Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 99 items for :

  • "static stretching" x
Clear All
Open access

Landon Lempke, Rebecca Wilkinson, Caitlin Murray and Justin Stanek

extensibility. 1 Two common methods of stretching in clinical practice are static stretching and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching. It is generally believed that PNF stretching will result in increased ROM compared with static stretching due to increased inhibition of the targeted

Restricted access

Mariam A. Ameer and Qassim I. Muaidi

Acute static stretching (ASS) is well known in changing physical performance and incidence rate of injuries especially in sports field, by increasing joint range of motion (ROM) through the reduction of musculotendinous stiffness and increase of flexibility, even after short-duration stretches (30

Restricted access

Masatoshi Nakamura, Shigeru Sato, Ryosuke Kiyono, Nobushige Takahashi and Tomoichi Yoshida

In clinical and sports settings, static stretching (SS) is usually performed to increase range of motion (ROM) and decrease passive stiffness of muscle-tendon units (MTU). Upon investigating the acute effects of SS, several previous studies reported increased ROM 1 , 2 and decreased passive

Restricted access

Benjamin S. Killen, Krista L. Zelizney and Xin Ye

Static stretching (SS) and self-administered foam rolling (SAFR) are both effective exercise techniques being utilized in rehabilitation settings. The main goal of applying these maneuvers is to increase one’s range of motion (ROM), thereby improving fitness and functional capacities. 1 , 2

Open access

Genki Hatano, Shigeyuki Suzuki, Shingo Matsuo, Satoshi Kataura, Kazuaki Yokoi, Taizan Fukaya, Mitsuhiro Fujiwara, Yuji Asai and Masahiro Iwata

function. 8 , 14 Injury prevention techniques commonly used in sports include proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation, and ballistic, dynamic, and static stretching. However, static stretching remains the most widely used strategy, as it is relatively easy to perform, does not require excessive time or

Restricted access

Jeni R. McNeal and William A. Sands

Several studies utilizing adult subjects have indicated that static stretching may reduce subsequent strength and power production, possibly for as long as an hour following the stretch. This observation has not been evaluated in children, nor in athletes accustomed to performing static stretches during strength/power type training sessions. The purpose of this investigation was to determine if an acute bout of passive, static stretching of the lower extremity would affect jumping performance in a group of young, female gymnasts. Thirteen competitive gymnasts (age 13.3 − 2.6 yrs) performed drop jumps under two conditions: immediately following stretching and without prior stretching. The jumps were performed on separate days. The conditions were randomly ordered among the subjects. Time in the air (AIR) and ground contact time (CT) were measured during the drop jumps using a timing mat. Three different stretches of the lower extremity were conducted on each gymnast twice, each stretch being held for 30 seconds. Following the stretching condition, AIR was significantly reduced (.44 vs .46 sec, p < .001), while CT was not different (.130 for both conditions, p > .05). This study demonstrates that children’s lower extremity power is reduced when the performance immediately follows passive, static stretching, even in children accustomed to static stretching during training sessions involving explosive power.

Restricted access

Kosuke Fujita, Masatoshi Nakamura, Hiroki Umegaki, Takuya Kobayashi, Satoru Nishishita, Hiroki Tanaka, Satoko Ibuki and Noriaki Ichihashi

shown the combination of heat modalities and stretching to be superior to static stretching only for increasing joint ROM but not for lowering the passive stiffness of the muscle at the same joint angle. 8 On the other hand, only a few studies have evaluated the effect of physical activity in improving

Restricted access

Andrew R. Mohr, Blaine C. Long and Carla L. Goad

Context:

Many athletes report that foam rollers help release tension in their muscles, thus resulting in greater range of motion (ROM) when used before stretching. To date, no investigators have examined foam rollers and static stretching.

Objective:

To determine if foam rolling before static stretching produces a significant change in passive hip-flexion ROM.

Design:

Controlled laboratory study.

Setting:

Research laboratory.

Participants:

40 subjects with less than 90° of passive hip-flexion ROM and no lower-extremity injury in the 6 mo before data collection.

Interventions:

During each of 6 sessions, subjects' passive hip-flexion ROM was measured before and immediately after static stretching, foam rolling and static stretching, foam rolling, or nothing (control). To minimize accessory movement of the hip and contralateral leg, subjects lay supine with a strap placed across their hip and another strap located over the uninvolved leg just superior to the patella. A bubble inclinometer was then aligned on the thigh of the involved leg, with which subjects then performed hip flexion.

Main Outcome Measure:

Change in passive hip-flexion ROM from the preintervention measure on day 1 to the postintervention measure on day 6.

Results:

There was a significant change in passive hip-flexion ROM regardless of treatment (F 3,17 = 8.06, P = .001). Subjects receiving foam roll and static stretch had a greater change in passive hip-flexion ROM compared with the static-stretch (P = .04), foam-rolling (P = .006), and control (P = .001) groups.

Conclusions:

Our results support the use of a foam roller in combination with a static-stretching protocol. If time allows and maximal gains in hip-flexion ROM are desired, foam rolling the hamstrings muscle group before static stretching would be appropriate in noninjured subjects who have less than 90° of hamstring ROM.

Restricted access

Jason Brandenburg, William A. Pitney, Paul E. Luebbers, Arun Veera and Alicja Czajka

Purpose:

To examine the acute effects of static stretching on countermovement vertical-jump (CMVJ) ability and monitor the time course of any stretch-induced changes.

Methods:

Once familiarized, 16 experienced jumpers completed 2 testing sessions in a randomized order. Each session consisted of a general warm-up, a pretreatment CMVJ assessment, a treatment, and multiple posttreatment CMVJ assessments. One treatment included lower-body static stretching, and the second treatment, involving no stretching, was the control. Posttreatment CMVJ measures occurred immediately, 3, 6, 12, and 24 minutes posttreatment. Stretching consisted of 3 static-stretching exercises, with each exercise repeated 3 times and each repetition held for 30 s.

Results:

Prestretch CMVJ height equaled 47.1 (± 9.7) cm. CMVJ height immediately poststretch was 45.7 (± 9.2) cm, and it remained depressed during the 24-min follow-up period. Pre-no-stretch CMVJ height was 48.4 (± 9.8) cm, whereas immediately post-no-stretch CMVJ height equaled 46.8 (± 9.5) cm, and as in the stretch treatment, post-no-stretch CMVJ height remained lower than pre-no-stretch values. Although there was a significant main effect of time (P = .005), indicating that CMVJ was lower and remained impaired after both treatments, no significant interaction effect (P = .749) was observed.

Conclusion:

In comparison with the no-activity control, static stretching resulted in similar reductions in CMVJ ability when examined over the same time course, so athletes preparing for CMVJ should avoid periods of inactivity, as well as static stretching.

Restricted access

Athanasios Zakas, George Doganis, Christos Galazoulas and Efstratios Vamvakoudis

Although athletes routinely perform warm-up and stretching exercises, it has been suggested that prolonged stretching immediately before an activity might negatively affect the force production. Sixteen male pubescent soccer players participated in the study to examine whether a routine duration of acute static stretching is responsible for losses in isokinetic peak torque production. All participants performed two static stretching protocols in nonconsecutive training sessions. The first stretching protocol was performed three times for 15 s (volume 45) and the second 20 times for 15 s (volume 300). Range of motion (ROM) was determined during knee flexion with the use of a goniometer. The peak torque of the dominant leg extensors was measured on a Cybex NORM dynamometer at various angular velocities. The statistical analysis showed that peak torque did not change following the static stretching for 45 s in all angular velocities, while it decreased (p < .001) in all angular velocities following the static stretching for 5 min. The findings suggest that strength decreases after static stretching exercises may be the result of the performed stretching duration.