Original Paper.
Biomedical Human Kinetics, 2, 15 - 18, 2010
DOI: 10.2478/v10101-010-0004-z
Spine flexibility and the prevalence of contractures of selected
postural muscle groups in junior male football players
Małgorzata Grabara1, Grzegorz Kołodziej2, Marcin Wójcik1
1 Department of Tourism and Recreation, Academy of Physical Education, Katowice; 2 Primary School No. 32,
Chorzów and Sport Club “POLONIA” BYTOM S.A., Bytom, Poland
Summary
Study aim: To assess spine flexibility and possible muscle contractures at shoulder and hip joints in boys practicing
football and in their untrained mates.
Material and methods: Two groups of boys aged 10 – 13 years were studied: football players (n = 176) and untrained
boys (n = 137). Warm-up stretching exercises were applied at every training session. Spine mobility was determined
by measuring differences between standing and bent postures in the forward (thoracic and lumbar regions), backward and lateral bends and in axial rotation (body twist). Muscle contractures were detected by applying Thomas’,
Dega’s (wall test) and pseudo-Laseque’s (for sciatic-tibial muscles) tests.
Results: Boys training football had significantly (p<0.01 – 0.001) better mobility of the thoracic spine and in the
transversal plane, that latter being age-related. Muscle contractures (by pseudo-Laseque’s test) were significantly
(p<0.05) less frequent in football players than in untrained boys, especially in the older ones.
Conclusions: Stretching exercises ought to be recommended as elements of warm-ups and of physical education
classes in order to improve spine flexibility and reduce the incidence of muscle contractures (thoracic and sciatictibial muscles and hip flexors).
Key words: Spine flexibility – Muscle contractures – Male football players
Introduction
Physical development and life quality of youths ought
to be carefully supervised and monitored, especially in
athletes, in order to improve their muscle strength and
endurance and to prevent possible injuries [2,3,13]. One
of the principal health-related elements of physical fitness is flexibility expressed by motion ranges at joints.
Flexibility depends on the anatomy of joints, elasticity
of muscles, tendons and ligaments, amount of the subcutaneous fat, age, gender, body build and, chiefly, on
the kind of motor activity. That latter improves the agility, prevents tissue damages and decreases in fitness, and
enhances shaping specific skills. Dynamic movements
require that motion ranges at various joints are adequate
[1,5,6,15]. Motion ranges, in turn, requires appropriate
muscle elasticity, i.e. the capacity of extending a muscle
or muscle group while executing movement by antagonistic muscles. Stretching exercises may improve muscle elasticity but it is not clear whether those used in foot-
ball training improve also spine flexibility and motion
ranges. The aim of the study was thus an assessment of
spine flexibility and of possible muscle contractures at
shoulder and hip joints in boys practicing football.
Material and Methods
Subjects: Two groups of boys aged 10 – 13 years were
studied: football players (n = 176) and untrained boys (n
= 137). Football players, members of Silesian football
clubs aged 10 years, trained twice weekly, those aged
11 – 12 years – 3 times weekly and those aged 13 years
– 5 times weekly. Every training session lasted 90 min.
Warm-ups (15 – 20 min) consisted of running followed
by dynamic flexibility exercises (shoulder circles and arm
swings) and then static ones. Boys aged 10 years were
trained in basic technical skills and general motor abilities (speed, motor co-ordination, flexibility); the training
of older boys aimed at shaping their fitness potential
according to their biological development, versatile
Dr Małgorzata Grabara, Academy of Physical Education, Mikołowska 72, 40-065 Katowice, Poland
Author’s address [email protected]
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/17 4:53 AM
M. Grabara et al.
16
technical skills, team and individual tactics, use of technical-tactical skills in various game elements. Their training experience ranged from 10 months to 4 years, depending on age. The untrained (control) boys were not
engaged in motor activities except the obligatory physical education classes.
Measurements: Body height was measured with a
stadiometer (accuracy 0.1 cm) and body mass – with
medical balance (accuracy 0.1 kg); from these the body
mass index (BMI) was computed. The range of spine
mobility was determined using a measuring tape (accuracy 0.1 cm) according to the SFTR (sagittal-frontaltransverse-rotation) protocol [16] and expressed as differences between the neutral (standing) body position
and after having performed given movement. The following motion ranges were determined:
– Forward bend – thoracic region (Th1-Th12),
– Forward bend – lumbar region (L1-L5),
– Backward bend (xi-sy),
– Lateral bend (armpit – plate, lateral side) – contralateral measurement,
– Rotation (xi; plate, lateral side) – contralateral measurement.
