In sports where an explosion of power or strength is necessary (e.g., weight lifting, tennis), athletes often yell or grunt to increase force production. Martial artists have used a similar t
echnique for centuries called a kiap, but scientific evidence of its effectiveness is scarce. This study examined the effect of kiaping on strength and whether expertise influenced its effectiveness. Fifty (25 novices, 25 experts) martial artists completed a handgrip strength test under no kiap and kiap conditions. Performance for all participants was significantly better with the kiap (437.1 Newtons ± 94.9) than without (408.0 Newtons ± 90.6; p < .001). Athletes often use some form of performance enhancement, or “psyching up,” technique to increase arousal in an attempt to facilitate performance (Perkins, Wilson, & Kerr, 2001), particularly when there is a need for explosive force production (Tod, Iredale, & Gill, 2003). The term psyching-up can be defined as the use of cognitive and/or somatic techniques, designed to enhance performance, before or during competition (Tod et al., 2003). These techniques include but are not limited to focusing attention, imagery, positive self-talk, and arousal regulation (Tod et al., 2003). A technique known as Ki, or inner energy (Tedeschi, 2000), which has been used for centuries by martial artists, is one arousal-inducing strategy that appears to have been overlooked by sport psychology researchers to date. According to marital arts? tradition, Ki is a psychophysical energy that is believed to be located approximately two inches below the navel in an area called the tanden (Nagatomo, 2002; Seitz, Olson, Locke, & Quam, 1990). The principle of Ki is common throughout martial arts but it has different names depending on the origin of the martial art (e.g., in Chinese martial arts it is called Chi, in Japanese martial arts it is called Kiai). In Korean martial arts the term is Ki, and the yell is called a kiap, which is the term that will be used throughout the present manuscript to refer to the application of Ki as a performance enhancement technique. Ki is said to be released and flows throughout the body through the use of simple breathing techniques, the most basic being the sharp exhalation of air in the form of a yell or grunt (Tedeschi, 2000). According to tradition, both novices and experts can increase force during dynamic physical movements through the coordination of the mind and body with the kiap (Tedeschi,2000). This technique is not to be confused with the val salva maneuver, which is sometimes used by athletes in sports like power lifting to stabilize the core and can sometimes result in a loud expulsion like the kiap. However, unlike the kiap, the val salva maneuver involves forcibly exhaling against a closed mouth and nose to build pressure in the abdomen. Although the concept of the kiap is unique to martial arts, its use is evident at the elite level in many modern sports where an explosion of energy is necessary, such as power lifting, during a shot putt or javelin throw. Sport commentators have drawn attention to the incidence of kiap-like verbal disinhibitions (often referred to as grunting) in recent years, particularly among tennis players. In some cases, athletes themselves have raised concerns that this practice amounts to cheating, and the issue has caused some tennis officials to consider introducing punishments for excessive noise (Flatman,2009; Navratilova, 2009). The concern is that the noise is designed to distract opponents, yet the scientific evidence to support this contention is scarce. However, recently Sinnett and Kingstone (2010) showed participants video footage of tennis matches during which a noise was sometimes added while the players were striking the ball. The authors demonstrated that when a sound
occurred at the same time as a tennis ball was struck, study participants observing the game were significantly slower and made significantly more decision errors in predicting the direction that the ball would take (supporting the notion that the noise acted as a distracter). Although it may be that the sound generated from a loud verbal expulsion acts as a distraction in interactive sports, it is also possible that the same action serves as a performance-enhancement strategy for the athlete making the noise, especially given that athletes in some individual, explosive sports (e.g., shot putt) are also seen using a similar technique. However, experimental evidence for this assertion is currently lacking. Unfortunately, scientific research on the use of a broader range of performance enhancement techniques to increase power is very limited. Several studies have demonstrated improvements in performance using a free-choice psych-up technique (e.g., Tod, Iredale, McGuigan, Strange, & Gill, 2005; Eiko & Ostrow, 1992; Whelan, Epkins, & Meyers, 1990). For example, Tod et al. (2005) asked 20 adult participants with at least one year of weight-lifting experience to perform five repetitions of a maximal isokinetic bench press under three different conditions: a free-choice psych-up, a distraction, and an attention-placebo condition. They found that the free-choice psych-up technique produced significantly greater torque than the distraction control condition (11%) and the attention-placebo condition (8%). Similarly, Eiko and Ostrow (1992) examined the effect of free-choice and imagery psyching-up techniques on handgrip strength among 30 older adults (M age = 60.1 years) and 30 younger adults (M age = 21.6 years) with little to no competitive experience. In this study, imagery significantly increased strength (p < .05) in both groups of adults while free-choice psyching-up only increased strength among the younger adults. Unfortunately these studies did not identify the psych-up technique chosen by the participants in the free choice conditions, so it is unclear to what extent choices varied among participants, whether the techniques were cognitive or somatic, and if one technique worked better than another. The majority of the literature has focused on the effect of strength or force performance enhancement strategies in either novices or experts, but rarely with both (Tod et al., 2003), and some discrepancies can be found in the studies that included participants with a range of experience levels. Whelan et al. (1990) found that athletes with little to no experience did not improve performance during a handgrip strength task using either prescribed or free-choice psyching-up techniques. Moderately experienced athletes did manage to significantly increase strength using a prescribed psyching-up technique but not using the free-choice psych-up. Conversely, highly experienced athletes could significantly increase strength using the free-choice psyching-up technique but not the prescribed psych-up. This study suggests that the interaction between experience level and the level of autonomy one has in selecting a performance enhancement strategy may significantly affect whether or not performance is improved. A review of the literature revealed that only two published studies have investigated the performance enhancement effectiveness of techniques similar to the kiap. Ikai and Steinhaus (1961) investigated whether shouting increased force production. They found that participants (n = 25) could significantly increase the force applied to a cable tensiometer by 12%, during an isometric forearm flexor task, by shouting versus without shouting (Ikai & Steinhaus, 1961). In contrast, a more recent study found no significant difference between
the effects of grunting and not grunting on force during a maximal dead lift exercise in 31 college-aged males (Morales, Owen & O?Connell, 1999). These two studies seem to highlight an inconsistency in results with the use of psyching-up techniques, but both also have significant methodological problems that need to be considered before such conclusions can be made. Ikai and Steinhaus (1961) had all 25 participants complete the shout condition, but only 10 completed the no-shout condition, rendering statistical comparisons problematic. Morales et al. failed to mask the true purpose of their experiment, which could have lead to an expectation effect that grunting should lead to improvements. Due to these limitations, few conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of kiap-like strategies, and a more systematic investigation is clearly necessary. Inconsistency in the results of force or strength enhancement studies may also be attributable to the nature of the task under investigation. For example, in one study that investigated the effect of free-choice psyching-up on force during an isometric elbow flexion task, Brody, Hatfield, Spalding, Frazer, and Caherty (2000) found no benefit from psyching-up among 15 experienced strength-trained men when their performance was compared to two distraction control conditions. However, psyching-up techniques have been found to enhance the performance of dynamic physical strength tasks such as the bench press exercise (e.g., Tod et al., 2005). Brody et al. (2000) submitted that the lack of effect in their study was due to the isometric nature of the task. Because the participants were not allowed to adjust their arm position in any way, they could not produce a mechanical advantage from varying the arm position, which in turn could have increased motor unit recruitment and improved performance. To reduce the influence of such confounds, it appears to be important to select dynamic exercise tasks for studies that are designed to investigate the effectiveness of psyching-up strategies on strength performance. Furthermore, many of the tasks used in these studies lacked external validity for sport performance, which seems an important consideration in future studies of this nature. In summary, there is reason to believe that performance enhancement strategies could be very effective in improving performance in tasks where an explosion of strength or force is important. In a review of the psyching-up literature, Tod et al. (2003) found that studies that empirically support the use of psyching-up to improve performance have shown an average increase of 12% in force/strength produced due to those strategies (Tod et al., 2003). However, the literature on the effectiveness of such techniques is in short supply and has delivered inconclusive results. Strategies have been shown to improve performance during simple dynamic strength tasks using a free-choice psych-up technique (Eiko & Ostrow, 1992; Tod et al., 2005; Whelan et al., 1990), but evidence that prescribed techniques can improve performance is inconsistent and not as widely studied. There has been some suggestion that novices may not benefit at all from prescribed strategies, because of lack of experience, while experts may not benefit from the prescription of specific techniques due to entrenched preferences (Brody et al.,2000; Morales et al., 1999; Whelan et al., 1990). Furthermore, the kiap has not been included in any of those studies as one of the prescribed techniques, nor was there any documentation as to whether it was one of the techniques used by participants in the free-choice conditions. The only research that has investigated kiap-like techniques (Ikai & Steinhaus, 1961; Morales et al., 1999) is mired by methodological flaws. The kiap, due to its simplicity, is easily learned and therefore has the potential to be used by both
novice and experts to improve performance. The use of the kiap or comparable techniques by many athletes and coaches make it clearly important to systematically study whether a kiap can enhance performance and whether experience with the technique influences its effectiveness. The purpose of this study was, therefore, to examine the effect of kiaping, as a performance-enhancement technique, on strength during a handgrip exercise and to determine whether the level of expertise of the participants influenced its effectiveness. The handgrip strength test was selected due to its dynamic nature, its simplicity and the extensive use of grip in martial arts. For example, grappling martial arts like Judo and Hapkido use grip extensively for throwing and joint locking. Striking martial arts like Taekwondo and Karate constantly grip and release their fists when striking or blocking. This makes the handgrip strength test highly applicable in measuring practical strength in martial artists. It was hypothesized that the kiap would significantly increase the strength output of both novice and experts, compared to no kiap, and that experts would have a significantly greater increase in strength output than novices in the kiap condition due to their experience with the technique.
Jump to section
? ? ?
METHOD RESULTS DISCUSSION
Fifty participants were recruited for the study (M age = 22.2, SD = 3.3 years; M body mass = 77.0, SD = 15.4 kg; M height = 174.2, SD = 10.0 cm). Half of the sample (18 male, 7 female) were categorized as novices with at least 1 month but not more than 12 months of martial arts experience (M experience = 4.9, SD = 1.9 months). The other half of the sample (17 male, 8 female) formed the expert group with at least 24 months of martial arts experience (M experience = 89.0, SD = 49.9 months) and the rank of black belt. The kiap is one of the first things taught in martial arts, and it is practiced every time the participant engages in martial arts. Therefore, participants? experience with the kiap should be considered equivocal to their experience with martial arts in general. Participants were recruited from martial arts clubs at a large Midwestern university, the surrounding area, and the State Black Belt Association.
A Jamar hand dynamometer (Model # 2A) with a range of 0–90 kg was used to measure handgrip strength with precision to the nearest kg. The Jamar hand dynamometer has demonstrated excellent reliability (r = 0.99) and validity (r = 0.99) for both the right hand and left hand (Shechtman, Gestewitz, & Kimble, 2005).
Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the institutional review board at the university where the research was conducted. All participants signed an informed consent form and then completed three sessions, which took place three or four days apart at the same time of day in an exercise psychology laboratory and were conducted by the same
researcher. The three sessions consisted of a baseline condition, no kiap (control) condition, and kiap (experimental) condition, performed in that order. A decision was made not to counterbalance (i.e., randomize the order of) conditions because pilot testing indicated that some participants became alert to the true purpose of the experiment if the kiap was performed before a control condition. Instead, the baseline condition was included in order to assess whether there was learning effect that occurred from one session to the next. (Note: the baseline and control conditions involved identical testing procedures; see details about these conditions below). Each session consisted of three maximal pulls with the participant's dominant hand using the Jamar hand dynamometer. Harkonen, Harju, and Alaranta (1993) found that there was no statistical difference between one pull, three pulls, and the mean of three pulls performed on a handgrip dynamometer, so the current study used the mean of three pulls within each testing session for analysis. Trossman and Li (1989) demonstrated no statistical difference between pulls when participants were given a 15-, 30-, and 60-s break. Therefore, a 30-s break was given between each pull to allow time for participants to rest and the researcher to record individual trial data. All pulls from all three sessions were completed from a seated position with the dominant hand held at 90 degrees in accordance with recommendations from the American Society of Hand Therapists (Richards & Palmiter-Thomas, 1996).
This was a familiarization session in which participants read and signed informed consent and descriptive characteristics (i.e., age, body mass, height, and martial arts experience) were measured. The following instructions were given to each participant before completing the pulls: The purpose of this study is to measure whether martial arts participation increases handgrip strength as compared to national averages. We have to complete three sessions to make sure the data we collect are reliable. I need you to squeeze the handgrip dynamometer as hard as you can for three to five seconds. You are going to do this three times with a thirty-second rest in-between pulls. After you complete the pull, refrain from looking at the dial and hand me the dynamometer. I will tell you when to start. Participants were then instructed on how to use the hand dynamometer and completed three maximal pulls on the handgrip dynamometer without kiaping. No feedback or encouragement was given between pulls.
No-Kiap (Control) Condition
The second session consisted of the same handgrip strength testing procedure outlined in the baseline session. Participants completed three maximal pulls on the handgrip dynamometer without kiaping. Again, no feedback or encouragement was given between pulls. The following instructions were given to each participant before completing the pulls: We are going to conduct the same handgrip strength test you completed in the first session. I need you to squeeze the handgrip dynamometer as hard as you can for three to five seconds. You are going to do this three times with a thirty second rest in-between pulls. After you complete the pull, refrain from looking at the dial and hand me the dynamometer. I will tell you when to start.
The third and final session followed the same testing procedure as the first two, but included the addition of the kiap. All participants had some martial arts experience, which meant that they had all previously been taught the kiap technique. However, to maintain consistency, a full description was given to each participant. Specifically, the following instructions were given before participants completed the pulls: We are going to conduct the same handgrip strength test you completed in the first two sessions with one minor change. For this session, I want you to kiap and squeeze at the same time. Kiaping is a form of yelling used by martial artists during the performance of their particular style of martial arts. This kiap or yell starts low in the abdomen and rises through the chest and out of the mouth. It is more of a loud guttural yell verses a scream or shout that is produced from just the vocal cords or throat. Think of it as a yell from deep within your body. Again, for this session I want you to start squeezing the handgrip dynamometer and simultaneously kiap as loud and as good as you can while squeezing the handgrip as hard as possible for three to five seconds. You are going to do this three times with a thirty-second rest in-between pulls. After you complete the pull, refrain from looking at the dial and hand me the dynamometer. I will tell you when to start. After completing the third pull, participants were debriefed on the deception used and informed of the true purpose of the study (i.e., to measure the effect of kiaping on handgrip strength).
Jump to section
? ? ?
METHOD RESULTS DISCUSSION Exploratory analyses revealed that there was no significant difference between novices and experts in weight and height, but groups did differ significantly in age, with experts an average of 2.24 years older than novices, t = ?2.542, p < .05. As expected, participants in the expert group also had significantly more experience in martial arts than novices, t = ?8.414, p < .01. See Table 1 for details. Initial analyses also revealed no significant differences in handgrip strength between the baseline and no kiap conditions for either experts (M baseline = 404.8 N, SD = 95.0; M no kiap = 409.1 N, SD = 95.4; p = .469) or novices (M baseline = 405.2 N, SD = 85.4; M no kiap = 406.9 N, SD = 87.6; p = .655). This result demonstrated that there was no learning effect from the first to second session, so the baseline condition was dropped from further analyses.
