4.3 Article

Effectiveness of Field-Based Resistance Training Protocols on Hip Muscle Strength Among Young Elite Football Players

期刊

CLINICAL JOURNAL OF SPORT MEDICINE
卷 30, 期 5, 页码 470-477

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/JSM.0000000000000649

关键词

muscle asymmetries; muscle strengthening; groin injuries; prevention

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The objective of this study was to examine the effects of an 8-week progressive resistance training program on hip joint muscles' strength measures, using the Copenhagen adduction (CA) and the sliding hip (SH) exercises. Design: Prospective randomized controlled trial. Setting: Sport training and medical centers. Participants: Forty-two young male football athletes (age 17.5 +/- 1.1 years; height 178.3 +/- 3.2 cm; body mass 66.1 +/- 8.6 kg) allocated to a CA, SH, and matched control (C) group. Interventions: Two weekly sessions of CA and SH. Main Outcome Measures: Maximal eccentric strength test for the hip adductor (EHAD) and maximal eccentric strength test for the hip abductor (EHAB) muscles, and the relative EHAD/EHAB ratio assessed through a break test in the side-lying position. Results: No significant differences between groups were found at baseline for any of the assessed variables (allP> 0.053). The CA group had a significant strength increase in the right and left leg (d = 2.11, d = 1.9, respectively). The SH group also had a significant strength increase in the right and left leg (d = 1.68 and d = 1.67, respectively). The CA group presented EHAD/EHAB improvements in the right and left leg (d = 0.84 and d = 1.14, respectively). The SH group also presented EHAD/EHAB improvements in the right and left leg (d = 1.34 and d = 1.44, respectively). Conclusions: Both exercises' protocols were effective in inducing significant increases on EHAD, EHAB, and EHAD/EHAB ratio when compared with the control group. Practitioners should be aware of the training effectiveness of both protocols.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据