Differences in Trunk Strength Between Weightlifters and Wrestlers
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
Investigations of trunk strength with high-level athletes are limited. The purpose of this study was to compare maximal concentric isokinetic trunk extension and flexion torque, power, and strength ratios between high-level weightlifters (n = 20), wrestlers (n = 20) and a control (n = 25) population. Isokinetic dynamometry was used to evaluate peak torque, power and strength ratios during seated trunk extension/flexion actions at 60°/s and 180°/s. There were no significant anthropometric differences between groups. Overall, trunk isokinetic force variables as a function of the increase in angular velocity, showed a decrease in peak torque, but an increase in power (athletes and controls). Compared to the control group, athletes demonstrated significantly higher trunk extension torque (+67.05 N·m, ES = 0.81) and power (+49.28 N·m, ES = 0.82) at 60°/s and 180°/s, respectively. Athletes produced significantly greater trunk flexion-extension ratios at 60°/s and 180°/s (ES = 0.80-0.47) than controls. Weightlifters and wrestlers exhibited significantly higher extensor than flexor torque at all angular velocities. Weightlifters demonstrated greater torque (ES = 0.79) than wrestlers at 60°/s. The wrestlers' average power was significantly higher (ES = 0.43) than weightlifters at 180°/s. There were no significant ratio differences between wrestlers (66.23%) and weightlifters (72.06%). Weightlifters had stronger extensor muscles at 60°/s, whereas wrestlers had higher power at 180°/s for extensor muscles. It was postulated that the extensor muscles were stronger than the flexors to ensure trunk stabilisation, and for prevention of injuries. These differences seem to be associated to the movements that occur in each sport in terms of both muscle actions and contractile forces.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it