Content uploaded by David Behm
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David Behm on Dec 08, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
STATIC STRETCHING CAN IMPAIR EXPLOSIVE
PERFORMANCE FOR ATLEAST 24 HOURS
MONOEM HADDAD,
1,2
AMIR DRIDI,
1
MOKTAR CHTARA,
1,3
ANIS CHAOUACHI,
1
DEL P. WONG,
4
DAVID BEHM,
5
AND KARIM CHAMARI
6
1
Tunisian Research Laboratory “Sports Performance Optimisation,” National Center of Medicine and Science in Sports
(CNMSS), Tunis, Tunisia;
2
University of Jandouba, ISSEP Kef, Tunisia;
3
University of Manouba, ISSEP Ksar Saıˆ
d, Tunisia;
4
Human Performance Laboratory, Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong (THEi), Hong Kong;
5
School of
Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Newfoundland, Canada; and
6
Research and Education
Centre, Aspetar, Qatar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, Doha
ABSTRACT
Haddad, M, Dridi, A, Chtara, M, Chaouachi, A, Wong, DP,
Behm, D, and Chamari, K. Static stretching can impair explosive
performance for at least 24 hours. J Strength Cond Res 28(1):
140–146, 2014—The aim of this study was to compare the ef-
fects of static vs. dynamic stretching (DS) on explosive perform-
ances and repeated sprint ability (RSA) after a 24-hour delay.
Sixteen young male soccer players performed 15 minutes of static
stretching (SS), DS, or a no-stretch control condition (CC) 24
hours before performing explosive performances and RSA tests.
This was a within-subject repeated measures study with SS, DS,
and CC being counterbalanced. Stretching protocols included 2
sets of 7 minutes 30 seconds (2 repetitions of 30 seconds with
a 15-second passive recovery) for 5 muscle groups (quadriceps,
hamstring, calves, adductors, and hip flexors). Twenty-four hours
later (without any kind of stretching in warm-up), the players
were tested for the 30-m sprint test (with 10- and 20-m lap times),
5 jump test (5JT), and RSA test. Significant differences
were observed between CC, SS, and DS with 5JT (F= 9.99,
p,0.00, effect size [ES] = 0.40), 10-m sprint time (F= 46.52,
p,0.00, ES = 0.76), 20-m sprint time (F= 18.44, p,0.000, ES
= 0.55), and 30-m sprint time (F= 34.25, p,0.000, ES = 0.70).
The significantly better performance (p,0.05) was observed after
DS as compared with that after CC and SS in 5JT, and sprint
times for 10, 20, and 30 m. In contrast, significantly worse perfor-
mance (p,0.05) was observed after SS as compared with that
after CC in 5JT, and sprint times for 10, 20, and 30 m. With RSA,
no significant difference was observed between different stretch-
ing protocols in the total time (F= 1.55, p.0.05), average time
(F=1.53,p.0.05), and fastest time (F= 2.30, p.0.05), except
for the decline index (F=3.54,p,0.04, ES = 0.19). Therefore,
the SS of the lower limbs and hip muscles had a negative effect on
explosive performances up to 24 hours poststretching with no
major effects on the RSA. Conversely, the DS of the same muscle
groups are highly recommended 24 hours before performing sprint
and long-jump performances. In conclusion, the positive effects of
DS on explosive performances seem to persist for 24 hours.
KEY WORDS soccer, stretching protocols, jump, repeated
sprint
INTRODUCTION
Static stretching (SS) was considered an essential com-
ponent of a warm-up for decades (39) to improve
performance. Traditionally, after a submaximal aero-
bic component (i.e., running, cycling), the second
component was a bout of SS (39). The SS usually involves
moving a joint to the end of its range of motion (ROM) and
holding the stretched position for 15–60 seconds (39). The SS
has been demonstrated as an effective means to increase ROM
(26). This bout of stretching is commonly followed by a seg-
ment of skill rehearsal where the players would perform
dynamic movements similar to the sport or event for which
they were preparing (39). A review by Behm and Chaouachi
(2) summarized the plethora of studies reporting that SS can
lead to impairments in subsequent performance. However, they
highlighted the greater variability in the findings with shorter
durations of stretching (,90 seconds per muscle group). In
addition, SS does not lead to such pervasive negative effects
with sprinting and running activities (13,34).
Recently, many studies have shown that a moderate dura-
tion of stretching (15–30 seconds of SS per muscle group) does
not affect short-term muscle strength (8,24). In contrast, studies
implementing 30 (36), 60 (34), or 90 seconds (29) resulted in
decreased jump height. In the same context, other studies have
shown that SS before a competition is harmful for strength,
speed, and jumping performances (5). Presently, the over-
whelming consensus is against SS before subsequent perfor-
mance, especially involving higher velocities and power.
Address correspondence to Dr. Del P. Wong, delwong@alumni.cuhk.net.
28(1)/140–146
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó2013 National Strength and Conditioning Association
140
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Brandenburg et al. (3) examined the effects of SS on coun-
termovement vertical jump (CMVJ) ability. They found that
CMVJ height decreased immediately post-SS in comparison
with CMVJ pre-SS, and it remained decreased during the
24 minutes follow-up period. Power et al. (26) demonstrated
that these deficits occur 1 minute post-SS and continue until
120 minutes poststretching. This study did not show impair-
ments in jump height performance; however, the quadriceps
force remained decreased, and jump contact time was
increased for 120 minutes. Therefore, SS can have negative
effects on muscular force up to 2 hours.
Dynamic stretching (DS), which involves controlled move-
ment through the active ROM for each joint (9), is currently
replacing SS in the modern athletic warm-up. However, it is
important to not ignore the SS studies that report no impair-
ments as they may reveal stretch-related mechanisms and oppor-
tunities to employ SS before performance (2). The DS has been
shown to enhance performance in subsequent dynamic concen-
tric external resistance (38), explosive (22,38), agility (22), sprint
performance (10), vertical jump height (9,17), and increased elec-
tromyographic activity during an isometric maximal voluntary
contraction (MVC) (14). A few studies have demonstrated no
adverse effect rather than potentiation with DS (6,31). The DS
may also enhance muscular performance because of postactiva-
tion potentiation, which is the transient improvement of muscu-
lar performance after previous contraction (6,31). In this context,
Turki et al. (33) showed that 10 minutes of DS of the lower limbs
had a substantial likelihood of augmenting vertical jump (VJ)
height, peak power, velocity, and force. Hough et al. (17) insti-
tuted 7 minutes of DS resulting in an increased vertical jump
height. However, all the aforementioned studies were interested
in the short-term effect of stretching on performance (from
immediate effect to 120 minutes [20] postintervention). There
are no studies investigating the effect of stretching 24 hours later.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effects
of 2 different types of stretching (SS and DS) and control con-
dition (CC) on sprint tests, 5 jump test (5JT), and repeated sprint
ability (RSA) after 24 hours. It was hypothesized that the positive
effects of DS on explosive performances, running speed, and
RSA would persist for at least 24 hours.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
To examine the effect of 2 types of stretching 24 hours before
performing the sprint, 5JT, and RSA tests, all the players
performed the 3 experimental conditions (SS, DS, and CC)
in a counterbalanced order in this within-subject repeated
measures study. The study lasted for 4 weeks where the first
week was used for familiarization of the tests and anthro-
pometric measurements, and the actual tests were performed
at the end of the second–fourth weeks (Sunday). The play-
ers’ running speed (30-m sprint with 10-m lap time), lower-
body explosive power (5JT), and RSA were assessed.
Subjects
Sixteen volunteer junior players (between 17 and 19 years old)
were recruited among professional soccer team competing in
First league. All the players were not injured at least 4 weeks
before the beginning of the study. The characteristics of players
are presented in Table 1. Players’ typical training regimen
included 7 training sessions for 6 d$wk
21
, 90–120 minutes in
duration. All the participants gained medical clearance from the
team physician to ensure that they were in good health. Before
the study, all the players and parents were informed about the
potential risks and benefits associated to participation, and both
signed a written informed consent form, agreeing with the pro-
tocol procedures and publication of the data. The study was
conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and the
protocol was fully approved by the Clinical Research Ethics
Committee of the National Center of Medicine and Science in
Sports of Tunis, Tunisia before the beginning of the assess-
ments. All the players were fully accustomed to the procedures
used in this research and were informed that they could with-
draw from the study in any time without penalty.
Procedures
Data were collected during 4 weeks of the precompetitive
season without friendly matches. All the sessions were
performed in the soccer stadium at the same hour of the day
starting at 15:00 hours in average ambient conditions of 13.0 6
1.78C temperature, 1,016.4 63.9 mmHg atmospheric pressure,
and 69.8 60.1% relative humidity. In the first week, all the
players attended 3 orientation sessions (once a day). The morn-
ing of the first day was delegated to anthropometric measure-
ments. The afternoon of the second and third days,
familiarization sessions for all the stretching and testing proto-
cols were organized. A standardized warm-up (e.g., general
physical preparation with joint and muscular mobilization)
was performed before each training session during the first
week. During the second to fourth weeks, the players performed
1 of the 3 stretching protocols in a counterbalanced order,
TABLE 1. Characteristics of players.
Age (y) Height (m) Body mass (kg) %Body fat MAS* (km$h
21
)V
_
O
2
max (ml$min
21
$kg
21
)
18.2 61.2 1.77 65.80 70.65 67.80 11.32 62.30 16.01 61.90 53.2 63.6
*MAS = maximal aerobic speed.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2014 | 141
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
24 hours before the performance tests. In this study, we selected
test items that have been reported to have high discriminating
power among young soccer players and related to match per-
formance. In this context, Reilly et al. (28) compared elite and
subelite young soccer players and found that sprint time was
the most discriminating measure. Specifically, 30-m sprint (with
10-m lap time) has been suggested as a standard sprint test for
soccer players. In addition, 5JT was used to estimate athlete’s
lowerlimbexplosivepower(4).Ithasbeenreportedtobe
correlated with the 5-, 10-, and 30-m sprint performance and
with vertical jump performance in soccer players (4). To mea-
sure the ability to repeat sprints in soccer, RSA tests were
designed. The RSA tests used in this study was significantly
correlated with both high-speed running and sprinting distance
during actual match play (27). Details of these tests were
described below. There was no stretching in warm-up imme-
diately before the tests. The various tests were administered by
the same experimenter in the same condition for all players. For
diet monitoring, each player was given a meal plan (food and
hydration) composed in collaboration with the club’s nutrition-
ist. During the period of investigation, they were prohibited
from consuming any known stimulant (e.g., caffeine) or depres-
sants (e.g., alcohol) substance. To avoid dehydration, ad libitum
drinking was permitted during all the training sessions.
Stretching Protocols. Two stretching protocols were per-
formed: SS and DS. These stretching protocols have been
used in various studies (9,32). The SS and DS consisted of
2 sets of 7 minutes 30 seconds each for 5 muscle groups
(i.e., quadriceps, hamstrings, plantar flexors, adductors, and
hip flexors). Two sets of stretching per muscle group were
performed (30 seconds for the right and 30 seconds for the
contralateral left muscle group) with a 15-second recovery
between repetitions and a 3-minute recovery between sets.
Static and dynamic protocols stretched the same muscular
groups.
Field Testing
Five Jump Test. This test (4) was performed on the grass with the
players equipped with appropriate soccer boots. The 5JT con-
sists of 5 consecutive strides with feet together at the start and
end of the jumps. From the starting position, the participant was
not allowed to perform a back step with any foot; rather, he had
to directly jump to the front with a leg of his choice. After the
first 4 strides, that is, alternating left and right feet 2 times each,
he had to perform the last stride and end the test again with feet
together. If the player fell back on completion of the last stride,
the test was performed again (only 2 instances in this study).
Five jump-test performances were measured with a tape mea-
sure from the front edge of the player’s feet at the starting
position to the rear edge of the feet at the final position (4).
The person assessing the landing had to focus on the last stride
of the player to exactly determine the last footprint on the grass,
as the players could not always stay on their feet on landing.
Thestartingpositionwassetonafixedpoint(4).
Thirty-Meter Sprint. The players had to start from a standing
position placing their forward foot just behind the starting
line. They performed a 30-m sprint with a stationary start and
the timing started when the subjects crossed the starting line
(beam of the first photocell gate located at 0 m). The speed
was measured with an infrared photoelectronic cell (Speed-
trap II Wireless Timing System; Brower Timing System,
Draper, UT, USA) positioned at 10, 20, and 30 m from the
starting line at a height of 50 cm. There were 3 trials in total,
and a 3-minute recovery was allowed between each trial. The
best (fastest) 30-m sprinting time and the associated 10- and
20-m sprinting time were selected for analysis.
Repeated Sprint Ability Test. This test was designed to measure
both repeated sprint and change in direction abilities (27). The
athletes started from a line, sprinted for 20 m, touched a line
with a foot, and came back to the starting line as fast as
possible. After 20 seconds of passive recovery, the subject
started again (27). Immediately after the warm-up, each player
completed a preliminary single shuttle sprint test using a pho-
tocells system (Speedtrap II Wireless Timing System; Brower
Timing System). This trial was used as the criterion score
during the subsequent 6 340-m shuttle sprint test. After
the first preliminary single shuttle sprint, the subjects rested
for 5 minutes before the start of the RSA test. If the perfor-
mance in the first sprint of the RSA test was worse than the
criterion score (i.e., an increase in time .2.5%), the test was
terminated immediately, and the subjects were required to
repeat the RSA test with maximum effort after a 5-minute
rest. Five seconds before the start of each sprint, the subjects
assumed the ready position and waited for the start signal
(27). During the RSA test, total, average and fastest times
and the index of decline (%dec) were calculated.
Statistical Analyses
Mean 6SD was used to describe variables. Before using para-
metric tests, the assumption of normality was verified using
the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. A 1-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) for repeated measures was used to examine the
difference between conditions (CC, SS, and DS), respectively,
in 5JT, sprints, and RSA. When significant Fvalues were
observed (p#0.05), paired comparisons were used in con-
junction with Holm’s Bonferroni method for controlling type
1 error (15) to determine significant differences. The effect size
(ES) was calculated for all ANOVAs with the use of a partial
eta-squared. Values of 0.01, 0.06, and .0.15 were considered
as small, medium, and large, respectively (7). The ESs were
also calculated for all paired comparisons and evaluated with
the method described by Cohen (7) (small ,0.50, moderate =
0.50–0.79, and large .0.80). Reliability of each test was as-
sessed before the start of this study by intraclass correlation
coefficient (ICC) and the SEM. Statistical analyses were per-
formed using SPSS software statistical package (version 16.0;
SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), and statistical significance was
set at p#0.05.
Static Stretching Impairs Performance
142
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
RESULTS
Statistical Power and Reliability
The statistical power of this study ranged from 0.30 to 1.0
(Table 2). In addition, the results show that the tests were highly
reliable: 30-m sprint (ICC = 0.81; SEM =1.89;n= 16), 5JT
(ICC = 0.95; SEM = 0.08; n= 16), and RSA (ICC = 0.99;
SEM = 0.01; n= 16).
Analysis With Repeated Measures
Repeated-measure ANOVA results revealed significant ef-
fects for condition between CC, SS, and DS (Table 2) with
TABLE 3. Mean difference (%) between different stretching protocols on each of the dependent variables.*
Condition Mean change (%) 95% CI for mean lower 2upper pES
5 JT (m) CC vs. SS 20.8 20.02 to 0.22 0.10 0.19
CC vs. DS 1.6 20.28 to 20.11 0.00 0.37
SS vs. DS 2.5 20.49 to 20.10 0.01 0.51
Sprint (s) 10 m CC vs. SS 2.8 20.07 to 20.03 0.00 0.39
CC vs. DS 22.1 0.02 to 0.05 0.00 0.28
SS vs. DS 24.7 0.06 to 0.11 0.00 0.59
20 m CC vs. SS 1.7 20.08 to 20.03 0.00 0.39
CC vs. DS 21.0 0.01 to 0.05 0.00 0.25
SS vs. DS 22.6 0.05 to 0.13 0.00 0.61
30 m CC vs. SS 1.0 20.06 to 0.03 0.00 0.20
CC vs. DS 21.1 0.03 to 0.07 0.00 0.21
SS vs. DS 22.1 0.06 to 0.13 0.00 0.40
RSA (s) Total time CC vs. SS 20.2 20.01 to 0.15 0.09 0.09
CC vs. DS 0.2 20.34 to 0.14 0.39 0.12
SS vs. DS 0.4 20.43 to 0.08 0.17 0.22
Mean time CC vs. SS 20.2 20.00 to 0.03 0.12 0.09
CC vs. DS 0.2 20.06 to 0.02 0.39 0.12
SS vs. DS 0.4 20.07 to 0.01 0.17 0.22
Best time CC vs. SS 0.1 20.03 to 0.01 0.52 0.04
CC vs. DS 20.2 20.01 to 0.03 0.21 0.09
SS vs. DS 20.3 0.00 to 0.04 0.02 0.14
% Dec CC vs. SS 27.0 0.02 to 0.48 0.04 0.18
CC vs. DS 9.8 21.03 to 0.23 0.19 0.29
SS vs. DS 19.9 21.28 to 20.03 0.04 0.45
*ES = effect size; 5JT = 5 jump test; RSA = repeated sprint ability; CI = confidence interval; CC = control condition; SS = static
stretching; DS = dynamic stretching.
