慣性式與槓片式肌力訓練器材動力學表現比較

Comparison of the Kinetics Performance between Inertialresistance and Traditional Weight Plate Strength Training Equipment

戴一涵(I-Han Tai) ； 張恩崇(En-Chung Chang) ； 謝振芳(Chen-Fang Hsieh) ； 陳玫伶(Mei-Ling Chen) ； 相子元(Tzyy-Yuang Shiang)

《華人運動生物力學期刊》 9期 (2013/10) Pp. 18-23

摘要

前言：過去研究使用慣性式肌力訓練器材除強調最大自主頻率外，未有其他針對訓練頻率及訓練強度之文獻比較，因此，本研究在相同訓練頻率及強度下，以動力學參數比較慣性式及槓片式肌力器材動作差異，期能了解慣性式肌力器材訓練動作型態特質。方法：10名健康無上肢疾病年輕男性，平均年齡24.1 ± 0.9歲、身高176.4 ± 6.6公分、體重72.3 ± 9.6公斤，依平衡次序分別執行慣性式以及槓片式阻力來源之肘關節屈曲－伸直動作，動作頻率皆為30次／分鐘（beats per minute; BPM）及20公斤負重，比較過程中最大力量峰值、動作衝量、200毫秒發力率以及屈曲期、伸直期之二頭肌和三頭肌肌肉活化程度，統計方法使用相依樣本t檢定比較結果是否達到差異，顯著水準為α=.05。結果：力量峰值、屈曲期動作衝量以及200毫秒發力率皆未達顯著差異；伸直期間，慣性式衝量顯著小於槓片式器材；肌肉活化部分，慣性式器材屈曲期之二頭肌與伸直期之二、三頭肌活化皆顯著小於槓片式訓練器材。結論與建議：在相同負重及頻率下，慣性式器材動作型態除了在200毫秒發力率及最大力量峰值與槓片式器材有類似結果外，其他參數皆未優於槓片式肌力訓練器材，因此，我們推論慣性式肌力訓練器材之動作頻率為影響訓練效果的主要因素，未來建議可以直接針對慣性式器材之訓練頻率進行分組並記錄其成效，以更有效地為慣性式肌力訓練器材編列出最佳的肌力訓練處方。

關鍵字

200毫秒發力率 ； 肌肉活化程度 ； 頻率 ； 負重

並列摘要

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to compare the kinetics performance between inertial resistance and traditional weight plate training equipment in the same loading and movement velocity. Methods: Ten healthy subjects (age = 24.1 ± 0.9 years, height = 176.4 ± 6.6 cm, weight = 72.3 ± 9.6 kg) without upper limb injury and routine resistance training participated in the study. Participants were arranged by counter-balanced design to perform the elbow flexion-extension movement using inertial resistance equipment and traditional weight plate strength training equipment, respectively. The training intensity was in a standardized condition of 20 kg loading and 30 beats per minute (BPM) movement velocity. The data of peak force, training-impulse, 200 ms rate of force development (RFD) and electromyography (EMG) of biceps and triceps during movement were collected. Difference of the kinetical performance between equipment was examined by paired t-test. The significance level was set at α = .05. Results: No significant differences of peak force, training-impulse and 200ms RFD were found between 2 equipment. The EMG of inertial resistance equipment showed significantly lower firing on biceps during flexion and also on both biceps and triceps muscle during extension. Conclusions: The results indicated that the training velocity is the key factor influencing the performance of inertial resistance device. Therefore, the training efficiency and optimal training velocity need to have further research in the future.

並列關鍵字

200ms RFD ； EMG ； training velocity ； training load

參考文獻

王鈞逸、鄭景峰(2010)。運動訓練量的監控：訓練衝量。中華體育季刊。24(1)，138-147。

Alkner, A.,Tesch, A.(2004).Efficacy of a gravity-independent resistance exercise device as a countermeasure to muscle atrophy during 29-day bed rest.Acta Physiol Scand.181,345-357.

Anna, M.,Artur, J.(2012).Muscle activity during inertial and free weights exercise.Occupational Therapy: the International Perspective.6,217-224.

Anthony, B.(2012).Are training velocity and movement pattern important determinants of muscular rate of force development enhancement?.European journal of applied physiology.112(10),3689-3692.

Bjorn, A.(2005).Effect of unloading and resistance exercise on skeletal muscle function, size and composition in man.Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Section for Muscle and Exercise Physiology, Karolinska Institutet.