The relationship between lower-body stiffness and dynamic performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Greater levels of lower-body stiffness have been associated with improved outcomes for a number of physical performance variables involving rapid stretch-shorten cycles. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between several measures of lower-body stiffness and physical performance variables typically evident during team sports in female athletes. Eighteen female athletes were assessed for quasi-static stiffness (myometry) for several isolated muscles in lying and standing positions. The muscles included the medial gastrocnemius (MedGast), lateral gastrocnemius, soleus, and Achilles tendon. Dynamic stiffness during unilateral hopping was also assessed. Participants were separated into relatively stiff and compliant groups for each variable. A number of significant differences in performance were evident between stiff and compliant subjects. When considering the quasi-static stiffness of the MedGast in lying and standing positions, relatively stiff participants recorded significantly superior results during agility, bounding, sprinting, and jumping activities. Stiffness as assessed by hopping did not discriminate between performance ability in any test. Relationships highlighted by MedGast results were supported by further significant differences in eccentric utilisation ratio and drop jump results between stiff and compliant groups for the lateral gastrocnemius and soleus in lying and standing positions. Higher levels of lower-body stiffness appear to be advantageous for females when performing rapid and (or) repeated stretch-shorten cycle movements, including sprinting, bounding, and jumping. Further, the stiffness of the MedGast is of particular importance during the performance of these activities. It is important for practitioners working with athletes in sports that rely upon these activities for success to consider stiffness assessment and modification.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".