Content uploaded by Sandro R. Freitas
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sandro R. Freitas on Apr 23, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARCH NOTE
EFFECT OF 8-WEEK HIGH-INTENSITY STRETCHING
TRAINING ON BICEPS FEMORIS ARCHITECTURE
SANDRO R. FREITAS AND PEDRO MIL-HOMENS
University of Lisbon, Faculty of Human Kinetics, CIPER, Lisbon, Portugal
ABSTRACT
Freitas, SR and Mil-Homens, P. Effect of 8-week high-intensity
stretching training on biceps femoris architecture. JStrength
Cond Res 29(6): 1737–1740, 2015—Previous studies have
reported no changes on muscle architecture (MA) after static
stretching interventions; however, authors have argued that
stretching duration and intensity may not have been sufficient.
A high-intensity stretching intervention targeting the knee flexors
with an 8-week duration was conducted to observe the effects
on biceps femoris long head (BF) architecture. Participants
(n= 5) performed an average of 3.1 assisted-stretching sessions
per week, whereas a control group (n= 5) did not perform
stretching. The knee extension passive maximal range of motion
(ROM), and BF fascicle length (FL), fascicle angle, and muscle
thickness were assessed before and after the intervention. A
significant increase was observed for FL (+12.3 mm, p= 0.04)
and maximal ROM (+14.28,p= 0.04) for the stretching group
after the intervention. No significant changes were observed for
the control group in any parameter. An 8-week high-intensity
stretching program was observed to efficiently increase the BF
FL, as well as the knee extension maximal ROM. Stretching inten-
sity and duration may play an important role on MA adaptation.
KEY WORDS fascicle angle, fascicle length, flexibility, range of
motion, ultrasonography
INTRODUCTION
Muscle architecture (MA) is an important factor
in functional task performance (6,8), because it
relates to muscle force-length and force-
velocity properties (13). Previous studies have
observed that MA parameters can be changed in consequence
of strength training (1); however, previous studies have found
no changes on MA in consequence of static stretching
(4,5,10). For instance, Nakamura et al. (10) performed a 4-
week static stretching to the plantarflexors (self-stretching;
volume: 2 360 seconds daily; intensity: “largest stretch that
participants were willing to tolerate”) and found no changes in
fascicle length (FL), fascicle angle (FA), or muscle thickness
(MT). Lima et al. (5) also found no differences in the MA
parameters after an 8-week static stretching program (assisted
stretching; volume: 3 330 seconds with 30-second rest
between repetitions, 3 times a week; intensity: “within the
physiological limit and preceding the pain threshold”). Lima
et al. (5) suggested that the lack of change in MA could be
due to the low intensity and duration of the static stretching
intervention, since adaptations on MA after static stretching
has been observed in studies with animal models (12,15). In
addition, there is evidence of a greater maximal range of
motion (ROM) increase when performing static stretching
with higher stretching intensity (14), duration (7), repetitions
(2), and stretching session frequency (6). Thus, a change on
MA parameters after a static stretching may depend on the
stretching intensity; however, this has never been tested.
Recently, it was demonstrated that a stretching with no
rest interval between the repetitions induces a greater ROM
increase during the stretching compared with a conventional
rest interval protocol (3). The purpose of this pilot study was
to determine whether 8 weeks of high-intensity static
stretching by using a nonrest interval protocol would change
the MA architecture.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
A randomized controlled trial was conducted to determine
the effects of a knee flexor stretching (Figure 1A) interven-
tion on the biceps femoris long head (BF) architecture and
passive knee extension maximal ROM (Figure 1B).
Subjects
Ten healthy university students [mean 6SD:allmen;
physically active; age = 21.2 60.8 years; body mass =
72.7 611.6 kg; height = 175.9 64.9 cm (age range from 18
to 23)] volunteered to this study. During the study, participants
performed normal daily living activities but were not involved
in specific exercise program (i.e., strength or stretching). The
local University Ethics Council approved this study (#1/2013),
and informed consent was obtained from all participants.
Procedures
Participants were allocated in 2 groups: a control (CG, n=5)
and a high-intensity stretching training (SG, n= 5). The CG
Address correspondence to Sandro R. Freitas, sfreitas@fmh.ulisboa.pt.
29(6)/1737–1740
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó2015 National Strength and Conditioning Association
VOLUME 29 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2015 | 1737
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
were not involved in any type of stretching program during
the intervention period. The SG performed a stretching at
a ROM that corresponded to the highest tolerable torque
before the onset of pain for 450 seconds (Figure 1C). To
assure that the maximum passive torque was obtained, the
ROM was increased every 90 seconds to a new maximal
ROM, and thus not resting between repetitions (3). When
participants reported that they could not stretch further,
the knee was held statically until the end of the 450 seconds.
