Effect of Long-term Isometric Training on Core/Torso Stiffness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although core stiffness enhances athletic performance traits, controversy exists regarding the effectiveness of isometric vs. dynamic core training methods. This study aimed to determine whether long-term changes in stiffness can be trained, and if so, what is the most effective method. Twenty-four healthy male subjects (23 ± 3 years; 1.8 ± 0.06 m; 77.5 ± 10.8 kg) were recruited for passive and active stiffness measurements before and after a 6-week core training intervention. Twelve subjects (22 ± 2 years; 1.8 ± 0.08 m; 78.3 ± 12.3 kg) were considered naive to physical and core exercise. The other 12 subjects (24 ± 3 years; 1.8 ± 0.05 m; 76.8 ± 9.7 kg) were Muay Thai athletes (savvy). A repeated-measures design compared core training methods (isometric vs. dynamic, with a control group) and subject training experience (naive vs. savvy) before and after a 6-week training period. Passive stiffness was assessed on a "frictionless" bending apparatus and active stiffness assessed through a quick release mechanism. Passive stiffness increased after the isometric training protocol. Dynamic training produced a smaller effect, and as expected, there was no change in the control group. Active stiffness did not change in any group. Comparisons between subject and training groups did not reveal any interactions. Thus, an isometric training approach was superior in terms of enhancing core stiffness. This is important since increased core stiffness enhances load bearing ability, arrests painful vertebral micromovements, and enhances ballistic distal limb movement. This may explain the efficacy reported for back and knee injury reduction.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".