Velocity–Load Jump Testing Predicts Acceleration Performance in Elite Speed Skaters: But Does Movement Specificity Matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In this study, we compared the influence of movement specificity during velocity-load jump testing to predict on-ice acceleration performance in elite speed skaters. METHODS: Elite long-track speed skaters (N = 27) performed velocity-load testing with 3 external loads during unilateral horizontal jumping, lateral jumping, and bilateral vertical countermovement jumping. For the unilateral tests, external load conditions were set to 10 N, 7.5% and 15% of external load relative to body weight. For the countermovement jumping, load conditions were body weight and 30% and 60% of external load relative to body weight. On-ice performance measures were obtained during maximal 50-m accelerations from a standing start, including maximal skating speed, maximal acceleration capacity, and maximum horizontal power. The 100-m split time from a 500-m race was also obtained. Regularized regression models were used to identify the most important predictors of on-ice acceleration performance. In addition to regularized regression coefficients, Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were calculated for all variables retained by the model to assess interrelationships between single predictors and on-ice performance measures. RESULTS: The countermovement jump with 30% of body mass demonstrated the strongest association with maximal skating speed, maximum horizontal power, and 100-m time (regularized regression coefficient = .16-.49, r = .84-.97, P < .001). Horizontal jump with 15% of body mass was the strongest predictor of maximal acceleration capacity performance (regularized regression coefficient = .08, r = .83, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that mechanical specificity rather than movement specificity was more relevant for predicting on-ice acceleration performance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".