Flywheel Training vs. Weights: What Does Science Say?
飞轮训练与重量训练：科学怎么说？

Last year, a new systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of flywheel training vs. traditional weight training made quite an impact on the sport science community. I read and digested the 29-page article so that I could explain the study outcomes a little further beyond the abstract, offer some input, and also give a peek into ongoing research by institutions like CESSCE.
去年，一项关于飞轮训练与传统重量训练效果的新系统回顾和荟萃分析对运动科学界产生了相当大的影响。我阅读并消化了这篇 29 页的文章，这样我就可以在摘要之外进一步解释研究结果，提供一些意见，并了解CESSCE 等机构正在进行的研究。

After reading the article, the key points I want to get across are:
读完这篇文章后，我想明白的要点是：

• Flywheel training with eccentric overload is consistently shown to be superior to traditional weights for increasing muscle power, strength, hypertrophy, and athletic performance.
  偏心超负荷飞轮训练始终被证明在增加肌肉力量、力量、肥大和运动表现方面优于传统重量训练。
• Eccentric overloading in these studies is predominantly done through one method, but there are many other more-effective methods.
  这些研究中的偏心超载主要通过一种方法完成，但还有许多其他更有效的方法。
• There needs to be more research in the future, as we still don’t know what is optimal.
  未来需要更多的研究，因为我们仍然不知道什么是最佳的。
• Researchers in seven different countries are currently looking at the kBox for physiotherapy, fitness, and performance training.
  七个不同国家的研究人员目前正在研究将 kBox 用于物理治疗、健身和表现训练。

What Is All the Fuss About?
有什么大惊小怪的？

If you follow and read about flywheel science, this meta-analysis won’t surprise you. If you have hands-on experience with the kBox, even less so. Almost all studies comparing flywheel and gravitational loading (weight stack devices primarily) so far have favored the flywheel, so there’s no news here. Two of the studies did not favor the flywheel; however, those are about the conic pulley version, which is completely different from the type with a symmetrical shaft like the kBox. In one of those studies they compare different drills, too, so you can’t really say anything about flywheel vs. weights there, either.
如果您关注并阅读有关飞轮科学的内容，那么这项荟萃分析不会令您感到惊讶。如果您有 kBox 的实际使用经验，那就更不用说了。到目前为止，几乎所有比较飞轮和重力载荷（主要是配重装置）的研究都倾向于飞轮，因此这里没有新闻。其中两项研究并不支持飞轮；然而，这些都是关于圆锥滑轮版本，它与 kBox 等具有对称轴的类型完全不同。在其中一项研究中，他们也比较了不同的训练，因此您也不能真正谈论飞轮与重量的任何关系。

f you have followed us for a while, you might have come across the meta-analysis on flywheels and their effect on power, strength, mass, and horizontal and vertical force production by Henrik Petré; an unpublished MSc project. It contains 15 studies but it isn’t a comparison against weights, so this new study adds something new.
如果您关注我们一段时间，您可能已经看过 Henrik Petré 对飞轮及其对功率、强度、质量以及水平和垂直力产生的影响的元分析；一个未发表的理学硕士项目。它包含 15 项研究，但不是与体重进行比较，因此这项新研究添加了一些新内容。

To begin, I want to clarify what eccentric overload means in articles, what people think it is, and what it really is. In all flywheel training articles, the overload has been of the delayed eccentric action type. This means you accelerate all the way through the concentric phase, but don’t resist until after you passed the first third of the eccentric motion. By doing this, you overload the latter two-thirds of the range of motion since you have to absorb the same amount of energy as you produced over the whole concentric phase, but in a shorter period of time.
首先，我想澄清偏心超载在文章中的含义、人们的想法以及它的真实含义。在所有飞轮训练文章中，过载都是延迟偏心作用类型的。这意味着您在向心阶段全程加速，但在经过前三分之一的偏心运动之前不要抵抗。通过这样做，您会使运动范围的后三分之二超载，因为您必须吸收与整个同心阶段产生的相同量的能量，但需要在更短的时间内吸收。

