MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The Influence Of Menstrual Status On Lower Body Plyometric Performance In Female Rugby League Athletes

2023· article· en· W4387063086 on OpenAlexaff
Ella S. Smith, Jonathon Weakley, Alannah K. A. McKay, Rachel McCormick, Nicolin Tee, Megan A. Kuikman, Rachel Harris, Clare Minahan, Simon Buxton, Jessica Skinner, Kathryn E. Ackerman, Kirsty J. Elliott‐Sale, Trent Stellingwerff, Louise M. Burke

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsCanadian Sport Centre Pacific
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAthletesOvulationMenstrual cycleVertical jumpStretch shortening cyclePhysical therapyInternal medicineEndocrinologyHormonePhysiologyJumpingJump

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oestrogen may modulate force development through alterations to muscle contractile properties. However, whether menstrual cycle (MC) phase or hormonal contraceptive (HC) use influences plyometric performance is inconclusive, in part due to the poor assessment of hormonal profiles. PURPOSE: To examine plyometric performance across the MC and between naturally menstruating athletes and HC users, employing gold standard protocols regarding menstrual status. METHODS: Eighteen Tier 2-3 National Rugby League Indigenous Women’s Academy athletes [n = 7 naturally menstruating, 21 ± 4 yr, 71.5 ± 8.4 kg vs n = 11 HC users (n = 7 implant, n = 3 combined oral contraceptive pill, n = 1 injection), 22 ± 4 yr, 77.2 ± 12.8 kg], attended a 5-week training camp. Plyometric tests implementing 3 repetitions of the countermovement jump (CMJ) and squat jump (SJ) on a force plate were completed at MC phase 1 (low oestrogen/progesterone concentrations) and 4 (higher oestrogen/progesterone) by naturally menstruating athletes, with HC users tested at two equally spaced time points, avoiding the withdrawal bleed. MC phase was assessed via; onset of menstruation, 8 weeks of MC tracking, urinary ovulation kits and retrospective phase confirmation through serum oestrogen and progesterone concentrations. The highest jump at each test was analysed within individuals and between groups using linear mixed models. RESULTS: Jump height, force, velocity and rate of force development did not differ across MC phase or between groups (p > 0.05). However, naturally menstruating athletes produced greater impulse at 50 ms in phase 4 (37.9 ± 8.1 Ns) than phase 1 (37.2 ± 5.8 Ns, p = 0.045) during the SJ, although there were no differences at 100, 150 or 200 ms (p > 0.05). Additionally, relative mean power was greater in phase 4 (2.85 ± 0.45 W·kg-1) than phase 1 (2.44 ± 0.40 W·kg-1, p = 0.021) in the CMJ. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that MC phase and HC use may not alter absolute plyometric performance. However, MC phase may influence early (50 ms) force expression in the SJ and mean power output in the CMJ. Further research including other MC phases is required to fully understand the effects of oestrogen and elucidate underpinning mechanisms.This project was funded by the Australian Catholic University, Wu Tsai Human Performance Alliance and Australian Institute of Sport.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicSports Performance and Training→French-language works237,207→