Effects of Plyometric and Resistance Training on Muscle Strength, Explosiveness, and Neuromuscular Function in Young Adolescent Soccer Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
McKinlay, BJ, Wallace, P, Dotan, R, Long, D, Tokuno, C, Gabriel, D, and Falk, B. Effects of plyometric and resistance training on muscle strength, explosiveness, and neuromuscular function in young adolescent soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 32(11): 3039-3050, 2018-This study examined the effect of 8 weeks of free-weight resistance training (RT) and plyometric (PLYO) training on maximal strength, explosiveness, and jump performance compared with no added training (CON), in young male soccer players. Forty-one 11- to 13-year-old soccer players were divided into 3 groups (RT, PLYO, and CON). All participants completed isometric and dynamic (240°·s) knee extensions before and after training. Peak torque (pT), peak rate of torque development (pRTD), electromechanical delay (EMD), rate of muscle activation (Q50), m. vastus lateralis thickness (VLT), and jump performance were examined. Peak torque, pRTD, and jump performance significantly improved in both training groups. Training resulted in significant (p ≤ 0.05) increases in isometric pT (23.4 vs. 15.8%) and pRTD (15.0 vs. 17.6%), in RT and PLYO, respectively. During dynamic contractions, training resulted in significant increases in pT (12.4 and 10.8% in RT and PLYO, respectively), but not in pRTD. Jump performance increased in both training groups (RT = 10.0% and PLYO = 16.2%), with only PLYO significantly different from CON. Training resulted in significant increases in VLT (RT = 6.7% and PLYO = 8.1%). There were no significant EMD changes. In conclusion, 8-week free-weight resistance and plyometric training resulted in significant improvements in muscle strength and jump performance. Training resulted in similar muscle hypertrophy in the 2 training modes, with no clear differences in muscle performance. Plyometric training was more effective in improving jump performance, whereas free-weight RT was more advantageous in improving peak torque, where the stretch reflex was not involved.
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".