Table 1 Novice and expert group demographics and effect sizes denoting the size of the
difference between groups (*p < .05; **p< .01)
To test the main hypotheses, a 2 × 2 condition (no kiap v kiap) by expertise (expert v novice) ANOVA was performed on the handgrip strength data. Before performing this test it was determined that the assumption of sphericity was not violated, Levene's test was not significant, indicating homogeneity of variance, no outliers were detected and the assumption of normality was met for all groups and conditions except the expert group in the kiap? condition (Shapiro-Wilk p < .05). Further exploration of the expert group/kiap condition data revealed no extreme values and no skewness, but kurtosis was larger than ?1 (i.e., ?1.437). After considering these data collectively, the decision was made to proceed with the ANOVA rather than run non-parametric analyses because (a) most normality assumptions were met for the whole dataset, (b) the expert group data for the kiap condition had only moderate deviations from normality, and (c) several simulation studies have demonstrated that the ANOVA is not very sensitive to moderate deviations from normality (Harwell, Rubinstein, Hayes, & Olds, 1992; Lix, Keselman, & Keselman, 1996). Results revealed a significant effect for condition, F (1,48) = 88.9, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.65 and condition × expertise, F (1,48) = 9.7, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.17. Post-hoc analyses with Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons demonstrated no significant differences between experts and novices within each condition. However, significant differences were evident between conditions for both experts, t = ?4.1, p< .01 and novices, t = ?9.7, p < .01. Means, standard deviations, and effect sizes depicted in Table 2indicate that handgrip strength was significantly higher for participants in both groups when performing the kiap compared to no kiap, and that this effect seemed to be larger for novices than experts.
Table 2 Mean handgrip strength (Newtons) of novice, expert, and combined (novice + expert) martial artists while performing a kiap and with no kiap, plus Cohen's d effect sizes? denoting the size of the
difference between conditions (** p < .01)
Jump to section
? ? ?
METHOD RESULTS DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of kiaping on strength during a handgrip exercise and to determine whether participants? expertise (i.e., novice or expert ) influenced its effectiveness. The first hypothesis was that the kiap, because of its simplicity and ease of use, would significantly improve handgrip strength in both experts and novices. The results of the current study provide support for that hypothesis, as the kiap increased handgrip strength by a mean of 7% with an effect size (ES) of 1.24 when compared to the no kiap condition. 本研究的目的是检查 kiaping 对强度的影响在手柄运动和确定参与者的专业知识(即。新手或者专家)影响 其有效性。kiap 第一个假设是,由于它的简单性和易用性,将大大改善专家和新手的握力。当前研究的结果 提供支持,假设,随着 kiap 握力增加了平均 7%的效应大小(ES)的 1.24 相比,无 kiap 条件。 These results add support to the literature that found performance enhancement techniques to improve performance (Eiko & Ostrow, 1992; Tod et al., 2003, 2005; Whelan et al., 1990) and refute the literature that found no significant improvement in strength or force with performance enhancement and psyching up strategies (Brody et al., 2000; McGuigan, Ghiagiarelli, & Tod, 2005; Morales et al., 1999). The present results are novel, however, because of the prescribed nature of the task. The majority of supporting literature found strength increases only with the free-choice techniques, but not prescribed techniques (Tod et al., 2005; Tod et al., 2003; Morales et al., 1999; Tenenbaum et al., 1995). For example, Morales et al. (1999) found no statistically significant increase in novice and expert dead lift force with grunting. Similarly, Tenenbaum et al. (1995) found no significant difference in performance of an isokinetic leg strength task when using either a cognitive technique (positive statement verbalization), a somatic technique (relaxation) or no psyching-up. It is possible that results of the present study were different because all participants had previous experience using the technique, although minimal among novices, which may not have been true for the prescribed techniques used in other studies. 这些结果支持添加到文学发现性能增强技术来提高性能(英子& Ostrow 1992;Tod et al。 、 2003、 2005; 惠兰 et al .,1990)和反驳文献发现无显著改善力量和力量与性能增强,吓坏策略(布罗迪 et al。,2000;McGuigan、Ghiagiarelli &托德莫拉莱斯 et al .,2005;1999)。目前的结果是小说,然而,由 于规定的任务的性质。大多数支持文献发现强度增加只有自由选择技术,但不规定技术(Tod et al。,2005;Tod et al。,2003;莫拉莱斯 et al。特南鲍姆,1999;et al .,1995)。例如,莫拉莱斯 et al。 (1999)没有发现统计上显著的增加的新手和专家死亡升力嘟哝。同样,特南鲍姆 et al。(1995)发现性能 无显著差异的等速腿部力量的任务在使用认知技术(正面语句冗长)、体细胞技术或没有 psyching-up(放
松)。 目前研究的结果可能不同,因为所有的参与者使用技术经验,新手之间虽然最小,可能并不适用于规定的 技术用在其他的研究。 In accordance with the hypothesis, the prescribed kiap increased strength for both experts and novices in this study (see Figure 1). In the only other comprehensive comparison of expert and novices, Whelan et al. (1990) found that only athletes with moderate levels of experience benefited from a prescribed psych-up, while experts required a free-choice psych-up to improve performance. Brody et al. (2000) hypothesized that experts do not benefit from prescribed psych-up techniques because their movement patterns and neural pathways are not capable of adapting to the prescribed psych-up. The current study indicates that experts do benefit from prescribed performance enhancement techniques for improvement in strength when the technique is one that is familiar. In fact, kiaping is a technique that is frequently used by expert martial artists in competition, which may have meant it also acted as a preferred strategy. 按照假设,规定 kiap 强度增加专家和新手在这项研究中(参见图 1)。唯一的其他专家和新手的综合比较,惠 兰等。(1990)发现,只有适度的运动员经验得益于规定做好精神准备,虽然专家们需要自由选择做好精神准 备来提高性能。布罗迪等。(2000)假设规定做好精神准备技术专家不受益,因为他们的运动模式和神经通 路不能够适应规定做好精神准备。目前的研究表明,专家做受益于规定的性能增强技术提高强度,当技术是 熟悉。事实上,kiaping 技术专家常用的武术艺术家的竞争,这可能意味着它也作为首选战略。
View larger version(27K)
Figure 1 Mean handgrip strength (N) of novice, expert, and combined (novice + expert) while performing a kiap and with no kiap. A significant difference was observed between conditions across groups (p < .01).
The second hypothesis was that experts, due to greater experience with the kiap, would have a significantly greater increase in handgrip strength during the kiap condition than the novices. This hypothesis was not supported by the results, and, in fact, effect sizes indicate that novices? handgrip strength increased more when using the kiap than the experts? did, even though differences between conditions were statistically significant for both groups. Specifically, the handgrip strength of novices was 8% higher in the kiap condition compared to no kiap (ES = 1.97), whereas experts saw only a 5% higher strength score in the kiap condition compared to no kiap (ES = 0.83). Although these data imply that novices outperformed experts in the kiap condition, there were no statistical differences in performance between novices and experts within the kiap condition. However, given the large differences in effect sizes, it must be considered that this lack of statistical significance may have been due to a Type II error, because each group had only 25 participants.
第二个假设是,专家,由于 kiap 更多经验,会大大增强增加握力比新手在 kiap 条件。这个假设是不支持的结 果,,事实上,尺度效应表明,新手的握力增加使用 kiap 时比专家的,尽管两组的条件之间的差异显著。 具体来 说,新手高出 8%的握力 kiap 条件相比没有 kiap(ES = 1.97),而专家只看到 5%的高强度得分 kiap 条件 相比没有 kiap(ES = 0.83)。虽然这些数据暗示,新手比专家 kiap 条件,没有统计学差异在 kiap 新手和专 家之间的性能条件。然而,考虑到大尺度效应的差异,必须考虑,缺乏统计学意义可能是由于 II 型错误,因为 每组参与者只有 25。 This apparent trend is similar to the results of Morales et al.'s (1999) study. They also found that dead lift force was not impacted significantly by expertise level, although, given the small sample size, it can be considered that there was a trend towards novices performing slightly better with grunting (5% improvement) compared to experts (2% improvement). Furthermore, Brody et al. (2000) suggested that experts may benefit slightly less when a psych-up technique is prescribed. The expert martial artists in the current study did have considerable experience with kiaping, but may have developed their own unique method of kiaping due to years of training. In the kiap condition the researcher described a specific kiaping technique (in order to maintain consistency in participants? understanding of what was required), which experts may have interpreted as restrictive of their own preferred style. Therefore, future research with larger sample sizes in each group may be warranted to ensure that a Type II error was not responsible for the acceptance of a null conclusion about expertise level differences in the present study. 这种明显的趋势是类似于莫拉莱斯的结果等。(1999)的研究。他们还发现死升力不是由专业知识水平影响 显著,虽然考虑到小样本大小,它可以被认为是有新手的趋势表现略好嘟哝(提高 5%),而专家(提高 2%)。 此外,布罗迪 et al。(2000)表明,专家可能稍微不那么当做好精神准备技术规定中获益。专家武术家在当 前的研究中有相当多的经验 kiaping,但可能已经开发出自己的独特的方法 kiaping 由于多年的训练。 kiap 条件的研究人员描述了一种特定 kiaping 技术(为了保持一致性参与者的需要的理解),专家可能解释为限制 自己的喜欢的风格。 因此,未来的研究每组样本量较大可能是必要的,以确保 II 型错误并不负责接受 null 结 论本研究专业知识水平的差异。 Irrespective of the slight disparity in the magnitude of improvements observed across experience level, one question that has been clearly answered by the current study is that both novice and expert martial artists significantly increased their handgrip strength using the kiap. The results of the current study show that the full benefit of the kiap technique was realized in novice participants with experience ranging from only 2 months to 10 months of training. Years of additional training with the kiap (7.4 years, on average, among experts) did not appear to result in significantly better performance than those with limited training. This demonstrates the simplicity and possible ease with which the kiap could be taught and used effectively to increase strength. Due to this combination of parsimony and effectiveness, the potential practical applications for other sports are extensive. The results of this study imply that experts and novices in other sports that involve explosive movements, like tennis, weightlifting, and shot putt, could experience a significant increase in strength or power with very little kiap training, which suggests that its cost effectiveness could be substantial. The mechanisms underpinning the effect of the kiap on handgrip performance are unclear. A number of hypotheses have been proposed to explain why other techniques may have a positive impact on strength performance. In their literature review, Tod et al. (2003) argued that psyching-up affects the entire movement process from the higher motor functions to the
