4.4 Article

FORWARD LUNGE: A TRAINING STUDY OF ECCENTRIC EXERCISES OF THE LOWER LIMBS

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181a00d98

关键词

athletic; algometer; hamstring; sprinting; isokinetic; quadriceps

资金

  1. Swedish Sports Research Council [135-04]
  2. Karolinska Institute foundations

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Jonhagen, S, Ackermann, P, and Saartok, T. Forward lunge: a training study of eccentric exercises of the lower limbs. J Strength Cond Res 23(3): 972-978, 2009-A few studies have shown that eccentric exercise is effective for prevention and treatment of muscle injuries. Most earlier studies on eccentric exercises have used training with advanced equipment. Forward lunges are considered eccentric exercises, and they may be performed without any equipment. These exercises are commonly used by sprint runners. We performed a prospective, randomized, 6-week training study comparing the effects of walking or jumping forward lunges on hamstring and quadriceps strength and function. Thirty-two soccer players were included in the study. The forward lunge training was done as an addition to ordinary soccer training twice a week for 6 weeks. The outcome was measured by the maximal hamstring and quadriceps strength tests and by functional tests with 1-leg hop tests and 30-m sprint runs. Overall muscle pain was evaluated using a visual analogue scale score, and local pain was estimated with an algometer. Whereas the walking lunge improved hamstring strength, the jumping lunge resulted in sprint running improvements. Algometer testing showed a general increase in the pain detection thresholds of all subjects, including the controls. Thus, precautions should be taken when algometers are used for temporal studies of pain. Walking and jumping forward lunges can be used for improving hamstring strength and running speed in young soccer player. The findings may have relevance when designing protocols for prevention and rehabilitation of muscle injuries.

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

4.4
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