Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2005, 19(2), 421–426
q 2005 National Strength & Conditioning Association
EFFECT OF POTENTIATION AND STRETCHING ON
MAXIMAL FORCE, RATE OF FORCE DEVELOPMENT,
AND RANGE OF MOTION
DAVID M. BAZETT-JONES,1 JASON B. WINCHESTER,1
Musculoskeletal Research Center, Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of Wisconsin—La Crosse,
1
La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601; 2Neuromuscular Laboratory, Department of Health, Leisure and Exercise Science,
Appalachian State University, Boone, NC 28607.
ABSTRACT. Bazett-Jones, D.M., J.B. Winchester, and J.M.
McBride. Effect of potentiation and stretching on maximal force,
rate of force development, and range of motion. J. Strength Cond.
Res. 19(2):421–426. 2005.—The purpose of this investigation was
to compare the effects of stretching vs. potentiation on subse-
quent maximal force and rate of force development capabilities
of subjects in an isometric squat. Ten male collegiate athletes
participated as subjects in this study. Subjects were tested dur-
ing 3 separate sessions that involved joint range of motion
(ROM) measurements of the lower body and isometric squat tri-
als on a force plate to determine peak force (PF) and rate of force
development (RFD) values. One testing session was preceded by
10 minutes of quiet sitting (C), 1 by a 30-minute lower-body
stretching protocol (S), and 1 by 3 sets of a leg press exercise
using 90% of the subjects’ previously determined 1 repetition
maximum (P). Three repetitions were performed for each set of
the leg press, with a 3-minute rest period between each set. PF
during the isometric squat was not significantly different follow-
ing any of the 3 conditions (C: 100.0 6 0.0%, S: 101.2 6 6.5%,
P: 98.6 6 6.2%). However, RFD was significantly lower in P (87.5
6 12.8%) compared with both C (100.0 6 0.0%) and S (102.6 6
18.5%). Significant improvement in ROM occurred only follow-
ing P. It appears the potentiation protocol used in the current
investigation may actually have had fatiguing effects instead of
potentiating effects, but it did result in significant increases in
ROM.
KEY WORDS. one repetition maximum, isometric squat, athletic
performance, flexibility, strength
INTRODUCTION
ctive warm-up, passive warm-up, and stretch-
A ing are common procedures performed by in-
dividuals prior to engaging in physical activ-
ity. The supposed goal of active warm-up is to
optimize performance and reduce the inci-
dence of injury through increased muscle temperature,
muscle compliance, and efficiency of physiological re-
sponses (23, 24, 27). Many studies have looked at the ef-
fect of stretching on performance and have reported con-
founding results. A number of studies have concluded
that stretching enhances performance (34) and prevents
injuries (26, 28). In contrast, other studies have found no
significant correlation between stretching and injury re-
duction (8, 19, 20). Recently, stretching has come under
question when performed just prior to strength or power
activities because of the negative influence on muscle
force output (2, 3, 5, 13, 18, 35, 37).
There is little question that, acutely, stretching in-
creases range of motion (ROM) (32) and increases muscle
temperature. However, stretching has also been shown to
AND JEFFREY M. MCBRIDE2
decrease maximal force output and muscle activity (as
measured by electromyogram [EMG]) (2, 17). Decreased
drop-jump performance (36) and vertical jump perfor-
mance (4) after stretching have been observed as well.
Changes in ROM with stretching have been attributed to
possible changes in the viscoelastic properties of the mus-
cle (15, 33), decreased muscle activity (as measured by
EMG), and a psychological variable identified as ‘‘stretch
tolerance’’ (14). The commonly observed decrease in mus-
cle force output could be a result of decreased motoneuron
excitability (7, 11) resulting in decreased motor unit ac-
tivation, or a result of an attenuation of the muscle force–
generating capacity itself (7). In an investigation in 2000,
Fowles et al. (7) attributed the decrease in force output
as a result of stretching to either decreased motor unit
activation or muscle force–generating capacity. Immedi-
ately after stretching, the largest contributor to muscle
force reduction was attributed to decreased motor unit
activation. Sixty minutes after stretching, the reduction
in force was attributed to a decrease in the muscle force–
generating capacity. This observed decrease in force out-
put is in contrast to the results of using potentiation as
warm-up, which has been shown to enhance muscle force
output.
Another form of warm-up, known as potentiation or
postactivation potentiation, is receiving an increased
amount of attention. The exact protocol of exercise for in-
ducing potentiation is unknown, but recent studies have
used half-squats with varying loads (9), isometric maxi-
mal voluntary contractions of 5-second duration (12), elec-
trical muscle stimulation (3, 31), and plyometrics (16).
Sale (25) defined potentiation as an increase in muscle
twitch and low-frequency tetanic force after a ‘‘condition-
ing’’ contractile activity. He went on to classify these con-
ditioning activities, including a series of evoked twitches,
an evoked tetanic contraction, and a sustained maximal
voluntary contraction (MVC). Although the mechanisms
of potentiation have been studied in the past, recent in-
terest has been given to its ergogenic effects on athletic
performance, such as in the bench press and vertical
jump (12, 37, 38).
The exact mechanism of potentiation is unclear but
has been attributed to either phosphorylation of myosin
regulatory light chains (25, 29) or increased motoneuron
excitability, as assessed by Hoffmann reflex measure-
ments (31). General observations with potentiation pro-
tocols, as described with stretching, are increased ROM
(22) and increased muscle temperature. However, force
421
422 BAZETT-JONES, WINCHESTER, AND MCBRIDE
output of the muscle with potentiation typically increases
as opposed to the observed decrease with stretching. At
the single-muscle-fiber level, supramaximal electrical
stimulus results in increased force output capabilities of
the muscle fiber (3). A whole-muscle, in vivo investigation
reported a significant 8% increase in force rise rate and
a decrease of 2% in EMG latencies (22). Another study on
explosive performance observed a 2.9% increase in verti-
cal jump height (9), and a study on strength observed a
significant increase in 1 repetition maximum (1RM)
strength (16), all following various protocols of potentia-
tion.
The assessment of various warm-up procedures
(stretching vs. potentiation) with respect to their effect on
muscle force and ROM changes within a single experi-
ment has not been performed. It is the purpose of this
investigation to examine both a stretching and a poten-
tiation protocol to determine their effects on the previ-
ously mentioned dependent variables. Most data current-
ly available concerning the effect of stretching or poten-
tiation protocols on muscle performance have been col-
lected from isolated systems (i.e., a single muscle fiber or
single muscle group). This study investigated these vari-
ables by examining whole-body structural movements
(squat, leg press, lower-body stretching) to determine if
the potentially inhibitory effects of stretching or the ex-
citatory effects of potentiation could be observed.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
The primary research hypothesis of this investigation was
that a stretching (S) protocol would reduce peak force
(PF) and rate of force development (RFD) in an isometric
squat, and that a potentiation (P) protocol would increase
performance in these variables. Each subject was exposed
to 2 treatment protocols (stretching vs. potentiation) and
acted as his own control group. A rest period of at least
2 days was given between testing sessions to allow ade-
quate recovery time. The stretching protocol consisted of
4 separate stretching activities intended to stretch all the
major muscle groups of the lower body. The potentiation
protocol consisted of 3 sets of 3 repetitions in the leg press
using 90% of the subject’s 1RM. The isometric squat test
involved pushing against an immovable bar at a 908 knee
and hip angle while the subjects were standing on a force
plate. The force-time curve generated from the subject for
each trial was used for analysis.
Subjects
Ten healthy male NCAA Division III collegiate track and
field athletes (sprints, jumps, pole vault) and football ath-
letes specializing in various positions (age 20.6 6 1.5
years, height 181 6 4 cm, weight 83.4 6 14.1 kg, leg press
1RM 5 376.6 6 81.3 kg, relative strength level in leg
press to body weight 5 4.51) participated as subjects in
this study. All subjects indicated they had no history of
recent musculoskeletal injury. Because the participants
were athletes, they were instructed to continue their cur-
rent exercise regimen (strength training). Two days of in-
activity were requested of each subject before testing be-
gan. Prior to performing the treatment protocols, each
subject underwent a familiarization session, performing
a 1RM on the leg press. Subjects were selected to proceed
in a random order through the 3 treatment protocols, S,
P, and control (C). Three minutes after each treatment,
subjects were tested using an isometric MVC in a squat-
ting position while standing on a force plate. Before any
testing began, all subjects signed an informed consent
form approved by the Institutional Review Board of the
University of Wisconsin—La Crosse.
ROM Measurements
During the first session, subjects were familiarized with
the procedures that would take place during the following
sessions. Upon arrival, each subject’s ROM measure-
ments were taken. This was done through 4 tests: active
straight-leg hamstring (ASLH), active bent-leg hamstring
(ABLH), active prone quadriceps (APQ), and gravity hip
flexor (GHF). All tests were completed on the left leg first,
followed by the right leg. Measurements were taken with
a manual goniometer. The ASLH test was completed by
having the supine subject raise his leg straight toward
his head while keeping his contralateral leg flat on the
ground. This measurement was controlled by 3 anatomi-
cal landmarks: the axilla, the greater trochanter, and the
lateral condyle.
The ABLH test was completed by having the examiner
place and hold the supine subject’s hip at 908, and in-
structing the subject to extend his knee through contrac-
tion of the quadriceps. The APQ test was completed by
having the subject contract his hamstring, pulling his
heel toward his gluteal muscles. Subjects were instructed
to keep the anterior aspect of their hips as close to the
ground as possible for this test. These measurements of
the ABLH and APQ were controlled by 3 anatomical land-
marks: the greater trochanter, the lateral condyle, and
the lateral malleolus. The GHF test was the only nonac-
tive ROM measurement. In this test, the subject lay on a
table with the superior portion of his gluteal muscles on
the edge of the table. The subject was then asked to grab
his knee and bring it as close to his chest as possible and
relax the opposite leg. Measurements were controlled by
the same procedures as in the ASLH test. Active ROM
measurements were used to reduce tester error. These
protocols were used to measure ROM immediately prior
to the treatments and immediately following the perfor-
mance testing.
1 RM Testing
For the 1RM testing protocol, each subject was asked to
estimate his 1RM on a leg press (Nebula, Versailles, OH).
Subjects used their estimated 1RM (272.7 6 60.2 kg) as
a guideline for warm-up. Subjects completed 10 repeti-
tions at 50%, 6 repetitions at 70%, and 3 repetitions at
90% of their estimated 1RM. A repetition was considered
full when the subject lowered the weight in a controlled
fashion down to a position just short of causing posterior
pelvic tilt. After the warm-up, the subject’s actual 1RM
(376.6 6 81.3 kg) was assessed in 3 to 5 sets by complet-
ing a single repetition of a given weight. Each set was
separated by a 3-minute rest period to allow recovery.
This 1RM weight was used to estimate the potentiation
weight. After the completion of the 1RM, each subject was
given 2 unmeasured trials of the performance testing (iso-
metric MVC squat). This was done to familiarize each
subject with the testing protocol.

Treatment Protocols
The S protocol included 4 stretches, consisting of straight-
leg hamstring (SLH), gluteus medius (GM), prone quad-
riceps (PQ), and hip flexor (HF). For the SLH stretch, the
examiner moved the subject’s leg toward the subject’s
head while maintaining a straight knee and a neutral foot
position. For the GM stretch, the subject’s hip was flexed,
externally rotated, and adducted. The subject’s foot was
then placed across the opposite leg on the floor and pas-
sively moved toward the head of the subject. The subject’s
leg was then further adducted in the current position. For
the PQ stretch, the subject’s lower leg was moved toward
his gluteal muscles while a downward pressure was ap-
plied to the posterior hip in order to counteract any sub-
sequent hip flexion. For the HF stretch, the subjects as-
sumed the same position as in the GHF test. A downward
pressure was applied to the superior portion of the knee
while the lower leg was kept perpendicular to the floor.
The examiner passively stretched the subject’s leg, mov-
ing the limb until the subject stated that he had reached
the point just before where the stretch would become
painful. Each stretch was held in place by the examiner
for 30 seconds, followed by a rest time of 20 seconds (total
time 23.3 6 1.8 minutes). The stretch time of 30 seconds
was chosen because of its proposed ability to adequately
increase flexibility (1). This was repeated 3 times for each
limb.
The P protocol consisted of 3 sets of 3 repetitions at
90% of the subject’s 1RM on the same leg press that had
been used for the 1RM (potentiation weight 338.8 6 73.1
kg). Each set was separated by a 3-minute rest period.
The C protocol consisted of 10 minutes of sitting quietly
with the knees and hips in a relaxed, 908 position. The
performance test was performed immediately after the
condition treatment was completed (approximately 1 mi-
nute).
Isometric Squat Testing
Following each treatment, subjects completed 6 isometric
MVCs (3 PF and 3 RFD) in a random fashion, with a 3-
minute rest between each trial. Subjects were placed in a
Smith squat rack where they were set at a fixed, approx-
imately 908 hip and knee position. Force data were col-
lected from both feet of the subject at 600 Hz using an
Advanced Medical Technology Inc. (AMTI) model OR5-5
Biomechanics Platform (Watertown, MA). Analog data
were converted to digital data (12-bit analog-to-digital
card) and stored on hard disk for later analysis. For the
PF testing, the subjects were asked to start off pushing
against the bar slowly, gradually increasing force, and
exerting maximal force at the end of the 5-second trial.
For the RFD testing, the subjects were instructed to start
off by pushing as fast and hard as possible, and to main-
tain that force for the 5-second trial. PF values were cal-
culated from the peak value achieved during 1 of the 3
PF MVC trials (Figure 1). RFD values were calculated as
an average RFD during the first significant rise and pla-
teau of the force-time curve during 1 of the RFD MVC
trials (Figure 1).
Statistical Analyses
A general linear model with repeated measures model
was used to determine whether there were significant dif-
ferences in PF and RFD between the treatment groups.
EFFECT OF POTENTIATION AND STRETCHING 423
FIGURE 1. Representative curves of peak force (PF) maximal
voluntary contraction (MVC) trials and rate of force develop-
ment (RFD) MVC trials.
TABLE 1. Peak force (PF) and rate of force development (RFD)
values (mean 6 SD)†
Treatment PF (N) RFD (N/s)
Control 2,646 6 471 4,931 6 1,283
Stretching 2,670 6 468 4,976 6 1,127
Potentiation 2,605 6 465 4,254 6 1,052*
* Significant difference from control at p # 0.05.
† N 5 newtons; SD 5 standard deviation.
Each C performance was considered to be 100% of the
individual subject’s maximal performance. Performances
from the treatment groups were converted to percentages
of the control. The null hypothesis was that the treat-
ments would have no effect on PF and RFD. For compar-
ison of percentage change in selected variables, a paired
sample t-test was performed, subtracting the pretreat-
ment measurement from the posttreatment measure-
ment. In all analyses, statistical significance was defined
as p # 0.05. Results are summarized as means 6 stan-
dard deviations. All statistical calculations were per-
formed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS), version 11.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago,
IL).
RESULTS
There was no significant difference in PF (C mean 100.0
6 0.0%, S mean 101.2 6 6.5%, P mean 98.6 6 6.2%; see
Table 1 and Figure 2) between conditions (F 5 0.779, p
5 0.474). RFD in P (C: 100.0 6 0.0%, S: 102.6 6 18.5%,
P: 87.5 6 12.8%; see Table 1 and Figure 3) was signifi-
cantly lower (F 5 3.865, p 5 0.040) than in C. There was
no significant difference between S and P conditions for
RFD (p 5 0.187). Significant improvements in ROM were
seen only in the P condition, with none found in S. Sig-
nificant increases (5.9 6 7.38 and 3.2 6 4.48, respectively;
see Table 2) in ROM were observed in the left leg of the
ABLH P condition (t 5 22.544, p 5 0.032) and the right
leg of the GHF P condition (t 5 22.304, p 5 0.047).
DISCUSSION
The main finding in this investigation was that the P con-
dition seemed to have a fatiguing effect instead of a po-
tentiating, performance-enhancing effect. These findings
were somewhat unexpected, because they contradict some
424 BAZETT-JONES, WINCHESTER, AND MCBRIDE

FIGURE 4. Theoretical model of interaction between fatigue

and potentiation and subsequent effect on performance (modi-
FIGURE 2. Peak force for each treatment group shown as a fied from Sale [25]).
percentage of the control group.

imal performance. Sale (25) highlighted this dilemma in

FIGURE 3. Rate of force development for each treatment
group shown as a percentage of the control group. *Significant
difference from control at p # 0.05.
prior research (5, 10, 12, 17, 37, 38). It is possible that
the volume-intensity combination of the potentiation pro-
tocol used in this investigation was too severe and re-
quires either less volume, less intensity, or more rest be-
tween the potentiation protocol and the attempt at max-
a recent review article by describing 2 factors: (a) more
intense and prolonged potentiation protocols may activate
potentiation mechanisms more effectively but create
greater fatigue, and (b) the longer the rest period after
the potentiation, the greater the decrease in fatigue, but
also the greater the decrease in potentiation. Figure 4
shows a representation of the amount of fatigue and po-
tentiation that might be expected from various potentia-
tion protocols compared in this current investigation.
This also might explain the contradictory findings of pre-
vious studies of potentiation protocols.
Several studies have used various protocols of poten-
tiation and have reported various results of performance
improvement in maximal force or explosive force. Gour-
goulis et al. (9) indicated a 2.9% improvement in jump
height after 5 sets of half-squats, with loads ranging from
20% to 90% of 1RM strength. In addition, Young and El-
liot (37) observed a 2.8% increase in jump height after 1
set of half-squats with a 5-repetition-maximum load.
However, Radcliffe and Radcliffe (21) reported no signif-
icant difference in vertical jump height with 4 sets of
squats at 75–85% of a 4-repetition-maximum load. Mas-
amoto et al. (16) reported increased 1RM strength in the
squat after performing plyometrics. However, Radcliffe
and Radcliffe (21) observed no significant change in jump
height after plyometrics. Two factors are the most likely
reasons for this contradiction. First, the type of potenti-
ation protocol in each study varies slightly, representing
a different volume-intensity combination and most likely

TABLE 2. Range of motion (ROM) changes (mean 6 SD) shown as differences (pretest value 2 posttest value) in degrees.†
ASLH ABLH APQ GHF
Treatment Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right
Control 2.5 6 7.6 2.1 6 6.8 20.6 6 4.1 21.5 6 6.3 0.4 6 3.4 20.4 6 4.1 21.4 6 5.6 2.8 6 3.7*
Stretching 2.6 6 8.2 0.2 6 5.8 21.0 6 7.1 0.1 6 8.5 0.8 6 4.3 0.0 6 3.1 1.9 6 4.3 4.0 6 3.6*
Potentiation 0.5 6 5.8 0.1 6 6.9 25.8 6 7.3* 22.7 6 7.6 0.5 6 3.3 2.0 6 4.2 20.8 6 6.2 23.2 6 4.4*
* Significant at p ,0.05.
† SD 5 standard deviation; ASLH 5 active straight-leg hamstring; ABLH 5 active bent-leg hamstring; APQ 5 active prone
quadriceps; GHF 5 gravity hip flexor.

instigating different levels of potentiation and fatigue.
Second, the time frame of the performance measurement
varies in each investigation. Concerning the current in-
vestigation, either no potentiation was instigated or the
potentiation was masked by the amount of fatigue, and
thus the overall performance did not improve (Figure 4).
There are many factors, including neurologic and meta-
bolic, that contribute to fatigue. Although none of these
mechanisms was measured during the present study, a
few reasons for the fatiguing effect may be inferred. One
possibility might be that the rest period between sets was
not long enough to allow the central nervous system to
recover properly (24). Although a 3-minute rest period
was allowed, other research of this type has shown that
4–5 minutes might be more beneficial for high-intensity
exercises (12, 38). Another possible mechanism of fatigue
may have been decreased energy metabolism due to lactic
acid build-up during high-intensity activities (24). If fa-
tigue was a factor in this study, the volume of the P pro-
tocol might have induced it.
The issue of stretching and its effect on performance
was also addressed in the current investigation. However,
the impact, either positive or negative, of stretching on
performance was negligible. In 1998, Kokkonen et al. (13)
looked at the effects of static stretching on knee flexor
and extensor strength. They found that both knee flexion
and extension strength were reduced following the
stretching protocol when compared to the control. The re-
searchers attributed this strength loss to a reduction in
stiffness of the musculotendinous unit (MTU). Further-
more, Taylor et al. (30) showed an increased muscle
length with stretching, which may negatively affect force
development by placing the contractile components at a
less than desirable point on the force-length curve. Corn-
well et al. (5) compared countermovement and static ver-
tical jumps after an acute bout of static stretching (3
times for 30 seconds on the gastrocnemius and soleus).
They found that the static stretching did not affect the
static jump but significantly decreased jump height in the
countermovement jump. They also found a decreased ac-
tive stiffness of the MTU. It may be that the S protocol
in the present study did not elicit a significant change in
MTU compliance or other physiological mechanisms that
may impact the force-generating capacity of the muscle.
Increases in ROM in this investigation were observed
only after the P condition (left ABLH P, right GHF P).
However, no increase in ROM was observed with the S
condition. This is contrary to some past investigations.
One study showed that significant increases were seen for
only 3 minutes when using an acute static stretching bout
of 4 sets held for 30 seconds (6). This could explain our
finding that the S protocol did not increase ROM. It
should be noted that the only increase in ROM was seen
in the nonactive GHF test. This reinforces the argument
that the muscles were fatigued from the testing protocol,
and an active ROM test may not have elicited realistic
changes. Bandy and Irion (1) found that a stretching time
of 30–60 seconds was sufficient for increasing ROM, al-
though a chronic protocol was used, with the subjects
stretching 5 days per week for 6 weeks. Three weeks of
chronic stretching, 5 days per week with 4 sets of 15–20
seconds per day, was the protocol used by Worrell et al.
(34). They found that stretching increased peak isokinetic
torque but had no significant effects on ROM. These stud-
ies differed from the present one in that they applied
EFFECT OF POTENTIATION AND STRETCHING 425
their stretches only to one selected muscle group (i.e.,
knee extensors or flexors), whereas multiple muscle
groups were stretched in this study. This may have con-
tributed to reducing the acute effects stretching may have
had on performance, because by the time one muscle
group was done being stretched, the other muscle groups
had recovered from any mechanical strain or threshold
reduction. Another factor that may have contributed to
minimal findings was the order of the protocols. If the
ROM retesting were done immediately after the treat-
ment protocols, before the isometric squat, it may have
elicited significant increases. In effect, the isometric
squat may have nullified the improvements in flexibility
as a result of the S condition.
Some future considerations may be drawn from our
study’s results. A P protocol with fewer sets or repeti-
tions, more recovery time, or both might be preferred to
elicit an increase in performance. Particular attention
must be paid to the timing of fatigue and potentiation
outlined in Figure 4. In addition, the acute effects of
stretching, including ROM, are not always elicited with a
typical S protocol. In the future, a more specified (i.e.,
stretching only those muscles that are used most) stretch-
ing routine might be used. ROM measurements should be
taken directly following the treatment protocols to be sure
that flexibility is not altered as a result of a performance
test. In conclusion, it appears the use of warm-up proce-
dures to enhance performance is somewhat unfounded.
Neither the S nor the P condition resulted in significant
improvements in performance compared to the C condi-
tion. Although the psychological benefits of warm-up can-
not be discounted, the absolute necessity of warm-up be-
fore performing maximal force or explosive force activities
needs to be further investigated. If potentiation exists,
the time frame for usage of this potentiation appears to
be quite small and would require a carefully planned pro-
tocol to ensure potentiation effects are not masked by fa-
tigue induced by the potentiation protocol itself.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The current protocol utilized in this investigation is not
recommended as beneficial for warm-up. However, the in-
formation found in this study can be used to direct future
researchers or practitioners in determining the exact pro-
tocol to be used to increase performance with potentia-
tion. As we research more thoroughly the effects of dif-
ferent warm-up protocols on athletic performance vari-
ables, it is hoped that there will be an increased mecha-
nistic understanding of these effects, leading to better
warm-up practices for athletes. Whether it is increasing
power development, strength, or flexibility, the most ben-
eficial uses of, or efficacy of, warm-up still need extensive
investigation. Currently, the actual effectiveness of vari-
ous warm-up procedures needs to be reevaluated, and in
the future, this could have implications for recommended
warm-up procedures for athletes or the general popula-
tion.
REFERENCES
1. BANDY, W.D., AND J.M. IRION. The effect of time on static
stretch on the flexibility of the hamstring muscles. Phys. Ther.
74:845–852. 1994.
2. BEHM, D.G., D.C. BUTTON, AND J.C. BUTT. Factors affecting
force loss with prolonged stretching. Can. J. Appl. Physiol. 26:
262–272. 2001.
426 BAZETT-JONES, WINCHESTER, AND MCBRIDE
3. BRUTON, J.D., H. WESTERBLAD, A. KATZ, AND J. LANNERGREN.
Augmented force output in skeletal muscle fibres of xenopus
following a preceding bout of activity. J. Physiol. 493:211–217.
1996.
4. CHURCH, B.J., M.S. WIGGINS, F.M. MOODE, AND R. CRIST. Ef-
fect of warm-up and flexibility treatments on vertical jump per-
formance. J. Strength Cond. Res. 15:332–336. 2001.
5. CORNWELL, A., A.G. NELSON, AND B. SIDAWAY. Acute effects of
stretching on the neuromechanical properties of the triceps
surae muscle complex. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 86:428–434. 2002.
6. DEPINO, G.M., W.G. WEBRIGHT, AND B.L. ARNOLD. Duration of
maintained hamstring flexibility after cessation of an acute
static stretching protocol. J. Athletic Training 35:56–59. 2000.
7. FOWLES, J.R., D.G. SALE, AND J.D. MACDOUGALL. Reduced
strength after passive stretch of human plantarflexors. J. Appl.
Physiol. 89:1179–1188. 2000.
8. GLEIM, G.W., AND M.P. MCHUGH. Flexibility and its effect on
sports injury and performance. Sports Med. 24:289–299. 1997.
9. GOURGOULIS, V., N. AGGELOUSSIS, P. KASIMATIS, G. MAVRO-
MATIS, AND A. GARAS. Effect of submaximal half-squats warm-
up program on vertical jumping ability. J. Strength Cond. Res.
17:342–344. 2003.
10. GROSSEN, E.R., AND D.G. SALE. Effect of postactivation poten-
tiation on dynamic knee extension performance. Eur. J. Appl.
Physiol. 83:524–530. 2000.
11. GUISSARD, N., J. DUCHATEAU, AND K. HAINAUT. Mechanisms of
decreased motoneurone excitation during passive muscle
stretching. Exp. Brain Res. 137:163–169. 2001.
12. GÜLLICH, A., AND D. SCHMIDTBLEICHER. MVC-induced short-
term potentiation of explosive force. New Stud. Athletics 4:67–
81. 1996.
13. KOKKONEN, J., A.G. NELSON, AND A. CORNWELL. Acute muscle
stretching inhibits maximal strength performance. Res. Q. Ex-
erc. Sport 69:411–415. 1998.
14. MAGNUSSON, S.P. Passive properties of human skeletal muscle
during stretch maneuvers: A review. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports
8:65–77. 1998.
15. MAGNUSSON, S.P., P. AAGAARD, AND J.J. NIELSON. Passive en-
ergy return after repeated stretches of the hamstring muscle-
tendon unit. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 32:1160–1164. 2000.
16. MASAMOTO, N., R. LARSON, T. GATES, AND A. FAIGENBAUM.
Acute effects of plyometric exercise on maximum squat perfor-
mance in male athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 17:68–71. 2003.
17. NELSON, A.G., J.D. ALLEN, A. CORNWELL, AND J. KOKKONEN.
Inhibition of maximal voluntary isometric torque production by
acute stretching is joint-angle specific. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 72:
68–70. 2001.
18. NELSON, A.G., AND J. KOKKONEN. Acute ballistic muscle
stretching inhibits maximal strength performance. Res. Q. Ex-
erc. Sport 72:415–419. 2001.
19. POPE, R., R. HERBERT, AND J. KIRWAN. Effects of ankle dorsi-
flexion range and pre-exercise calf muscle stretching on injury
risk in Army recruits. Aust. J. Physiother. 44:165–177. 1998.
20. POPE, R.P., R.D. HERBERT, J.D. KIRWAN, AND B.J. GRAHAM. A
randomized trial of preexercise stretching for prevention of
lower-limb injury. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 32:271–277. 2000.
21. RADCLIFFE, J.C., AND J.L. RADCLIFFE. Effects of different
warm-up protocols on peak power output during a single re-
sponse jump task. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 28:S189. 1996.
22. ROSENBAUM, D., AND E.M. HENNIG. The influence of stretching
and warm-up exercises on Achilles tendon reflex activity. J.
Sports Sci. 13:481–490. 1995.
23. SAFRAN, M.R., W.E. GARRETT JR, A.V. SEABER, R.R. GLISSON,
AND B.M. RIBBECK. The role of warmup in muscular injury pre-
vention. Am. J. Sports Med. 16:123–129. 1988.
24. SAHLIN, K., M. TONKONOGI, AND K. SODERLUND. Energy supply
and muscle fatigue in humans. Acta. Physiol. Scand. 162:261–
266. 1998.
25. SALE, D.G. Postactivation potentiation: Role in human perfor-
mance. Exerc. Sports Sci. Rev. 30:138–143. 2002.
26. SHELLOCK, F.G., AND W.E. PRENTICE. Warming-up and stretch-
ing for improved physical performance and prevention of
sports-related injuries. Sports Med. 2:267–278. 1985.
27. SHRIER, I. Stretching before exercise does not reduce the risk
of local muscle injury: A critical review of the clinical and basic
science literature. Clin. J. Sports Med. 9:221–227. 1999.
28. SMITH, C.A. The warm-up procedure: To stretch or not to
stretch: A brief review. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 19:12–17.
1994.
29. SWEENY, H.L., AND J.T. STULL. Alteration of cross-bridge ki-
netics by myosin light chain phosphorylation in rabbit skeletal
muscle: Implications for regulation of actin-myosin interaction.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 87:414–418. 1990.
30. TAYLOR, D.C., J.D. DALTON, A.V. SAEBER, AND W.E. GARRETT.
Viscoelastic properties of muscle-tendon units: The biomechan-
ical effects of stretching. Am. J. Sports Med. 18:300–309. 1990.
31. TRIMBLE, M.H., AND S.S. HARP. Post exercise potentiation of
H-reflex in humans. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 30:933–941. 1998.
32. WIEMANN, K., AND K. HAHN. Influence of strength, stretching
and circulatory exercises on flexibility parameters of the hu-
man hamstrings. Int. J. Sports Med. 18:340–346. 1997.
33. WILSON, G.J., A.J. MURPHY, AND J.F. PRYOR. Musculotendi-
nous stiffness: Its relationship to eccentric, isometric, and con-
centric performance. J. Appl. Physiol. 76:2714–2719. 1994.
34. WORRELL, T.W., T.L. SMITH, AND J. WINDEGARDNER. Effect of
hamstring stretching on hamstring muscle performance. J. Or-
thop. Sports Phys. Ther. 20:154–159. 1994.
35. YOUNG, W.B., AND D.G. BEHM. Should static stretching be used
during a warm-up for strength and power activities? Strength
Cond. J. 24(6):33–37. 2002.
36. YOUNG, W.B., AND D.G. BEHM. Effects of running, static
stretching and practice jumps on explosive force production
and jumping force. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 43:21–27. 2003.
37. YOUNG, W., AND S. ELLIOT. Acute effects of static stretching,
proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching and max-
imal voluntary contractions on explosive force production and
jumping performance. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 72:273–279. 2001.
38. YOUNG, W.B., A. JENNER, AND K. GRIFFITHS. Acute enhance-
ment of power performance from heavy load squats. J. Strength
Cond. Res. 12:82–84. 1998.
Address correspondence to Dr. Jeffery M. McBride,
mcbridejm@appstate.edu.