Muscle contractures (defined here as insufficient elasticity of given muscle group when certain movement was
to be performed) at shoulder and hip joints were detected
by simple clinical tests: Thomas’, Dega’s (wall test) and
pseudo-Laseque’s (for sciatic-tibial muscles) [7,16].
Thomas’ test was performed in lying position, the
control leg was pulled to the chest and an involuntary
flexion of the other leg at the hip joint was a sign of contracture of hip flexors. Pseudo-Laseque’s test consisted
of lifting leg (maximum hip flexion, knee extended)
lying on the back; pain of the popliteal fossa induced by
forcing the leg to fully rise (90º), disappearing upon
knee flexing, was a sign of contracture of sciatic-tibial
muscles. Dega’s wall test was performed in tucked position, loins touching the wall; arms were lifted so as to
touch the wall without moving loins away; when the
subject could not press the palms against the wall, it was
a sign of contracture of thoracic muscles [7,16].
The data were subjected to two-way ANOVA and
post-hoc Student’s t-test in case of significant group×age
interaction (measurements). The between-group differences in the incidences of muscle contracture were assessed by chi-square function. The level of p≤0.05 was
considered significant.
Results
The results recorded in this study are presented in
Tables 1 – 4. In case of anthropometric variables (Table
1) no significant group×age interactions were found,
thus in case of body mass and BMI significant (p<0.01)
differences were noted: untrained boys were heavier and
had higher BMI than their mates playing football.
Table 1. Mean values (±SD) of anthropometric variables of boys aged 10 – 13 years
Age
(years)
10
11
12
13
n
43
39
56
38
Body height
(cm)
141.3 ± 6.8
144.3 ± 6.7
153.7 ± 7.1
159.1 ± 7.9
Football players
Body mass *
(kg)
34.9 ± 5.9
35.7 ± 5.8
42.9 ± 8.2
45.7 ± 6.8
BMI *
n
17.4 ± 2.7
17.2 ± 2.1
18.1 ± 2.3
17.9 ± 1.6
30
34
43
30
Body height
(cm)
142.2 ± 5.6
144.9 ± 6.4
151.0 ± 6.2
159.0 ± 8.2
Untrained
Body mass
(kg)
40.1 ± 8.4
38.6 ± 10.4
42.0 ± 7.9
51.2 ± 12.2
BMI
19.6 ± 3.1
18.2 ± 3.4
18.4 ± 2.8
20.0 ± 3.7
* Significantly (p<0.01) different from untrained boys by two-way ANOVA
Table 2. Mean values (±SD) of spine mobility in the sagittal plane in boys aged 10 – 13 years
Age
(years)
10
11
12
13
n
43
39
56
38
BF(Th1 – Th12)
(cm) #
4.49 ± 1.04
4.12 ± 0.96
3.92 ± 1.12
5.92 ± 1.26*
Football players
BF (L1 – L5)
BB (xi – sy)
(cm)
(cm)
4.60 ± 1.18*
3.76 ± 1.07
4.65 ± 0.91
3.45 ± 1.81
5.30 ± 1.18
3.71 ± 0.98
4.75 ± 1.34
3.39 ± 1.38*
n
30
34
43
30
BF(Th1 – Th12)
(cm)
4.32 ± 1.48
3.54 ± 1.02
3.62 ± 1.23
3.70 ± 1.38
Untrained
BF (L1 – L5) BB (xi – sy)
(cm)
(cm)
6.50 ± 2.31
4.20 ± 1.77
4.59 ± 1.07
3.51 ± 1.26
4.98 ± 1.52
3.58 ± 1.73
4.87 ± 1.97
5.43 ± 2.53
Legend: BF – Bend forward; BB – Bend backward; # Significantly (p<0.01) different from untrained boys by two-way ANOVA
(age 10 – 12 years); * Significantly (p<0.001) different from untrained boys by t-test
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/17 4:53 AM
Spine flexibility in trained and untrained boys
17
Table 3. Mean values (±SD) of spine mobility in the frontal and transversal planes in boys aged 10 – 13 years
FP-L
Age
n
(cm)
(years)
Football players
10
43
7.05 ± 1.7
11
39
6.78 ± 1.43
12
56
7.46 ± 1.71
13
38
7.31 ± 1.73
Untrained
10
30
6.55 ± 1.74
11
34
6.31 ± 1.83
12
43
7.14 ± 2.09
13
30
7.77 ± 1.71
FP-R
(cm)
7.51 ± 1.66*
6.71 ± 1.16
7.66 ± 1.77
7.53 ± 1.57
6.52 ± 1.60
6.15 ± 1.68
7.07 ± 2.08
7.75 ± 1.62
TP-L
(cm)
TP-R
(cm)
4.53 ± 1.47*** 4.58 ± 1.51**
3.54 ± 1.89
3.64 ± 1.87
4.14 ± 1.80*** 4.17 ± 1.95**
4.05 ± 1.69
4.28 ± 1.77
3.33 ± 0.99
4.03 ± 1.52
2.98 ± 1.07
4.05 ± 1.05
3.52 ± 1.08
3.93 ± 1.25
3.05 ± 1.06
4.05 ± 1.25
