Physical characteristics of soccer players and control group and total and regional length of <i>rectus abdominis</i> from L1/L2 to pubic symphysis (mean ± SD).

a<p>P<0.05 CG vs. SP.</p>b<p>P<0.001 CG vs SP.</p

Relationship between the asymmetry in muscle volume of the dominant and non-dominant sides (expressed in percentage) and the <i>rectus abdominis</i> segments ordered in the rostro-caudal direction.

<p>In professional soccer players (white circles) and non-active subjects (black circles). Not significant differences were observed between the slopes and intercepts (P = 0.14 and P = 0.85, respectively).</p

Differences between professional soccer players and non-active subjects in the percentage of asymmetry in the muscle volume of <i>rectus abdominis</i>, segment by segment.

<p>Differences between professional soccer players and non-active subjects in the percentage of asymmetry in the muscle volume of <i>rectus abdominis</i>, segment by segment.</p

Differences between professional soccer players and non-active subjects in the muscle volume of the dominant and non-dominant <i>rectus abdominis</i> compared segment by segment, after adjustment for the length of the <i>rectus abdominis</i>, age and BMI.

<p>Differences between professional soccer players and non-active subjects in the muscle volume of the dominant and non-dominant <i>rectus abdominis</i> compared segment by segment, after adjustment for the length of the <i>rectus abdominis</i>, age and BMI.</p

<i>Rectus abdominis</i> cross sectional areas (values expressed in cm², mean ± SD) and asymmetries.

<p>Comparisons are made into each group between dominant and non-dominant sides.</p><p><b>ASY:</b> Asymmetry between the dominant and non-dominant sides ((Non-dominant-Dominant)*100)/Dominant.</p

Physical characteristics of soccer players and control group and total and regional length of <i>iliopsoas</i> and <i>gluteal muscles</i> from L1/L2 to the pubic simphysis and (mean ± SD).

a<p>P<0.05 CG vs. SP and CG vs. TP, ^b P<0.05 CG vs. SP, ^c P<0.001 CG vs. SP, ^d P<0.05 CG vs. TP, ^e P<0.01 CG vs. SP, ^f P<0.01 CG vs. TP, ^g P<0.05 TP vs. SP, ^h P<0.01 TP vs. SP</p

Reliability of “Fuprecol study” of morphologic, musculoskeletal, motor and cardiorespiratory component (mean±SD) in boys (n = 124) and girls (n = 105) from Bogota, Colombia.

<p>^a The average of right and left side scores is shown in the table and was used for the analyses. BIA: bioelectrical impedance analysis</p><p>Reliability of “Fuprecol study” of morphologic, musculoskeletal, motor and cardiorespiratory component (mean±SD) in boys (n = 124) and girls (n = 105) from Bogota, Colombia.</p

Lipid profile and blood pressure changes between pre- and post- training.

<p>Mean changes and 95% confidence intervals between the initial (pre) and final (post) evaluations of lipid profile and blood pressure in the Exercise and Control.</p

Additional file 3: of A protocol for a new methodological model for work-related shoulder complex injuries: From diagnosis to rehabilitation

(Red). Examples of exercises to improve strength deficits. The complexity of the exercises increases from (a) to (c). Progression is made in order to isolate different rotator cuff muscles isolated (a, b) or in combination to the scapular retractors (c). (TIF 689 kb

Differences between tennis players, soccer players and non-athletes in the percentage of asymmetry of <i>iliopsoas</i> and <i>gluteal muscles</i>.

<p>Percentage of asymmetry in total volume of <i>iliopsoas</i> (A) and <i>gluteal muscles</i> (B); Percentage of asymmetry in CSA, segment by segment, of <i>iliopsoas</i> (C) and <i>gluteal muscles</i> (D). α P<0.05, σ P<0.01, τ P<0.001, * P = 0.06.</p