【作者】 孙明运；

【导师】 刘宇；

【作者基本信息】 上海体育学院 ， 运动人体科学， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 研究目的本研究试图通过惯性杠铃训练，探索惯性杠铃对腰腹肌的训练效果及训练机制，确定其是否可作为作为一种新型运动器材，对锻炼腰腹肌肌肉形态、功能起到有益作用，为后续产品的改进及同类产品的研发提供理论支持。研究方法招募上海体育学院运动科学学院本科生共计30名，身体健康、无脊柱畸形和损伤史、无其它运动损伤且无专业运动训练史、体内无金属支架等的男性受试者。随机分为两组：实验组（15人）-惯性杠铃训练，对照组（15人）-普通杠铃训练；按照训练计划，进行1小时/次，3次/周，共计8周腰腹部屈伸训练。在华东师范大学上海市磁共振重点实验室采用3.0T超导型磁共振成像系统(MAGNETOM Trio Tim,德国西门子公司),进行磁共振测试；在上海体育学院教育部重点实验室，应用生物压力反馈仪（STABILIZER Pressure Bio-Feedback，美国），根据该反馈仪的操作说明进行腹横肌、多裂肌活性测试；根据The “Bunkie”测试的方法测试腰腹部肌肉耐力；应用CONTREX等动训练仪测试躯干屈伸等长收缩、60°/s、150°/s主动向心收缩的最大力矩；应用KISTLER三维测力台（瑞士KISTLER公司，9287B），采样频率为1200Hz，进行了压心三维力、力矩的测试。研究主要结果1、3.0T超导型磁共振成像采集的肌肉形态学结果如下：（1）实验组和对照组前测L4扫描两张片子水平横断面CSA值无显著性差异（L41，P=0.27＞0.05；L42，P=0.26＞0.05）；训练后两组肌肉CSA测试结果也无显著性差别（L41，P=0.19＞0.05；L42，P=0.18＞0.05）。但是实验后△CSA（实验后测CSA-实验前测CSA）结果，L41、L42均具有非常显著性差异（p=0.000＜0.01）。实验组、对照组L41CSA、L42CSA前后测试数据均具有非常显著性差异（p=0.000＜0.01）；实验后实验组、对照组△CSA%（△CSA%=（实验组后测CSA-实验组前测CSA）/实验组前测CSA）亦具有非常显著性的差异（p=0.000＜0.01）。（2）实验前后实验组、对照组肌肉体积组内比较均具有非常显著性差异（p=0.000＜0.01）；实验组和对照组训练前组间肌肉体积值无显著性差异（P=0.26＞0.05）；训练后两组组间测试结果也无显著性差异（P=0.19＞0.05）；但是训练后组间△V（实验后测V-实验前测V）、△V%（△V%=（实验组后测V-实验组前测V）/实验组前测V）均具有非常显著性的差异（p=0.000＜0.01）。（3）实验组、对照组组内前后测试T2值数据均具有非常显著性差异（p=0.000＜0.01）；实验组和对照组组间前测T2值无显著性差异（P=0.45＞0.05），训练后两组组间测试结果也无显著性差别（P=0.17＞0.05），但是△T2（实验后测T2-实验前测T2）△T2/T2百分比结果均具有非常显著性差异（P值分别为p=0.002＜0.01； p=0.009＜0.01）。2、根据生物压力反馈仪测试的腹横肌、多裂肌活性结果如下：（1）实验前对照组和实验组组间腹横肌压力值无显著性差异（P=0.48＞0.05）；对照组、实验组实验前后组内数据差异非常显著（P值分别为P=0.004＜0.01； P=0.000＜0.01）；对照组、实验组实验后组间数据差异显著（P=0.048＜0.05）。对照组、实验组实验前后组间压强增量均值差异显著（P5=0.02＜0.05）。（2）实验前对照组、实验组多裂肌组间压力值无显著性差异（P=0.23＞0.05）；对照组、实验组实验前后组内数据差异非常显著（P值分别为P=0.001＜0.01；P=0.000＜0.01）；对照组、实验组实验后组间数据差异显著（P=0.03＜0.05）；对照组、实验组实验前后组间压强增量均值差异显著（P=0.01＜0.05）。3、根据The “Bunkie”测试方法测试结果如下：在仰卧位R、L、俯卧位R、L各个姿势动作下实验前对照组、实验组组间测试值无显著性差异（P值分别为P=.21，P=.34，P=.08，P=.31）；实验后两组组间也无显著性差异（P值分别为P=.21，P=.37，P=.27，P=.26）；但各个姿势动作下两组各自组内前后均具有非常显著性差异（P值均为P=.00）。实验前后对照组、实验组各个姿势的下的实验结果的增量百分比（增量百分比=（实验后数据-实验前数据）/实验前数据）也均无显著性差异（P值分别为P=.46，P=.09，P=.29，P=.15）；但是实验组的增量百分比均值均大于对照组。4、应用CONTREX等动训练仪测试躯干屈伸等长收缩、60°/s、150°/s主动向心收缩结果如下；等长、60°/s、150°/s速度下躯干向心收缩，实验前对照组、实验组组间躯干屈、伸最大力矩均无显著性差异(P值分别为P=0.10；P=0.20；P=0.38；P=0.40；P=0.41；P=0.15)；训练前后组内比较均具有非常显著性差异（P=0.00）；训练后组间比较均具有显著性差异（P值分别为P=0.03，0.03，0.03，0.04，0.02）。比较实验前后等长、60°/s、150°/s各速度下组内的最大力矩增量百分比，在150°/s速度下躯干伸最大力矩增量百分比实验组和对照组具有显著性差异（P=0.02）。其余均不具有显著性差异。但除了等长收缩躯干伸力矩增量百分比小于对照组外，其余均大于对照组。5、应用KISTLER三维测力台所采集的压心三维力、力矩的测试结果如下：在惯性摆的不同负荷中，呈现出以下规律：随着惯性摆重量的增加，所有被试的Fxmax、Fzmax方向力，Mymax方向力矩均值均呈线性增加，Fz方向显著增加；Fxmax、Mymax变化较快的负荷点的出现早于Fzmax变化较快的负荷点。研究的主要结论1、与普通杠铃训练比，惯性杠铃训练对腰腹部肌肉的肌肉横断面面积和肌肉体积的增加具有较大作用。2、惯性杠铃组△T2/T2值非常显著性地高于普通杠铃组，说明惯性杠铃训练对于腰腹部肌肉微观结构影响较大。3、与普通杠铃训练比，惯性杠铃对于腹横肌、多裂肌活性具有更大的增强作用；引起腰腹部肌肉耐力、动态力学效果增强，对于腰腹部稳定性具有一定的益处。4、本研究通过对惯性杠铃训练效果的多种手段综合评价，为初步建立一个运动生物力学评价体系、对于惯性杠铃产品的进一步开发、生产提供理论支持。更多还原

【Abstract】 ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness andmechanism of inertial barbell training on biomechanical property of lumbarmuscles. Whether or not the inertial barbell can be used as a new type ofsports equipment, which can be play a beneficial role in lumbar musclesmorphology, function. This study will provide theoretical supporting for thesubsequent product improvement and the same products development.MethodsThirty healthy male undergraduates of Shanghai University of Sportvolunteered to participate in this study, there is no history of spinaldeformity and damage, no other sport injuries, such as the body withoutmetal stents male, and there is no history of professional sports training.They were randomly divided into two groups: experimental group--inertiabarbell training, the control group--conventional barbell training. Bothinterventions were conducted1hour per time,3times/week, for a total of8weeks, training lumbar flexion and extension. In the east China normaluniversity, Shanghai key laboratory of magnetic resonance imaging (mri)we used a3.0T superconducting magnetic resonance imaging system(MAGNETOM for any partial or Tim, Germany’s Siemens), to test lumbarmuscles