Examinando por Autor "Villanueva Flores, Francisca"

Mostrando 1 - 2 de 2
  • Miniatura
    Ítem
    Fairness of the 2026 FIFA World Cup group-stage draw
    (Federación Española de Asociaciones de Docentes de Educación Física (FEADEF), 2026-05) García Atutxa, Iñigo ; Dudagoitia Barrio, Ekaitz ; Calvo Soraluce, Hodei ; Altadill Legarra, Leire; Villanueva Flores, Francisca; Garcia Atutxa, Igor
    Introducción y Objetivo. Evaluamos la equidad ex ante del sorteo de la fase de grupos del Mundial de la FIFA 2026 bajo las reglas oficiales y dos mecanismos contrafactuales mediante una simulación reproducible. Un conjunto de 48 equipos, consistente con las cuotas por confederación, se empareja con un índice de fortaleza ex ante derivado exclusivamente de partidos de fases finales de Copas del Mundo anteriores, usando contracción de Lidstone, con comprobaciones de robustez empleando el Ranking FIFA (SUM) y las puntuaciones Elo. Metodología. Comparamos: (i) FIFA-2026: bombos según ranking con topes por confederación y anfitriones reasignados; (ii) Uniforme-factible: una línea base factible sin bombos bajo los mismos topes por confederación; y (iii) Justo-voraz: una heurística posterior al sorteo de intercambios dentro del mismo bombo que acepta únicamente movimientos que reduzcan el coeficiente de variación (CV), preservando todas las restricciones. Resultados. Con N = 500 sorteos simulados por mecanismo, el CV medio de la fortaleza promedio por grupo es 0.0882 (Uniforme-factible), 0.0684 (FIFA-2026) y 0.0634 (Justo-voraz). Así, en comparación con FIFA-2026, Uniforme-factible incrementa la desigualdad en +0.0198 de CV (~+28.9%), mientras que Justo-voraz la reduce en −0.0050 (~−7.3%), con menor riesgo en la cola superior bajo FIFA-2026 y Justo-voraz. Los diagnósticos por letra bajo FIFA-2026 revelan menor dificultad en los grupos anclados por anfitriones y una concentración del riesgo de “grupo más difícil” en un subconjunto de letras no anfitrionas. Frente a un referente histórico (1998–2022), FIFA-2026 y Justo-voraz se mantienen dentro de los límites observados, mientras que Uniforme-factible puede superarlos en el extremo superior. Conclusiones. En conjunto, nuestros resultados sugieren un ajuste simple posterior al sorteo, que preserva las restricciones, capaz de mejorar el equilibrio competitivo sin cambiar la estructura del sorteo en vivo.
  • Miniatura
    Ítem
    Plyometric jump training exercise optimization for maximizing human performance: a systematic scoping review and identification of gaps in the existing literature
    (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI), 2023-08-09) Dudagoitia Barrio, Ekaitz; Thapa, Rohit Kumar; Villanueva Flores, Francisca; Garcia-Atutxa, Igor; Santibáñez Gutiérrez, Asier; Fernández de Landa, Julen ; Ramirez-Campillo, Rodrigo
    Background: Plyometric jump training (PJT) encompasses a range of different exercises that may offer advantages over other training methods to improve human physical capabilities (HPC). However, no systematic scoping review has analyzed either the role of the type of PJT exercise as an independent prescription variable or the gaps in the literature regarding PJT exercises to maximize HPC. Objective: This systematic scoping review aims to summarize the published scientific literature and its gaps related to HPC adaptations (e.g., jumping) to PJT, focusing on the role of the type of PJT exercise as an independent prescription variable. Methods: Computerized literature searches were conducted in the PubMed, Web of Science, and SCOPUS electronic databases. Design (PICOS) framework: (P) Healthy participants of any age, sex, fitness level, or sports background; (I) Chronic interventions exclusively using any form of PJT exercise type (e.g., vertical, unilateral). Multimodal interventions (e.g., PJT + heavy load resistance training) will be considered only if studies included two experimental groups under the same multimodal intervention, with the only difference between groups being the type of PJT exercise. (C) Comparators include PJT exercises with different modes (e.g., vertical vs. horizontal; vertical vs. horizontal combined with vertical); (O) Considered outcomes (but not limited to): physiological, biomechanical, biochemical, psychological, performance-related outcomes/adaptations, or data on injury risk (from prevention-focused studies); (S) Single- or multi-arm, randomized (parallel, crossover, cluster, other) or non-randomized. Results: Through database searching, 10,546 records were initially identified, and 69 studies (154 study groups) were included in the qualitative synthesis. The DJ (counter, bounce, weighted, and modified) was the most studied type of jump, included in 43 study groups, followed by the CMJ (standard CMJ or modified) in 19 study groups, and the SJ (standard SJ or modified) in 17 study groups. Strength and vertical jump were the most analyzed HPC outcomes in 38 and 54 studies, respectively. The effects of vertical PJT versus horizontal PJT on different HPC were compared in 21 studies. The effects of bounce DJ versus counter DJ (or DJ from different box heights) on different HPC were compared in 26 studies. Conclusions: Although 69 studies analyzed the effects of PJT exercise type on different HPC, several gaps were identified in the literature. Indeed, the potential effect of the PJT exercise type on a considerable number of HPC outcomes (e.g., aerobic capacity, flexibility, asymmetries) are virtually unexplored. Future studies are needed, including greater number of participants, particularly in groups of females, senior athletes, and youths according to maturity. Moreover, long-term (e.g., >12 weeks) PJT interventions are needed.