Content uploaded by Reury F P Bacurau
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Reury F P Bacurau on Oct 09, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
ACUTE EFFECT OF A BALLISTIC AND A STATIC
STRETCHING EXERCISE BOUT ON FLEXIBILITY
AND MAXIMAL STRENGTH
REURY FRANK PEREIRA BACURAU,
1
GIZELE DE ASSIS MONTEIRO,
2
CARLOS UGRINOWITSCH,
3
VALMOR TRICOLI,
3
LEONARDO FERREIRA CABRAL,
4
AND MARCELO SALDANHA AOKI
1
1
School of Arts, Sciences and Humanities, University of Sa˜o Paulo, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil;
2
Exercise Physiology Laboratory, Physical
Education School, UniFMU, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil;
3
School of Physical Education and Sport, University of Sao Paulo, Sa˜o Paulo,
Brazil; and
4
Exercise Physiology Laboratory, Esta
´cio de Sa
´University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
ABSTRACT
Bacurau, RFP, Monteiro, GA, Ugrinowitsch C, Tricoli, V, Cabral,
LF, Aoki, MS. Acute effect of a ballistic and a static stretching
exercise bout on flexibility and maximal strength. J Strength
Cond Res 23(1): 304–308, 2009—Different stretching techni-
ques have been used during warm-up routines. However, these
routines may decrease force production. The purpose of this
study was to compare the acute effect of a ballistic and a static
stretching protocol on lower-limb maximal strength. Fourteen
physically active women (169.3 68.2 cm; 64.9 65.9 kg; 23.1
63.6 years) performed three experimental sessions: a control
session (estimation of 45°leg press one-repetition maximum
[1RM]), a ballistic session (20 minutes of ballistic stretch and
45°leg press 1RM), and a static session (20 minutes of static
stretch and 45°leg press 1RM). Maximal strength decreased
after static stretching (213.2 636.1 to 184.6 628.9 kg), but it
was unaffected by ballistic stretching (208.4 634.8 kg). In
addition, static stretching exercises produce a greater acute
improvement in flexibility compared with ballistic stretching
exercises. Consequently, static stretching may not be recom-
mended before athletic events or physical activities that require
high levels of force. On the other hand, ballistic stretching could
be more appropriate because it seems less likely to decrease
maximal strength.
KEY WORDS warm-up, resistance exercise, flexibility,
performance
INTRODUCTION
Stretching exercises are usually part of warm-up
routines before involvement in competitive sports
and physical activities. It is believed that their use
will enhance subsequent performance, reduce the
risk of injury, and alleviate muscle soreness symptoms.
There are several stretching techniques, including static,
ballistic, dynamic, and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation
(4,12,26). The most used technique in warm-up routines is static
stretching. It has been used because it seems to be easier and
safer to apply than the other ones. However, some recent
studies have shown that acute static stretching may reduce
strength and power production with a detrimental effect on
muscle performance during jumping, sprinting, and strength
endurance (6,10,21,23,25,28). Therefore, some researchers have
recommended that static stretching should not be used right
before activities that require high levels of strength and power.
On the other hand, a few studies have reported that ballistic
stretching does not seem to affect force production. Unick
et al. (24) found no reduction in jumping capacity after
hamstrings and quadriceps bobbing exercises. In the same
way, Bradley et al. (3) did not find reductions in vertical
jumping capacity. However, Nelson and Kokkonen (22) have
reported a drop in knee extension and flexion peak torque
values (25.2 and 27.2%, respectively) after hamstrings and
quadriceps ballistic stretching. Therefore, there seems to be
no agreement on the acute effects of this type of stretching
exercise on force production.
To the best of our knowledge, no study has attempted to
make a direct comparison between the effects of an exercise
bout of static and ballistic stretching on maximal strength.
Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare the acute
effects of a ballistic and a static stretching protocol on lower-
limb maximal strength.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
We used a crossover design in which subjects executed all
experimental conditions. They had to perform either ballistic
Address correspondence to Marcelo Saldanha Aoki, saldanha.caf@
usp.br.
23(1)/304–308
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó2009 National Strength and Conditioning Association
304
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © . N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited
or static stretching exercises and then were tested for
alterations in 45°leg press one-repetition maximum (1RM).
Because this was a within-subjects design, stretching sessions
were presented in a balanced, random order to avoid any
carryover effect. The acute effect of a previous stretching
protocol on force production was tested, comparing 45°leg
press 1RM values between control and experimental
conditions. In addition, the acute effects of the stretching
protocols on flexibility were evaluated. Flexibility was
measured before and right after the stretching protocols
through a sit-and-reach test and hip joint range of motion
(ROM) with a fleximeter.
Subjects
Fourteen physically active women, physical education
students with at least 1 year of resistance training experience
and who were training at least three times per week,
volunteered to participate in this study (169.3 68.2 cm;
64.9 65.9 kg; 23.1 63.6 years). The study was approved by
the university’s ethic committee, and all subjects were
informed of the inherent risks and benefits before signing
an informed consent form.
Flexibility Tests
Sit-and-reach: Subjects sat with their heels pressed against
the testing board. Knees were extended, and the right hand
was placed over the left. Then, they were asked to reach and
hold as far as possible along the measuring board, on the
fourth bobbing movement. Three trials were performed,
and the best was used for statistical analysis.
Hip joint ROM: Only the right leg was tested because all
subjects were right-handed. Individuals laid supine with the
opposite lower extremity extended. The fleximeter (Sanny,
American Medical, Brazil) was fixed halfway between the
greater trochanter and the lateral epicondyle of the right
thigh. Then, the same researcher raised the extended right
leg up to the point at which the subject reported discomfort,
and an assistant kept the left leg extended on the lying
surface. The ROM was measured to the closest degree, and
the best of three trials was used for statistical purposes.
Maximum Strength Test
Subjects performed a 1RM 45°leg press test right after the
specific warm-up. The initial
load used for this test was that
obtained in the familiarization
session. Then, increments of 4,
3, and 3% were used per trial to
achieve 1RM load. A 3-minute
rest interval was allowed be-
tween trials. A maximum of
four trials was allowed to
achieve the 1RM load. All
subjects performed a specific
warm-up composed of a five-
repetition leg press set with 50% of the 1RM load obtained
during the familiarization session
Experimental Procedures
Subjects had to report to the lab on four different occasions. In
the first occasion, they had a familiarization session that
reproduced all experimental procedures. In the following
three occasions, individuals performed the experimental
sessions. These sessions were at least 5 days apart and were
presented in a balanced order. Subjects were asked to refrain
from any strenuous physical activity 48 hours before testing.
At the beginning of each experimental session, participants
performed a general warm-up protocol that consisted of a
5-minute treadmill run at 8 kmh
21
. Immediately after the
warm-up, the subjects were submitted to the first flexibility
evaluation. Then, they had to perform one of the following
conditions:
1. Control: Subjects were submitted to the second flexibility
evaluation, followed by the 1RM 45°leg press test.
2. Static stretch: Individuals performed three sets of six static
stretching exercises for the quadriceps and the hamstrings,
for 20 minutes. Stretching positions were maintained for
30 seconds, and a 30-second rest interval was allowed
between them. Then, the subjects were submitted to the
second flexibility evaluation, followed by the 1RM 45°leg
press test.
3. Ballistic stretch: The same procedures were followed, but
instead of holding the stretching positions for 30 seconds,
subjects had to bob in 1:1-second cycles for 1 minute.
Then, the subjects were submitted to the second flexibility
evaluation, followed by the 1RM 45°leg press test.
A specific warm-up was always performed before the 1RM
test. Figure 1 gives a pictorial view of the experimental
design.
Statistical Analyses
A mixed model was performed, with condition (control,
static, and ballistic) as a fixed factor and subjects as a random
factor, for the 1RM 45°leg press test. A second mixed model
was performed, with condition (control, static, and ballistic)
and time (pre- and poststretch) as fixed factors and subjects as
a random factor, for both flexibility measurements. Whenever
a significant Fvalue was obtained, a post hoc test with
Figure 1. Experimental design sequence.
VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2009 | 305
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright © . N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited
a Tukey adjustment was performed for multiple comparison
purposes. The significance level was set at p#0.05
RESULTS
Flexibility significantly improved after both ballistic and static
stretching conditions (p,0.001). However, the static
condition produced a significantly greater improvement in
ROM than the ballistic condition. In addition, fleximeter
measurement detected a greater change in ROM after both
flexibility protocols than the sit-and-reach test (effect sizes =
0.97 and 0.62, and 1.93 and 0.74, for the ballistic and static
conditions, respectively) (Table 1). Figures 2 and 3 describe
individual responses after the ballistic and the static
stretching protocols, respectively.
Leg press 1 RM decreased significantly after the static
condition compared with both the control and the ballistic
conditions (Figure 2) (p,0.05). The percentage drop in leg
press 1RM after the ballistic and the static stretching
protocols was 2.2% and 13.4%, respectively (Figure 4).
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to compare the acute effects of
a ballistic and a static stretching protocol on lower-limb
maximal strength. Static stretching produced a significant
acute drop in force production compared with both ballistic
stretching and control (e.g., no stretch), but ballistic stretching
did not affect force production. In addition, both stretching
protocols produced acute increments in flexibility (sit-and-reach
and hip joint ROM test). However, the static condition pro-
duced greater increments in flexibility.
Sit-and-reach and hip joint ROM measurements indicate
that both the ballistic and the static stretching exercises were
effective in improving flexibility acutely. Our results show
a greater improvement in flexibility after the static than after
the ballistic protocol. Other studies have also reported results
in the same direction. Nelson and Kokkonen (22) have
reported 9% improvement in the sit-and-reach test after
passive ballistic stretching, whereas Fowles et al. (11) found
21% improvement in plantar flexion ROM after static
stretching. A possible explanation for the greater increase
in flexibility after the static exercise may be the viscoelastic
stress relaxation that occurs when the muscle tissue is kept
stretched in a fixed position (17,18). The stress relaxation
seems to be attributable to a increased tendon elasticity and
a decreased muscle viscosity, which produces a decreased
passive joint torque (15).
It is interesting to note that hip joint ROM improvement
was greater than sit-and-reach improvement for static and
ballistic stretching exercises (effect sizes 1.93–0.97 and 0.74–
0.62, respectively). It is difficult to explain why hip joint ROM
improved more than sit-and-reach flexibility acutely.
A possible explanation would be that hip joint ROM isolates
the joint, whereas the sit-and-reach movement involves hip
and lower-back flexibility. Shoulder extension and hand
positioning can also influence the test results. Furthermore,
sit-and-reach is performed actively, whereas hip joint ROM
was measured passively, which seems to give a greater degree
of control to the movement.
Figure 3. Individual values of leg press one-repetition maximum (1RM)
(kg) in the control condition and in the static stretching condition.
TABLE 1. Acute changes in flexibility after the ballistic
stretching, the static stretching, and the control
condition.
Sit-and-
reach (cm)
Hip joint range
of motion (°)
Control Pretest 36.6 65.8 112.2 612.1
Posttest 37.0 65.8 113.6 611.6
Ballistic Pretest 36.8 66.1 114.7 612.4
Posttest 40.4 65.6*†126.6 612.2*†
Static Pretest 36.8 65.7 114.4 610.6
Posttest 41.1 66.0*†‡ 136.3 612.1*†‡
Values expressed as mean 6SD.
*Significantly greater than pretest value (p,0.001).
†Significantly greater than control posttest value
(p,0.001).
‡Significantly greater than ballistic posttest value
(p,0.05).
Figure 2. Individual values of leg press one-repetition maximum (1RM)
(kg) in the control condition and in the ballistic stretching condition.
