The acute effect of vibration training on leg press performance is modulated by and interaction of frequency, soft tissue stiffness and leg fat content.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twelve male subjects aged 20-30 were recruited in order to determine whether leg muscle stiffness (rectus femoris, biceps femoris, tibialis anterior and gastrocnemius) and segmental leg fat percentages have an effect on the number of leg press repetitions performed after being subjected to four separate vibration treatments of varying strength (30Hz, 35Hz, 40Hz and 50Hz). Muscle stiffness was determined by an unexpected leg drop and examining the logarithmic rate of decay of the oscillations produced with use of accelerometers. Relative leg segment fat content was determined using a skinfold measurement at the thigh and calf. Subjects performed maximum number of leg press repetitions at 70% of their one repetition maximum after exposure to each vibration treatment. A type II multi-way ANOVA with a Tukey post-hoc test was used to identify differences between groups. Significant differences existed between frequency of vibration treatments, segment leg fat content and leg press repetitions performed. There were significant interactions between muscle stiffness and leg fat content as they affect the outcome measure of leg press repetitions. Likewise between type of vibration treatment and leg fat content as they affect the outcome of leg press repetitions. These results may aid individuals interested in maximizing performance for a short-term, high intensity event. This may also provide insight into interpersonal differences affected by vibration.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".