PhD, Associate Professor L.R. Shafikova¹
PhD, Associate Professor A.V. Greb^1
1Ufa State Petroleum Technological University, Ufa

 

Keywords: strength abilities, weightlifting, training process, students.

 

Background. The weightlifters’ training components to build core strength are designed to form a basis for the speed-strength progress in clean and jerk. Efficiency of the habitual strength training tools is known to fall in a phased manner with skills growth in weightlifting [3, 6], with the relevant sag in the competitive progress and efficiency of the other relevant special training tools [2, 5]. This is the reason why in sport science a high priority is given to innovations in the training systems to speed up progress in the weightlifting sport [1, 8], with a special emphasis on the physical strength building tools and their management in every training session, micro- and meso-cycle to vary the training process scopes and intensities on the most efficient basis for success [4, 7].

Objective of the study was to develop, improve and test benefits of an experimental skill-specific strength building model for academic weightlifters

Methods and structure of the study. The strength building model was tested on the student weightlifters at Ufa State Petroleum Technological University (USPTU) by a 5-months-long (October 2016 to March 2107) educational experiment in the regular (90 minutes 3 times a week) training sessions. Sampled for the experiment were 17-18 year-old first-year student weightlifters (n=26) split up into Experimental Group (EG) and Reference Group (RG) of 13 people each. The RG was trained as required by the standard training program; and in the EG trainings the focus was on the competitive strength-building practices with the special strength and general strength components expanded to 70% and 30% of the training time, respectively.

Study findings and discussion. Prior to the model piloting experiment (October 2016), the sample’s strength (in kg) was tested by back squats, clean and jerk and bench press tests: see Tables 1 and 2.

 

Table 1. RG (n=13) pre- versus post-experimental strength test data, kg (М±m)

 

Given in Table 2 hereunder are the EG pre- versus post-experimental strength test data, in kg (р<0.05).

 

Table 2. EG (n=13) pre- versus post-experimental strength test data, kg (М±m)

 

The intergroup strength two-stage test data (October to March) showed a significant progress of the EG in every test (р<0.01–0.001) versus the statistically less expressed progress in the RG (р<0.05). It should be noted that the initial strength abilities were tested virtually the same in both of the groups as verified by the insignificant (р>0.05) intergroup differences in the pre-experimental test rates: see Table 3.

 

Table 3. RG versus EG pre-experimental strength test data, kg, М±m

Tests	RG (n=13)	EG (n=13)	р
Back squats	67,5±1,0	66,6±1,08	>0,05
Clean and jerk	84,2±4,3	83,7±4,40	>0,05
Bench press	54,5±0,79	53,8±0,83	>0,05

 

Given in Table 4 is the RG versus EG post-experimental strength test data, kg.

 

Table 4. RG versus EG post-experimental strength test data, kg, М±m

Test	RG (n=13)	EG (n=13)	р
Back squats	75,7±1,1	93,5±1,73	<0,001
Clean and jerk	93,7±4,0	97,6±4,0	<0,05
Bench press	65,74±0,75	78,5±0,62	<0,01

 

The pre-experimental (October 2016) back squats test data showed insignificant intergroup differences (р>0.05) (see Table 3); whilst the EG versus RG post-experimental strength test rates showed a significant (р<0.001) progress by 26.9 kg: see Table 4.

The pre-experimental (October 2016) clean and jerk test data showed insignificant intergroup differences (р>0.05) (see Table 3); whilst the EG versus RG post-experimental strength test rates showed a significant (р<0.05) progress by 16.9 kg: see Table 4.

And the pre-experimental (October 2016) bench press test data showed insignificant intergroup differences (р>0.05) (see Table 3); whilst the EG versus RG post-experimental strength test rates showed a significant (р<0.01) progress by 27.4 kg: see Table 4.

Conclusion. The new strength building model with competitive elements was tested beneficial as verified by the EG versus RG academic weightlifters’ strength progress tests.

 

References

1. Lubysheva L.I., Zagrevskaya A.I. Kineziologicheskiy podkhod kak metodologicheskaya osnova sportizatsii fizicheskogo vospitaniya [Kinesiological approach as a practical basis for sportization of physical education]. Fizicheskaya kultura: vospitanie, obrazovanie, trenirovka, 2017, no. 6, pp. 2-4.

2. Marchenko V.V., Rogozyan V.N. Osobennosti trenirovki kvalifitsirovannykh tyazheloatletov [Features of training of qualified weightlifters]. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 2004, no. 2, pp. 33-36.

3. Rumyantseva E.R., Gorulev P.S. Sportivnaya podgotovka tyazheloatletok: mekhanizmy adaptatsii [Athletic training of female weightlifters: adaptation mechanisms]. Moscow: Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury i sporta publ., 2005, 260 p.

4. Fedorov G.E. Trenirovka v prisedanii [Training in squats]. Mir sily, 2002, no. 2, P.5.

5. Choi Sung Mo Skorostno-silovaya podgotovka v boevykh iskusstvakh [Speed-strength training in martial arts]. Rostov: Fenix publ., 2003, 192 p.

6. Shafikova L.R. Vospitanie silovykh sposobnostey i vynoslivosti u zhenschin srednego vozrasta na zanyatiyakh ozdorovitelnoy aerobikoy [Strength and endurance building in middle-aged women during fitness aerobics practices]. Mater. Mezhdunar. nauchno-metod. konf., posvyaschennoy XXXI letnim Olimpiyskim igram ‘Osobennosti organizatsii fizkulturno-ozdorovitelnoy deyatelnosti v vuzakh na sovremennom etape sotsialno-politicheskogo razvitiya Rossii’ [Proc. Intern. sci.-method. conf., dedicated to the XXXI Summer Olympic Games ‘Specifics of organization of physical education and health activities in universities at the present stage of socio-political development of Russia’]. In 3 vol., vol. 3. Ufa: USNTU publ., 2016, pp. 155-160.

7. Shafikova L.R. Zhenskaya gruppovaya akrobatika: sekrety adaptatsii [Women's group acrobatics: secrets of adaptation]. Ufa: Bash IPhC publ., 2012, 131 p.

8. Sheyko B.I. Tekhnika vypolneniya prisedaniya [Squatting technique]. Olimp, 2002, no. 2, pp. 26-31.

 

Corresponding author: ufa.savjulia@gmail.com

 

Abstract

The study analyzes benefits of the experimental strength building model tested on the student weightlifters at Ufa State Petroleum Technological University (USPTU) by a 5-month-long (October 2016 to March 2107) educational experiment in the regular (90 minutes 3 times a week) training sessions. Subject to the experiment were 17-18 year-old first-year students (n=26) split up into Experimental Group (EG) and Reference Group (RG) of 13 people each. The RG was trained as required by the standard training program; and in the EG trainings the focus was on the competitive strength-building practices with the special strength and general strength components expanded to 70% and 30% of the training time, respectively. Back squats, clean and jerk and bench press exercises were dominating in these practices and tests. The two-stage (October and March) progress tests showed a significant progress of the EG versus RG as verified by the group average test rates in every test (р<0.01-0.001); with the RG progress found less expressed in the statistical terms (р<0.05). The pre-experimental strength rates were tested virtually the same in both of the groups as verified by the insignificant (р>0.05) intergroup differences in the pre-experimental test rates.