We previously observed that this type of protocol achieves
a greater ROM and passive peak torque during the
stretching than a conventional rest interval protocol, and
consequently a higher intensity (3). The SG group was mon-
itored for maximal ROM (Lafayette Gollehon Extendable,
Model 01135, IN, USA) every training session at the begin-
ning and during the stretching session. Experienced exercise
professionals assisted the stretching maneuvers (Figure 1A).
Participants were asked to participate in 5 sessions per week.
Both groups were assessed for BF architecture parameters
before and after the training period by an experienced
researcher (Figure 1B), using a 6-cm 10-MHz linear probe
(EUB-7500; Hitachi Medical Corporation, Chiyoda-ku,
Tokyo, Japan). A blinded researcher digitized the sonograms
(1.47v; ImageJ software, Bethesda, MD, NIH, USA). A classic
linear extrapolation method was used to calculate the BF archi-
tecture parameters (11). The FL was calculated using the equa-
tion: FL = L+(h/sina), where Lis the observable FL from the
midmuscle aponeurosis to the most visible end point, h is the
distance between the superficial aponeurosis and the fascicle
visible distal end point, and bis the angle between the fascicle
(drawn linearly) and the superficial aponeurosis (Figure 1B).
Statistical Analyses
Data were analyzed using the SPSS software (Version 20.0,
IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Interday assessment reliability was
previously confirmed for FL (Intraclass correlation coeficient
(ICC) = 0.79 [0.55–0.91]), FA (ICC = 0.80 [0.56–0.91]), and
MT (ICC = 0.94 [0.86–0.98]) in a previously study with 20
participants (data not published); and the minimal detectable
difference determined was 8.4 mm, 1.58, and 1.6 mm for FL,
FA, and MT, respectively. Wilcoxon tests were used to deter-
mine pre- to post-effects on FL, FA, MT, and maximal ROM.
Figure 1. A) Training setup for stretching the knee flexors and to assess knee extension ROM. B) Typical sonogram of biceps femoris long head for 1
participant with the digitalization procedure to calculate the FL. C) Typical example for a participant passive knee extension torque-ROM response to a nonrest
interval stretching protocol assessed using an isokinetic setup detailed elsewhere (3); in this case, the participant tolerated the increase in ROM 3 times. ROM =
range of motion; FL = fascicle length.
Stretching and Muscle Architecture
1738
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Cohen’s dcoefficient was calculated to determine the magni-
tude of the MA and ROM changes. Statistical significance was
set to p#0.05. Data are presented as mean 6SD.
RESULTS
The SG participants performed a total of 25.0 66.4 training
sessions (i.e., 3.1 60.8 sessions per week). The knee extension
maximal ROM before, during, and after the stretching program
are shown in Figure 2A. The BF architecture parameters before
and after the stretching program are shown in Figure 2B.
DISCUSSION
The main finding of this pilot study was that the BF
architecture and the knee extension maximal ROM were
changed in vivo in consequence of an 8-week high-intensity
stretching program. FL increased 13.6% and the FA
decreased 15.1% (p= 0.13) in the SG. Previous studies have
reported changes of up to
+33% for FL and +20% for
FA as a consequence of resis-
tance training (1). However,
this is the first study showing
changes in consequence of
a stretching intervention. The
previous studies have reported
no significant changes in MA
after a stretching program
(4,5,10). However, studies in
animal models suggest that
static stretching can change
MA (12,15). We think that this
might be due to the duration
and intensity of the stretching
intervention. Participants have
stretched for 450 seconds in
each session and had a fre-
quency of 3.1 60.8 sessions
per week (;1406 seconds of
stretching for week). This
duration is much higher than
those used in previous studies
(5,6,10). We also used a method
that led to greater maximal
ROM and torque during the
stretching, and this may have
been higher than in previous
studies.
Another observation was the
magnitude of ROM increase
after the intervention. The total
knee extension maximal ROM
increase was 14.3 610.78
(+11.2 69.5%) at the end of
the program. This is much
higher compared with the re-
sults of previous studies examining the knee extension flex-
ibility (5,6). This was also probably due to the intensity and
duration of the stretching (6,7,9,13,14). In this study, the
ROM was increased every 90 seconds during the 450-
second stretching maneuver until the maximal ROM, until
the participant report that he could not stretch further without
felling pain, and stretching was superior to 300 seconds (7).
A major study limitation was the small sample size in both
groups. However, it must be noted that the change in both
FL and FA was higher than the minimal detectable change
using ultrasonography to assess BF MA (i.e., 8.4 mm and
1.58, for FL and FA, respectively). A future study should be
conducted with a higher sample size and should assess other
mechanical variables (e.g., joint passive torque-angle).
In conclusion, a high-intensity stretching program of
8 weeks was observed to efficiently increase the FL and
decrease the FA of the BF, as well to increase the knee
Figure 2. A) Maximal ROM before (pre), during (gray), and after (week 8) the stretching program. B) BF
architecture parameters before (pre) and after (post) the stretching program. *Statistical difference at p#0.05.
