Comparative Analysis of Mechanical Variables in Different Exercises Performed with a Rotational Inertial Device in Professional Soccer Players: A Pilot Study

TL;DR

This study compares how different exercises using a rotational inertial device affect mechanical variables in professional soccer players' legs.

Contribution

The study introduces a novel approach to assess and train limb-specific mechanical variables in soccer players using rotational inertial devices.

Findings

Quadriceps hip exercises produced higher mechanical values than quadriceps knee exercises in both limbs.

Hamstring hip exercises showed greater values except for peak force, which was higher in hamstring knee exercises.

Abductor exercises revealed significant between-limb differences, while other exercises showed minimal differences.

Abstract

Background: Soccer performance is largely dependent on high-intensity, unilateral actions such as sprints, jumps, and changes of direction. These demands can lead to strength and power differences between limbs, highlighting the importance of individualised assessment in professional players. Rotational inertial devices offer a valuable method to evaluate and train these mechanical variables separately for each leg. The aim of this study was twofold: (a) to characterise the mechanical variables derived from several lower-body strength exercises performed on rotational inertial devices, all targeting the same muscle group; and (b) to compare the mechanical variables between the dominant and non-dominant leg for each exercise. Methods: Twenty-six male professional soccer players (age = 26.3 ± 5.1 years; height = 182.3 ± 0.6 cm; weight = 75.9 ± 5.9 kg; body mass index = 22.8 ± 1.1 kg/m2; fat mass percentage = 9.1 ± 0.6%; fat-free mass = 68.8 ± 5.3 kg), all belonging to the same professional Belgian team, voluntarily participated in this study. The players completed a single assessment session consisting of six unilateral exercises (i.e., quadriceps hip, hamstring knee, adductor, quadriceps knee, hamstring hip, and abductor). For each exercise, they performed two sets of eight repetitions with each leg (i.e., dominant and non-dominant) in a randomised order. Results: The quadriceps hip exercise resulted in higher mechanical values compared to the quadriceps knee exercise in both limbs (p < 0.004). Similarly, the hamstring hip exercise produced greater values across all variables and limbs (p < 0.004), except for peak force, where the hamstring knee exercise exhibited higher values (p < 0.004). The adductor exercise showed higher peak force values for the dominant limb (p < 0.004). The between-limb comparison revealed differences only in the abductor exercise (p < 0.004). Conclusions: These findings suggest the necessity of prioritising movement selection based on targeted outcomes, although it should be considered that the differences between limb differences are very limited.

Figures