morphology; In Shanghai sports institute, the ministry of educationkey laboratory, the biological Pressure Feedback is used (STABILIZER Pressure Bio-Feedback, the United States), according to the instructions ofthe Feedback instrument, to test transverse abdominal muscle andmultifidus activity; According to the "Bunkie" test method, the lumbarmuscles endurance has been tested; According to the CONTREXapplications training instrument the maximum moment of centripetalcontraction of torso flexion has been tested under the velocity of isometriccontraction,60°/s,150°/s; Using the KISTLER three-dimensionalplatform (Swiss KISTLER company,9287B), the sampling frequency is1200Hz, we explored the three-dimensional force and torque test.Results1. According to the3.0T superconducting magnetic resonance imaging(MRI),acquisition of lumbar muscle morphological results are as follows：(1) Before the testing, there was no significant difference (L41, P=0.27>0.05; L42, P=0.26>0.05) on the L4horizontal lumbar musclescross-sectional (CSA) of experimental group and control group; AfterTraining, the lumbar muscle CSA results of the two groups also had nosignificant difference (L41, P=0.19>0.05L42, P=0.18>0.05). But△CSA (the CSA of after the experiment measure-the CSA of before theexperiment measure) of L41, L42have very significant difference (p=0.000<0.01). Before and after the experiment, the data of L41CSA andL42CSA of experimental group and control group, are very significantdifference (p=0.000<0.01); After experiment， the△CSA%(△CSA%=(the CSA of after measurement–the CSA of before measurement/theCSA of before the measurement) it has a very significant difference (p=0.000<0.01) between the experimental group and control group.(2) The comparison of muscle volume were very significant difference (p= 0.000<0.01)within experimental group and control group before and afterthe experiment; There was no significant difference between two groupsmuscle volume value (P=0.26>0.05) before training; After training, therealso was no significant difference (P=0.19>0.05) between two groupsmuscle volume value; But after training, between group△V(△V=themuscle volume value after experiment-the muscle volume value beforeexperiment),△V%(△V%=(the muscle volume value after experiment-the muscle volume value before experiment)/the muscle volume valuebefore experiment) have a very significant difference (p=0.000<0.01).(3) The comparison of T2values were very significant difference (p=0.000<0.01)within experimental group and control group before and after theexperiment; There was no significant difference between two groupsmuscle T2values (P=0.45>0.05) before training; After training, therewas also no significant difference (P=0.17>0.05) between two groupsmuscle T2value, but△T2(the T2of after–the T2before the experimentmeasure),△T2/T2%results are very significant difference(P valuerespectively, P=0.002<0.01; P=0.009<0.01).2. According to the biological feedback pressure meter test the transverseabdominal muscle, multifidus activity results are as follows:(1) Before experiment, there was no significant difference (P=0.48>0.05)on the muscle pressure value of the transverse abdominal muscle andmultifidus between control group and experimental group; Before and afterthe experiment, the muscle pressure value of control group, experimentalgroup is very significant difference (P value in the group, respectively (P=0.004<0.01; P=0.000<0.01); After the experiment, muscle pressurevalue is significant difference between control group and experimentalgroup (P=0.048<0.05). The increase of the mean pressure is significant difference (P5=0.02<0.05) between the two groups during before andafter the experiment.