The training-specific adaptations resulting from resistance training, gymnastics and plyometric training, and non-training in adolescent athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although previous research has investigated the training-specific adaptations to training in adults, there is a paucity of research aimed at investigating these adaptations in adolescent athletes. As such, adolescent athletes’ training-specific adaptations from three different training interventions were investigated in this study. Sixteen adolescent athletes participated in this study, whereby eight performed both training interventions and eight the non-training control. Pre- and post-testing was performed for each intervention with the testing battery: ultrasonography of the vastus lateralis and lateral gastrocnemius, countermovement jump, squat jump, and isometric mid-thigh pull. The resistance training group had large significant increases in isometric mid-thigh pull relative peak force ( p < 0.01, g = 0.85 (−0.01, 1.71)) and vastus lateralis fascicle length ( p = 0.04, g = 0.94 (0.07, 1.80)). The gymnastics and plyometric group demonstrated large significant changes in vastus lateralis pennation angle ( p = 0.03, g = −0.94 (−1.81, −0.08)) and fascicle length ( p = 0.03, g = 1.07 (0.19, 1.95)), and moderate significant increases in lateral gastrocnemius thickness ( p = 0.01, g = 0.63 (−0.21, 1.47)) and eccentric leg stiffness ( p = 0.03, g = 0.60 (−0.24, 1.44)). No significant changes were observed for any variables in the non-training group. The resistance training evoked increases in lower-body force producing capabilities, whereas the gymnastics and plyometric training evoked changes in muscle structure and inherent muscle qualities.
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".