O tipo de aquecimento interfere na temperatura e na força em atletas de powerlifting paralímpico?
Data
2021-05-19
Título da revista
ISSN da revista
Título do Volume
Editora
Resumo
O interesse pelos esportes paralímpicos tem crescido, contudo, as pesquisas sobre o Powerlifting Paralímpico têm sido voltadas para a origem de possíveis lesões e critérios de classificação, tendo o desempenho levado pouca consideração. Desta forma, este estudo teve como objetivo avaliar a eficiência de diferentes tipos de aquecimento (sem aquecimento, aquecimento tradicional e com alongamento) sobre o desempenho de atletas do Powerlifting Paralímpico. A amostra contou com 12 atletas do sexo masculino praticantes de Powerlifintng Paralímpico (PP). O estudo foi realizado em três semanas, sendo a primeira semana destinada a familiarização do protocolo de testes de 1RM (dia 1); teste de Força Isométrica Máxima (FIM) com a Barra a 15 cm do Peito, Taxa de Desenvolvimento de Força (TDF), Índice de Fadiga (IF), Tempo até a Força Máxima (Tempo) (dia 2); e Velocidade Máxima (VMax) (dia 3). A semana 2, foi destinada aos testes de 1RM e de Velocidade Máxima (VMax). A semana 3 foi destinada a avaliação das variáveis estáticas da força. Nas semanas 2 e 3 os indivíduos foram direcionados aos testes a partir de três formas diferentes de aquecimento (Sem Aquecimento, Aquecimento Tradicional ou Aquecimento através de Alongamento), sendo a ordem determinada através de sorteio, onde 1/3 dos sujeitos de cada grupo fizeram cada tipo de aquecimento em uma das sessões de avaliação. Como principais resultados verificou-se que em relação a temperatura timpânica foram encontradas diferenças significativas entre o Sem Aquecimento Antes (SA) (36.52±0.21ºC, IC 95% 36.39-36.66) e o Alongamento Antes (AA) (36.43±0.16ºC, IC 95% 36.32-36.53), com p=0.006. Houve diferença entre o SA e o Sem Aquecimento 10 Minutos depois (S10) (36.40±0.10ºC, IC 95% 36.33-36.47), p=0.026. Também foram encontradas diferenças entre o Aquecimento Tradicional Antes (TA) (36.47±0.16ºC, IC 95% 36.37-36.57), e o Tradicional Depois (TD) (36.58±0.19ºC, IC 95% 36.46-36.70), p=0.007 e em relação ao Tradicional 10 Minutos depois (T10) (36.62±0.11ºC, IC 95% 36.55-36.69), p=0.002. Houve diferenças entre o AA e o Aquecimento com Alongamento Depois (AD) (36.55±0.19ºC, IC 95% 36.43-36.67), p<0.001. Foi encontrada diferenças entre o Sem Aquecimento Depois (SD) (36.47±0.12ºC, IC 95% 36.39-36.54) e o TD, p=0.007, e em relação ao AD, p=0.031. Houve diferenças entre o SD e o AS, p=0.002. Também foi encontrada diferença entre o Alongamento 10 Minutos depois (A10) (36.51±0.16 ºC, IC 95% 36.41-36.61) e o T10, p<0.001. Já para a TDF, FIM, IF e Tempo foram encontradas diferenças significativas entre o aquecimento com alongamento e sem aquecimento (p=0.005) em relação a FIM. Não houve diferenças significativas na TDF, IF e Tempo até FIM nos diversos tipos de aquecimento, como também não foram encontradas diferenças significativas em relação a Repetição Máxima (p=0.121, ɳp 2=0.275, Efeito Médio) e nem em relação a Velocidade Máxima (p=0.712, ɳp 2=0.033, Efeito Baixo), entre os diversos tipos de aquecimento. Diante dos resultados concluiu-se que o tipo de aquecimento parece não interferir na manifestação da força, podendo ficar a critério de cada atleta o tipo de aquecimento que melhor ele se adapte, ou ainda há a possibilidade de não fazer aquecimento algum e também obter um resultado positivo.
