Difference between revisions of "Weight reduced Robotassisted jump training."
| (7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | [[File:Overspeed bachelor rto.PNG|300px|thumb|right|Setup using RTL and specially designed bench]] | |
| − | + | The present study examines the use of robots in overspeed training, for improving velocity, power output and reducing impact forces in a jump. The purpose of the study was to enhance novel jump training, by creating programs to RoboTrainer One with different types of weight reducing methods and evaluate the effects in comparison with present overspeed training methods and a control experiment without bodyweight reduction. All methods were tested with three degrees of bodyweight reduction: 10-, 20-, and 30%. The different methods and programs tested in the study are the following:<br /> | |
| + | <br /> | ||
| + | • Pulleysystem, using weight plates as bodyweight reduction.<br /> | ||
| + | • Elastic bands to reduce bodyweight.<br /> | ||
| + | • RoboTrainer program Isotonic, programmed to provide a constant bodyweight reduction.<br /> | ||
| + | • RoboTrainer program Isoelastic, programmed to imitate the effects of elastic bands.<br /> | ||
| + | • RoboTrainer program Concentric Isotonic, programmed to provide a constant bodyweight reduction only in the concentric phase of the jump.<br /> | ||
| − | + | <br /> | |
| − | + | Conclusion: <br /> | |
| + | The RoboTrainer programs Isotonic and Concentric Isotonic did not provide a constant bodyweight reduction. Isoelastic showed some spikes in the regulation of bodyweight reduction. This was due to problems with the forceregulation of the RoboTrainer. The results from the kinetic parameters showed that overspeed training using a pulley system gave the highest values of TOV and PP for all degrees of weight reduction, and Concentric Isotonic at 30% bodyweight reduction gave the lowest PIF. The RoboTrainer programs gave all a higher TOV and PP at 20% and 30% bodyweight reduction, compared to the elastic band overspeed training method. The results for TOV and PP showed a tendency to an increase in TOV and PP, as the bodyweight reduction was increased. All methods gave a lower PIF than the control experiment, except for Isoelastic with 20%, and 30% body weight reduction. PTOF did not show a tendency to decrease as the weight reduction was increased in the RoboTrainer programs. The results were influenced by different uncertainties in equipment and data processing, and only showed the acute effects of overspeed training with different methods. For this reason, further studies including a training program should be conducted to see the long-lasting effects of robot assisted overspeed training. | ||
| − | + | By | |
| − | + | mclau16@student.sdu.dk and | |
| − | + | maklo16@student.sdu.dk | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 13:22, 21 August 2019
The present study examines the use of robots in overspeed training, for improving velocity, power output and reducing impact forces in a jump. The purpose of the study was to enhance novel jump training, by creating programs to RoboTrainer One with different types of weight reducing methods and evaluate the effects in comparison with present overspeed training methods and a control experiment without bodyweight reduction. All methods were tested with three degrees of bodyweight reduction: 10-, 20-, and 30%. The different methods and programs tested in the study are the following:
• Pulleysystem, using weight plates as bodyweight reduction.
• Elastic bands to reduce bodyweight.
• RoboTrainer program Isotonic, programmed to provide a constant bodyweight reduction.
• RoboTrainer program Isoelastic, programmed to imitate the effects of elastic bands.
• RoboTrainer program Concentric Isotonic, programmed to provide a constant bodyweight reduction only in the concentric phase of the jump.
Conclusion:
The RoboTrainer programs Isotonic and Concentric Isotonic did not provide a constant bodyweight reduction. Isoelastic showed some spikes in the regulation of bodyweight reduction. This was due to problems with the forceregulation of the RoboTrainer. The results from the kinetic parameters showed that overspeed training using a pulley system gave the highest values of TOV and PP for all degrees of weight reduction, and Concentric Isotonic at 30% bodyweight reduction gave the lowest PIF. The RoboTrainer programs gave all a higher TOV and PP at 20% and 30% bodyweight reduction, compared to the elastic band overspeed training method. The results for TOV and PP showed a tendency to an increase in TOV and PP, as the bodyweight reduction was increased. All methods gave a lower PIF than the control experiment, except for Isoelastic with 20%, and 30% body weight reduction. PTOF did not show a tendency to decrease as the weight reduction was increased in the RoboTrainer programs. The results were influenced by different uncertainties in equipment and data processing, and only showed the acute effects of overspeed training with different methods. For this reason, further studies including a training program should be conducted to see the long-lasting effects of robot assisted overspeed training.
By mclau16@student.sdu.dk and maklo16@student.sdu.dk
