See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/279298727

EFFECTS OF STATIC, DYNAMIC, AND COMBINED STATIC-DYNAMIC

STRETCHING ON SPRINT PERFORMANCE, REACTION TIME, AND POWER
PRODUCTION IN SPRINTERS

Article · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

3 2,051

4 authors:

Jad-Adrian Washif Lian-Yee Kok

National Sports Institute of Malaysia Tunku Abdul Rahman University College
23 PUBLICATIONS   59 CITATIONS    30 PUBLICATIONS   127 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Chen Soon Chee Erik Tan

Universiti Putra Malaysia National Sports Institute of Malaysia
8 PUBLICATIONS   54 CITATIONS    13 PUBLICATIONS   18 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Eccentric Flywheel Resistance Training View project

Force-Velocity profiling, VBT and training loads monitoring View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lian-Yee Kok on 30 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning

Effects of static, dynamic, and combined static-dynamic stretching on sprint performance, reaction time, and power production in sprinters.
J. Aust. Strength Cond. 23(3) 9-15. 2015 © ASCA.

Original Scientific Research Study

EFFECTS OF STATIC, DYNAMIC, AND COMBINED STATIC-DYNAMIC STRETCHING ON SPRINT
PERFORMANCE, REACTION TIME, AND POWER PRODUCTION IN SPRINTERS

Jad-Adrian Washif 1, Lian-Yee Kok 1, Chen-Soon Chee 1, Erik C.H. Tan 2

1Department of Sports Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia

2National Sports Institute, Malaysia

BLUF

Dynamic stretching that was preceded by general- and followed by sprint-specific warm up elevated sprint and reaction
performances while static stretching alone, or combined with dynamic stretching compromised the ability of muscle to
perform maximally during explosive movements

ABSTRACT

This study compared static, dynamic and combined static-dynamic stretching within a realistic warm up routine on sprint
performance, reaction time and power production in sprinters. Thirteen (n = 13) young male sprinters performed static
stretching (SS), dynamic stretching (DS) and combined static-dynamic stretching (CSDS) and were repeatedly
measured for sprint performance (50 metres), reaction time, peak force (PF) and peak power (PP). Significant
differences were observed for sprint performance (p = .001) and reaction time (p = .015), but not for peak force (p =
.483) and peak power (p = .458). DS evoked the best sprint performance (6.18 s + .11), followed by CSDS (6.33 s +
.10) and SS (6.37 s + .11). DS also obtained best results for reaction time (0.22 s + .04), but SS (0.26 s + .05) was
better than CSDS (0.29 s + .08). Even though results for power and force were not statistically significant, these results
suggested that DS induced the best sprint performance, reaction time and power production. CSDS resulted in the
slowest sprint performance and reaction time, while SS resulted in the lowest PF and PP production. It seems DS may
be associated with greater neuromuscular activation compared with other protocols. However, the benefits from DS may
have been diluted when combined with SS. Therefore, the application of DS for sprint performance, reaction time, peak
force and peak power seem able to increase the ability of muscles to perform maximally.

Key Words - Warm up, stretching, explosive, speed, sprinters, muscle activation.

INTRODUCTION

Stretching as part of warm up prior to physical activities has been a common practice for many decades. The purpose
of stretching is to prepare athletes for the demands from training and competition. This is because stretching may help
increase range of motion and allows freer movement (16), while promoting efficient and fluid muscular movements (19).
Of the many stretching methods, the two most commonly used today are static stretching (SS), and dynamic stretching
(DS). Lately, the practice of SS has become debatable because when implementing SS, decreases in sprint and other
performance variables have been observed in a number of studies (13, 29, 31). However, there are some studies that
have failed to record significant performance reductions when implementing SS (2, 5). It has also been reported that SS
was not detrimental to power-based performances, but if SS was to be used, the stretches should be limited to short
duration, and stretching should be followed by other activities such as drills (15, 25). SS has also been reported to be
more effective than DS for improving flexibility (23).

In contrast, DS has been suggested to be able to enhance sport performances requiring high-speed, high-power and
short-term movements when compared to SS (4, 7, 11, 28, 30). While the debate continues regarding the efficiency of
SS and DS, some researchers examined combined static-dynamic stretching (CSDS) (6, 29, 31). However, the results
obtained were inconsistent and the applicability of the protocols used was controversial. Additionally, it has been
reported that previous studies regarding SS and DS have been including warm up protocols that were not representative
of typical warm up methods used by athletes in actual performance settings (23, 25). Typical realistic warm up sessions
should consist of general, specific, and sport-specific phases and many studies failed to include these components
when examining the effects of stretching while other studies utilized different stretching duration or volume, protocols,
intensity, rest periods, and participants of different gender. These factors may have contributed to the contradictory
findings so far.

In real-life training or competition settings, most athletes utilize the general warm up which involves low intensity aerobic
activities to elevate tissue temperature (1), promote increased sympathetic activation of the cardiovascular system and
respiratory efficiency (22), leading to a physiological readiness of the heart for subsequent activities by increasing blood
flow to the muscles and the body's core temperature. Following this, the specific warm up phase is then performed.
Most previous studies have investigated this phase and compared the efficacy of different stretching protocols for

Volume 23 | Issue 3 | June 2015

9
 Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning

optimizing performance without including the other phases of warm up. Subsequent to this, the final phase or the sport-
specific warm up that mimics the specific motions of the sport is performed. Sport-specific warm up ensures the muscle
fibers are fully recruited before commencing the activity as it helps to improve motor unit recruitment as well as muscle
and core temperature continuously.

Not many previous studies have examined warm up protocols with all three warm up phases that are actually utilized
by athletes in realistic training or competitive settings, especially for sprinting. Small changes in a sprinter’s ability to
move explosively or react quickly to the gun may have the potential to influence the outcome of a competition. Sprinting
requires high levels of power, strength, reaction, acceleration and speed endurance. However, there is scant information
regarding the effects of different stretching methods on variables such as sprint performance, reaction time, and power
production.

Furthermore, published data comparing SS, DS and CSDS stretching on sprint performance, reaction time, peak force
and peak power production on a sample of young male track sprinters was not found. Therefore, this study assessed
the effects of SS, DS, and CSDS stretching performed within the structure of a warm up that included the general,
specific and sport-specific phases on sprint performance, reaction time, peak force and peak power production. The
main hypothesis was that the three stretching methods (SS, DS and CSDS) would not induce different sprint
performance, reaction time, and peak force and power production.

METHOD

Approach to the Problem

To accomplish the objective of comparing the effects of SS, DS, and CSDS on sprint performance, reaction time, peak
force and peak power production, all participants were given the three treatments in a counterbalanced order. They
were repeatedly tested for the dependent variables such as the 50 m sprint ability, reaction time, peak force and peak
power. This design was utilized to control for order and learning effects, and participants performed a different stretching
protocol each week for 3 consecutive weeks.

Subjects
Seventeen young male sprinters (mean + SD; age = 17.1 + 0.8 year, height = 170.2 + 5.8 cm, body mass = 65.5 + 8.5
kg, 100 m personal best = 11.1 + 0.1 s) were recruited but 4 were dropped from the study due to non-compliance of
attendance requirements. A priori power using a power calculator (G*power) estimated 15 participants were needed to
obtain power of .80 with p < .05 and a large effect size of .80. The loss of 4 participants reduced the power to .75 which
has been considered adequate (17). All participants were elite level youth sprint and sprint-hurdle athletes training full-
time with at least 3 years competitive experience. Prior to the study, all participants read and gave written informed
consent. Approval was obtained from the institutional ethics committee as well as the Ministry of Education as all
participants were students.

Procedures
Before commencing the study, participants were given detailed information concerning the procedures involved.
Following this, 3 familiarization sessions were conducted to help the participants get used to the experimental and
testing protocols. The experimental and test sessions commenced a week later with sessions held a week apart for 3
consecutive weeks. At the start of each session, participants were asked to perform 3 countermovement jumps (CMJ)
on a force plate (Fitness Technology 400S, SA, Australia) with the best peak force score utilized to represent their pre-
experimental condition. The peak force scores for all participants for 3 sessions were then compared using one-way
repeated-measures ANOVA. Results revealed that there were no significant differences in peak force scores for the 3
different sessions (p = 0.228), suggesting that pre-experimental conditions were similar and did not seem to affect the
reliability of data collected (13).

Subsequent to the pre-experimental CMJ, participants performed the warm up in 3 phases with phase I consisting of a
general warm up, phase II the experimental treatment (SS, DS, CSDS), and phase III comprising sprint-specific drills.
Exercises performed during phases I and III were similar for all participants but exercises during phase II involved the
experimental protocols randomly assigned to participants in a counterbalanced order. Immediately upon completion of
the warm up, participants were tested for 50-meter sprint time, reaction time, and power production. The session
concluded with a conventional cool down for all participants (Figure 1).

Volume 23 | Issue 3 | June 2015

10
 Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning

Figure 1 - Experimental procedure.

CMJ Tests (all participants)

Confirmation of pre-experimental conditions

PHASE 1 (~ 5 min)
General warm up (all participants)
2 x 400 m

PHASE 2 (~ 8 min)
Specific warm up / Experimental protocols
(participants randomly assigned in a counterbalanced order)

Dynamic Combined Static-

Static Stretching Stretching Dynamic Stretching

PHASE 3 (~ 12 min)
Sport-specific warm up (all participants)
2 x 15 m ankling, high knees, back kicks
1 x 60 m (~ 70-80 %)
1 x 60 m (~ 80-90 %)
1 x 60m (~ 90-95 %)
1 x 60 m (~ 95-100 %)

Testing of Dependent Variables

1) CMJ; 2) Reaction time;
3) 50 m sprint time

Cooling down (all participants)

WARM UP PROTOCOLS

Phase I General Warm Up

All participants completed 800 m at a low intensity for 5 min on the running track prior to performing the experimental
treatments, alternating movements such as jogging and skipping.

Phase II Experimental Treatments

Participants were randomly assigned to 3 groups with stretching protocols presented in counterbalanced order across
3 sessions. All stretching protocols engaged the same muscle groups through the completion of 12 exercises that
included the ankle stretch/roll, calf stretch/raise, posterior deltoid stretch, sitting adductor stretch, lateral torso stretch,
knee raises, back extensions, quadriceps stretch, hamstring stretch, lunges, seated hurdler’s stretch, and seated
gluteal/hip stretch. SS was performed at the point of mild discomfort for 10 seconds per exercise, and performed twice
for a total stretch time of 20 seconds. The DS protocol involved the execution of the same exercises for 10 repetitions,
with each repetition performed in 2 seconds to match the duration used in SS. For CSDS, participants performed one
set of SS followed one set of DS. The protocol is representative of the typical duration used by sprint athletes and
concurs with the stretching dosage (15 to 20 s) proposed by the American College of Sports Medicine. (21).

Phase III Sprint-Specific Drills

Immediately after the experimental protocols, participants performed sprint-specific drills such as ankling, high knees,
and back kicks. Each drill was repeated twice for 15 meters. Phase III concluded with 4 repetitions of 60-m wind-sprints
with increasing intensity (Figure 1).

Volume 23 | Issue 3 | June 2015

11
 Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning

TESTING OF DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Countermovement Jump
Upon completion of the warm up, participants performed 3 consecutive CMJs each to obtain peak force and peak power
data. During the performance of each CMJ, participant started in an upright standing position on the force plate (200
Hz) with hands on the hips and feet approximately shoulder-width apart. The knees were lowered until they formed an
angle of approximately 90 degrees, followed immediately by a vertical jump for maximal height. Both feet were required
to land in the initial starting position with hands kept on the hips throughout the jump. Peak force and peak power were
determined as the maximal values achieved during the concentric phase of the jump.

Reaction and Sprint Tests

Following the CMJ, participants performed reaction and sprint tests concurrently. This test was initiated from starting
blocks that were equipped with reaction measurement pads. The test emulated a sprint race from starting blocks, with
participants running off the blocks explosively after reacting to an audio stimulus. Two trials were given with a 5-min rest
interval between trials (29). Automatic timing pads and gates (Brower Timing Systems BRO 002, UT, USA) were utilized
to measure reaction and sprint times. The participants were asked to run at maximum speed for each trial, with the best
time utilised for analysis.

Statistical Analyses
All data were analyzed using a commercial statistical software (SPSS version 20.0, Chicago, IL, USA) and the level of
significance was set at p < 0.05. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess if
there were differences in reaction time, sprint performance, peak force and peak power among the stretching protocols.
Significant differences were further examined using post hoc Tukey’s HSD to determine which experimental protocol
differed for the dependent variables. Test-retest reliability of the tests was determined by intraclass correlation
coefficients (ICC).

RESULTS

Reliability
The ICC values for all measures obtained high levels of reliability (ICC range: .868 - .996). Specifically, the ICCs for 50
m sprint time were .868, .881, and .962 for SS, DS, and CDSD respectively while the values obtained for reaction time
were .889, .896, and .934 for the same stretching protocol order. For peak force the ICCs were .990, .921, and .996 for
SS, DS, and CDSD, and finally for peak power the ICCs were .990, .957, and .994.

Analysis with Repeated Measures

As the assumption of sphericity was significant and violated for reaction time (p = .021), and peak power (p = .028), the
F-ratios for these 2 variables were obtained using degrees of freedom (dfs) calculated based on the Huynh-Feldt
Epsilon. The 3 stretching protocols produced significantly different sprint performance (p = .001). Post hoc Tukey’s HSD
tests revealed that DS improved sprint performance by 3.1% compared to SS (p = .001) and 2.4 % when compared to
CSDS (p = .001) but there was no difference between SS and CSDS (p = 0.215). This suggested that among the 3
protocols, DS is most effective for maximizing sprint performance. Similarly, reaction time after the three stretching
protocols were significantly different (p = .015). Results from post hoc tests disclosed that there were differences
between DS and SS (p = .019) as well as between DS and CSDS (p = .003), but not between SS and CSDS (p = .195).
DS improved reaction time by 16.3 % and 32.6 % when compared to SS and CSDS respectively.

Differing from the results of sprint performance and reaction time, the main effect from one-way repeated measures
ANOVA for peak power was not significant (p = .458) suggesting that peak power production after the 3 stretching
protocols was not different. However, simple percentage analysis indicated that DS was better than SS and CSDS by
2.2 % and 2.0 % respectively. For peak force, the main effect was also not significant (p = .483). Similar to all other
results, DS induced better percentage improvement than SS (7.0 %) and CSDS (0.9 %). Results related to all dependent
variables are displayed in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1 - Mean (+ SD) performance measures for each experimental protocol (n = 13).

Combined static-
Variables (unit) Static stretching Dynamic stretching p value
dynamic stretching
50 m sprint (s) 6.37 + .11 6.18 + .11 6.33 + .10 .001*
Reaction time (s) 0.257 + .047 0.221 + .039 0.293 + .075 .015*
Peak force (N) 1471 + 177 1573 + 235 1559 + 205 .483
Peak power (W) 3670 + 538 3750 + 609 3678 + 562 .458
* denotes significant difference (p < .05)

Volume 23 | Issue 3 | June 2015

12
 Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning

Table 2 - Mean difference between experimental protocols on the dependent variables (n = 13).

Condition Performance 95% CI for mean lower p

difference – upper
50 m sprint (s) SS DS .185 .127 to .243 .001
DS CSDS -.145 -.192 to -.099 .001
CSDS SS -.039 -.105 to .026 .215
Reaction time (s) SS DS .036 .007 to .065 .019
DS CSDS -.072 -.115 to -.029 .003
CSDS SS .036 -.021 to .094 .195
Peak force (N) SS DS -33.92 -121 to 53 .411
DS CSDS -14.35 -91 to 62 .690
CSDS SS 48.27 -51 to 148 .312
Peak power (W) SS DS 6.04 -115 to 127 .915
DS CSDS 32.91 -30 to 113 .234
CSDS SS 36.48 -127 to 32 .219
*SS = static stretching; DS = dynamic stretching; CSDS = combined static-dynamic stretching; CI = confidence
interval

DISCUSSION

The present study aimed to examine the effects of SS, DS, and CSDS protocols on sprint performance, reaction time,
peak force and peak power production when performed within a typical realistic warm up that consisted of general,
specific, and sport-specific phases. The primary outcomes were that DS prior to high-speed, high-power, and short-term
movements resulted in positive changes for all variables measured. These results are similar to previous studies that
reported implementing DS induced improvement on sprint performance (6, 7, 9, 15, 18) and reaction time (2). This study
also corroborated the findings from previous studies that supported the efficacy of DS on other variables such as leg
extension power, vertical and countermovement jump performance, agility, and balance following DS (3, 4, 11, 18, 26,
28, 30).

Of the 4 variables measured, 50-meter sprint performance and reaction times induced significantly better performance
after DS when compared to SS and CSDS. The advantages from performing DS maybe correlated with the greater
increase of core temperature compared to when performing SS. SS is more passive and therefore likely did not yield as
high an increase in muscle temperature (27) that could have decreased muscle lactate levels (10) resulting in greater
oxygen extraction from the working muscles. Better performance from DS may also be associated with the stretch reflex
mechanism. Rapid and dynamic eccentric muscle actions that attain sufficient magnitude during DS may have activated
the stretch reflex as well as improved storage of elastic energy in the tendons and muscles, thus increasing force
production during subsequent concentric actions (20). Conversely, during SS and other stretching protocols such as
PNF and ballistic stretching, muscles are stretched until excessive tension for a prolonged period possibly causing an
inverse stretch reflex by Golgi tendons if tension were excessive (27). This may have subsequently reduced the muscles’
springy action and therefore affected ensuing contractions.

This study found no significant difference among DS, SS and CSDS for peak force and peak power measures. One
possible reason why force and power data were not significant may be attributed to the relatively short stretching
duration per muscle group (20 seconds) that was utilized in this study. It was previously stated in a systematic-review
that shorter durations of SS (< 60 s) could be performed during warm up without compromising maximal muscle
performance (12). However, several studies implementing SS with stretch durations of 30 (11, 25, 29) and 45 seconds
(8, 24) attained detrimental effects that were attributed to greater stretching durations which relaxes the muscles. Thus,
it may be that the 20-second SS and CSDS duration of this study was not intense enough to compromise or differentiate
it from the effects of DS. However, the general consensus is that a prolonged duration of SS during warm up should
not be performed by sprint athletes in actual performance settings.

The decrease in power performance following SS may also be related to the theory of musculotendinous unit (MTU)
compliance. SS may modify the structure of the MTU when a force is applied (1), making the structures more compliant
which may lead to a lower rate of force production (14). A compliant MTU has slack parallel and series elastic
components that could slow down the kinetic period between myofilament crossbridges and the exertion of tension by
the MTU on the skeletal system (2). In addition, the detection and monitoring of muscle tension by the Golgi tendon
organs (GTO) would be delayed since a more compliant tendon would not transmit the tension information to the GTO
as rapidly as a stiffer MTU (2). The increases in MTU length and decreases in MTU stiffness could have also modified
the sensitivity of the muscle spindles and this may have interrupted the sensory responses to tension as well as changes
in muscle length, and the rate of length change. These factors may have influenced the decrease of muscle stimulation
due to altered reflex sensitivity, thus requiring more time for muscle contraction. This subsequently reduced the muscle
force-generating capacity.

Volume 23 | Issue 3 | June 2015

13
 Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning

Unlike most previous studies, this investigation compared 3 different warm up protocols by applying equated dosages
of volume, intensity and total time under stretch, performed within a typical realistic warm up that consisted of general,
specific, and sport-specific phases. The findings suggest that DS enables maximal performance to be achieved during
sprints as well as any sports requiring brief high-speed and high-powered movements. However, CSDS seems to be of
no benefit to performance enhancement when compared to DS, agreeing with previous findings (6, 29) that reported
decreased sprint performance following CSDS when compared with DS.

PRACTICAL APPLICATION

The results of this study suggest that DS should be performed within a complete warm up that included the general,
specific (stretching), and sport-specific phases in order to achieve elevated sprint and reaction performances.
Additionally, sprint athletes may want to avoid SS and CSDS before high-speed, high-power, and short-term activities
because they affected the ability of muscle to perform maximally. It seems that even if SS and CSDS were performed
with low intensity aerobic activity and the sport-specific drills, the adverse effects of both stretches seems to persist.
The collective results of this study indicate that maximal sprinting and reacting performances could only be achieved
when executing the DS. Nevertheless, SS may be appropriate to be used as part of a cooling down or flexibility training
programs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank the participants who trained with the Bukit Jalil Sports School coaches, S.Entheran, Ithnin
Mahadi, and Tan Kok Lim, and Malaysian sprint-hurdle coach Suhairi Yang, for their contribution to this study. This
study did not receive any financial assistance and the authors do not have any conflict of interest associated with the
current study.

REFERENCES

1. Alter, M. Science of Flexibility. 3rd edition. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, 2004.
2. Behm, D.G., Bambury, A., Cahill, F. & Power, K. Effect of acute static
stretching on force, balance, reaction time, and movement time.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 36: 1397-1402.
2004.
3. Chatzopoulos, D., Galazoulas, C., Patikas, D. & Kotzamanidis, C.
Acute effects of static and dynamic stretching on balance, agility,
reaction time and movement time. Journal of Sports Science and
Medicine. 13: 403-409. 2014.
4. Curry, B.S., Chengkalath, D., Crouch, G.J., Romance, M. & Manns,
P.J. Acute effects of dynamic stretching, static stretching, and light
aerobic activity on muscular performance in women. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research. 23: 1811-1819. 2009.
5. Dalrymple, K.J., Davis, S.E., Dwyer, G.B. & Moir, G.L. Effect of static
and dynamic stretching on vertical jump performance in collegiate
women volleyball players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research. 24: 149-155. 2010.
6. Fletcher, I.M. & Anness, R. The acute effects of combined static and
dynamic stretch protocol on fifty-meter sprint performance in track
and field athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research. 21: 784-787. 2007.
7. Fletcher, I.M. & Jones, B. The effect of different warm-up stretch
protocols on 20 meter sprint performance in trained rugby union
players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 18: 885-
888. 2004.
8. Garcia-Lopez, D., Izquierdo, M., Rodriguez, S., Gonzalez-Calvo, G.,
Sainz, N., Abadia, O. & Herrero, A.J. Interset stretching does not
influence the kinematic profile of consecutive bench-press sets.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 24: 1361-1368.
2010.
9. Gelen, E. Acute effects of different warm-up methods on sprint,
slalom dribbling, and penalty kick performance in soccer players.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 24: 950-956.
2010.
10. Gray, S.C., Devito, G. & Nimmo, M.A. Effect of active warm-up on
metabolism prior to and during dynamic exercise. Medicine and
Science in Sports and Exercise. 34: 2091-2096. 2002.
11. Hough, P.A., Ross, E.Z. & Howatson, G. Effects of dynamic and
static stretching on vertical jump performance and electromyographic
activity. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.23: 507-
512. 2009.
12. Kay, A.D. & Blazevich, A.J. Effect of acute static stretch on maximal
muscle performance: A systematic review. Medicine and Science
in Sports and Exercise. 44: 154-164. 2012.
13. Kistler, B.M., Walsh, M.S., Horn, T.S. & Cox, R.H. The acute effects
of static stretching on sprint performance of collegiate men in 60- and
100-m dash after a dynamic warm-up. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research. 24: 2280-2284. 2010.
14. Kubo, K., Kanehisa, H., Kawakami, Y. & Fukunaga T. Influence of
static stretching on viscoelastic properties of human tendon
structures in vivo. Journal of Applied Physiology. 90: 520-527.
2001.
15. Little, T. & Williams, A.G. Effects of differential stretching protocols
during warm-ups on high-speed motor capacities in professional
soccer players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.
20: 203-207. 2006.
16. McHugh, M.P & Cosgrave, C.H. To stretch or not to stretch: The role
of stretching in injury prevention and performance. Scandinavian
Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports. 20: 169-181. 2010.
17. Murphy, K.R. & Myors, B. Statistical Power Analysis: A Simple
and General Model for Traditional and Modern Hypothesis
Tests. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, 2004.
18. Needham, R.A., Morse, C.I. & Degens, H. The acute effect of
different warm-up protocols on anaerobic performance in elite youth
soccer players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.
23: 2614-2620. 2009.
19. Nelson, A. & Kokkonen, J. Stretching Anatomy. Champaign IL:
Human Kinetics, 2007.
20. Potach, D.H. & Chu, D.S. Plyometric Training. In: Essentials of
Strength Training and Conditioning. T.R. Baechle and R.W. Earle,
eds. 3rd edition. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics, 2008. pp. 413 –
456.
21. Ratamess, N., ed.. ACSM’s Foundations of Strength Training and
Conditioning. Indianapolis, IN: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins,
2012.
22. Sander, A., Keiner, M., Schlumberger, A., Wirth, K. &
Schmidtbleicher, D. Effects of functional exercises in the warm-up on
sprint performances. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research. 27: 995-1001. 2013.
23. Samson, M., Button, D.C., Chaouachi, A. & Behm, D.G. Effects of
dynamic and static stretching within general and activity specific
warm-up protocols. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine.11:
279-285. 2012.
24. Siatras, T.A., Mittas, V.P., Mameletzi, D.N. & Vamvakoudis, E.A. The
duration of the inhibitory effects with static stretching on quadriceps
peak torque production. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research. 22: 40-46. 2008.
25. Taylor, K.L., Sheppard, J.M., Lee, H. & Plummer, N. Negative effect
of static stretching restore when combined with a sport specific
warm-up component. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport.
12: 657-661. 2009.
26. Van Gelder, L.H. & Bartz, S.D. The effect of acute stretching on
agility performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research. 11: 3014-3021. 2011.

Volume 23 | Issue 3 | June 2015

14
 Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning

27. Verkhoshansky, Y. & Siff, M.C. Supertraining, Sixth Edition –
Expanded Version. Rome: Verkhoshansky, 2009.
28. Werstein, K.M. & Lund, R.J. The effects of two stretching protocols
on the reactive strength index in female soccer and rugby players.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 26: 1564-1567.
2012.
29. Winchester, J.B., Nelson, A.G., Landin, D., Young, M.A. &
Schexnayder, I.C. Static stretching impairs sprints performances in
collegiate track and field athletes. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research. 22: 13-18. 2008.
30. Yamaguchi, T. & Ishii, K. Effects of static stretching for 30 seconds
and dynamic stretching on leg extension power. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research. 19: 677-683. 2005.
31. Young, W.B. & Behm, D.G. Effects of running, static stretching and
practice jumps on explosive force production and jumping
performance. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness.
43: 21-27. 2003.

Volume 23 | Issue 3 | June 2015

15
View publication stats