Reliability of a Novel Testing Protocol to Assess Upper-Body Strength Qualities in Elite Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability of an isometric-bench-press (IBP) test performed across 4 elbow angles and a ballistic bench throw (BBT) using a relative load, as well as evaluating the reliability of the dynamic strength index (DSI: BBT peak force/IBP peak force). METHODS: Twenty-four elite male athletes performed the IBP and a 45% 1-repetition-maximum BBT on 2 separate days with 48 h between testing occasions. Peak force, peak power, peak velocity, peak displacement, and peak rate of force development (PRFD) were assessed using a force plate and linear position transducer. Reliability was assessed by intraclass correlation (ICC), coefficient of variation (%CV) and typical error. RESULTS: Performance measures in the BBT, such as peak force, peak velocity, peak power, and peak displacement, were considered reliable (ICC = .85-.92, %CV = 1.7-3.3), while PRFD was not (ICC = .43, %CV = 4.1). Similarly, for the IBP, peak force across all angles was considered reliable (ICC = .89-.97, %CV = 1.2-1.6), while PRFD was not (ICC = .56-.65, %CV = 0.5-7.6). The DSI was also reliable (ICC = .93, %CV = 3.5). CONCLUSIONS: Performance measures such as peak force in the IBP and BBT are reliable when assessing upper-body pressing-strength qualities in elite male athletes. Furthermore, the DSI is reliable and could potentially be used to detect qualities of relative deficiency and guide specific training interventions.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".