MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900524811 · doi:10.3389/fphys.2018.01611

Combination of Agility and Plyometric Training Provides Similar Training Benefits as Combined Balance and Plyometric Training in Young Soccer Players

2018· article· en· W2900524811 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

VenueFrontiers in Physiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersUniversität PotsdamDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsPlyometricsPhysical therapyBalance (ability)Balance testBalance trainingSprintPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMulti-stage fitness testIsometric exerciseDynamic balanceStorkMedicinePhysical fitnessJumpEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Studies that combined balance and resistance training induced larger performance improvements compared with single mode training. Agility exercises contain more dynamic and sport-specific movements compared with balance training. Thus, the purpose of this study was to contrast the effects of combined balance and plyometric training with combined agility and plyometric training and an active control on physical fitness in youth. Methods: Fifty-seven male soccer players aged (10-12 years) participated in an 8-week training program (2 x week). They were randomly assigned to a balance-plyometric (BPT: n=21), agility-plyometric (APT: n=20) or control group (n=16). Measures included proxies of muscle power (countermovement jump [CMJ], triple-hop-test [THT]), muscle strength (reactive strength index [RSI], maximum voluntary isometric contraction [MVIC] of handgrip, back extensors, knee extensors), agility (4x9-m shuttle run, Illinois agility test with and without the ball), balance (Standing Stork, Y-Balance), and speed (10-30 m sprints). Results: Significant time x group interactions were found for CMJ, hand grip MVIC force, ICODTwithout a ball, agility (4x9 m), standing stork balance, Y-balance, 10 and 30-m sprint. The APT pre- to post-test measures displayed large ES improvements for hand grip MVIC force, ICODT without a ball, agility test, CMJ, standing stork balance test, Y-balance test but only moderate ES improvements with the 10 and 30 m sprints. The BPT group showed small (30 m sprint), moderate (hand grip MVIC, ICODTwithout a ball) and large ES (agility [4x9m] test, CMJ, standing stork balance test, Y-balance) improvements respectively. Conclusion: In conclusion, whereas both groups provided significant improvements, the dynamic balance challenges associated with agility training provided greater ES benefits in 6 of 8 significant measures. It is recommended that youth incorporate balance exercises into their training and progress to agility with their strength and power training.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.242 · 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