The influence of resistance bands on frontal plane knee mechanics during body-weight squat and vertical jump movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of wearing a resistance band around the distal thigh on frontal plane knee mechanics during bodyweight squat and jumping exercises. Three closed-kinetic-chain exercises were examined, including: (1) bodyweight squat, (2) countermovement jump, and (3) squat jump. For each exercise, three experimental conditions were tested: (1) control condition with no band; (2) light-tension band applied around the distal thighs; and (3) medium-tension band applied around the distal thighs. Two dependent measures were used for analyses: (1) knee width normalized to ankle width and (2) peak external knee moment. In the absence of any feedback, application of the resistance bands failed to promote 'neutral' knee alignment when squatting and jumping. The stiffest resistance band resulted in significantly lower (p = 0.002) peak-width index values during the ascent phase of the countermovement jump. Additionally, the use of the medium-tension band resulted in significantly larger (p = 0.002) peak knee abduction moments compared to the no bands condition during the descent portion of the bodyweight squat and countermovement jump exercises. These findings conflict with previous clinical case reports on the proprioceptive response induced by resistance bands.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".