4.6 Article

Angle-specific hamstring-to-quadriceps ratio: A comparison of football players and recreationally active males

Journal

JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES
Volume 33, Issue 3, Pages 309-319

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2014.942680

Keywords

functional ratio; muscle balance; knee-joint imbalances; reciprocal strength; isokinetic strength ratio; soccer

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It is currently unclear how football participation affects knee-joint muscle balance, which is widely considered a risk factor for hamstrings injury. This study compared the angle-specific functional hamstring-to-quadriceps (H:Q) ratio (hamstrings eccentric torque as a ratio of quadriceps concentric torque at the same knee-joint angle) of football players with recreationally active controls. Ten male footballers and 14 controls performed maximal voluntary isometric and isovelocity concentric and eccentric contractions (60, 240 and 400 degrees s(-1)) of the knee extensors and flexors. Gaussian fitting to the raw torque values was used to interpolate torque values for knee-joint angles of 100-160 degrees (60 degrees s(-1)), 105-160 degrees (240 degrees s(-1)) and 115-145 degrees (400 degrees s(-1)). The angle-specific functional H:Q ratio was calculated from the knee flexors eccentric and knee extensors concentric torque at the same velocity and angle. No differences were found for the angle-specific functional H:Q ratio between groups, at any velocity. Quadriceps and hamstrings strength relative to body mass of footballers and controls was similar for all velocities, except concentric knee flexor strength at 400 degrees s(-1) (footballers +40%; P<0.01). In previously uninjured football players, there was no intrinsic muscle imbalance and therefore the high rate of hamstring injuries seen in this sport may be due to other risk factors and/or simply regular exposure to a high-risk activity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available