manipulation of the interaction between the actin and myosin of the muscle fibers. This includes changes in the central nervous system, which increase motor unit recruitment, synchronization, and firing rate, resulting in increased excitation of the muscle membrane (action potential), release of acetylcholine and calcium, sarcomere length, and the binding of actin and myosin. This combined chemical and electrical activity increases agonist muscle and decreases antagonist muscle contractions, which affects mechanical factors like optimal lengthening of muscle fibers and rate of contraction (Tod et al., 2003). 不管级的轻微差异在经验观察改进的水平,明确回答了一个问题,目前的研究是新手和专家武术艺术家使用 kiap 显著增加他们的握力。当前研究的结果显示的全部好处 kiap 技术实现了新手有经验的参与者从 2 个 月到 10 个月的培训。年的额外训练 kiap(专家)之间的平均 7.4 年似乎没有导致明显更好的性能比有限的 培训。这说明的简单性和可能的缓解 kiap 可以教和有效地使用来增加力量。由于这种组合节俭和效率,为 其他体育运动是广泛的潜在的实际应用。这项研究的结果表明,专家和新手在其他运动项目,涉及爆炸性的 运动,像网球,举重,铅球投掷,可以体验显著增加力量或权力很少 kiap 训练,这表明它的成本效益是可观的。 的机制支撑 kiap 手柄性能的影响尚不清楚。许多假说被提出,试图解释为什么其他技术对强度性能产生积 极影响。文献综述,托德 et al。(2003)认为,psyching-up 影响整个运动过程从更高的运动功能之间的交 互操作的肌肉纤维的肌动蛋白和肌凝蛋白。这包括中枢神经系统的变化,增加运动单位招聘、同步、和燃烧 率,从而增加肌肉细胞膜的兴奋(动作电位),释放乙酰胆碱和钙,肌节长度和肌动蛋白和肌凝蛋白的绑定。这 个组合化学和电活动增加受体激动剂肌肉和减少对手肌肉收缩,影响机械等因素优化延长肌肉纤维和收缩 速度(Tod et al .,2003)。
Other researchers have designed experiments to explain physiological and psychological reasons for improved performances as a result of psyching up. Brody et al. (2000) measured bicep and triceps EMG activity as well as attentional focus and arousal during their study on the isometric elbow flexion task. They found no difference in EMG readings between the psych-up and control conditions, but there was a significant positive increase in attentional focus and perceived arousal between the psych-up and control conditions. However, this psychological advantage failed to produce an increase in force during the psych-up condition due to the isometric nature of the task. During a handgrip task, Perkins et al. (2001) measured heart rate, respiratory sinus arrhythmia, skin conductance level, and finger pulse amplitude to investigate the role of the autonomic nervous system in the effect of psyching up on performance. Though there was no correlation between the increased handgrip strength and all the physiological variables measured, there was a strong correlation between increased handgrip strength and a high level of felt arousal (p < 0.001) and positive hedonic tone (p < 0.001), leading them to conclude that the increased performance was caused primarily by psychological not physiological factors. 其他研究人员已经设计实验来解释生理和心理原因改善表演由于吓坏了。布罗迪等。(2000)测量的二头肌 和肱三头肌 EMG 活动以及注意力集中和唤起等距屈肘在他们研究的任务。 他们发现没有区别在 EMG 读数 之间做好精神准备和控制条件,但有显著积极增加注意力焦点和感知觉醒之间做好精神准备和控制条件。 然 而,这种心理优势未能产生力的增加在做好精神准备条件由于等距性质的任务。 在手柄的任务,帕金斯 et al。 (2001)测量心率、呼吸窦性心律不齐、手指皮肤电导水平,脉冲幅度探讨自主神经系统的作用在吓坏了对 性能的影响。 虽然没有相关性增加握力和所有的生理变量测量,有很强的相关性增加握力和感到兴奋的高水 平(p < 0.001)和积极享乐色调(p < 0.001),导致他们得出这样的结论:提高性能是主要是心理而不是生 理因素引起的。
However, none of these authors investigated the effect of kiaping or similar techniques on performance, so generalization of these explanations to the present results are limited. In a commentary on tennis grunting, McConnell (2011) argued that the expulsion of sound is a result of efficient breath control that directly aids maximal force production. Her description of the technique shares many characteristics of the kiap, and may serve as a useful explanation for the effects that were observed in the present study. According to McConnell, the tennis grunt is a controlled, forceful exhalation that is achieved by narrowing the opening of the lungs and using the larynx to maintain stability in the core. This maximizes muscular force production during a tennis shot because the force transmission starts below the player's waist. A simple exhalation during or after striking the ball will not achieve the same purpose, McConnell (2011) asserts, because stability and control of the core is key. 然而,这些作者调查 kiaping 或类似的技术性能的影响,所以这些解释的概括目前的结果是有限的。在评论 网球嘟哝,麦康奈尔(2011)认为,驱逐声音是有效的呼吸控制的结果,直接生产艾滋病最大力量。 她的描述技 术股票 kiap 的许多特征,并可能成为一个有用的解释本研究中观察到的影响。 麦康奈尔说,网球繁重是控制, 有力的呼气,是通过缩小的肺部和使用喉维持稳定的核心。 这肌肉力量最大化生产网球因为下面的力量传输 开始时玩家的腰。一个简单的呼气期间或之后的球不会达到同样的目的,麦康奈尔(2011)断言,因为稳定和 控制的核心是关键。
It is important to note that the results of the present study can only be generalized to participants with some experience of martial arts practice. The results of the present study may also have been influenced by the expectation that the kiap would improve performance, because all participants had been taught the technique as a performance enhancement strategy. More research on the application of kiap training in different sport settings, with other types of athletes, as well as with and without education about its purpose is essential before conclusions can be drawn about its potential applicability to strength performance enhancement programs. Furthermore, the handgrip strength test, while applicable to the martial arts, was simple to execute and may not have tasked the participants as much as performing a full kicking or punching technique, or performing in a