Neuromuscular Control, Balance, Musculoskeletal Function
Conditions
Keywords
Proprioception, Static stretching, Dynamic stretching, Balance, Explosive Power
Brief summary
The purpose of this randomized controlled trial is to compare the acute effects of static stretching, dynamic stretching, and proprioceptive exercises on proprioception, muscle strength, balance, and explosive power in young athletes. The study aims to determine how different stretching and exercise modalities influence short-term performance parameters. The primary questions this study aims to answer are: Do static stretching, dynamic stretching, and proprioceptive exercises have different acute effects on proprioception? Do these interventions cause different changes in muscle strength, balance, and explosive power? Researchers will compare the static stretching, dynamic stretching, and proprioceptive exercise groups to determine which method produces greater improvements in the measured performance parameters. Participants will: Perform one of the three assigned exercise protocols according to a standardized warm-up procedure Undergo pre- and post-exercise assessments, including: Proprioception (measured with an isokinetic device) Muscle strength (measured with an isokinetic device) Balance (measured with a Y balance test and BESS balance test) Explosive power (measured with the Sargent Vertical Jump Test)
Detailed description
This randomized controlled trial aims to compare the acute effects of static stretching, dynamic stretching, and proprioceptive exercises on knee joint position sense (proprioception), muscle strength, balance, and explosive power in young male soccer players. Proprioception, the ability to sense the position and movement of joints, muscles, and tendons, plays a critical role in maintaining joint stability. Proprioceptive exercises are widely used among athletes to enhance performance and reduce injury risk. Stretching exercises, particularly static and dynamic techniques, are commonly integrated into warm-up routines to improve flexibility, joint range of motion, and neuromuscular function. However, direct comparisons of the acute effects of static stretching, dynamic stretching, and proprioceptive exercises remain limited. In this study, healthy male soccer players aged 14-19 years, with at least five years of competitive experience, no knee pain in the past two months, and no history of knee surgery, will be included. Participants will be randomly assigned (block randomization) into three groups: Static Stretching Group - A controlled-position protocol targeting the quadriceps, hamstrings, plantar flexors, and dorsiflexors, with specific hold durations. Dynamic Stretching Group - A repetitive movement protocol for the same muscle groups, with gradual speed increases. Proprioceptive Exercise Group - A 10-exercise proprioceptive training program performed on a BOSU ball, focusing on lower-limb awareness, postural control, and dynamic balance. All groups will perform a standardized 10-minute warm-up on a cycle ergometer before their respective protocols. Assessments will be conducted before and immediately after the intervention: Knee joint position sense (proprioception) - measured with an ISOMED 2000 isokinetic dynamometer Muscle strength - isokinetic testing of knee flexors and extensors using the isokinetic device Static balance - Balance Error Scoring System (BESS) test Dynamic balance - Y-Balance Test Explosive power - Sargent Vertical Jump Test The primary hypothesis is that proprioceptive exercises will produce greater acute improvements in proprioception, balance, and explosive power, while dynamic stretching may yield higher acute gains in muscle strength. Findings from this study are expected to inform evidence-based warm-up and training strategies for young soccer players.
Interventions
Our exercise group where we applied the static stretching protocol
Our exercise group where we applied the dynamic stretching protocol
Proprioceptive Exercise Program
Sponsors
Study design
Eligibility
Inclusion criteria
* Playing football for at least 5 years. * Not experiencing knee pain for the last 2 months. * No history of knee surgery. * Practicing for 90 minutes at least 5 days a week. * Volunteering to participate in the study. * Being between 14 and 19 years old.
Exclusion criteria
* Having experienced knee pain for the last two months. * Having had knee surgery. * Not willing to participate.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Knee Joint Position Sense Error (degrees) | Baseline and 1 day | Angular joint position matching error (degrees) measured using the ISOMED 2000 isokinetic dynamometer with passive reproduction of target angles. |
| Peak Torque during Knee Extension (Nm) | Baseline and 1 day | Peak torque (Nm) during knee extension assessed using the ISOMED 2000 isokinetic dynamometer. Testing was performed in concentric mode at 60 deg/s. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Total Work during Knee Flexion (J) | Baseline and 1 day | Total work (J) produced during knee flexion assessed using the ISOMED 2000 isokinetic dynamometer. Testing was performed in concentric mode at 60 deg/s. |
| Average Work during Knee Extension (J) | Baseline and 1 day | Average work (J) during knee extension assessed using the ISOMED 2000 isokinetic dynamometer. Testing was performed in concentric mode at 60 deg/s. |
| Average Work during Knee Flexion (J) | Baseline and 1 day | Average work (J) during knee flexion assessed using the ISOMED 2000 isokinetic dynamometer. Testing was performed in concentric mode at 60 deg/s. |
| Maximum Work during Knee Extension (J) | Baseline and 1 day | Maximum work (J) during knee extension assessed using the ISOMED 2000 isokinetic dynamometer. Testing was performed in concentric mode at 60 deg/s. |
| Maximum Work during Knee Flexion (J) | Baseline and 1 day | Maximum work (J) during knee flexion assessed using the ISOMED 2000 isokinetic dynamometer. Testing was performed in concentric mode at 60 deg/s. |
| Average Power during Knee Extension (W) | Baseline and 1 day | Average power (W) during knee extension assessed using the ISOMED 2000 isokinetic dynamometer. Testing was performed in concentric mode at 60 deg/s. |
| Peak Torque during Knee Flexion (Nm) | Baseline and 1 day | Peak torque (Nm) during knee flexion assessed using the ISOMED 2000 isokinetic dynamometer. Testing was performed in concentric mode at 60 deg/s. |
| Knee Joint Angle at Peak Torque during Extension (degrees) | Baseline and 1 day | The knee joint angle (degrees) at which peak torque occurs during knee extension, assessed using the ISOMED 2000 isokinetic dynamometer. Testing was performed in concentric mode at 60 deg/s. |
| Knee Joint Angle at Peak Torque during Flexion (degrees) | Baseline and 1 day | The knee joint angle (degrees) at which peak torque occurs during knee flexion, assessed using the ISOMED 2000 isokinetic dynamometer. Testing was performed in concentric mode at 60 deg/s. |
| Y Balance Test Composite Score (percent) | Baseline and 1 day | Dynamic balance performance evaluated using the normalized composite reach score from the Y Balance Test (percent). |
| BESS Total Error Score (points) | Baseline and 1 day | Static balance performance measured using the Balance Error Scoring System (BESS); higher scores indicate worse balance. |
| Vertical Jump Height (cm) - Sargent Test | Baseline and 1 day | Explosive lower-limb power measured using the Sargent Vertical Jump Test (cm). |
| Average Power during Knee Flexion (W) | Baseline and 1 day | verage power (W) during knee flexion assessed using the ISOMED 2000 isokinetic dynamometer. Testing was performed in concentric mode at 60 deg/s. |
| Total Work during Knee Extension (J) | Baseline and 1 day | Total work (J) produced during knee extension assessed using the ISOMED 2000 isokinetic dynamometer. Testing was performed in concentric mode at 60 deg/s. |
Countries
Turkey (Türkiye)