A comparison of bilateral muscular imbalance ratio calculations using functional tests

Authors: Bampouras, T.M. and Dewhurst, S.

Journal: Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Volume: 32

Issue: 8

Pages: 2216-2220

eISSN: 1533-4295

ISSN: 1064-8011

DOI: 10.1519/jsc.0000000000001896

Abstract:

Bilateral muscular imbalance can increase the risk of injury and negatively impact on sporting performance. Bilateral muscular imbalances are typically calculated as ([side 1 2 side 2]/ reference value) X 100, to provide a percentage value of the difference between limbs. Using different numerator (right-left or strong-weak) or reference values (left, right, strong, weak, average of the 2) could mask or inflate the true difference value. This study aimed to compare the bilateral muscular imbalance ratio calculations, using the absolute difference between limbs as the numerator and the 5 different options as reference values. Twenty-three males (21.6 ± 1.9 years, 1.80 ± 0.06 m, 80.5 ± 13.8 kg) and 11 females (20.8 ± 1.5 years, 1.62 ± 0.03 m, 68.0 ± 6.5 kg) performed the one-legged 6-m timed test and the one-legged triple-hop distance test. The 5 possible combinations were compared with a 2 (sex) X 2 (functional test) X 5 (calculation method) analysis of variance for each test. Significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were found between sex when the right leg was used as the reference value (men: 6.1%, women: 9.1%), and within calculation methods for men (range: 5.9–6.5%) and women (range: 8.4–9.4%), with low effect sizes (range: 0.07–0.26). These findings demonstrate that using a different reference value for calculating bilateral muscular imbalances does not result in a practically significant difference. These findings can be used to inform a more standardized calculation method which will afford conditioning coaches a more correct evaluation and monitoring of training and rehabilitation programs.

https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/29636/

Source: Scopus

A Comparison of Bilateral Muscular Imbalance Ratio Calculations Using Functional Tests.

Authors: Bampouras, T.M. and Dewhurst, S.

Journal: J Strength Cond Res

Volume: 32

Issue: 8

Pages: 2216-2220

eISSN: 1533-4287

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001896

Abstract:

Bampouras, TM and Dewhurst, S. A comparison of bilateral muscular imbalance ratio calculations using functional tests. J Strength Cond Res 32(8): 2216-2220, 2018-Bilateral muscular imbalance can increase the risk of injury and negatively impact on sporting performance. Bilateral muscular imbalances are typically calculated as ([side 1 - side 2]/reference value) × 100, to provide a percentage value of the difference between limbs. Using different numerator (right-left or strong-weak) or reference values (left, right, strong, weak, average of the 2) could mask or inflate the true difference value. This study aimed to compare the bilateral muscular imbalance ratio calculations, using the absolute difference between limbs as the numerator and the 5 different options as reference values. Twenty-three males (21.6 ± 1.9 years, 1.80 ± 0.06 m, 80.5 ± 13.8 kg) and 11 females (20.8 ± 1.5 years, 1.62 ± 0.03 m, 68.0 ± 6.5 kg) performed the one-legged 6-m timed test and the one-legged triple-hop distance test. The 5 possible combinations were compared with a 2 (sex) × 2 (functional test) × 5 (calculation method) analysis of variance for each test. Significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were found between sex when the right leg was used as the reference value (men: 6.1%, women: 9.1%), and within calculation methods for men (range: 5.9-6.5%) and women (range: 8.4-9.4%), with low effect sizes (range: 0.07-0.26). These findings demonstrate that using a different reference value for calculating bilateral muscular imbalances does not result in a practically significant difference. These findings can be used to inform a more standardized calculation method which will afford conditioning coaches a more correct evaluation and monitoring of training and rehabilitation programs.

https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/29636/

Source: PubMed

A COMPARISON OF BILATERAL MUSCULAR IMBALANCE RATIO CALCULATIONS USING FUNCTIONAL TESTS

Authors: Bampouras, T.M. and Dewhurst, S.

Journal: JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH

Volume: 32

Issue: 8

Pages: 2216-2220

eISSN: 1533-4287

ISSN: 1064-8011

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001896

https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/29636/

Source: Web of Science (Lite)

A comparison of bilateral muscular imbalance ratio calculations using functional tests.

Authors: Bampouras, T.M. and Dewhurst, S.

Journal: Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Publisher: National Strength and Conditioning Association

ISSN: 1064-8011

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001896

Abstract:

Bilateral muscular imbalance can increase the risk of injury and negatively impact sporting performance. Bilateral muscular imbalances are typically calculated as ((side 1-side 2)/reference value) x 100, to provide a percentage value of the difference between limbs. Using different numerator (right-left or strong-weak) or reference values (left, right, strong, weak, average of the two) could mask or inflate the true difference value. The present study aimed to compare the bilateral muscular imbalance ratio calculations, using the absolute difference between limbs as the numerator and the five different options as reference values. Twenty three males (21.6±1.9 years, 1.80±0.06 m, 80.5±13.8 kg) and eleven females (20.8± 1.5 years, 1.62±0.03 m, 68.0±6.5 kg) performed the one-legged 6m timed test and the onelegged triple hop distance test. The five possible combinations were compared with a 2 (gender) x 2 (functional test) x 5 (calculation method) ANOVA for each test. Significant differences (P<0.05) were found between gender when the right leg was used as the reference value (males:6.1%, females:9.1%), and within calculation methods for males (range:5.9%-6.5%) and females (range:8.4%-9.4%), with low effect sizes (range: 0.07-0.26). The present findings demonstrate that using a different reference value for calculating bilateral muscular imbalances does not result in a practically significant difference. These findings can be used to inform a more standardised calculation method which will afford conditioning coaches a more correct evaluation and monitoring of training and rehabilitation programmes.

https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/29636/

Source: Manual

A Comparison of Bilateral Muscular Imbalance Ratio Calculations Using Functional Tests.

Authors: Bampouras, T.M. and Dewhurst, S.

Journal: Journal of strength and conditioning research

Volume: 32

Issue: 8

Pages: 2216-2220

eISSN: 1533-4287

ISSN: 1064-8011

DOI: 10.1519/jsc.0000000000001896

Abstract:

Bampouras, TM and Dewhurst, S. A comparison of bilateral muscular imbalance ratio calculations using functional tests. J Strength Cond Res 32(8): 2216-2220, 2018-Bilateral muscular imbalance can increase the risk of injury and negatively impact on sporting performance. Bilateral muscular imbalances are typically calculated as ([side 1 - side 2]/reference value) × 100, to provide a percentage value of the difference between limbs. Using different numerator (right-left or strong-weak) or reference values (left, right, strong, weak, average of the 2) could mask or inflate the true difference value. This study aimed to compare the bilateral muscular imbalance ratio calculations, using the absolute difference between limbs as the numerator and the 5 different options as reference values. Twenty-three males (21.6 ± 1.9 years, 1.80 ± 0.06 m, 80.5 ± 13.8 kg) and 11 females (20.8 ± 1.5 years, 1.62 ± 0.03 m, 68.0 ± 6.5 kg) performed the one-legged 6-m timed test and the one-legged triple-hop distance test. The 5 possible combinations were compared with a 2 (sex) × 2 (functional test) × 5 (calculation method) analysis of variance for each test. Significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were found between sex when the right leg was used as the reference value (men: 6.1%, women: 9.1%), and within calculation methods for men (range: 5.9-6.5%) and women (range: 8.4-9.4%), with low effect sizes (range: 0.07-0.26). These findings demonstrate that using a different reference value for calculating bilateral muscular imbalances does not result in a practically significant difference. These findings can be used to inform a more standardized calculation method which will afford conditioning coaches a more correct evaluation and monitoring of training and rehabilitation programs.

https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/29636/

Source: Europe PubMed Central

A comparison of bilateral muscular imbalance ratio calculations using functional tests.

Authors: Bampouras, T.M. and Dewhurst, S.

Journal: Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Volume: 32

Issue: 8

Pages: 2216-2220

ISSN: 1064-8011

Abstract:

Bilateral muscular imbalance can increase the risk of injury and negatively impact sporting performance. Bilateral muscular imbalances are typically calculated as ((side 1-side 2)/reference value) x 100, to provide a percentage value of the difference between limbs. Using different numerator (right-left or strong-weak) or reference values (left, right, strong, weak, average of the two) could mask or inflate the true difference value. The present study aimed to compare the bilateral muscular imbalance ratio calculations, using the absolute difference between limbs as the numerator and the five different options as reference values. Twenty three males (21.6±1.9 years, 1.80±0.06 m, 80.5±13.8 kg) and eleven females (20.8± 1.5 years, 1.62±0.03 m, 68.0±6.5 kg) performed the one-legged 6m timed test and the onelegged triple hop distance test. The five possible combinations were compared with a 2 (gender) x 2 (functional test) x 5 (calculation method) ANOVA for each test. Significant differences (P<0.05) were found between gender when the right leg was used as the reference value (males:6.1%, females:9.1%), and within calculation methods for males (range:5.9%-6.5%) and females (range:8.4%-9.4%), with low effect sizes (range: 0.07-0.26). The present findings demonstrate that using a different reference value for calculating bilateral muscular imbalances does not result in a practically significant difference. These findings can be used to inform a more standardised calculation method which will afford conditioning coaches a more correct evaluation and monitoring of training and rehabilitation programmes.

https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/29636/

Source: BURO EPrints