LOW BACK MOTION AND HAMSTRING FLEXIBILITY: EVALUATION FOLLOWING TWO DIFFERENT PROTOCOLS

Introduction Several tests are commonly used to evaluate the hamstring and low-back flexibility in health-related physical fitness batteries. They are, in general, referred to the sit-and-reach (SAR) test. The most popular and easy to perform are the V-shape leg position by American College Sport Medicine (1) and that proposed by the Eurofit Battery protocol (2). In this study, the correlation between anthropometric characteristic and the lower back RoM measure was analysed in female university students. Materials and methods A total of 106 female sport science university students (age range 23\u201319 yr; SD\ub1 1.2 yr) volunteered to the study. The main inclusion criteria were the absence of musculoskeletal injuries and of low back pain. Each participant underwent two different SAR tests performed in two different days of the week. No warm up or specific exercises were performed prior the flexibility performance. Body mass was measured to the nearest 0.5 kg on a beam-balance scale and stature was measured to the nearest 1 cm with a stadiometer. Body Mass Index was calculated and the length between the greater trochanter and the lateral malleolus (with knee in full extension) was measured to define the proportion of lower limbs. The length of the spine (C7-L5) were also measured. All protocol procedures were carried out by the same operator and in the same gym. Results The anthropometric characteristic were for body mass 55.3 \ub1 5.2 kg and 1.67 \ub1 0.05 m for height. On average the BMI was 19.8 \ub1 1.5. The SAR result was 47.2 \ub1 11.3 cm about V-leg position while the European protocol assessed 11.2 \ub1 7.6 cm. The coefficient of variation was 0.23 and 0.67, respectively. No significant correlations were found between the anthropometric and ROM. The underweight female performed 50 cm and 14.7 cm for American and European protocol respectively. Discussion These kind of test have a good relation with hamstring flexibility even if do not separate the muscular and joint effects (3); however our results do not show any real difference between the two tests from an anthropometric point of view. Indeed, the European protocol that reduces the intervention of lower back (and part of hip flexion) seems to exclude bias in the measure (4). The American protocol, on the other hand, seems more suited for assessing the muscular contribution to flexibility. References 1. ACSM. 2009. ACSM\u2019s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. 8th ed. 2. Council of Europe. 1998. Eurofit: handbook for the EUROFIT tests of Physical fitness. 3. Kendall et al., 2005. Muscles Testing and Function with Posture and Pain. 4. Ayala F. Phys Ther Sport. 2012; 13(4): 219-26. 5. Beedle BB. J Strength Cond Res. 2007; 21(3):780-3