Analysis of vertical jump, rating of perceived exertion, delayed-onset muscle soreness, and muscular peak power in young male Brazilian football players submitted to plyometric and semi-squat training with weights
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzed the effects of plyometric and strength training on vertical jump (VJ), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS), and absolute (APP) and relative (RPP) muscle peak power in young male football players. Twenty-five participants were randomly divided into semi-squat training group (SSTG), plyometric training group (PTG), and control group (CG). The duration of the intervention was six weeks. VJ was analyzed with a computerized jumping platform. DOMS and RPE with the Borg’s Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Adapted Borg Scale (ABS), respectively. The SSTG showed improvements (p < 0.05) in countermovement jump (CMJ), squat jump (SJ), APP (3190.67 ± 338.49 W), and RPP (47.75 ± 5.01 W/kg). PTG showed improvements (p < 0.05) in SJ. In the intragroup comparations, SSTG, PTG, and CG showed an increase (p < 0.05) in RPE and DOMS. Between groups, PTG presented an increase (p < 0.05) on RPE and DOMS compared with SSTG and CG. CMJ presented strong correlations between APP and VJ, RPP, and VJ, and APP and RPP. SJ showed a higher positive correlation between all the physical variables. Only SSTG promoted an increase in both types of jumps, with a greater APP and RPP and a lower RPE and DOMS.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it