The effectiveness of different ankle strengthening training programs on performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of different ankle strengthening training programs: eccentric, concentric, and resistance bands, on performance of university level sedentary males. METHODS: Sixty-three males between the ages of 18 and 26 years were randomized to either eccentric isokinetic (N.=21), concentric isokinetic (N.=21), and resistance bands ankle strengthening groups (N.=21). Training was performed three days a week, for eight weeks for both sides of ankle. Each program was made progressively harder by increasing the number of repetitions or sets. Measurements evaluating strength, balance and jumping performance were repeated pre, post and at one month (follow-up) after training. RESULTS: Statistical significance was observed for concentric evertor strength for both sides of the ankle for all groups after training (P<0.05). In addition, statistically significant increases were seen in jumping performance for all groups and dynamic balance for eccentric and concentric groups (P<0.05), with the concentric being statistically higher compared to the resistance bands group for all parameters (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Ankle isokinetic strength (eccentric, concentric) training is more effective than resistance bands regarding improvement on strength, explosive strength, and dynamic balance. Ankle isokinetic strength training, which includes evertor and invertor muscles, improves performance, especially when applied concentrically. Therefore, the proper strengthening of ankle muscles will prevent the re-injury of ankles with individuals returning to activities.
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 | 0.002 | 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".