Running Velocity And Its Association To Hamstrings And Quadriceps Function In Male University Soccer Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The physiological demands of collegiate soccer involve repeated bouts of sprinting and high intensity running throughout competition. Running velocity can be impacted by both hamstrings and quadriceps function. However, the association between running velocity and muscular performance, specifically the ratio in performance between muscle groups, has yet to be fully explored in male university soccer players. PURPOSE: To examine the association between running velocity and both quadricep and hamstring muscular function in healthy male university soccer players. METHODS: Nineteen healthy male university soccer players with an age of (mean ± SD) 19.2 ± 0.94 years old, a weight of 76.6 ± 6.2 kg, a height of 179.1 ± 7.3 cm, a body fat % of 13.6 ± 6.6 and a BMI of 24.0 ± 2.4 volunteered for this study. Quadricep and hamstring muscular function was examined using a Biodex Isokinetic SystemTM. Maximal force production was examined using knee flexion and extension. Participants completed three maximal muscular contractions for each movement, with the average of three performances used for analysis. Peak torque production (Nm), the hamstring-to-quadricep ratio (%) and leg symmetry (%) were calculated for analyses. Running velocity was examined at 5 m and 30 m distances with the use of an electronic wireless timing system (TCI-System, Brower Timing System). Participants performed two attempts, with their fastest time being used for analysis. A Pearson correlation coefficient was utilized to examine the association between muscular function and running speed. RESULTS: Associations were observed between hamstrings symmetry and running velocity at 5 m (r = -0.24, p > 0.05) and 30 m (r = -0.47, p < 0.001). Peak hamstrings torque production displayed associations with 5 m running velocity (-0.22, p > 0.05) and 30 m (r = -0.13, p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: When examining lower body muscular force production, and its association to running velocity, indices of hamstrings performance may be an important component for practitioners to monitor within make university soccer 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".