Affiliations: [a] Position Paper of the European Interdisciplinary
Society for Clinical and Sports Application (EISCSA)
Note: [] Address for correspondence: Priv.-Doz. Dr. Frank Mayer, Med.
Clinic, Dept. Rehab. and Prev. Sports Med., University Clinic of Freiburg,
Hugstetter Str. 55, D-79106 Freiburg, Germany. Tel.: +49 761 270 7473; Fax: +49
761 270 7470; E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract: Optimization of different forms of training and testing in sports
and therapy has traditionally been debated by various groups. Especially, the
use of so-called open and closed kinetic chain exercises has frequently been a
focal point. Scientific studies have indicated that no specific form of exercise
and/or training has any particular advantage over the other. This applies to
both assessment of efficiency, consideration of compression and shear forces,
muscular activity and the extent of co-contractions. Unlike the broadly-applied
non-specific and uncritical assessment of open and closed kinetic chain
exercises, a specific application using the advantages of both procedures must
be considered due to clinical, therapeutic and training-physiological aspects.
Specificity refers to the training of either an isolated joint-muscle unit
(arthron) or a system (group) of joints and muscles. Considering the original definitions and past misinterpretations, it
appears logical to emphasize the role of physiological mechanisms operating in
each form of training and testing. Therefore, the use of the term: single-joint
(SJ) or multi-joint (MJ) training, is recommended since this would best reflect
the area of application, according to a recent consensus expressed by
EISCSA. Consequently, SJ and MJ exercises should be applied both in
isolation and in combination as indicated by the principles of specificity. On
the other hand, continuous use of the terms open and closed kinetic chain
exercises is confusing, erroneous, leads to polarizing discussions and should
hence be relegated to the past.
