Hip adduction and abduction strength values in NCAA Division I American football players: Strength values and a comparison across position groups

IF 2.2 3区医学 Q1 REHABILITATION

Physical Therapy in Sport Pub Date : 2025-01-25 DOI:10.1016/j.ptsp.2025.01.004

Ciaran O’ Connor , Eric Renaghan , Adam Bennett , Luis Ferrer , Raina Damodaran , Patrick Geraghty , Luis A. Feigenbaum

{"title":"Hip adduction and abduction strength values in NCAA Division I American football players: Strength values and a comparison across position groups","authors":"Ciaran O’ Connor , Eric Renaghan , Adam Bennett , Luis Ferrer , Raina Damodaran , Patrick Geraghty , Luis A. Feigenbaum","doi":"10.1016/j.ptsp.2025.01.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To report hip adduction, abduction, and adduction:abduction strength ratio values in NCAA Division I American football players, and to compare strength values across position groups.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Cross-sectional study.</div></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><div>University training facility.</div></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><div>85 male football players.</div></div><div><h3>Main outcome measures</h3><div>Isometric hip adduction and abduction strength values in the 0° hip-flexion long-lever and 0° hip-flexion short-lever testing positions, using a ForceFrame.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Hip strength values are presented across two testing positions. ANOVA revealed significant differences (<em>p</em> ≤ 0.05) in hip strength between position groups, with medium-to-large effect size (n<sup>2</sup> = 0.116–0.284). Skill-position and mid-position players demonstrated significantly greater hip adduction and abduction relative strength in both testing positions, when compared to lineman-position players. In addition, skill-position and mid-position players demonstrated significantly greater hip adduction:abduction strength ratios (0.19–0.20, 24–25%) in the long-lever testing position, when compared to lineman-position players, with large effect size (n<sup>2</sup> = 0.178). No significant differences in strength were observed between skill-position and mid-position players. Hip adduction:abduction strength ratios ranged from 0.68 to 0.88 in the long-lever testing position and 1.05 to 1.09 in the short-lever testing position.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Significant differences in relative strength exist between position groups of NCAA Division-I football players, in hip adduction, abduction and adduction:abduction ratio.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49698,"journal":{"name":"Physical Therapy in Sport","volume":"72 ","pages":"Pages 32-38"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical Therapy in Sport","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1466853X25000306","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

To report hip adduction, abduction, and adduction:abduction strength ratio values in NCAA Division I American football players, and to compare strength values across position groups.

Design

Cross-sectional study.

Setting

University training facility.

Participants

85 male football players.

Main outcome measures

Isometric hip adduction and abduction strength values in the 0° hip-flexion long-lever and 0° hip-flexion short-lever testing positions, using a ForceFrame.

Results

Hip strength values are presented across two testing positions. ANOVA revealed significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) in hip strength between position groups, with medium-to-large effect size (n² = 0.116–0.284). Skill-position and mid-position players demonstrated significantly greater hip adduction and abduction relative strength in both testing positions, when compared to lineman-position players. In addition, skill-position and mid-position players demonstrated significantly greater hip adduction:abduction strength ratios (0.19–0.20, 24–25%) in the long-lever testing position, when compared to lineman-position players, with large effect size (n² = 0.178). No significant differences in strength were observed between skill-position and mid-position players. Hip adduction:abduction strength ratios ranged from 0.68 to 0.88 in the long-lever testing position and 1.05 to 1.09 in the short-lever testing position.

Conclusion

Significant differences in relative strength exist between position groups of NCAA Division-I football players, in hip adduction, abduction and adduction:abduction ratio.

查看原文本刊更多论文

NCAA一级美国橄榄球运动员髋关节内收和外展力量值：力量值和跨位置组的比较

目的报道NCAA I级美式橄榄球运动员髋关节内收、外展和内收：外展的力量比值，并比较不同位置组的力量值。DesignCross-sectional研究。设置大学培训设施。参与者：85名男足球运动员。主要结果测量：使用ForceFrame测量髋关节在0°髋屈曲长水平和0°髋屈曲短水平测试位置的髋关节内收和外展强度值。结果船舶强度值呈现在两个测试位置。方差分析显示，不同体位组间髋部力量差异有统计学意义（p≤0.05），具有中大型效应量（n2 = 0.116-0.284）。与边裁位置的球员相比，技术位置和中间位置的球员在两个测试位置上都表现出更大的髋关节内收和外展相对力量。此外，技术位和中位运动员在长杆测试体位上的髋内收外展强度比（0.19-0.20,24-25%）显著高于边裁位运动员，且效应量较大（n2 = 0.178）。技术位置和中腰位置的运动员在力量上没有显著差异。髋内收：外展强度比在长杆试验位为0.68 ~ 0.88，在短杆试验位为1.05 ~ 1.09。结论NCAA一级联赛球员位置组在髋关节内收、外展及内收外展比上的相对力量存在显著差异。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Physical Therapy in Sport 医学-康复医学

CiteScore

4.50

自引率

8.30%

发文量

125

审稿时长

39 days

期刊介绍： Physical Therapy in Sport is an international peer-reviewed journal that provides a forum for the publication of research and clinical practice material relevant to the healthcare professions involved in sports and exercise medicine, and rehabilitation. The journal publishes material that is indispensable for day-to-day practice and continuing professional development. Physical Therapy in Sport covers topics dealing with the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of injuries, as well as more general areas of sports and exercise medicine and related sports science. The journal publishes original research, case studies, reviews, masterclasses, papers on clinical approaches, and book reviews, as well as occasional reports from conferences. Papers are double-blind peer-reviewed by our international advisory board and other international experts, and submissions from a broad range of disciplines are actively encouraged.