Are there differences in anaerobic relative muscle power between upper and lower limbs in adolescent swimmers: A blinded study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Success in speed swimming depends on the efficiency of the anaerobic system for the production of cellular energy, especially during muscle power production. In the adolescent athletes much is unknown with regards to the relationships between relative power of upper and lower limbs with speed swimming performance. The aim the present study was to identify differences in relative muscle power of upper and lower limbs in adolescent swimmers and relate these to speed swimming performances. Sixty adolescents, of both sexes (50% female, 50% male, 30 swimmers and 30 controls), were recruited. The relative upper limb power (ULP[W/kg]) was assessed by a medicine ball test and the relative lower limbs power (LLP[W/kg]) by a jump test on a strength platform. Lean mass of the upper and lower limbs was assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) (g). Sport performance was assessed during national level competition (50-m swimming time [in seconds]). Biological maturation (BM) was indexed by years from attainment of peak height velocity. ULP(W/kg) was higher than LLP(W/kg) in both groups (p < 0.05). Upper and lower limb lean mass (g) correlated significantly with ULP(W/kg) and LLP(W/kg) in both groups (p < 0.05). ULP(W/kg) and LLP(W/kg) correlated with 50-m swimming performance (s), in both sexes (p < 0.05). Advanced BM was associated with ULP(W/kg) and LLP(W/kg) in both groups (p < 0.05), and with 50-m swimming performance (s) in both sexes (p < 0.05). We concluded that ULP(W/kg) is higher than LLP (W/kg) in adolescent swimmers. Upper and lower limb lean mass and BM were both positively associated with increased ULP (W/kg) and LLP (W/kg).
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".