The Effect of Standard Strength vs. Contrast Strength Training on the Development of Sprint, Agility, Repeated Change of Direction, and Jump in Junior Male Soccer Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hammami, M, Negra, Y, Shephard, RJ, and Chelly, MS. The effect of standard strength vs. contrast strength training on the development of sprint, agility, repeated change of direction, and jump in junior male soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 31(4): 901-912, 2017-The aim was to compare the impact of 2 differing strength training (ST) programs on the athletic performance of junior male soccer players at a critical phase during their competitive season. Participants aged 16.0 ± 0.5 years were randomly assigned between control (C, n = 12), standard ST (n = 16), and contrast strength training (CST, n = 16), each performed twice a week. Athletic performance was assessed before and after the intervention using 8 tests: 40-m sprint, 4 × 5-m sprint (S4 × 5), 9-3-6-3-9 m sprint with 180° turns (S180°), 9-3-6-3-9 m sprint with backward and forward running (SBF), repeated shuttle sprint ability (RSSA), repeated change of direction (RCOD), squat jump (SJ), and countermovement jump (CMJ). The control group's (CG) performance tended to improve in some tests and decrease in others, but these changes were not statistically significant. Both training programs enhanced all sprint performances relative to controls (p ≤ 0.05). The strength training group (SG) and the CST group (CSG) increased significantly in S180°, SBF, and S4 × 5 relative to CG, although the S4 × 5 also increased in CSG relative to SG (p ≤ 0.05). No intergroup difference of RSSA performance was observed. The RCOD parameters increased significantly in CSG relative to both SG and CG (p ≤ 0.05). The SJ and CMJ height increased significantly in both experimental groups (p < 0.000). We conclude that during the competitive season, some measures of athletic performance in male soccer players were increased more by 8 weeks of CST than by ST.
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) | 0.001 | 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".