| Literature DB >> 31878326 |
Jakub Baron1, Anna Bieniec2, Andrzej S Swinarew1,3, Tomasz Gabryś4, Arkadiusz Stanula1.
Abstract
The aim of the research was to verify the functional state of young football players using selected tests of the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) protocol, as well as the impact of the 12 weeks of functional training on the speed parameters. The research was conducted on 20 highly competitive young (U17) football players. Research project was conducted in two stages: in the first part of the study, the functional assessment was made by using the FMS test, then the measurement of the speed parameters was done with the Microgate photocells system. Results showed a significant improvement in the functional state of young football players: FMS 1 (45.2% of difference, p = 0.004), FMS 2 (24.3% of difference, p = 0.012), FMS 3 (48.5% of difference, p = 0.001). After the functional training program, there was also an improvement in the parameters of the acceleration and velocity: acceleration between 5-10 m and speed between 10-30 m shows significant improvement (expressed during covering a given distance) of the footballers, amounting to 0.02 s (2.4%) and 0.04 s (1.5%). But there was no improvement in acceleration between 0-5 m. An appropriate training schedule, based on FMS results, should be adopted in the annual training program to improve basic motor skills of the football players and minimize their injuries.Entities:
Keywords: football; functional movement system; functional training; movement patterns; speed
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31878326 PMCID: PMC6981857 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17010160
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Characteristics of basic somatic parameters of the tested group of players (n = 20)
| Parameters | m ± SD | Me | Range (min–max) | V | As | Ku |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 16.8 ± 0.6 | 17 | 15–17 | 3.4 | −3.14 | 8.61 |
| Height (cm) | 175.7 ± 6.4 | 176 | 167–187 | 3.7 | 0.21 | −0.87 |
| Body weight (kg) | 66.5 ± 7.4 | 64 | 54.8–81 | 11.1 | 0.48 | −0.85 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 21.5 ± 1.8 | 21.62 | 18.8–24.6 | 8.5 | 0.20 | −1.16 |
| FAT (%) | 12.6 ± 2.2 | 12 | 9.5–15.5 | 12.9 | 0.31 | −0.09 |
m ± SD: mean and standard deviation; Me: median; Range: the smallest and largest value; V: coefficient of variation; As: skewness coefficient (asymmetry); Ku: coefficient of focus (kurtosis).
A detailed description of the training program implemented in the research group.
| Part of the Training Unit | Exercises/Goal/Execution (Volume) |
|---|---|
| Warm-up |
Running (4’) Run with the delivery and delivery step (2 × 20 m) (30’’) Cross step (interlace) (2 × 20 m) (30”) Forward shoulder circulation (30’’) Back arm circulation (30’’) Dynamic stretching (5’) Hip rotation (2 × 10 rep) (1’) twist with a trunk torsion (2 × 5 rep) (1’) Buttocks Activation with a mini band (2 × 10 rep) (2’) Skip A (10 m) (10’’) Skip C (10 m) (10’’) Running rhythm (15 m) (10’’) |
| Main Part |
Back Stretching exercises (2–3 ex.) Mobilization of shoulder complex (2 ex.) Mobility of the thoracic spine.: Extension of the thoracic spine (1–2 ex.) Four - point kneeling position. Thoracic spine rotation (2 ex.) Hip mobilization in the direction of flexion, extension, external and internal rotation (5 ex.) Ankle Mobilization towards the dorsiflexion (2 ex) Central stabilization, stabilization of the ilio-lumbar-pelvic complex (3 ex.) Exercises with bands, global patterns (2 ex.) Balance and coordination exercises (2 ex.) |
| Cool Down | Foam rolling (10’) |
Characteristics of the results of the functional status of movement patterns carried out prior to the start of the training.
| Variables | m ± s | min–max | ±95% PU | V | As | Ku |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FMS 1 | 1.6 ± 0.51 | 1–2 | 1.3–1.8 | 32.9 | −0.218 | −2.183 |
| FMS 2 | 1.9 ± 0.49 | 1–3 | 1.6–2.1 | 26.5 | −0.442 | 1.304 |
| FMS 3 | 1.7 ± 0.59 | 1–3 | 1.4–1.9 | 35.6 | 0.212 | −0.552 |
Results of the functional status assessment of the functional status of the tested group of players (n = 20). The significance of differences was assessed using the Wilcoxon test.
| Variables | Pretest | Posttest | Difference (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FMS 1 | 1.55 ± 0.51 | 2.25 ± 0.55 | −0.70 (−45.2%) | 0.004 |
| FMS 2 | 1.85 ± 0.49 | 2.30 ± 0.57 | −0.45 (−24.3%) | 0.012 |
| FMS 3 | 1.65 ± 0.59 | 2.45 ± 0.69 | −0.80 (−48.5%) | 0.001 |
Results of the running speed and acceleration tests in the group of football players (n =20).
| Variables | Pretest | Posttest | Difference (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–5 m (s) | 0.96 ± 0.06 | 0.97 ± 0.06 | −0.02 (−1.7%) | −1.001 (0.329) |
| 5–10 m (s) | 0.73 ± 0.04 | 0.72 ± 0.04 | 0.02 (2.4%) | 2.438 (0.025) |
| 10–30 m (s) | 2.47 ± 0.1 | 2.44 ± 0.1 | 0.04 (1.5%) | 4.188 (0.001) |
| 0–30 m (s) | 4.16 ± 0.17 | 4.12 ± 0.17 | 0.04 (0.9%) | 1.832 (0.083) |
| Velocity (km/h) | 26.00 ± 1.04 | 26.24 ± 1.12 | −0.24 (−0.9%) | −1.863 (0.078) |