306
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Flexibility Effect on Strength
Copyright © . N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited
The effects of stretching exercises on muscle force capacity
are contradictory. Yamaguchi and Ishii (27) have reported
increased leg power after dynamic stretching. McMillian
et al. (19) found increased T-drill, medicine ball throw, and
five-step-jump performance after dynamic stretching but not
after static stretching. Similar results were obtained by Little
and Williams (16), who found that dynamic stretching was
most effective to prepare for high-speed activities 10-m
sprint, flying 20-m sprint, and agility) and that static
stretching was not detrimental to performance. Church
et al. (4) also did not observe negative effects of static
stretching on vertical jump performance. On the other hand,
Fletcher and Jones (10) found a significant decrease in 20-m
sprint performance after acute passive and active static
stretching. Bradley et al. (3) have reported a decreased
jumping height after ballistic and proprioceptive neuro-
facilitation stretching routines, when data from squat jumps
and countermovement jumps were collapsed. Wallmann
et al. (25) also found a decrement in vertical jump height after
a bout of static stretching of the gastrocnemius muscle.
Egan et al. (8) do not report any significant impact of static
stretching on peak torque production during concentric knee
extension at 60 and 300°s
21
. However, Cramer et al. (7) found
decreased knee extensor concentric peak torque at both low
(60°s
21
) and high (240°s
21
) angular velocities after active and
passive static stretches, whereas Nelson et al. (21) observed
deleterious effects only on knee extension concentric torque
performed at slow velocities (60 and 90°s
21
). Curiously,
Cramer et al. (5) found that a static stretching bout did not
affect knee extensor eccentric peak torque production at 60 and
80°s
21
. It seems that static stretching produces impairments in
muscle force production. This impairment may be associated
with the stress relaxation reported above. The increased stress
relaxation could impair muscle force production as a result of
changes in the force-velocity and length-tension relationships.
On the other hand, ballistic stretching may enhance stretch
reflex activity and increase force production. Bradley et al. (3)
found a decrease in jumping height only when squat and
countermovement jump data were collapsed. Squat jumps do
not use the stretch reflex, whereas the countermovement jump
has an important stretch reflex component (1,2); this is an
important confounding factor.
As a conclusion, static stretching seems to produce an acute
impairment on maximal lower-limb force production. In
addition, static stretching exercises produce a greater acute
improvement in flexibility compared with ballistic stretching
exercises.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Our findings, in conjunction with previous studies
(7,9,13,14,20,29), indicate that a static stretching protocol
produced a significant reduction in maximal strength
performance. Consequently, this stretching technique may
not be recommended before athletic events or physical
activities that require high levels of force. Ballistic stretching
could be more appropriate because it seems less likely to
decrease maximal strength. On the other hand, static
stretching may be used in warm-up routines of sports that
rely more on ROM than on maximal strength.
REFERENCES
1. Avela, J, Finni, J, and Komi, PV. Excitability of the soleus reflex arc
during intensive stretch-shortening cycle exercise in two power-
trained athlete groups. Eur J Appl Physiol 97: 486–493, 2006.
2. Avela, J and Komi, PV. Reduced stretch reflex sensitivity and muscle
stiffness after long-lasting stretch-shortening cycle exercise in
humans. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 78: 403–410, 1998.
3. 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.
4. Church, JB, Wiggins, MS, Moode, FM, and Crist, R. Effect of warm-
up and flexibility treatments on vertical jump performance. J Strength
Cond Res 15: 332–336, 2001.
5. Cramer, JT, Housh, TJ, Coburn, JW, Beck, TW, and Johnson, GO.
Acute effects of static stretching on maximal eccentric torque
production in women. J Strength Cond Res 20: 354–358, 2006.
6. Cramer, JT, Housh, TJ, Weir, JP, Johnson, GO, Coburn, JW, and
Beck, TW. The acute effects of static stretching on peak torque,
mean power output, electromyography, and mechanomyography.
Eur J Appl Physiol 93: 530–539, 2005.
7. Cramer, JT, Housh, TJ, Johnson, GO, Miller, JM, Coburn, JW, and
Beck, TW. Acute effects of static stretching on peak torque in
women. J Strength Cond Res 18: 236–241, 2004.
8. 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.
9. 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.
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.
Figure 4. Leg press one-repetition maximum (1RM) after the ballistic
stretching, the static stretching, and the control condition (*p,0.0001).
VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2009 | 307
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright © . N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited
12. Funk, DC, Swank, AM, Mikla, BM, Fagan, TA, and Farr, BK. Impact
of prior exercise on hamstring flexibility: a comparison of pro-
prioceptive neuromuscular facilitation and static stretching.
J Strength Cond Res 17: 489–492, 2003.
13. Knudson, D and Noffal, G. Time course of stretch-induced isometric
strength deficits. Eur J Appl Physiol 94: 348–351, 2005.
14. Kokkonen, J, Nelson, AG, and Cornwell, A. Acute muscle stretching
inhibits maximal strength performance. Res Q Exerc Sport 69: 411–
415, 1998.
15. Kubo, K, Kanehisa, H, Kawakami, Y, and Fukunaga, T. Influence of
static stretching on viscoelastic properties of human tendon
structures in vivo. J Appl Physiol 90: 520–527, 2001.
16. Little, Tand 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.
17. Magnusson, SP, Simonsen, EB, Aagaard, P, Gleim, GW, McHugh,
MP, and Kjaer, M. Viscoelastic response to repeated static stretching
in the human hamstring muscle. Scand J Med Sci Sports 5: 342–347,
1995.
18. Magnusson, SP, Simonsen, EB, Dyhre-Poulsen, P, Aagaard,
P, Mohr, T, and Kjaer, M. Viscoelastic stress relaxation during static
stretch in human skeletal muscle in the absence of EMG activity.
Scand J Med Sci Sports 6: 323–328, 1996.
19. McMillian, DJ, Moore, JH, Hatler, BS, and Taylor, DC. Dynamic vs.
static-stretching warm up: the effect on power and agility
performance. J Strength Cond Res 20: 492–499, 2006.
20. Nelson, AG, Allen, JD, Cornwell, A, and Kokkonen, J. Inhibition of
maximal voluntary isometric torque production by acute stretching
is joint-angle specific. Res Q Exerc Sport 72: 68–70, 2001.
21. Nelson, AG, Guillory, IK, Cornwell, C, and Kokkonen, J. Inhibition
of maximal voluntary isokinetic torque production following
stretching is velocity-specific. J Strength Cond Res 15: 241–246, 2001.
22. Nelson, AG and Kokkonen, J. Acute ballistic muscle stretching
inhibits maximal strength performance. Res Q Exerc Sport 72: 415–
419, 2001.
23. Nelson, AG, Kokkonen, J, and Arnall, DA. Acute muscle stretching
inhibits muscle strength endurance performance. J Strength Cond Res
19: 338–343, 2005.
24. Unick, J, Kieffer, HS, Cheesman, W, and Feeney, A. The acute effects
of static and ballistic stretching on vertical jump performance in
trained women. J Strength Cond Res 19: 206–212, 2005.
25. Wallmann, HW, Mercer, JA, and McWhorter, JW. Surface
electromyographic assessment of the effect of static stretching of the
gastrocnemius on vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 19:
684–688, 2005.
26. Woolstenhulme, MT, Griffiths, CM, Woolstenhulme, EM, and
Parcell, AC. Ballistic stretching increases flexibility and acute vertical
jump height when combined with basketball activity. J Strength Cond
Res 20: 799–803, 2006.
27. Yamaguchi, T and Ishii, K. Effects of static stretching for 30 seconds
and dynamic stretching on leg extension power. J Strength Cond Res
19: 677–683, 2005.
28. Yamaguchi, T, Ishii, K, Yamanaka, M, and Yasuda, K. Acute effect of
static stretching on power output during concentric dynamic
constant external resistance leg extension. J Strength Cond Res 20:
804–810, 2006.
29. Young, W and Elliott, S. Acute effects of static stretching,
proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching, and
maximum voluntary contractions on explosive force production
and jumping performance. Res Q Exerc Sport 72: 273–279, 2001.
308
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Flexibility Effect on Strength
Copyright © . N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited
