两种恢复方式对士兵冲刺间歇训练效果的影响

 目的 探讨冲刺间歇训练时两种恢复方式(积极性恢复 vs. 消极性恢复)对士兵运动能力和训练效果的影响。方法 选取18名男性武警士兵完成6组冲刺间歇训练(30 s Wingate全力蹬车试验),间歇期(4 min)分别进行消极性恢复(即在功率自行车上休息)和积极性恢复(以1.1 W/kg负荷继续蹬车),每次Wingate试验时(不包括间歇期)记录峰值功率(PP)、平均功率(MP)、疲劳指数(FI)、总做功(TW)和心率(HR)等参数。结果 与消极性恢复比较,积极性恢复PP在第2次Wingate试验时降低(P<0.05),MP和HR在第4~6次Wingate试验时升高,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),FI和TW差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 积极性恢复可提高冲刺间歇训练后期的训练效果, 士兵应根据训练方案选择合理的恢复方式。

Comparison of two recovery methods on training effect during sprint interval training in soldiers

Objective To compare two recovery Methods (active vs.passive) on exercise performance and training effect during sprint interval training in soldiers.Methods Eighteen male soldiers performed 6 sets of sprint interval training (30 s cycling sprints, Wingate test). Each set was followed by 4 min of passive (resting still on the ergometer) or active recovery (pedaling at 1.1 W/kg). Peak power (PP), mean power (MP), fatigue index (FI), total work (TW) and heart rate (HR) were recorded during each Wingate test (not including interval period).Results Compared with passive recovery, active recovery resulted in a lower PP in the 2 nd Wingate test (P<0.05) and a greater MP and HR in the 4~6 th Wingate test (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between FI and TW between the 2 recovery conditions(P>0.05).Conclusion Passive recovery is beneficial when only 2 sprints are completed, whereas active recovery better maintains performance on subsequent Wingate test. When performing sprint interval training, soldiers should select a reasonable recovery method according to training plan to improve the training effect.