Legend: FP – Frontal plane; TP – Transversal plane; L – Left side; R – Right side; Significantly different from untrained boys by
t-test: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001
Table 4. Percent incidences of muscle contractures in boys aged 10 – 13 years
Football players
Age
(years)
10
11
12
13
Untrained
n
TT
PL
WT
n
TT
PL
WT
43
39
56
38
0
9
5
13***
14
23*
44*
30**
0*
3
2
11
30
34
43
30
3
18
5
60
13
38
30
52
7
6
0
13
Legend: TT – Thomas’ leg test; PL – Pseudo-Laseque’s leg test; WT – Dega’s arm wall test; Different from the respective incidence in the untrained group: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001
In case of spine flexibility variables all group×age interactions were significant (p<0.01), thus between-group
differences were assessed by the t-test for individual age
categories. Football playing boys had significantly (p<0.01
– 0.001) better mobility of thoracic spine than their untrained mates. In the lumbar region, the youngest football players had significantly (p<0.001) worse mobility
and the same applied to backward mobility in oldest boys
(Table 2). No consistent between-group differences were
noted in spine mobility in the frontal and transversal
planes but 10- and 12-year old football players attained
significantly (p<0.05 – 0.001) better results in the transversal plane mobility than their untrained mates (Table 3).
The incidences of muscle contractures were recorded
for the right and left extremities separately. However,
no significant right-left differences were found for any
age or test, therefore mean percentages for both sides
were computed and presented in Table 4. The incidence
of muscle contractures revealed by Thomas’ test was
significantly (p<0.001) lower in football players than in
untrained boys but only at the age of 13 years. The re-
sults of the wall test were significantly (p<0.05) better
in football players than in untrained boys but only at the
age of 10 years. Most pronounced differences were noted
in the results of the pseudo-Laseque’s test but significantly
(p<0.05 – 0.01) lower incidences of muscle contractures
were found in football players aged 11 and 13 years compared with their untrained mates, while in 12-year old
boys the situation was reversed (p<0.05).
Discussion
Spine flexibility has been measured mostly by forward
bend of the trunk in standing or sitting positions but flexibility is then affected by the tonus of sciatic-tibial muscles [4,8,14] and assessments in all 3 planes are extremely
rare. Flexibility, an anatomical-functional feature, is of
low heritability. It may increase in effect of diverse motor
activities, age and training experience [8,9,14], stretching exercises, shaping spine flexibility, being thus recommended in sport training [8]. An insufficient flexibility
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/17 4:53 AM
M. Grabara et al.
18
in athletes limits the ranges of performing diverse technical tasks and, more importantly, increases the risk of
competition- or training-induced injuries [5,10,11,13]. The
results of this study demonstrated that junior football
players had, generally, wider motion ranges in the forward bend (thoracic region), and in lateral bends and
twists. Yet, those results cannot be fully attributed to
sport training since spine mobility, in relation to untrained boys, was not clearly related to age, so football
training may bring about improvements of spine mobility but not in all directions. On the other hand, boys
playing football exhibited a better elasticity of muscles
compared with their untrained mates or, in other words,
a better flexibility at some joints. Particularly striking
was very high incidence (50 – 60%) of contractures of
hip and sciatic-tibial flexors in untrained 13-year old boys.