Interest in Paralympics sports has increased; however, researches on Paralympic Powerlifting has been focused on the origin of possible injuries and classification criteria, while little attention has been given to athletes’ performance. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of different types of warm-up (No Warm-up, Traditional Warm-up, and With Stretching) on Paralympic Powerlifting athletes’ performance. The sample considered 12 male Paralympic Powerlifting (PP) athletes. This study was developed throughout three weeks, considering that the first week was scheduled for the athletes to be familiarized with the patterns of testing one-repetition maximum (1RM) (1st day); Maximum Isometric Strength (FIM) testing with the bar 15cm far from the athletes’ chest level, Strength Development Rate (TDF), Fatigue Index (IF), Time until the Maximum Strength (Time) (2nd day); and Maximum Speed (VMax) (3rd day). The 2nd week was scheduled for 1RM and Maximum Speed (VMax) tests. The 3rd week was scheduled for the strength static variables evaluation. In the 2 nd and third weeks, the participants were directed to the tests considering three different kinds of warm-up (No warm-up, Traditional warm-up, or Warm-up through Stretching). The sequence of tests was determined by a raffle, which 1/3 of the participants in each group did each type of warm-up in one of the assessment sections. As the main results, related to tympanic temperature, significant differences were found between No Warm-up Before (SA) (36.52±0.21ºC, IC 95% 36.39-36.66) and Stretching Before (AA) (36.43±0.16ºC, IC 95% 36.32-36.53), p=0.006. There was a difference between SA and No Warm-up 10 minutes later (S10) (36.40±0.1ºC, IC 95% 36.33-36.47), p=0.026. Differences were also found between Traditional Warm-up Before (TA) (36.47±0.16ºC, IC 95% 36.37-36.57), and After Traditional (TD) (36.58±0.19ºC, IC 95% 36.46-36.70), p=0.007 and related to the Traditional 10 minutes later (T10) (36.62±0.11ºC, IC 95% 36.55- 36.69), p=0.002. There were differences between AA and Warm-up with After Stretching (AD) (36.55±0.19ºC, IC 95% 36.43-36.67), p<0.001. Differences were found between No After Warm-up (SD) (36.47±0.12ºC, IC 95% 36.39- 36.54) and TD, p=0.007, and related to AD, p=0.031. There were differences between SD and AS, p=0.002. In addition, there were also differences between Stretching 10 minutes later (A10) (36.51±0.16ºC, IC 95% 36.41-36.61) and T10, p<0.001. Considering TDF, FIM, IF, and Time, significant differences were found between Warm-up with Stretching and No Warm-up (p=0.005) related to Maximum Isometric Strength (FIM). There were no significant differences on Strength Development Rate, Fatigue Index and Time until the FIM, on different kinds of warm-up, as well as no relevant differences were found neither related to Maximum Repetition (p=0.121, ɳp 2=0.275, Medium Effect) nor related to Maximum Speed (p=0.712, ɳp 2=0.033, Low Effect), among different kinds of warm-up. By the results, it was concluded that the kind of warm-up seems not interfering with the strength demonstration, therefore, it is at the athletes’ discretion deciding on the best kind of warm-up for them, or there is the possibility of doing no kind of warm-up and still getting a positive result.
Interest in Paralympics sports has increased; however, researches on Paralympic Powerlifting has been focused on the origin of possible injuries and classification criteria, while little attention has been given to athletes’ performance. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of different types of warm-up (No Warm-up, Traditional Warm-up, and With Stretching) on Paralympic Powerlifting athletes’ performance. The sample considered 12 male Paralympic Powerlifting (PP) athletes. This study was developed throughout three weeks, considering that the first week was scheduled for the athletes to be familiarized with the patterns of testing one-repetition maximum (1RM) (1st day); Maximum Isometric Strength (FIM) testing with the bar 15cm far from the athletes’ chest level, Strength Development Rate (TDF), Fatigue Index (IF), Time until the Maximum Strength (Time) (2nd day); and Maximum Speed (VMax) (3rd day). The 2nd week was scheduled for 1RM and Maximum Speed (VMax) tests. The 3rd week was scheduled for the strength static variables evaluation. In the 2 nd and third weeks, the participants were directed to the tests considering three different kinds of warm-up (No warm-up, Traditional warm-up, or Warm-up through Stretching). The sequence of tests was determined by a raffle, which 1/3 of the participants in each group did each type of warm-up in one of the assessment sections. As the main results, related to tympanic temperature, significant differences were found between No Warm-up Before (SA) (36.52±0.21ºC, IC 95% 36.39-36.66) and Stretching Before (AA) (36.43±0.16ºC, IC 95% 36.32-36.53), p=0.006. There was a difference between SA and No Warm-up 10 minutes later (S10) (36.40±0.1ºC, IC 95% 36.33-36.47), p=0.026. Differences were also found between Traditional Warm-up Before (TA) (36.47±0.16ºC, IC 95% 36.37-36.57), and After Traditional (TD) (36.58±0.19ºC, IC 95% 36.46-36.70), p=0.007 and related to the Traditional 10 minutes later (T10) (36.62±0.11ºC, IC 95% 36.55- 36.69), p=0.002. There were differences between AA and Warm-up with After Stretching (AD) (36.55±0.19ºC, IC 95% 36.43-36.67), p<0.001. Differences were found between No After Warm-up (SD) (36.47±0.12ºC, IC 95% 36.39- 36.54) and TD, p=0.007, and related to AD, p=0.031. There were differences between SD and AS, p=0.002. In addition, there were also differences between Stretching 10 minutes later (A10) (36.51±0.16ºC, IC 95% 36.41-36.61) and T10, p<0.001. Considering TDF, FIM, IF, and Time, significant differences were found between Warm-up with Stretching and No Warm-up (p=0.005) related to Maximum Isometric Strength (FIM). There were no significant differences on Strength Development Rate, Fatigue Index and Time until the FIM, on different kinds of warm-up, as well as no relevant differences were found neither related to Maximum Repetition (p=0.121, ɳp 2=0.275, Medium Effect) nor related to Maximum Speed (p=0.712, ɳp 2=0.033, Low Effect), among different kinds of warm-up. By the results, it was concluded that the kind of warm-up seems not interfering with the strength demonstration, therefore, it is at the athletes’ discretion deciding on the best kind of warm-up for them, or there is the possibility of doing no kind of warm-up and still getting a positive result.
Descrição
Este trabalho foi expressamente elaborado como dissertação original para efeitos de obtenção do
grau de Mestre em Ciências do Desporto
Palavras-chave
Deficientes físicos , Aquecimento