competitive environment, which may be a concern for the ecological validity of the task used in this study. A more complex task may challenge cognitive and physical functions more (particularly in novices) and reduce the effectiveness of the kiap to enhance performance, as has been found with other performance enhancement techniques (Tenenbaum et al.,1995; McGuigan et al., 2005). In addition, future research needs to identify how much training (i.e., number of trials, days, or months) is required before the maximum performance effect of the kiap is obtained from both novices and experts under various conditions. It is plausible that such a simple technique could be easily learned in a short time period, but more research is necessary before such a conclusion can be made. Finally, the mechanism(s) underpinning the observed effect are still unknown. 重要的是要注意,本研究的结果只能是广义武术实践的有经验的参与者。本研究的结果也可能受期望 kiap 将提高性能,因为所有参与者被教的技术性能增强策略。更多 kiap 训练中的应用研究在不同运动环境中,与
其他类型的运动员,以及关于其目的是至关重要的,没有教育之后才能得出结论对其潜在的适用性强度性能 增强程序。 此外,握力测试,适用于武术,很简单执行和任务可能没有参与者执行全踢或冲压技术,或执行在竞 争激烈的环境中,这可能是一个关心任务用于本研究的生态效度。 一个更复杂的任务可能挑战认知和生理功 能(特别是新手)和减少 kiap 增强性能的有效性,如被发现与其他性能增强技术(特南鲍姆 et al。,1995;McGuigan et al .,2005)。此外,未来的研究需要确定多少培训(即。、试验数量需要几天或几 个月)之前的最大性能影响 kiap 获得新手和专家在各种条件下。 这是合理的,这样一个简单的技术可以很容 易地在短时间内学到的东西,但更多的研究是必要的在这样一个结论。 最后,机制(年代)基础观测到的影响仍 然未知。 In conclusion, there has been conflicting literature on whether strength performance enhancement strategies (e.g., psyching up techniques) improve performance or not, whether prescribed techniques are effective, and whether there is a difference between expert and novice capabilities. The present study examined the effect of a novel performance enhancement strategy (a simple technique taken from martial arts known as the kiap) on handgrip strength in both novice and expert martial artists. Analysis of the data found significantly higher handgrip strength with the kiap when compared to no kiap for both novices and experts. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the effectiveness of the technique between novices and experts, so substantial experience with the kiap does not appear to result in further increases in strength. These results indicate that the kiap can be learned easily and can be effectively used to increase strength after only a short period of training. Further empirical research is needed to answer to what extent the effects of kiaping can be generalized to other tasks, or trained to other types of athletes, and what mechanisms are responsible for the effect of the kiap on strength. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the kiap, a breathing technique resulting in a loud expulsion of air, may be considered similar to the grunting that occurs in tennis, power lifting, and other sports in which explosive movements are necessary. Therefore, these results may have important implications for athletes, coaches, and officials (Flatman, 2009; Navratilova, 2009; Sinnett & Kingstone, 2010) who may be under the assumption that such strategies are used by athletes solely as a distraction technique. 总之,有冲突的文献(如是否强度性能增强策略。 ,吓坏了技术)提高性能,规定技术是否有效,是否有专家和新 手能力之间的差异。目前研究小说的影响性能增强策略(一个简单的技术来自武术称为 kiap)握力在新手和 专家武术家。 分析数据发现明显高于握力 kiap 相比没有 kiap 新手和专家。 此外,没有显著差异的有效性新 手和专家之间的技术,所以大量的经验与 kiap 似乎并不导致强度进一步增加。这些结果表明,kiap 可以轻 松学习,可以有效地用于提高强度后只有短时间的训练。需要进一步的实证研究来回答到什么程度的影响 kiaping 可以推广到其他任务,或其他类型的运动员训练,什么机制负责 kiap 对强度的影响。 然而,重要的是 要注意,kiap,呼吸技术导致一声驱逐,可能被认为是类似于发生在网球比赛,力量提升,和其他运动爆炸性的 运动是必要的。因此,这些结果可能有重要意义为运动员、教练、官员(驳船船员,2009;纳芙拉蒂诺 娃,2009;Sinnett &金石,2010)的人可能是在假设等运动员使用的策略是完全分散技术。
1. Brody, E. B., Hatfield, B. D., Spalding, T. W., Frazer, M. B. and Caherty, F. J. 2000. The effect of a psyching strategy on neuromuscular activation and force production in strength-trained men. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71: 162–170. [Taylor & Francis Online], [PubMed], [Web of Science ?],[CSA]
2. Eiko, K. and Ostrow, A. C. 1992. The effects of three mental preparation strategies on strength performance of young and older adults. Journal of Sport Behavior, 15: 34–41. [CSA]
3. Flatman, B. 2009, June 14. One more grunt and you?re out: Wimbledon to crack down after complaints. The Times Online website, Retrieved August 15th, 2011 fromhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article6493899.ece
4. Harkonen, R., Harju, R. and Alaranta, H. 1993. Accuracy of the Jamar dynamometer. Journal of Hand Therapy, 6: 259–262. [CrossRef] 5. Harwell, M. R., Rubinstein, E. N., Hayes, W. S. and Olds, C. C. 1992. Summarizing Monte Carlo results in methodological research: the one- and two-factor fixed effects ANOVA cases. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 17: 315–339. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ?]
