Performing Nordic hamstring strength testing with additional weight affects the maximal eccentric force measured: do not compare apples to oranges.
Eccentric
Football
Hamstring
Injury
Prevention
Journal
BMJ open sport & exercise medicine
ISSN: 2055-7647
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101681007
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
accepted:
31
10
2023
medline:
13
11
2023
pubmed:
13
11
2023
entrez:
13
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Nordic hamstring test devices are commonly used to measure maximal eccentric hamstring force. The ability to control the final phase of the exercise has been adopted as a criterion to add weight when testing, without substantial evidence. We investigated if adding weight affected the maximal force measured, and if there were differences between players who could and could not control the final phase. Female (n=84) and male (n=56) football players performed a Nordic hamstring strength test with 0, 5 and 10 kg. We used visual inspection to assess the ability to control the final phase (approximately last 20°), as per previously published studies. Maximal force was higher when tested with 5 kg (females: +8 N (2%), p<0.001; males: +18 N (4%), p<0.001) and 10 kg (females: +17 N (5%), p<0.001; males: +27 N (6%), p<0.001) compared with 0 kg. This was the case for both groups, those who could control the final phase (5 kg: +16 N (4%), p<0.001; 10 kg: +28 N (7%), p<0.001) and those who could not (5 kg: +9 N (3%), p<0.001; 10 kg: +15 N (4%), p<0.001). Both players who could and could not control the final phase of the Nordic hamstring test demonstrated higher maximal force when adding weight to testing. Therefore, this should not be used to decide if players should perform testing with or without weight. Either all participants or none should be tested with weight, and the same approach should be used both for pre-testing and post-testing.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Nordic hamstring test devices are commonly used to measure maximal eccentric hamstring force. The ability to control the final phase of the exercise has been adopted as a criterion to add weight when testing, without substantial evidence. We investigated if adding weight affected the maximal force measured, and if there were differences between players who could and could not control the final phase.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Female (n=84) and male (n=56) football players performed a Nordic hamstring strength test with 0, 5 and 10 kg. We used visual inspection to assess the ability to control the final phase (approximately last 20°), as per previously published studies.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Maximal force was higher when tested with 5 kg (females: +8 N (2%), p<0.001; males: +18 N (4%), p<0.001) and 10 kg (females: +17 N (5%), p<0.001; males: +27 N (6%), p<0.001) compared with 0 kg. This was the case for both groups, those who could control the final phase (5 kg: +16 N (4%), p<0.001; 10 kg: +28 N (7%), p<0.001) and those who could not (5 kg: +9 N (3%), p<0.001; 10 kg: +15 N (4%), p<0.001).
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Both players who could and could not control the final phase of the Nordic hamstring test demonstrated higher maximal force when adding weight to testing. Therefore, this should not be used to decide if players should perform testing with or without weight. Either all participants or none should be tested with weight, and the same approach should be used both for pre-testing and post-testing.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37953969
doi: 10.1136/bmjsem-2023-001699
pii: bmjsem-2023-001699
pmc: PMC10632891
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e001699Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Am J Sports Med. 2016 Jul;44(7):1789-95
pubmed: 27002102
Br J Sports Med. 2016 Jun;50(12):725-30
pubmed: 26795611
Sports Med Open. 2021 Jan 28;7(1):10
pubmed: 33507412
Br J Sports Med. 2017 Mar;51(5):469-477
pubmed: 27660368
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 Sep 29;21(1):641
pubmed: 32993700
Am J Sports Med. 2011 Nov;39(11):2296-303
pubmed: 21825112
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2019 May;29(5):706-715
pubmed: 30629773
J Sci Med Sport. 2019 Jul;22(7):769-774
pubmed: 30772189
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013 Sep;43(9):636-40
pubmed: 23886674
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Jun;43(6):1316-23
pubmed: 25794868
Br J Sports Med. 2013 Aug;47(12):732-7
pubmed: 23813543
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2021 Jun;31(6):1276-1289
pubmed: 33617061
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2004 Oct;14(5):311-7
pubmed: 15387805
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2003 Aug;13(4):244-50
pubmed: 12859607
J Athl Train. 2021 Sep 1;56(9):952-959
pubmed: 34530433
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2016 Sep;11(6):721-726
pubmed: 26638728
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2008 Feb;18(1):40-8
pubmed: 17355322
J Sport Rehabil. 2022 Mar 10;31(5):576-581
pubmed: 35272267
Br J Sports Med. 2017 Dec;51(23):1695-1702
pubmed: 28756392
Br J Sports Med. 2005 Oct;39(10):767-75
pubmed: 16183775
J Sport Rehabil. 2022 Jul 13;31(8):1061-1066
pubmed: 35894913
Br J Sports Med. 2002 Feb;36(1):39-44
pubmed: 11867491
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2022 Feb 17;17(4):646-654
pubmed: 35176727
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2018 Jul;28(7):1775-1783
pubmed: 29572976
Br J Sports Med. 2018 Mar;52(5):329-336
pubmed: 29187349
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2009 Dec;19(6):819-27
pubmed: 18980604
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015 Apr;47(4):857-65
pubmed: 25137368