If you look when people tweet or post about eccentric overload, you can see all kinds of things. For instance, super-slow eccentrics spending 10-12 seconds in ECC phase, which is basically more isometric than eccentric action, at least if we compare them to the eccentric actions done during athletic performance. So, eccentric overload to me is ECC load >1RM concentric. If you are doing 2-1 (i.e., “2 legs up and 1 leg down”) with a submax weight, I’d say you shifted ratios with more eccentric focus, but if that load isn’t >1RM concentric, it is not eccentric overload training.
如果你看看人们在推特上或发布的有关古怪超负荷的帖子，你会看到各种各样的事情。例如，超慢离心动作在 ECC 阶段花费 10-12 秒，这基本上比离心动作更等长，至少如果我们将它们与运动表现期间所做的离心动作进行比较的话。因此，对我来说，偏心过载是 ECC 负载 >1RM 同心。如果您使用次最大重量进行 2-1（即“2 条腿向上，1 条腿向下”），我会说您通过更偏心的焦点改变了比率，但如果该负载不是 >1RM 同心，则它是不是偏心超负荷训练。

If you talk about eccentric training (but don’t say eccentric overload), I think it is a broader term that could permit super-slow chins and push-ups with bodyweight. However, I also think they are a waste of time; instead, increase the load and do (fast) overloaded eccentrics because that is the trigger you are looking for. Chris Beardsley wrote a nice piece on fast vs. slow eccentrics.
如果你谈论离心训练（但不要说离心超负荷），我认为这是一个更广泛的术语，可以允许超慢的引体向上和自重俯卧撑。然而，我也认为它们是浪费时间；相反，增加负载并（快速）超载偏心轮，因为这就是您正在寻找的触发器。 Chris Beardsley 写了一篇关于快怪人和慢怪人的好文章。

However, when you use the kBox, there are more ways you can actually overload than seen in these studies. You can use a stronger movement pattern in CON, like doing a “squat-hinge” as our U.S. friends call it, or the terms I prefer: “overloaded RDLs” or “deadlift into RDL” (as performed by Mike Young). RDL is weaker, so it will be overloaded if preceded by a powerful deadlift. You can use accessory muscles like pushing off with arms in the squat in CON and absorb it with the legs or have a coach pull you up, which adds extra energy for you to absorb.
然而，当您使用 kBox 时，实际上可以超载的方法比这些研究中看到的要多。你可以在 CON 中使用更强的运动模式，比如我们美国朋友所说的“深蹲铰链”，或者我更喜欢的术语：“超负荷 RDL”或“硬拉至 RDL”（由 Mike Young 进行）。 RDL 较弱，因此如果先进行强力硬拉，就会超载。你可以使用辅助肌肉，比如在 CON 深蹲中用手臂推出并用腿吸收它，或者让教练把你拉起来，这会增加你吸收的额外能量。

This study looks at flywheel training with a partial overload in eccentric ROM vs. training with traditional weights, nothing else. The adaptations coming from the more powerful overload methods with higher contraction velocities haven’t been studied head-to-head yet, but if we compare more overload, over the whole range of motion with regular CON:ECC 1:1 using weights, I know where my money is. (Read up on the kBox overload methods here.)
这项研究着眼于偏心ROM部分超载的飞轮训练与传统重量训练，仅此而已。来自具有更高收缩速度的更强大的过载方法的适应性尚未进行过头对头研究，但如果我们在整个运动范围内比较更多的过载与使用重量的常规 CON:ECC 1:1，我知道我的钱在哪里。 （阅读此处的 kBox 重载方法。）

What Did the Study Show?
研究表明什么？

Now, back to the important new meta-study, “Skeletal muscle functional and structural adaptations after eccentric overload flywheel resistance training: a systematic review and meta-analysis” by the mainly Spain-based team of Sergio Maroto-Izquierdo, David García-López, Rodrigo Fernandez-Gonzalo, Osvaldo C. Moreira, Javier González-Gallego, and José A. de Paz. If you just want the results, you can check the abstract. However, if you are still reading, you probably want a little more information, so here goes.
现在，回到重要的新元研究，“偏心过载飞轮阻力训练后骨骼肌功能和结构适应：系统回顾和元分析”，主要由西班牙团队 Sergio Maroto-Izquierdo 和 David García-López 进行、罗德里戈·费尔南德斯-贡萨洛、奥斯瓦尔多·C·莫雷拉、哈维尔·冈萨雷斯-加列戈和何塞·A·德巴斯。如果你只想要结果，可以查看摘要。但是，如果您仍在阅读，您可能需要更多信息，所以这里是。

The authors searched the databases and found 97 studies. Although the flywheel might still have a lot of question marks around it, saying there is no research is wrong. Anyway, based on their inclusion criteria, the analysis included nine studies with a total of 267 subjects. All these studies are flywheel vs. weights, ranging from four to 10 weeks, with healthy young people or athletes between a six and an eight on the PEDro scale, which means all are classified as high quality. The average age for flywheel groups was 25.8 years, with a very asymmetric gender distribution since only one study involved women.
作者搜索了数据库并找到了 97 项研究。虽然飞轮可能还有很多问号，但说没有研究是错误的。无论如何，根据纳入标准，分析包括 9 项研究，总共 267 名受试者。所有这些研究都是飞轮与重量的比较，时间范围为 4 到 10 周，健康的年轻人或运动员的 PEDro 评分在 6 到 8 之间，这意味着所有研究都被归类为高质量。飞轮组的平均年龄为 25.8 岁，性别分布非常不对称，因为只有一项研究涉及女性。

The exercises included in these studies were leg presses, leg extensions, leg curls, and squats from lower limb, with two studies including exercises targeting shoulder abduction, arm extensors, and flexors. In the flywheel devices, the overload was provided with delayed eccentric action as described above.
这些研究中包括的练习包括腿部推举、腿部伸展、腿弯举和下肢深蹲，其中两项研究包括针对肩部外展、手臂伸肌和屈肌的练习。在飞轮装置中，如上所述，通过延迟偏心作用来提供过载。

A Clear Win for Flywheel Overload Training
飞轮过载训练的明显胜利

The results in this systematic review are a clear win for flywheel overload training on all training outcomes. Since an image says more than a thousand words, I’d recommend you take a quick look at the summary in the forest plot to see it yourself.
本次系统评价的结果表明，飞轮超载训练在所有训练成果上均取得了明显胜利。由于一张图像包含一千多个单词，因此我建议您快速浏览一下森林图中的摘要，以便自己查看。

Here is the forest plot. If you want to interpret it yourself, you can find a guide here.
这里是森林地块。如果您想自己解释，可以在这里找到指南。

Basically, all studies are placed under the respective outcomes they wanted to look at: strength, power, hypertrophy, jump, speed. The standard mean difference on the far right shows the difference between flywheel and weight training groups, with an average to the right of the vertical bar meaning difference between groups favoring flywheel (i.e., more effect). Studies are weighted, so a larger study has more impact than a smaller one. All studies are weighted and put together in the row with the big black diamond. As you can see, all studies favor flywheel on all outcomes, with power and strength being the most obvious.
基本上，所有研究都放在他们想要研究的各自结果下：力量、爆发力、肥大、跳跃、速度。最右边的标准平均差异显示了飞轮组和重量训练组之间的差异，垂直条右侧的平均值意味着有利于飞轮组之间的差异（即效果更好）。研究是加权的，因此较大的研究比较小的研究具有更大的影响力。所有研究都经过加权并放在带有大黑菱形的行中。正如您所看到的，所有研究都支持飞轮的所有结果，其中力量和力量是最明显的。

Naturally, the results from any systemic review and meta-analysis depend on which studies you choose to include and what outcomes you look at, creating room for debate. Covering a relevant subject, the publication of this study inspired an interesting discussion and additional work by another research group. This other group published both a letter and a study (Vicens-Bordas et al., 2017) showing no significant benefit in strength with flywheel training.
当然，任何系统评价和荟萃分析的结果都取决于您选择纳入哪些研究以及您关注的结果，从而创造了辩论的空间。这项研究涵盖了一个相关主题，激发了另一个研究小组的有趣讨论和额外工作。另一个小组发表了一封信和一项研究（Vicens-Bordas 等，2017），表明飞轮训练对力量没有显着的好处。

This difference depends mainly on a different selection of studies, where they included only 76 and 71 subjects in their primary and secondary analysis, versus 267 subjects in the first one I review here. They also set the cut in November 2016, which excluded an interesting paper from Maroto-Izquierdo (2017) on professional handball players that got really good results on performance outcomes in the flywheel group and is very relevant for sports performance.
这种差异主要取决于研究的不同选择，他们在主要和次要分析中仅包括 76 和 71 名受试者，而我在此处回顾的第一个研究中则包括 267 名受试者。他们还在 2016 年 11 月设定了削减标准，排除了 Maroto-Izquierdo (2017) 的一篇关于职业手球运动员的有趣论文，该论文在飞轮组的表现结果上取得了非常好的结果，并且与运动表现非常相关。

Further on, the second meta-analysis included a paper from 2005 (Caruso) where they mainly studied bone osteogenesis in obese women (and a few men) on hormone replacement therapy. In this study, both groups showed very poor strength gains of 7% vs. 12% (no significant difference) over 10 weeks of training on a seated leg press. With such small gains in strength in both groups for very untrained subjects, I think you can argue for the whole intervention to be suboptimal for strength gains and, as a result of that, it’s also not ideal for comparisons between modalities, especially if you train a younger and more athletic population. If you want to form you own opinion and dig into this flywheel vs. weights “beef,” you can read the letter and the reply from Maroto-Izquierdo et al., and the second meta-analysis.
此外，第二项荟萃分析包括 2005 年的一篇论文（Caruso），其中他们主要研究了肥胖女性（和少数男性）接受激素替代疗法的骨成骨作用。在这项研究中，经过 10 周的坐姿腿举训练，两组的力量增幅非常差，分别为 7% 和 12%（无显着差异）。对于未经训练的受试者来说，两组的力量增长如此之小，我认为你可以认为整个干预对于力量增长来说不是最佳的，因此，它对于模式之间的比较也不是理想的，特别是如果你训练更年轻、更运动的人口。如果您想形成自己的观点并深入研究飞轮与配重的“牛肉”，您可以阅读 Maroto-Izquierdo 等人的信件和回复。 ，以及第二个荟萃分析。

The current article by Maroto-Izquierdo et al. that this review is about provides a good discussion around the results and mentions a few other interesting studies (not included in the meta-analysis), so I recommend you read the full text if you want to get more details.
Maroto-Izquierdo 等人的当前文章。这篇评论围绕结果提供了很好的讨论，并提到了一些其他有趣的研究（未包含在荟萃分析中），因此如果您想了解更多详细信息，我建议您阅读全文。

We have no reason to believe #flywheel training wouldn’t benefit women, but there’s no evidence yet, says @FredrikCorrea.
@FredrikCorrea 说，我们没有理由相信 #flywheel 训练不会使女性受益，但目前还没有证据。Share on X 分享到 X

Did the meta-study prove that flywheels are better than weights? Looking at the results, the flywheel is definitely more effective than weights—at least if you train young, healthy male athletes. However, as already discussed, this result will depend on the included studies. When it comes to women, we have no reason to believe they wouldn’t benefit from flywheel training, but all the evidence isn’t there yet. We need future studies to include women. This meta-analysis only included three women out of 276 subjects in total. Sport science must do better than that.
元研究是否证明飞轮比配重更好？从结果来看，飞轮绝对比举重更有效——至少如果你训练年轻、健康的男性运动员。然而，正如已经讨论过的，这个结果将取决于纳入的研究。对于女性来说，我们没有理由相信她们不会从飞轮训练中受益，但目前还没有所有证据。我们需要未来的研究将女性纳入其中。这项荟萃分析仅包括 276 名受试者中的 3 名女性。体育科学必须做得更好。

How can you apply this knowledge? These studies are basically single-exercise drills and not a part of a training program. Therefore, we actually don’t know (in a scientific sense) how flywheel overload training works in an environment with a much higher total training volume and with parts of concurrent training. Still, it’s hard to see how there would be a negative effect if you add flywheels to a well-designed program. Coaches afraid to train their athletes too hard by adding flywheel training can use this as evidence that they should replace some of the training with barbells with more effective flywheel training.
你如何应用这些知识？这些研究基本上是单项练习，而不是训练计划的一部分。因此，我们实际上（从科学意义上）不知道飞轮超载训练在总训练量大得多且有部分并发训练的环境中如何进行。尽管如此，如果将飞轮添加到精心设计的程序中，很难看出会有什么负面影响。担心通过增加飞轮训练来训练运动员过于辛苦的教练可以以此为证据，表明他们应该用更有效的飞轮训练来取代一些杠铃训练。

We are also missing more closed chain exercises involving multiple joints like squats, deadlifts, and split squats. What we see from our users are also different types of overload with a higher degree of overload than in the studies and over the whole range of motion. This is probably an effective stimulus for adaptions in these outcomes but future studies must quantify it. Adding flywheel will cause some muscle damage and fatigue early on, but adaptation is fast and muscle markers for damage don’t seem to have a detrimental effect on adaptation. You can read more on this subject here.
我们还缺少更多涉及多个关节的闭链练习，例如深蹲、硬拉和分腿深蹲。我们从用户那里看到的也是不同类型的超负荷，其超负荷程度比研究中和整个运动范围更高。这可能是适应这些结果的有效刺激，但未来的研究必须对其进行量化。添加飞轮会在早期造成一些肌肉损伤和疲劳，但适应速度很快，并且损伤的肌肉标记似乎不会对适应产生不利影响。您可以在此处阅读有关此主题的更多信息。

It’s hard to see how there’d be a negative effect if you add #flywheels to a well-designed program, says @FredrikCorrea.
@FredrikCorrea 说，如果将 #flywheels 添加到精心设计的程序中，很难看出会有什么负面影响。Share on X 分享到 X

Last, but not least, the flywheel device is only a tool. You need to use it properly for strong positive effects. I usually say that training on the kBox doesn’t get you strong if you don’t train with that intent. Lousy training is still lousy on a flywheel device. The benefit of the kBox is that it makes it easy to train really, really hard and that is what triggers the adaptation—the overload.
最后但并非最不重要的一点是，飞轮装置只是一个工具。您需要正确使用它才能产生强烈的积极效果。我通常说，如果你不带着这样的意图进行训练，在 kBox 上的训练不会让你变得更强。糟糕的训练在飞轮设备上仍然很糟糕。 kBox 的好处是它可以让训练变得非常非常困难，这就是触发适应的原因——过载。

What More Do We Need to Know?
我们还需要知道什么？

I’d like to see more studies looking at specific populations so we can prescribe training more effectively, depending on training age, strength, sport, etc. As mentioned above, we need studies on more closed chain drills and realistic and complete training programs to help us with periodization. Flywheels might be better, but we don’t yet know what is optimal.
我希望看到更多针对特定人群的研究，以便我们可以根据训练年龄、力量、运动项目等更有效地制定训练方案。如上所述，我们需要对更闭链的训练和现实且完整的训练计划进行研究，以帮助我们分期。飞轮可能更好，但我们还不知道什么是最佳的。

Besides this, I think physiotherapy can benefit a lot from using flywheel training. Patients need to get stronger and more powerful with good timing, since time saved is important for good flow in the health care system and getting people back to work. However, before we see a massive surge of flywheels in physiotherapy clinics, we need more clinical studies on specific diagnoses and conditions.
除此之外，我认为物理治疗可以从使用飞轮训练中受益匪浅。患者需要在适当的时机变得更强壮，因为节省的时间对于医疗保健系统的良好流动和让人们重返工作岗位非常重要。然而，在我们看到理疗诊所中飞轮的大量使用之前，我们需要针对特定​​诊断和病症进行更多临床研究。

There Is Work to Be Done
还有工作要做

There are studies using the kBox being done right now in Canada, the U.S., the U.K., Sweden, Holland, Italy, and Australia. The topics involve all three main groups: athletes, patients, and the general population. I know at least one publication on physiotherapy that is supposed to come out this spring. Without revealing too much, I can say the kBox was in favor over the gold standard treatment for a common problem among athletes in sports involving a lot of jumping.
加拿大、美国、英国、瑞典、荷兰、意大利和澳大利亚目前正在开展使用 kBox 的研究。这些主题涉及所有三个主要群体：运动员、患者和普通大众。我知道至少有一本关于物理治疗的出版物将于今年春天出版。在不透露太多的情况下，我可以说，对于涉及大量跳跃的运动中运动员的常见问题，kBox 比金标准治疗更受青睐。

In addition to these research projects, we are in discussions with other researchers, so the list will be longer later this year. We try to understand the problems or questions our users have, and I’m tasked with trying to get the researchers to look for answers. I hope that we see more studies we can apply in the field that will help us with protocols, periodization, loading, and in-season training.
除了这些研究项目外，我们正在与其他研究人员进行讨论，因此今年晚些时候的清单将会更长。我们尝试了解用户遇到的问题或疑问，而我的任务是尝试让研究人员寻找答案。我希望我们能看到更多可以在该领域应用的研究，这将有助于我们制定方案、周期、负荷和季内训练。

Since you’re here… 既然你在这里……
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF
……我们有一个小小的请求。阅读 SimpliFaster 的人比以往任何时候都多，每周我们都会为您带来来自致力于培养更好运动员的教练、运动科学家和物理治疗师的精彩内容。请花点时间在社交媒体上分享文章，让作者提出问题和评论，并在适当的时候链接到文章（如果您有博客或参与相关主题的论坛）。 — SF