(2) Before the experiment， there was no significant difference (P=0.23>0.05) of the pressure value between the control and experimental group;Before and after the experiment, the pressure value is very significantdifference (P value in the group, respectively, P=0.001<0.01; P=0.000<0.01) within Control and experimental group; After the experiment, thepressure value is significant difference(P=0.03<0.05) between the controland experimental group; After the experiment, the increased mean pressurevalue is significant difference(P=0.01<0.05)between the control andexperimental group.3. According to the "Bunkie" test method, the results are as follows:Before the experiment, in the supine position R/L and prone position R/L,there was no significant difference (P value of P=respectively.21, P=.34,P=.08, P=.31) of various posture test values between control andexperiment group; After the experiment, there was also no significantdifference(P value of P=respectively.21, P=.37, P=.27, P=.26) betweentwo groups; Before and after the experiment, but the test values is verysignificant difference (P value for P=.00) under various posture movementwithin each group. After experiment, each position increased percentagewere also no significant difference (P value of P=respectively.46, P=.09,P=.29, P=.15) between two groups; But the mean value percentage ofexperimental group were greater than the control group.4. According to the CONTREX training instrument, the centripetalcontraction results of trunk flexion under isometric contraction,60°/s,150°/s condations are as follows:Before experiment, there was no significant difference (P value respectively, P=0.10; P=0.20; P=0.38; P=0.40; P=0.41; P=0.15) of maximumtorque of the torso centripetal contraction under the isometric,60°/s,150°/s speed, between the experimental and control group; Before and afterexperiment， in comparison of the maximum moment were very significantdifference (P=0.00) within each experimental and control group; Aftertraining, the comparison of maximum moment between groups under the60°/s speed is very significant difference (P=0.00), the comparison ofmaximum torque were significant difference (P value respectively, P=0.03,0.03,0.03,0.04,0.02) under the rest each speed. Comparison before andafter the experiment isometric,60°/s、150°/s, the increased maximumtorque percentage is very significant difference (P=0.02) under the150°/sspeed. The others all have no significant difference. But except for theisometric contraction, the increased maximum torque percentage is less thanthe control group, the others speeds were greater than the control group.5. According to application of KISTLER, the results of thethree-dimensional force and torque are as follows:In the different load of inertia pendulum, the following pattern presents:with the increase of inertia pendulum weight, the force of Fxmax, Fzmaxdirection and the mean Mymax of all the participants linearly increased. Theforce of Fzmax increased significantly than the others; The faster load pointof changing of the force of Fxmax, Mymax appeared earlier than Fzmax.Conclusions1. Compared with normal Barbell training, inertia barbell training has biggereffect to lumbar muscles muscle cross section area and muscle volumeincreasing.2. The△T2/T2value of Inertial Barbell group was significantly higher than normal Barbell group, indicating lumbar muscles activity of InertialBarbell training is larger than normal Barbell training.3, Inertial Barbell compared with normal Barbell training, the activity oftransverse abdominal muscle and multifidus is larger than normal Barbelltraining; Inertial Barbell training caused abdominal muscle enduranceenhancement, indicating that it has certain benefits for core stability; Intraining, the effect level of lumbar muscles flexion and dynamic mechanicsof the Inertial Barbell increased. Thus it indirectly proves that the InertialBarbell training has better effect for lumbar abdominal strength trainingthan normal Barbell training.4. Through a variety of means of evaluation of the Inertial Barbell trainingeffect, we tried to build a preliminary evaluation system of sportsbiomechanics, which supporting for further development of product, and toprovide theoretical supporting.更多还原