Physical and physiological differences of backs and forwards from the Brazilian National rugby union team
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare backs and forwards rugby union players recruited to a National team in the following physical and physiological indicators: anthropometrics, squat jump (SJ), countermovement jump (CMJ), 10- and 30-meter sprint, resting heart rate variability (HRV), Yo-Yo Test and heart rate (HR) at 2 minutes of test. METHODS: The measurements were performed on the first day of a training camp planned to finely select the players who would participate in the 2016 America's Rugby Championship. The magnitude-based inference was used in the comparisons. RESULTS: Backs demonstrated almost certainly greater distance in the Yo-Yo Test (backs: 2305.9±231.3 meters; forwards: 1802.4±361.2 meters), higher vertical jump height in both SJ and CMJ (SJ: 44.0±5.3 cm vs. 37.6±5.4 cm; CMJ: 46.1±5.0 cm vs. 40.0±5.5 cm, for backs and forwards respectively), and superior sprint velocity in 10- and 30-m (10-m: 6.02±0.23 m.s-1 vs. 5.51±0.34 m.s-1; 30-m: 7.46±0.25 m.s-1 vs. 6.89±0.37 m.s-1, for backs and forwards respectively) than the forwards. In contrast, forwards were almost certainly taller and heavier than backs, and displayed higher sprint momentum in 10- and 30-meters (10 meters: 513.0±51.6 kg.m.s-1 vs. 598.4±53.1 kg.m.s-1; 30 meters: 635.3±56.1 kg.m.s-1 vs. 749.0±70.5 kg.m.s-1, for backs and forwards respectively). The submaximal HR in the first 2-minutes of the Yo-Yo test was likely lower in the backs than in the forwards (77.6±5.1% of the maximal HR vs. 81.3±5.4% of the maximal HR for backs and forwards respectively), while HRV indices were not different between backs and forwards. CONCLUSIONS: Playing position appears to be determined by the players' physical and physiological characteristics in top-level rugby union, and the submaximal HR measured during Yo-Yo test can be a simple alternative to discriminate backs and forwards.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".