The Effects of Interday Rest on Adaptation to 6 Weeks of Plyometric Training in Young Soccer Players
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
The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of short-term plyometric training interposed with 24 or 48 hours of rest between training sessions on explosive and endurance adaptations in young soccer players. A total of 166 players, between 10 and 17 years of age, were randomly divided into 3 groups: a control group (CG; n = 55) and 2 plyometric training groups with 24 hours (PT24; n = 54) and 48 hours (PT48; n = 57) of rest between training sessions. Before and after intervention, players were measured in squat jump, countermovement jump, 20 (RSI20) cm drop jump reactive strength index, broad long jump, 20-m sprint time, 10 × 5-m agility time, 20-m multistage shuttle run test, and sit-and-reach test. The plyometric training program was applied during 6 weeks, 2 sessions per week, with a load from 140 to 260 jumps per session, replacing some soccer-specific drills. After intervention, the CG did not show significant performance changes. PT24 and PT48 groups showed a small-to-moderate significant improvement in all performance tests (p < 0.001), with no differences between treatments. Although it has been recommended that plyometric drills should not be conducted on consecutive days, the study shows that plyometric training applied twice weekly on consecutive or nonconsecutive days results in similar explosive and endurance adaptations in young male soccer players.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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