当前位置: X-MOL 学术Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Block periodization of endurance training – a systematic review and meta-analysis
Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine Pub Date : 2019-10-17 , DOI: 10.2147/oajsm.s180408
Knut Sindre Mølmen 1 , Sjur Johansen Øfsteng 1 , Bent R Rønnestad 1
Affiliation  

Background: Block periodization (BP) has been proposed as an alternative to traditional (TRAD) organization of the annual training plan for endurance athletes.
Objective: To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to evaluate the effect BP of endurance training on endurance performance and factors determinative for endurance performance in trained- to well-trained athletes.
Methods: The PubMed, SPORTdiscus and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to August 2019. Studies were included if the following criteria were met: 1) the study examined a block-periodized endurance training intervention; 2) the study had a one-, two or multiple group-, crossover- or case-study design; 3) the study assessed at least one key endurance variable before and after the intervention period. A total of 2905 studies were screened, where 20 records met the eligibility criteria. Methodological quality for each study was assessed using the PEDro scale. Six studies were pooled to perform meta-analysis for maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) and maximal power output (Wmax) during an incremental exercise test to exhaustion. Due to a lower number of studies and heterogenous measurements, other performance measures were systematically reviewed.
Results: The meta-analyses revealed small favorable effects for BP compared to TRAD regarding changes in VO2max (standardized mean difference, 0.40; 95% CI=0.02, 0.79) and Wmax (standardized mean difference, 0.28; 95% CI=0.01, 0.54). For changes in endurance performance and workload at different exercise thresholds BP generally revealed moderate- to large-effect sizes compared to TRAD.
Conclusion: BP is an adequate, alternative training strategy to TRAD as evidenced by superior training effects on VO2max and Wmax in athletes. The reviewed studies show promising effects for BP of endurance training; however, these results must be considered with some caution due to small studies with generally low methodological quality (mean PEDro score =3.7/10).



中文翻译:

耐力训练的分期——系统回顾和荟萃分析

背景:已经提出块周期化 (BP) 作为耐力运动员年度训练计划的传统 (TRAD) 组织的替代方案。
目的:据我们所知,这是第一个评估耐力训练的 BP 对耐力表现的影响的荟萃分析,以及受过训练到训练有素的运动员的耐力表现的决定因素。
方法:检索了 PubMed、SPORTdiscus 和 Web of Science 数据库从开始到 2019 年 8 月。如果满足以下标准,则纳入研究:1) 研究检查了块周期耐力训练干预;2) 研究采用单组、两组或多组、交叉或案例研究设计;3) 该研究在干预期前后评估了至少一个关键的耐力变量。共筛选了 2905 项研究,其中 20 条记录符合资格标准。使用 PEDro 量表评估每项研究的方法学质量。汇总六项研究对最大摄氧量(VO 2最大)和最大功率输出(Wmax)在增量运动测试到筋疲力尽。由于研究和异质测量的数量较少,因此系统地审查了其他绩效指标。
结果:荟萃分析显示,与 TRAD 相比,在 VO 2 max(标准化均数差,0.40;95% CI=0.02,0.79)和 Wmax(标准化均数差,0.28;95% CI=0.01)变化方面,BP 的有利影响较小, 0.54)。对于不同运动阈值下耐力表现和工作量的变化,与 TRAD 相比,BP 通常显示出中到大的影响大小。
结论: BP 是 TRAD 的一种适当的替代训练策略,对 VO 2的出色训练效果证明了这一点运动员的 max 和 Wmax。回顾性研究显示耐力训练对血压的良好影响;然而,由于小型研究的方法学质量普遍较低(平均 PEDro 评分 = 3.7/10),因此必须谨慎考虑这些结果。

更新日期:2019-10-17
down
wechat
bug