Logo image
The effects of ankle and proximal tibiofibular manipulations on ankle ROM and squat strength and biomechanics
Thesis   Open access

The effects of ankle and proximal tibiofibular manipulations on ankle ROM and squat strength and biomechanics

Reneigh J Morley-Hart
Masters by Research, Murdoch University
2023
pdf
Whole Thesis2.79 MBDownloadView
Open Access

Abstract

Biomechanics Joints--Range of motion Joints--Range of motion--Measurement Clinical exercise physiology Muscle strength--Testing Manipulation (Therapeutics)
Background: The back squat is commonly prescribed as part of strength and conditioning programs. Squat strategies can be affected by reduced ankle dorsiflexion range of motion (DF-ROM), leading to limited squat depth and dysfunctional compensatory movement patterns. Objective: The objective was to investigate the effect of high-velocity low-amplitude lower limb manipulations on 1 repetition maximum (1RM) back squat strength, frontal plane knee kinematics during a squat, and active DF-ROM in individuals with asymptomatic deficits in DF-ROM. Methods: Twenty-four resistance trained participants with asymptomatic deficits in DF-ROM participated in this cross-over trial. Interventions involved either manipulations targeting ankle DF-ROM, or a sham which mimicked the manipulations using a mechanical drop mechanism. The primary outcome was change in back squat 1RM between baseline to post-intervention, and the secondary outcomes were maximal knee valgus during the 1RM squat using 3D motion capture and change in DF-ROM. Results: There were statistically significant increases in 1RM after manipulation (4.75kg, p=.001) and sham (2.75kg, p=.032), but no statistical difference between interventions (p=.27). For maximal knee valgus during the squat, there was a statistically significant interaction between the treatment and side during the eccentric phase (p=.037). Post-hoc tests indicated the side with more restricted ankle ROM had 0.5° (2.7 – 3.8°) less maximal knee valgus after the manipulations compared to sham. There were no significant interactions for maximal knee valgus during the concentric phase (p=.10). Finally, there was no significant change in ankle DF-ROM immediately following either intervention (p=.39). Conclusion: The results suggest that a single session of high-velocity low-amplitude manipulations targeting ankle DF-ROM may not result in an immediate increase in 1RM back squat strength more than sham and may not influence short-term ankle dorsiflexion range of motion. Manipulations may change frontal plane knee kinematics during the eccentric phase of a squat, though this may not be clinically significant.

Details

Metrics

253 File views/ downloads
361 Record Views
Logo image