The FIFA World Cup tournaments often takes place within four weeks atĪ host nation and this brings with it several marketing and consumption tactics. Is something that leaves behind a memory. The excitement and euphoria that often comes with mega sporting event particularly the FIFA World Cup Therefore, the purchase of a running shoe may be decided according to the preferred footwear. However, hard surface and soft surface shoes did not differ during the dynamic task condition. Different outcomes regarding dynamic balance were observed between bare feet and both shoe conditions. No difference in static balance is present between the no-shoe and both shoe conditions. When investigating this difference in dynamic balance with dual comparisons, significant differences were confirmed between hard-support and bare foot (p=0.010) and between soft-foam and bare foot (p=0.001). ![]() Static balance showed no significant difference between bare feet, hard-support and soft-foam sports shoes (pdouble feet=0.390, pdominant side=0.465, pnon-dominant side=0.494).Difference for dynamic balance was statistically significant between bare foot, soft-foam and hard-support sports shoes (p=0.003). The SportKAT 3000® device was used to assess dynamic double feet, static double feet, dominant foot and non-dominant foot balance. The order of the assessment for each participant was randomly determined using an online random allocation software. All participants were assessed with bare feet, hard-support sports shoes and soft-foam sports shoes. Seventeen female participants were included in our study. The aim of our study was to investigate effects of different sports shoes and bare feet on static and dynamic balance in healthy female individuals. However, there is limited evidence regarding the effects that shoe sole hardness may have on balance. Static and dynamic balance can be influenced by many factors. The FIFA 11+ warm-up program reduced the risk of injury in soccer players by 30%. However, this pattern was not homogeneous throughout the studies because of clinical and methodological differences in the samples. In the intervention group, 779 (24%) players had injuries, while in the control group, 1,219 (40%) players had injuries. The FIFA 11+ program reduced injuries in soccer players by 30%, with an estimated relative risk of 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.52–0.93, p = 0.01). ResultsThe sample consisted of 6,344 players, comprising 3,307 (52%) in the intervention group and 3,037 (48%) in the control group. Of these, 6 studies were selected, all of which were randomized clinical trials. ![]() A search using the keywords “FIFA,” “injury prevention,” and “football” found 183 articles in the PubMed, MEDLINE, LILACS, SciELO, and ScienceDirect databases. MethodologyThis meta-analysis was based on the PRISMA 2015 protocol. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the FIFA 11+ injury prevention program for soccer players. These injuries may be caused by both modifiable and non-modifiable factors, justifying the adoption of an injury prevention program such as the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) 11+. ![]() ![]() However, soccer players have an increased risk of lower limb injury. Soccer is one of the most widely played sports in the world.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |