【拓展阅读】拉伸VS不拉伸
(2011-12-10 21:38:11) 转载▼
标签： 拉伸热身跑步骑车受伤philmaffetonemaf 分类： 初上跑道
是否需要拉伸？相信绝大多数人都已经接受了经由拉伸（最好是静态拉伸）进行热身的传统观念。
下面这篇文章的作者Phil Maffetone是 The Big Book of Endurance Training and Racing的作者，也是MAF最高心率训练法的创始人。他的观点是不可拉伸。理由主要如下：
1. 运动前拉伸会浪费能量，降低运动表现。
2. 拉伸会使肌肉变松，导致运动中关节承受更多压力，更容易受伤。
3. 拉伸后会降低运动有效性/效率。
而作者的建议是运动前进行至少12-15分钟的有氧暖身，无需专门的拉伸。以便提高氧气利用效率、肺活量及脂肪燃烧率，同时也是一种安全的提高身体灵活性的方法。
BTW关于运动后是否进行拉伸，尚未提及。
原文连接：
http://philmaffetone.com/stretching.cfm
原文：
Stretching vs. Non-Stretching
Dr. Phil Maffetone
For decades, I’ve discussed the dangers of stretching, and why it’s not the best way to warm up. Occasionally, I update this information as more studies show the reasons why stretching not only does not prevent injury, and won’t help endurance performance, but can cause harm. My books and articles outline the details of these issues, and this update, along with just a few references, is an addendum to my other materials.
Runners, cyclists, swimmers, and other athletes use various types of static stretching routines. In addition, sports medicine professionals and coaches often recommend stretching. For many years, those with opposing views—athletes, sports medicine professionals, and coaches—argued that stretching does not reduce the risk of injury or improve athletic performance, the primary reasons given for stretching, and that it can contribute to injury and reduce performance. Those opposed to the use of stretching have relied on two different perspectives in which to make their claims.
The first perspective is a clinical one. This includes physical findings whereby a muscle’s function is shown to diminish after it’s stretched. Other observations are made as well; take a group of athletes divided into stretchers and non-stretchers, and many more injuries will be found in the first group.
I first learned about the dangers of stretching in the mid 1970s, and by the early 1980’s, with more experience treating and training athletes, developed an even better clinical perspective. By that time I had many hundreds of athletes to compare. The results were that in those who were injured a significant number stretched regularly. But in other athletes who did not stretch, injury rates were significantly lower. While these were simply observations, those in sports medicine who recommended stretching often claimed they had the opposite perspective—stretching helped athletes.
Clinicians who evaluated muscle function in athletes observed one outstanding factor—stretching a muscle could make it longer (the reason it increases flexibility), and this resulted in a reduction in function from a loss of power. In other words, stretching caused abnormal inhibition—weakness. There was a consensus on this issue by many, although certainly not all, clinicians
Despite these notions, the tradition of stretching became a difficult one to break for millions of athletes—performing it was as ritualistic as reading the new running shoe reviews.
Trying to rationalize against strong tradition was not easy. I often used a common example of the increased injury rate in stretchers versus non-stretchers regarding the hamstring muscles. It is both the most frequently injured muscle group and the most stretched. Studies now show that stretching does not make tight hamstrings less stiff.
The decade of the 80s saw a dramatic rise in the number of recreational runners, along with a whole new endurance sport of triathlon. Combined with more athletes on university and college campuses, researchers had what they needed: more subjects for research. Studies began appearing that showed stretching not only did not reduce injuries or improved performance, but it could actually cause injuries and reduce performance.
This was the start of the much-needed second perspective—published research. It continues today. For the most part, these carefully conducted human studies have shown that stretching decreases a muscle’s force production capacity—it causes weakness. This and other unhealthy side effects of stretching were demonstrated in various ways by measuring muscle function using electromyographic, dynamometer, mechanomyographic, and similar devices commonly used in human research.
