Upper-Body Strength Measures and Pop-Up Performance of Stronger and Weaker Surfers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parsonage, J, Secomb, JL, Sheppard, JM, Ferrier, BK, Dowse, RA, and Nimphius, S. Upper-body strength measures and pop-up performance of stronger and weaker surfers. J Strength Cond Res 34(10): 2982-2989, 2020-The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the reliability of the isometric push-up (IPU), dynamic push-up (DPU), and force plate pop-up (FP POP) as measures of upper-body isometric and dynamic strength qualities in surfing athletes. Furthermore, the study aimed to compare pop-up performance between stronger and weaker surfers. Eighteen female (n = 9) and male (n = 9) surfers (age = 28.1 ± 6.4 years, mass = 69.6 ± 10.4 kg, and height = 172.5 ± 6.7 cm) completed a battery of upper-body strength assessments, of which exhibited high between-day reliability: IPU, (coefficient of variation [CV%] = 4.7, intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.96), DPU (CV% = 5.0, ICC = 0.90), and FP POP (CV% = 4.4, ICC = 0.90). Participants were subsequently split into stronger (n = 9) and weaker (n = 9) surfers based on normalized peak force (PF) attained in the IPU. Pop-up performance was measured both in the water and during the FP POP and was referred to as time to pop-up (TTP). Significant between-group differences were observed for normalized PF during IPU (d = 1.59, p < 0.01) and DPU (d = 0.94 p = 0.04). Although not significant, there was a large magnitude difference in FP POP (d = 0.80, p = 0.08) and FP TTP (d = 0.85, p = 0.07). Significant correlations were identified between normalized IPU PF and normalized DPU FP (r = 0.69, p = 0.03) and FP TTP (r = 0.73, p = 0.02) in the stronger group. The weaker group exhibited a significant inverse correlation between normalized IPU PF and in-water TTP (r = -0.77, p < 0.01). The results suggest improvements in pop-up performance may be elicited by improving dynamic strength for stronger surfers, whereas pop-up performance in weaker surfers may be elicited by improving maximum strength. The upper-body strength assessments provided a novel insight into strength qualities that are associated with in-water performance of surfers (TTP).
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".