臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

背景資料：蹲舉動作主要訓練軀幹及下肢肌肉力量，常見之蹲舉訓練模式分為自由重量蹲舉及史密斯機蹲舉，一般健身與健力競賽亦常使用不同站姿寬距，透過肌電圖可了解蹲舉動作過程之相關肌群活化情況。研究目的：探討不同蹲舉與寬距模式對相關肌肉肌電活性與地面反作用力之影響。研究方法：12名受過蹲舉訓練之成年男性，(平均年齡22.8(3.8)歲、身高171.9(3.9)公分、體重71.4(6)公斤蹲舉最大肌力達1.5倍體重以上、訓練1年以上)。以30%、60%最大肌力負荷重量；100%、150%大轉子寬距為站姿寬距基準，運用肌電圖及測力板比較軀幹及下肢肌群在不同蹲舉動作形態下之肌肉活化狀態與足底垂直力量峰值的差異。結果：一、二腳寬距:自由重量蹲舉與史密斯機蹲舉寬站姿組臀大肌、內收肌、股二頭肌肌電活化狀態皆大於窄站姿組，窄站姿組其股外側肌、股內側肌、脛前肌大於寬站姿組。二、負荷型態:自由重量蹲舉無論寬距脛前肌肌電活性皆大於史密斯機蹲舉；股二頭肌肌電活化在不同型態蹲舉150%站姿寬距下皆大於100%站姿寬距。三、各研究分組在地面反作用力方面皆無顯著差異。結論：一、窄站姿下蹲，使用較多股四頭肌與脛前肌肌力；寬站姿下蹲，使用較多臀大肌與股二頭肌肌力。二、自由重量蹲舉下蹲穩定肌群肌電活化大於史密斯機蹲舉。四、不同運動型態及寬距下，不會影響地面反作用力表現。

RACKGROUND: The movement of back squat as a form of an exercise is primarily done to strengthen the torso and lower extremity muscles. Most common forms of the back squat training are either performed with free weights or with a Smith machine. In addition, the back squats are often performed in varies of stance width in both a common bodybuilding training routine and in a powerlifting competition. Using the electromyography (EMG), one may understand the activation levels of the relevant muscle groups during a back squat movement. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of varying stance width on the electromyography activation of the relevant muscles and the ground reaction force during the different forms of the back squat exercises. METHODOLOGY:The study involves 12 male adults who were previously trained and capable of performing the back squat exercise. The average age of the group is 22.8(3.8) years old, while the average height and weight of the group are 171.9(3.9) cm and 71.4(6) kg respectively. All 12 members are capable of performing a one-repetition maximum (1RM) of back squat at 1.5 times of his own bodyweight. Further, all member has more than one year of weight training experience.The study utilizes the electromyography (EMG) and a force platform to measure the activation levels of the torso and the lower extremity muscles and the differences between the peak vertical force during the back squat movements performed at 30%, 60%, 100%, and 150% of the 1RM starting with the great trochanter distance as the standard back squat stance width.RESULTS: I .Stance Width: When back squatting with either free weights or with a Smith machine, the EMG activation levels of the gluteus maximus muscle, adductor muscle, and the biceps femoris muscle are higher with a wide stance compares to narrow stance width. The EMG activation levels of the vastus lateralis, vastus medialis, and the tibialis anterior muscle are higher in a narrow stance than a wide stance regardless of back squatting with either free weights or a Smith machine.II. Load and Stress: Regardless of the stance width, when performing the back squat with free weights, the tibialis anterior muscle has a higher EMG activation level than back squatting with the Smith machine. With either the free weights or the Smith machine, the biceps femoris muscle has a higher EMG activation level at the 150% of 1RM load compares to 100% of 1RM during the back squat with a wide stance.III. There are no significant differences between the ground reaction force recorded in all group of studies.CONCLUSION: I.More strength is required from the quadriceps and the tibialis anterior muscle when performing a narrow stance back squat. On the other hand, when performing a wide stance back squat, gluteus maximus and the biceps femoris muscle are required to produce the majority of the strength during the movement.II.When performing the back squat using free weights, the EMG activation level of the squat stabilizers, particularly the tibialis anterior muscle, is higher compare to back squatting using the Smith machine.III.Performing the back squat with either free weights or the Smith machine with any stance width has no significant effect to the ground reaction force produced during the movement.

