Eight weeks of dynamic stretching during warm‐ups improves jump power but not repeated or single sprint performance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is abundant research involving the acute effects of stretching on subsequent performance; however, there is little information on dynamic stretch training programmes on range of motion (ROM), power and speed measures. It was the objective of this research to examine the training consequences of active dynamic stretching (ADS) and static dynamic stretching (SDS). A repeated measures design compared the effects of 8 weeks of warm-ups incorporating two dynamic stretch modalities: ADS and SDS on squat jump (SJ), countermovement jump (CMJ), 20-m sprint performances and repeated sprint ability (RSA) and hip ROM in 37 male soccer players. SJ height (SDS: 4.6%; ADS: 5.3%; p <0.05), CMJ height (SDS: 5.3%; ADS: 3.4%; p<0.05), CMJ force (SDS: 7.2%; ADS: 12.7%; p<0.001) and CMJ peak power (SDS: 3.9%; ADS: 3.3%; p<0.05) increased significantly after SDS and ADS training compared to the control group (no significant change). Sprint performance and RSA were not affected by either of the dynamic stretch training regimens. The SDS and ADS training programmes elicited similar improvements in flexibility (SDS: 57.6%; ADS: 45.1%; p<0.01) compared to the non-significant changes in the control group. The inclusion of ADS and SDS within the regular warm-up of an 8-week training programme can improve not only flexibility but also jump power measures as well.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it