TABLE 2. Physical performances 24 hours after different stretching protocols (n= 16).*
No stretching
control Static stretching Dynamic stretching ANOVA p
Effect
size†
Statistical
power
5 JT (m) 12.33 (0.52)z12.23 (0.58)z12.53 (0.51)§ 0.00 0.40 0.98
Sprint (s) 10 m 1.77 (0.13)z§ 1.82 (0.15)z1.73 (0.13)§ 0.00 0.76 1.0
20 m 3.21 (0.14)z§ 3.26 (0.14)z3.17 (0.14)§ 0.00 0.55 1.0
30 m 4.32 (0.23)z§ 4.36 (0.23)z4.27 (0.23)§ 0.00 0.70 1.0
RSA (s) Total time 46.00 (0.82) 45.93 (0.80) 46.10 (1.00) 0.23 0.09 0.30
Mean time 7.67 (0.14) 7.66 (0.13) 7.68 (0.17) 0.23 0.09 0.30
Best time 7.38 (0.14) 7.39 (0.13) 7.37 (0.14) 0.12 0.13 0.43
%
Decrement
3.88 (1.37) 3.63 (1.45) 4.28 (1.86) 0.04 0.19 0.61
*ANOVA = analysis of variance; 5JT = 5 jump-test; RSA = repeated sprint ability.
†Effect size of the ANOVA comparison, that is, the comparison between 3 groups at the same time.
zSignificantly different from static stretching at p,0.05.
§Significantly different from dynamic stretching at p,0.05.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2014 | 143
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
5JT (F= 9.99, p,0.000, ES = 0.40), 10 m (F= 46.52, p,
0.000, ES = 0.76), 20 m (F= 18.44, p,0.000, ES = 0.55),
and 30-m sprint time (F= 34.25, p,0.000, ES = 0.70).
Pairwise comparison showed that a significantly better per-
formance (p,0.05) was observed after DS as compared
with that after CC and SS with 5JT (1.6 and 2.5%), sprint
times for 10 m (22.1 and 24.7%), 20 m (21.0 and 22.6%),
and 30 m (21.1 and 22.1%, respectively). In contrast, signif-
icantly impaired performances (p,0.05) were observed
after SS as compared with that after CC with sprint times
for 10 m (2.8%), 20 m (1.7%), and 30 m (1.0%) (Table 3).
In the RSA, no significant difference was observed between
different stretching protocols in total time (F= 1.55, p.0.05,
ES = 0.09), average time (F= 1.53, p.0.05, ES = 0.09), and
fastest time (F=2.30,p.0.05, ES = 0.13), except for %Dec
(F= 3.54, p,0.04, ES = 0.19). However, the post hoc test did
not identify any significant pairwise comparison for the %Dec.
DISCUSSION
This is the first study to investigate the effects of SS and DS
on performance (sprint, horizontal jump, and RSA) 24 hours
poststretching. The results of this study showed positive
effects of DS on sprint (10, 20, and 30 m) and 5JT performed
the next day. However, SS produced negative effects on
these performances compared with that of DS and CC. No
significant effect was observed on the RSA, with either
stretching condition.
The effects of DS performed 24 hours before explosive
performances were similar to those reported by many previous
investigations studying the immediate effects of stretching on
explosive performances. Both Fletcher and Jones (10) and
Gelen (12) indicated that the DS improved sprint performance
during warm-up. The positive effects of DS on explosive per-
formances (19), power (21,38), and jump (16–18,25) perfor-
mance have also been reported. Also, Rosenbaum and
Hennig (30) found that the group performing DS protocol
was the fastest and had greater tendon stiffness. Behm and
Chaouachi (2) in their review calculated an average perfor-
mance enhancement of 7.3% shortly after DS. Other than the
20-m sprint enhancements, which increased 12 and 24% with
DS compared with control and SS, respectively, the other per-
formance enhancements in this study were modest ranging
from 1 to 5%. It must be kept in perspective that the Behm
and Chaouachi (2) calculation illustrated increases occurring
relatively shortly after the intervention whereas the present
study still demonstrates significantly greater performances 24
hours later.
Another unique aspect of this study is the demonstration
of the negative effect of SS up to 24 hours poststretching.
Rosenbaum and Hennig (30) recommended avoiding SS
before sprint and strength activities because of its induced
effect of decreasing the muscle’s elastic energy. Several other
studies concluded that performing SS before sprint perform-
ances contributed to increased running time (10,23). Accord-
ing to Nelson et al. (23), the decrease in sprint performance
was the result of the increased compliance and reduction of
muscle tendon unit’s stiffness. Fowles et al. (11) have shown
that intense and prolonged SS of ankle plantar flexors (13
stretches of 135 seconds each over 33 minutes) reduced the
MVC for 1 hour after stretching. Also Power et al. (26)
explored the effects of SS of quadriceps and plantar flexors
up to 120 minutes, and they demonstrated significant overall
9.5 and 5.4% decrements in the force of the quadriceps for
MVC and interpolated twitch technique, respectively. This is
the first study to demonstrate persistent SS-induced impair-
ments 24 hours after stretching.
Regarding the RSA test, the results of this study showed no
significant difference in the performance after the 3 stretching
protocols. The absence of stretching effects performed 24
hours before the RSA test concurred with the study of Wong
et al. (37). These authors showed that SS protocol (30, 60, and
90 seconds) performed for 3 consecutive days before repeated
sprint had no effect on RSA (9 330 m with a 25-second
recovery between each sprint). The absence of any effect
may also be attributed to a lack of a sufficient stimulus (short
stretching #90 seconds) (19). Wong et al. (37) have also dem-
onstrated the lack of significant difference in the RSA perfor-
mance with 30–90 seconds of SS in combination with
90 seconds of DS. However, Beckett et al. (1) have shown
that SS reduced the repeated sprint times when the SS was
performed during the recovery period between sprints. In this
study, the absence of a significant difference between stretch-
ing protocols on RSA performance may be the result of this
test being performed after the sprint and the 5JT.
Potential mechanisms underpinning these changes in per-
formance are speculative as direct measurements of the
physiological mechanisms were not performed. Short-term
stretching-induced impairment mechanisms have included
both mechanical and neurological responses but have not
been fully elucidated (2). In this study, SS might have compro-
mised the effect of a stretch-shortening cycle by decreasing
active musculotendinous stiffness, thereby reducing the amount
of elastic energy that can be stored and reused (2). The stretch-
induced slack in the musculotendinous unit (MTU) can
increase electromechanical delay affecting transmission of
forces, preventing maximal storage and reuse of elastic energy
during the stretch-shortening cycle (23). The SS might also
increase tendon compliance, thereby reducing force production
(26). The present results suggest that these mechanical alter-
ations may persist for 24 hours. It has also been hypothesized
that altered MTU properties through SS inhibit neural poten-
tiation, through changes in reflex activity. However, these neu-
ral responses would not be expected to play a substantive role
24 hours after stretching. Conversely, the persistent DS
improvements might be attributed to enhanced MTU stiffness,
and increased coordination of dynamic movement (2). Mann
and Jones (20) in another review suggested that the key attrib-
utes of DS include improved kinesthetic sense, leading to
improved proprioception and preactivation. From their train-
ing study results, Wilson et al. (35) stated that DS might be an
Static Stretching Impairs Performance
144
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
effective way to increase the reused elastic energy during exer-
cise involving a stretch-shortening cycle. Unfortunately, this
study was not designed to investigate possible mechanisms,
but the persistence of these effects for 24 hours warrants fur-
ther research.
In conclusion, according to the results of this study, the
introduction of DS protocol 24 hours before short sprint and
horizontal jumps was advantageous; however, SS exercise
should be avoided 24 hours before explosive performances
despite the absence of effects on RSA regardless of the types
of stretching performed.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Sprint performances (10, 20, and 30 m) and horizontal jumps 24
hours after the DS were significantly better than those after the
no-stretch CC and SS. Results of this study demonstrated the
negative effect of SS up to 24-hour poststretching. Despite
the absence of effects on RSA regardless of the types of
stretching performed in the previous 24 hours, it is recom-
mended to perform DS on the day before explosive perform-
ances rather than SS because of the positive effects of DS on
sprint and jump performance up to 24 hours poststretching.
REFERENCES
1. Beckett, JR, Schneiker, KT, Wallman, KE, Dawson, BT, and
Guelfi, KJ. Effects of static stretching on repeated sprint and change
of direction performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41: 444–450, 2009.
2. Behm, DG and Chaouachi, A. A review of the acute effects of static
and dynamic stretching on performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 111:
2633–2651, 2011.
3. Brandenburg, J, Pitney, WA, Luebbers, PE, Veera, A, and Czajka, A.
Time course of changes in vertical-jumping ability after static
stretching. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2: 170–181, 2007.
4. Chamari, K, Chaouachi, A, Hambli, M, Kaouech, F, Wisloff, U, and
Castagna, C. The five-jump test for distance as a field test to assess
lower limb explosive power in soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 22:
944–950, 2008.
5. Chaouachi, A, Castagna, C, Chtara, M, Brughelli, M, Turki, O,
Galy,O,Chamari,K,andBehm,DG.Effectofwarm-ups
involving static or dynamic stretching on agility, sprinting, and
jumping performance in trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res
24: 2001–2011, 2010.
6. Christensen, BK and Nordstrom, BJ. The effects of proprioceptive
neuromuscular facilitation and dynamic stretching techniques on
vertical jump performance. JStrengthCondRes22: 1826–
1831, 2008.
7. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd
ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
8. Cramer, JT, Housh, TJ, Johnson, GO, Weir, JP, Beck, TW, and
Coburn, JW. An acute bout of static stretching does not affect
maximal eccentric isokinetic peak torque, the joint angle at peak
torque, mean power, electromyography, or mechanomyography.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 37: 130–139, 2007.
9. Fletcher, IM. The effect of different dynamic stretch velocities on
jump performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 109: 491–498, 2010.
10. Fletcher, IM and Jones, B. The effect of different warm-up stretch
protocols on 20 meter sprint performance in trained rugby union
players. J Strength Cond Res 18: 885–888, 2004.
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. Gelen, E. Acute effects of different warm-up methods on sprint,
slalom dribbling, and penalty kick performance in soccer players.
J Strength Cond Res 24: 950–956, 2010.
13. Hayes, PR and Walker, A. Pre-exercise stretching does not
impact upon running economy. JStrengthCondRes21:
1227–1232, 2007.
14. 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. JStrengthCondRes22:
809–817, 2008.
15. Holm, S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure.
Scand J Stat 6: 65–70, 1979.
16. Holt, BW and Lambourne, K. The impact of different warm-up
protocols on vertical jump performance in male collegiate athletes.
J Strength Cond Res 22: 226–229, 2008.
17. Hough, PA, Ross, EZ, and Howatson, G. Effects of dynamic and
static stretching on vertical jump performance and
electromyographic activity. J Strength Cond Res 23: 507–512, 2009.
18. Jaggers, JR, Swank, AM, Frost, KL, and Lee, CD. The acute effects
of dynamic and ballistic stretching on vertical jump height, force,
and power. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1844–1849, 2008.
19. 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.
20. Mann, DP and Jones, MT. Guidelines to the implementation of
a dynamic stretching program. Strength Cond J 21: 53, 1999.
21. 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.
22. McMillian, DJ, Moore, JH, Hatler, BS, and Taylor, DC.
Dynamic vs. static-stretching warm up: The effect on
power and agility performance. JStrengthCondRes20:
492–499, 2006.
23. Nelson, AG, Driscoll, NM, Landin, DK, Young, MA, and
Schexnayder, IC. Acute effects of passive muscle stretching on sprint
performance. J Sports Sci 23: 449–454, 2005.
24. Ogura, Y, Miyahara, Y, Naito, H, Katamoto, S, and Aoki, J. Duration
of static stretching influences muscle force production in hamstring
muscles. J Strength Cond Res 21: 788–792, 2007.
25. Pearce, AJ, Kidgell, DJ, Zois, J, and Carlson, JS. Effects of secondary
warm up following stretching. Eur J Appl Physiol 105: 175–183,
2009.
26. Power, K, Behm, D, Cahill, F, Carroll, M, and Young, W. An acute
bout of static stretching: Effects on force and jumping performance.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 1389–1396, 2004.
27. Rampinini, E, Bishop, D, Marcora, SM, Ferrari Bravo, D, Sassi, R,
and Impellizzeri, FM. Validity of simple field tests as indicators of
match-related physical performance in top-level professional soccer
players. Int J Sports Med 28: 228–235, 2007.
28. Reilly, T, Bangsbo, J, and Franks, A. Anthropometric and
physiological predispositions for elite soccer. J Sports Sci 18:
669–683, 2000.
29. Robbins, JW and Scheuermann, BW. Varying amounts of acute static
stretching and its effect on vertical jump performance. J Strength
Cond Res 22: 781–786, 2008.
30. Rosenbaum, D and Hennig, EM. The influence of stretching and
warm-up exercises on Achilles tendon reflex activity. J Sports Sci 13:
481–490, 1995.
31. Samuel, MN, Holcomb, WR, Guadagnoli, MA, Rubley, MD, and
Wallmann, H. Acute effects of static and ballistic stretching on
measures of strength and power. JStrengthCondRes22: 1422–
1428, 2008.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2014 | 145
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
32. Turki, O, Chaouachi, A, Behm, DG, Chtara, H, Chtara, M,
Bishop, D, Chamari, K, and Amri, M. The effect of warm-ups
incorporating different volumes of dynamic stretching on 10- and
20-m sprint performance in highly trained male athletes. J Strength
Cond Res 26: 63–72, 2012.
33. Turki, O, Chaouachi, A, Drinkwater, EJ, Chtara, M, Chamari, K,
Amri, M, and Behm, DG. Ten minutes of dynamic stretching is
sufficient to potentiate vertical jump performance characteristics.
J Strength Cond Res 25: 2453–2463, 2011.
34. Vetter, RE. Effects of six warm-up protocols on sprint and jump
performance. J Strength Cond Res 21: 819–823, 2007.
35. Wilson, GJ, Elliott, BC, and Wood, GA. Stretch shorten cycle
performance enhancement through flexibility training. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 24: 116–123, 1992.
36. Winchester, JB, Nelson, AG, Landin, D, Young, MA, and
Schexnayder, IC. Static stretching impairs sprint performance in
collegiate track and field athletes. J Strength Cond Res 22: 13–19, 2008.
37. Wong, PL, Lau, PW, Mao de, W, Wu, YY, Behm, DG, and
Wisloff, U. Three days of static stretching within a warm-up does
not affect repeated-sprint ability in youth soccer players. J Strength
Cond Res 25: 838–845, 2011.
38. Yamaguchi, T, Ishii, K, Yamanaka, M, and Yasuda, K. Acute effects
of dynamic stretching exercise on power output during concentric
dynamic constant external resistance leg extension. J Strength Cond
Res 21: 1238–1244, 2007.
39. Young, W and Behm, D. Should static stretching be used during
a warm up for strength and power activities? J Strength Cond Res 24:
33–37, 2002.
Static Stretching Impairs Performance
146
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
