Objective: The primary aim of this study was to compare eccentric knee flexion isokinetic performance at two commonly used angular velocities (60°·s−1 and 180°·s−1) between dominant and non-dominant limbs in healthy professional soccer players through the analysis of peak torque, mean peak torque, angle of peak torque, total work, and rate-of-torque-development-related variables. The secondary aim was to describe concentric knee extension and knee flexion strength variables assessed at 60°·s−1. Methods: Forty male professional soccer players performed concentric knee flexion–extension testing at 60°·s−1 and eccentric knee flexion testing at 60°·s−1 and 180°·s−1 using an isokinetic dynamometer. Peak torque (PT), mean peak torque (MPT), angle of peak torque (APT), total work (TW), and hamstrings: quadriceps ratios (H:Q ratios) were analyzed for dominant and non-dominant limbs. Inter-limb differences, repetition effects, and reliability indices were calculated. Results: No significant inter-limb differences were observed for most variables (trivial–small effect sizes), except for higher eccentric TW at 180°·s−1 in the dominant limb (p = 0.009). Eccentric PT and MPT decreased at higher velocities in both dominant (p = 0.002 and p < 0.001, respectively) and non-dominant (p = 0.008 and p < 0.001, respectively) limbs, while APT shifted toward more flexed knee angles (p < 0.001). Reliability was good to excellent (ICC = 0.81–0.87), with low measurement error. Conclusion: Eccentric knee flexion assessment at 60°·s−1 and 180°·s−1 angular velocities provided different results in PT, MPT, and APT for the same group of players, supporting the use of more than one eccentric test for obtaining information about these variables in elite soccer.
Nunez et al. (2026) studied this question.