Publication:

不同臨界速度對游泳選手有氧訓練時耗氧量、心跳率及乳酸之效應

本研究的目的，在探討以各種不同臨界速度（CV）作為訓練時的指標，並針對各種不同CV強度的心跳率（HR）、血乳酸（LA）、換氣量（VE）、耗氧量（VO2）、二氧化碳產生量（VCO2）等生理變化加以觀察，以確認採用何種CV強度，是適合做為有氧運動能力訓練強度的重要指標。受試者以14名(男生11人，女生3人)高中游泳隊選手為對象，年齡17±0.67歲，身高168.22±6.48公分，體重64.07±7.54公斤。所有受試者皆需接受50、100、200公尺的最大努力捷泳測驗，將此成績代入距離－時間的線性關係模式（D-T），計算出每位選手的CV，再分別以CV的80%、85%、90%、95%與100%之不同CV強度進行ㄧ趟400m捷泳，並測量各項生理變化。研究結果發現，臨界速度平均為1.322±0.118 m/sec，與50、100、200公尺捷泳成績的負相關依序為r = -0.578、r = -0.702、r = -0.999 (P<.05)皆達顯著水準。在LA方面經由單因子變異數分析結果達顯著水準(p<.05)，另外在90%CV強度時LA為3.79 ± 0.45 mM/L、95%CV強度時為5.22 ± 0.50 mM/L、100%CV強度則達到6.42 ±0.65 mM/L。在HR、VE、VO2、VCO2等生理變化，經重複量數變異數分析結果均達顯著水準(p<.05)。研究結果顯示，CV對於捷泳成績的預測，無法有效預測短時間的50公尺捷泳，但對於200與400公尺的項目則有很高的預測能力。在95%與100%CV強度時LA有高於4mM/L的現象，顯示無氧能量代謝的參與。因此，以CV強度作為有氧訓練的強度確實有高估之現象，並且無法持續較長時間之運動。

The purpose of this research aimed to discuss on taking different critical velocity (CV) as training indicator and conduct further observation in the respect of physical changes including heart rate (HR), blood lactate (LA), ventilation volume (VE), oxygen consumption (VO2), and volume of carbon dioxide (VCO2) of different CV intensity to confirm to adopt what intensity of CV for the important indicator when receiving aerobic exercise ability training intensity. Subjects of this research were consisted of fourteen senior high students (11 male students, 3 female students) from swimming team, age in 17±0.67, height in 168.22±6.48 cm., and weight at 64.07±7.54 kg. All subjects shall receive 50m, 100m and 200m front crawl test in maximum physical exertion, with the results carried over to D－T (distance－time) linear relation model to calculate each athlete’s critical velocity (CV), followed by conducting 400m freestyle swimming in 80%, 85%, 90%, 95% and 100% of CV intensity respectively and then measuring each physical change. Findings of this research indicated that the average CV was 1.322±0.118 m/sec, and for the negative association with results of 50m, 100m and 200m front crawl, the sequence is r = -0.578, -0.702, -0.999 (p<.05), all of which have reached marked standards. For LA, the result has reached marked standard (p<.05) through the analysis of one-way ANOVA, and LA was 3.79 ± 0.45 mM/L when at 90% CV intensity, LA is 5.22 ± 0.50 mM/L when at 95% CV intensity, LA is 6.42 ±0.65 mM/L when at 100% CV intensity. HR, VE, VO2, and VCO2 had achieved marked standard (p<.05) through the analytic result of Factorial ANOVA. In the respect of prediction over freestyle swimming, findings indicated that CV could not predict 50-m front crawl in short period, but produces high prediction on 200-m and 400-m front crawl. At 95% and 100% CV intensity, it appears a phenomenon that LA was higher than 4mM/L, indicating if there is the participation of oxygen energy metabolism. Therefore, taking CV intensity as aerobic training intensity is exactly overestimated and it can hardly be maintained long-time sports.