Aerobic gymnastics is based on the ability to perform continuous complex and high-intensity movement patterns coordinated with music. These movements come from traditional aerobic exercises and are combined with flexibility and strength movements. International rules define the exercises included in competition routines, with arm push-ups and jumps being the main elements. Few published studies have ana-lysed the muscular and metabolic demands of aerobic gymnastics (Löpez, Vernetta & De la Cruz, 1999; Torrents, Peralta, Marina, & Balague, 1999), the conclusion to date being that maximum and - mainly - explosive strength are the main conditional capacities. As the movements during competition are apparently always repeated, training routines in aerobic gymnastics are mainly based on the cognitive model: the gymnast has to know previously the right or correct movement and try to reproduce it through repetitions. Thus, for aerobic gymnasts and coaches the repetition of exercises is the way to achieve automation. The results of a survey of competitors showed that methods based on the repetition of analytic exercises are the most widely used to improve performance (Torrents & Balague, 2001). The differential training approach introduces a different understanding of practice variability (Schöllhorn, 1999), and attempts to produce faster and more adequate adaptations to new situations. It has been compared with traditional methods in other specialities, showing its potential for increasing performance (Schönherr & Schöllhorn, 2003; Trockel & Schöllhorn, 2003; Jaitner & Pfeiffer, 2003; Wagner & Müller, 2008). The approach challenges the classical repetition-based training used in aerobic gymnastics and aims to produce more efficient and diverse coordinative changes so äs to optimise performance. Here, the effectiveness of the classical repetition-based approach was compared with that of the differential learning approach by means of the Performance Potential (PerPot) metamodel (Perl, 2001; 2004). The PerPot, which studies the nonlinear interaction between load and performance, is based on an antagonistic con-cept: each load impulse feeds a strain potential äs well äs a response potential. In turn, these buffer potentials influence the performance potential, where the response potential raises the performance potential and the strain potential reduces the performance potential with a certain delay. The relationship between the delays specifies the performance profile. As potential capacities are limited, potential over-flows can occur and a reserve profile (difference between strain potential capacity and current strain level) is defined, indicating how close the collapse is. Although PerPot was originally developed to analyse physiological adaptation processes (see Mester, Hartmann, Niessen & Perl, 2000) it is independent of the particular kinds of load and performance, äs well äs of the meaning of time units (Perl, 2005). For example, it has been used to model the performance (understood äs the effectiveness) of a team in a game of sport. In this case, the game is understood äs a Symmetrie process of load-performance-interaction (Perl, 2006). To satisfy the requirements of load and performance data for using the PerPot an exhaustive and detailed follow-up of participants during the training period is re-quired. The aim of the present study was to compare the classical repetition-based approach with the differential training approach for improving specific difficulty ele-ments of aerobic gymnastics in which muscular strength is a determining factor.
© Copyright 2010 Sportinformatik gestern, heute morgen. Festschrift zu Ehren von Prof. Jürgen Perl. Veröffentlicht von Feldhaus, Ed. Czwalina. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.