The Effects of Interday Rest on Adaptation to 6 Weeks of Plyometric Training in Young Soccer Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ramírez-Campillo, R, Meylan, CMP, Álvarez-Lepín, C, Henriquez-Olguín, C, Martinez, C, Andrade, DC, Castro-Sepúlveda, M, Burgos, C, Baez, EI, and Izquierdo, M. The effects of interday rest on adaptation to 6 weeks of plyometric training in young soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 29(4): 972–979, 2015—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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".