Table 3

Pairwise comparisons adductor longus (dominant leg)

Exercise2. Copenhagen adduction (108%)3. Hip adduction with an elastic band (103%)4. Hip adductor machine (99%)5. Sliding hip abduction/ adduction (98%)6. Isometric adduction with a ball between the ankles (86%)7. Side-lying hip adduction (64%)8. Supine bilateral hip adduction (14%)
1. Isometric adduction with a ball between the knees (108%)0±55±59±510±522±5**44±5**94±5**
2. Copenhagen adduction (108%) 5±59±510±522±5**44±5**94±5**
3. Hip adduction with an elastic band (103%)  4±55±517±5*39±5**89±5**
4. Hip adductor machine (99%)   1±513±535±5**85±5**
5. Sliding hip abduction/adduction (98%)    11±534±5**83±5**
6. Isometric adduction with a ball between the ankles (86%)     23±5**72±5**
7. Side-lying hip adduction (64%)      49±5**
  • *p<0.05 and **p<0.01 (Bonferroni corrected).

  • Values are reported as the difference of least square means in % nEMG± SE. Exercises are listed according to the level of peak nEMG of the dominant adductor longus with peak nEMG stated in brackets. nEMG=normalised electromyography.