Flexibility comparisons of junior elite tennis players to other athletes T. JEFF CHANDLER,* EdD, W. BEN KIBLER, MD, TIM L. UHL, PT, ATC, BEVEN WOOTEN, PT, ATC, ANN KISER, PT, AND ELIZABETH STONE, ATC
From the
Lexington Clinic Sports Medicine Center, Lexington, Kentucky
ABSTRACT
cle. The purpose of this paper is to compare the flexibility findings in 86 junior elite tennis players to those in 139 nontennis athletes in sports primarily involving the lower
Flexibility measurements were obtained in 86 junior elite tennis players and compared to the flexibility measurements of 139 athletes involved in other sports. The measurements obtained included sit and reach flexibil-
body. Flexibility, as discussed in this paper, refers to the athlete’s ability to move a joint through a normal range of
ity, quadricep flexibility, hamstring flexibility, gastrocnemius flexibility, shoulder internal rotation, and shoul-
motion without undue stress to the musculotendinous unit. Flexibility can be measured in both active and passive ranges of motion. Decreases in flexibility have been reported in athletes and are possibly related to the demands of their sports.’,’Lack of flexibility has been related to both a decrease in athletic performance and an increase in muscular
der external rotation. All measurements except sit and reach flexibility were obtained goniometrically. Tennis players were significantly tighter in sit and reach flexibility, dominant shoulder internal rotation, and nondominant shoulder internal rotation. They were significantly more flexible in dominant shoulder external rotation and nondominant shoulder external rotation. The flexibility differences found in tennis players suggest adaptations to the musculoskeletal demands of their sport. These results suggest that a sport-specific flexibility program may be necessary for junior elite tennis players in order to promote maximum performance and help prevent
injuries.’ METHODS
Eighty-six junior elite tennis players from a resident tennis (20 females, 66 males; mean age 15.4; range, 12-21) and 139 athletes in sports primarily involving the lower body (44 females, 95 males; mean age 15.9; range 13-22) were measured for total body flexibility. Sit and reach flexibility measurements and standard goniometric range of motion measurements’&dquo; of maximal shoulder, hamstring, quadricep, and gastrocnemius flexibility were taken. During testing, the athletes were asked to actively move the joint as far as possible through the range of motion. The examiner then applied firm but gentle pressure to the body part for the reading to be made. Maximal flexibility was defined as the point where the examiner begins to feel tension develop in camp
flexibility-related injuries. physical demands of sport performance on the athlete’s body cause certain musculoskeletal adaptations. These adaptations are often positive, such as the increase in muscular strength that usually accompanies muscle training. However, repeated demands on a musculotendinous unit to exert force may cause it to shorten, decreasing normal joint range of motion. These repeated demands cause a vicious cycle of microtrauma to the tight muscle, followed by scar formation, followed by more microtrauma with continued use.1,4The musculoskeletal adaptations at this point become maladaptations, reducing joint range of motion, changing biomechanical patterns and decreasing the efficiency of force production, and increasing the chance of injury to the musThe
the muscle. Shoulder the scapula
flexibility was measured with the athlete supine, stabilized, the shoulder abducted to 90°, and the glenohumeral joint rotated into maximum internal and external rotation. Hamstring flexibility was measured with the athlete supine, one leg extended on the table, and the opposite leg actively raised by flexing the hip while keeping the knee fully extended. Quadricep flexibility was measured with the athlete supine, one leg flexed at the hip, and the
*
Address correspondence and repnnt requests to T Jeff Chandler, EdD, Lexington Clinic Sports Medicme Center, 1221 S Broadway, Lexington, KY
knee held with the hand close to the chest. The measured
40504
134
135
leg hung off the side of the table and the knee was flexed actively, then taken to the point of tension for the measurement to be taken. Gastrocnemius flexibility was measured with the athlete supine, knee in complete extension, and the foot maximally dorsiflexed. Low back flexibility was measured in the sit and reach position in centimeters as described by the YMCA.’ Statistical analysis of the data consisted of separate analysis of variance statistics on each variable for tennis players versus nontennis players. To solve the problems associated with using multiple univariate statistics, the Bonferroni method9 was used. To preserve an overall alpha level of 0.05, the experimentwise alpha level was calculated to P < 0.004.
TABLE 2 Low back
a
P
From the
Lexington Clinic Sports Medicine Center, Lexington, Kentucky
ABSTRACT
cle. The purpose of this paper is to compare the flexibility findings in 86 junior elite tennis players to those in 139 nontennis athletes in sports primarily involving the lower
Flexibility measurements were obtained in 86 junior elite tennis players and compared to the flexibility measurements of 139 athletes involved in other sports. The measurements obtained included sit and reach flexibil-
body. Flexibility, as discussed in this paper, refers to the athlete’s ability to move a joint through a normal range of
ity, quadricep flexibility, hamstring flexibility, gastrocnemius flexibility, shoulder internal rotation, and shoul-
motion without undue stress to the musculotendinous unit. Flexibility can be measured in both active and passive ranges of motion. Decreases in flexibility have been reported in athletes and are possibly related to the demands of their sports.’,’Lack of flexibility has been related to both a decrease in athletic performance and an increase in muscular
der external rotation. All measurements except sit and reach flexibility were obtained goniometrically. Tennis players were significantly tighter in sit and reach flexibility, dominant shoulder internal rotation, and nondominant shoulder internal rotation. They were significantly more flexible in dominant shoulder external rotation and nondominant shoulder external rotation. The flexibility differences found in tennis players suggest adaptations to the musculoskeletal demands of their sport. These results suggest that a sport-specific flexibility program may be necessary for junior elite tennis players in order to promote maximum performance and help prevent
injuries.’ METHODS
Eighty-six junior elite tennis players from a resident tennis (20 females, 66 males; mean age 15.4; range, 12-21) and 139 athletes in sports primarily involving the lower body (44 females, 95 males; mean age 15.9; range 13-22) were measured for total body flexibility. Sit and reach flexibility measurements and standard goniometric range of motion measurements’&dquo; of maximal shoulder, hamstring, quadricep, and gastrocnemius flexibility were taken. During testing, the athletes were asked to actively move the joint as far as possible through the range of motion. The examiner then applied firm but gentle pressure to the body part for the reading to be made. Maximal flexibility was defined as the point where the examiner begins to feel tension develop in camp
flexibility-related injuries. physical demands of sport performance on the athlete’s body cause certain musculoskeletal adaptations. These adaptations are often positive, such as the increase in muscular strength that usually accompanies muscle training. However, repeated demands on a musculotendinous unit to exert force may cause it to shorten, decreasing normal joint range of motion. These repeated demands cause a vicious cycle of microtrauma to the tight muscle, followed by scar formation, followed by more microtrauma with continued use.1,4The musculoskeletal adaptations at this point become maladaptations, reducing joint range of motion, changing biomechanical patterns and decreasing the efficiency of force production, and increasing the chance of injury to the musThe
the muscle. Shoulder the scapula
flexibility was measured with the athlete supine, stabilized, the shoulder abducted to 90°, and the glenohumeral joint rotated into maximum internal and external rotation. Hamstring flexibility was measured with the athlete supine, one leg extended on the table, and the opposite leg actively raised by flexing the hip while keeping the knee fully extended. Quadricep flexibility was measured with the athlete supine, one leg flexed at the hip, and the
*
Address correspondence and repnnt requests to T Jeff Chandler, EdD, Lexington Clinic Sports Medicme Center, 1221 S Broadway, Lexington, KY
knee held with the hand close to the chest. The measured
40504
134
135
leg hung off the side of the table and the knee was flexed actively, then taken to the point of tension for the measurement to be taken. Gastrocnemius flexibility was measured with the athlete supine, knee in complete extension, and the foot maximally dorsiflexed. Low back flexibility was measured in the sit and reach position in centimeters as described by the YMCA.’ Statistical analysis of the data consisted of separate analysis of variance statistics on each variable for tennis players versus nontennis players. To solve the problems associated with using multiple univariate statistics, the Bonferroni method9 was used. To preserve an overall alpha level of 0.05, the experimentwise alpha level was calculated to P < 0.004.
TABLE 2 Low back
a
P
