Effect of incline versus block heel-raise exercise on foot muscle strength and vertical jump performance – an 11-week randomized resistance training study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strengthening the toe flexors and ankle plantar flexors may improve vertical jump performance. One exercise that may be effective for concurrently strengthening these muscles is heel-raises performed on an incline. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of incline versus conventional (block) heel-raise exercise on hallux and II-V digit flexor strength, vertical jump performance, and ankle plantar flexor strength. Thirty-three female volleyball players were randomly allocated to perform incline (n = 17) or block (n = 16) heel-raise exercise for 11-weeks. Participants’ toe flexor strength, countermovement jump, approach jump, and ankle plantar flexor strength were assessed before, after 7 weeks, and after 11 weeks of exercise. There were no significant time-by-group interactions for any variable (p > 0.05). However, both groups improved their hallux flexor strength (Δ0.27 ± 0.50 N·kg−1; p < 0.05), and vertical countermovement (Δ1.2 ± 2.3 cm; p < 0.05) and approach (Δ1.9 ± 2.6 cm; p < 0.05) jump height from pre- to post-test. No changes were observed in the ankle plantar flexor or II-V digit flexor strength (n > 0.05). Both incline and conventional heel-raises improve toe flexor strength. Practitioners seeking to improve individuals’ foot function may consider incorporating incline or block heel-raises.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".