Age-related differences in flexibility in soccer players 8–19 years old

Abstract

BackgroundMuscle flexibility is a main component of health-related fitness and one of the basic components of fitness for the performance in some sports. Sport and health professionals require the flexibility profile of soccer to define quantitative aims in the training of flexibility. The aim of this study was to identify age-related differences in lower extremity flexibility in youth soccer players.MethodsSeventy-two young male soccer players (age: 13.0 ± 3.1 y; body mass: 50.5 ± 15.3 kg; stature 158.2 ± 16.8 cm; BMI: 19.6 ± 2.6 kg/m2) completed this study. Measures of eleven passive hip (hip extension (HE), hip adduction with hip flexed 90°(HAD-HF90°), hip flexion with knee flexed (HF-KF) and extended (HF-KE), hip abduction with hip neutral (HAB) and hip flexed 90°(HAB-HF90°), hip external (HER) and internal (HIR) rotation), knee (knee flexion (KF)) and ankle dorsiflexion (ankle dorsiflexion with knee flexed (ADF-KF) and extended (ADF-KE)) ranges of motion (ROM) were taken. Descriptive statistics were calculated for hip, knee and ankle ROM measured separately by leg (dominant and non-dominant) and age-group (U10, U12, U14, U16 and U19). The data was analysed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to examine the interaction of 11 ROM in the different players’ age-group.ResultsGenerally, U10 and/or U12 soccer players obtain the highest mean value in almost all ROM evaluated (U10: HAD-HF [39.6° ± 4.3°], ADF-KE [32.3° ± 4.1°], HER [63.5° ± 5.6°] and HAB-HF90°[64.1° ± 7.5°]; U12: HE [17.7° ± 6.2°], HAB [35.6° ± 3.0], HIR [60.8° ± 4.7°] and KF [133.8° ± 7.1°]). Nonetheless, significant differences between the players’ age-groups are just found in HAD-HF90°(p = .042; ES = .136), HAB (p = .001; ES = .252), HIR (p = .001; ES = .251), HER (p < .001; ES = .321) and HAB-HF90°(p < .001; ES = .376) ROM, showing a progressive and irregular decrease in these ROM until the U19 team.ConclusionThe findings of this study reinforce the necessity of prescribing exercises aimed at improving HAD-HF90° ROM in U16, HAB ROM in U14, HIR ROM in U16 and U19, HER ROM in U12 and U19, and HAB-HF90° ROM in U16 and U19 players within everyday soccer training routines.

Assessment of the Range of Movement of the Lower Limb in Sport: Advantages of the ROM-SPORT I Battery

“…Data describing this parameter is very scarce in the literature, and in general, this information is rarely provided. Only Bozic et al [ 54 ] and Cejudo et al [ 42 , 45 ] indicate the estimated testing time, which was 25 min and 1 min for each ROM test, respectively. The testing duration of the ROM-SPORT I battery (11 ROM tests and both sides of the body) varies from approximately 8–11 min [ 40 , 42 , 45 ].…”

“…Six studies reported using a warm-up before measuring the ROM [ 11 , 45 , 54 , 64 , 65 , 67 ]. No warm-up exercises were undertaken in the studies of Ekstrand et al [ 74 ] and Steinberg at al.…”

“…The assessment batteries selected in this systematic review include between four [ 12 ] and eleven [ 42 , 45 ] ROM tests. The ROM tests selected in each study depended on the objective of the study.…”

“…Routinely, one examiner performs the movement, and the second examiner measures the angle with GM. However, Cejudo et al [ 45 , 63 ] reported that the main examiner executes the movement and takes the ROM measures, while the assistant examiner maintains the initial position of the subject (zero position) and controls compensatory movements, which is considered a major contribution of their protocol.…”

Injury prevention effects of stretching exercise intervention by physical therapists in male high school soccer players

“…18,19 Although there are no previous reports regarding muscle tightness using participants and methods similar to those in the present study, the most relevant reports indicate that injured study participants tend to be less flexible than non-injured participants. 21 The players in the intervention group showed significant improvements in flexibility for all measurement items in the muscle tightness tests. The gains in flexibility were more distinct during the 12-week intervention period than during the 40-week observation period.…”