Football training conducted 3 days a week, each session lasting 45 min, was reported to bring about higher
improvements in motor skills and flexibility (forward
bend in sitting position) in 7 – 8-year old boys compared
with traditional physical education programmes [9]. In
football players aged 12 – 15 years, subjected to 16 weeks
of strength-directed training, a decrease in the sit-andreach bend (by 8.2%) was noted. On the other hand, the
increase following football training which included
stretching exercises was negligible compared with the
control group [8]. It could thus be concluded that high
volume and intensity of strength-directed training reduced muscle elasticity and, in effect, of flexibility. Also
in this study only small improvements were noted which
might suggest that flexibility was associated with the
kinds and volumes of strength and stretching exercises
included in a training session. Better spine mobility in
all planes, especially in twists and right lateral bends,
was reported for handball players aged 11 years compared with untrained boys [12] and that effect was attributed to training.
In earlier studies [10,11], in which the same tests were
applied as in this study, handball players aged 15 years
were superior to basketball players in forward and lateral bends, other motion ranges being alike. Basketball
players aged 13 – 14 years had significantly better spine
mobility than their untrained mates. Moreover, the incidences of contractures of the thoracic and sciatic-tibial
muscles and of hip flexors were in those handball and
basketball players significantly lower than in the untrained boys. However, those results cannot be compared
with the presented here because of age differences. Nevertheless, all those sports practiced by boys brought about
general improvements in spine flexibility and motion
ranges in the shoulder and hip joints but probably due to
the kind and amount of warm-up stretching exercises
and not to the sport specificity. Thus, such exercises
ought to be recommended as warm-up elements in order
to improve spine flexibility and reduce the incidence of
muscle contractures.
References
1. Alter M.J. (2004) Science of Flexibility (3rd ed.). Human
Kinetics, Champaign IL.
2. American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on Sports
Medicine and Fitness (2001) Strength training by children and
adolescents. Pediatrics 107:147-1472.
3. American College of Sports Medicine (1995) ACSM's
Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription (5th ed.). Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore.
4. Baquet G, J.W.Twisk, H.C.Kemper, E.Van Praagh, S.Berthoin (2006). Longitudinal follow-up of fitness during childhood: interaction with physical activity. Am.J.Hum.Biol. 18:51-58.
5. Beedle B., C.Jesse, M.H.Stone (1991) Flexibility characteristics among athletes who weight train. J.Appl.Sport Sci.Res.
5:150-154.
6. Boraczyński T., L.B.Boraczyńska, J.Urniaż (2009) The
influence of physical activity on body composition and the
level of student’s flexibility. Medicina Sportiva 13:13-16.
7. Buckup K. (1998) Testy kliniczne w badaniu kości, stawów i mięśni. PZWL, Warszawa.
8. Christou M., I.Smilios, K.Sotiropoulos, K.Volaklis, T.Pillanidis, S.Tokmakidis (2006). Effects of resistance training on
the physical capacities of adolescent soccer players. J.Strength
Cond.Res. 20:783-791.
9. Erceg M., N.Zagorac, R.Katić (2008) The impact of football training on motor development in male children. Coll
Antropol. 32:241-247.
10. Grabara M. (2008) Spine flexibility and the prevalence
of the increased stiffness of shoulders and hip joint in youth
female and male handball players. Medycyna Sportowa 176:
304-310.
11. Grabara M., A.Banaszczak (2007) The flexibility of the
spine and muscle contractures in shoulders and hip joints of
young female and male basketball players. (Engl. abstr). In:
Nabór i Selekcja oraz Szkolenie Dzieci i Młodzieży w Zakresie Gier Sportowych. Międzynarodowe Towarzystwo Gier
Sportowych, Wrocław, Monografia 9, pp. 39-44.
12. Jankowicz-Szymańska A., M.Imiołek (2008) Spine mobility and the quality of body posture in 11-year old handball
players compared to their peers. Medycyna Sportowa 176:293303.
13. National Strength and Conditioning Association (1996)
Youth resistance training. Position statement paper and literature review. Strength Cond.J. 18:62-75.
14. Schmid M., M.Romann, S.Kriemler, L.Zahner (2007).
How can the physical fitness of schoolchildren be measured?
Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin & Sporttraumatologie 55:52-61.
15. Thrash K., B.Kelly (1987). Flexibility and strength training. J.Appl.Sport Sci.Res. 1:74-75.
16. Zembaty A. (2002) Kinezyterapia (Vol. 1) Kasper, Kraków.
Received 21.09.2009
Accepted 18.12.2009
© University of Physical Education, Warsaw, Poland
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/17 4:53 AM