One particular study, conducted by J. Cramer and colleagues from the Department of Kinesiology at the University of Texas, compared changes in muscles that were stretched and not stretched in the same person. It concluded that, stretching one muscle can also impair another muscle that was not stretched, possibly through a central nervous system inhibitory mechanism. In other words, by weakening a muscle through stretching, the brain and spinal cord may trigger other muscles that are not stretched to become weak as well. This may occur, for example, even in muscles in the left leg when those in the right leg are stretched.
Other studies demonstrated adverse effects on lower limb power, sprinting ability, vertical jump, and aerobic endurance training. Despite these studies, the tradition of stretching continues in power sports, track and field, basketball, and endurance sports.
While the studies show that these abnormal changes induced in a stretched muscle can last for an hour, some clinicians have demonstrated that stretching can cause prolonged muscle problems that can last days and weeks.
As studies on stretching increased over the years, another type of evaluation—one that assesses a large group of studies and the subjects used for them—were performed. Ian Shrier, M.D., a past president of the Canadian Society of Sports Medicine, published such a study in the Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine in 1999 titled "Stretching Before Exercise Does Not Reduce the Risk of Local Muscle Injury.” Among his conclusions were that stretching can produce damage in muscles, and that stretching can mask muscle pain.
An important issue almost got lost in what sometimes became a heated debate. There were few, if any, published studies that consistently demonstrated that stretching reduced injuries or improved endurance performance—the two main reasons given for stretching.
Confusion arises when a study shows that ranges of motion or flexibility improve with stretching. This has been shown by some studies. However, increased range of motion at what cost? These studies don’t address this important question. One problem caused by stretching is that muscles become too loose—weaker—allowing the associated joint to move in a wider range of motion. This increased range of motion/flexibility puts more stress on the joint, which is no longer supported properly by the muscle, increasing the risk of injury.
