Article Text
PDF
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Low eccentric hip adduction strength increases the risk of hip adductor injury in football and ice hockey,1 2 emphasising the role of implementing strategies to target this. The Copenhagen Adduction exercise3 (video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6qfTLKhjnk) has achieved popularity in the sports medicine community. The exercise can be performed at pitch side without equipment,3 and elicits high muscle activity in the adductor longus3 and large eccentric hip adduction strength gains.4 These attributes facilitated the trial by Haroy et al; a prevention study that reported a 41% reduction of groin problems in football players following a Copenhagen Adduction exercise intervention initiated in the pre-season and maintained in the in-season.5 While bodyweight exercises, such as the Copenhagen Adduction exercise, are feasible for on-field implementation, such exercises have traditionally been questioned by exercise scientists and specialist in terms of their ability to elicit large strength gains, as progression relies mainly on adding more repetitions, rather that increasing exercise intensity.6 However, since the number of repetitions is the most clinically applicable progression variable for the Copenhagen Adduction exercise, understanding how this associates with improvements in hip adduction strength is important when prescribing the exercise for risk mitigation. Therefore, the purpose of this editorial is to analyse and discuss the role of training volume (number of repetitions and time under tension) as a simple progression principle to elicit eccentric hip …
Footnotes
Twitter @LasseIshoei, @KThorborg
Contributors Both authors conceived the study idea. LI wrote the initial draft. Both authors revised the draft and approved the final version.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests No financial competing interests, however, both authors have been involved in several of the original studies cited in this editorial.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.