Article

The acute effects of different durations of static stretching on dynamic balance performance.

Department of Health and Exercise Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA.
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (Impact Factor: 1.86). 12/2008; 23(1):141-7. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31818eb052
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of different durations of static stretching on dynamic balance. Women (N = 28) were tested before and after 2 stretching interventions and a control condition on 3 separate days, at least 48 hours apart. The stretching sessions involved a cycle ergometer warm-up at 70 rpm and 70 W followed by passive stretching of the lower-body muscles. Each stretching position was held at a point of mild discomfort and repeated 3 times with 15 seconds between stretches. In the 2 stretching protocols, the positions were maintained for 15 or 45 seconds. The control condition involved the same cycle ergometer warm-up, with a 26-minute rest period between pre- and posttests. Balance was assessed using the Biodex Balance System. A 2-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was used with the effects of study condition (control, 15 seconds, 45 seconds) and time (pre-, postscores). Post hoc paired t-tests were used when appropriate to determine possible statistical significance between pre- and posttest scores. Analyses indicated no significant main effects for either study condition or time. However, there was a significant condition x time interaction (p < 0.05). Post hoc analyses indicated that the 15-second condition produced a significant improvement in the balance scores (p < 0.01), with no significant effects with the control condition or the 45-second treatment. The results of this study reveal that a stretching protocol of 45-second hold durations does not adversely affect balance when using the current stabilometry testing procedure. Furthermore, a stretching intervention with 15-second hold durations may improve balance performance by decreasing postural instability. Strength and conditioning professionals concerned with reported performance limitations associated with static stretching should consider applying shorter-duration stretching protocols when aiming to improve balance performance.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Pablo B. Costa, Aug 23, 2014
4 Followers
 · 
182 Views
  • Source
    • "A study by Fletcher and Jones used 20 s stretch duration; however, this duration also resulted in detrimental effect on sprint performance. [13] Whereas, some researches utilized the stretch duration of 15 s (Costa et al., 2009, Alpkaya and Koceja, 2007). [4] [27] The result was either neutral or improvement of performance. "
  • Source
    • "Behm et al. (2004) and Nagano et al. (2006) reported that balance control was impaired after SS. On the contrary, Costa et al. (2009) reported that SS produced a significant improvement in balance compared to the NS condition. The few studies regarding the effects of SS on balance and the absence of studies evaluating the effects of DS on balance was one of the reasons for conducting this study. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to compare the acute effects of three different stretching protocols on balance, agility, reaction time and movement time of the upper limbs. Participants were thirty one female high school athletes (age = 17.3 ± 0.5 yr.). All participants performed one of the following protocols on different days: (a) 3 min jogging followed by 7 min static stretching (SS), (b) 3 min jogging followed by 7 min dynamic stretching (DS), and (c) 3 min jogging followed by 7 min of rest (NS). After the protocols participants performed the following tests: dynamic balance, 505 agility test, reaction time (time between a sound stimulus and release of a button) and movement time (movement of the upper extremity over a 0.5 m distance). The order of stretching protocols and performance tests were counterbalanced to avoid carryover effects. Repeated measures analysis of variance revealed significant main effects for all variables except reaction time. The DS protocol compared to SS performed significantly better in balance, agility and movement time. Additionally, the DS protocol compared to NS performed significantly better in agility. According to the results of the study, a DS protocol is more appropriate than SS for activities that require balance, rapid change of running direction (agility) and movement time of the upper extremities. Key pointsStatic stretching has a negative effect on balance and agility performance compared to dynamic stretching.There was no effect of the stretching protocols on reaction time.Dynamic stretching was more effective than static stretching for increasing movement time of the upper extremities.
    Journal of sports science & medicine 05/2014; 13(2):403-409. · 0.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "This opinion would be justified, if a stretched muscle was capable of absorbing larger amounts of energy. Many studies have shown that stretching exercises have a positive effect on muscle contraction speed and force, thus improving parameters such as take-off speed and absolute speed [4] [5] [6], jumping ability [7] [8] [9], balance and the reaction time [10] [11], as well as power [12]. Other authors are of the opinion that intensive stretching reduces maximal strength, the height of a vertical jump, take-off speed and absolute speed. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim of the study. This study aimed to identify the effect of stretching and strength exercises on running speed and anaerobic power of young (13–15 years old) basketball players, and the relationships between variables representing their speed, anaerobic power and flexibility. Material and methods. Thirty-six young basketball players were randomly allocated to 3 groups (GR, GS and GC) that carried out special 3-month training programs. Before the training macrocycle commenced and after it ended, the participants were tested for running speed, anaerobic power and flexibility. Results. ANOVA and post hoc test showed that the “training factor” distinguished more clearly the strength exercise subgroup and the stretching exercise subgroup (p = 0.002 and p = 0.003, respectively). The discriminant analysis showed that power, 5-meter running speed and 20-meter running speed were these variables that distinguished the strength exercise subgroup. In addition, the results of post hoc tests, pointed the level of flexibility as a factor which discriminated more clearly subgroups GR and GS, and then GS and GC (p = 0.005, p = 0.009 and p = 0.006, p = 0.012, respectively). Conclusions. The experiment has demonstrated that under the absence of strong stretching stimuli even low-volume strength exercises lead to the dynamic develowpment of anaerobic power, running speed and flexibility, whereas more intensive stretching exercises limit improvements in these motor abilities.