6. Ikai, M. and Steinhaus, A. H. 1961. Some factors modifying the expression of human strength. Journal of Applied Physiology, 16: 157–163. [PubMed], [Web of Science ?] 7. Lix, L. M., Keselman, J. C. and Keselman, H. J. 1996. Consequences of assumption violations revisited: A quantitative review of alternatives to the one-way analysis of variance F test. Review of Educational Research, 66: 579–619. [Web of Science ?]
8. McConnell, A. 2011. Breathe strong, perform better, Leeds, , UK: Human Kinetics. 9. McGuigan, M. R., Ghiagiarelli, J. and Tod, D. 2005. Maximal strength and cortisol responses to psyching-up during the squat exercise. Journal of Sport Sciences, 23: 687–692. [Taylor & Francis Online],[PubMed], [Web of Science ?]
10. Morales, Z., Owen, S. and O?Connell, D. G. 1999. Vocal disinhibition (grunting) does not increase dead lift force in college athletes or nonathletes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 89: 233–234. [Web of Science ?], [CSA]
11. Morris, S. B. and DeShon, R. P. 2002. Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7: 105–125. [CrossRef], [PubMed],[Web of Science ?]
12. Nagatomo, S. 2002. Ki-Energy: invisible psychophysical energy. Asian Philosophy, 12: 173–181.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ?] 13. Navratilova, M. 2009, June 7. Martina Navratilova: The grunting has to stop. The Times Online website, Retrieved August 15th, 2011 fromhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article6446197.ece
14. Perkins, D., Wilson, G. V. and Kerr, J. H. 2001. The effects of elevated arousal and mood on maximal strength performance in athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13: 239–259. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ?]
15. Richards, L. and Palmiter-Thomas, P. 1996. Grip strength measurement: A critical review of tools, methods, and clinical utility. Critical Reviews in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 8: 87–109.
16. Seitz, F. C., Olson, G. D., Locke, B. and Quam, R. 1990. The martial arts and mental health: the challenge of managing energy. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70: 459–464. [CrossRef], [PubMed], [Web of Science ?], [CSA]
17. Shechtman, O., Gestewitz, L. and Kimble, C. 2005. Reliability and validity of the DynEx Dynamometer.Journal of Hand Therapy, 18: 339–347. [CrossRef] 18. Sinnett, S. and Kingstone, A. 2010. A Preliminary Investigation Regarding the Effect of Tennis Grunting: Does White Noise During a Tennis Shot Have a Negative Impact on Shot Perception?. Public Library of Science ONE, 5(10): e13148 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013148 [CrossRef]
19. Tedeschi, M. 2000. Hapkido: Traditions, Philosophy, Technique, 188–193. Trumbull, CT: Weatherhill Inc.. 20. Tenenbaum, G., Bar-Eli, M., Hoffman, J. R., Jablonovski, R., Sade, S. and Shitrit, D. 1995. The effect of cognitive and somatic psyching-up techniques on isokinetic leg strength performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 9: 3–7. [CSA]
21. Tod, D., Iredale, F. and Gill, N. 2003. ?Psyching-up? and muscular force production. Sports Medicine, 33: 47–58. [CrossRef], [PubMed], [Web of Science ?], [CSA] 22. Tod, D. A., Iredale, K. F., McGuigan, M. R., Strange, D. E. and Gill, N. 2005. “Psyching-up” enhances force production during the bench press exercise. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19: 599–603. [Web of Science ?]
23. Trossman, P. B. and Li, P. W. 1989. The effect of the duration of intertrial rest periods on isometric grip strength performance in young adults. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 9: 362–378.
24. Whelan, J. P., Epkins, C. C. and Meyers, A. W. 1990. Arousal interventions for athletic performance: Influence of mental preparation and competitive experience. Anxiety Research, 2: 293–307. [Taylor & Francis Online]