首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Biology of Sport >The effect of block and traditional periodization training models on jump and sprint performance in collegiate basketball players
【2h】

The effect of block and traditional periodization training models on jump and sprint performance in collegiate basketball players

机译:分组训练和传统分期训练模型对大学篮球运动员跳跃和冲刺成绩的影响

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

This study investigated the effect of block periodization (BP) and traditional periodization (TP) approaches on jumping and sprinting performance in collegiate basketball players during an 8-week pre-season period. Ten collegiate male basketball players (mean±SD; age: 21.5±1.7 years; body mass: 83.5±8.9 kg; stature: 192.5±5.4 cm) from the same team were equally assigned to a training group (BP or TP). BP and TP were designed with different numbers of power sessions (BP=8; TP=16) and recovery days (BP=14; TP=8). Counter-movement jump (CMJ) and 20-m sprint performance was measured prior to training commencement (baseline) and every 2 weeks thereafter (week 2, week 4, week 6 and week 8). Within-group, between-group and individual changes were assessed using magnitude-based statistics. Substantially higher (likely positive) CMJ scores were evident in week 8 compared to baseline, week 2 and week 4 with BP training. Substantially higher CMJ values were only observed in week 2 (likely positive) compared to baseline, with TP training. Sprint data showed likely negative differences in week 6 compared to baseline in both TP and BP, with no substantial differences in week 8. The only performance difference between TP and BP training was in CMJ in week 8 (very likely negative). Individual analysis showed that only three athletes demonstrated a negative predicted score (i.e. lower sprinting time) in BP, while all players following the TP model demonstrated positive predicted scores. BP training showed substantially higher jumping performance compared to TP, while no improvement in sprinting performance was observed in either training approach. Basketball coaches should consider using BP training rather than TP to train players’ jumping abilities.
机译:这项研究调查了在8周的季前赛期间,大块间歇训练(BP)和传统间歇训练(TP)方法对大学篮球运动员跳跃和冲刺表现的影响。将来自同一支球队的十名大学男篮运动员(平均±标准偏差;年龄:21.5±1.7岁;体重:83.5±8.9千克;身高:192.5±5.4厘米)平均分配到一个训练组(BP或TP)。 BP和TP设计为具有不同次数的加力会话(BP = 8; TP = 16)和恢复天数(BP = 14; TP = 8)。在训练开始之前(基线)以及此后每2周(第2周,第4周,第6周和第8周)测量反向移动跳跃(CMJ)和20米短跑成绩。使用基于量级的统计数据评估组内,组间和个人的变化。与基线,第2周和第4周进行BP训练相比,第8周的CMJ评分明显高于(可能为阳性)。与基线相比,TP训练仅在第2周观察到较高的CMJ值(可能为阳性)。冲刺数据显示TP和BP与基线相比在第6周可能出现负差异,而在第8周没有实质性差异。TP和BP训练之间唯一的性能差异是在CMJ在第8周(非常可能为负)。个体分析表明,只有三名运动员在BP中显示出负的预测分数(即短距离冲刺时间),而所有遵循TP模型的运动员均显示出正的预测分数。与TP相比,BP训练显示出更高的跳跃表现,而在两种训练方法中均未观察到短跑表现的改善。篮球教练应该考虑使用BP训练而不是TP来训练运动员的跳跃能力。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号