周中，两组之间的体积负荷均无显着差异（p>0.05）（C：第1周=858.1101.3，第2周=588.669.2，第3周=332.538.9，总计=1179.2209.4vs.E：第1周=835.2179.7，第2周=572.2123.4，第3周=323.568.8，总计=1730.9371.8）或整个季前赛。
■传统的UL阻力训练计划和具有可变阻力的训练计划都是在3周训练中增加后蹲强度的有效方法。阻力带可变阻力（VR）在大于传统阻力的3周中环内不会增强训练效果。
■40名DIII足球运动员（年龄范围：18-25岁）参加了为期3周的UL双边后深蹲（BBS）计划。两组每周进行BBS3次，每次锻炼之间至少24小时。对照组(C)(n=20)(身高=182.3±5.1cm,体重：pre=102.8±17.7kg，post=104.1±17.8kg)使用传统的加载方法(即仅奥运体重）和实验组（E）（n=20）（身高=180.7±8.0cm，体重：pre=100.3±27.1kg，post=101.0±27.7kg)使用传统的加载方法和可变电阻(即，阻力带)。可变电阻约占总电阻的20%,而80%的电阻由传统加载方法提供。
■当所有数据被汇集时，受试者在1-RMBBS中从前（154.2+26.1kg）到后（166.8+26.2kg）显着增加（p<0.05），在完成为期3周的培训计划时，增长了8.13%。C组和E组肌力无显著性差异(p>0.05),肌肉力量,或垂直跳跃。在任何一周中，两组之间的体积负荷均无显着差异（p>0.05）（C：第1周=858.1101.3，第2周=588.669.2，第3周=332.538.9，总计=1179.2209.4vs.E：第1周=835.2179.7，第2周=572.2123.4，第3周=323.568.8，总计=1730.9371.8）或整个季前赛。
■传统的UL阻力训练计划和具有可变阻力的训练计划都是在3周训练中增加后蹲强度的有效方法。阻力带可变阻力（VR）在大于传统阻力的3周中环内不会增强训练效果。
