Kinetic analysis of push-up exercises: a systematic review with practical recommendations
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Push-ups represent one of the simplest and most popular strengthening exercise. The aim of this study was to systematically review and critically appraise the literature on the kinetics-related characteristics of different types of push-ups, with the objective of optimising training prescription and exercise-related load. A systematic search was conducted in the electronic databases PubMed, Google Scholar and Science Direct up to April 2018. Studies that reported kinetic data (e.g. initial and peak-force supported by the upper-limbs, impact-force, peak-flexion-moment of the elbow-joint, rate of propulsive- and impact-, and vertebral-joint compressive-forces) related to push-ups and included trained, recreational and untrained participants, were considered. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme scale. From 5290 articles retrieved in the initial search, only 26 studies were included in this review. Kinetic data for 46 push-up variants were assessed. A limitation of the current review is that the relationship between our findings and actual clinical or practical consequences is not statistically proven but can only be inferred from our critical descriptive approach. Overall, this review provides detailed data on specific characteristics and intensities of push-up variations, in order to optimise exercise prescription for training and rehabilitation purposes.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 it