This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
JAMES R. J. BECKETT, KNUT T. SCHNEIKER, KAREN E. WALLMAN, BRIAN T. DAWSON, and KYM J. GUELFI School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth, AUSTRALIA
ABSTRACT BECKETT, J. R., K. T. SCHNEIKER, K. E. WALLMAN, B. T. DAWSON, and K. J. GUELFI. Effects of Static Stretching on Repeated Sprint and Change of Direction Performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 444–450, 2009. Purpose: To examine the effects of static stretching during the recovery periods of field-based team sports on subsequent repeated sprint ability (RSA) and change of direction speed (CODS) performance. Methods: On four separate occasions, 12 male team-sport players performed a standardized warm-up, followed by a test of either RSA or CODS (on two occasions each) in a counterbalanced design. Both tests involved three sets of six maximal sprint repetitions, with a 4-min recovery between sets. During the break between sets, the participants either rested (control [CON]) or completed a static stretching protocol (static stretch [SS]). The RSA test involved straight-line sprints, whereas the CODS test required a change of direction (100-) every 4 m (total of four). Mean, total (sum of six sprints), first, and best sprint times (MST, TST, FST, and BST, respectively) were recorded for each set. Results: There was a consistent tendency for RSA times to be slower after the static stretching intervention, which was supported by statistical significance for three performance variables (MST 0–5 m set 2, MST 0–20 m set 2, and TST set 2; P G 0.05). This tendency was also supported by moderate effect sizes and qualitative indications of ‘‘likely’’ harmful or detrimental effects associated with RSA-SS. Further, sprint times again tended to be slower in the CODS-SS trial compared with the CODS-CON across all sprint variables, with a significantly slower (P G 0.05) BST recorded for set 3 after static stretching. Conclusion: These results suggest that an acute bout (4 min) of static stretching of the lower limbs during recovery periods between efforts may compromise RSA performance but has less effect on CODS performance. Key Words: WARM-UP, REPEATED SPRINT ABILITY, AGILITY, INTERMITTENT HIGH-INTENSITY EXERCISE
tatic stretching is generally considered an integral component of sport conditioning programs and preexercise warm-up routines (13). This type of stretching is often practiced in the belief that it assists athletic performance, reduces the risk of injury, and decreases muscle soreness resulting from strenuous activity (13,23). However, recent research has challenged some of these beliefs regarding the benefits of static stretching. In particular, studies have shown static stretching to induce significant acute deficits in muscular power (14,24), torque (6,14), force (19,26), and maximal strength (11) as well as jump (4,7,25), sprint (8,17), and agility performance (15). Of importance, these studies have typically involved only a single sprint or power effort. Yet, field-based team sports such as rugby, field hockey, soccer, and Australian football require players to perform multiple maximal sprints inter-
Address for correspondence: Karen Elizabeth Wallman, Ph.D., School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Perth, Australia; E-mail: email@example.com. Submitted for publication March 2008. Accepted for publication July 2008. 0195-9131/09/4102-0444/0 MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS & EXERCISEÒ Copyright Ó 2009 by the American College of Sports Medicine DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181867b95
spersed with brief, mostly active, recovery periods in between efforts (5,22). In addition, team-sport performance requires many changes of direction while sprinting (5,10,22). Although an investigation into the effect of static stretching on this performance parameter has shown impaired performance compared with a dynamic warm-up (15), others have observed no effect of static stretching on agility when incorporated into a warm-up routine (12). Furthermore, no studies have examined the effect of conducting static stretching within the performance activity (i.e., during recovery periods between efforts such as during interchange or breaks in play). Therefore, it is still unknown whether static stretching at these times is detrimental to the performance of repeated maximal efforts. Other limitations of previous research include the use of protocols that are not representative of typical warm-up methods used by athletes in performance settings. For example, the total stretch durations implemented in previous studies range from 90 s (11) to 30 min per muscle group (9), when in practice, mean stretch time is 10–20 s per muscle group, repeated two to three times (1). Also, some studies have applied static stretching in isolation of other warm-up components that are normally performed such as aerobic activity and dynamic drills (3). The objective of this study was to determine the effect of static stretching during recovery periods between efforts on repeated sprint ability (RSA) and also repeated change of
Copyright @ 2009 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Each set of the RSA test was separated by a 4-min recovery period during which the experimental stretching or control intervention was administered. Twelve healthy.8 T 5.8 cm.10). The test was performed on an outdoor grass surface and included four changes of direction. STATIC STRETCHING AND PERFORMANCE Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercised 445 Copyright @ 2009 by the American College of Sports Medicine. each targeting the prime movers of the lower extremities (hamstrings. sum of six sprints) were subsequently determined. Sprint times were recorded using electronic timing gates (Fusion Sport Smart Speed. 1). 5. respectively). The CODS performance test consisted of three sets of 6 Â 20 m maximal sprints. . Each participant was tested at the same time of day across all trials to control for circadian variability. sprint times for the CODS test were recorded using electronic timing gates located at the start and finish lines. After completing all four experimental trials. Institutional ethics approval and individual written informed consent were obtained before the commencement of testing. and run-throughs. each 100-. followed by four 40-m laps of carioca. Research design. Similar to the RSA test. METHODS Participants. The typical error and the coefficient of variance for one set of 6 Â 20 m were 0. In addition. n = 1) and were tested toward the end of their respective competitive seasons. The static stretching protocol implemented during the RSA-SS and the CODSSS trials consisted of a total of six static stretches.9 kg) were recruited as participants. Participants then walked five laps of a 40-m track in 3 min (È4 kmIhj1) followed by 1 min of passive rest. and all sets were separated by a 4-min recovery period during which the experimental stretching or control intervention was administered. hip flexors. Australian football. CODS-CON.direction speed (CODS) performance while closely emulating typical stretching practices. one of the following conditions was applied: control (CON) in which participants were required to stand and rest or static stretch (SS) in which participants were required to complete a 4-min static stretching protocol. respectively. going every 25 s with an active jog back recovery between efforts.060 s and 1. quadriceps. Each trial was commenced with a standardized warm-up consisting of general aerobic activity. it was hypothesized that any deficit in RSA performance would be most evident in the first 5 m of the sprint given that muscular force production requirements are greatest during the initial takeoff phase of a sprint (16). height = 178. jog back to start position). each separated by approximately 1 wk (7 T 1 d). Wales. and CODS-SS) were administered randomly using a Latin square design. For the six sprints completed in each set. n = 4. both mean sprint time (MST) and total sprint time (TST.. with an active recovery between sprints (i.8%. both MST and TST were determined as well as FST and BST. A 20-m sprint distance was chosen as it approximates the mean sprint distance in common field-based team sports (22). alternating direction each lap. 80%. including 80 m each of buttock kicks. These relatively tight turns were chosen to maximize participant reliance on acceleration and deceleration while maintaining the angle of the change in direction similar to that commonly observed in the field (5. UK) located at the start and finish lines. Participants attended the outdoor laboratory on five occasions. and straight leg skipping. The dynamic activities involved sportsspecific movements. Participants were again given strong verbal encouragement to ensure maximal effort. The four experimental trials (RSA-CON. dynamic activities. All stretches were held to the point of slight discomfort (not pain) for a period of 20 s per muscle group per limb (with the exception of the adductor stretch which targeted both limbs simultaneously). Runthroughs consisted of three repetitions of the applicable test (RSA or CODS) conducted at progressively increasing speeds (60%. whereas for best 20-m time were 0. The aerobic activity consisted of 5 min of submaximal jogging performed outdoors on a 40-m marked grass track (20 laps maintaining a pace of 15 s per lap or È9. soleus. Static stretching protocol. All were regular team-sport players (soccer. For the six sprints completed in each set. and 100% of perceived maximum). Participants were given strong verbal encouragement throughout all trials to ensure maximal effort for each sprint.and 10-m split times were recorded. gastrocnemius. Warm-up. Participants were asked to abstain from intense physical activity for 48 h before testing. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. n = 6. high knee lifts.1%. going every 25 s. participants were asked to nominate APPLIED SCIENCES FIGURE 1—CODS performance test. It was hypothesized that RSA and CODS performance would be significantly slower after static stretching in comparison to passive rest. The test was performed on an outdoor grass surface to replicate typical team-sport conditions.6 kmIhj1). Other performance measures included the first (FST) and the best sprint time (BST) of each set. participants were required to perform a standardized warm-up followed by either the RSA or the CODS performance test on two occasions each. with 4 m of straight-line sprinting before and after each turn (Fig. uninjured males (mean T SD: age = 23 T 4 yr.7 T 5. Repeated sprint ability (RSA) test. Both tests involved three sets (of six repetitions each) with a 4-min recovery between sets. Change of direction speed (CODS) performance test. In addition. The first visit involved familiarization with the RSA and the CODS tests as well as the warm-up and stretching protocols to be used in the experimental trials. and field hockey. n = 2. respectively. On the remaining four occasions. rugby. RSA-SS. and adductors. The RSA test consisted of three sets of 6 Â 20-m maximal sprints.19 s and 1. During the break between sets. body mass = 72.e.
07† 0.to 20-m sprint splits in the RSA-SS trial compared with the RSA-CON (P = 0.7 T 1. unlikely. Chicago. post hoc analysis revealed that MST was significantly slower in set 2 over the 0.4–0. Although this was not a statistically significant main effect.8 T 1.04‡ T 0.00 0. 0. The data from set 1 were excluded from the assessment of between treatment effects because the intervention (SS or CON) was not administered until after set 1 of the sprints.27 0.8% (18). IL).org Copyright @ 2009 by the American College of Sports Medicine.7 T 1.42 T 1.e. or harmful (detrimental). Qualitative analysis also revealed ‘‘likely’’ detrimental effects associated with RSA-SS for 20-m sprint times (0–20 m) in set 2 (83%) and 0.06 0. First and best sprint times (FST and BST).03 0.03† 0. very likely.5 — 1.27 20.1 T 1.79 T 1. 75– 95%.91 T 0.15 T 0.9 0.00 0. RSA-SS vs RSA-CON RSA-CON MST (s) Set 1 0–5 m 5–10 m 10–20 m 0–20 m 0–5 m 5–10 m 10–20 m 0–20 m 0–5 m 5–10 m 10–20 m 0–20 m Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 1. 93%).08‡ 0. The threshold value for smallest worthwhile change in 20-m sprint time was set at 0.30 0. In addition. became slower) in set 2 compared with set 1 for the RSA-SS trial (P = 0. Similar to MST. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.15 0.031.42 20. likely. very unlikely.to 5-m and the 0.27 T 20.15†‡ 0.4 T 1. d = 0.acsm-msse.15 T 0. The MST for the RSA test are presented in Table 1.49.44 T 3. Repeated sprint ability (RSA) average and TST for each set of the control (CON) and static stretch (SS) trials (mean T SD). moderate. with post hoc analyses (Fisher’s least significant difference) used where appropriate.51 T 0.07 T 0. In addition. trends in performance were interpreted using Cohen’s d effect sizes (pooled SD) and thresholds (G0.. almost certainly (2). Further. qualitative analysis supported this finding with a ‘‘likely’’ (83%) detrimental effect associated with RSA-SS compared with RSA-CON. 25–75%.4.38 1. whereas CODS times were set at 0. 5–25%.04‡ 0.44 3. TST increased (became slower) in set 2 compared with set 1 in the RSA-SS trial.79 1.12 0. Between trials. The results for BST were less conclusive with qualitative indications (moderate effect sizes and both ‘‘likely’’ detrimental and beneficial effects) for slower BST with TABLE 1.4 T 1. there was no statistical difference in these variables between treatments.2 (Cohen’s units) (21). If both benefit and harm were calculated to be 95%.07‡ T 0.04 T 0.05).00‡ Cohen’s d Mean Change (%) T 90% Confidence Interval* — — — — 2. 90. the true effect was assessed as unclear.07‡ T 0.03 T 0.46 0. possibly. Likewise. strong).44 T 3. respectively). There was no significant within-trial effect for either FST or BST.07 T 0.28 0.14 0.91‡ RSA-SS 1.16 T 0.38 1. trivial. SPSS..4 T 1.08 T 0.2 0.7.17 1 (8/91) 12 (50/39) 2 (49/48) 1 (16/83) 3 (17/80) 6 (67/27) 15 (61/24) 4 (49/47) 1 (16/83) 4 (49/47) TST (s) * Where a positive percent change equates to an increase in time in RSA-SS condition.15‡ T 0. .whether they preferred the stretch or the no-stretch protocol during the recovery periods between sets.5 T 1. The split times for FST and BST of the RSA test are presented in Table 2. However.18 T 0.54 T 20.68 0. 80%) and set 3 (5–10 m. 446 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine http://www. APPLIED SCIENCES RESULTS Repeated Sprint Ability Mean sprint time (MST).11 0.7.41 T 3.44 T 20.81 1.08†‡ 0.033). No other differences were noted between trials for TST.50. † Significant difference from RSA-CON trial (P G 0.044 and 0.3 1.6 0. MST increased (i.to 5-m split times in set 3 (80%) compared with RSA-CON.25 20. Statistical analysis.05).81 T 1. d = 0.04 0. These analyses were carried out using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences for Windows (version 13. Repeated-measures ANOVA was used to compare RSA and CODS performance both within (set 1 vs set 2 vs set 3) and between the two experimental conditions (SS vs CON).0 2.4 T 1. 95–99%.05.43 3.06‡ 0. small.80 T 1. ‡ Significant difference from set 1 (P G 0. Total sprint time (TST).026) and RSA-SS trials (P = 0. whereas set 3 was slower than set 1 for both RSA-SS and RSA-CON (Table 1). Within trials.17‡ 0.5 % Chance Beneficial (Trivial/Detrimental) Set 2 Set 3 0. Inc. TST for set 2 was found to be significantly slower in RSASS compared with RSA-CON (P = 0. and statistical significance was set at P G 0. and 999%.15 0.06 T 0. set 3 was signifi- cantly slower than set 1 for both RSA-CON (P = 0. 1– 5%.38 T 1.15 0. the qualitative analysis suggested that there was a tendency for FST to be slower in RSA-SS with moderate effect sizes and ‘‘likely’’ detrimental effects for FST in set 2 (0–5 m.9 0.18 T 0. Between trials.031). Smallest worthwhile effects were also calculated for all variables to determine the likelihood that the true effect was substantially beneficial.88†‡ 1.40) and a ‘‘likely’’ (91%) detrimental effect for RSA-SS compared with RSA-CON over the first 5 m of the sprints in set 2. Where clear interpretation could be made.006).89 T 0. chances of benefit or harm (called detriment in this manuscript) were assessed as follows: G1%. almost certainly not.79 1.40 0.0 0.0 T 2.67 T 0.4 0. MST for each set was consistently slower in the RSA-SS trial after the stretching protocol.42 3. The qualitative analysis supported this finding with a moderate effect size (d = 0.
01 T 0.67 6. The effect of static stretching on the performance (TST of sets 2 and 3 combined) of each APPLIED SCIENCES TABLE 3.05 0.09 0.026 and 0.04 0.61 6.28 1.07 T 0.18 — 0.8 T 2.36 3. P = 0.06 0. FST was consistently slower for CODS-SS compared with CODS-CON in sets 2 and 3.015.04 0. however.3 T 3.06 0.2 T 1.37 3.21 0.7 1.17 0.13 0.36 0.43 0.89 40.39 0.30 T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T 0.83 6.37 3.42 0.77 41.4 0. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.62 6. and 3 for either FST or BST during the CODS-CON trial.04 0. Change of direction speed (CODS) sprint times (mean [MST].7 1.15 0.32 1.22 T 0.19 T 0.06 T 0.06 0.27 4 91 9 2 16 6 2 2 (13/83) (8/1) (43/48) (34/64) (43/41) (21/73) (30/68) (28/70) a Where a positive % change equates to an increase in time in RSA-SS condition.07 T 0.13 0.46 0.15 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.02 0. Stretching Preferences Participant responses recorded after the final testing session revealed that 50% of participants preferred to stretch during recovery periods.46† 0.05 0. Between trials.27 1.19 0. For BST.29 0.6 % Chance Beneficial (Trivial/Detrimental) Set 2 Set 3 0. CODS-SS vs CODS-CON CODS-CON MST (s) Set Set Set Set Set Set Set Set Set Set Set Set 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 6.20 0. whereas the remaining 50% preferred not to stretch.11 0.05 0.05).43 0.1 0.09 0.04 0. RSA-SS vs RSA-CON RSA-CON FST (s) Set 1 0–5 m 5–10 m 10–20 m 0–20 m 0–5 m 5–10 m 10–20 m 0–20 m 0–5 m 5–10 m 10–20 m 0–20 m 0–5 m 5–10 m 10–20 m 0–20 m 0–5 m 5–10 m 10–20 m 0–20 m 0–5 m 5–10 m 10–20 m 0–20 m 1.12 0.43 0.035).32 0.90 2.0 1.35 3.50 0.13 0.05 0.76 6.2 1.1 0.37 3.57 0.00 0.79 1.33 0.26 T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T 0.36 0.81 6.06 0. CODS time for set 3 in the SS condition was significantly slower in comparison to CON (P = 0. Repeated sprint ability (RSA) FST and BST for each set of the control (CON) and static stretch (SS) trials (mean T SD). but no qualitative analyses supported this result.47 0. RSA-SS over the first 5 m of the sprint in set 2 but faster BST over 5–10 m in the same set. . BST.29 1.73 6.33 5 (15/80) 72 (26/2) 5 (26/69) 2 (35/63) 20 (37/43) 1 (6/93) 5 (25/70) 2 (24/74) BST (s) Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 0.1 j1.18 — 0.1 T 2.25 Mean % Change T 90% Confidence Interval* — 0.20 0.1 T 2.10 0.8 1. respectively). and best [BST]) for each set of the control (CON) and static stretch (SS) trials (mean T SD).72 6.07 0.95 6.37 6.50 2. both FST and BST were significantly slower in sets 2 and 3 compared with set 1 in CODS-SS (FST. The results for CODS are presented in Table 3.7 — — — — 2. There was no significant difference in MST or TST within or between treatments.38 0.5 T 2.16 41. STATIC STRETCHING AND PERFORMANCE Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercised 447 Copyright @ 2009 by the American College of Sports Medicine.36 3.83 6.06 0.13 0. ‡ Significant difference from set 1 (P G 0. Although there was a consistent pattern for slower sprint times in sets 2 and 3 for CODS-SS compared with CODS-CON.05 0.15 0.5 T 3. P = 0.28 0.97 40. Change of Direction Speed Mean and total sprint times (MST and TST).23 — 0.38 3.36 3.24 1. There was no difference between sets 1.04 0.14 0.26 1.10 0.05 0.09 0.43 2.7 T 2.15 0. First and best sprint times (FST and BST).14 0.77 1.04 0. first [FST].06 0.7 3.77 1.98 41.49 0.15 0.5 T 2.06 0.12 0.16 RSA-SS 1.35 3.5 T 2.07 0.05 0. In contrast.65 0.99 40.44 1.38 3.05).28 0.6 0.55 2.77 T T T T T T T T T T T T 0.28 0.007. * Significant difference from RSA-CON trial (P G 0.03 0.60 3.42† 0.78 1.29 1.13 0.22 T 0.08 0.25 T 0.77 1.2 1.20 0.1 T 1.002 and 0.4 T 1.07 0.2 1.67 6. total [TST].35 3. 2.43 CODS-SS 6.75 1.19 % Change Beneficial (Trivial/Detrimental) 5 (73/22) 1 (42/57) 5 (73/22) 1 (42/57) 11 (63/26) 1 (54/45) 9 (81/10) 0 (31/69) TST (s) FST (s) BST (s) a Where a positive % change equates to an increase in time in RSA-SS condition.26 1.12 0.16 0.05 0.42 0.69 6.76 1.07 0.12 0.76 1.2 j2.77 1. † Significant difference from set 1 (P G 0.5 1.80 6.79 1.05).75 1.32 0.16 0.13 Cohen’s d Mean Change (%) T 90% Confidence Intervala — — — — 2.28 1.11 0.05). * Significant difference from CODS-CON trial (P G 0.06 0.3 T 1.41 0. respectively.45‡† Cohen’s d 0.4 T 2.TABLE 2.03 0.61 6.44† 0.26 1.12 0.77 1.35 3.5 T 2. this was not supported by statistical or qualitative analysis.04 0.07 0.66 T T T T T T T T T T T T 0.06 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.4 T 1. this was not supported by statistical or qualitative analysis.86 6.
Although this was not supported by statistical significance across all measures (only MST for 0–5 m set 2. poststatic stretching. With respect to CODS performance. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. individual participant depending on their preference is shown in Figure 2. Based on this. Further.26). of the six participants preferring to stretch. However. Results are expressed as the difference from CON when SS was performed (i. Taken together. these results suggest that it may be preferable to avoid static stretching during recovery periods for optimal RSA performance. The hypothesis that any deficits in RSA performance would be more evident in the first 5 m of the sprints is supported to some extent by the present results. may reduce any stretching-induced impairment in performance. two fundamental determinants of team-sport success. it is possible that as fatigue developed during the repeated-sprint protocols used in this study (as shown by the significantly slower sprint times in set 3 compared with set 1 within trials). This may assist in explaining the significantly slower MST noted during the RSA-SS trial for set 2 but not for set 3. results for BST (set 3) were significantly slower after static stretching.. participants were required to perform six repeated maximal efforts going every 25 s with active (jog back) recovery in between. . In both tests (RSA and CODS). the qualitative analysis did reveal a moderate effect size and a ‘‘likely’’ detrimental effect associated with RSA-SS. ecological validity was emphasized by using stretching and testing protocols that reflect actual practice. The lack of statistically significant differences between trials across all measures may have been limited by the testing protocols used in the present study. Likewise.e. there was a consistent tendency for sprint times to be slower in the CODS-SS trial compared with the CODS-CON. MST for 0–20 m set 2.acsm-msse. four performed better in the RSA test (faster TST of sets 2 and 3) when they completed the control (no-stretching) protocol. In addition. MST for the first 5 m in set 2 was significantly slower in RSA-SS compared with RSA-CON. whereas filled symbols indicate individuals preferring not to stretch. Of the six participants preferring to stretch during recovery periods. These results support the contention that any detrimental effects of static stretching on sprint ability may be largely due to an impairment of the force producing capacity of the muscles of the lower limb during the initial takeoff.to 10-m and the 10. slower sprint times. Likewise. With respect to RSA. TST set 2 and BST set 3.org Copyright @ 2009 by the American College of Sports Medicine. with all performance measures being slower in CODS-SS. it is possible that the testing protocols themselves may have been sufficient dynamic activity to dampen any significant detrimental effect of stretching on both RSA and CODS performance. there was a consistent tendency for sprint times to be slower after the static stretching intervention. there were no moderate or strong effect sizes or ‘‘likely’’ detrimental effects associated with CODS-SS. unlike the results for RSA. three performed better in the stretching condition whereas the other 3 individuals performed worse. more commonly.24. This hypothesis was based on existing literature which suggests that the performance of tasks that are highly reliant on muscular force and power is attenuated after acute bouts of static stretching (14. In doing so. In all other measures. and RSASS significantly slower than RSA-CON)..19. only the 5. during interchange or breaks in play) on subsequent RSA and CODS performance. any effects of static stretching may have been attenuated. whereas negative results indicate faster performance).to 20-m splits. which resulted in equal times. it is interesting to note that in all the performance data collected. DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of static stretching during the recovery periods in field-based team sports (i. who suggested that extra muscle activity after stretching may reverse any decrease in muscle compliance and neural drive associated with static stretching. static stretching resulted in either equal or. It was hypothesized that both RSA and CODS performance would be impaired (particularly in the first 5-m acceleration phase for RSA) when static stretching was conducted between testing sets. Open symbols indicate individuals that preferred to stretch during recovery periods between repeated bouts.FIGURE 2—The effect of static stretching on RSA (circles) and CODS (squares) performance (combined total sprint time [TST] for sets 2 and 3) for each individual participant. moderate effect sizes and ‘‘likely’’ detrimental effects were found over the first 5 m for FST and BST in set 2 when stretching was included during the recovery period. This tendency for slower sprint times after static stretching was also supported by moderate to large effect sizes and qualitative analyses that indicated ‘‘likely’’ detrimental effects for several measures (see Tables 1 and 2).to 10-m split times for FST and BST in set 2 were faster after the static stretching intervention. whereas no difference was noted for the 5. positive values represent slower performance with SS. This premise is supported by Little and Williams (12). the reduction in TST as a result of reduced acceleration during APPLIED SCIENCES 448 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine http://www. However. Rosenbaum and Henning (20) demonstrated that the addition of further dynamic activities. Although no statistical difference was noted over the first 5 m for set 3. except for BST set 2.e.
Conley DS. . Renstrom P. 5. half of the participants preferred to stretch during recovery periods between efforts. 89:1179–88. 4. and skill-related tests for talent identification in female field hockey. Of interest. Bakker B.17:484–8. Player movement patterns and game activities in the Australian Football League. 5th ed. The European college of sports 8. along with static stretching performed in isolation of other warm-up activities and performance tests being conducted immediately after stretching (8). and consequently static stretching is unlikely to have a significant negative impact on the final outcome of a game. Bernieri A. Williams AG. Little T. previous research has predominantly examined the effect of static stretching on a single sprint or CODS movement rather than repeated sprint activities. Appleby B. physiological. compared with tests involving multiple efforts over a longer time span such as a sprint. Previous research has focused on the effects of static stretching as part of the warm-up rather than within the performance. 2005. REFERENCES 1. 6. whether participants preferred to stretch or not did not seem to impact their individual performance.18:885–8. J Strength Cond Res. For instance. J Strength Cond Res. Therefore. Baltimore (MD): Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching on vertical jump performance. Sports Med. That is. American College of Sports Medicine. p. J Strength Cond Res. electromyography. 10. To explore this issue. Nelson AG. Magnusson SP.28: 397–409.7:278–91. Fletcher and Jones (8) observed significantly slower 20-m sprint times after passive stretching. J Strength Cond Res. Bellucci M. In conclusion. APPLIED SCIENCES The results of this study do not constitute endorsement by ACSM. Jones B. 7. Batterham AM. Hopkinson R. Warm up II: performance changes following active warm up and how to structure the warm up. Cornwell A. 3. Hopkins WG. whereas the remaining half did not. Also. such as vertical jumps. 2004. STATIC STRETCHING AND PERFORMANCE Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercised 449 Copyright @ 2009 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Fletcher IM. 2000. 2003. Todd JB. each individual participant’s TST (sum of sets 2 and 3) was plotted along with their preference. those that prefer to stretch may tend to perform worse when they are forced to omit stretching from their normal routine. Effects of differential stretching protocols during warm-ups on high-speed motor capacities in professional soccer players. (17) reported significantly slower 20-m sprint times after four sets of three passive stretches each lasting 30 s compared with a no-stretching condition. Likewise. It is possible that there is a psychological influence on performance when individuals are forced to act in opposition to their preference. Bradley PS. 2007. Keogh JW. an acute bout (4 min) of static stretching of the lower limbs during recovery periods between efforts may compromise RSA performance but may have less effect on CODS performance. Faigenbaum et al. Sportscience. Acute effects of different warm-up protocols on fitness performance in children. 2003. Reduced strength after passive stretch of the human plantar flexors. J Sci Med Sport. 2006. and mechanomyography during concentric isokinetic muscle actions. The lack of statistical evidence to support an effect of static stretching on CODS performance in the present study is in agreement with the findings of Little and Williams (12).33: 483–98. 2004. However. 2003. 2006. These authors suggested that change of direction perfor- mance is less likely to be affected by the design of the warm-up given the high involvement of complex motorperformance skills. Kokkonen J. 12. Bishop D.the first 5 m may be insignificant when measuring sprint times over distances of 20 m or more. Making meaningful inferences about magnitudes. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. no obvious patterns were evident. Sale DG. ACSM’s Resource Manual for Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. Roberts C. However. 2. it may be preferable to avoid static stretching during recovery periods for optimal performance in these aspects of a team game. Hoorens K.69:411–5. Res Q Exerc Sport. Effect of static stretching of the biceps brachii on torque. This may be partly responsible for the discrepancy between results from previous investigations that have examined the effect of static stretching on performance tests involving brief. 13. MacDougall JD. the same is not so for CODS (or agility). Faigenbaum AD. 363. after a precompetition warm-up similar to that used in field-based team sports.19:376–81. The effect of static. 2005. isolated muscular efforts. 11. Can J Appl Physiol. Weber CL. 9. Dawson B. Fowles JR. J Strength Cond Res. it is possible that any effects of static stretching on the CODS task in the present study may have been overshadowed by the complexity of the task. however. it is important to note that team sports involve several complex tasks and other athletic abilities. Similarly. Olsen PD. J Appl Physiol. For instance. The effect of different warm-up stretch protocols on 20 meter sprint performance in trained rugby union players. (7) found no significant difference in proagility run times after static stretching. Evetovich TK. who observed similar agility performance when a warm-up involving static stretching was compared with warm-up excluding stretching. Nauman NJ. In contrast to the abovementioned studies suggesting a negative effect of static stretching on single sprint ability. This is the first study to examine the effects of static stretching during recovery periods on subsequent sprint performance. Evaluation of anthropometric.9:6–13.20:203–7. 1998. Portas MD. Dalton CT. Acute muscle stretching inhibits maximal strength performance. ballistic.21:223–6. Stewart G. Nelson et al. Given the consistent tendency for slower sprint times for both RSA and CODS after static stretching during recovery periods. such past studies have typically implemented longer stretch durations than commonly prescribed (17).
Hatler BS. 2006. Yamaguchi T. A review.acsm-msse. McMillian DJ. Rosenbaum D. 17. 19. The influence of stretching and warm-up exercises on Achilles tendon reflex activity. Goodman C.13:481–90. 2001. Moore JH. Vollebregt L. Yamanaka M. Ishii K. Little effect of caffeine ingestion on repeated sprints in team-sport athletes.14. Dynamic vs. 15. J Sports Sci. 1992.33(5):822–5. et al. 18. J Sports Med Phys Fit. Cahill F. 1995. 2006. Spencer M. 2006. Hennig EM. Nelson AG. Res Q Exerc Sport. Biomechanics of sprint running. J Strength Cond Res.6:87–91.org Copyright @ 2009 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Power K. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. Young WB. Elliott S. 25. Schexnayder IC. static-stretching warm up: the effect on power and agility performance. Paton CD. Acute effects of passive muscle stretching on sprint performance. 2003. Driscoll NM. Time-motion analysis of elite field hockey. Witvrouw E. 2004. proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching. 20. Mero A.34: 443–9. and maximum voluntary contractions on explosive force production and jumping performance. Fincher AL.72:273–9. Rechichi C.43:21–7. 21. Med Sci Sports Exerc. with special reference to repeated-sprint activity. J Strength Cond Res. Komi PV. Effects of different modes of exercise training on glucose control and risk factors for complications in type 2 diabetic patients: a meta-analysis. J Sports Sci.29: 2518–27. Effects of running. Taylor DC.22: 843–50.36(8):1389–96. 2001.20:804–10. Sports Med. Young W. 23. 2004. 2006. Acute effects of static and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching on muscle strength and power output. J Sports Sci. Acute effect of static stretching on power output during concentric dynamic constant external resistance leg extension.20:492–9. Diabetes Care. 16. McNair P. Behm DG. Bishop D. APPLIED SCIENCES 450 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine http://www. 26. Hopkins WG. Snowling NJ. Acute effects of static stretching. Yasuda K.40:94–103. 24. Eur J Sports Sci. 2005.23:449–54. Hopkins WG. Dawson B. Stretching and injury prevention: an obscure relationship. static stretching and practice jumps on explosive force production and jumping performance. Young W. 22. Cramer JT. . Sports Med. Carroll M. Behm D. Danneels L. Landin DK. Med Sci Sports Exerc. science position statement: the role of stretching in sports. An acute bout of static stretching: effects on force and jumping performance. Gregor RJ. Lawrence S.13:376–92. Young MA. 2004. Marek SM. J Athl Train. Mahieu N. 2005.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.