ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review

A review of the acute effects of static and dynamic stretching on performance

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

An objective of a warm-up prior to an athletic event is to optimize performance. Warm-ups are typically composed of a submaximal aerobic activity, stretching and a sport-specific activity. The stretching portion traditionally incorporated static stretching. However, there are a myriad of studies demonstrating static stretch-induced performance impairments. More recently, there are a substantial number of articles with no detrimental effects associated with prior static stretching. The lack of impairment may be related to a number of factors. These include static stretching that is of short duration (<90 s total) with a stretch intensity less than the point of discomfort. Other factors include the type of performance test measured and implemented on an elite athletic or trained middle aged population. Static stretching may actually provide benefits in some cases such as slower velocity eccentric contractions, and contractions of a more prolonged duration or stretch-shortening cycle. Dynamic stretching has been shown to either have no effect or may augment subsequent performance, especially if the duration of the dynamic stretching is prolonged. Static stretching used in a separate training session can provide health related range of motion benefits. Generally, a warm-up to minimize impairments and enhance performance should be composed of a submaximal intensity aerobic activity followed by large amplitude dynamic stretching and then completed with sport-specific dynamic activities. Sports that necessitate a high degree of static flexibility should use short duration static stretches with lower intensity stretches in a trained population to minimize the possibilities of impairments.
Content may be subject to copyright.
REVIEW ARTICLE
A review of the acute effects of static and dynamic stretching
on performance
David G. Behm Anis Chaouachi
Received: 12 July 2010 / Accepted: 16 February 2011
ÓSpringer-Verlag 2011
Abstract An objective of a warm-up prior to an athletic
event is to optimize performance. Warm-ups are typically
composed of a submaximal aerobic activity, stretching and
a sport-specific activity. The stretching portion traditionally
incorporated static stretching. However, there are a myriad
of studies demonstrating static stretch-induced perfor-
mance impairments. More recently, there are a substantial
number of articles with no detrimental effects associated
with prior static stretching. The lack of impairment may be
related to a number of factors. These include static
stretching that is of short duration (\90 s total) with a
stretch intensity less than the point of discomfort. Other
factors include the type of performance test measured and
implemented on an elite athletic or trained middle aged
population. Static stretching may actually provide benefits
in some cases such as slower velocity eccentric contrac-
tions, and contractions of a more prolonged duration or
stretch-shortening cycle. Dynamic stretching has been
shown to either have no effect or may augment subsequent
performance, especially if the duration of the dynamic
stretching is prolonged. Static stretching used in a separate
training session can provide health related range of motion
benefits. Generally, a warm-up to minimize impairments
and enhance performance should be composed of a
submaximal intensity aerobic activity followed by large
amplitude dynamic stretching and then completed with
sport-specific dynamic activities. Sports that necessitate a
high degree of static flexibility should use short duration
static stretches with lower intensity stretches in a trained
population to minimize the possibilities of impairments.
Keywords Flexibility Range of motion Strength
Power Sprint
Introduction
Static stretching was considered an essential component of
a warm-up for decades (Young and Behm 2002). The tra-
ditional warm-up consisted of a submaximal aerobic
component (i.e. running, cycling) whose goal was to raise
the body temperature 1–2°C (Young and Behm 2002;
Young 2007). The increase in body and muscle tempera-
ture has been found to increase nerve conduction velocity,
enzymatic cycling and increase muscle compliance
(Bishop 2003; Young and Behm 2002). Traditionally, the
second component was a bout of static stretching (Young
and Behm 2002; Young 2007). Static stretching usually
involves moving a limb to the end of its range of motion
(ROM) and holding the stretched position for 15–60 s
(Norris 1999; Young and Behm 2002). Static stretching has
been demonstrated as an effective means to increase ROM
about the joint (Bandy et al. 1997; Power et al. 2004). This
bout of stretching is commonly followed by a segment of
skill rehearsal where the players would perform dynamic
movements similar to the sport or event for which they
were preparing (Young and Behm 2002).
The increased ROM achieved with an acute bout of
stretching has been attributed to changes in the length and
Communicated by Nigel A.S. Taylor.
D. G. Behm (&)
School of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University
of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NF A1C 5S7, Canada
e-mail: dbehm@mun.ca
A. Chaouachi
Tunisian Research Laboratory ‘‘Sport Performance
Optimisation’’, National Center of Medicine and Science
in Sports, Tunis, Tunisia
123
Eur J Appl Physiol
DOI 10.1007/s00421-011-1879-2
stiffness (compliance) of the affected limb musculotendi-
nous unit (MTU) and have been classified as elastic
changes (temporary) (Alter 1996). Although the exact
mechanisms responsible for chronic or plastic increases in
ROM (flexibility) are debatable, the increases have been
primarily attributed to decreased MTU stiffness (Wilson
et al. 1991,1992) as well as increased tolerance to stretch
(Magnusson et al. 1996c).
In addition to increasing ROM, the proposed benefits of
static stretching were the reduction (Safran et al. 1989)or
prevention (Smith 1994) of injury, a decrease in subsequent
muscle soreness (High et al. 1989) and improved perfor-
mance (Young and Behm 2002; Young 2007). The
improvement in performance has been suggested to be due
to the enhanced ability to stretch or reach during a sport as
well as the decreased resistance of a more compliant or less
stiff muscle to the intended movement (Young 2007).
However, a number of researchers have concluded that
stretching has no effect on injury prevention (Gleim and
McHugh 1997; Herbert and Gabriel 2002; Small et al.
2008). Other studies have illustrated that the most flexible
individuals were more likely to suffer injuries than mod-
erately flexible individuals (Bauman et al. 1982; Cowan
et al. 1988). Furthermore, a substantial body of research
appeared early in this decade that showed that sustained
static stretching could impair subsequent performance
(Behm et al. 2001,2004,2006; Behm and Kibele 2007;
Fowles et al. 2000; Kokkonen et al. 1998; Nelson et al.
2001a,b; Power et al. 2004). These performance measures
include laboratory-based physiological strength measures,
such as maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) isometric
force and isokinetic torque, training-related strength mea-
sures such as one repetition maximum lifts, power-related
performance measures such as vertical jump, sprint, run-
ning economy, agility as well as measures of balance,
which are more functional measures of athletic perfor-
mance. However, the stretch literature is not unanimous in
reporting stretch-induced impairments.
One of the first published articles (114 citations, Google
Scholar, October 2010) of the present era investigating
static stretch-induced effects on performance was pub-
lished by Worrell et al. (1994). In opposition to the
majority of studies, Worrell’s group reported an enhance-
ment in hamstring concentric and eccentric torque fol-
lowing four hamstrings stretches of 15–20 s each. Another
early and more widely cited article (228 citations, Google
Scholar, October 2010) in this area was published by
Kokkonen et al. (1998) in the late 1990s. They illustrated a
7–8% decrease in knee flexion and extension force fol-
lowing six repetitions of five different lower limb stretches
of 15-s each. Kokkonen’s article was followed by two other
highly cited investigations by Fowles et al. (2000) (257
citations Google Scholar, October 2010) and Behm et al.
(2001) (159 citations Google Scholar, October 2010) that
continued to ferment the plethora of articles regarding the
effects of static stretching on subsequent performance. The
Fowles et al. (2000) study included 13 plantar flexors (PF)
static stretches of 135 s resulting in approximately 30 min
of PF stretching. The consequence of this prolonged
duration of stretching was a 28% decrease in PF maximum
voluntary contraction (MVC) force immediately post-
stretch with a continued 9% impairment after 60 min.
Muscle activation as measured by the interpolated twitch
technique (ITT) and electromyography (EMG) remained
impaired for 15 min. Recently, Costa et al. (2010) used a
similar duration of stretching with nine repetitions of 135 s
of PF passive static stretch with 5–10 s rest between
stretches resulting in decreases in peak twitch force and
rate of force development as well as an increase in the
electromechanical delay. Soon following the Fowles et al.
(2000) study, Behm et al. (2001) reduced the volume of
static stretching to 20 min of stretching on the quadriceps
and reported decrements of 12, 20 and 12% for MVC force,
EMG activity and evoked twitch force respectively.
From Worrell’s study of 15 years ago to the present day,
the perception regarding the benefits of static stretching in
a warm-up has changed dramatically. There are many
studies showing that static stretching can lead to impair-
ments in subsequent performance. Figures 1and 2illus-
trate the far greater preponderance of studies reporting
significant impairments as compared to no significant
change or facilitation of strength/force and isokinetic
power (Fig. 1) and jump height (Fig. 2) performance.
Therefore, while static stretching predominantly leads to
performance deficits, there are a number of studies that
suggest static stretching has no significant effect or can
improve performance. For example, Fig. 3illustrates that
static stretching does not lead to such pervasive negative
Fig. 1 The number of measures (tests) from 42 studies encompassing
1,606 participants that report static stretch-induced changes in force
and power. Measures of force and power in these studies included
isometric force and torque, isokinetic power, and one repetition
maximum lifts, such as squats and bench press
Eur J Appl Physiol
123
effects with sprinting and running activities. Presently, the
overwhelming consensus is against static stretching prior to
subsequent performance, especially involving higher
velocities and power; however, there are populations and
activities where static stretching may improve flexibility
without impairing performance. Dynamic stretching which
involves controlled movement through the active range of
motion for each joint (Fletcher 2010) is currently replacing
static stretching in the modern athletic warm-up. However,
it is important not to ignore the studies that report no
impairments as they may reveal stretch-related mecha-
nisms and opportunities to employ static stretching prior to
performance for various activities or populations. This
review will attempt to investigate negative, null and posi-
tive responses to stretching and provide some clarity
regarding the conflicting findings.
Search strategy
This review integrated studies that examined the acute
effects of static and dynamic stretching on performance. A
literature search was performed independently by the two
authors using ASAP, ProQuest 5000, MEDLINE, SPORT
Discus, AUSPORT, ScienceDirect, Web of Science and
Google Scholar databases. The databases were selected as
they contain extensive relevant literature in the areas of
sports science. The search period ranged from 1989 to
2010. The electronic databases were searched using a
number of key terms as selected by the authors: static
stretching, dynamic stretching, ballistic stretching, flexi-
bility, warm-up, prior exercise, performance, and acute
effects. These keywords were used individually and/or
combined. A search for relevant articles was also per-
formed from the reference lists of the identified studies.
Articles referenced by authors online or articles with
restricted full text online were found in hardcopy form in
library archives.
Inclusion criteria (or study selection)
The methodological design of the review included a set of
criteria that had to be adhered to select only relevant
studies. Studies were included in the review if they fulfilled
the following selection criteria. (1) The study contained
research questions regarding the effect of static and
dynamic stretching as the experimental variables on per-
formance and used (2) healthy and active human subjects.
(3) The outcome was a physiological (e.g. MVC isometric
force, isokinetic torque, one repetition maximum, balance
and others) or performance (vertical jump, sprint, running
economy, agility and others) measure. (4) Only studies
from 1989 to June 2010 were reviewed; earlier studies,
although considered, were excluded from assessment to
review findings from more recently conducted studies
reflecting recent static and dynamic stretching practices.
(5) The study must have been written in the English lan-
guage and published as an article in a peer-reviewed
journal or conference proceeding; any abstracts or unpub-
lished studies were excluded. Studies were further delin-
eated with respect to their internal validity. Selection was
based on the recommendations by Campbell and Stanley
(1966) and included; (i) studies involving a control group,
(ii) randomized control studies, (iii) studies using instru-
ments with high reliability and validity.
Effect sizes (ES) which are a standardized value that
permits the determination of the magnitude of the differ-
ences between the groups or experimental conditions
(Cohen 1988) were calculated for each study that provided
absolute mean data and standard deviations. Cohen
Fig. 2 The number of measures (tests) from 20 studies encompassing
484 participants that report the effect of static stretch on jump height
performance. Changes in jump height in these studies included
countermovement jumps (CMJ), squat jumps, and drop jumps
Fig. 3 The number of measures (tests) from 16 studies encompassing
415 participants that report the effect of static stretching on sprint and
running performance
Eur J Appl Physiol
123
assigned descriptors to the effect sizes such that effect sizes
less than 0.4 represented a small magnitude of change
while 0.41–0.7 and greater than 0.7 represented moderate
and large magnitudes of change, respectively. Analysis of
variance (ANOVA) measures and ttests (GBStat, Dynamic
Microsystems Inc., Silver Springs Maryland) were per-
formed using the percentage changes in measures from
various studies when there were a sufficient number of
studies to allow the analysis. Figure columns illustrate
mean percentage changes with standard deviation bars.
Effect of stretching duration
The duration of the stretching protocols used in some
studies do not always coincide with typical practice of
athletes and fitness enthusiasts. A series of articles that
surveyed North American strength and conditioning coa-
ches from professional sports reported average stretch
repetition durations of approximately 12 s (Ebben et al.
2005), 14.5 s (Simenz et al. 2005), 17 s (Ebben et al. 2004)
and 18 s (Ebben and Blackard 2001) for baseball, basket-
ball, hockey and football players respectively. A number of
the aforementioned stretching studies have used extensive
durations that involved 30–60 min (Avela et al. 2004;
Fowles et al. 2000) or 15–20 min (Bacurau et al. 2009;
Behm et al. 2001; Costa et al. 2010; Cramer et al. 2005)of
static stretching. More moderate durations of static
stretching of 90 s or less per muscle group (Brandenburg
2006; Kokkonen et al. 1998), 2 min (Cramer et al. 2004;
Marek et al. 2005; Nelson et al. 2001a,b,2005a; Yam-
aguchi et al. 2006), 3 min (Bacurau et al. 2009) and
C5 min (Nelson et al. 2005b; Zakas et al. 2006) have also
produced decrements. Tables 1,2,3illustrate a sample of
studies which documented strength or force (Table 1),
jump height or power (Table 2) and sprint and agility
(Table 3) impairments with static stretching durations of
individual muscle groups from 30 s to 20 min. The
majority of these studies employed relatively moderate
durations of static stretching ranging from 90 s to over
2 min for each muscle group. Whereas the mean percent-
age strength and force impairments (Table 1: 6.9%) exceed
the jump (Table 2: 2.7%) and sprint (Table 3: 2.4%) defi-
cits, the magnitude of change calculated from effect sizes
are all in the moderate range. Protocols implementing
moderate durations of static stretching have also reported
impairments in subsequent reaction and movement time
(Behm et al. 2004) and balance (Behm et al. 2004; Nagano
et al. 2006).
These static stretch-induced impairments can continue for
2 h. For example, Power et al. (2004) had subjects stretch the
quadriceps, hamstrings and PF with two different stretches of
three repetitions each for 45 s (270 s/muscle). They reported
mean decreases in quadriceps MVC force (9.5%), muscle
activation (5.4%) and increased ROM (7.4%) that endured
for 2 h after stretching. Similarly Fowles et al. (2000)
reported force deficits for 1 h following the stretch protocol.
However, both protocols used stretching durations that
exceeded normal athletic practice.
A factor mitigating the deleterious effects of static
stretching may be the stretch duration. Young et al. (2006)
and Knudson and Noffal (2005) were among the first to
investigate volume and intensity effects with static stretch-
ing. Young et al. (2006) found that 1 min of stretching gar-
nered significantly less jumping impairments than 2 or
4 min; hence a greater duration of stretching resulted in
greater deficits. The literature tends to illustrate that when the
total duration of static stretching of a single muscle group is
more than 90 s (i.e. 3 stretches of 30 s each) there is strong
evidence for performance impairments (Figs. 4,5). How-
ever, if the total duration of static stretching is less than 90 s,
there seems to be more variability in the evidence for
impairments (Figs. 4,5). Effect sizes calculated from studies
testing force, torque and isokinetic power show trivial
magnitudes of change with \30 s of static stretching as
compared to moderate magnitudes with more than 90 s
(Table 4). An ANOVA performed on the percentage chan-
ges in studies measuring force, torque and power pre- and
post-static stretching shows a trend (p=0.09) for a signif-
icantly greater impairment with studies employing over 90 s
(-5.8% ±6.4) versus \90 s (-3.3% ±4.1) of static
stretching. A less dramatic contrast is seen with jump height
as the test variable, with trivial magnitudes for\30 s of static
stretching as compared to small effect sizes for more than
90 s (Table 4). Significantly (p=0.05) greater vertical
jump height impairments were detected when compar-
ing studies instituting more (-3.3% ±3.4) versus less
(-1.03% ±2.5) than 90 s of static stretching. Percentage
changes and effect sizes associated with sprint and run tests
range from trivial to small. A review of the mean effect sizes
in Table 4also illustrates that the mean magnitude of change
is significantly greater for strength measures than for jump
and sprint measures. The role of the stretch shortening cycle
and the length tension relationship as dependent factors with
stretch-induced impairments is provided later in the review.
A number of studies have documented no significant
change in force/torque (Beedle et al. 2008; Egan et al.
2006; Molacek et al. 2010; Torres et al. 2008; Winke et al.
2010) and throwing velocity (Haag et al. 2010; Torres
et al. 2008) with stretching durations ranging from 30 to
120 s for individual muscle groups. Other studies using
45 s (Gonzalez-Rave et al. 2009; Knudson et al. 2001;
Unick et al. 2005), B60 s (Robbins and Scheuermann
2008) and B90 s (Behm et al. 2006; Handrakis et al.
2010; Samuel et al. 2008) of static stretching have also
reported no effects on jump heights. Nonetheless, there are
Eur J Appl Physiol
123
Table 1 Static-stretching induced force impairments
References nStretch duration per muscle Stretch
intensity
Effect and percentage change Effect size
Bacurau et al. (2009) 14 3 sets of 6 stretches 930 s NR ;1 RM leg press 19.1% 1.93
Beedle et al. (2008) 19 3 reps 915 s bench press-men \POD No sig effect on 1 RM bench or leg 0.01
3 reps 915 s leg press-men \POD Press 0.11% (bench) and 2.3%
(leg)
0.09
Behm et al. (2004) 16 3 reps 945 s POD No sig change in force 1.3%
¯0.08
Brandenburg (2006) 16 2 hamstrings stretches 93
reps 915 s
NR ;isometric torque 6.3% 0.29
2 hamstrings stretches 93
reps 930 s
6.1% 0.24
Brandenburg (2006) 16 2 hamstrings stretches 93
reps 915 s
NR ;concentric torque 2.8% 0.12
2 hamstrings stretches 93
reps 930 s
3.4% 0.13
Brandenburg (2006) 16 2 hamstrings stretches 93
reps 915 s
NR ;eccentric torque 5.3% 0.20
2 hamstrings stretches 93
reps 930 s
5.8% 0.22
Cramer et al. (2004) 21 4 sets of 4 stretches 930 s \POD ;leg isokinetic peak torque 2.7% 0.51
Cramer et al. (2006) 13 4 sets of 4 stretches 930 s at 60°s
-1
\POD ;leg isokinetic peak torque 1.1% 0.17
4 sets of 4 stretches 930 s at 180°
s
-1
\POD 6.5% 0.86
Cramer et al. (2007a,b) 15 4 sets of 4 stretches 930 s at 60°s
-1
\POD ;leg isokinetic peak torque 2.6% 0.14
4 sets of 4 stretches 930 s at 180°
s
-1
\POD 1.8% 0.08
Franco et al. (2008) 19 1, 2 or 3 reps 920 s POD ;muscle endurance after 40 s
4.9%
0.21
Franco et al. (2008) 15 1 rep 920 s POD ;muscle endurance 7.8% 0.41
1 rep 940 s 19.2% 1.12
1 PNF 24.5% 1.33
Garcia-Lopez et al. (2010) 25 2 reps 925 s \POD ;bench press lifting velocity NA
Herda et al. (2008) 15 9 reps 9135 s POD ;plantar flexor torque 10% NA
Herda et al. (2010) 11 9 reps 9135 s POD ;plantar flexor torque 11.5% NA
Knudson and Noffal (2005) 57 10 reps of 10 s \POD ;grip strength only after 40 s of
stretch 4.9%
0.68
Kokkonen et al. (1998) 30 5 stretches 93 reps 915 s assisted NR ;knee flexion/ext force 16% NA
5 stretches 93 reps 915 s
unassisted
POD
Marek et al. (2005) 19 4 repetitions 930 s at 60°s
-1
POD ;isokinetic torque 0.4% 0.05
4 repetitions 930 s at 300°s
-1
POD 2.6% 0.26
Nelson et al. (2005a,b) 22 4 stretches 94 reps of 30 s unassisted
or assisted
\POD ;muscle endurance 16.1% 0.95
\POD
Nelson et al. (2001a,b) 55 2 stretches 94 reps of 30 s unassisted
or assisted
Assisted-POD ;MVC at 162°but not shorter
ROM
NA
Unassisted-NR
Nelson et al. (2001a,b) 15 4 stretches 94 reps 930 s
unassisted or assisted
Assisted-POD ;isokinetic torque at slower
angular velocities, but not higher
velocities 7.2%
NA
Unassisted-NR
Nelson et al. (2005a,b) 31 5 quadriceps and hamstrings ballistic
stretches 96 reps 915 s each (3
reps assisted and 3 reps unassisted)
Assisted-\POD ;knee flexion and extension 1 RM 0.61
Unassisted-POD 3.2%
Ogura et al. (2007) 10 30 s vs. 60 s stretch \POD ;MVC with 60 s stretch 8.7% 0.83
Eur J Appl Physiol
123
more prolonged duration static stretching studies
employing 2–8 min that also do not elicit isokinetic torque
impairments (Cramer et al. 2007a,b; Ryan et al. 2008b).
To further obscure the clarity of the findings, other short
duration static stretching protocols using only 30 s
of stretching have recorded performance impairments
(Winchester et al. 2009). In addition, Vetter (2007) used
only 60 s of stretching for each muscle group resulting in
decreased jump height, but no effect on sprint time.
However, the extent of static-stretch-induced jump
impairments in the Winchester study was only 0.6%, while
Vetter reported 5.4% decrements. Deficits in concentric
and eccentric leg extensor and flexor torque occurred fol-
lowing just two repetitions of 20 s static stretches (Sekir
et al. 2009). Table 1illustrates a number of studies where
the longer durations of static stretching-induced greater
impairments compared to shorter durations (Franco et al.
2008; Knudson and Noffal 2005; Ogura et al. 2007; Siatras
et al. 2008; Zakas 2005). Thus, the message that shorter
durations of static stretching do not negatively impact
performance is not unanimous. Furthermore, for the rec-
reational fitness enthusiasts, impairments of \5% may not
be considered a significant consequence.
Based on the majority of the literature, it would seem
logical to recommend that prolonged static stretching not
be performed prior to a high level or competitive athletic or
training performance. It would also seem prudent based on
the conflicting literature that even shorter duration static
stretching be minimized. Hence should static stretching
ever be included in a warm up? There are many dynamic
sports where enhanced static flexibility would be expected
to affect performance. Some examples would include the
ability of a goaltender in ice hockey to maximally abduct
his/her legs when in a butterfly position, gymnasts per-
forming and holding a split position, wrestling, martial arts,
synchronized swimming, figure skating and others.
Although some studies have indicated that dynamic
stretching provides similar increases in static flexibility as
static stretching (Beedle and Mann 2007), other studies
have indicated that dynamic stretching is not as effective at
increasing static flexibility as static stretching within a
single warm-up session (Bandy et al. 1998; O’Sullivan
et al. 2009) or with prolonged training (Covert et al. 2010).
Hence, it could be important to include static stretching in
the warm-up for specific sport flexibility applications.
Based on the solid evidence showing impairments with
more than 90 s of stretching and the mixed results when
examining 30–90 s of stretching, as well as the trivial
effect sizes for \30 s versus the small to moderate effect
sizes for [30 s (Table 4), static stretching for each indi-
vidual muscle should be \30 s in total duration. Recent
research has demonstrated that just 36 s of static stretching
(6 repetitions of 6 s each) can significantly improve ROM
(Murphy et al. 2010). There may also be other factors
contributing to the decision of whether to include short
duration static stretching within the warm-up.
Table 1 continued
References nStretch duration per muscle Stretch
intensity
Effect and percentage change Effect size
Siatras et al. (2008) 1 rep of either 10, 20, 30 or 60 s ;isokinetic torque only after 30
and 60 s stretches
NA
Winchester et al. (2009) 18 1–6 reps 930 s stretches POD ;1 RM knee flexion with all
repetitions
NA
Yamaguchi et al. (2006) 12 6 stretches of 4 sets 930 s at 5%
MVC
POD ;leg extension power 10.8% 0.47
Yamaguchi et al. (2006) 12 6 stretches of 4 sets 930 s at 30%
MVC
POD ;leg extension power 3.7% 0.25
Yamaguchi et al. (2006) 12 6 stretches of 4 sets 930 s at 60%
MVC
POD ;leg extension power 10.6% 0.56
Zakas (2005)141930 s vs. \POD ;isokinetic torque only 0.78
10 930 s vs. \POD After multiple stretches 0.86
16 reps 930 s \POD 2.8, 3.3, and 2.8% 0.79
Zakas et al. (2006) 16 3 reps 915 s vs. 20 915 s-30°s
-1
\POD ;isokinetic torque 5.2% 0.32
3 reps 915 s vs. 20 915 s-60°s
-1
\POD 5.4% 0.36
3 reps 915 s vs. 20 915 s-120°s
-1
\POD 8.4% 0.60
3 reps 915 s vs. 20 915 s-180°s
-1
\POD 6.5% 0.47
3 reps 915 s vs. 20 915 s-300°s
-1
\POD 12.9% 0.89
Means 6.9% ;ES =moderate magnitude 0.51
NR not reported, NA not available
Eur J Appl Physiol
123
Contraction type responses to static stretching
The literature tends to indicate that different types of
contractions are more or less susceptible to static stretch-
induced deficits. For example, although a number of
studies have shown that more flexible individuals (Gleim
et al. 1990; Jones 2002; Trehearn and Buresh 2009)or
those who have implemented static stretching immediately
prior to the performance (Wilson et al. 2010) decreased
running economy, others have shown no effect (Hayes and
Walker 2007) or decreased (Godges et al. 1989) energy
cost with running. An acute bout of stretching did not
reduce the maximum duration of time that runners could
continue at their VO
2max
(Samogin Lopes et al. 2010). This
discrepancy in running-related findings may be related to
the type of contraction or action. Because static stretching
can increase muscle compliance (Wilson et al. 1991,1992),
it can enhance the ability of the MTU to store elastic
energy over a longer period (Bosco et al. 1982a,b; Cava-
gna et al. 1968; Edman et al. 1978). Some studies using
longer duration contractions or slower stretch–shortening
cycle (SSC) activities have shown either no effect or
increased performance following stretching. Comparing
both low (40 s) and high (150 s) volumes of static
stretching, Molacek et al. (2010) did not find any signifi-
cant change in 1 RM bench press. Similarly, Torres et al.
(2008) reported no effect of static stretching on isometric
bench press or bench press throws while Wilson et al.
(1992) found a 5% increase in rebound bench press
following 8 weeks of flexibility training. Furthermore,
Cramer et al. (2006) reported no effect of static stretching
on isokinetic eccentric contractions. When compared with
sprinting-related contractions, the eccentric contractions
were relatively slow being performed at 60°and 180°s
-1
.
These eccentric contractions and prolonged SSC of the
bench press actions may have benefited from a more
compliant muscle that possessed the ability to store elastic
energy over a longer period. Some of the previously
mentioned running studies that reported no or enhanced
effects following stretching used either recreational runners
(Godges et al. 1989) or had their subjects run at submax-
imal speeds (Hayes and Walker 2007). The prolonged SSC
Table 2 Evidence of static-stretching induced jump impairments with relatively brief durations of stretching
References nStretch duration per muscle Stretch intensity Effect and percentage change Effect size
Behm et al. (2006) 18 3 reps 930 s POD No effect on jump height but
increased contact time by 5.4%
0.47
Bradley et al. (2007) 18 4 repetitions 930 s \POD ;VJ 4.0% 0.62
Cornwell et al. (2002) 16 1.5 min stretch of quadriceps
and gluteals
NR ;concentric jump NA
;drop jump
Fletcher and Monte-Colombo (2010) 21 2 reps 915 s \POD ;countermovement Jump 3.7% 0.37
;drop jump 4.8% 0.49
Gonzalez-Rave et al. (2009) 24 3 stretches of 3 reps 915 s CMJ \POD No effect on jump height 3.1%
(CMJ) 11.11% (SJ)
0.25
3 stretches of 3 reps 915 s SJ 0.75
Holt and Lambourne (2008) 64 3 reps 95 s POD ;VJ NA
Hough et al. (2009) 11 1 rep 930 s \POD ;VJ 1.7% 0.11
Knudson et al. (2001) 20 3 reps 915 s \POD No sig effect on jump height 0.4% 0.02
Power et al. (2004) 12 3 reps 945 s POD No effect on jump height 14.3% 1.00
Robbins and Scheuermann (2008) 20 2 reps of 15 s POD ;VJ 0.8% 0.20
4 reps of 15 s POD 2.2% 0.58
6 reps of 15 s POD 3.2% 0.85
Samuel et al. (2008) 24 3 reps 930 s \POD No sig effect on jump height NA
Torres et al. (2008) 11 2 reps 915 s—force \POD No change in throw performance
4.2% (force) and
0.29
2 res 915 s—power \POD 2.2% (power) 0.15
Vetter (2007) 12 2 reps 930 s (women) NR ;VJ 0.35% 0.08
Vetter (2007) 14 2 reps 930 s (men) NR ;VJ 0.9% 0.25
Wallman et al. (2005) 14 3 reps 930 s stretches \POD ;VJ 5.6% 0.84
Young and Elliott (2001) 14 3 reps 915 s POD ;drop jump NA
Means 2.7% ;ES =moderate magnitude 0.43
NR not reported, NA not available
Eur J Appl Physiol
123
with eccentric contractions, bench press actions and longer
distance running as well as longer ground contact or tran-
sition times, may be more advantageous with a more
compliant and flexible MTU. This positive association
between force output and muscle compliance is further
supported by Walshe and Wilson (1997). They compared
MTU stiffness and the ability to perform drop jumps from
various heights. The results indicated that stiff participants
were significantly disadvantaged at higher drop heights (80
and 100 cm) than their more compliant counterparts. They
postulated that the stiffer MTU would have a decreased
ability to mitigate the high loads, thus stimulating
increased inhibition via the Golgi tendon organs. This
inhibition would override the facilitation effect of the
stretch reflex resulting from a bias towards a protective
mechanism (Walshe and Wilson 1997) when high levels of
force are placed on the muscle. Hence, while not all ath-
letic actions benefit from a less complaint MTU, higher
force output over relatively extended durations (prolonged
SSC) may be advantaged by a more compliant MTU.
Conversely with more elite sprinters, static stretch-
induced changes in the viscoelastic properties and stiffness
of the MTU (Cornwell et al. 2002; Cramer et al. 2004,
2005; Fowles et al. 2000; Nelson et al. 2001a; Torres et al.
2007) might be expected to negatively impact the trans-
mission of forces and the rate of force transmission, which
Table 3 Evidence of static-stretching induced sprint and agility impairments with relatively brief durations of stretching
References nStretch duration
per muscle
Stretch intensity Effect and percentage change Effect
size
Beckett et al. (2009) 12 6 reps 920 s stretches \POD ;repeated sprints 1.4% 0.87
Chaouachi et al. (2008) 48 2 reps 920 s \POD ;single 10 m sprint 0.4% 0.07
;single 30 m sprint 1.2% 0.19
Fletcher and Anness (2007) 10 3 reps 922 s—men \POD ;50 m sprint time compared with active
dynamic stretch 2.5% (men) and 1.4% (women)
0.44
8 3 reps 922 s—women \POD 0.87
Gelen (2010) 26 1 reps 920 s of 5 stretches \POD ;sprint and slalom dribbling
of soccer ball 8.5%
1.56
1 reps 930 s of 5 stretches
Mohammadtaghi et al. (2010) 19 1 rep 930 s \POD ;Illinois agility test time 5.1% 1.38
Nelson et al. (2005b) 16 4 reps 930 s of 3 stretches POD ;20-m sprint time 1.2% 1.00
Sayers et al. (2008) 20 3 reps 930 s of 3 stretches 2 stretches \POD ;sprint time 2.1% 0.36
1 stretch POD
Siatras et al. (2003) 11 2 reps 930 s \POD ;gymnast sprint speed 3.8% 0.09
Winchester et al. (2008) 22 3 reps 930 s POD ;sprint—1st 20 m run 1.2% 0.12
2nd 20 m run 1.2% 0.11
Combined 40 m run 1.7% 0.24
Means 2.4% ;ES =moderate magnitude 0.56
Fig. 4 The effect of static stretching duration on force/torque and
power production. Measures of force and power in these studies
included isometric force and torque, isokinetic power, and one
repetition maximum lifts, such as squats and bench press. Columns
represent mean percentage changes with standard deviation bars.
Mean values may include multiple measures from a single study (e.g.
61 force or torque measures from 33 studies)
Fig. 5 The effect of static stretching duration on jump height
performance. Changes in jump height in these studies included
countermovement jumps (CMJ), squat jumps, and drop jumps.
Columns represent mean percentage changes with standard deviation
bars. Mean values may include multiple measures from a single study
(e.g. 15 jump measures from 10 studies)
Eur J Appl Physiol
123
are essential variables in sprinting (Dintiman and Ward
2003) (Table 3). Wilson et al. (1994) reported that MTU
stiffness was significantly related to isometric and con-
centric performance (r=0.57 and 0.78, respectively).
They suggested that a stiffer MTU augments force pro-
duction via an improved force–velocity and length–tension
relationship. A stiffer MTU would be more effective during
the initial transmission of force, thus increasing rate of
force development. A slacker parallel and series elastic
component could increase the electromechanical delay
(Costa et al. 2010) by slowing the period between myo-
filament crossbridge kinetics and the exertion of tension by
the MTU on the skeletal system. A number of researchers
have found that leg stiffness is either correlated with
maximum sprint velocity (Chelly and Denis 2001)or
joint stiffness increases with running speed (Farley and
Morgenroth 1999; Kuitunen et al. 2002). Furthermore, a
lengthened muscle due to an acute bout of static stretching
could have a less than optimal crossbridge overlap which,
according to the length–tension relationship (Rassier et al.
1999), could diminish muscle force output. Fowles et al.
(2000) demonstrated an 8-mm increase in fascicle length of
the soleus and lateral gastrocnemius with 30 min of
stretching. The elongation of tendinous tissues can also
have an effect on force output (Kawakami et al. 2002)
through a reduction in either the passive or active stiffness
of the MTU (Kokkonen et al. 1998). Static stretching may
alter the length–tension relationship and/or the plastic
deformation of connective tissues such that the maximal
force-producing capabilities of the MTU could be limited
(Fowles et al. 2000; Herda et al. 2008). Fowles et al.
(2000) reported that after 15 min of recovery from
intense stretching, most of the decreases in muscular force-
generating capacity were attributable to intrinsic mechan-
ical properties of the MTU rather than neural factors.
Specifically, it was hypothesized that stretching may have
altered the length–tension relationship and/or the plastic
deformation of connective tissues such that the maximal
force-producing capabilities of the MTU could be limited.
It is possible, therefore, that stretching-induced alterations
in the length–tension relationship may be manifested
through changes in the angle–torque relationship, which in
turn, may be evident by changes in the area under the
angle–torque curve (Marek et al. 2005). Thus, dependent
on the contraction velocity, SSC or contact time, a more
compliant muscle due to stretching could impair perfor-
mance in higher speed contractions or conversely enable
the more efficient storage and transfer of energy with
more prolonged actions. Changes in the length–tension
relationship would have its greatest effect upon isometric
contractions. The significantly greater effect sizes or
magnitudes of change associated with static stretch-
induced impairments in force/strength studies may be
influenced by the many studies utilizing isometric con-
tractions (see Tables 1,2,3,4).
The literature seems to indicate that neural effects are
more transient (shorter duration) (Guissard et al. 1988)or
play a smaller (McHugh et al. 1992) or insignificant (Costa
et al. 2010; Magnusson et al. 1996a,c; Weir et al. 2005)
disruptive role than viscoelastic properties in static-stretch-
induced impairments. The static stretching evidence indi-
cates a greater contribution to impairments derives from
viscoelastic or mechanical changes (Avela et al. 2004;
Costa et al. 2010; Magnusson et al. 1995; McHugh
et al. 1992,1998; Weir et al. 2005). The impairments in
these studies which utilized stretching durations of 90 s
(Magnusson et al. 1995; McHugh et al. 1992), 2 min (Ryan
et al. 2008a), 2.5 min (Magnusson et al. 1996b) to 20 min
(Costa et al. 2010) persisted from 10 to 20 min (Ryan et al.
2008a) to 1 h (Magnusson et al. 1995,1996b) post-
stretching. Once again the evidence points to the employ-
ment of shorter duration of static stretching (\30 s) to
minimize the more persistent and substantial changes to
viscoelastic properties.
Effect of intensity of stretching
Based on personal experience and anecdotal evidence, a
number of flexibility practitioners attempt to place the
muscle under stress in the belief that stretching to the point
of discomfort (POD) will bring about the greatest increases
in ROM. Previous research involving prior static stretching
Table 4 Effect sizes and percentage changes associated with the
effect of various durations of static stretching on force and isokinetic
power, vertical jump height and sprint speed
Duration Number
of subjects
Effect
size
Percentage
change (%)
Force/power
0–30 s 98 0.004 -0.5
30–90 s 329 0.62 -4.7
[90 s 1,203 0.61 -5.9
Mean 1,642 (sum) 0.55 -5.1
Jump height (s)
0–30 94 0.08 -0.8
30–90 148 0.14 -1.2
[90 242 0.27 -3.3
Mean 554 (sum) 0.18 -2.4
Sprint speed (s)
0–30 147 0.25 -1.3
30–90 186 0.29 -0.9
[90 36 0.08 -0.7
Mean 415 (sum) 0.28 -1.3
Eur J Appl Physiol
123
to the POD have resulted in impairments of force (Behm
et al. 2001,2004,2006; Fowles et al. 2000; Kokkonen et al.
1998; Nelson et al. 2001a; Power et al. 2004; Young and
Behm 2003), jump height (Cornwell et al. 2002; Young
and Elliott 2001; Young and Behm 2003), drop jump
ground contact times (Behm et al. 2006), muscle activation
(Behm et al. 2001; Power et al. 2004; Rosenbaum and
Hennig 1995), reaction and movement time and balance
(Behm et al. 2004). However, all these studies instituted
stretching regimes that had the participants stretch to the
POD. There has been some evidence in the literature to
suggest that less than maximal intensity stretching might
not produce these deficits (Knudson et al. 2001,2004;
Manoel et al. 2008; Young et al. 2006).
Young et al. (2006) manipulated the volume of
stretching and in one condition had the participants stretch
to 90% of POD. The submaximal intensity stretch of the
plantar flexors was calculated by decreasing the range of
motion by 10% from the ankle joint dorsiflexion angle
achieved when the subjects were stretched at the POD.
They found that 2 min of static stretching at 90% intensity
had no effect on muscle performance (concentric calf raise
and drop jump height). Knudson et al. (2001,2004) pub-
lished two studies where the subjects were stretched to a
point ‘‘just before’’ discomfort. Neither study showed sig-
nificant decreases in performance. In one study (Knudson
et al. 2001), there was a trend towards impaired vertical
jump height (3%), while the other study reported no change
in tennis serve velocity (Knudson et al. 2004). Manoel
et al. (2008) had subjects stretch to mild discomfort
(3 repetitions of 30 s) and reported no effect on knee
extension power at 60°and 180°s
-1
. Beedle et al. (2008)
employed three static stretches of 15 s each of moderate
intensity stretching (stretch as far as possible without
assistance) and reported no adverse effects upon bench
press and leg press 1 RM. Other studies have also stretched
to the point of mild discomfort and reported impairments in
isokinetic peak torque (Cramer et al. 2004,2005), vertical
jump height (Bradley et al. 2007; Hough et al. 2009) and
30 m sprint time (Sayers et al. 2008). Other than the Young
study (2006), the other studies used subjective intensities
and did not accurately measure the degree of submaximal
stretch intensity.
In contrast, Behm and Kibele (2007) did find stretch-
induced impairments with university sport science students
who were stretched four times for 30 s each for the
quadriceps, hamstrings and PF at 100% (POD), 75% and
50% of POD or a control condition. The stretch intensities
in this study were precisely monitored based on percentage
changes in passive tension as measured with a strain gauge.
All three stretching intensities adversely affected jump
heights with significant decreases in drop, squat, and
countermovement jump heights. The lower intensity
stretching actually provided greater numerical increases in
flexibility with 12.6–13.9% increases with less than POD
versus 9.7% with POD stretching, although this difference
was not statistically significant. Thus, while the literature
that institutes stretching to the POD overwhelmingly is
associated with stretch-induced impediments, studies using
submaximal stretching intensities (\POD) do not provide
clarity regarding static stretch-induced impairments. More
studies are needed that accurately monitor the degree of
stretch intensity and its subsequent effects on ROM and
performance.
Static stretch intensity mechanisms
High intensity (POD) stretch-induced stress might have a
detrimental effect on neuromuscular activation (Avela
et al. 1999; Behm et al. 2001; Power et al. 2004). Avela
et al. (1999) reported that following 1 h of passive
stretching of the triceps surae there were significant
decreases in MVC (23.2%), EMG (19.9%), and H-reflex
(43.8%). Guissard et al. (2001) stretched the ankle joint to
10°and 20°of dorsiflexion and reported that the attenu-
ation of reflex responses with small stretching amplitudes
were mainly attributed to pre-motoneuronal or pre-
synaptic mechanisms whereas large amplitude stretch-
induced motoneuron excitation decreases were dominated
by post-synaptic mechanisms. In an earlier article by the
same laboratory (Guissard et al. 1988), the static stretch-
induced decrease in H-reflex recovered quickly and was
only limited to the duration of the stretch. It has been
suggested that the decrease in the excitation of the
motoneuron pool resulted from a reduction in excitatory
drive from the Ia afferents onto the alpha motoneurons,
possibly due to decreased resting discharge of the muscle
spindles via increased compliance of the MTU (Avela
et al. 1999). Less responsive muscle spindles could result
in a reduction in the number of muscle fibers that are
subsequently activated (Beedle et al. 2008; Cramer et al.
2004). Moreover, it is suggested that to compensate for
the decrease in force production, a greater activation/
stimulation rate was required, and this in turn resulted in
a faster rate of neural fatigue. Further inhibitory influ-
ences on the motoneuron could arise from types III
(mechanoreceptor) and IV (nociceptor) afferents (Fowles
et al. 2000). However, this decreased excitation is more
prevalent during the stretch and recovers immediately
after the stretch (Fowles et al. 2000; Guissard et al. 2001).
Beyond neuromuscular effects, higher intensity stretching
has also been shown to impair blood flow through a
muscle during the stretch (Nelson et al. 2005a). Hence,
performance could also be affected by changes in blood
circulation to the muscle.’
Eur J Appl Physiol
123
Effect of study population
Previous studies cited in this review have demonstrated
that greater durations and maximum intensity (POD) static
stretching may contribute to stretch-induced impairments.
Both factors suggest that the muscle has been placed under
unaccustomed stress that may have led to deleterious
changes in the muscle or neuromuscular system. It may be
possible that the stretch-induced impairments reported in
the literature are a training-specific phenomenon. Some
authors have suggested that trained athletes might be less
susceptible to the stretching-induced deficits than untrained
(Egan et al. 2006; Unick et al. 2005). Would a greater
ROM or training to increase ROM minimize stretch-
induced deficits since the stress of stretching would not be
as much of an unaccustomed stress? A more flexible
(greater ROM) MTU or an MTU that is more tolerant of
stretch tension might accommodate the stresses associated
with an acute bout of stretching more successfully than a
stiff MTU. A decrease in muscle stiffness has been
reported following stretch training (Guissard and Ducha-
teau 2004). In contrast, Magnusson et al. (1996c) reported
no significant differences in stiffness, energy or peak tor-
que around the knee joint after 3 weeks of stretch training.
These authors suggested that the increased ROM achieved
with training could be a consequence of an increased
stretch tolerance. Regardless of the mechanisms, there have
been conflicting studies using cross-sectional studies with
elite athletes. Whereas studies using NCAA Division I
female basketball players (Egan et al. 2006), and Division
II female volleyball players (Dalrymple et al. 2010)
reported no static-stretch-induced effect on subsequent
peak torque or power and jumps respectively, another
American study employing Louisiana University track and
field athletes reported decreased sprint times following
static stretching (Winchester et al. 2008). In addition,
actively trained American college-aged women did not
experience any significant impairment in vertical jump
(Unick et al. 2005) following static or ballistic stretching.
A group of elite Tunisian athletes demonstrated no dele-
terious effects from sequencing static, dynamic stretches
and different intensities of stretch (eight combinations) on
sprint, agility and jump performance (Chaouachi et al.
2010). Little and Williams (2006) reported no effect of
static stretching on sprint times of highly trained male
professional soccer players. It is difficult to compare these
studies as a variety of stretch durations were utilized (45 s
to [2 min per muscle group), as well there could be a
gender effect affecting the variability in the results.
Figure 6illustrates the results from 99 studies that involved
a static stretching intervention and measured either force or
jump height. Statistical analysis conducted between the
groups indicated the lack of significant difference between
the groups of trained versus untrained studies.
Fewer studies have examined subjects beyond the typi-
cal university age. A study examining trained and active
middle aged adults reported no significant stretch-induced
impairments in broad jump, single, triple, crossover and
6 m timed hop performances (Handrakis et al. 2010). Static
stretching actually improved dynamic balance (Handrakis
et al. 2010). The lack of impairments and balance
enhancement occurred even though participants were sub-
jected to four stretches with three repetitions of 30 s each
(90 s total for each muscle) which in the majority of studies
using younger populations results in deficits. It could be
argued that since middle aged individuals tend to contract
slower and have longer ground contact periods with SSC
activities that a more compliant or flexible muscle would
be advantageous, as it could store elastic energy for longer
periods (Bosco et al. 1982b; Cavagna et al. 1968; Komi and
Bosco 1978). Young elite athletes need nearly immediate
transfer of elastic energy due to their shorter contact peri-
ods with SSC activities. In opposition to this age-related
theory, older untrained women (mean 64.6 years ±7.1)
did experience MVC strength deficits following three
repetitions of 30-s static stretches (Gurjao et al. 2009).
Perhaps, the relatively trained or active middle aged mar-
tial artists in the Handrakis study (2010) had sufficient
musculotendinous strength such that the stretching was not
particularly stressful as compared to the older women
(Gurjao et al. 2009) and with their relatively slower age-
related movement times could capitalize on the longer
storage and transfer time of a more compliant MTU.
Because this review has illustrated more consistent stretch-
induced deficits with force/strength and jump measures
when compared with sprint or run measures (Figs. 1,2,3),
the performance measures may have been a factor with the
difference in the results.
Fig. 6 Studies using trained and untrained subjects that report the
effect of static stretching on force and jump performance
Eur J Appl Physiol
123
Behm et al. (2006) compared individuals with a greater
ROM to those with less flexibility hypothesizing that those
with more flexibility would experience less strain from an
acute bout of static stretching. However, in their cross-sec-
tional correlation study, they showed that there was no
relationship between ROM around hip and ankles with
stretch-induced deficits (3 stretches with 3 repetitions of 30 s
each at POD) in force and jump height. However, cross-
sectional studies are fraught with variability difficulties, so
training studies may give a clearer indication of the effects of
flexibility training on static stretch-induced deficits.
In a 6-week longitudinal training study of 13–15-year-old
youth, stretch and sprint-trained participants were more
resistant to stretch-induced sprint deficits than the sprint only
group. However, both groups still experienced acute static
stretch-induced impairments with only two stretches of 20 s
each for each lower body muscle group (Chaouachi et al.
2008). Another flexibility (static stretching) training study of
5 weeks duration utilizing recreationally active participants
demonstrated post-training gains in sit and reach, hip flexion
and extension ROM of 12–20%, but trained subjects still
experienced deficits of 6–8% in knee extension and flexion
MVC and 6% in countermovement jump following an acute
session of static stretching using three stretches with three
repetitions of 30 s each at POD (Behm et al. 2006). Hence,
there is no consensus from the literature indicating an effect
of training on the resistance to static stretch-induced deficits
in performance.
Effect of the combination of static stretching
with dynamic activities
As mentioned in the introduction, the traditional warm-up
was a three-step process involving an aerobic warm-up,
static stretching followed by dynamic skill rehearsal
activities. Many of the static stretching studies although
have studied static stretching in isolation. However, even
when combined with a prior aerobic warm up (Behm et al.
2001; Behm and Kibele 2007; Ce et al. 2008; Fletcher and
Anness 2007; Holt and Lambourne 2008; Power et al.
2004; Vetter 2007), dynamic warm up (Wallmann et al.
2008; Winchester et al. 2008) or post-stretch skill rehearsal
(Young and Behm 2003), static stretching has still exerted
negative influences upon subsequent performance. Chaou-
achi et al. (2008) concocted a sequencing study imple-
menting eight stretch protocols that included (1) static
stretch (SS) to point of discomfort (POD), (2) SS less than
POD (SS \POD), (3) dynamic stretching (DS), (4) SS
POD combined with DS, (5) SS \POD combined with
DS, (6) DS combined with SS POD, (8) DS combined with
SS \POD and (9) a control warm up condition. There
were no significant effects on sprint, agility and jump
performance. However, the subjects were elite or profes-
sional athletes which may have played a role in the non-
significant outcomes. Similarly Gelen (2010) combined
static and dynamic stretching with a prior aerobic warm-up
and found no adverse effects upon sprint time, soccer
dribbling ability or soccer penalty kick distance. The lack
of impairments in these two studies may be related to the
data from Fig. 3which illustrated that sprint performance
was not as strongly affected by prior static stretching.
Young (2007) in a review paper suggests that if a moderate
volume of static stretching is performed between the gen-
eral and specific components of the warm-up, it has a
limited impact on subsequent performance.
Hence, while there may be mitigating factors, such as
types of contractions or actions, duration, intensity of
stretching and population, static stretching should be used
expeditiously during a warm-up to prevent the possibility
of performance deficits. If the objective is to achieve
chronic improvements in ROM, then static stretching
should be instituted as a separate training program as its
inclusion in the warm-up may be counterproductive to the
ensuing performance. If the objective is acute improve-
ments in ROM then dynamic stretching activities may
provide a suitable alternative to static stretching within the
warm-up. Research investigating dynamic stretching pro-
tocols may provide us with evidence for the appropriate
warm-up stretching activity.
Dynamic stretching
Dynamic stretching that involves controlled movement
through the active range of motion for a joint (Fletcher
2010) show either facilitation of power (Manoel et al.
2008; Yamaguchi et al. 2008) sprint (Fletcher and Anness
2007; Little and Williams 2006) and jump (Holt and
Lambourne 2008; Hough et al. 2009; Jaggers et al. 2008;
Pearce et al. 2009) performance or no adverse effect
(Christensen and Nordstrom 2008; Samuel et al. 2008;
Torres et al. 2008; Unick et al. 2005). In the context of
dynamic stretching, the literature tends to indicate that
shorter durations of dynamic stretching do not adversely
affect performance (Table 5), and longer duration of
dynamic stretches may facilitate performances (Fig. 7)
(Hough et al. 2009; Pearce et al. 2009; Yamaguchi et al.
2008). An ANOVA comparing percentage changes in
dynamic stretching studies (studies from Fig. 7) involving
force and isokinetic power demonstrates significant
(p=0.006) performance enhancements with more
(7.3% ±5.3) compared with less (0.5% ±2.3) than 90 s
of dynamic stretching (Bacurau et al. 2009; Beedle et al.
2008; Bradley et al. 2007; Christensen and Nordstrom
2008; Gelen 2010; Jaggers et al. 2008; Papadopoulos et al.
Eur J Appl Physiol
123
2005; Samuel et al. 2008; Sekir et al. 2009; Torres et al.
2008; Unick et al. 2005).
It appears that dynamic stretching is preferable to static
stretching as part of a warm-up designed to prepare for
physical activity due to the close similarity to movements
that occur during subsequent exercises (Torres et al. 2008).
10 min of dynamic warm-up activities (stretching or aer-
obic activity) have been reported to result in improvements
in shuttle run time, medicine ball throw distance and five
step jump distance (McMillian et al. 2006), as well as a
tendency (p=0.06) for increased jump height (Curry et al.
2009). Hough et al. (2009) instituted 7 min of dynamic
stretching resulting in increased vertical jump height and
EMG activity. Furthermore, there have also been studies
with shorter durations of dynamic stretching that demon-
strated facilitation of performance. Herda et al. (2008) used
four sets of three dynamic stretches of 30 s each and found
increased EMG and mechanomyogram activity. Similarly,
Table 5 Effect of short term dynamic stretching on performance
References nStretch duration per muscle Stretch
intensity
Effect and percentage change Effect
size
Bacurau et al. (2009) 14 20 min of ballistic stretching NR No effect on 1 RM leg press 11.7% :0.74
Beedle et al. (2008) 19 3 reps of 15 s bench press-men \POD No effect on 1 RM 0.8% :0.04
3 reps of 15 s leg press-men \POD 0.7% :0.03
Beedle et al. (2008) 32 3 reps of 15 s bench press-women \POD No effect on 1 RM 0.4% :0.03
3 reps of 15 s leg press-women \POD 0.9% :0.05
Bradley et al. (2007) 18 4 reps of 5 stretches 95 s hold 925 s bob NR No effect of on VJ NA
Christensen and
Nordstrom (2008)
68 8 exercises 95 reps NR No effect of on VJ 0.1% :0.005
Gelen (2010) 26 12 exercises 92 reps 915 m-sprint
Dribbling, penalty kick
NR Sprint 4.1% :0.95
Slalom soccer dribbling 5.1% :1.20
Penalty kick 3.3% 1.25
Jaggers et al. (2008) 20 2 sets 915 reps of 5 stretches NR No effect on jump height 4.4% 0.17
Force 3.8% :1.53
Power 4.1% :0.13
Papadopoulos et al.
(2005)
6 repetitions of 30 s NR No effect on isokinetic torque NA
Samuel et al. (2008) 24 2 repetitions 930 s ballistic \POD No effect on VJ or torque NA
Sekir et al. (2009) 10 6 min of dynamic stretching, ballistic NR :concentric torque output of quadriceps
(8.4%) hamstrings (6.8%) and eccentric
torque output of quadriceps (14.5%) and
hamstrings (14.1%)
1.12
1.11
4.50
4.11
Torres et al. (2008) 11 7 exercises 930 reps—force NR No effect on upper body strength 3.6% :
(force), 0.1% :(power)
0.30
7 exercises 930 reps—power NR 0.01
Unick et al. (2005) 16 4 exercises 93 repetitions 915 s 924 s
bob—ballistic
NR No effect of on VJ—initial 0.9% :0.06
15 min 0.12% :0.01
Mean 4.1% :—ES =large magnitude 0.87
NR not reported, NA not available
Fig. 7 The effect of dynamic stretching duration on force/torque and
power production from 241 participants. Measures of force and power
in these studies included isometric force and torque, isokinetic power,
and one repetition maximum lifts such as squats and bench press.
Columns represent mean percentage changes with standard deviation
bars. Mean values may include multiple measures from a single study
(e.g. 4 force or torque measures from two studies)
Eur J Appl Physiol
123
Manoel et al. (2008) reported improved knee extensor
power at 60°and 180°s
-1
with three repetitions of 30-s
dynamic stretches. Another factor to consider is the
intensity of the dynamic stretching. Dynamic stretch
studies are inconsistent in their description of stretch
intensity making it difficult to compare between studies.
Although some studies do not report the intensity (e.g.
frequency, range of motion) (Dalrymple et al. 2010;
Manoel et al. 2008), others control the dynamic stretch
intensity by reporting the frequency of movement (Bacurau
et al. 2009; Fletcher 2010; Mohammadtaghi et al. 2010).
Herman and Smith (2008) as another example used a
combination of dynamic activities and stretches and indi-
cated that they were performed at a slow to moderate
cadence, but this was not precisely defined. A further
complication is the definition or difference between
dynamic activities and dynamic stretches. Further studies
are needed to determine whether there is an advantage to
perform warm-up activities that move the joint dynami-
cally through a ROM or are dynamic activities through a
partial ROM similarly effective?
Dynamic stretching activities at 100 beats/min resulted
in significantly greater countermovement jump (CMJ) and
drop jump heights than dynamic stretching activities using
50 beats/min (Fletcher 2010). Even the lower frequency
dynamic stretching (50 beats/min) showed significantly
greater performances in the jumps than the no stretch
condition (Fletcher 2010). Although there is no clear dis-
tinction regarding the duration of dynamic stretching nee-
ded to enhance performance, there is clarity that dynamic
stretching does not impair performance. As some studies
have indicated that dynamic stretching provides similar
acute increases in static flexibility as static stretching
(Beedle and Mann 2007; Herman and Smith 2008) the use
of dynamic rather than static stretching for the warm-up
would tend to be a more judicious choice.
The mechanisms by which dynamic stretching improves
muscular performance have been suggested to be elevated
muscle and body temperature (Fletcher and Jones 2004),
post-activation potentiation in the stretched muscle caused
by voluntary contractions of the antagonist (Hough et al.
2009; Torres et al. 2008), stimulation of the nervous sys-
tem, and/or decreased inhibition of antagonist muscles
(Jaggers et al. 2008; Yamaguchi and Ishii 2005). As a
result of these effects, dynamic stretching may enhance
force and power development (Hough et al. 2009; Torres
et al. 2008; Yamaguchi and Ishii 2005). Indeed, Faigen-
baum et al. (2005) and Yamaguchi and Ishii (2005)
hypothesized that the increases in force output after
dynamic stretching are caused by an enhancement of
neuromuscular function, and they implied that the dynamic
stretching had a post-activation potentiation effect on
performance via an increase the rate of cross-bridge
attachments (Houston and Grange 1990). Consequently, it
allows a greater number of cross-bridges to form, and
resulting in an increase in force production (Behm 2004).
However, Herda et al. (2008) reported that dynamic
stretching did not improve muscular strength, although
electromyographic amplitude increased, which may reflect
a potentiating effect of the dynamic stretching on muscle
activation. As the mechanisms of static and dynamic
stretching are not the primary focus of this review, readers
would be encouraged to read further material on this topic
(Guissard and Duchateau 2006; Magnusson 1998).
Limitations
When assessing the literature, it is sometimes difficult to
make comparisons between studies. In summary, some of the
factors that may interfere with the interpretation of a body of
literature may be related to gender issues (far fewer female
subjects), the lack of randomization, and tester blinding,
inter-tester reliability and hydration status of subjects. In
addition, comparing uniarticular (i.e. dorsiflexion) tests of
ROM to multiarticular (i.e. sit and reach) where various
muscle groups can have differing levels of flexibility (i.e.
lower back vs. hamstrings) can obscure comparisons. Fur-
thermore, not all jumping activities involve similar range and
speed of movement. Although squat jumps and drop jumps
are both jumps, they differ dramatically in the SSC charac-
teristics and may be affected differently by stretching.
Testing immediately after a stretching routine or performing
static stretching in isolation without aerobic-type exercise
does not specifically mimic the typical warm-up routine of
athletes. As mentioned previously, using subjective per-
ceptions of stretch intensity leads to difficulty in ascertaining
the effect of stretch intensity on performance. The difference
between dynamic stretches and dynamic activities is not well
defined in many studies and thus it is not known if it is
necessary to move the joint through a full range of motion
with dynamic activities to achieve significant increases in
ROM. However, even with these limitations, the review of
over 150 articles should still allow for some general inter-
pretations and recommendations.
Conclusions and recommendations
Although there is strong evidence regarding the deleterious
effects of static stretching prior to performance, the studies
reporting no impairments or facilitation highlight possible
mitigating factors. Static stretch-induced changes in muscle
compliance which can affect the length–tension relation-
ship of the muscle manifests its negative effects consis-
tently and significantly with strength measures, especially
Eur J Appl Physiol
123
when expressed with isometric contractions. Static
stretching may not affect or possibly augment performance
with dynamic SSC activities or contractions that involve a
longer period for the storage of elastic energy. Submaximal
speed running with longer SSC, relatively long contact
times when jumping or hopping, application of forces over
more prolonged periods as, for example, with a shot put or
discus and eccentric contractions may not be adversely
affected by prior static stretching. Furthermore, shorter
durations of stretching within a warm-up, such as a total
stretching duration per muscle of \30 s may not negatively
impact subsequent performance especially if the population
is more highly trained. However, it would be wise to be
cautious when implementing static stretching of any
duration or for any population when high-speed, rapid SSC,
explosive or reactive forces are necessary, particularly if
any decreases in performance, however small, would be
important. For these types of movements, the neuromus-
cular system should be primed with activities that excite
the system. According to the literature, dynamic stretches
and activities will either have no detrimental effect or may
augment performance. Longer durations of dynamic
stretching and activity seem to provide a positive response
to the neuromuscular system enhancing performance. The
optimal warm-up should be composed of a submaximal
intensity aerobic activity followed by large amplitude
dynamic stretching and then completed with sport specific
dynamic activities. As static stretching can still increase
ROM, it still plays an important role for health-related
benefits associated with flexibility and particular sports or
activities that necessitate a great increase in static ROM
relative to the flexibility of the athlete or patient. However,
static stretching should normally not be pursued prior to
strength, high speed, explosive or reactive activities. All
individuals should include static stretching in their overall
fitness and wellness activities for the health and functional
benefits associated with increased ROM and musculoten-
dinous compliance. However, a separate static stretch
training workout time or during post-exercise cool-down
should be planned independent of other training workouts
or competitions to achieve a more permanent change in
flexibility for health or performance.
Acknowledgments This research was partially funded by the Nat-
ural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada.
References
Alter MJ (1996) Science of flexibility. Human Kinetics Publishers,
Champaign
Avela J, Kyro
¨la
¨inen H, Komi PV (1999) Altered reflex sensitivity
after repeated and prolonged passive muscle stretching. J Appl
Physiol 86:1283–1291
Avela J, Finni T, Liikavainio T, Niemela E, Komi PV (2004) Neural
and mechanical responses of the triceps surae muscle group after
1 h of repeated fast passive stretches. J Appl Physiol
96:2325–2332
Bacurau RF, Monteiro GA, Ugrinowitsch C, Tricoli V, Cabral LF,
Aoki MS (2009) Acute effect of a ballistic and a static stretching
exercise bout on flexibility and maximal strength. J Strength
Cond Res 23:304–308
Bandy WD, Irion JM, Briggler M (1997) The effect of time and
frequency of static stretching on flexibility of the hamstring
muscles. Phys Ther 77:1090–1096
Bandy WD, Irion JM, Briggler M (1998) The effect of static stretch
and dynamic range of motion training on the flexibility of the
hamstring muscles. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 27:295–300
Bauman CL, Knapik JJ, Jones BH, Harris JM, Vaughan (1982) An
approach to musculoskeletal profiling of women in sports. In:
Cantu IR, Gillesoie W (eds) Sports medicine, sports science:
bridging the gap. Health Publications, Lexington, MA, pp 61–72
Beckett JR, Schneiker KT, Wallman KE, Dawson BT, Guelfi KJ
(2009) Effects of static stretching on repeated sprint and change
of direction performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41:444–450
Beedle BB, Mann CL (2007) A comparison of two warm-ups on joint
range of motion. J Strength Cond Res 21:776–779
Beedle B, Rytter SJ, Healy RC, Ward TR (2008) Pretesting static and
dynamic stretching does not affect maximal strength. J Strength
Cond Res 22:1838–1843
Behm DG (2004) Force maintenance with submaximal fatiguing
contractions. Can J Appl Physiol 29:274–290
Behm DG, Kibele A (2007) Effects of differing intensities of static
stretching on jump performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 101:587–594
Behm DG, Button DC, Butt JC (2001) Factors affecting force loss
with prolonged stretching. Can J Appl Physiol 26:261–272
Behm DG, Bambury A, Cahill F, Power K (2004) Effect of acute
static stretching on force, balance, reaction time, and movement
time. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36:1397–1402
Behm DG, Bradbury EE, Haynes AT, Hodder JN, Leonard AM,
Paddock NR (2006) Flexibility is not related to stretch-induced
deficits in force or power. J Sports Sci Med 5:33–42
Bishop D (2003) Warm up I: potential mechanisms and the effects of
passive warm up on exercise performance. Sports Med
33:439–454
Bosco C, Tarkka I, Komi PV (1982a) Effect of elastic energy and
myoelectrical potentiation of triceps surae during stretch-short-
ening cycle exercise. Int J Sports Med 3:137–140
Bosco C, Tihanyi J, Komi PV, Fekete G, Apor P (1982b) Store and
recoil of elastic energy in slow and fast types of human skeletal
muscles. Acta Physiol Scand 116:343–349
Bradley PS, Olsen PD, Portas MD (2007) The effect of static,
ballistic, and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretch-
ing on vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res
21:223–226
Brandenburg JP (2006) Duration of stretch does not influence the
degree of force loss following static stretching. J Sports Med
Phys Fitness 46:526–534
Campbell DT, Stanley JC (1966) Experimental and quasi-experimen-
tal designs for research, 2nd edn. Oxford Press, London,
pp 46–112
Cavagna GA, Dusman B, Margaria R (1968) Positive work done by a
previously stretched muscle. J Appl Physiol 24:21–32
Ce E, Margonato V, Casasco M, Veicsteinas A (2008) Effects of
stretching on maximal anaerobic power: the roles of active and
passive warm-ups. J Strength Cond Res 22:794–800
Chaouachi A, Chamari K, Wong P, Castagna C, Chaouachi M,
Moussa-Chamari I, Behm DG (2008) Stretch and sprint training
reduces stretch-induced sprint performance deficits in 13- to
15-year-old youth. Eur J Appl Physiol 104:513–523
Eur J Appl Physiol
123
Chaouachi A, Castagna C, Chtara M, Brughelli M, Turki O, Galy O,
Chamari K, Behm DG (2010) Effect of warm-ups involving
static or dynamic stretching on agility, sprinting, and jumping
performance in trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res
24:2001–2011
Chelly SM, Denis C (2001) Leg power and hopping stiffness:
relationship with sprint running performance. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 33:326–333
Christensen BK, Nordstrom BJ (2008) The effects of proprioceptive
neuromuscular facilitation and dynamic stretching techniques on
vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 22:1826–1831
Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioural
sciences. L. Erbaum Associates, Hillside, pp 14–68
Cornwell A, Nelson A, Sidaway B (2002) Acute effects of stretching
on the neuromechanical properties of the triceps surae muscle
complex. Eur J Appl Physiol 86:428–434
Costa PB, Ryan ED, Herda TJ, Walter AA, Hoge KM, Cramer JT
(2010) Acute effects of passive stretching on the electrome-
chanical delay and evoked twitch properties. Eur J Appl Physiol
108:301–310
Covert CA, Alexander MP, Petronis JJ, Davis DS (2010) Comparison
of ballistic and static stretching on hamstring muscle length
using an equal stretching dose. J Strength Cond Res 24(11):
3008–3014. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181bf3bb0
Cowan D, Jones B, Tomlinson P, Robinson J, Polly D (1988) The
epidemiology of physical training injuries in US infantry
trainees: methodology, population, and risk factors. US Army
Research Institute of Environmental Medicine Technology
NO:T4-89
Cramer JT, Housh TJ, Johnson GO, Miller JM, Coburn JW, Beck TW
(2004) Acute effects of static stretching on peak torque in
women. J Strength Cond Res 18:236–241
Cramer JT, Housh TJ, Weir JP, Johnson GO, Coburn JW, Beck TW
(2005) The acute effects of static stretching on peak torque,
mean power output, electromyography, and mechanomyography.
Eur J Appl Physiol 93:530–539
Cramer JT, Housh TJ, Coburn JW, Beck TW, Johnson GO (2006)
Acute effects of static stretching on maximal eccentric torque
production in women. J Strength Cond Res 20:354–358
Cramer JT, Beck TW, Housh TJ, Massey LL, Marek SM, Danglem-
eier S, Purkayastha S, Culbertson JY, Fitz KA, Egan AD (2007a)
Acute effects of static stretching on characteristics of the
isokinetic angle–torque relationship, surface electromyography,
and mechanomyography. J Sports Sci 25:687–698
Cramer JT, Housh TJ, Johnson GO, Weir JP, Beck TW, Coburn JW
(2007b) An acute bout of static stretching does not affect
maximal eccentric isokinetic peak torque, the joint angle at peak
torque, mean power, electromyography, or mechanomyography.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 37:130–139
Curry BS, Chengkalath D, Crouch GJ, Romance M, Manns PJ (2009)
Acute effects of dynamic stretching, static stretching, and light
aerobic activity on muscular performance in women. J Strength
Cond Res 23:1811–1819
Dalrymple KJ, Davis SE, Dwyer GB, Moir GL (2010) Effect of static
and dynamic stretching on vertical jump performance in
collegiate women volleyball players. J Strength Cond Res
24:149–155
Dintiman G, Ward B (2003) Sport speed, 3rd edn. Human Kinetics,
Windsor, pp 34–108
Ebben WP, Blackard DO (2001) Strength and conditioning practices
of National Football League strength and conditioning coaches.
J Strength Cond Res 15:48–58
Ebben WP, Carroll RM, Simenz CJ (2004) Strength and conditioning
practices of National Hockey League strength and conditioning
coaches. J Strength Cond Res 18:889–897
Ebben WP, Hintz MJ, Simenz CJ (2005) Strength and conditioning
practices of Major League Baseball strength and conditioning
coaches. J Strength Cond Res 19:538–546
Edman KAP, Elzinga G, Noble MIM (1978) Enhancement of
mechanical performance by stretch during tetanic contractions
of vertebrate skeletal muscle fibres. J Physiol 281:139–155
Egan AD, Cramer JT, Massey LL, Marek SM (2006) 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
Faigenbaum AD, Bellucci M, Bernieri A, Bakker B, Hoorens K
(2005) Acute effects of different warm-up protocols on fitness
performance in children. J Strength Cond Res 19:376–381
Farley CT, Morgenroth DC (1999) Leg stiffness primarily depends on
ankle stiffness during human hopping. J Biomech 32:267–273
Fletcher IM (2010) The effect of different dynamic stretch velocities
on jump performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 109:491–498
Fletcher IM, Anness R (2007) The acute effects of combined static
and dynamic stretch protocols on fifty-meter sprint performance
in track-and-field athletes. J Strength Cond Res 21:784–787
Fletcher IM, Jones B (2004) 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
Fletcher IM, Monte-Colombo MM (2010) An investigation into the
possible physiological mechanisms associated with changes in
performance related to acute responses to different preactivity
stretch modalities. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 35:27–34
Fowles JR, Sale DG, MacDougall JD (2000) Reduced strength after
passive stretch of the human plantar flexors. J Appl Physiol
89:1179–1188
Franco BL, Signorelli GR, Trajano GS, de Oliveira CG (2008) Acute
effects of different stretching exercises on muscular endurance.
J Strength Cond Res 22:1832–1837
Garcia-Lopez D, Izquierdo M, Rodriguez S, Gonzalez-Calvo G, Sainz
N, Abadia O, Herrero AJ (2010) Interest stretching does not
influence the kinematic profile of consecutive bench-press sets.
J Strength Cond Res 24:1361–1368
Gelen E (2010) Acute effects of different warm-up methods on sprint,
slalom dribbling, and penalty kick performance in soccer
players. J Strength Cond Res 24:950–956
Gleim G, McHugh MP (1997) Flexibility and its effects on sports
injury and performance. Sports Med 24:289–297
Gleim GW, Stachenfeld NS, Nicholas JA (1990) The influence of
flexibility on the economy of walking and jogging. J Orthop Res
8:814–823
Godges JJ, MacRae H, Longdon C, Tinberg C (1989) The effects of
two stretching procedures on the economy of walking and
jogging. J Orthop Sport Phys Ther 7:350–357
Gonzalez-Rave JM, Machado L, Navarro-Valdivielso F, Vilas-Boas
JP (2009) Acute effects of heavy-load exercises, stretching
exercises, and heavy-load plus stretching exercises on squat
jump and countermovement jump performance. J Strength Cond
Res 23:472–479
Guissard N, Duchateau J (2004) Effect of static stretch training on
neural and mechanical properties of the human plantar-flexor
muscles. Muscle Nerve 29:248–255
Guissard N, Duchateau J (2006) Neural aspects of muscle stretching.
Exerc Sport Sci Rev 34:154–158
Guissard N, Duchateau J, Hainaut K (1988) Muscle stretching and
motoneuron excitability. Eur J Appl Physiol 58:47–52
Guissard N, Duchateau J, Hainaut K (2001) Mechanisms of decreased
motoneurone excitation during passive muscle stretching. Exp
Brain Res 137:163–169
Gurjao AL, Goncalves R, de Moura RF, Gobbi S (2009) Acute effect
of static stretching on rate of force development and maximal
Eur J Appl Physiol
123
voluntary contraction in older women. J Strength Cond Res
23:2149–2154
Haag SJ, Wright GA, Gillette CM, Greany JF (2010) Effects of acute
static stretching of the throwing shoulder on pitching perfor-
mance of national collegiate athletic association division III
baseball players. J Strength Cond Res 24:452–457
Handrakis JP, Southard VN, Abreu JM, Aloisa M, Doyen MR,
Echevarria LM, Hwang H, Samuels C, Venegas SA, Douris PC
(2010) Static stretching does not impair performance in active
middle-aged adults. J Strength Cond Res 24:825–830
Hayes PR, Walker A (2007) Pre-exercise stretching does not impact
upon running economy. J Strength Cond Res 21:1227–1232
Herbert RD, Gabriel M (2002) Effects of stretching before and after
exercising on muscle soreness and risk of injury: systematic
review. BMJ 325:468–472
Herda TJ, Cramer JT, Ryan ED, McHugh MP, Stout JR (2008) Acute
effects of static versus dynamic stretching on isometric peak
torque, electromyography, and mechanomyography of the biceps
femoris muscle. J Strength Cond Res 22:809–817
Herda TJ, Ryan ED, Costa PB, Walter AA, Hoge KM, Uribe BP,
Mclagan JR, Stout JR, Cramer JT (2010) Acute effects of passive
stretching and vibration on the elctromechanical delay and
musculotendinous stiffness of the plantar flexors. Electromyogr
Clin Neurophysiol 50:137–148
Herman SL, Smith DT (2008) Four-week dynamic stretching warm-
up intervention elicits longer-term performance benefits.
J Strength Cond Res 22:1286–1297
High DM, Howley ET, Franks BD (1989) The effects of static
stretching and warm-up on prevention of delayed-onset muscle
soreness. Res Quart Exerc Sport 60:357–361
Holt BW, Lambourne K (2008) The impact of different warm-up
protocols on vertical jump performance in male collegiate
athletes. J Strength Cond Res 22:226–229
Hough PA, Ross EZ, Howatson G (2009) Effects of dynamic and
static stretching on vertical jump performance and electromyo-
graphic activity. J Strength Cond Res 23:507–512
Houston ME, Grange RW (1990) Myosin phosphorylation, twitch
potentiation, and fatigue in human skeletal muscle. Can J Physiol
Pharm 68:908–913
Jaggers JR, Swank AM, Frost KL, Lee CD (2008) The acute effects of
dynamic and ballistic stretching on vertical jump height, force,
and power. J Strength Cond Res 22:1844–1849
Jones AM (2002) Running economy is negatively related to sit-
and-reach test performance in international-standard distance
runners. Int J Sport Med 23:40–43
Kawakami Y, Kubo K, Kanehisa H, Fukunaga T (2002) Effect of
series elasticity on isokinetic torque-angle relationship in
humans. Eur J Appl Physiol 87:381–387
Knudson D, Noffal G (2005) Time course of stretch-induced
isometric strength deficits. Eur J Appl Physiol 94:348–351
Knudson D, Bennett K, Corn R, Leick D, Smith C (2001) Acute
effects of stretching are not evident in the kinematics of the
vertical jump. J Strength Cond Res 15:98–101
Knudson DV, Noffal GJ, Bahamonde RE, Bauer JA, Blackwell JR
(2004) Stretching has no effect on tennis serve performance.
J Strength Cond Res 18:654–656
Kokkonen J, Nelson AG, Cornwell A (1998) Acute muscle stretching
inhibits maximal strength performance. Res Quart Exerc Sport
69:411–415
Komi PV, Bosco C (1978) Utilization of stored elastic energy in leg
extensor muscles by men and women. Med Sci Sports Exerc
10:261–265
Kuitunen S, Komi PV, Kyrolainen H (2002) Knee and ankle
joint stiffness in sprint running. Med Sci Sports Exerc
34:166–173
Little T, Williams AG (2006) Effects of differential stretching
protocols during warm-ups on high-speed motor capacities in
professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 20:203–207
Magnusson SP (1998) Passive properties of human skeletal muscle
during stretch maneuvers. A review. Scand J Med Sci Sports
8:65–77
Magnusson SP, Simonsen EB, Aagaard P, Gleim GW, McHugh MP,
Kjaer M (1995) Viscoelastic response to repeated static stretch-
ing in the human hamstring muscle. Scand J Med Sci Sports
5:342–347
Magnusson SP, Simonsen EB, Aagaard P, Dyhre-Poulsen P, McHugh
MP, Kjaer M (1996a) Mechanical and physical responses to
stretching with and without preisometric contraction in human
skeletal muscle. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 77:373–378
Magnusson SP, Simonsen EB, Aagaard P, Kjaer M (1996b) Biome-
chanical responses to repeated stretches in human hamstring
muscle in vivo. Am J Sports Med 24:622–627
Magnusson SP, Simonsen EB, Aagaard P, Sorensen H, Kjaer M
(1996c) A mechanism for altered flexibility in human skeletal
muscle. J Physiol 497(Pt 1):291–298
Manoel ME, Harris-Love MO, Danoff JV, Miller TA (2008) Acute
effects of static, dynamic, and proprioceptive neuromuscular
facilitation stretching on muscle power in women. J Strength
Cond Res 22:1528–1534
Marek SM, Cramer JT, Fincher AL, Massey LL, Dangelmaier SM,
Purkayastha S, Fitz KA, Culbertson JY (2005) Acute effects of
static and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching
on muscle strength and power output. J Athl Train 40:94–103
McHugh M, Magnusson S, Gleim G, Nicholas J (1992) Viscoelastic
stress relaxation in human skeletal muscle. Med Sci Sport Exerc
24:1375–1382
McHugh MP, Kremenic IJ, Fox MB, Gleim GW (1998) The role of
mechanical and neural restraints to joint range of motion during
passive stretch. Med Sci Sports Exerc 30:928–932
McMillian DJ, Moore JH, Hatler BS, Taylor DC (2006) Dynamic vs.
static-stretching warm up: the effect on power and agility
performance. J Strength Cond Res 20:492–499
Mohammadtaghi AK, Sahebozamani M, Tabrizi KG, Yusof AB
(2010) Acute effects of different stretching methods on Illinois
agility test in soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 24:148–156
Molacek ZD, Conley DS, Evetovich TK, Hinnerichs KR (2010)
Effects of low- and high-volume stretching on bench press
performance in collegiate football players. J Strength Cond Res
24:711–716
Murphy JR, Di Santo MC, Alkanani T, Behm DG (2010) Activity
before and following short duration static stretching improves
range of motion vs. a traditional warm-up. Appl Physiol Nutr
Metab 35:1–12
Nagano A, Yoshioka S, Hay DC, Himeno R, Fukashiro S (2006)
Influence of vision and static stretch of the calf muscles on
postural sway during quiet standing. Hum Mov Sci 25:422–434
Nelson A, Allen J, Cornwell A, Kokkonen J (2001a) Inhibition of
maximal voluntary isometric torque production by acute stretch-
ing is joint-angle specific. Res Q Exerc Sport 72:68–70
Nelson AG, Guillory IK, Cornewell A, Kokkonen J (2001b) Inhibition
of maximal voluntary isokinetic torque production following
stretching is velocity-specific. J Strength Cond Res 15:241–246
Nelson AG, Kokkonen J, Arnall DA (2005a) Acute muscle stretching
inhibits muscle strength endurance performance. J Strength
Cond Res 19:338–343
Nelson AG, Kokkonen J, Eldredge C (2005b) Strength inhibition
following an acute stretch is not limited to novice stretchers. Res
Q Exerc Sport 76:500–506
Norris CM (1999) The complete guide to stretching, 1st edn. Human
Kinetics Publishing, Windsor, pp 23–76
Eur J Appl Physiol
123
O’Sullivan K, Murray E, Sainsbury D (2009) The effect of warm-up,
static stretching and dynamic stretching on hamstring flexibility
in previously injured subjects. BMC Musculoskelet Disord
10:37–42
Ogura Y, Miyahara Y, Naito H, Katamoto S, Aoki J (2007) Duration
of static stretching influences muscle force production in
hamstring muscles. J Strength Cond Res 21:788–792
Papadopoulos G, Siatras T, Kellis S (2005) The effect of static and
dynamic stretching exercises on the maximal isokinetic strength
of the knee extensors and flexors. Isokinetics Exerc Sci
13:285–291
Pearce AJ, Kidgell DJ, Zois J, Carlson JS (2009) Effects of secondary
warm up following stretching. Eur J Appl Physiol 105:175–183
Power K, Behm D, Cahill F, Carroll M, Young W (2004) An acute
bout of static stretching: effects on force and jumping perfor-
mance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36:1389–1396
Rassier DE, MacIntosh BR, Herzog W (1999) Length dependence of
active force production in skeletal muscle. J Appl Physiol
86:1445–1457
Robbins JW, Scheuermann BW (2008) Varying amounts of acute
static stretching and its effect on vertical jump performance.
J Strength Cond Res 22:781–786
Rosenbaum D, Hennig E (1995) The influence of stretching and
warm-up exercises on achilles tendon reflex activity. J Sport Sci
13:481–490
Ryan ED, Beck TW, Herda TJ, Hull HR, Hartman MJ, Costa PB,
Defreitas JM, Stout JR, Cramer JT (2008a) The time course of
musculotendinous stiffness responses following different dura-
tions of passive stretching. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
38:632–639
Ryan ED, Beck TW, Herda TJ, Hull HR, Hartman MJ, Stout JR,
Cramer JT (2008b) Do practical durations of stretching alter
muscle strength? A dose–response study. Med Sci Sports Exerc
40:1529–1537
Safran M, Seaber A, Garrett W (1989) Warm-up and muscular injury
prevention: an update. Sports Med 8:239–249
Samogin Lopes FA, Menegon EM, Franchini E, Tricoli V, de MBR
(2010) Is acute static stretching able to reduce the time to
exhaustion at power output corresponding to maximal oxygen
uptake? J Strength Cond Res 24:1650–1656
Samuel MN, Holcomb WR, Guadagnoli MA, Rubley MD, Wallmann
H (2008) Acute effects of static and ballistic stretching on
measures of strength and power. J Strength Cond Res
22:1422–1428
Sayers AL, Farley RS, Fuller DK, Jubenville CB, Caputo JL (2008)
The effect of static stretching on phases of sprint performance in
elite soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 22:1416–1421
Sekir U, Arabaci R, Akova B, Kadagan SM (2009) Acute effects of
static and dynamic stretching on leg flexor and extensor
isokinetic strength in elite women athletes. Scand J Med Sci
Sports
Siatras T, Papadopoulos G, Mameletzi DN, Vasilios G, Kellis S
(2003) Static and dynamic acute stretching effect on gymnasts’
speed in vaulting. Ped Exerc Sci 15:383–391
Siatras TA, Mittas VP, Mameletzi DN, Vamvakoudis EA (2008) The
duration of the inhibitory effects with static stretching on
quadriceps peak torque production. J Strength Cond Res
22:40–46
Simenz CJ, Dugan CA, Ebben WP (2005) Strength and conditioning
practices of National Basketball Association strength and
conditioning coaches. J Strength Cond Res 19:495–504
Small K, Mc NL, Matthews M (2008) A systematic review into the
efficacy of static stretching as part of a warm-up for the
prevention of exercise-related injury. Res Sports Med
16:213–231
Smith C (1994) The warm-up procedure: to stretch or not to stretch: a
brief review. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 19:12–17
Torres R, Appell HJ, Duarte JA (2007) Acute effects of stretching on
muscle stiffness after a bout of exhaustive eccentric exercise. Int
J Sports Med 28:590–594
Torres EM, Kraemer WJ, Vingren JL, Volek JS, Hatfield DL,
Spiering BA, Ho JY, Fragala MS, Thomas GA, Anderson JM,
Hakkinen K, Maresh CM (2008) Effects of stretching on upper
body muscular performance. J Strength Cond Res 22:1279–1285
Trehearn TL, Buresh RJ (2009) Sit-and-reach flexibility and running
economy of men and women collegiate distance runners.
J Strength Cond Res 23:158–162
Unick J, Kieffer HS, Cheesman W, Feeney A (2005) The acute effects
of static and ballistic stretching on vertical jump performance in
trained women. J Strength Cond Res 19:206–212
Vetter RE (2007) Effects of six warm-up protocols on sprint and jump
performance. J Strength Cond Res 21:819–823
Wallman HW, Mercer JA, McWhorter JW (2005) Surface electro-
myographic assessment of the effect of static stretching of the
gastrocnemius on vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond
Res 19:684–688
Wallmann HW, Mercer JA, Landers MR (2008) Surface electromyo-
graphic assessment of the effect of dynamic activity and
dynamic activity with static stretching of the gastrocnemius on
vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 22:787–793
Walshe AD, Wilson GJ (1997) The influence of musculotendinous
stiffness on drop jump performance. Can J Appl Physiol
22:117–132
Weir DE, Tingley J, Elder GCB (2005) Acute passive stretching alters
the mechanical properties of human plantar flexors and the
optimal angle for maximal voluntary contraction. Eur J Appl
Physiol 93:614–623
Wilson G, Wood G, Elliott B (1991) The relationship between
stiffness of the musculature and static flexibility: an alternative
explanation for the occurrence of muscular injury. Int J Sport
Med 12:403–407
Wilson G, Elliot B, Wood G (1992) Stretching shorten cycle
performance enhancement through flexibility training. Med Sci
Sport Exerc 24:116–123
Wilson GJ, Murphy A, Pryor JF (1994) Musculotendinous stiffness:
its relationship to eccentric, isometric and concentric perfor-
mance. J Appl Physiol 76:2714–2719
Wilson JM, Hornbuckle LM, Kim JS, Ugrinowitsch C, Lee SR,
Zourdos MC, Sommer B, Panton LB (2010) Effects of static
stretching on energy cost and running endurance performance.
J Strength Cond Res 24:2274–2279
Winchester JB, Nelson AG, Landin D, Young MA, Schexnayder IC
(2008) Static stretching impairs sprint performance in collegiate
track and field athletes. J Strength Cond Res 22:13–19
Winchester JB, Nelson AG, Kokkonen J (2009) A single 30-s stretch
is sufficient to inhibit maximal voluntary strength. Res Q Exerc
Sport 80:257–261
Winke MR, Jones NB, Berger CG, Yates JW (2010) Moderate static
stretching and torque production of the knee flexors. J Strength
Cond Res 24:706–710
Worrell T, Smith T, Winegardner J (1994) Effect of hamstring
stretching on hamstring muscle performance. J Orthop Sports
Physical Ther 20:154–159
Yamaguchi T, Ishii K (2005) Effects of static stretching for 30
seconds and dynamic stretching on leg extension power.
J Strength Condit Res 19:677–683
Yamaguchi T, Ishii K, Yamanaka M, Yasuda K (2006) Acute effect
of static stretching on power output during concentric dynamic
constant external resistance leg extension. J Strength Cond Res
20:804–810
Eur J Appl Physiol
123
Yamaguchi T, Ishii K, Yamanaka M, Yasuda K (2008) Acute effects
of dynamic stretching exercise on power output during concen-
tric dynamic constant external resistance leg extension.
J Strength Cond Res 21:1238–1244
Young WB (2007) The use of static stretching in warm-up for training
and competition. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2:212–216
Young W, Behm D (2002) Should static stretching be used during a
warm-up for strength and power activities? Strength Cond J
24:33–37
Young WB, Behm DG (2003) Effects of running, static stretching and
practice jumps on explosive force production and jumping
performance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 43:21–27
Young W, Elliott S (2001) Acute effects on static stretching,
proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching, and
maximum voluntary contractions on explosive force production
and jumping performance. Res Q Exerc Sport 72:273–279
Young W, Elias G, Power J (2006) Effects of static stretching volume
and intensity on plantar flexor explosive force production and
range of motion. J Sport Med Phys Fitness 46:403–411
Zakas A (2005) The effect of stretching duration on the lower
extremity flexibility of adolescent soccer players. J Bodywork
Mov Ther 9:220–225
Zakas A, Doganis G, Papakonstandinou V, Sentelidis T, Vamvakou-
dis E (2006) Acute effects of static stretching duration on
isokinetic peak torque production of soccer players. J Bodywork
Mov Ther 10:89–95
Eur J Appl Physiol
123
... In a warm-up setting, several interventions are performed to increase the range of motion (ROM) of a joint. Stretching is widely used throughout all sports and different populations [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]; however, during the last decade, foam rolling has also become a popular warm-up technique to increase joint ROM [1,[10][11][12][13][14]. A recent meta-analysis reported that foam rolling is similarly as effective as stretching for increasing joint ROM acutely [12]. ...
... A recent meta-analysis reported that foam rolling is similarly as effective as stretching for increasing joint ROM acutely [12]. Furthermore, although an acute bout of stretching with a long duration (i.e., ≥ 60 s per muscle group) in isolation (with no dynamic warm-up activities) may transiently decrease strength and power performance [2,3,8,15], no subsequent performance deficits have been reported after an acute bout of foam rolling [16,17]. ...
... According to recent unilateral study designs with longerterm static stretching training interventions, an increase in joint ROM of the contralateral leg has been observed following 12 and 24 weeks of training [24,25]. Increased ROM of the stretched limb has been attributed to musculotendinous and neural responses [2,15]. Stretch-induced musculotendinous changes with the stretched limb can include an increase in muscle compliance [49,50], viscoelastic tissue changes [51], and muscle architectural adaptations [52,53]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background A single foam-rolling exercise can acutely increase the range of motion (ROM) of a joint. However, to date the adaptational effects of foam-rolling training over several weeks on joint ROM are not well understood. Objective The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effects of foam-rolling training interventions on joint ROM in healthy participants. Methods Results were assessed from 11 studies (either controlled trials [CT] or randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) and 46 effect sizes by applying a random-effect meta-analysis. Moreover, by applying a mixed-effect model, we performed subgroup analyses, which included comparisons of the intervention duration (≤ 4 weeks vs > 4 weeks), comparisons between muscles tested (e.g., hamstrings vs quadriceps vs triceps surae), and study designs (RCT vs CT). Results Our main analysis of 290 participants with a mean age of 23.9 (± 6.3 years) indicated a moderate effect of foam-rolling training on ROM increases in the experimental compared to the control group (ES = 0.823; Z = 3.237; 95% CI 0.325–1.322; p = 0.001; I ² = 72.76). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant differences between study designs ( p = 0.36). However, a significant difference was observed in the intervention duration in favor of interventions > 4 weeks compared to ≤ 4 weeks for ROM increases ( p = 0.049). Moreover, a further subgroup analysis showed significant differences between the muscles tested ( p = 0.047) in the eligible studies. Foam rolling increased joint ROM when applied to hamstrings and quadriceps, while no improvement in ankle dorsiflexion was observed when foam rolling was applied to triceps surae. Conclusion Longer duration interventions (> 4 weeks) are needed to induce ROM gains while there is evidence that responses are muscle or joint specific. Future research should examine possible mechanisms underpinning ROM increases following different foam-rolling protocols, to allow for informed recommendations in healthy and clinical populations.
... (Young and Behm, 2002). Static stretching is generally defined as extending a limb to the end of its ROM and holding it at that endpoint for 15-60 s (Behm and Chaouachi, 2011). Although studies are stating that the sympathetic system (SS) negatively affects anaerobic performance symptoms such as neuromuscular performance, speed, and vertical jump (Behm et al., 2011;Leone et al., 2012), it is seen as an effective method to increase joint ROM and performance by reducing muscle tension (Behm et al., 2016) and is often used before physical activities. ...
... Static stretching is generally defined as extending a limb to the end of its ROM and holding it at that endpoint for 15-60 s (Behm and Chaouachi, 2011). Although studies are stating that the sympathetic system (SS) negatively affects anaerobic performance symptoms such as neuromuscular performance, speed, and vertical jump (Behm et al., 2011;Leone et al., 2012), it is seen as an effective method to increase joint ROM and performance by reducing muscle tension (Behm et al., 2016) and is often used before physical activities. In addition, it has also been reported that static stretching can support muscle relaxation (Khattab et al., 2007). ...
Article
Full-text available
This study aimed to examine the acute effect of different durations of static stretching on heart rate variability (HRV) and, the anaerobic capacity of moderately physically active men during the Wingate anaerobic test (WAnT) at two different pre-exercise periods. Sixty-five healthy young male volunteers performed 10 s static stretching (STS) and 30 s static stretching (LTS) consisting of five static stretching exercises before WAnT on two non-consecutive days. HRV was measured pre (60 s), during (30 s) and post (60 s) WAnT after two different periods of static stretching. Anaerobic capacity variables were also measured during WAnT. STS and LTS had similar effects on other HRV parameters except for Mean-RR during the WAnT. There was no significant difference between the protocols applied in any of the anaerobic capacity test values. But there was a negatively significant relationship between the average power output of 30 s static stretching and pNN50. This result has shown that STS and LTS exercises have a similar effect during maximal exercise, so if the practitioners carry out static stretching exercises before maximal or high-intensity exercise, it is recommended to perform the STS exercise in terms of the economy of the exercise.
... The aim of stretching is to prepare the player to maximize his performance [1,2]. In generally, the stretching takes 5 to 10 minutes and involves aerobic activity with low intensity, such as running up (double quick), the stretching exercises (dynamic, static stretching and so on) and finally specific activities (exercises) of individual sport [3]. In generally, such activity is a recommended method of body preparation for endurance in training [4,5]. ...
... Increasing of range of motion (ROM) with training, which is focused on flexibility, can positively influence health of the whole movement apparatus [3]. Flexibility of a sportsman can be influenced by many factors and one of those factors is limitation of fascia. ...
Article
Full-text available
Introduction: The aim of the pilot study was an effect comparison of stretching between foam rolling and dynamic stretching on performance in motion tests by young volleyball players. Methods: 1. Experimental sample-ESFR (n=8, age = 13.4±0.5 years, height = 173.8±7.7 cm, weight = 59.8±7.1 kg) absolved 6 measurements of indicators of stretching with foam rolling during 6 weeks. 2. Experimental sample-ESDS (n=8, age = 13.4±0.5 years, height = 174.5±9.5 cm, weight = 59.4±11.0 kg) absolved dynamic stretching. We had determined the stretching effect between ESFR and ESDS by comparison of performance in tests: spike jump (SS), block jump (BS) E-test (ET), run to cones (RC), throw with 1 kg ball (H2), sit and reach test (SR) and sit-ups (SU). Results: The most important determination was that better level of stretching presented in performance and it was determined in RC in two examples with medium effect and in three examples with large effect in behalf of ESFR. By contrast, one example from ESDS in parameter PS had better level of stretching with medium effect and one example with medium effect in H2. In other parameters (BS, SS, SU and ET) were the differences only small or none between ESFR and ESDS. Conclusion: The results of the pilot study indicate that using of foam rolling and dynamic stretching can have different influence on the level of stretching and preparation of young volleyball players. These results must be verified on larger experimental sample.
... (1) Warm Up Before evaluating the measurements, all participants performed a general warm-up consisting of 5 min cycling (Biodex System 3 cycling ergometer) at 70 revolutions per minute (RPM) and 10 min of dynamic and static stretching for lower extremity muscles 35 23 . The tape was a waterproof KT (Ares, Korea, 5 cm wide and 0.05 cm thick). ...
Article
Full-text available
This study aimed to investigate how facilitatory and inhibitory KT of the Vastus Medialis affected the activation and the fatigue indices of VM, Vastus Lateralis (VL) and Rectus Femoris (RF) throughout a dynamic fatigue protocol. Seventeen collegiate athletes (Ten males, seven females, age: 24.76 ± 3.99 years, height: 1.73 ± 0.10 m, mass: 68.11 ± 8.54 kg) voluntarily participated in four dynamic fatigue protocol sessions in which no-tape (control condition), inhibitory, facilitatory and sham KTs were applied to the Vastus Medialis in each session. The protocol included 100 dynamic maximum concentric knee extensions at 90°/s using an isokinetic dynamometry device. The knee extensor muscle activities were recorded using wireless surface electromyography. The average muscle activity (Root mean square) during the first three repetitions and the repetitions number of 51-100, respectively, were used to calculate the before and after exhaustion muscle activity. Furthermore, median frequency slope during all repetitions was reported as the fatigue rate of muscles during different KT conditions and for the control condition (no-tape). The results showed neither muscle activation (significance for the main effect of KT; VM = 0.82, VL = 0.72, RF = 0.19) nor fatigue rate (significance for the main effect of KT; VM = 0.11 VL = 0.71, RF = 0.53) of the superficial knee extensor muscles were affected in all four conditions. These findings suggest that the direction of KT cannot reduce, enhance muscle activity or cause changes in muscle exhaustion. Future studies should investigate the generalizability of current findings to other populations. Abbreviations KT Kinesiotaping VL Vastus Lateralis RF Rectus Femoris EMG Electromyography MDF Median frequency VM Vastus Medialis RMS Root mean square STFT Short-time Fourier transform ANOVA Analysis of variance MVC Maximum voluntary contraction MVIC Maximum voluntary isometric contraction OPEN
... Static stretching (SS) is often used as a daily or warm-up exercise, which can enhance flexibility [9]. By contrast, decreases in muscle strength and sports performance have been reported after SS [10]. ...
Article
Full-text available
We compared the effects of three warm-up protocols (static stretching (SS), static stretching with vibration foam rolling (SS + VFR), and static stretching with nonvibration foam rolling (SS + FR) on the blood pressure and functional fitness performance in older women with prehypertension. Thirteen older women went through different protocols in separate visits, and their systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, brachial pulse pressure (BPP), functional fitness test (back scratch (BS), chair-sit-and-reach, 30 s arm curl (AC), 30 s chair stand, 2 min step, 8-foot up and go), and single-leg standing balance (SLB) were recorded. The SBP and BPP were significantly higher after SS and SS + VFR than after SS + FR. Both SS + FR and SS + VFR significantly improved the 2 min step, when compared with SS. Additionally, SS + VFR significantly improved the BS and AC performance. However, compared with SS and SS + FR, SS + VFR significantly reduced the SLB performance. Therefore, SS + FR may be a better warm-up protocol for older women in maintaining blood pressure. On the other hand, even though SS + VFR induced superior shoulder flexibility, aerobic endurance, and arm strength, it could impair balance.
... Some experts state that static stretching immediately before a competition positively affects the performance and the functional abilities of the athletes (Power, Behm, Cahill, Carroll, & Young, 2004). Static stretching may pro-vide benefits in some cases such as slower velocity eccentric contractions, and contractions of more prolonged duration or stretch-shortening cycle (Behm & Chaouachi, 2011). At the same time, there are many studies indicated a negative influence of static stretching on the explosive strength (Brandenburg, 2006;Knudson, Bennett, Corn, Leick, & Smith, 2001;Taylor, Sheppard, Lee, & Plummer, 2009;Unick, Kieffer, Cheesman, & Feeney, 2005;Young & Behm, 2003). ...
Research
Full-text available
Traditional warm-up in sport contents the stretching. The stretching effects are a frequent subject of research in physical education, but the results are conflicting. The aim of current study is to check how acute stretching (static and dynamic) influences to the strength of hamstring and quadriceps, as well as their mutual ratio. These variables were monitored at different velocities of contraction (60 and 240˚/s). On the sample of 10 students in good health, modern isokinetic diagnostics (4000 Hz the sampling rate) was applied. Higher strength values in both muscle groups were measured during slow contraction, while HRQ values were higher during fast contractions. The results show that the muscle strength of hamstring and quadriceps can be increased by applying acute stretching (p < 0.05), but at the same time the HQR does not change significantly (p > 0.05). The same conclusions were drawn for both low and high contraction velocities.
... Editor: Ferman Konukman Teaching Core Training Exercises for Children During COVID-19 Bijen Filiz , Ferman Konukman and Ertan Tufekcioglu E xercises performed at school age have a significant effect on the development of children (Burns et al., 2017;Ward et al., 2017). Research indicates that 10 min of core training exercise including the lower and upper extremities before the main activity increases the performance in children in physical education classes or in a planned study (Behm & Chaouachi, 2011). Core strength and muscle endurance are important for children to perform all of the activities they need to do daily, such as carrying a school bag, walking, running, catching, doing fine motor tasks and even sitting still at school. ...
Article
Full-text available
Due to COVID 19, children have not been able to go to school and move enough since March 2020. In this process, the measures taken such as the prolongation of the stay at home, social isolation and quarantine caused children to delay their physical activities and stay away from these activities (Filiz, Konukman, Karaca & Tüfekçioğlu, 2021). As a result, this may have caused weakness in the musculoskeletal system of the children. Therefore, children can be given simple and applicable core exercises to increase their trunk-muscle endurance, improve mobility and flexibility, in online education at home or in physical education classes at school. These exercise drills will be beneficial for protecting children's health, preventing injuries and strengthening the core. Moreover, many of these drills do not require any extra equipment. In conclusion, the purpose of this article is to provide practical ideas about how to apply core training exercises for children at home.
... Indeed, many previous studies have shown that a single SS intervention can induce acute increases in range of motion (ROM) (Konrad et al., 2017;Nakamura et al., 2019;Sato et al., 2020). On the other hand, SS interventions of more than 45-60 s are also well known to cause a decrease in muscle strength and explosive performance, which is called "stretch-induced force deficit" (Behm and Chaouachi, 2011;Simic et al., 2013;Behm et al., 2016;Behm et al., 2021). ...
Article
Full-text available
Previous studies have shown that longer-duration static stretching (SS) interventions can cause a decrease in muscle strength, especially explosive muscle strength. Furthermore, force steadiness is an important aspect of muscle force control, which should also be considered. However, the time course of the changes in these variables after an SS intervention remains unclear. Nevertheless, this information is essential for athletes and coaches to establish optimal warm-up routines. The aim of this study was to investigate the time course of changes in knee flexion range of motion (ROM), maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC), rate of force development (RFD), and force steadiness (at 5 and 20% of MVIC) after three 60-s SS interventions. Study participants were sedentary healthy adult volunteers (n = 20) who performed three 60-s SS interventions of the knee extensors, where these variables were measured before and after SS intervention at three different periods, i.e., immediately after, 10 min, and 20 min the SS intervention (crossover design). The results showed an increase in ROM at all time points (d = 0.86-1.01). MVIC was decreased immediately after the SS intervention (d = −0.30), but MVIC showed a recovery trend for both 10 min (d = −0.17) and 20 min (d = −0.20) after the SS intervention. However, there were significant impairments in RFD at 100 m (p = 0.014, F = 6.37, η p 2 = 0.101) and 200 m (p < 0.01, F = 28.0, η p 2 = 0.33) up to 20 min after the SS intervention. Similarly, there were significant impairments in force steadiness of 5% (p < 0.01, F = 16.2, η p 2 = 0.221) and 20% MVIC (p < 0.01, F = 16.0, η p 2 = 0.219) at 20 min after the SS intervention. Therefore, it is concluded that three 60-s SS interventions could increase knee flexion ROM but impair explosive muscle strength and muscle control function until 20 min after the SS intervention.
Article
BACKGROUND: Dynamic stretching (DS) and ballistic stretching (BS) are similar stretching methods, but the differences between them are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To examine the immediate effects of unilateral hamstring DS and BS on straight leg raise (SLR), knee flexion range of motion (KF-ROM), and KF and knee extension maximal isokinetic peak torque (KF-MIPT and KE-MIPT) of the bilateral limbs. METHODS: Twelve healthy adult men performed four sets of 2 min each of non-stretching, DS, or BS of the right lower extremity. Bilateral SLR, KF-ROM, KF-MIPT, and KE-MIPT were measured pre- and post-intervention; a three-way (intervention × limb × time) repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used. RESULTS: The SLR of the stretched limb (p< 0.01) was higher with DS than that pre-intervention. SLR (p< 0.01) and KF-ROM (p< 0.05) of the stretched limb and SLR (p< 0.05) and KF-ROM (p< 0.05) of the contralateral limb were higher with BS than those pre-intervention. There was no significant main effect or interaction between KF-MIPT and KE-MIPT. CONCLUSION: DS and BS had slightly different effects on ROM, and neither affected muscle strength; thus, combining the techniques during warm-up might be helpful.
Chapter
Dieser Beitrag zeigt auf, wie die heute weltweit populärste Sportart Fußball sich historisch entwickelt hat und wie seine Organisationsstruktur aufgebaut ist. Um den Charakter des Spiels und dessen Eigenschaften zu verstehen, werden zunächst die Spielidee und die konstitutiven Regeln beschrieben. Im Weiteren werden die technischen, taktischen und konditionell-koordinativen Leistungsfaktoren für ein erfolgreiches Fußballspielen beleuchtet. Abschließend werden didaktische Konzepte zur Vermittlung des Spiels in Schule und Verein vorgestellt. Dieser Beitrag ist Teil der Sektion Sportarten und Bewegungsfelder, herausgegeben vom Teilherausgeber Arne Güllich, innerhalb des Handbuchs Sport und Sportwissenschaft, herausgegeben von Arne Güllich und Michael Krüger.
Article
Full-text available
Despite limited scientific evidence supporting their effectiveness, warm-up routines prior to exercise are a well-accepted practice. The majority of the effects of warm up have been attributed to temperature-related mechanisms (e.g. decreased stiffness, increased nerve-conduction rate, altered force-velocity relationship, increased anaerobic energy provision and increased thermoregulatory strain), although non-temperature-related mechanisms have also been proposed (e.g. effects of acidaemia, elevation of baseline oxygen consumption (V̇O2) and increased postactivation potentiation). It has also been hypothesised that warm up may have a number of psychological effects (e.g. increased preparedness). Warm-up techniques can be broadly classified into two major categories: passive warm up or active warm up. Passive warm up involves raising muscle or core temperature by some external means, while active warm up utilises exercise. Passive heating allows one to obtain the increase in muscle or core temperature achieved by active warm up without depleting energy substrates. Passive warm up, although not practical for most athletes, also allows one to test the hypothesis that many of the performance changes associated with active warm up can be largely attributed to temperature-related mechanisms.
Article
Full-text available
Previous studies have demonstrated that an acute bout of static stretching may cause significant performance impairments. However, there are no studies investigating the effect of prolonged stretch training on stretch-induced decrements. It was hypothesized that individuals exhibiting a greater range of motion (ROM) in the correlation study or those who attained a greater ROM with flexibility training would experience less stretch-induced deficits. A correlation study had 18 participants (25 ± 8.3 years, 1.68 ± 0.93 m, 73.5 ± 14.4 kg) stretch their quadriceps, hamstrings and plantar flexors three times each for 30 s with 30 s recovery. Subjects were tested pre- and post-stretch for ROM, knee extension maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) force and drop jump measures. A separate training study with 12 subjects (21.9 ± 2.1 years, 1.77 ± 0.11 m 79.8 ± 12.4 kg) involved a four-week, five-days per week, flexibility training programme that involved stretching of the quadriceps, hamstrings and plantar flexors. Pre- and post-training testing included ROM as well as knee extension and flexion MVIC, drop and countermovement jump measures conducted before and after an acute bout of stretching. An acute bout of stretching incurred significant impairments for knee extension (-6.1% to -8.2%; p < 0.05) and flexion (-6.6% to -10.7%; p < 0.05) MVIC, drop jump contact time (5.4% to 7.4%; p < 0.01) and countermovement jump height (-5.5% to -5.7%; p < 0.01). The correlation study showed no significant relationship between ROM and stretch-induced deficits. There was also no significant effect of flexibility training on the stretch-induced decrements. It is probable that because the stretches were held to the point of discomfort with all testing, the relative stress on the muscle was similar resulting in similar impairments irrespective of the ROM or tolerance to stretching of the muscle.
Article
Full-text available
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 6 8.2 cm; 64.9 6 5.9 kg; 23.1 6 3.6 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 6 36.1 to 184.6 6 28.9 kg), but it was unaffected by ballistic stretching (208.4 6 34.8 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.
Article
Full-text available
This is a longitudinal study of the epidemiology of training associated injuries conducted among 303 men in U.S. Army Infantry One Station Unit Training (OSUT) at Fort Benning, Georgia. The goals of this study include: A detailed anthropometric and historic evaluation of the population; a detailed description of the types of morbidity occurring during training; measures of the incidence of injuries; and identification and quantification of risk factors for injury. The subjects were assessed for potential risk factors for injuries via questionnaire and physical measures prior to the onset of training. All injuries occurring during 13 weeks of OSUT were identified. Of the 303 subjects entered into the study, 139 (45.9%) suffered at least one injury resulting in a sick- call visit. These injuries resulted in 969 days of lost or modified training. One hundred twelve (37%) experienced at least one musculoskeletal injury to the lower back or lower extremities. One hundred seventy two separate musculoskeletal injuries were experienced at 147 sites. Among the Army trainees, the sites and types of injury occurrence is generally similar in rank order to that reported in other studies, both civilian and military. This indicates that injuries being experienced among military trainees are of the same nature of those being experienced by other running populations. Keywords: Physical training, Training injuries, Army infantry training, Overuse injuries, Physical fitness.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of dynamic activity and dynamic activity/static stretching of the gastrocnemius muscle on vertical jump (VJ) performance. Additionally, muscle activity was recorded using electromyogra-phy. Thirteen healthy adults (7 men and 6 women) with a mean age of 26 6 4 years served as subjects. The average jump height and muscle activity from 3 separate maximal VJ attempts were performed at the start of each session to be used as baseline measures using the Kistler force plate and the Noraxon telemetry EMG unit. Subjects then performed 1 of 2 protocols: dynamic activity only or dynamic activity with static stretching. Each protocol was followed by 3 maximal VJ trials. Average VJ height was analyzed using a 2 (time: pre, post) 3 2 (prejump protocol: dynamic activity, dynamic activity + stretching) analysis of variance with repeated measures on both factors. A paired-samples t-test was used to compare the intraday difference scores for EMG activity between the 2 conditions. Jump height was not influenced by the interaction of pre-post and protocol (p = 0.0146. There was no difference for the main effects of time (p = 0.274) and pre-jump protocol (p = 0.595). Gastrocnemius muscle activity was likewise not different for the 2 prejump protocols (p = 0.413). The results from this study imply that the use of static stretching in combination with dynamic activity of the gastrocnemius muscle does not appear to have an adverse affect on VJ height performance. The practical importance concerns the warm-up routine that coaches and athletes employ; that is, they may want to consider including an aerobic component when statically stretching the gastrocne-mius immediately prior to a vertical jumping event.
Article
Although warm-up and stretching exercises are routinely performed by gymnasts, it is suggested that stretching immediately prior to an activity might affect negatively the athletic performance. The focus of this investigation was on the acute effect of a protocol, including warm-up and static and dynamic stretching exercises, on speed during vaulting in gymnastics. Eleven boys were asked to perform three different protocols consisting of warm-up, warm-up and static stretching and warm-up and dynamic stretching, on three nonconsecutive days. Each protocol was followed by a "handspring" vault. One-way analysis of variance for repeated-measures showed a significant difference in gymnasts' speed, following the different protocols. Tukey's post hoc analysis revealed that gymnasts mean speed during the run of vault was significantly decreased after the application of the static stretching protocol. The findings of the present study indicate the inhibitory role of an acute static stretching in running speed in young gymnasts.
Article
Warm-up and stretching exercises constitute an essential part of physical preparation before any athletic event. The aim of this study was to examine the acute effect of static and dynamic stretching exercises on maximal isokinetic torque of knee extensor and flexor muscles. Thirty-two (n=32) physical education students aged 19-22 years were asked to perform three different protocols consisting of A) warm-up, B) warm-up and static stretching and C) warm-up and dynamic stretching exercises, on three non-consecutive days. Each treatment was followed by measurements of knee extensor and flexor muscles maximal concentric torque on an isokinetic dynamometer at 60 and 180°/s. ANOVA for repeated-measures revealed significant differences in maximal torque following the different protocols. Tukey's post hoc tests showed a reduced torque for knee extensor p < 0.01) and knee flexor muscles (p < 0.01) at both velocities when static stretching exercises preceded the test. These findings indicate the negative influence of the static stretching exercises on maximal isokinetic torque production, while dynamic stretching approach does not seem to have any inhibitory effect.
Article
Recent research demonstrates that stretching prior to physical activity decreases performance. However, these stretching bouts are not representative of athletes during warm up procedures, as they are usually time consuming. The aim of the present study was to examine whether the duration of acute static stretching is responsible for losses in isokinetic peak torque production. Fourteen young, male, talented, semiprofessional soccer players, from different Greek first national division teams, with an average age of 18.5±0.6 years, height of 177.6±4.3 cm, body mass of 70.8±3.5 kg and 8.4±0.5 years of training, were randomly selected to take part in the study. All participants performed three static stretching protocols, in nonconsecutive training session. The first stretching protocol was performed once for 30 s (volume 30), the second 10 times for 30 s (volume 300) and the third 16 times for 30 s (volume 480). Range of motion (ROM) was determined during knee flexion, using a goniometer. The peak torque of the dominant leg extensors was measured on a Cybex NORM dynamometer at angular velocities of 60, 90, 150, 210 and 270 °·s−1. The results of the statistical analysis indicated that peak torque remained unchanged following the static stretching for 30 s in all angular velocities, while it decreased (P<0.01 to P<0.001) following the static stretching for 5 or 8 min in all angular velocities. The findings suggest that a single stretch (training volume 30 s) does not produce decreases in peak torque compared to multiple stretches (training volume 480 s).
Article
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of static stretching duration, and multiple stretches of different duration, on the lower-extremity range of motion (ROM), while controlling the total amount of the time spent in a stretching session, in adolescent soccer players. Fifteen adolescent soccer players with average age of 16.0±0.5 years, height of 176.0±4.0 cm, body mass of 68.6±3.3 kg and years of training of 5.0±0.5 participated in the study. Subjects performed three static stretching protocols each lasting for 30 s, in separate training sessions. The first stretching protocol was performed once for 30 s (1×30 s), the second twice for 15 s (2×15 s) and the third 6 times for 5 s (6×5 s). The first protocol comprised the control treatment while the two others, the experimental treatment. ROM was determined during hip flexion, extension and abduction, knee flexion and ankle dorsiflexion for right and left side of the body, using a flexometer and a goniometer. A mixed within—and between—subjects analysis of variance with repeated measures revealed similar ROM values for both sides of all measured joints. No significant differences were found between the stretching protocols. Further statistical analysis of the data indicated significant (P<0.01P<0.01 to P<0.001P<0.001) improvements after the stretching exercises in all flexibility protocols. The findings suggests that one 30-s static stretch of the lower-extremity muscles produced the same effect as two 15-s or six 5-s stretches during a flexibility-training session involving adolescent soccer players.