EFEITOS DO MÉTODO PILATES EM ATLETAS DE ALTO RENDIMENTO ASSOCIADOS A DOR, RISCO DE LESÃO E ESTRESSE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerando o potencial efeito benefico do pilates e a escassez de publicacoes voltadas para o esporte de alto rendimento, esse estudo teve como objetivo analisar os efeitos do metodo pilates associados a dor, risco de lesoes e reacao ao estresse cronico no esporte em atletas de alto rendimento, os quais foram submetidos a um programa de exercicios de pilates no solo. A amostra final foi composta por 8 atletas de alto rendimento (selecao brasileira de ginastica aerobica, ambos os generos). Aqueles que nao comparecessem a 90% das sessoes ou desistissem seriam excluidos. Foram realizadas avaliacoes inicial e final utilizando um instrumento especifico (idade; demanda; escala visual analogica da dor; restricao da atividade e participacao social; avaliacao funcional envolvendo agachamento bipodal, flexao de quadril em pe, ritmo lombopelvico, ponte com extensao de joelho unilateral, goniometria de rotacao de tronco e ombros, quadrupede, straight leg raise, roll up, swan, mermaid, leg pull front e side lift); testes isometricos de prancha lateral, flexao anterior e extensao de tronco; o Questionario de prontidao para o esporte com foco nas lesoes musculoesqueleticas; o questionario McGILL de dor; e o questionario de Burnout para atletas. Os exercicios foram realizados 3 vezes por semana, com duracao de 45 minutos, durante 8 semanas. Apos a analise dos dados (teste de Wilcoxon com p significativo < 0,05), observou-se uma evolucao positiva nas variaveis da avaliacao funcional (p=0,011), nos testes isometricos anterior e posterior (p=0,012) e lateral direita e esquerda (p=0,011), na dor (p=0,042) e no estresse cronico (p=0,011), nao havendo diferenca no risco de lesoes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".