AbstractBackground Copenhagen adduction exercise programs reduce groin injury risk and increase hip adductor strength in male footballers in a dose-dependent manner. This has not been studied in female playersObjective To investigate if an 8-week high-volume protocol based on the Copenhagen adduction exercise is more effective than a low-volume protocol in increasing hip adduction strength in female football players. Design An assessor-blind superiority randomised trial.Setting Norwegian women's 1st and 2nd division.Participants First team squad players ≥16 yrs able to perform a maximum hip adduction strength test at baseline (pain ≤3 on a numerical scale from 0 to 10).Intervention We randomized 52 players to a low-volume (220 reps/side in 21 sessions) or high-volume (394 reps/side in 16 sessions) group. Both groups performed an 8-week Copenhagen adduction exercise protocol with 3 levels, followed by a 10-week maintenance period with 1 session/week (16 reps/side/session).Main Outcome Measurements Isometric hip adductor torque (Nm/kg) measured with a long lever squeeze test in a ForceFrame (baseline, week 8 and 18).Results Thirty-eight players could be included in the analyses at week 8 (low-volume: n=21, high-volume: n=17) and 27 at week 18 (low-volume: n=15, high-volume: n=12). Both groups increased their hip adduction strength over the 8-week period (low-volume: 0.13 Nm/kg, high-volume: 0.13 Nm/kg) with no significant between-group difference (0.007 Nm/kg, 95% CI: -0.008 to 0.007, p=0.54). Both groups maintained their strength throughout the 10-week maintenance period (low-volume: -0.05 Nm/kg, high-volume: 0.06 Nm/kg), but the high-volume protocol resulted in slightly greater gains than the low-volume group (between-group difference: 0.12 Nm/kg, 95% CI: 0.001 to 0.23, p=0.048). Conclusion A higher-volume protocol was not more effective in increasing isometric adductor strength in female football players during an 8-week training period but may be more effective in maintaining strength.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2024 study studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: