Content uploaded by Saulo Gil
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Saulo Gil on Dec 11, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
MAXIMAL STRENGTH,NUMBER OF REPETITIONS,
AND TOTAL VOLUME ARE DIFFERENTLY AFFECTED
BY STATIC-, BALLISTIC-, AND PROPRIOCEPTIVE
NEUROMUSCULAR FACILITATION STRETCHING
RENATO BARROSO,
1,2
VALMOR TRICOLI,
1
SAULO DOS SANTOS GIL,
1
CARLOS UGRINOWITSCH,
1
AND HAMILTON ROSCHEL
1
1
Laboratory of Neuromuscular Adaptations to Strength Training, School of Physical Education and Sport, University of Sa˜o
Paulo, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil; and
2
Department of Physical Education, University of Ribeira˜o Preto—UNAERP, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil
ABSTRACT
Barroso, R, Tricoli, V, dos Santos Gil, S, Ugrinowitsch, C, and
Roschel, H. Maximal strength, number of repetitions, and total
volume are differently affected by static-, ballistic-, and pro-
prioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching. J Strength
Cond Res 26(9): 2432–2437, 2012—Stretching exercises
have been traditionally incorporated into warm-up routines
before training sessions and sport events. However, the effects
of stretching on maximal strength and strength endurance
performance seem to depend on the type of stretching
employed. The objective of this study was to compare the
effects of static stretching (SS), ballistic stretching (BS), and
proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching on
maximal strength, number of repetitions at a submaximal load,
and total volume (i.e., number of repetitions 3external load) in a
multiple-set resistance training bout. Twelve strength-trained
men (20.4 64.5 years, 67.9 66.3 kg, 173.3 68.5 cm)
volunteered to participate in this study. All of the subjects
completed 8 experimental sessions. Four experimental ses-
sions were designed to test maximal strength in the leg press
(i.e., 1 repetition maximum [1RM]) after each stretching condi-
tion (SS, BS, PNF, or no-stretching [NS]). During the other
4 sessions, the number of repetitions performed at 80% 1RM
was assessed after each stretching condition. All of the
stretching protocols significantly improved the range of
motion in the sit-and-reach test when compared with NS.
Further, PNF induced greater changes in the sit-and-reach
test than BS did (4.7 61.6, 2.9 61.5, and 1.9 61.4 cm for
PNF, SS, and BS, respectively). Leg press 1RM values were
decreased only after the PNF condition (5.5%, p,0.001).
All the stretching protocols significantly reduced the number of
repetitions (SS: 20.8%, p,0.001; BS: 17.8%, p= 0.01; PNF:
22.7%, p,0.001) and total volume (SS: 20.4%, p,0.001;
BS: 17.9%, p= 0.01; PNF: 22.4%, p,0.001) when compared
with NS. The results from this study suggest that, to avoid
a decrease in both the number of repetitions and total volume,
stretching exercises should not be performed before a resis-
tance training session. Additionally, strength-trained individuals
may experience reduced maximal dynamic strength after PNF
stretching.
KEY WORDS training, skeletal muscle, range of motion
INTRODUCTION
Stretching exercises have traditionally been incor-
porated into warm-up routines before training
sessions and sport events. Its practice has been
associated with performance improvements,
decreased risk of injuries, and even reduced delayed onset
of muscle soreness (35).
However, recent research indicates that the effects of
stretching on performance seem to depend on the mode
of stretching employed (2,3,12,13,27,28,37). For instance,
it has been demonstrated that both the static and the
proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching
may reduce not only maximal strength production
(2,3,12,27,37) but also the number of repetitions performed
with a submaximal load (12,13,28). Conversely, the literature
has shown that sprinting and agility performance (23),
isokinetic power (24), and vertical jump height (6) seem to
be acutely improved after a ballistic-stretching (BS) protocol.
These findings are difficult to reconcile. Nevertheless, data
from previous studies suggest that BS might result in different
neuromuscular adaptations than those of static stretching
(SS) and PNF stretching. In fact, it has been demonstrated
that SS and PNF may negatively affect the motor unit
activation and the structural properties of soft tissues
Address for correspondence to Renato Barroso, barroso@usp.br.
26(9)/2432–2437
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó2012 National Strength and Conditioning Association
2432
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
(i.e., muscles and tendons), which may, at least partially,
explain performance decrements after SS and PNF (18,21).
Despite the increasing number of research studies dedi-
cated to investigate the effects of different stretching protocols
on several parameters of neuromuscular performance
(6,12,13,18,21,27,28), not much attention has been given to
the evaluation of the effects of stretching protocols on the
number of repetitions performed at a submaximal load.
Further, the few studies (12,13,28) that investigated the acute
effects of stretching on such a parameter adopted single-set
experimental designs. However, there seems to be a consen-
sus that multiple sets are necessary to maximize training
adaptations throughout a resistance training program (31).
Considering that the negative effects of stretching are
transient (11), there is a gap in the knowledge regarding
the effects of stretching on the number o repetitions
performed with a submaximal load in a more realistic
multiple-set training program design.
Additionally, stretching may affect the total volume
performed during a resistance training bout. The term total
volume takes into account both the number of repetitions
performed and the weight lifted (i.e., repetitions 3load
[kilograms]). Moreover, total volume is thought to affect
long-term adaptations to resistance training (i.e., hypertrophy
and strength gains) (15,16,19,29,32), which warrants further
studies on the effects of stretching not only on the number of
repetitions but also on the total volume performed.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the acute
effects of SS, BS, and PNF stretching on maximal strength,
number of repetitions, and total volume performed during
a multiple-set resistance training bout. We hypothesized
that the SS and PNF would greatly affect neuromuscular
performance when compared with the BS protocol.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
To evaluate the effects of 3 different stretching protocols
on neuromuscular performance, all the subjects underwent
3 familiarization sessions. Afterward, each subject attended
the laboratory on 8 separate occasions, all at the same time of
the day. The subjects were also instructed to ingest a light
meal and fluids before the experimental sessions. Each session
comprised an evaluation of the range of motion (ROM) using
the sit-and-reach test followed by a general warm-up (i.e.,
5 minutes of treadmill running at 9 kmh
21
). Then, 1 of the
3 stretching protocols (i.e., SS, BS, or PNF) or a control
no-stretching condition (NS) took place. After treatment
(i.e., stretching), an additional evaluation of the ROM was
performed to determine the efficacy of the stretching
protocol employed. Finally, 1 of the 2 neuromuscular tests
was performed (i.e., a maximal strength test [1 repetition
maximum (1RM)] or a number of repetitions test performed
at 80% of 1RM). Figure 1 gives a pictorial view of the
experimental design.
Four of the experimental sessions included a 1RM
assessment after the 3 different stretching protocols (i.e.,
1RM-SS, 1RM-B S, 1RM-PNF) and a control session with no
stretching applied (1RM-NS). The remaining 4 experimen-
tal sessions consisted of a test to obtain the maximal number
of repetitions performed with 80% of 1RM after the same
stretching protocols (i.e., REP-SS, REP-BS, REP-PNF, and
REP-NS). Except for the 1RM-NS session, which was
always performed first, all the other experimental sessions
were performed in a randomized order at least 72 hours
apart. This design was adopted because we needed a baseline
1RM value (1RM-NS) to determine the external load
applied to the number of repetitions tests. During the NS
conditions, the participants sat for 10 minutes between the
end of the general warm-up and the sit-and-reach test,
which corresponded to the time necessary to perform the
stretching protocols.
Subjects
Twelve young strength-trained men (20.4 64.5 years, 67.9 6
6.3 kg, 173.3 68.5 cm) volunteered to participate in this study.
All the subjects were currently engaged in upper and lower-
limb strength training for at least 12 months before the
investigation (16.2 64.9 months). Training frequency varied
between 3 and 5 workout sessions a week. They were free
from any lower-limb musculoskeletal injuries and neuromus-
cular disorders. The investigation was approved by an
institutional review board for use of human subjects, and all
the participants signed an informed consent form before
participation.
Familiarization
Before the experimental procedures, all the subjects
completed 3 familiarization sessions on separate days at
least 72 hours apart from each other. During the
familiarization sessions, the subjects performed a general
warm-up consisting of 5 minutes of running at 9 kmh
21
on
a treadmill followed by 3 minutes of whole-body light
stretching exercises. After warming-up, the subjects were
familiarized with the leg-press
1RM testing and with the 3
different stretching protocols
(SS,BS,andPNF).Body
position and foot placement
were recorded and reproduced
throughout the study. The
subjects were also familiarized
to the sit-and-reach test.
Figure 1. Pictorial view of the experimental design.
VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2012 | 2433
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Maximum Strength Test (1 Repetition Maximum)
Three days after the last familiarization session, the 1RM test
for the lower limbs was assessed using a conventional inclined
(45°) leg-press machine (Nakagym model NK5070, Sa
˜o
Paulo, Brazil). The testing protocol followed the guidelines
proposed by Brown and Weir (7). In brief, the subjects ran for
5 minutes on a treadmill at 9 kmh
21
followed by 2 leg-press
warm-up sets. During the first set, the subjects performed
8 repetitions with 50% of the estimated 1RM (obtained
during familiarization sessions). After a 2-minute interval, the
participants performed the second set with 3 repetitions
with 70% of the estimated 1RM. The subjects then rested
for 3 minutes and had up to 5 trials to achieve the 1RM load
(i.e., maximum weight that could be lifted once with the
proper technique), with a 3-minute interval between trials.
The tests were conducted by 2 experienced researchers, and
strong verbal encouragement was provided during the lifts.
The same testing procedure was used during the 1RM-NS,
1RM-SS, 1RM-BS, and 1RM-PNF experimental conditions.
Number of Repetition Test
A multiple-set resistance training bout was used to obtain the
number of repetitions. The test consisted of 3 sets until failure
in the leg press using a submaximal load (80% of 1RM). Body
positioning, knee and hip angles, and foot placement were
reproduced according to the records made during the
familiarization sessions. The number of repetitions performed
in each set was recorded, and a 2-minute interval was allowed
between sets. The sum of the repetitions performed in the
3 sets was used for statistical purposes. Total volume was
calculated as the product of the number of repetitions
completed and the load lifted (number of repetitions [no] 3
weight [kilograms]). Only repetitions performed with the
proper technique were considered valid.
Sit-and-Reach Test
The subjects sat with their heels pressed against the testing
board. The knees were extended, and the right hand was
placed over the left. Then, the participants were asked to
reach and hold as far as possible along the measuring board,
on the fourth bobbing movement (3). Three trials were
performed, and the best result was used for statistical analysis.
Stretching Protocols
During stretching sessions, the participants stretched the
main muscle groups used during the leg-press exercise
(gluteus maximum and quadriceps), and the hamstring
muscles. The stretching exercises used included the supine
knee flex, the side quadriceps stretch, and the sitting toe
touch. Baechle and Earle (4) offer a more detailed explanation
of the stretches. During the stretching exercises, the subjects
were assisted by an experienced researcher.
Three sets of each stretching exercise were performed. The
SS was performed by holding the stretching position for
30 seconds followed by a 30-second interval before the next
set. For the BS protocol, the same procedures were followed,
but instead of holding the stretching positions for 30 seconds,
the subjects had to bob in 1:1-second cycles for 1 minute.
For the PNF protocol, the hold-relax technique was used.
The subjects performed a passive stretch and held the
stretching position for approximately 5 seconds. Then, they
performed a 5-second near-maximal isometric contraction
(34), relaxed, and passively held the stretching position for
another 20 seconds.
Statistical Analyses
Data are presented according to descriptive statistics (mean
and SD). Normality was assured by a Shapiro-Wilk test. The
ROM data (pretest to posttest absolute change) were
analyzed by a 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
TABLE 1. Acute changes in flexibility after the
stretching protocols in each neuromuscular test.*
Test day Acute changes in flexibility (cm)
1RM-NS 0.5 60.8
1RM-SS†3.9 61.7§
1RM-PNF†,‡4.7 61.6§
1RM-BS†2.9 61.5§
REP-NS 0.6 60.7
REP-SS†3.8 61.6
REP-PNF†,‡4.5 61.5§
REP-BS†3.3 61.7§
*NS = no-stretching condition; SS = static-stretching
condition; PNF = proprioceptive neuromuscular facilita-
tion stretching condition; BS = ballistic-stretching condi-
tion; 1RM = 1 repetition maximum.
†p,0.05 compared with NS.
‡p,0.05 when compared with BS.
§p,0.05 when compared with prevalues.
Figure 2. Acute changes (pretest to posttest) inthe range of motion(ROM)
and difference in the leg-press 1 repetition maximum (1RM; mean 6SD)
between the 3 stretching protocols and the control (no-stretching [NS])
condition. *p,0.05 when compared with NS for both ROM and 1RM.
#
p,0.05 when compared with ballistic stretching (BS).
2434
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Different Stretching and Neuromuscular Performance
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
procedure. Changes between the control condition (NS) and
the other stretching protocols (i.e., BS, SS, and PNF) for all
of the remaining variables (i.e., maximal strength [1RM],
number of repetitions, and total volume) were compared
using a 1-way ANOVA. Whenever a significant Fvalue
was obtained, a Tukey post hoc test was performed for
multiple comparison purposes. The significance level was set
at p#0.05. Further, intraclass correlation coefficient values
were calculated for 1RM and sit-and-reach tests with values
of 0.92 and 0.96, respectively.
RESULTS
Range of Motion
The results are presented in Table 1. No differences were
observed between prestretching values across the experi-
mental conditions (data not shown). As expected, no changes
were observed in the sit-and-reach scores in the NS
conditions. The PNF significantly improved ROM when
compared with either SS or BS as measured by delta changes
in ROM before the 1RM and the maximal number of
repetitions tests.
Maximal Strength, Number of Repetitions, and Total Volume
Leg-press 1RM values significantly decreased after the PNF
stretching protocol (233.3 640.5 kg) when compared with
NS (246.7 640.8, p= 0.01) but were similar to those of SS
(241.7 640.0 kg, p= 0.81) and BS (240.8 642.3 kg, p= 0.82).
Figure 2 shows SS, PNF, and BS leg-press 1RM changes
compared with NS and ROM delta change data.
In regard to the number of repetitions test, all the 3
stretching protocols negatively affected performance when
compared with NS (Figure 3). The subjects performed 36 6
4.2 repetitions during NS; 27.8 64.1 during PNF (p,0.001);
28.5 65.7 during SS (p,0.001); and 29.6 64.9 during BS
(p= 0.001). Total volume was also negatively affected by all
the 3 stretching protocols (5,702.7 61,784.1 kg, p,0.001;
5,535.3 61,456.6 kg, p,0.001; 5,860 61,536.4 kg, p,0.001
for SS, PNF, and BS, respectively) when compared with
NS (7,137.3 61,698.5 kg) (Figure 4).
DISCUSSION
The objective of this study was to compare the acute effects
of different lower-limb stretching protocols on maximal
strength, number of repetitions, and total volume performed
in the leg-press exercise. The main and novel finding of this
study is that not only SS and PNF but also BS impaired
the number of repetitions and the total volume (i.e., number
of repetitions 3external load) performed after stretching
when compared with NS. Additionally, we demonstrated that
in strength-trained individuals, only the PNF stretching mode
impaired the maximal strength production.
Reports on the acute effects of different stretching
protocols on the number of repetitions are scarce. Nonethe-
less, previous studies have shown that either SS or PNF
significantly reduces the number of repetitions performed in
a single set of a resistance exercise (12,13,27). Our results
extend this knowledge to BS protocols as well (Figure 3) and
to multiple-set resistance training bouts. Despite evidence
showing that BS does not affect maximal strength (3) and
may even improve sprinting and agility (23) and vertical jump
performance (6), our investigation is the first to investigate
the acute effects of BS on the number of repetitions,
demonstrating that a BS protocol significantly reduces the
number of repetitions performed in the leg-press exercise at
a submaximal load (80% of 1RM).
Total volume, which affects short- and long-term responses
to strength training (3,14–16,32), is positively related to
myofibrillar protein synthesis (8), anabolic hormones release
(14,15,36), strength gains, and skeletal muscle hypertrophy
(15,16,19,29,32). Our results demonstrated that total volume
was reduced after the 3 proposed stretching protocols.
Figure 3. Acute changes (pretest to posttest) in the range of motion
(ROM) and difference in the maximal number of repetitions (mean 6SD)
performed at a submaximal load between the 3 stretching protocols and
the control (no-stretching [NS]) condition. *p,0.05 when compared
with NS for both ROM and the maximal number of repetitions.
#
p,0.05
when compared with ballistic stretching (BS).
Figure 4. Acute changes (pretest to posttest) in the range of motion
(ROM) and difference in the total volume (i.e., number of repetitions 3
external load) (mean 6SD) between the 3 stretching protocols in relation
to the control (no-stretching [NS]) condition. *p,0.05 when compared
with NS for both flexibility and 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and
#
p,0.05
when compared with ballistic stretching (BS).
VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2012 | 2435
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
It suggests that stretching before training may negatively
impact resistance training-induced adaptations in strength
and muscle mass. However, caution should be exercised
when interpreting and generalizing these findings because we
have not evaluated the effects of stretching on long-term
adaptations to resistance training.
In regard to the 1RM data, it is important to note that
the scores obtained in the sit-and-reach test indicate that all
the stretching protocols were effective in increasing ROM.
Despite the previous reports associating acute increments in
ROM (through SS and PNF stretching) with decreased
maximal strength performance (3), our data show that only
the PNF protocol significantly affected 1RM. In fact, the
literature is still controversial regarding the acute effects of SS
and PNF stretching on neuromuscular performance. For
instance, Molacek et al. (26) and Egan et al. (9) reported no
effect of SS and PNF stretching on the maximal torque
and muscle power output. Conversely, SS and PNF have
been shown to decrease vertical jump (6) and maximal
strength (2,25,26,28).
Interestingly, Molacek et al. (26) and Egan et al. (9)
suggested that training status could affect individual suscep-
tibility to the detrimental effects of stretching on maximal
strength performance. In accordance with this suggestion,
Beedle et al. (5) showed that in highly trained subjects,
neither BS nor SS affected maximal strength performance.
Our results support this concept, because the strength-trained
subjects of our study were not affected by either SS or BS. On
the other hand, PNF induced an approximately 5.5%
decrease in the 1RM in our study, supporting previous
suggestions (9,26) that stretching should be of greater
intensity (i.e., PNF) to affect strength in trained subjects.
The mechanisms underlying maximal strength decrements
after stretching are based on reduced musculotendinous
stiffness (1,11,33) and decreased motor unit activation
(10,18,21,22). Our sit-and-reach scores indicate that despite
improvements in the ROM after any of the stretching
protocols, PNF was more effective in acutely augmenting
ROM (Table 1), thus suggesting that PNF may greatly affect
musculotendinous stiffness (18). It is important to note that
sit-and-reach tests were used to evaluate changes in ROM
but the muscles assessed (hamstrings) were different from
those used during leg-press lifts (quadriceps and gluteus), but
this test was used to evaluate stretching protocol efficacy.
Because 1RM was reduced only by the PNF protocol, it is
tempting to speculate that there might be a threshold
in stiffness reduction to affect maximal strength. Additionally,
it is also possible that autogenic inhibition was greater after
PNF thus reducing neuromuscular activation and muscle
strength.
At the moment, the events related to stretching that act
upon the maximal number of repetitions are unknown. It is
interesting to note that both the SS and BS protocols did not
affect maximal strength but induced a decrease in the number
of repetitions performed with a submaximal load. This
suggests that mechanisms other than the viscoelastic
properties of the musculotendineous unit and the reduced
motor unit activation might play a role. It has been suggested
that blood flow through a muscle can be reduced during
stretching (20,30,38), which could at least partially explain
the results. The partial ischemia-induced reduction in
strength is attributed to a low-oxygen supply and impaired
removal of metabolic by-products (17). The number of
repetitions test was performed after the stretching protocol,
so one may argue that blood flow was likely back to normal
by then. However, it is possible that ischemia during
stretching could have elevated the concentration of metab-
olites, which may have impaired testing performance.
Despite the lack of data regarding mechanical properties,
motor unit activation, and metabolic parameters regarding
different stretching protocols, our results warrant further
investigations evaluating such parameters and their relation
to the number of repetitions performed.
In summary, the 3 stretching protocols acutely increased
ROM and decreased the number of repetitions and the total
volume performed, demonstrating for the first time that BS
can also compromise neuromuscular performance. Addition-
ally, we demonstrated that in strength-trained individuals,
only PNF reduced the maximal dynamic strength.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Stretching exercises as part of a warm-up routine are
a common practice among trainers and athletes. Trainers
should be aware that not only the stretching protocol
performed but also the training statuses of the athletes play
a role in its effect upon the neuromuscular performance.
Strength-trained athletes are less prone to the negative effects
of acute stretching on maximal strength and hence should
avoid high-intensity protocols such as the PNF in their
maximum strength training sessions.
However, when the training session includes multiple sets
of resistance exercise (i.e., hypertrophy-oriented training
sessions), trainers should avoid any stretching protocol,
including the BS because stretching may result in a reduced
number of repetitions performed with a submaximal load and
lower total volume (i.e., number of repetitions 3external
load), thus affecting long-term resistance training adaptations.
REFERENCES
1. Avela, J, Kyrolainen, H, and Komi, PV. Altered reflex sensitivity after
repeated and prolonged passive muscle stretching. J Appl Physiol 86:
1283–1291, 1999.
2. Babault, N, Kouassi, BY, and Desbrosses, K. Acute effects of 15 min
static or contract-relax stretching modalities on plantar flexors
neuromuscular properties. J Sci Med Sport 13: 247–252, 2010.
3. Bacurau, RF, Monteiro, GA, Ugrinowitsch, C, Tricoli, V, Cabral, LF,
and Aoki, MS. Acute effect of a ballistic and a static stretching
exercise bout on flexibility and maximal strength. J Strength Cond Res
23: 304–308, 2009.
4. Baechle, TR and Earle, RW. Essentials of Strength Training and
Conditioning (3rd ed.). National Strength and Conditioning Associ-
ation. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008.
2436
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Different Stretching and Neuromuscular Performance
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
5. Beedle, B, Rytter, SJ, Healy, RC, and Ward, TR. Pretesting static and
dynamic stretching does not affect maximal strength. J Strength Cond
Res 22: 1838–1843, 2008.
6. Bradley, PS, Olsen, PD, and Portas, MD. The effect of static, ballistic,
and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching on vertical
jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 21: 223–226, 2007.
7. Brown, L and Weir, J. ASEP procedures recommendation I:
Accurate assessment of muscular strength and power. J Exerc Physiol
4: 1–21, 2001.
8. Burd, NA, West, DW, Staples, AW, Atherton, PJ, Baker, JM,
Moore, DR, Holwerda, AM, Parise, G, Rennie, MJ, Baker, SK, and
Phillips, SM. Low-load high-volume resistance exercise stimulates
muscle protein synthesis more than high-load low volume resistance
exercise in young men. PLoS One 5: e12033, 2010.
9. Egan, AD, Cramer, JT, Massey, LL, and Marek, SM. Acute effects of
static stretching on peak torque and mean power output in National
Collegiate Athletic Association Division I women’s basketball
players. J Strength Cond Res 20: 778–782, 2006.
10. Evetovich, TK, Nauman, NJ, Conley, DS, and Todd, JB. Effect of
static stretching of the biceps brachii on torque, electromyography,
and mechanomyography during concentric isokinetic muscle
actions. J Strength Cond Res 17: 484–488, 2003.
11. Fowles, JR, Sale, DG, and MacDougall, JD. Reduced strength after
passive stretch of the human plantarflexors. J Appl Physiol 89:
1179–1188, 2000.
12. Franco, BL, Signorelli, GR, Trajano, GS, and de Oliveira, CG. Acute
effects of different stretching exercises on muscular endurance.
J Strength Cond Res 22: 1832–1837, 2008.
13. Gomes, TM, Simao, R, Marques, MC, Costa, PB, and
da Silva Novaes, J. Acute effects of two different stretching
methods on local muscular endurance performance. J Strength
Cond Res 25: 745–752, 2011.
14. Gotshalk, LA, Loebel, CC, Nindl, BC, Putukian, M, Sebastianelli, WJ,
Newton, RU, Hakkinen, K, and Kraemer, WJ. Hormonal responses
of multiset versus single-set heavy-resistance exercise protocols. Can
J Appl Physiol 22: 244–255, 1997.
15. Hansen, S, Kvorning, T, Kjaer, M, and Sjogaard, G. The effect of
short-term strength training on human skeletal muscle: The
importance of physiologically elevated hormone levels. Scand J Med
Sci Sports 11: 347–354, 2001.
16. Hass, CJ, Garzarella, L, de Hoyos, D, and Pollock, M L. Single versus
multiple sets in long-term recreational weightlifters. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 32: 235–242, 2000.
17. Hepple, RT. The role of O
2
supply in muscle fatigue. Can J Appl
Physiol 27: 56–69, 2002.
18. Herda, TJ, Cramer, JT, Ryan, ED, McHugh, MP, and Stout, JR.
Acute effects of static versus dynamic stretching on isometric peak
torque, electromyography, and mechanomyography of the biceps
femoris muscle. J Strength Cond Res 22: 809–817, 2008.
19. Kelly, SB, Brown, LE, Coburn, JW, Zinder, SM, Gardner, LM, and
Nguyen, D. The effect of single versus multiple sets on strength.
J Strength Cond Res 21: 1003–1006, 2007.
20. Kindig, CA and Poole, DC. Sarcomere length-induced alterations of
capillary hemodynamics in rat spinotrapezius muscle: Vasoactive vs
passive control. Microvasc Res 61: 64–74, 2001.
21. Kubo, K, Kanehisa, H, and Fukunaga, T. Effects of resistance and
stretching training programmes on the viscoelastic properties of
human tendon structures in vivo. J Physiol 538: 219–226, 2002.
22. Kubo, K, Kanehisa, H, and Fukunaga, T. Effects of transient muscle
contractions and stretching on the tendon structures in vivo. Acta
Physiol Scand 175: 157–164, 2002.
23. Little, T and Williams, AG. Effects of differential stretching protocols
during warm-ups on high-speed motor capacities in professional
soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 20: 203–207, 2006.
24. Manoel, ME, Harris-Love, MO, Danoff, JV, and Miller, TA. Acute
effects of static, dynamic, and proprioceptive neuromuscular
facilitation stretching on muscle power in women. J Strength Cond
Res 22: 1528–1534, 2008.
25. Marek, SM, Cramer, JT, Fincher, AL, Massey, LL, Dangelmaier, SM,
Purkayastha, S, Fitz, KA, and Culbertson, JY. Acute effects of static
and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching on muscle
strength and power output. J Athl Train 40: 94–103, 2005.
26. Molacek, ZD, Conley, DS, Evetovich, TK, and Hinnerichs, KR.
Effects of low- and high-volume stretching on bench press
performance in collegiate football players. J Strength Cond Res 24:
711–716, 2010.
27. Nelson, AG and Kokkonen, J. Acute ballistic muscle stretching
inhibits maximal strength performance. Res Q Exerc Sport 72:
415–419, 2001.
28. Nelson, AG, Kokkonen, J, and Arnall, DA. Acute muscle stretching
inhibits muscle strength endurance performance. J Strength Cond Res
19: 338–343, 2005.
29. Paulsen, G, Myklestad, D, and Raastad, T. The influence of volume
of exercise on early adaptations to strength training. J Strength Cond
Res 17: 115–120, 2003.
30. Poole, DC, Musch, TI, and Kindig, CA. In vivo microvascular
structural and functional consequences of muscle length changes.
Am J Physiol 272: H2107–H2114, 1997.
31. Ratamess, NA, Alvar, BA, Evetoch, TK, Housh, TJ, Kibler, WB,
Kraemer, WJ, and Triplett, NT. American College of Sports
Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance
training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41: 687–708,
2009.
32. Ronnestad, BR, Egeland, W, Kvamme, NH, Refsnes, PE, Kadi, F,
and Raastad, T. Dissimilar effects of one- and three-set strength
training on strength and muscle mass gains in upper and lower
body in untrained subjects. J Strength Cond Res 21:
157–163, 2007.
33. Rubini, EC, Costa, AL, and Gomes, PS. The effects of stretching on
strength performance. Sports Med 37: 213–224, 2007.
34. Sheard, PW and Paine, TJ. Optimal contraction intensity during
proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation for maximal increase of
range of motion. J Strength Cond Res 24: 416–421, 2010.
35. Shrier, I. Warm-up and stretching in the prevention of muscular
injury. Sports Med 38: 879, 2008; author reply 879–880.
36. West, DW, Burd, NA, Tang, JE, Moore, DR, Staples, AW,
Holwerda, AM, Baker, SK, and Phillips, SM. Elevations in ostensibly
anabolic hormones with resistance exercise enhance neither
training-induced muscle hypertrophy nor strength of the elbow
flexors. J Appl Physiol 108: 60–67, 2010.
37. Winchester, JB, Nelson, AG, and Kokkonen, J. A single 30-s stretch is
sufficient to inhibit maximal voluntary strength. Res Q Exerc Sport 80:
257–261, 2009.
38. Wisnes, A and Kirkebo, A. Regional distribution of blood flow in calf
muscles of rat during passive stretch and sustained contraction. Acta
Physiol Scand 96: 256–266, 1976.
VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2012 | 2437
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
