MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963650292 · doi:10.3389/fphys.2019.01026

Combined Resistance and Plyometric Training Is More Effective Than Plyometric Training Alone for Improving Physical Fitness of Pubertal Soccer Players

2019· article· en· W2963650292 on OpenAlexaff
Firas Zghal, Serge S. Colson, Grégory M. Blain, David Behm, Urs Granacher, Anis Chaouachi

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Physiology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersUniversität PotsdamDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsPlyometricsSprintIsometric exercisePhysical therapyResistance trainingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationJumpMathematicsMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PhysiologySame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207