Combined Resistance and Plyometric Training Is More Effective Than Plyometric Training Alone for Improving Physical Fitness of Pubertal Soccer Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of combined resistance and plyometric/sprint training with plyometric/sprint training or typical soccer training alone on muscle strength and power, speed, change-of-direction ability in young soccer players. Thirty-one young (14.5 ± 0.52 years; Tanner stage 3-5) soccer players were randomly assigned to either a combined- (COMB, n=14), plyometric-training (PLYO, n=9) or an active control group (CONT, n=8). Two training sessions were added to the regular soccer training consisting of one session of light-load high-velocity resistance exercises combined with one session of plyometric/sprint training (COMB), two sessions of plyometric/sprint training (PLYO) or two soccer training sessions (CONT). Training volume was similar between the experimental groups. Before and after 7-weeks of training, peak torque, as well as absolute and relative (normalized to torque; RTDr) rate of torque development (RTD) during maximal voluntary isometric contraction of the knee extensors (KE) were monitored at time intervals from the onset of contraction to 250 ms. Jump height, sprinting speed at 5, 10, 20-m and change-of-direction ability performances were also assessed. There were no significant between–group baseline differences. Both COMB and PLYO significantly increased their jump height (∆14.3%; ES=0.94; ∆12.1%; ES=0.54 respectively) and RTD at mid to late phases but with greater within effect sizes in COMB in comparison with PLYO. However, significant increases in peak torque (∆16.9%; p<0.001; ES=0.58), RTD (∆44.3%; ES=0.71), RTDr (∆27.3%; ES=0.62) at early phases and sprint performance at 5-m (∆-4.7%; p<0.001; ES=0.73) were found in COMB without any significant pre-to-post change in PLYO and CONT groups. Our results suggest that COMB is more effective than PLYO or CONT for enhancing strength, sprint and jump performances.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".