Investigation of the Effect of Vertimax V8 Elastic Resistance Platform and Classic Strength Training on Dynamic Balance in Basketball Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the effects on the dynamic balance of two different resistance training in male basketball players. 25 male basketball players who were over 18 participated in the study voluntarily. Participants were divided into two groups by using random sampling method as VertiMax strength training group and traditional strength training group (VertiMax, n=13; classic, n=12). Both training programs were administered 3 times a day for 6 weeks. In standing position, the dynamic balance values recorded on the right and left foot for 60 seconds were assessed by using EasyTech Libra Oscillating balance board. The scores used in the assessments were IBP (index of balance precision), recovery time right (return time of the visual helix balance from right side), and recovery time left (return time of the visual helix balance from left side). All tests were performed with visual feedback. Statistical analysis used three-factor mixed ANOVA. At the end of the training period, IBP (index of balance precision), recovery time right (return time of the visual helix balance from right side), recovery time left (return time of the visual helix balance from left side) showed that dynamic balance scores were similar in the VertiMax and classic training groups for right and left feet. VertiMax group in dynamic balance, the changes in IBP and recovery time right scores were found to be better. In both training groups, when the recovery time right values of the right and left feet were compared at the end of the process, it was seen that the rotation time from the right side of the visual helix motion area of the left leg was shorter (p<0.05). The results show that the VertiMax strength training included in the pre-season exercises positively affects participants’ balance performance.
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) | 0.002 | 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 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".