Physiological and Performance Correlates of Squash Physical Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The physiological and performance attributes of elite squash players were investigated. Thirty-one players (21 males, world ranking [WR] 42-594; 10 females, WR 7-182) completed a battery of fitness tests which included an aerobic squash-specific physical performance test (SPPT), repeated-sprint ability (RSA), change-of-direction speed (COD), acceleration (5-m sprint), body composition and force development (countermovement jump) assessments. The SPPT provided a finishing lap score, V̇O2max, average movement economy and the lap corresponding to a blood lactate concentration of 4 mM.L-1. Players were ranked and assigned to HIGH or LOW performance tiers. Two-way ANOVA (performance level*sex) revealed higher ranked players performed better (p < 0.05) for SPPT final lap (d = 0.35), 4 mM.L-1 lap (d = 0.52) and COD (d = 0.60). SPPT displayed a ‘very-large’ correlation with 4 mM.L-1 lap (r = 0.86), ‘large’ correlations with COD (r = 0.79), RSA (r = 0.79), sum-of-7 skinfolds (r = 0.71) and V̇O2max (r = 0.69), and a ‘trivial’ correlation with average movement economy (r = 0.02). Assessments of cardiovascular fitness (i.e. 4 mM.L-1 lap), RSA, COD and body composition appear highly pertinent for performance profiling of squash players. Regular, submaximal assessment of the 4 mM.L-1 lap during the SPPT may offer a practical athlete monitoring approach for elite squash players.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".