| Literature DB >> 26839626 |
Zuzana Xaverova1, Johannes Dirnberger2, Michal Lehnert1, Jan Belka1, Herbert Wagner2, Karolina Orechovska1.
Abstract
Systematic assessment of muscle strength of the lower extremities throughout the annual training cycle in athletes is crucial from a performance perspective for the optimization of the training process, as well as a health perspective with regard to injury prevention. The main aim of the present study was to determine isokinetic muscle strength of the knee flexors and extensors in female handball players at the beginning of a preparatory period and to assess whether there were any differences between players of different performance levels. The performance level was expressed by means of membership of the Women's Junior National Handball Team (JNT, n=8) or the Women's National Handball Team (NT, n=9). The isokinetic peak torque during concentric and eccentric single-joint knee flexion and extension was measured at angular velocities of 60, 180, 240°/s (concentric) and 60°/s (eccentric). The Mann-Whitney test showed no significant differences in the peak torques or ipsilateral ratios between the two groups. The bilateral force deficit (BFD) for concentric extension at 240°/s was significantly higher in the JNT compared with the NT (p=0.04; d=1.02). However, the results of individual evaluation show that the BFD was more frequent in the NT in most measurements. A high BFD was evident in the eccentric mode in both groups highlighting a need for particular strengthening. With regard to low strength ratios a prevention programme should be suggested for both observed groups of professional female handball players to reduce the risk of injury.Entities:
Keywords: H/Q ratios; bilateral deficit; strengthening; torque
Year: 2015 PMID: 26839626 PMCID: PMC4723176 DOI: 10.1515/hukin-2015-0128
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Hum Kinet ISSN: 1640-5544 Impact factor: 2.193
Description of groups according to the performance level
| Variable | Women’s National Team (n=9) | Junior National Team (n=8) |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 26.2 ± 3.3 | 20.1 ± 1.4 |
| Body Mass (kg) | 71.7 ± 10.8 | 69.7 ± 11.9 |
| Body Height (m) | 1.70 ± 0.05 | 168.8 ± 6.8 |
| Training experience (years) | 17.3 ± 3.7 | 11.5 ± 2.7 |
Figure 1Testing position on the IsoMed 2000 dynamometer
Absolute and relative Peak torque (Nm, Nm/kg) of the knee flexors and extensors in the dominant and non-dominant leg according to the performance level (means ± SD)
| Women’s National Team | Junior National Team | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PT | PT/kg | PT | PT/kg | ||||
|
| |||||||
| Extensors | conc | 60 | DL | 154.9 ± 20.2 | 2.2 ± 0.3 | 160.7 ± 16.3 | 2.3 ± 0.3 |
| NL | 156.6 ± 31.2 | 2.2 ± 0.3 | 161.5 ± 13.8 | 2.4 ± 0.3 | |||
| 180 | DL | 116.2 ± 13.0 | 1.6 ± 0.2 | 120.6 ± 13.9 | 1.8 ± 0.2 | ||
| NL | 118.1 ± 14.8 | 1.7 ± 0.2 | 114.3 ± 11.5 | 1.7 ± 0.2 | |||
| 240 | DL | 109.9 ± 12.7 | 1.6 ± 0.2 | 112.3 ± 15.5 | 1.6 ± 0.2 | ||
| NL | 109.6 ± 13.4 | 1.6 ± 0.2 | 107.3 ± 11.6 | 1.6 ± 0.3 | |||
| ecc | 60 | DL | 101.0 ± 15.2 | 1.4 ± 0.3 | 106.5 ± 25.8 | 1.5 ± 0.3 | |
| NL | 103.4 ± 17.1 | 1.4 ± 0.2 | 99.7 ± 26.7 | 1.4 ± 0.4 | |||
| Flexors | conc | 60 | DL | 87.7 ± 12.4 | 1.2 ± 0.2 | 93.5 ± 14.8 | 1.4 ± 0.2 |
| NL | 88.2 ± 15.7 | 1.2 ± 0.2 | 90.7 ± 11.1 | 1.3 ± 0.1 | |||
| 180 | DL | 80.1 ± 9.0 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 78.1 ± 17.8 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | ||
| NL | 75.7 ± 11.8 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 76.1 ± 16.2 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | |||
| 240 | DL | 71.6 ± 8.9 | 1.0 ± 0.2 | 78.2 ± 18.5 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | ||
| NL | 70.3 ± 12.6 | 1.0 ± 0.2 | 74.9 ± 15.9 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | |||
| ecc | 60 | DL | 195.3 ± 45.4 | 2.8 ± 0.8 | 208.6 ± 44.7 | 3.0 ± 0.6 | |
| NL | 208.4 ± 48.2 | 2.9 ± 0.6 | 196.1 ± 33.5 | 2.9 ± 0.5 | |||
PT – peak torque, PT/kg – normalized PT for body weight, conc – concentric action; ecc – eccentric action; 60, 180, 240°/s – angular velocity, DL – dominant leg, NL – non-dominant leg
Ipsilateral ratio (H/QCONC and H/QFUNC) and bilateral force deficit (BFD) according to the performance level (means ± SD)
| Women’s National Team | Junior National Team | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IPSILATERAL RATIOS | Dominant leg | H/QCONC | ||||||||
| 60 | 0.57 ± 0.11 | 5 | 0.58 ± 0.05 | 5 | ||||||
| 180 | 0.70 ± 0.11 | 0.65 ± 0.10 | ||||||||
| 240 | 0.66 ± 0.10 | 0.70 ± 0.12 | ||||||||
| H/QFUNC | ||||||||||
| 60 | 0.66 ± 0.15 | 0.66 ± 0.11 | 4 | |||||||
| Non-dominant leg | H/QCONC | |||||||||
| 60 | 0.57 ± 0.05 | 5 | 0.56 ± 0.06 | 5 | ||||||
| 180 | 0.64 ± 0.07 | 0.66 ± 0.10 | ||||||||
| 240 | 0.64 ± 0.09 | 0.70 ± 0.13 | ||||||||
| H/QFUNC | ||||||||||
| 60 | 0.67 ± 0.10 | 5 | 0.62 ± 0.16 | 6 | ||||||
|
| ||||||||||
| BILATERAL FORCE DEFICIT | ||||||||||
| Extension | conc | |||||||||
| 60 | 7.68 ± 6.98 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3.89 ± 2.95 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 180 | 3.17 ± 2.06 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.06 ± 2.84 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 240 | 5.59 ± 5.14 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 11.10 ± 5.60 | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
| ecc | ||||||||||
| 60 | 14.85 ± 10.53 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 10.72 ± 8.77 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Flexion | conc | |||||||||
| 60 | 10.04 ± 6.32 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4.92 ± 2.74 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 180 | 12.20 ± 10.79 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 6.18 ± 3.20 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 240 | 10.04 ± 7.09 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6.97 ± 4.83 | 2 | 0 | 0 | ||
| ecc | ||||||||||
| 60 | 15.05 ± 13.46 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 8.95 ± 7.70 | 3 | 0 | 1 | ||
p<0.05, different from WMJ;
H/QCONC – conventional hamstring to quadriceps ratio; H/QFUNC – functional hamstring to quadriceps ratio; conc – concentric action; ecc – eccentric action; 60, 180, 240°/s – angular velocity, DL – dominant leg, NL – non-dominant leg, SD – standard deviation, frq – frequency of risk values in individual evaluation (H/QCONC < 0.6; H/QFUNC < 0.7 at a velocity of 60°/s; BFD ≥10; ≥15; ≥20 expressed as percentage (%)).