Combination of Agility and Plyometric Training Provides Similar Training Benefits as Combined Balance and Plyometric Training in Young Soccer Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".