Effects of neuromuscular versus stretching training performed during the warm-up on measures of physical fitness and mental well-being in highly-trained pubertal male soccer players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While there is ample evidence on the effects of neuromuscular training (NMT) and stretching training on selected measures of physical fitness in young athletes, less is known on the mental well-being effects. Here, we aimed to examine the effects of NMT versus stretching training (ST) performed during the warm-up and active control (CG) on selected physical fitness measures and mental well-being in highly-trained male pubertal soccer players. A secondary aim was to investigate associations between training-induced changes in physical fitness and mental well-being. Forty-six pubertal participants aged 12.2 ± 0.6 years were randomly allocated to NMT, ST, or CG. The eight-weeks NMT included balance, strength, plyometric, and change-of-direction (CoD) exercises. ST comprised four weeks of lower limbs static stretching followed by four weeks of dynamic stretching. The CG performed a soccer-specific warm-up. Training volumes were similar between groups. Pre-, and post-training, tests were scheduled to assess dynamic balance (Y-balance test), 15-m CoD speed, power (five-jump-test [FJT]), cognitive (CA), somatic anxiety (SA), and self-confidence (SC). Findings showed significant group-by-time interactions for all physical fitness measures (d = 1.00-3.23; p < 0.05) and mental well-being (d = 0.97-1.08; p < 0.05) tests. There were significant pre-post changes for all tested variables (d = 0.69-4.23; p < 0.05) in favor of NMT but not ST and CG. Pooled data indicated significant moderate correlations between training-induced performance changes in FJT and SA (r = -0.378, p < 0.05), FJT and SC (r = 0.360, p < 0.05) and 15-m CoD and SA (r = 0.393, p < 0.01). NMT but not ST or CG resulted in improved measures of physical fitness and mental well-being in highly-trained pubertal male soccer players. NMT performed during the warm-up is a safe and effective training method as it exerts positive effects on physical fitness and self-confidence as well as the coping of anxiety in highly-trained male pubertal 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".