4.6 Article

Including the Copenhagen Adduction Exercise in the FIFA 11+Provides Missing Eccentric Hip Adduction Strength Effect in Male Soccer Players A Randomized Controlled Trial

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 45, 期 13, 页码 3052-3059

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0363546517720194

关键词

FIFA 11+; hip adduction strength; groin problems; injury prevention; soccer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The FIFA 11+ was developed as a complete warm-up program to prevent injuries in soccer players. Although reduced hip adduction strength is associated with groin injuries, none of the exercises included in the FIFA 11+ seem to specifically target hip adduction strength. Purpose: To investigate the effect on eccentric hip adduction strength of the FIFA 11+ warm-up program with or without the Copenhagen adduction exercise. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Methods: We recruited 45 eligible players from 2 U19 elite male soccer teams. Players were randomized into 2 groups; 1 group carried out the standard FIFA 11+ program, while the other carried out the FIFA 11+ but replaced the Nordic hamstring exercise with the Copenhagen adduction exercise. Both groups performed the intervention 3 times weekly for 8 weeks. Players completed eccentric strength and sprint testing before and after the intervention. Per-protocol analyses were performed, and 12 players were excluded due to low compliance (<67% of sessions completed). The main outcome was eccentric hip adduction strength (N.m/kg). Results: Between-group analyses revealed a significantly greater increase in eccentric hip adduction strength of 0.29 Nm/kg (8.9%; P =.01) in favor of the group performing the Copenhagen adduction exercise, whereas no within-group change was noted in the group that used the standard FIFA 11+ program (-0.02 N.m/kg [-0.7%]; P =.69). Conclusion: Including the Copenhagen adduction exercise in the FIFA 11+ program increases eccentric hip adduction strength, while the standard FIFA 11+ program does not.

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

4.6
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