Shoulder terminal range eccentric antagonist/concentric agonist strength ratios in overhead athletes

Objective: The agonist–antagonist strength relationship for shoulder external rotation and internal rotation was formerly described by the relatively more functional ratios of eccentric external rotator to concentric internal rotator moments, and eccentric internal rotator to concentric external rot...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports 2006-06, Vol.16 (3), p.174-180
Main Authors: Yildiz, Y., Aydin, T., Sekir, U., Kiralp, M. Z., Hazneci, B., Kalyon, T. A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adolescent
Anatomy & physiology
concentric agonist
eccentric antagonist
Functional Laterality - physiology
Humans
Male
Muscle Contraction - physiology
Muscle, Skeletal - physiology
Range of Motion, Articular - physiology
Rotation
Rotator Cuff - physiology
Shoulder
Shoulder Joint - physiology
Sports - education
Sports - physiology
Sports injuries
Sports medicine
strength ratio
Tennis - education
Tennis - physiology
terminal range
Torque
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective: The agonist–antagonist strength relationship for shoulder external rotation and internal rotation was formerly described by the relatively more functional ratios of eccentric external rotator to concentric internal rotator moments, and eccentric internal rotator to concentric external rotator moments for the entire range of motion. The aim of this study was to provide descriptive data for terminal range eccentric antagonist/concentric agonist rotator cuff strength in overhead athletes. Method: The dominant and non‐dominant shoulders of 40 asymptomatic military overhead athletes were tested through a range of 20° of external rotation to 90° of internal rotation using the Cybex NORM isokinetic dynamometer at a speed of 90°/s. Differences between the dominant and non‐dominant shoulders were assessed using the paired samples t‐test. Results: The terminal range ratios during external rotation (20° of internal rotation – 10° of external rotation) were found to be 2.09 and 1.58 for the dominant and non‐dominant shoulders, respectively, whereas the terminal range ratios during internal rotation (60–90° of internal rotation) were 1.03 and 1.19 for the dominant and non‐dominant shoulders, respectively. These ratio differences between the dominant and non‐dominant shoulders were significant (P
ISSN:0905-7188
1600-0838
DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2005.00471.x