目次
口試委員審定書
論文授權書 i
摘要 ii
Abstract iii
謝誌 v
目次 vi
表次 ix
圖次 x
第壹章 緒論 1
第一節　研究背景與動機 1
第二節　研究目的 3
第三節　研究問題 4
第四節　研究假設 4
第五節　研究範圍與限制 5
第六節　名詞操作性定義 5
第貳章 文獻探討 8
第一節　自由重量及史密斯之相關研究 8
第二節　蹲舉相關研究 10
第三節　測力板相關研究 14
第参章 研究方法 17
第一節　研究對象 17
第二節 研究架構圖 17
第三節 實驗時間與地點 19
第四節 儀器與設備 19
第五節 實驗方法 27
第六節 實驗流程與步驟 33
第七節 資料收集與處理 39
第肆章 結果與討論 41
第一節　自由重量蹲舉在不同站姿寬距及負荷對肌肉之分析 41
第二節　史密斯蹲舉在不同站姿寬距及重量對肌肉之分析 45
第三節 不同站姿及負荷重量之蹲舉動作對肌肉活化之影響 50
第四節自由重量蹲舉與史密斯蹲舉在不同站姿寬距及重量對垂直力量峰值之分析 54
第伍章 結論與建議 57
第一節 結論 57
第二節 建議 59
參考文獻 60
英文文獻 61

 

表次
表3- 1受試者基本資料（n=12） 17
表3- 2名稱規範 29
表3- 3最大自主收縮檢測方式 35
表3-4檢測分組表 37

表4- 1最大肌力自由重量蹲舉30%負荷重量不同站姿寬距比較 42
表4-2最大肌力自由重量蹲舉60%負荷重量不同站姿寬距比較 43
表4- 3最大肌力史密斯機蹲舉30%負荷重量不同站姿寬距比較 46
表4-4史密斯蹲舉60%負荷重量100%與150%站姿寬距 48
表4- 5自由重量蹲舉與史密斯蹲舉不同負重下分別比較站姿寬距之影響 51
表4-6自由重量蹲舉足底力量峰值 54
表4- 7史密斯蹲舉足底力量峰值 55

 
圖次

圖3-1 研究架構圖 18
圖3-2 Noraxon 肌電訊號發射器 20
圖3-3 Noraxon 肌電訊號接收器 21
圖3-4 肌電貼片 21
圖3-5 肌內效貼布 21
圖3-6 測力板 22
圖3-7 測力板訊號連接器 23
圖3-8 攝影鏡頭 23
圖3-9 槓鈴軌跡光點 24
圖3-10 儀器同步訊號光點 24
圖3-11 蹲舉架 25
圖3-12 史密斯架 25
圖3-13 訊號接收圖 27
圖3-14 預測1RM係數表 27
圖3-15 蹲舉站姿100%寬度示意圖 28
圖3-16 蹲舉站姿150%寬度示意圖 28
圖3-17 肌電貼黏位置 31
圖3-18 人體測量器 32
圖3-19 研究流程圖 38

王金城（1990）。測力板在運動生物力學研究上的應用。中華體育季刊，4，
51-55。
吳銘通（2006）。優秀舉重選手上肢肌力與肌電相關之研究（未出版碩士論
文）國立臺灣體育學院體育，台中市
李昭慶（1999）。肌電圖在骨骼肌纖維類型判定的應用。台灣體育，101，
24-27。
屠國華（2002）。不同蹲舉訓練方式對於舉重選手肌力影響之研究（未出版
碩士論文）。國立臺灣體育學院，台中市。
張靜芳（2005）。不同負荷硬舉的脊柱彎曲分析（未出版碩士論文），國立
臺灣體育學院，台中市。



