Eccentric Resistance Training in Youth: A Survey of Perceptions and Current Practices by Strength and Conditioning Coaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eccentric resistance training (ERT) in youth is advocated for aiding performance and injury risk. However, research investigating the applied practices of ERT in youth is in its infancy. In this study, we surveyed the perceptions and practices of practitioners utilizing ERT in youth to provide an understanding of its current application in practice. METHODS: Sixty-four strength and conditioning coaches completed an online survey reporting their current use of ERT in youth using both open and closed questions. RESULTS: Coaches deemed the inclusion of ERT important in youth with its inclusion based upon factors such as maturation status, training age and strength levels. Coaches also displayed an awareness of the physiological responses to eccentric exercise in youth compared to adults. ERT was primarily used for injury prevention, with the majority of coaches using body-weight and tempo exercises. Furthermore, utilizing eccentric hamstrings exercises was reported as highly important. The frequency of ERT tended to increase in older age groups and coaches mainly prescribed self-selected rest intervals. Finally, the need for further research into the training guidelines of ERT in youth was highlighted, in which coaches require more information on how maturation influences training adaptations and the fatigue-recovery responses. CONCLUSION: Coaches emphasized the importance of including ERT for both performance and injury prevention factors in youth although further research is required to generate practical guidelines for coaches in order to support its inclusion within practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".