Strength development according with age and position: a 10-year study of 570 soccer players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: The purpose of this study was to compare the isokinetic peak torque profiles from the quadriceps and hamstrings muscles during concentric and eccentric contractions in elite Brazilian soccer players across different field positions and age categories. Our hypothesis was that soccer players from different field positions are subjected to different ageing-related effects on their isokinetic peak torque. METHODS: This is a retrospective study based on professional elite-level soccer players between the years 2009 and 2019. It included 570 adult males who played for at least 5 years on first or second Brazilian divisions. Playing positions were divided as: goalkeepers, defenders, sidebacks, midfielders and forwards. Age categories were also divided as: G1 (17-20 years old), G2 (21-24 years old), G3 (25-28 years old), G4 (29-32 years old) and G5 (33 years old or more). RESULTS: =0.021) on torque of concentric extensors; mainly from midfielders and goalkeepers with 29 years or more. CONCLUSIONS: Soccer players from different field positions are subjected to different ageing related effects on their muscular performance during their career special attention should be given to these players to avoid reduction in physical performance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".