ROM = range of motion; BF = biceps femoris long head.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 29 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2015 | 1739
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
extension maximal ROM. These findings are important to
those who seek MA changes through physical training. A
larger sample size is wanted in a future study to confirm
these results.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Muscle architecture is recognized as an important physical
performance variable. In this study, we observed a BF
architecture change in consequence of knee flexors static
stretching intervention. Approximately, 3 stretching sessions
per week, for 8-week duration, with a high stretching
intensity (i.e., by using a nonrest interval protocol) and
a duration of 450 seconds (i.e., considerable superior to
conventional practice) was seen to increase the FL and
passive knee extension maximal ROM, without affecting the
MT. It is possible that stretching intensity and duration are
a key variable to induce changes in MA.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the support of the Portuguese
Scientific Foundation, and the kind contribution of Joa
˜o
Marmeleira for their co-operation in data digitalization,
and all the participants for their effort. All the authors
declare that they have no conflicts of interest regarding this
article.
REFERENCES
1. Blazevich, A. Effects of physical training and detraining,
immobilization, growth and aging on human fascicle geometry.
Sports Med 36: 1003–1017, 2006.
2. Boyce, D and Brosky, JJ. Determining the minimal number of cyclic
passive stretch repetitions recommended for an acute increase in an
indirect measure of hamstring length. Physiother Theor Pract 24: 113–
120, 2008.
3. Freitas, SR, Vaz, JR, Bruno, PM, Valamatos, MJ, Andrade, RJ, and
Mil-Homens, P. Are rest intervals between stretching repetitions
effective to acutely increase range of motion? Int J Sports Physiol
Perform 2014. In press.
4. Konrad, A and Tilp, M. Increased range of motion after static
stretching is not due to changes in muscle and tendon structures.
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2014. Epub ahead of print.
5. Lima, K, Carneiro, S, Alves, D, Peixinho, C, and Oliveira, L.
Assessment of muscle architecture of the biceps femoris and vastus
lateralis by ultrasound after a chronic stretching program. Clin J
Sport Med 2014. Epub ahead of print.
6. Marques, A, Vasconcelos, A, Cabral, C, and Sacco, I. Effect of
frequency of static stretching on flexibility, hamstring tightness and
electromyographic activity. Braz J Med Biol Res 42: 949–953, 2009.
7. Matsuo, S, Suzuki, S, Iwata, M, Banno, Y, Asai, Y, Tsuchida, W, and
Inoue, T. Acute effects of different stretching durations on passive
torque, mobility, and isometric muscle force. J Strength Cond Res 27:
3367–3376, 2013.
8. McCormack, W, Stout, J, Wells, A, Gonzalez, A, Mangine, G,
Fragala, MS, and Hoffman, JR. Predictors of high-intensity running
capacity in collegiate women during a soccer game. J Strength Cond
Res 28: 964–970, 2014.
9. Nakamura, M, Ikezoe, T, Kobayashi, T, Umegaki, H, Takeno, Y,
Nishishita, S, and Ichihashi, N. Acute effects of static stretching on
muscle hardness of the medial gastrocnemius muscle belly in
humans: An ultrasonic shear-wave elastography study. Ultrasound
Med Biol 2014. Epub ahead of print.
10. Nakamura, M, Ikezoe, T, Takeno, Y, and Ichihashi, N. Effects of
a 4-week static stretch training program on passive stiffness of
human gastrocnemius muscle-tendon unit in vivo. Eur J Appl Physiol
112: 2749–2755, 2012.
11. Noorkoiv, M, Stavnsbo, A, Aagaard, P, and Blazevich, AJ. In vivo
assessment of muscle fascicle length by extended field-of-view
ultrasonography. J Appl Physiol (1985) 109: 1974–1979, 2010.
12. Peixinho, C, Martins, N, de Oliveira, L, and Machado, J. Structural
adaptations of rat lateral gastrocnemius muscle-tendon complex to
a chronic stretching program and their quantification based on
ultrasound biomicroscopy and optical microscopic images. Clin
Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 29: 57–62, 2014.
13. Wakahara, T, Kanehisa, H, Kawakami, Y, Fukunaga, T, and Yanai, T.
Relationship between muscle architecture and joint performance
during concentric contractions in humans. J Appl Biomech 29:
405–412, 2013.
14. Walter, J, Figoni, SF, Andres, FF, and Brown, E. Training intensity
and duration in flexibility. Clin Kinesio 50: 40–45, 1996.
15. Williams, PE and Goldspink, G. The effect of denervation and
dystrophy on the adaptation of sarcomere number to the functional
length of the muscle in young and adult mice. J Anat 122: 455–465,
1976.
Stretching and Muscle Architecture
1740
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.