Influence of Strength, Sprint Running, and Combined Strength and Sprint Running Training on Short Sprint Performance in Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess the degree of transference of 6 weeks of full squat vs. full squat plus sprint running training to short (ranged from 0-10 to 0-30 m) sprint running performance in non-athletes. We hypothesized that a speed-full-squat training regimen could enhance squat strength and power with simultaneous improvements in short sprint performance. 122 physically active adults (age: 20.5±2.5 years; body mass: 65.8±6.1 kg; height: 1.71±0.08 m) were randomly divided into 4 groups: full squat training (n=36), combined full squat and sprint training (n=32), speed training only (n=34) and non-training control group (n=20). Each training group completed 2 sessions per week over 6 weeks, while the control group performed only their normal physical activity. Sprint performance was improved after sprint running or full squat training alone (1.7% and 1.8% P<0.05, respectively), however larger enhancements (2.3%; P<0.01) were observed after the combined full squat plus sprint training intervention. These results suggest that in recreationally active adults, combined full squat and sprint training provides a greater stimulus for improving sprint performance than either modality alone.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".