Damaging a muscle through any means, including stretching, will obviously have an adverse affect on an athlete’s gait. The loss of smooth efficient movement puts stress on virtually all other structures—ligaments, tendons, joints and bones, in addition to many muscles. The body tries to compensate for this irregular movement, and in doing so uses up more energy, taking away from ones performance. A recent study by Jacob Wilson and colleagues from Florida State University showed how stretching can result in poor running economy, increasing energy consumption during an endurance event, and decreasing performance.
My recommendation has always been to include an active, aerobic warm up as part of each workout or race. This can be accomplished through slow running, biking, swimming or any aerobic activity that last at least 12-15 minutes. In addition to improving oxygen utilization, lung capacity, and fat burning, it increases flexibility in a safe way. Stretching cannot do the same.
More athletes, sports medicine professionals and coaches are quietly changing sides in the stretching vs. non-stretching debate. We welcome them.

第一次MAF测试 —— 8K 48'30
(2011-12-16 17:10:18) 转载▼
标签： maftest测试最高有氧体育 分类： 总结提高
总量11.5K，其中含MAF测试 8K 48'30 具体数据如下：
日期 2K 4K 6K 8K 总时间 平均速度 平均心率
1216 11'48 11'56 12'12 12'34 48'30 6’04/K 150
熟悉了几天心率表之后，今天尝试进行第一次MAF TEST（根据公式我的最高有氧心率为150）。天冷，慢跑近20分钟，将心率缓慢提至140才觉得有点暖。随后开始正式测试，努力将心率保持在150左右进行绕圈，但实际上心率飘的非常厉害，通常在[145,155]之间，好在最后心率表统计的平均心率是150，至少保证这次测试还有一定参考意义。
单圈速度从最初的2'20左右缓慢下滑至最后一圈2'32，从上表每2K的分段时间也能看出...看来在恒定心率下，输出速度果然会越来越小。
很不习惯跑得这样慢，以前即使是轻松跑8K所用的时间也比这个少得多。因此跑时需每3-5秒就要看一次心率表，以控制速度。按照我现在的水平，8K的测试应该在32'15（4'02/K）左右，但在最高有氧心率下却是48'30(6'04/K)，看来有氧基础够烂，还有很长的路要走。
下次测试：
1.争取将心率波动控制在一个更小的范围内。今天波动过大可能一是由于经验不足，二是昨晚休息不好。
2.尽量将每次MAF TEST的时间固定。
安下心来继续有氧慢跑吧

第二次MAF测试 —— 8K 45'38
(2012-02-21 17:59:18) 转载▼
标签： maftest测试最高有氧体育 分类： 总结提高
具体数据如下(下排)：
日期 2K 4K 6K 8K 总时间 平均速度 平均心率
1216 11'48 11'56 12'12 12'34 48'30 6’04/K 150
0221 11'17 11'24 11'25 11'32 45'38 5'42/K 149
时隔两个多月，才进行第二次maf测试，实在是惭愧。主要是春节在家期间没有标准的400跑道，加之温度太低，心率表工作非常不稳定。
今早的测试在小雨中进行，但温度适中，跑得很舒服。由于空气湿度很大，心率表读数相对上次稳定了很多，前面10Q基本稳定在【148，152】区间，后面10Q偶有不稳而已。单圈速度从最初的2'13左右缓慢下滑至2'20左右，
对比两次数据：
1.最大有氧心率（150跳/分）下，8K的平均速度上升，有氧能力得到提高；不过两个月才进步了20秒，有些不满足。
2.速度衰减减慢，身体耐力有所进步。
下次测试前争取做到充分休息。事实上，这次测试时上周末LSD的疲劳感还没有完全退去，可能影响了测试成绩。

心率表使用心得
(2012-05-04 20:36:30) 转载▼
标签： 心率表maf心得耐力运动体育 分类： 总结提高
近5个月来，一直佩戴心率表进行MAF训练，写点心率表使用心得与大家分享交流。
【一】为什么要监控心率
心率的高低能够客观地反映身体的疲劳程度，同时与VO2max、乳酸门槛等数据相比，又非常容易测量。因此通过监控心率来把握运动强度不失为一种方便、准确的的方法。
对我而言，由于需要进行MAF训练，必须通过心率表来控制心率；对多数健身者而言，使用心率带也能更好的控制运动强度，达到最优效果，特别是对运动减肥的人群来说，保持低心率、长时间的有氧训练，效果更佳。
PS即使不使用心率表/带，养成自测心率特别是自测晨脉的习惯也是很有必要的。
【二】使用注意事项
刚刚开始使用心率表/带，需要一段时间来熟悉和习惯，以下写点自己的经验。
1.每次使用前，用水（最好是盐水）润湿感应器。
2.心率带松了易掉，紧了影响呼吸。在不影响呼吸的情况下尽量紧一些，否则易丢失读数。佩带十几分钟以上，很快就会习惯并忘记心率带的不适感。
3.每次佩带的头10-15分钟，心率表读数会很不稳定，待身体微热并稍微出汗后即好。
4.设定目标心率区间后，需要一段时间的磨合才能学会如何稳定心率，别急。
5.寒冷干燥的冬日，心率表需要更长的时间才能稳定工作。
6.化纤类的衣物会摩擦生电影响读数，特别是在干燥环境中，棉质衣物的静电影响会小一些。
7.同样心率下，速度会越来越慢，或者说同样速度下，心率或越来越高。变化的快（慢）可反映出基础耐力的弱（强）。
8.跑步时，上下坡对心率的影响非常明显。体重/负重对心率影响也是如此。
9.运动时进食、喝水、大声呼喊都会明显加快心率，特别是身体已经很疲劳的情况下。
10.与跑步相比，主观努力程度相同时，骑车的心率似乎更低一些。
佩带一段时间心率表后，随着经验的积累，你会发现很多以前从没想过的因素都会影响运动时的心率高低：生病、睡眠、工作压力、风向（速）、温度、湿度、地面软硬甚至跑鞋的变化，都有不同程度的影响。
心率表会给出一个相对客观的数据，这是就不会单纯靠自己的主观感觉来安排下一步的训练。这也是我再一次推荐大家使用心率表进行训练的重要原因。
【三】常见心率表简介
以下按照接触顺序和功能复杂程度，介绍几款常见的心率表。
1.polar FT2：这是我接触的第一块心率表，从朋友那儿借来熟悉用的。Polar入门基础款，仅有心率区间一个功能。优点：心率带非常舒服。缺点：贵，最坑爹的是心率带不能换电池。
2.迪卡侬 199那款，功能和polar ft2一样，但心率带没有polar舒适，但胜在便宜，购买渠道简单、有保修。如果只是想监控心率，此表功能足以。不过心率报警的声音较小，路跑环境嘈杂时不容易听到。
3.sigma PC15：购于淘宝，但心率表怎么也不能找到心率带，试了所有方法都不行，最后退货了。而且坑爹的是，pc15每次按了“lap”键后，只能显示当前圈时间，不显示总时间。就是没有信号问题，使用起来也很不爽。
4.着重介绍一下目前使用中的Casio CHR100，同样够于淘宝，专用跑步心率表。200圈分圈记忆功能，可显示分圈时间、分段时间和总时间。设定目标心率区间及报警，统计分段平均心率及总平均心率，方便MAF训练及测试。倒计时功能。心率带较舒适，使用可更换纽扣电池。使用至今约5个月，表现稳定，基本满意。不需要GPS的话，这块表够用了。（补充，使用10个月后心率带坏了，淘宝货没有售后，好在casio心率表可与迪卡侬心率带匹配，仍在服役中）
5. 高明、天美时等GPS跑表+心率带，一步到位的最佳选择。不但具有GPS功能，还能直接连接电脑导出数据。
各位可根据自己的预算和实际需求进行选择，没有最好，只有合适。若是初步尝试心率控制，预算又不是很足，建议迪卡侬199足以。若是不差钱，建议Garmin表+心率带一步配齐，省的升级折腾浪费钱。
PS1市面还有两种不使用心率带的心率表。一种是用拇指和食指按压表盘上的金属片进行心率监控，缺点是想看心率时得先压金属片，不能实时监控。另外一种类似手指血压仪，戴在手掌中，通过监控拇指附近的血管读取心率，上马Seiko的展台上见过，没有使用不做评价。
PS2心率带由于经常被汗浸湿，是易耗品，很容易坏。购买心率表时请考虑心率带等配件的可更换性。

2013赛季第一次MAF测试
(2012-12-31 14:43:35) 转载▼
标签： maf体育2013总结 分类： 总结提高
今早赶在2012年的最后一天，把12月也是2013赛季的第一次MAF给测了。为了使心率带读数更稳定和准确，不得不全程用手轻压着心率带跑，跑得很不爽。具体成绩如下表：
日期 2K 4K 6K 8K 总时间 平均速度 平均心率
1231 10'50 11'19 11'28 11'45 45'22 5'40/K 150
1126 10'34 10'28 10'21 10'36 41'59 5'15/K 149
2011/12 11'48 11'56 12'12 12'34 48'30 6'04/K 150
上马过后完全跑休了2周+轻感冒一次，随后恢复训练了2周，跑得也不多。能感觉到速度明显下降，这次测试也进一步证实了自己的感觉。由上表可见：
1. 与上马赛前11/26的测试（中间一行）相比，均速下降了25s，可能的原因有：
a.休息过多，恢复训练后跑量不足；
b.上马比赛破坏了有氧基础；
c.感冒影响；
d.环境温度过低。
2. 与去年同期（2011年12月）的测试（最下行）相比，均速提高了24s。说明经过一年的有氧练习，打下的基础虽然薄弱，但还是有的，值得庆幸。
3. 测试中最快单圈2’08，最慢单圈2’22，速度衰减明显，说明由于训练量减少，整体耐力下降。
MAF训练正如逆水行舟，不进则退，而且还是退易进难。辛辛苦苦的盖了一年房子，一个不小心（比赛+感冒+休息），就像一场风暴，把房子拆的七七八八，所幸还剩下点地基和一些盖房子的经验。
好吧，2013年继续耐下性子，重新再盖！

赞一下…