Erson, K., & Behm, D. G. （2005）. Trunk muscle activity increases with unstable Squat Movements. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology, 30（1）, 33-45.
Atwater, A. E. （1980）. Kinesiology/biomechanics: Perspectives and trends. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 51（1）, 193-218.
Baechle, T., & Earle, R. （2000）. Essential of Strength and Conditioning. Champaign, IL. IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.
Bryanton, M. A., Carey, J. P., Kennedy, M. D., & Chiu, L. Z. （2015）. Quadriceps effort during squat exercise depends on hip extensor muscle strategy. Sports Biomechanics, 14（1）, 122-138.
Cotterman, M. L., Darby, L. A., & Skelly, W. A. （2005）. Comparison of muscle force production using the Smith machine and free weights for bench press and squat exercises. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19（1）, 169.
Draganich, L., Jaeger, R., & Kralj, A. （1989）. Coactivation of the hamstrings and Quadriceps During Extension of the Knee. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 71（7）, 1075-1081.
Escamilla, R. F. （2001）. Knee biomechanics of the dynamic squat exercise. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 33（1）,127-141.
Escamilla, R. F., Fleisig, G. S., Zheng, N., Barrentine, S. W., Wilk, K. E., & andrews, J. R. （1998）. Biomechanics of the knee during closed kinetic chain and open kinetic chain exercises. Medicine and Science in Sports and exercise, 30, 556-559.
Fleck, S., & Kraemer, W. （1997）. Adaptations to resistance training. Designing Resistance Training Programs, 131-163.
Haff, G. G. （2000）. Roundtable discussion: Machines versus free weights. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 22（6）, 18.
Isear Jr, J. A., Erickson, J. C., & Worrell, T. W. （1997）. EMG analysis of lower extremity muscle recruitment patterns during an unloaded squat. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 29（4）, 532-539.
Li, G., Rudy, T., Sakane, M., Kanamori, A., Ma, C., & Woo, S.-Y. （1999）. The importance of quadriceps and hamstring muscle loading on knee kinematics and in-situ forces in the ACL. Journal of Biomechanics, 32（4）, 395-400.
McBride, J. M., Cormie, P., & Deane, R. （2006）. Isometric squat force output and muscle activity in stable and unstable conditions. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20（4）, 915.
McBride, J. M., Skinner, J. W., Schafer, P. C., Haines, T. L., & Kirby, T. J. （2010）. Comparison of kinetic variables and muscle activity during a squat vs. a box squat. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24（12）, 3195-3199.
Paoli, A., Marcolin, G., & Petrone, N. （2009）. The effect of stance width on the electromyographical activity of eight superficial thigh muscles during back squat with different bar loads. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23（1）, 246-250.
Schick, E. E., Coburn, J. W., Brown, L. E., Judelson, D. A., Khamoui, A. V., Tran, T. T., & Uribe, B. P. （2010）. A comparison of muscle activation between a Smith machine and free weight bench press. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24（3）, 779-784.
Schwanbeck, S., Chilibeck, P. D., & Binsted, G. （2009）. A comparison of free weight squat to Smith machine squat using electromyography. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23（9）, 2588-2591.
Signorile, J. F., Weber, B., Roll, B., Caruso, J. F., & Lowensteyn, I. （1994）. An Electromyographical Comparison of the Squat. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 8（3）, 178-183.
Steven, T., & Donald, R. （1999）. Stance width and bar load effects on leg muscle activity during the parallel squat. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 31, 428-436.
Wretenberg, P., Feng, Y., & Arborelius, U. P. （1996）. High-and low-bar squatting techniques during weight-training. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 28（2）, 218-224.
Newton, R. U., Gerber, A., Nimphius, S., & Shim, J. K. （2006）. Determination of functional strength imbalance of the lower extremities. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20（4）, 971.
Hodges, S. J., Patrick, R. J., & Reiser, R. F. （2011）. Effects of fatigue on bilateral ground reaction force asymmetries during the squat exercise. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 25（11）, 3107-3117.
Zink, A. J., Perry, A. C., Robertson, B. L., Roach, K. E., & Signorile, J. F. （2006）. Peak power, ground reaction forces, and velocity during the squat exercise performed at different loads. Journal of strength and Conditioning Research, 20（3）, 658.