Three-dimensional, Isotonic Comparison Of Dominant And Non-dominant Upper Limb Force Production

Document Type

Conference Presentation

Department

Health, Exercise, and Sport Sciences Department

Conference Title

American College of Sports Medicine - Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise conference

Organization

American College of Sports Medicine

Location

Virtual

Date of Presentation

5-27-2020

Journal Publication

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

ISSN

0195-9131

DOI

10.1249/01.mss.0000676524.49947.2b

Volume

52

Issue

7S

First Page

273

Abstract

Athletes and coaches have traditionally relied on isokinetic devices to compare dominant and non-dominant strength ratios; the information provided is limited in its application. Recent technology permits strength and power comparisons in an isotonic, three-dimensional environment that is more compatible with the load profiles experienced during sport performance. PURPOSE: To determine the difference in power between dominant and non-dominant arms across various loads, motions, and planes. METHODS: 206 subjects performed 3,727 unilateral sets of 10 repetitions in upper-extremity movements on Proteus (Proteus Motion, USA). Loads were applied through magnetic resistance and ranged from 5-25 lbs; they were divided between dominant (n=1,975) and non-dominant (n=1,747) arms. The performance variables were explosiveness (peak force development rate), peak power, and braking (rate of deceleration). Descriptive statistics characterized mean performances. Linear regression models predicted the effect of arm dominance on performance parameters, holding the load and exercise constant. RESULTS: Across all sets, explosiveness was 852.61 ± 629.46 watts/sec, peak power was 206.40 ± 112.42 watts, and braking was 1059.90 ± 766.63 watts/sec. Dominant and non-dominant arms were different in explosiveness (p=0.005), peak power (p=0.041), and braking (p=0.035). With confounding variables held constant, linear regression found use of the non-dominant arm to predict a 10-watt decrease in peak power (R2=0.691; p<0.001), a 46-watt/sec decrease in mean explosiveness (R2=0.553; p=0.001), and a 65-watt/sec decrease in braking (R2=0.668; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In an athletic population, the independent use of dominant and non-dominant limbs is often critical to success. It is important to know the non-dominant performance deficit in a setting applicable to sport performance. This information can contribute to optimal training protocols and return-to-play testing batteries.

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS