The Effectiveness of Biological Maturation and Lean Mass in Relation to Muscle Strength Performance in Elite Young Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to identify the interactional relationships between maturation (biological age (BA)) and lean mass on strength development in young athletes from different sports. Using a cross-sectional study design, a sample of 64 young athletes (rowers, swimmers, jiu-jitsu, volleyball, soccer and tennis players) of both sexes (13.6 ± 1.17 years) were recruited. Body composition was assessed using dual energy bone densitometry with X-ray source (DEXA). Strength of upper limbs (ULS), force hand grip (HG), vertical jump (VJ) and jump against movement (CMJ) were recorded. BA was estimated from anthropometrics. BA relationships were identified with upper limb strength in all athletes, and with the lower limb strength of tennis players, only (p < 0.05). An interaction effect between lean mass and BA was found (η2p = 0.753), as was a local effect within the regression models (ƒ2 ≥ 0.33). Athletes with a higher concentration of lean mass had superior upper and lower limb strength (p < 0.05). Lean mass showed a local effect (ƒ2) greater than that associated with BA. Although maturation is related to strength development, the strength of the relationship is mitigated by the accrual of lean mass. Specifically, the local effect of lean mass on muscle strength is broader than that of maturation, especially for lower limb strength.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".