ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

No caption available
Content may be subject to copyright.
Stretching and Its Effects
on Recovery: A Review
William A. Sands, PhD, CSCS,
Jeni R. McNeal, PhD, CSCS*D,
Steven R. Murray, DA,
Michael W. Ramsey, PhD,
Kimitake Sato, PhD,
Satoshi Mizuguchi, PhD,
and Michael H. Stone, PhD, FNSCA
Department of Exercise and Sport Science, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee;
Department of Physical Education, Health, and Recreation, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Washington; and
Department of Kinesiology, Colorado Mesa University, Grand Junction, Colorado
Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided
in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s Web site (
Stretching has long been a part of
athlete training, defined as “.
the application of force to mus-
culotendinous structures in order to
achieve a change in their length, usu-
ally for the purposes of improving joint
range of motion (ROM), reducing stiff-
ness or soreness, or preparing for
(physical) activity” (3, p. 3). Flexibility
is the ROM of a joint or a related series
of joints, such as the spine (61,84).
Stretching for increased flexibility
tends to be uncomfortable, seeking to
enhance stretch tolerance by relatively
extreme body positions that put mus-
cles and tendons under unaccustomed
tensile stresses (51,53). Stretching as
a preparatory activity (i.e., warm-up)
is clearly not intended to help an ath-
lete “recover” because the stretching
precedes the bulk of the training lesson.
Stretching to reduce stiffness and sore-
ness is a therapeutic aspect of stretch-
ing that is distinct from the other
concepts listed above (87). Thus, the
term “stretching” can be somewhat
paradoxical by application to several
diverse purposes. For example, Kisner
and Colby (44, p. 187) differentiate
between stretching and “ROM exerci-
ses,” with stretching involving tissue
tensions and lengths beyond those nor-
mally available, whereas ROM exerci-
ses seek to keep movements within the
current boundaries of tissue extensibil-
ity (2, p. 5).
There are a number of confusing
notions about stretching, flexibility,
and recovery. For example, the ROM
of a joint almost always is determined
statically or passively, whereas the
actual expression of ROM in sport is
usually dynamic (87, p. 311). As a desir-
able property of movement, and the link
between stretching and flexibility, Siff
(81, p. 123), has commented that move-
ment proficiency is based on a balance
of static and dynamic positions and
motions and that tissues must be con-
ditioned to withstand deformations and
shocks. In terms of recovery, stretching
seeks to achieve motion that is pain free,
unencumbered, and coordinated.
However, other activities and modal-
ities can enhance ROM in the short
term. Heat, cold, vibration, massage,
hydrotherapy, anesthetics, and other
modalities have been shown to
reduce pain and enhance ROM
Stretching can be categorized as active
or passive, static or dynamic, and acute
or chronic (61). Active stretching refers
to a limb position that places a joint at its
extreme ROM by virtue of the tension
obtained from agonist muscles (e.g.,
while standing, raising a straight leg
from the hip in flexion using the tension
from hip flexors). Active stretching po-
sitions are opposed by the antagonist
muscles’ elastic and viscous resistances
(e.g., while standing, raising a straight leg
from the hip in flexion is resisted by hip
extensor muscles and resistive properties
of tendons, ligaments, skin, and fascia).
Passive stretching involves placing a joint
recovery; stretching; flexibility; range of
motion; extensibility; stiffness
VOLUME 35 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2013 Copyrig ht ÓNational Strength and Conditioning Association
in an extreme ROM position by the use
of gravity or inertia (e.g., a gymnast or
dancer sitting in a split position or
swinging a limb to an extreme position).
Static stretching is the most commonly
prescribed type of stretching involving
placement of the body and limbs in an
extreme ROM position and holding this
position for a period by gravity, partner
assistance, or agonist muscle tension.
Dynamic stretching moves joints
through extreme ROM movements
without long pauses or holds and
momentarily taking a limb to an extreme
position (e.g., swinging the leg at the hip,
forward and backward in the sagittal
plane, momentarily stretching hip flex-
ors and extensors). Acute stretching
for a relatively short duration, usually 30
seconds or less (6,68). Chronic stretch-
ing refers to repeated stretching exer-
cises or sets of exercises over days and
Stretching to develop semipermanent
ROM improvements relies largely on
the achievement of “stretch tolerance”
(50,52,54). Achievement of stretch toler-
ance requires focused practice in extreme
and uncomfortable ROM positions.
Stretching discomfort is difficult to quan-
tify but relates directly to stretching
intensity and pain tolerance (11, p. 2,
18,30). The presence of discomfort or
pain in an effort to achieve recovery
appears contradictory to the concept of
recovery. However, the discomfort level
of stretching often has been pre-
scribed as tension remaining below
a pain threshold (2, pp. 58, 145),
without considering that an optimal
discomfort and tension level may be
obtained in a different position that
results in the more effective achieve-
ment of a new ROM. Moreover, the
inducement of pain also appears to
contradict the concept of recovery-
relaxation (2, p. 5, 62,71).
Recovery is usually defined as the pro-
cess of returning something that was
lost (85, pp. 260–261). “Mostly, recov-
ery is defined as the compensation of
deficit states of an organism (e.g.,
fatigue or decrease in performance)
and, according to the homeostatic
principle, a reestablishment of the ini-
tial state” (39, p. 6). However, recovery
in sport is a 2-stage process: returning
what was lost (i.e., reducing fatigue)
and adapting or supercompensating
to training demands (85, pp. 260–
261). Adaptation results from the inter-
play of work and recovery. Recovery is
not, and should not be, considered
complete or effective unless the athlete
reaches a higher state of fitness after
recovery (61,85, pp. 260–261). Thus,
simply reducing fatigue or returning
to a nonfatigued state represents in-
complete recovery. Moreover, the ulti-
mate test of recovery-adaptation lies
in the transfer of newly acquired
fitness and/or skill to actual sport
performance (10, pp. 1–21, 14,87,
pp. 173–174).
In terms of recovery, the primary
objective of stretching should be to
achieve enhanced ROM and/or
reduced stiffness and soreness. The
acute effects of stretching are short-
lived, from seconds to minutes
(21,22,28,43,45,82,93). Supporting
Wolff’s law (function determines
structure), semipermanent changes
in ROM require focused training for
days to months (13,23,46,65). Acute
therapeutic stretching may return
ROM after immobilization from
injury (55,58,72) and quasi-therapeu-
tically in dynamic "loosening" activi-
ties to promote ease of motion after
warm-up and/or cooldown activities
(1,15,38,89), as a means of developing
concentration control (27,42) and the
ability to cope with chronic pain
(78,79,91). The difference in stretch-
ing and ROM exercise concepts, as
described above, has been noted by
Verkhoshansky and Siff (87, pp. 173–
174), who have attributed some gains
in ROM to changes in muscle and
tendon stiffness and neuromuscular
properties. If stretching is included
in recovery efforts, the movements
should be dynamic and pain free,
contraindicating stretching positions
that elicit discomfort and pain.
