MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793255073 · doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000002425

Effects of Contrast Strength vs. Plyometric Training on Lower-Limb Explosive Performance, Ability to Change Direction and Neuromuscular Adaptation in Soccer Players

2018· article· en· W2793255073 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersMinistère de l'Education Nationale, de l'Enseignement Superieur et de la Recherche
KeywordsPlyometricsStretch shortening cycleSprintExplosive strengthSquatPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyVertical jumpMathematicsJumpJumpingMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hammami, M, Gaamouri, N, Shephard, RJ, and Chelly, MS. Effects of contrast strength vs. plyometric training on lower-limb explosive performance, ability to change direction and neuromuscular adaptation in soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 33(8): 2094-2103, 2019-The aim was to compare the effects of 2 differing 8-week in-season strength training programs (contrast strength training [CST] vs. plyometric training [PT]) on selected performance tests (5 and 40 m sprints, S 4 × 5 m change of direction test, squat jump [SJ] and countermovement jump [CMJ], leg peak power on a cycle-ergometer force-velocity test, 1 repetition maximal half-squat, and electromyographic [EMG] activity of the vastus lateralis, vastus medialis, and rectus femoris muscles during vertical jump tests). Forty male soccer players (age = 15.8 ± 0.4 years; body mass = 58.8 ± 6.3 kg; body height = 1.74 ± 0.06 m; body fat = 10.5 ± 1.9%) were divided between a contrast strength group (CSG, n = 14), plyometric group (PG, n = 14), and control group (CG, n = 12). Both training programs enhanced sprint performance (p < 0.001 in 5 m; p ≤ 0.05 in 40 m) and change of direction test scores (p < 0.001) relative to controls. The plyometric group and CSG increased SJ height relative to the CG, with a slightly greater response in CSG compared with PG (p ≤ 0.05). Most CMJ scores increased significantly in both CSG and PG relative to the CG, with no intergroup differences in training response. Most force-velocity scores increased significantly in the CSG relative to PG and CG. The EMG parameters also increased in the CSG relative to both PG and CG. In summary, most measures of athletic performance in male soccer players were enhanced after CST and PT. However, the improvement of physical performance was better with 8 weeks of CST than with PT. Thus, coaches should be encouraged to include CST as an element of in-season conditioning.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.725
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it