Eight Weeks of Plyometric Training Improves Ability to Change Direction and Dynamic Postural Control in Female Basketball Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the effect of 8 weeks of plyometric training the ability to change direction and postural control in female basketball players. 25 national level female basketball players aged 18 to 27 years participated in the study. Volunteers were randomly assigned to an experimental group (n = 13) who replaced a part of their standard regimen by plyometric training twice weekly for 8 weeks, and a control group (n = 12) who continued their usual in-season training program. Before and after the intervention, the ability to change direction, and postural control were assessed by force platform under both static and dynamic conditions (with the eyes open and then closed). Isokinetic testing was also performed to calculate the Hamstring/Quadriceps (H/Q) strength ratio. The intervention improved ability to change direction (p ≤ 0.001, d = 1.51) and shortened path length (p = 0.038, d = 0.937) during static balance. However, it did not yield significant inter-group differences in postural control in the antero-posterior plane. The stance in the medio-lateral plane seems the most responsive to the intervention, with reductions in surface area (p = 0.012, d = 0.285), velocity with the eyes closed (p = 0.031, d = 0.968) and path length with the eyes open (p = 0.029, d = 0.968). The intervention did not change the H/Q ratio at the two speeds tested (60°.s-1, 120°.s-1). In summary, the addition of 8 weeks plyometric training to the usual in-season basketball regimen of top-level female basketball players enhanced their ability to change direction and reduced the risk of falls and injuries by improving postural control, but did not increase the H/Q measure of knee stability.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".