Comparing the Dominant and Non-Dominant Leg Strength of Division I Collegiate Female Cutting Athletes to Jumping Athletes: A Pilot Study.
Julia L Rapicavoli, Luis A Feigenbaum, Kathryn E Roach and 1 others
PMID 40469655WHAT IT FOUND
Cutting athletes had a stronger non-dominant quadriceps, while jumping athletes showed no clear side difference.
Jumping athletes were more often dominant-leg stronger, but the result was very uncertain.
Key findings
01Cutting athletes had a -4.8 foot-pounds quadriceps peak torque difference, indicating the non-dominant leg was stronger (p=0.008).
02Jumping athletes had a 2.5 foot-pounds quadriceps peak torque difference favouring the dominant leg, but it was not statistically significant (p=0.52).
03Using a 10 ft-lbs cut-off, 6 of 17 jumping athletes were classified as dominant stronger, compared with 0 of 26 cutting athletes.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This was a pilot study with a convenience sample of 43 athletes, so the findings are preliminary. Soccer and tennis athletes were grouped together as cutting athletes despite different movement demands. The 10 ft-lbs cut-off for classifying asymmetry was chosen by the research team from the data distribution and clinical opinion, not a validated standard. All participants were right-leg dominant, so left-leg dominance patterns were not observed. Only concentric quadriceps contractions were tested, not eccentric contractions that occur during sport. Testing was done once before the season, so post-season fatigue or training changes were not captured. The odds ratio for dominant-leg stronger in jumping athletes had a very wide confidence interval (1.56 to 577.25).
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat the 29.96 odds ratio as proof of a large, stable sport-specific difference. It came from 6 of 17 jumping athletes versus 0 of 26 cutting athletes, and the confidence interval was 1.56 to 577.25.