Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Validity of Isokinetic Hamstring Testing

I've just been asked to review a paper that compares the "conventional" concentric/concentric hamstring/quad torque ratio test vs. a "dynamic ratio control" test that measures eccentric hamstring torque vs concentric quad torque (not at the same time). This particular study did the testing on college distance runners.

Admittedly, I've not been a big fan of this kind of testing for and description of hamstring or quad function. It is non-weightbearing and is capable of testing only at the knee joint, with the hip joint static. Just how functional and practical is this type of information for the ATC, PT and strength coach? Is direct measurment of single joint/muscle torque informative, even if it is a measure of eccentric strength, with regard to sport rehabilitation or performance? Or is this one aspect of sport science that misses the mark on providing useful information when it comes time to hit the court or the field?

Comments?

3 comments:

Joe P. said...

We had a group of PT's come in one year and do knee cybex testing on our Varsity FB team. EVERY player came up with a quad/ham imbalance. That would make sense because we didn't even have a leg extension/curl machine. That team had no knee sprains or hamstring strains also. Oh yeah, we were state champs too.

The Iron Maven said...

I love it! I thought this isokinetic stuff was out the door. Old hat. But I guess people need research projects to do, eh?

Anonymous said...

we have a Cybex. As an ATC, I don't use it unless the Doc orders it. IMO, too much set up time, too much variablilty in the patients understanding of the test, and our software is terrible.

I would rather have my clients and patients perform movements I can assess visually and get feedback from them verbally.

I do not rule it out as tool for incorporating within the rehab protocol, meaning doing "sets" with it...but my opion, better ways to test.