Post-activation performance enhancement of dynamic stretching and heavy load warm-up strategies in elite tennis players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the potential post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) effects of two different warm-up strategies, involving dynamic stretching (DS) or heavy load leg press (HL) on several key physical qualities in tennis players. METHODS: Twenty-six elite male tennis players (age: 19.22 ± 4.20 years; body mass: 67.37 ± 8.19 kg; height: 1.77 ± 0.07 m) performed both warm-ups, with 48-hours between protocols (DS and HL), performed in a randomized order. Pre- and post-tests included: countermovement jump, 5-m and 10-m sprint, 5-0-5 agility test, and hip extension and flexion range-of-motion which were performed before and after DS and HL warm-up protocols. RESULTS: The DS warm-up led to substantial improvements in 5-m and 10-m sprint, 5-0-5 agility test, countermovement jump, and also to higher hip flexion range-of-motion. The HL warm-up caused impairments in 5-m and 10-m sprints, but improvements in 5-0-5 agility test, countermovement jump and hip extension range-of-motion. Compared to HL, DS warm-up induced possibly to likely positive effects on 5-m and 10-m linear sprint performance, as well as in hip flexion range-of-motion. Nevertheless, no differences in performance improvements in 5-0-5 agility test, countermovement jump and hip extension range-of-motion were found when comparing DS and HL warm-up protocols. CONCLUSION: DS seems to be more effective than HL when performing a short warm-up protocol in elite tennis players.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".