The role of stretching and recovery
has a relatively long, and somewhat
confusing, history. As early as 1961,
de Vries (19) observed reduced mus-
cle distress after static stretching.
Static stretching has been shown to
reduce electromyographic median
frequency fatigue of back extensor
muscles and thereby enhanced cop-
ing with chronic pain (24). Smaller
decreases and more rapid return of
strength after delayed onset muscle
soreness (DOMS) were observed
using static and proprioceptive neu-
romuscular facilitation stretching
(16). Stretching via pain-free motions
with minimal resistance may enhance
postexercise strength, ROM, and
recovery (62). Heat-shock protein
incursion of immobilized rat gastroc-
nemius muscle was reduced after
static stretching and was thought to
protect the muscle against reloading
injury after immobilization (34). Cold
combined with stretching was supe-
rior to either alone or heat in reduc-
ing postexertional pain (67).
In contrast to the previous para-
graph, an acute reduction in muscu-
lar strength after fatiguing exercise
has been shown to continue after
static stretching for recovery (25).
Maximal voluntary contraction force
remained unchanged, whereas reflex
and stretch-shortening parameters
were reduced after fast, repeated
muscle stretching (5). Pre-exercise
stretching was not effective in reduc-
ing postexercise soreness and
reduced force abilities (36). In a study
of active exercise, passive resting, and
stretching for recovery from isoki-
netic knee extensions at 50% maximal
voluntary contractions to fatigue,
active recovery (i.e., light exercise,
cycling with no resistance) showed
better return to baseline recovery
(62). Active recovery was better in
returning strength-endurance perfor-
mance than either passive recovery
or stretching, which did not differ
from each other (62). Cold-water
immersion was better than carbohy-
drate supplementation and stretching
on recovery of basketball players
Strength and Conditioning Journal | 31
participating in a 3-day tournament
(62). Heat, cold, and stretching
groups performing stair running did
not achieve enhanced recovery over
a control group (69). Rat sciatic nerve
axonal retrograde transport (i.e.,
intracellular material movement
toward the cell body from the termi-
nal ending) was inhibited by 6% strain
(10% neuron lengthening) stretching.
This rodent study showed that
stretching caused ischemia and
increased neuron tensile forces (86).
The reduction of pain via stretching
is a laudable goal for recovery activ-
ities. However, perceived muscle
pain was not relieved by static
stretching (59). Stretching pre- and
posteccentric exercise did not reduce
DOMS (90). Inconsistent results
were obtained using warm-up,
stretching, and massage treatments
to reduce soreness after eccentric
exercise (70). Recovering from trau-
matic muscular injury usually seeks to
ensure rapid return of ROM within
the constraints of tissue healing.
However, more recent work has
be based on full recovery of the
muscle and tendon unit and that
programs based solely on stretching
and strengthening result in poorer
outcomes (35). A review of DOMS
and effective treatments concluded
that cold therapy, stretching, hom-
eopathic remedies, ultrasound, and
electrical modalities had little
or no influence on the alleviation of
muscle soreness or other DOMS
symptoms (17).
A serious problem permeates nearly
all studies of stretching—how does
one measure stretching intensity?
How does one determine if the
stretching activity elicited slightly
uncomfortable, moderately uncom-
fortable or painful sensations during
stretching? Individual athletes have
idiosyncratic tolerances for pain.
Moreover, discomfort and pain may
be exercise specific (61). Soreness and
stiffness may elicit pain and reduced
ROM that inhibits the use of even small
ROM movements thereby presenting
a new stress rather than the reduction
of stress. There does not appear to be
a single metric ever proposed to ascer-
tain the level, intensity, or magnitude of
stretching, short of static measurements
of maximum ROM positions (e.g., sit-
and-reach tests) that are too often
completely lacking in a conceptual
framework and sport specificity (33).
As such, how can any judgment of
the effectiveness of stretching on
recovery be determined? The subject
or athlete is usually directed to per-
form movements that are pain free,
fort and pain is not clear (11,
p. 2,18,30). Moreover, the tolerance
of discomfort and pain is likely to be
greater during short duration expo-
sures as opposed to those of longer
duration (4,63,76). Some athletes
may perform extreme positions more
zealously and achieve greater ROM or
incur and endure greater discomfort
than studymates (63). Stretching studies
are inherently incomparable if there is
no standard means of measuring the
stretching effort.
There is a consensus that serious stretch-
ing (i.e., flexibility-related stretching that
is uncomfortable and intended to
enhance ROM rather than relaxation
through acquisition of stretch tolerance,
54) results in reduced strength and
power after stretching exercises. The del-
eterious effects may not be reversed by
transitional exercises, and the effect can
last up to an hour (8,9,12,37,56,60,88).
Unskilled, reckless, and unsupervised
use of ballistic stretching (e.g., powerful
jerking-type stretch) actually causes mus-
cle soreness and stiffness and is therefore
contrary to the idea of enhancement and
maintenance of relaxation and pain-free,
fluid motion (87).
Recovery modalities, such as heat,
cold, hot/cold contrast, hydrotherapy,
massage, light exercise, electrical
stimulation, and nutritional supple-
mentation, rely heavily on increasing
overall blood flow to sore areas of the
body. Paradoxically, in a conceptual
model of recovery, it was postulated
that cooldown activities and stretch-
ing accelerate the elimination of
waste products, despite evidence that
stretching decreases blood flow.
Blood flow, capillary region oxygena-
tion, and velocity of red blood cells
decrease during stretching (57,66,83).
However, one study of ballet-trained
athletes and untrained controls indi-
cated that oxygenation during pain-
free stretching of the anterior tibialis
muscle was better maintained in the
ballet-trained athletes (64). Although
the fascicle lengths of the anterior ti-
bialis muscles were measured in both
groups, one wonders about the choice
of muscle in this study because of the
difficulty of stretching this muscle. In
this study, one could argue that
the anterior tibialis was simply length-
ened with little or no accompanying
Reduction of edema, both local and
systemic, are important objectives of
the recovery process but are poorly
understood by practitioners. More-
over, the new “frontier” in recovery
probably lies in the study and
control of training-induced infl-
ammation and associated edema
(20,26,29,32,48,49,77). Reduction of
edema is reliant on free lymphatic
fluid flow, and the accumulation of
cellular debris from exercise can
obstruct lymphatic uptake of fluids
(77). Herbert and Gabriel performed
a meta-analysis of the effects of
stretching on muscle soreness and
the risk of injury and found that
“Stretching before or after exercising
does not confer protection from mus-
cle soreness” (32, p. 468). However,
there may be a connection between
movements such as combinations of
stretching and contraction that may
mechanically aid lymphatic flow and
venous return and thereby help con-
trol sports-related edema and post-
training soreness (92).
