Plyometric exercise enhances twitch contractile properties but fails to improve voluntary rate of torque development in highly trained sprint athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Purpose: The objective of this study was to evaluate a plyometric conditioning activity (3 sets of 5 countermovement jumps, [CA]) for twitch properties and voluntary knee extension. Methods: After a familiarization session, fourteen highly trained sprint athletes, 12 men (23.25 ± 7.17 years) and 2 women (23.0 ± 2.8 years) performed 2 experiments, each in a randomized order (crossover design). In one experiment, the time‐course of twitch contractile properties was evaluated with and without the previous CA at 2, min intervals to 10 min of recovery. In the second session, maximal voluntary knee extension was evaluated at the same recovery intervals, for control and experimental condition in random order. Results: Mixed‐model ANOVA with Bonferroni post‐hoc revealed significant differences between pre‐test and 2 min (p < 0.01, ES = 0.42) and 4 min (p < 0.01, ES = 0.20) for peak twitch torque of quadriceps femoris muscles confirming postactivation potentiation [PAP] at these times. Twitch rate of torque development (RTD) was significantly greater than pre‐test value only at 2 min (p < 0.01, ES = 0.58) after the CA. Twitch contraction time and ½ relaxation time were not significantly difference from pre‐test values after the CA (p > 0.05). No significant difference was observed for voluntary RTD following CA. Conclusion: The plyometric CA increased twitch peak torque and RTD consistent with PAP; however, there was no effect of CA on voluntary RTD of knee extension at any time after the plyometric CA. Even with PAP confirmed, we observed that the CA fails to improve isometric RTD of quadriceps femoris muscles. Highlights A plyometric CA significantly increased twitch peak torque (at 2 and 4 min) and twitch rate of torque development (at 2 min) of quadriceps femoris muscles, indicating postactivation potentiation (PAP). No effect was observed for twitch contraction time and ½ relaxation time after the CA. No improvement was observed on voluntary rate of torque development evaluated at the same time intervals.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".