The emphasis on dynamic movements
rather than static stretch positions is
Stretching and Recovery
important for recovery stretching. In
a review of recovery modalities, Barnett
wrote the following for athlete recovery
between events: “.there is no compel-
ling scientific evidence to support the
use of contrast temperature water
immersion therapy, hyperbaric oxygen
therapy, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory
drugs, compression garments, stretching,
electromyostimulation, and combination
modalities” (emphasis added) (7, p. 781).
As we learn more about recovery, inves-
tigations may focus more light on many
modalities and some effectiveness may
yet be apparent. However, one would be
wise to question the relevance and effec-
tiveness of stretching in sport, particu-
larly stretching for recovery.
Possibly the most heretical remark to
make about stretching is to suggest that
the dedicated use of stretching sessions
may not even be necessary, especially
since many athletes dispense entirely with
special stretching or even warm-up ses-
sions before or after training without suf-
fering injury in training or competition.
The prescription of stretching and warm-
up or cooling down sessions has become
a well-accepted ritual, but that does not
imply that this is essential (87, p. 192).
Stretching exercises should be varied
under the same principle as strengthening
exercises, but rarely are (35,80). Light
training followed by pain-free stretching
is proposed as an effective means of
achieving an active recovery that was
superior to taking a day off from training
(40). Finally, a meta-analysis update of 12
studies, one including over 2,000 subjects,
showed that pre- and post-activity
stretching reduced muscle soreness from
1 to 3 days after exercise by one point in a
100-point scale. The authors concluded
that although the results were statistically
significant, the magnitude of effect was
not clinically significant (31). Practitioners
are encouraged to consider recovery
stretching carefully, that the activity is
not a panacea, and prescription of recov-
ery stretching should not be undertaken
blindly, unskillfully, and without careful
Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding:
The authors report no conflicts of interest
and no source of funding.
William A.
Sands is a profes-
sor in the
Department of
Exercise and
Sport Science at
East Tennessee
State University.
Jeni R. McNeal
is a professor at
Eastern Wash-
ington University
and Strength and
Consultant for
United States
Steven R.
Murray is a pro-
fessor at Colorado
Mesa University.
Michael W.
Ramsey is the
chair of the
Department of
Exercise and
Sport Science at
East Tennessee
State University.
Kimitake Sato
is an assistant
professor in the
Department of
Exercise and
Sport Science,
faculty for Cen-
ter of Excellence
for Sport Science and Coach Education
at East Tennessee State University.
Mizuguchi is an
assistant profes-
sor in the
Department of
Exercise and
Sport Science at
East Tennessee
State University.
Michael H.
Stone is the lab-
oratory supervi-
sor, PhD
coordinator, and
a professor in the
Department of
Exercise and
Sport Science at
East Tennessee State University.
1. Aguilar AJ, DiStefano LJ, Brown CN,
Herman DC, Guskiewicz KM, and
Padua DA. A dynamic warm-up model
increases quadriceps strength and
hamstring flexibility. J Strength Cond Res
26: 1130–1141, 2012.
2. Alter MJ. Science of Flexibility. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics, 2004.
3. Armiger P and Martyn MA. Stretching for
Functional Flexibility. Philadelphia, PA:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2010.
4. Asenlof P, Denison E, and Lindberg P.
Idiographic outcome analyses of the clinical
significance of two interventions for
patients with musculoskeletal pain. Behav
Res Ther 44: 947–965, 2006.
5. Avela J, Finni T, Liikavainio T, Niemela E,
and Komi PV. Neural and mechanical
responses of the triceps surae muscle
group after 1 h repeated fast passive
stretches. J Appl Physiol 96: 2325–2332,
6. Bandy WD and Irion JM. The effect of time
on static stretch on the flexibility of the
hamstring muscles. Phys Ther 74: 54–61,
7. Barnett A. Using recovery modalities between
training sessions in elite athletes. Does it
help? Sports Med 36: 781–796, 2006.
8. Bazett-Jones DM, Gibson MH, and
McBride JM. Sprint and vertical jump
performances are not affected by six weeks
of static hamstring stretching. J Strength
Cond Res 22: 25–31, 2008.
Strength and Conditioning Journal | 33
9. Behm DG, Button DC, and Butt JC. Factors
affecting force loss with prolonged
stretching. Can J Appl Physiol 26: 262–
272, 2001.
10. Bondarchuk AP. Transfer of Training in
Sports. Muskegon, MI: Ultimate Athlete
Concepts, 2007.
11. Borg G. Borg’s Perceived Exertion and
Pain Scales. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, 1998.
12. 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.
13. Brucker JB, Knight KL, Rubley MD, and
Draper DO. An 18-day stretching regimen,
with or without pulsed, shortwave diathermy,
and ankle dorsiflexion after 3 weeks. J
Athletic Train 40: 276–280, 2005.
14. Carnahan H and Lee TD. Training for
transfer of a movement timing skill. J Mot
Behav 21: 48–59, 1989.
15. Castagna A, Nordenson U, Garofalo R, and
Karlsson J. Minor shoulder instability.
Arthroscopy 23: 211–215, 2007.
16. Chen CH, Nosaka K, Chen HL, Lin MJ,
Tseng KW, and Chen TC. Effects of
flexibility training on eccentric exercise-
induced muscle damage. Med Sci Sports
Exer 2010. doi: 10.1249/
17. Cheung K, Hume P, and Maxwell L.
Delayed onset muscle soreness: Treatment
strategies and performance factors. Sports
Med 33: 145–164, 2003.
18. Cronje RJ and Williamson OD. Is pain ever
"normal"? Clin J Pain 22: 692–699, 2006.
19. de Vries HA. Electromyographic
observations of the effects of static
stretching upon muscular distress. Res Q
32: 468–479, 1961.
20. DeLee JC. Tissue remodeling and
response to therapeutic exercise. In:
Sports-Induced Inflammation.
Leadbetter WB, Buckwalter JA, and
Gordon SL, eds. Park Ridge, IL: American
Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 1990.
pp. 547–554.
21. Dent J, O’Brien J, Bushman T, Abel K, and
Janot J. Acute and prolonged effects of
static stretching and dynamic warm-up on
muscular power and strength. Med Sci
Sports Exer 41: S64, 2009.
22. Depino GM, Webright WG, and
Arnold BL. Duration of maintained
hamstring flexibility after cessation of an
acute static stretching protocol. J Athletic
Train 35: 56–59, 2000.
23. Draper DO, Miner L, Knight KL, and
Ricard MD. The carry-over effects of
diathermy and stretching in developing
hamstring flexibility. J Athletic Train 37:
37–42, 2002.
24. Eguchi A. Effect of static stretch on fatigue
of lumbar muscles induced by prolonged
contraction. Electromyogr Clin
Neurophysiol 44: 75–81, 2004.
25. Esposito F, Ce R, Rampichini S, and
Veicsteinas A. Acute passive stretching in
a previously fatigued muscle: Electrical and
mechanical response during tetanic
stimulation. J Sports Sci 27: 1347–1357,
26. Fantone JC. Basic concepts in
inflammation. In: Sports-Induced
Inflammation. Leadbetter WB,
Buckwalter JA, and Gordon SL, eds. Park
Ridge, IL: American Academy of
Orthopaedic Surgeons, 1990. pp. 25–53.
27. Ferretti A. Stress buster. Yoga J 191:
63–68, 2005.
28. Ford P and McChesney JM. Duration of
maintained hamstring ROM following
termination of three stretching protocols.
J Sport Rehabil 16: 18–27, 2007.
29. Frank CB and Hart DA. Cellular response to
loading. In: Sports-Induced Inflammation.
Leadbetter WB, Buckwalter JA, and
Gordon SL, eds. Park Ridge, IL: American
Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 1990.
pp. 555–564.
30. Harden RN, Bruehl S, Stanton-Hicks M,
and Wilson PR. Proposed new diagnostic
criteria for complex regional pain
syndrome. Pain Med 8: 326–331, 2007.
31. Herbert RD, de Noronha M, and
Kamper SJ. Stretching to prevent or reduce
muscle soreness after exercise. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev CD004577, 2011.
32. Herbert RD and Gabriel M. Effects of
stretching before and after exercising on
muscle soreness and risk of injury:
Systematic review. BMJ 325: 468–473,
33. Hubley-Kozey CL. Testing flexibility. In:
Physiological Testing of the High-
Performance Athlete. Duncan
MacDougall J, Wenger HA, and Green HJ,
eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,
1991. pp. 309–359.
34. Inoue T, Suzuki S, Hagiwara R, Iwata M,
Banno Y, and Okita M. Effects of passive
stretching on muscle injury and HSP
expression during recovery after
immobilization in rats. Pathobiology 76:
253–259, 2009.
35. Jarvinen TA, Jarvinen TL, Kaariainen M,
Aarimaa V, Vaittinen S, Kalimo H, and
Jarvinen M. Muscle injuries: Optimising
recovery. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol
21: 317–331, 2007.
36. Johansson PH, Lindstrom L, Sundelin G,
and Lindstrom B. The effects of
preexercise stretching on muscular
soreness, tenderness and force loss
following heavy eccentric exercise. Scand
J Med Sci Sports 9: 219–225, 1999.
37. Jones AM. Running economy is negatively
related to sit-and-reach test performance in
international-standard distance runners. Int
J Sports Med 23: 40–43, 2002.
38. Judge LW, Petersen JC, Bellar DM,
Craig BW, Bodey KJ, Wanless EA,
Benner M, and Simon L. An examination of
pre-activity and post-activity stretching
practices of cross country and track and
field distance coaches. J Strength Cond
Res 2012. doi: 10.1519/
39. Kellmann M. Underrecovery and
overtraining: Different concepts—similar
impact? In: Enhancing Recovery.
Kellmann M, ed. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, 2002. pp. 3–24.
40. Kentta
¨G and Hassme
´n P. Underrecovery
and overtraining: A conceptual model. In:
Enhancing Recovery. Kellmann M, ed.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2002. pp.
41. Kinser AM, Ramsey MW, O’Bryant HS,
Ayres CA, Sands WA, and Stone MH.
Vibration and stretching effects on
flexibility and explosive strength in young
gymnasts. Med Sci Sports Exer 40: 133–
140, 2008.
42. Kirkwood G, Rampes H, Tuffrey V,
Richardson J, and Pilkington K. Yoga for
anxiety: A systematic review of the
research evidence. Br J Sports Med 39:
884–891, 2005.
43. Kirsch RF, Weiss PL, Dannenbaum RM, and
Kearney RE. Effect of maintained stretch on
the range of motion of the human ankle joint.
Clin Biomech 10: 166–168, 1995.
44. Kisner C and Colby LA. Therapeutic
Exercise Foundations and Techniques.
Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis, 2002.
45. Knappstein A, Stanley S, and Whatman C.
Range of motion immediately post and
seven minutes post, PNF stretching. NZJ
Sports Med 32: 42–46, 2004.
46. Kokkonen J, Nelson AG, Eldredge C, and
Winchester JB. Chronic static stretching
improves exercise performance. Med Sci
Sports Exer 39: 1825–1831, 2007.
47. Krabak BJ, Laskowski ER, Smith J,
Stuart MJ, and Wong GY.
Neurophysiologic influences on hamstring
Stretching and Recovery
flexibility: A pilot study. Clin J Sports Med
11: 241–246, 2001.
48. Kraemer WJ. Physiologic and cellular effects
of exercise training. In: Sports-Induced
Inflammation. Leadbetter WB,
Buckwalter JA, and Gordon SL, eds. Park
Ridge, IL: American Academy of
Orthopaedic Surgeons, 1990. pp. 659–676.
49. Leadbetter WB. An introduction to sports-
induced soft-tissue inflammation. In:
Sports-Induced Inflammation.
Leadbetter WB, Buckwalter JA, and
Gordon SL, eds. Park Ridge, IL: American
Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 1990.
pp. 3–23.
50. Magnusson SP. Passive properties of
human skeletal muscle during stretch
maneuvers. A review. Scand J Med Sci
Sports 8: 65–77, 1998.
51. Magnusson SP, Aagard P, Simonsen E,
and Bojsen-Møller F. A biomechanical
evaluation of cyclic and static stretch in
human skeletal muscle. Int J Sports Med
19: 310–316, 1998.
52. Magnusson SP, Simonsen EB,
Aagaard P, Boesen J, Johannsen F, and
Kjaer M. Determinants of musculoskeletal
flexibility: Viscoelastic properties, cross-
sectional area, EMG and stretch
tolerance. Scand J Med Sci Sports 7:
195–202, 1997.
53. Magnusson SP, Simonsen EB, Aagaard P,
and Kjaer M. Biomechanical responses to
repeated stretches in human hamstring
muscle in vivo. Am J Sports Med 24: 622–
628, 1996.
54. Magnusson SP, Simonsen EB, Aagaard P,
Sørensen H, and Kjaer M. A mechanism for
altered flexibility in human skeletal muscle.
J Physiol 497: 291–298, 1996.
55. Malliaropoulos N, Papalexandris S,
Papalada A, and Papacostas E. The role of
stretching in rehabilitation of hamstring
injuries: 80 athletes follow-up. Med Sci
Sports Exer 36: 756–759, 2004.
56. Markovic G, Simic L, and Mikulic P. A meta-
analysis to determine the acute effects of
static stretching on jumping and sprinting
performance. Med Sci Sports Exer 41:
S63, 2009.
57. Matchanov AT, Levtov VA, and Orlov VV.
Changes of the blood flow in longitudinal
stretch of the cat gastrocnemius muscle.
Fiziol Zh SSR Im I. M. Sechenova 69: 74–
83, 1983.
58. McGill S. Low Back Disorders.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2007.
59. McGlynn GH, Laughlin NT, and Rowe V.
Effect of electromyographic feedback and
static stretching on artificially induced
muscle soreness. Am J Phys Med 58:
139–148, 1979.
60. McNeal JR and Sands WA. Acute static
stretching reduces lower extremity power
in trained children. Pediatr Exer Sci 15:
139–145, 2003.
61. McNeal JR and Sands WA. Stretching for
performance enhancement. Curr Sports
Med Rep 5: 141–146, 2006.
62. Mika A, Mika P, Fernhall B, and
Unnithan VB. Comparison of recovery
strategies on muscle performance after
fatiguing exercise. Am J Phys Med Rehabil
86: 474–481, 2007.
63. Nemeth RL, von Baeyer CL, and
Rocha EM. Young gymnasts’
understanding of sport-related pain: A
contribution to prevention of injury. Child
31: 615–625, 2005.
64. Otsuki A, Fujita E, Ikegawa S, and Kuno-
Mizumura M. Muscle oxygenation and
fascicle length during passive muscle
stretching in ballet-trained subjects. Int J
Sports Med 32: 496–502, 2011.
65. Peres SE, Draper DO, Knight KL, and
Ricard MD. Pulsed shortwave diathermy
and prolonged long-duration stretching
increase dorsiflexion range of motion
more than identical stretching without
diathermy. J Athletic Train 37: 43–50,
66. Poole DC, Musch TK, and Kindig CA. In
vivo microvascular structural and
functional consequences of muscle
length changes. Am J Physiol 272:
H2107–H2114, 1997.
67. Prentice WE. An electromyographic
analysis of the effectiveness of heat or cold
and stretching for inducing relaxation in
injured muscle. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
3: 133–140, 1982.
68. Roberts JM and Wilson K. Effect of
stretching duration on active and passive
range of motion in the lower extremity. Br J
Sports Med 33: 259–263, 1999.
69. Robey E, Dawson B, Goodman C, and
Beilby J. Effect of postexercise recovery
procedures following strenuous stair-climb
running. Res Sports Med 17: 245–259,
70. Rodenburg JB, Steenbeek D, Schiereck P,
and Bar PR. Warm-up, stretching and
massage diminish harmful effects of
eccentric exercise. Int J Sports Med 15:
414–419, 1994.
71. 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.
72. Saal JS. Flexibility training. In:
Rehabilitation of Sports Injuries. Saal JA,
ed. Philadelphia, PA: Hanley & Belfus Inc,
1987. pp. 537–554.
73. Sands WA. Flexibility. In: USA Diving
Coach Development Reference Manual.
Malina RM and Gabriel JL, eds.
Indianapolis, IN: USA Diving, 2007. pp.
74. Sands WA and McNeal JR. Enhancing
flexibility in gymnastics. Technique 20:
6–9, 2000.
75. Sands WA, McNeal JR, and Stone MH.
Vibration, split stretching, and static
vertical jump performance in young male
gymnasts. Med Sci Sports Exer 41: S255,
76. Sands WA, McNeal JR, Stone MH,
on forward split flexibility and pain
perception in young male gymnasts. Int J
Sports Physiol Perform 3: 469–481, 2008.
77. Schurman DJ, Goodman SB, and Lane
Smith R. Inflammation and tissue repair. In:
Sports-Induced Inflammation.
Leadbetter WB, Buckwalter JA, and
Gordon SL, eds. Park Ridge, IL: American
Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 1990.
pp. 277–284.
78. Sherman KJ, Cherkin DC, Cook AJ,
Hawkes RJ, Deyo RA, Wellman R, and
Khalsa PS. Comparison of yoga versus
stretching for chronic low back pain:
Protocol for the Yoga Exercise Self-care
(YES) trial. Trials 11: 36, 2010.
79. Sherman KJ, Cherkin DC, Wellman RD,
Cook AJ, Hawkes RJ, Delaney K, and
Deyo RA. A randomized trial comparing
yoga, stretching, and a self-care book for
chronic low back pain. Arch Intern Med
171: 2019–2026, 2011.
80. Siff MC. Stress management and
restoration. In: Sports Restoration and
Massage. Siff MC and Yessis M, eds.
Johannesburg, South Africa: School of
Mechanical Engineering, University of
Witwatersrand, 1992. pp. 1–12.
81. Siff MC. Facts and Fallacies of Fitness.
Johannesburg, South Africa: University of
Witwatersrand, 1998.
82. Spernoga SG, Uhl TL, Arnold BL, and
Gansneder BM. Duration of maintained
hamstring flexibility after a one-time,
modified hold-relax stretching protocol.
J Athletic Train 36: 44–48, 2001.
83. Stainsby WN, Fales JT, and Lilienthal JL.
Johns Hopkins Hosp 12: 209–211,
Strength and Conditioning Journal | 35
84. Stone M, Ramsey MW, Kinser AM,
O’Bryant HS, Ayers C, and Sands WA.
Stretching: Acute and chronic? The
potential consequences. Strength Cond J
26: 66–74, 2006.
85. Stone MH, Stone ME, and Sands WA.
Principles and Practice of Resistance
Training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,
86. Tanoue M, Yamaga M, Ide J, and
Takagi K. Acute stretching of peripheral
nerves inhibits retrograde axonal
transport. JHandSurgBr21: 358–363,
87. Verkhoshansky Y and Siff M. Supertraining.
Rome, Italy: Ultimate Athlete Concepts,
88. Viale F, Nana-Ibrahim S, and Martin RJF.
Effect of active recovery on acute strength
deficits induced by passive stretching. J
Strength Cond Res 21: 1233–1237, 2007.
89. Werstein KM and Lund RJ. The effects of
two stretching protocols on the reactive
strength index in female soccer and rugby
players. J Strength Cond Res 26: 1564–
1567, 2012.
90. Wessel J and Wan A. Effect of stretching
on the intensity of delayed-onset muscle
soreness. Clin J Sports Med 4: 83–87,
91. YoshiharaK,HiramotoT,SudoN,and
Kubo C. Profile of mood states and stress-
related biochemical indices in long-term yoga
practitioners. Biopsychosoc Med 5: 6, 2011.
92. Zawieja DC. Contractile physiology of
lymphatics. Lymphat Res Biol 7: 87–96,
93. Zito M, Driver D, Parker C, and
Bohannon R. Lasting effects of one bout of
two 15-second passive stretches on ankle
dorsiflexion range of motion. J Orthop
Sports Phys Ther 26: 214–221, 1997.
Stretching and Recovery
... Por lo tanto, recuperarse más rápido después del entrenamiento y la competencia se convierte en un desafío central en la práctica del Básquetbol en la actualidad (Moraska, 2005). La recuperación en el deporte está definida como un proceso de 2 etapas, devolver al sujeto su rendimiento perdido por el estado de fatiga lo antes posible y adaptarse o supercompensar a las demandas de entrenamiento o competición (Sands et al., 2013). A su vez, la recuperación debe considerarse también como un proceso de restauración fisiológico y psicológico multifacético en relación al tiempo (Delextrat et al., 2012). ...
... La recuperación en el deporte está definida como un proceso de 2 etapas. Devolver al sujeto su rendimiento perdido por el estado de fatiga lo antes posible y adaptarse o supercompensar a las demandas de entrenamiento o competición (Sands et al., 2013). ...
... Herbert, 2011;R. D. Herbert, de Noronha, & Kamper, 2011;Sands et al., 2013). En nuestro estudio, el grupo que realizo EST de manera aislada mostró mantener los niveles basales de DM. ...
Full-text available
Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare different post-exercise recovery protocols and determine their influence on physical performance (CMJ, RSAT) and general wellness (BG) at 24 h.Materials and methods:Thirty-two trained adolescent basketball players (15.1 ± 1.3 years, 64.1 ± 17.4 kg, 170.05 ± 10.73 cm) were evaluated. The sample was randomly divided into three groups, Stretching (EST=11), Stretching + Foam Rolling (EST+FR=11) and Stretching + Foam Rolling + Immersion in cold water (EST+FR+INM=10). After inducing fatigue, each group was given a different recovery protocol. Countermovement jump (CMJ), ability to repeat sprints (RSAT) and general well-being (BG) were evaluated pre and post intervention. Results: Muscle pain showed a significant increase in the EST+FM+INM group 24h after the experimental intervention (t (2,29) = -3.820; p = 0.01; 95% CI (0.22 to 2.57 AU). No differences were found between groups (intervention) or moments (pre vs post) of any other study variable. Conclusions: In conclusion, when the replenishment of fluids and energy substrates after exercise is guaranteed, the combination of EST, FR and INM is not more effective in recovering the baseline values of performance and general Wellness in adolescent male basketball players. However, a trend towards improvement is observed when recovery methods are added to the protocols, but it does not reach statistical significance.
... Considering that flexibility training, through stretching, is a common practice in sport, it is up to strength and conditioning coaches, trainers and other professionals who work in the sports context to reflect on its usefulness and practical applicability [18]. Research on flexibility in football has focused primarily on studying its effect on the proneness to injury and the acute effects of stretching on performance, matters that are still not clear in the literature [2,3,7,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]. ...
... Therefore, increasing the range of motion through stretching is not expected to help reduce injury risk [23,36]. While some authors argue that the changes observed in the range of motion after a stretching program are due to anatomical or structural tissue changes, when large volumes and intensities are used for considerable periods [30,31] others mention that they are due to the participants' increased tolerance to the discomfort caused by stretching (neurophysiological effect) [25,32]. ...
... The contribution of flexibility to performance is still unclear [7,[23][24][25][26][27][28]. In static stretching, for example, it is hypothesized that the increase in ROM around a joint occurs because of the maintenance of maximum amplitudes for longer periods, compared to alternative modalities (dynamic, ballistic or PNF), causing the increase in tendon elasticity and decrease in muscle viscosity, which produces a reduction in the stiffness of the musculotendinous unit and passive torque, generating greater stretching of the tissues [24]. ...
Full-text available
Muscle strength, power, balance and speed assume decisive roles in football performance. This study aims to investigate whether lower limb flexibility, particularly the hip flexors and knee extensor and flexor muscles, are correlated with vertical jump performance, balance and speed in adult football players. A sample of 22 male amateur football players (age: 22.3 ± 3 years; height: 175.4 ± 7.4 cm; weight: 74.9 ± 11.6 kg; BMI: 24.2 ± 2.6 kg/m2) were assessed for lower limb flexibility, vertical jump, balance and speed. Results indicated that vertical jump ability is moderately correlated with left knee extensors flexibility (ρ = −0.426; p = 0.048), which did not occur on the right side. There were no statistically significant correlations between vertical jump and knee flexors flexibility (ρ = 0.330; p = 0.133). In balance, the reaching distance on the right side presented a moderate and statistically significant correlation with the knee flexors flexibility (ρ = 0.411; p = 0.040), which was not observed on the left side. Velocity was not correlated with the knee extensors flexibility (right: ρ = 0.360; p = 0.100; left: ρ = 0.386; p = 0.076), or with the knee flexors flexibility (ρ = −0.173; p = 0.440). In conclusion, the influence of flexibility on vertical jump ability, balance and speed appears to exist. Further research should seek to clarify the associations between these abilities.
... In addition, stretching seems to have no beneficial effect on injury risk (Barnett, 2006). Consequently, practitioners must decide whether stretching should be part of the team's recovery program as it may often be considered a ritual (Sands et al., 2013). In this respect, it seems reasonable to let players decide for themselves whether they want to perform stretching. ...
Full-text available
Strategies to improve recovery are widely used among soccer players at both amateur and professional levels. Sometimes, however, recovery strategies are ineffective, improperly timed or even harmful to players. This highlights the need to educate practitioners and athletes about the scientific evidence of recovery strategies as well as to provide practical approaches to address this issue. Therefore, recent surveys among soccer athletes and practitioners were reviewed to identify the recovery modalities currently in use. Each strategy was then outlined with its rationale, its physiological mechanisms and the scientific evidence followed by practical approaches to implement the modality. For each intervention, practical and particularly low-effort strategies are provided to ensure that practitioners at all levels are able to implement them. We identified numerous interventions regularly used in soccer, i.e., sleep, rehydration, nutrition, psychological recovery, active recovery, foam-rolling/massage, stretching, cold-water immersion, and compression garments. Nutrition and rehydration were classified with the best evidence, while cold-water immersion, compression garments, foam-rolling/massage and sleep were rated with moderate evidence to enhance recovery. The remaining strategies (active recovery, psychological recovery, stretching) should be applied on an individual basis due to weak evidence observed. Finally, a guide is provided, helping practitioners to decide which intervention to implement. Here, practitioners should rely on the evidence, but also on their own experience and preference of the players.
... Hot-water immersion and steam room modalities were classified as "heating strategies". We pooled foam-rolling and stretching into a "Flexibility techniques" category, as these techniques are known to improve the range of motion during passive conditions (Sands et al., 2013;Macdonald et al., 2014). Active recovery, electrostimulation, thermoneutral water immersion, compression garments (Agu et al., 1999;Menetrier et al., 2015), and external pneumatic compression were categorized as "lower limb blood flow stimulation". ...
Full-text available
L’organisation du circuit professionnel impose actuellement au joueur de tennis de haut niveau une planification annuelle des entraînements et des compétitions très dense. Ainsi, une gestion appropriée et équilibrée de la fatigue et de la récupération apparait primordiale afin de permettre au joueur de tennis élite d’être performant lors des compétitions mais aussi d’éviter la survenue d’épisodes de fatigue sévère, de surmenage, de blessures ou de maladies. Les connaissances issues de la littérature scientifique incitent à adapter et planifier spécifiquement la récupération en fonction du contexte (discipline, période d’entraînement, type de fatigue, statut de l’athlète). Pourtant, les joueurs ont actuellement recours de façon relativement empirique à des stratégies de récupération diverses, incluant l’application de froid. Cependant, peu d’études se sont intéressées aux effets de ces méthodes de récupération sur les réponses à la charge induite par le tennis pratiqué à haut niveau. Il semble nécessaire de déterminer l’efficacité de chaque technique de récupération dans ce contexte afin d’identifier quelles stratégies répondent le mieux à la nécessité de récupérer. La première partie de ces travaux de thèse a donc eu pour objectif de décrire, sur une période de 15 mois et dans un cadre écologique, les contenus et la charge de travail induite par l’entraînement, les pratiques de récupération et leurs impacts sur la fatigue subjective des joueurs de tennis élites. À court terme, il apparait que les contenus d’entraînement, regroupés et leur charge associée n’impactent pas différemment la fatigue perceptive rapportée. Au sein des stratégies de récupération utilisées par les joueurs, les techniques par le froid (cryothérapie corps entier, immersion en eau froide, bain contrasté) sont les plus représentées. Les modèles statistiques utilisés montrent que ces techniques de récupération par le froid sont les seules associées à une diminution significative des sensations de douleurs musculaires 12-16h post-entraînement. Notre seconde étude a comparé l’efficacité de ces différentes techniques de récupération par le froid dans des conditions de fatigue accumulée, simulant celles induites lors de compétitions professionnelles de tennis. Ces travaux montrent que l’enchaînement de trois jours de matchs de tennis d’1h30, induit une fatigue significative mais modérée. En effet, les paramètres de fatigue neuromusculaire (centrale et périphérique), physiologique diminuent significativement lors du premier jour, mais ne sont pas modifiés en réponse aux matchs de tennis des jours suivants. Au cours des quatre jours de protocole, l’immersion en eau froide et de la cryothérapie corps entier permettent de limiter l’augmentation des sensations de douleurs musculaires. Ces résultats valident l’intérêt d’utiliser les techniques de récupération par le froid pour diminuer les sensations de douleurs musculaires de joueurs de tennis élites en période d’entraînement. Dans le cadre précis de compétitions réalisées sur surface dure (hors Grands Chelems), l’utilisation quotidienne des techniques de récupération par le froid seront alors conseillées pour limiter l’accumulation des sensations de douleurs musculaires.
... Maintaining soft tissue elasticity and full and unrestricted joint range of motion (ROM) are necessary elements for optimal movement of the whole body, as well as its individual parts, in both daily and sporting activities. Static self-stretching exercises (SSSEs), probably the most common form of stretching exercises, have been the main intervention used for many years by most athletes before and after sports participation to: (i) ensure sufficient joint ROM to perform optimally an athletic activity [1,2]; (ii) decrease the risk for injury by reducing the muscle stiffness or increasing the muscle compliance [3,4]; and (iii) accelerate recovery [5]. However, whilst most studies have shown that a single bout of SSSEs may lead to an immediate increase of joint mobility, under certain conditions it may have detrimental effects on sports performance [1,2,6]. ...
Full-text available
Although the effectiveness of static self-stretching exercises (SSSEs) and foam roller self-massaging (FRSM) in joint range of motion and muscle strength of the lower limbs has been extensively investigated, little is known about their effectiveness on the posterior trunk muscles. The present study aimed to investigate the acute effects of two 7-min SSSEs and FRSM intervention protocols on the range of trunk movements and the strength of the trunk extensors. Twenty-five healthy active males (n = 14) and females (n = 11) performed each intervention separately, one week apart. The range of motion (ROM) of the trunk-hip flexion (T-HF), the ROM of the trunk side-flexion (TSF) and rotation (TR) bilaterally, as well as the isometric maximum strength (TESmax) and endurance (TESend) of the trunk extensors were measured before and after each intervention. The ROMs of T-HF, TSF, and TR were significantly increased following both SSSEs and FRSM. The TESmax and TESend were also significantly increased after FRSM, but decreased following SSSEs. While both interventions were effective in increasing the range of motion of the trunk, a single 7-min session of FRSM presented more advantages over a similar duration SSSEs protocol due to the increase in the strength of the trunk extensors it induced.
... Jedoch tendiert statisches und insbesondere wiederholt statisches Dehnen innerhalb eines Zeitraums von vier Tagen nach Belastung zu einer beschleunigten Wiederherstellung der ursprünglichen Muskelspannung (Torres et al., 2013). Hinsichtlich einer schnelleren Reduktion von Muskelschmerzempfindung (DOMS) ergaben sich durch Stretching ebenfalls keine bedeutsamen Vorteile gegenüber der Kontrollbedingung, jedoch zeigten sich auch keine nachteiligen Effekte (Lund et al., 1998;Sands et al., 2013;Torres et al., 2013). Schließlich bewirkt Stretching keine beschleunigte Wiederherstellung der muskulären Leistungsfähigkeit vier bis sieben Tage nach intensivem exzentrischem Krafttraining (Lund et al., 1998;Torres et al., 2013). ...
Full-text available
Das Regenerationsmanagement im Leistungssport umfasst die Abschätzung von Ermüdungszustand und Regenerationsbedarf (Teil 1 dieser Beitragsreihe) sowie den Einsatz regenerationsfördernder Maßnahmen (Teil 2 dieser Beitragsreihe). Die Erfassung des Regenerationsbedarfs erfolgt durch die Dokumentation der externen Trainings- und Wettkampfbelastung, der damit einhergehenden internen Beanspruchung und der resultierenden Leistungsveränderung. Hierzu sind zahlreiche Surrogat-Parameter verfügbar (z. B. Laborparameter, sportmotorische Tests und psychometrische Verfahren). Diese sollten sensitiv für unterschiedliche Belastungsformen und Dimensionen der Ermüdung, ausreichend reliabel und objektiv, kostengünstig und praktikabel sowie engmaschig durchführbar und demnach nicht zu belastend sein. Für die Beurteilung des Regenerationsbedarfs einzelner Athleten sind neben einer individualisierten Interpretation der Surrogat-Parameter stets auch der vertrauensvolle Diskurs zwischen Athleten und deren Betreuerstab erforderlich.
... Dentro de las prácticas de recuperación post ejercicio más utilizadas por Coachs y entrenadores físicos, se encuentra la de los EST 44 . A pesar de que sea una práctica muy común, al día de la fecha no existe una evidencia sustentable que indique que los EST post ejercicio posean efecto sobre el DOMS, la reducción de lesiones o el incremento del rendimiento 43,[45][46][47] . En nuestro estudio, el grupo que solo realizo EST mostró diferencias significativas con respecto al grupo CON y el grupo EST+FR+INM en la variable DOMS. ...
Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare different post-excercise recovery protocols and determine their influence on physical performance, subjective perception of pain, and general wellness the day after. Materials and methods: 28 trained adolescent basketball players (15.1 ± 1.7 years, 65.8 ± 15.9 kg, 171.8 ± 11.4 cm) were evaluated. The sample was randomly divided into four groups, Control (CON = 4), Stretches (ST = 7), Stretches + Foam Rolling (ST + FR = 9) and Stretches + Foam Rolling + Cold water Immersion (EST + FR + CWI= 8). After inducing fatigue, each group was administered a different recovery post-exercise protocol. Counter movement jump (CMJ), delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS), general wellness (W) and ability to repeat sprints (RSAT) were evaluated pre and post intervention. Results: In RSAT, differences were found between pre and post for TT (total time) in ST + FR + CWI group (p = 0.028). DOMS in ST group was lower than CON group (p = 0.012) and ST + FR + CWI group (p = 0.001), ES + FR group showed lower values than ST + FR group + INM (p = 0.041). Conclusions: The combination of ST, FR and CWI was more effective in the recovery and improvement of Sprint TT performance in adolescent male basketball players. The percentage improvements and the "medium" effect size in the CMJ variable would indicate an intervention to take into account in the recovery processes. The use of ST in isolation or in combination with FR produced significant reductions in DOMS
... Third, according to Dupuy et al. (2018) and Sands et al. (2013), a potential impact of ACT and STR on muscle soreness and relaxation is significant only during a short period after their application. Similar results were reported by Poppendieck et al. (2016), who observed a tendency toward decreasing effects of MAS on the restoration of performance for longer recovery periods (>1 h). ...
The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of a mixed-method recovery intervention (MMR) consisting of active recovery, stretching, cold-water immersion, and massage on physical, technical, physiological, and perceptual recovery during and after a five-day simulated tennis tournament. Nine competitive male tennis players (age, 24.6±4.2 years) with national ranking positions (German Tennis Federation) and Universal Tennis Ratings between approximately 11 to 13 participated in two singles tennis tournaments, which were separated by a three-month washout period. During the tournaments, participants played five two-and-a-half-hour competitive singles tennis match on five consecutive days. For the assignment to one of two groups, athletes were matched into homogeneous pairs according to their ranking. Then, within each pair, the players were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The first group performed MMR during the first tournament, whereas the other group used passive recovery (PAS). During the second tournament, recovery conditions were interchanged. Measures of physical and technical performance as well as physiological and perceptual responses (heart rate, blood lactate concentration, perceived exertion) were recorded during match-play sessions. Furthermore, muscle soreness, perceived recovery state, blood markers, countermovement jump height (CMJ), and repeated sprint ability (RSA) were determined before, during, and after the five-day tournament periods. Results showed significant changes over time (P<0.05) in muscle soreness, perceived recovery state, creatine kinase, c-reactive protein, insulin-like growth factor 1, and countermovement jump height. However, no significant differences or recovery strategy x time interactions were noted either for tennis-specific performance (e.g., number of total points won) or any other of the measured parameters between MMR and PAS (P>0.05). In conclusion, the repeated use of MMR during and after a five-day tennis tournament did not affect match performance, match load, or recovery from repeated days of tennis match play.
Full-text available
BACKGROUND: The effects of a long-term static stretching program on physical performance parameters have not been elucidated completely, although the effects on muscle flexibility have a consensus. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the effect of a long-term static stretching program on physical performance and muscle properties. METHODS: Participants performed a 2-min static stretching for the ankle joint 5 times per week for 4 weeks. Physical performance and muscle properties was measured before and after the static stretching program. RESULTS: Results showed that range of motion (ROM), dynamic postural stability, and muscle hardness were positively changed, whereas other variables i.e. maximal isometric plantar flexion moment, jump heights, muscle-tendon junction displacement and its angle, were not. CONCLUSIONS: Four-week of SS program may improve ROM, dynamic postural stability, and muscle hardness without decreasing physical performance.
Full-text available
Delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) is a familiar experience for the elite or novice athlete. Symptoms can range from muscle tenderness to severe debilitating pain. The mechanisms, treatment strategies, and impact on athletic performance remain uncertain, despite the high incidence of DOMS. DOMS is most prevalent at the beginning of the sporting season when athletes are returning to training following a period of reduced activity. DOMS is also common when athletes are first introduced to certain types of activities regardless of the time of year. Eccentric activities induce micro-injury at a greater frequency and severity than other types of muscle actions. The intensity and duration of exercise are also important factors in DOMS onset. Up to six hypothesised theories have been proposed for the mechanism of DOMS, namely: lactic acid, muscle spasm, connective tissue damage, muscle damage, inflammation and the enzyme efflux theories. However, an integration of two or more theories is likely to explain muscle soreness. DOMS can affect athletic performance by causing a reduction in joint range of motion, shock attenuation and peak torque. Alterations in muscle sequencing and recruitment patterns may also occur, causing unaccustomed stress to be placed on muscle ligaments and tendons. These compensatory mechanisms may increase the risk of further injury if a premature return to sport is attempted. A number of treatment strategies have been introduced to help alleviate the severity of DOMS and to restore the maximal function of the muscles as rapidly as possible. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have demonstrated dosage-dependent effects that may also be influenced by the time of administration. Similarly, massage has shown varying results that may be attributed to the time of massage application and the type of massage technique used. Cryotherapy, stretching, homeopathy, ultrasound and electrical current modalities have demonstrated no effect on the alleviation of muscle soreness or other DOMS symptoms. Exercise is the most effective means of alleviating pain during DOMS, however the analgesic effect is also temporary. Athletes who must train on a daily basis should be encouraged to reduce the intensity and duration of exercise for 1–2 days following intense DOMS-inducing exercise. Alternatively, exercises targeting less affected body parts should be encouraged in order to allow the most affected muscle groups to recover. Eccentric exercises or novel activities should be introduced progressively over a period of 1 or 2 weeks at the beginning of, or during, the sporting season in order to reduce the level of physical impairment and/or training disruption. There are still many unanswered questions relating to DOMS, and many potential areas for future research.
Vibration enhance stretching improved split ROM but did not show a protective effect nor enhancement of subsequent SLSVJ performance.
Equipment was assembled to record resting muscle action potentials electromyographically at a very high sensitivity level (10 microvolts per cm. of needle deflection). Electromyograms for seven subjects having chronic muscular involvement of the shin splint type were recorded before and after static stretching procedure was administered. In six of the seven subjects muscle action potentials were markedly reduced after the stretching procedure while in one subject an increase was observed. Of the six subjects who showed lowered electromyograms those who had pain symptoms at the time of experimentation also showed some measure of symptomatic relief.