THE EFFECT OF ACUTE STRETCHING ON AGILITY
PERFORMANCE
LEONARD H. VAN GELDER AND SHARI D. BARTZ
Department of Movement Science, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, Michigan
ABSTRACT
Van Gelder, LH and Bartz, SD. The effect of acute stretching on
agility performance. J Strength Cond Res 25(11): 3014–3021,
2011—Static stretching (SS) has shown decreases in many
areas including strength, anaerobic power, and sprinting time.
Dynamic stretching (DS) has shown increases in anaerobic
power and decreases in sprinting time. Research on the effects of
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 03/15/2022
stretching on agility performance is limited. The purpose of this
study was to determine the effect of SS and DS on performance
time of a sport agility test. Sixty male subjects consisting of
collegiate (n = 18) and recreational (n = 42) basketball athletes
volunteered for the study. Subjects were randomly assigned to
1 of 3 intervention groups: SS, DS, or no stretching (NS). All
groups completed a 10-minute warm-up jog followed by a
3-minute rest. The SS and DS groups then completed an
8.5-minute stretching intervention. Next, all subjects completed
3 trials of the 505 agility test with 2–5 minutes of rest between
trials. A 2-way repeated-measure analysis of variance (Stretch
group, athlete category, group 3 athlete interaction) was used to
determine statistical significance (p , 0.05). A Tukey post hoc
test was performed to determine differences between groups.
For all athletes, the DS group produced significantly faster times
on the agility test (2.22 6 0.12 seconds, mean 6 SD) in
comparison to both the SS group (2.33 6 0.15 seconds, p =
0.013) and NS group (2.32 6 0.12 seconds, p = 0.026).
Differences between the SS and NS groups revealed no
significance (p = 0.962). There was a significant difference in
mean times for the type of athlete (p = 0.002); however,
interaction between the type of athlete and stretching group was
not significant (p = 0.520). These results indicate that in
comparison to SS or NS, DS significantly improves performance
on closed agility skills involving a 180° change of direction.
KEY WORDS dynamic stretching, static stretching, agility
testing, 505 Agility
Address correspondence to Leonard H. Van Gelder, leonard@
dynamicprinciples.com.
25(11)/3014–3021
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2011 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
3014 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
INTRODUCTION
I
n recent years, the professional strength and condi-
tioning community has transitioned away from static
stretching (SS) into dynamic stretching (DS) during
warm-up as a method to improve athletic performance
(15,18,24,27,44). DS is theorized to be more functionally and
physiologically applicable to sport activity preparation. As
a result, research has exponentially grown regarding both
forms of stretching, in particular with examinations of
singular components of athletic performance such as force
(5,18,20), power (26,44), and sprinting speed (36,40,43).
Another important component to many sports is agility, and
to date, there has been little research that has investigated
which method of stretching may enhance this area of athletic
performance.
Traditionally, SS has been used in combination with
a warm-up as an intervention, thought to reduce the risk of
injury, increase range of motion (ROM), and improve overall
athletic performance. Static stretching can be defined as
involving a slow, gradual, and controlled elongation of
a muscle, in which the end range is held passively for
a designated period of time (2,25). Static stretching has been
shown to effectively increase ROM, particularly static
flexibility (2). These increases in ROM have been demon-
strated in both acute and long-term intervention (25).
Despite traditional thought regarding the role of SS in
injury prevention, acute pre-exercise SS has not been shown
to reduce the risk of injury (33,39). Although a study by
Amako et al. (1) had previously demonstrated a decreased
risk of musculotendinous injury from an SS regimen, the
results were not specific to pre-exercise acute SS because the
regimen was combined with postexercise SS.
In regard to the influence of acute SS on athletic
performance, studies over the last 25 years have introduced
evidence that acute SS may produce performance decrements
(5,13,18,29,43,45). Studies have shown that acute SS reduced
force production (18); sprint performance (36,43); depth-
jump performance; vertical jump height; long jump distance
(13,45); strength endurance (29); and balance, reaction, and
movement times (5).
Some studies have demonstrated that not all components
of athletic performance appear to be negatively affected by
pre-exercise acute SS. Little and Williams found that
performance after SS was not significantly different from no
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

including increases in quadri-

Figure 1. The 505 agility test.
stretching (NS) in 10-m sprinting, vertical jump height, and
agility (24). In fact, SS provided an improvement in 20-m
sprinting compared to NS in their study (24). Yamaguchi and
Ishii found that SS produced no significant difference in leg
extension power than NS (44). These and other discrep-
ancies (27) demonstrate the importance of additional
research on the potential deleterious effects of acute SS.
As a result of concerns with the potential performance
decrements of SS, interest in DS continues to grow. Dyamic
stretching is defined by the National Strength and Condi-
tioning Association (NSCA) as a functional stretching
exercise that uses sport-specific movements to prepare the
body for activity (21). Research on the acute use of DS has
demonstrated improvements in sprinting performance
(15,24), leg extension power (44), closed skill agility
performance (8,24,27), and improved performance for
children when executing the long jump (13). A recent study
on the long-term use of DS has also shown improvements
ceps peak torque, broad jump,
underhand medicine ball
throw, sit-ups, push-ups, and
decreased time in the 300-yd
shuttle and 600-m run (19).
The effect of SS or DS on
agility performance has not
been extensively studied. This
is potentially because of the
difficulty in standardizing a def-
inition for agility and methods
of evaluating agility perfor-
mance. Most definitions and
tests only encompass the phys-
ical components of agility, such
as directional changes, power,
acceleration, and even ‘‘quickness’’ (37). What is commonly
excluded from the definition are the perceptual and decision-
making aspects (16,37) of agility performance. Sheppard and
Young attempted to address this short-coming with his
definition of agility as ‘‘a rapid whole-body movement with
change of velocity or direction in response to a stimulus’’ (37).
Plisk further divided agility into closed and open agility skills
(32). Closed agility skills consist of preplanned agility skills
performed in a predictable or stable environment (32). Open
agility skills consist of unplanned agility skills performed in an
unpredictable or unstable environment (32). The most
commonly used tests, including the T-Test, Illinois agility
test, Zig-Zag agility test, and the 505 agility test, would be
considered closed agility skill tests because of their
preplanned nature in predictable environments.
Several studies (8,22,24,27) have attempted to evaluate the
acute effects of SS or DS on closed skill agility performance.
Only one of these studies examined the effect of SS and DS on

TABLE 1. Static stretches.*

Stretch name Muscle emphasis Time (s) Sets

Crossleg Gluteals 30 2 Total (1 per leg)

Butterfly Adductors 30 1 Total
Sit and reach Spinal erectors and hamstrings 30 1 Total
Floor back extension Abdominals 30 1 Total
Lateral bend Obliques 30 2 Total (1 per side)
Wall pec Pectoral groups 30 2 Total (1 per side)
Abductor Iliotibial band 30 2 Total (1 per leg)
Standing 1-leg quadriceps Quadricep 30 2 Total (1 per leg)
Seated 1-leg hamstring Hamstrings 30 2 Total (1 per leg)
Calf stretch Gastrocnemius and soleus 30 2 Total (1 per leg)
*Total time: 8 minutes and 30 seconds.

VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2011 | 3015

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Acute Stretching and Agility Performance

TABLE 2. Dynamic stretches.*†

Stretch name Muscle emphasis (partial)‡ Repetitions

Supine knee rocking Pelvic, spinal mobility 20

Prone scorpion Quadriceps, gluteus maximus, obliques 10
Hand walkout (inchworm) Erector spinae, gastrocnemius, soleus 5
Prisoner squats Quadriceps, hamstrings, rhomboids 10
Side-step squats Gluteus medius, quadriceps, hamstrings 10 Per side
Lunge with twist Quadriceps, hamstrings, obliques 5 Per side
45° T-lunges Gluteus medius, quadriceps, 4 Per side
hamstrings, IT bands, rhomboids
High knees Quadriceps, gastrocnemius, soleus 20
Heel kicks Hamstrings, gluteus maximus, 20
gastrocnemius, soleus
Leg swing Hamstrings, illiopsoas, gluteus maximus 10 Per side
Box drill hops (counter and clockwise) Gastrocnemius, soleus 10 CW/CCW
Single leg hops (back and forth) Gastrocnemius, soleus 10
Single leg hops (back and forth) Gastrocnemius, soleus 10
Carioca§ Gastrocnemius, soleus, adductors, abductors
*CW = clockwise; CCW = counterclockwise.
†Total time: approximately 8 minutes and 30 seconds.
‡Muscle emphasis is only a partial list, general emphasis is shown.
§Carioca was performed twice (back and forth) on the 5.2-m distance between the basketball court edge and the outside of the
3-point line.

agility alone (22). However, this study used the Illinois agility
test, which has previously been questioned for its higher
correlation to sprint performance (11) and lower correlation to
acceleration. Acceleration is widely considered a cornerstone
of agility performance (11,31,32,37). The remaining studies
examined agility as a component of a battery of tests. The
participation in other tests before performing the agility test
could have affected performance on the agility test itself.
The objective of this study was to determine whether
performing SS, DS, or NS before performing a time based
closed skill agility test has a positive, negative, or no effect on
an individual’s time performance. Two hypotheses were
proposed: First, that acute DS significantly improves time
performance on the 505 agility test in comparison to both
acute SS and NS. Second, that SS would negatively impact
time performance on the 505 agility test compared to NS.

TABLE 3. Mean 505 agility times.* METHODS

Population Group Mean 6 SD N Experimental Approach to the Problem
Subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 different pre-
Collegiate DS 2.14 6 0.088 7 exercise intervention groups (SS, DS, and NS) to determine
NS 2.28 6 0.125 6
the effect of stretching on time performance in an agility test.
SS 2.21 6 0.097 5
Mean (s) 2.21 6 0.115 18 The NS intervention group served as a control. The
Recreational DS 2.26 6 0.123 13 interventions were performed after a general 10-minute
NS 2.34 6 0.113 14 warm-up consisting of light jogging. After completing the
SS 2.37 6 0.143 15 general warm-up and pre-exercise intervention (or no
Mean (s) 2.33 6 0.133 42
intervention with NS), the subjects performed the 505 agility
Total DS 2.22 6 0.124 20
NS 2.32 6 0.117 20 test. A between-group design was selected for the study for
SS 2.33 6 0.148 20 2 purposes: first, to increase likelihood of recruitment because
Mean (s) 2.29 6 0.138 60 of minimal time commitment and second, to decrease the
chance of a learning effect in the 505 agility test, which could
*DS = dynamic stretching; SS = static stretching;
NS = no stretching. occur in a within-group design by requesting each subject to
come back on 3 separate occasions to perform each of the
stretching regimes.
the TM

3016 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

testing from May through

October. The methods and
procedures for this study
were approved by the Grand
Valley State University (GVSU)
Human Research Review
Committee.
One female collegiate athlete
and 3 recreational female ath-
letes volunteered and partici-
pated in the study but were
excluded because of concerns
presented during statistical
Figure 2. Mean 505 agility time (seconds); †significantly different at p , 0.05; interaction between the type of
athlete and stretching group (group 3 athlete interaction) was not significant. analysis regarding consistencies
in time values between the male
and female subjects. Three rec-
reational male subjects were
Subjects
also excluded from the final study, because of having run
Sixty college aged male subjects (age = 20.02 6 1.51 years)
outside of the range of the timing device optical beam leading
consisting of collegiate (n = 18) and recreational (n = 42)
to inaccurate recording of time.
basketball athletes volunteered for the study. Volunteer
subjects must have been free of injury for a period of 6 Procedures
months before testing and were briefed regarding potential Subjects were randomly assigned to 3 intervention groups (20
risks before providing written informed consent to qualify per group). Testing consisted of a 10-minute warm-up jog,
for the study. Basketball athletes were selected because the 3 minutes of rest, approximately 8.5 minutes of stretching
505 agility test had previously been used to evaluate intervention (the NS group proceeded directly to testing).
basketball and netball (12) agility and the year-round Stretching was immediately followed by instruction and
availability of basketball athletes. Collegiate (National 2 practice trials of the 505 agility test. Directly after the
Collegiate Athletic Association [NCAA] Division II) and practice, the subjects performed the 505 agility test. Three
recreational athletes were selected based on the likelihood of trials of the 505 agility test were performed with 2–5 minutes
meeting minimum training levels and being a readily of rest in-between trials; this met the rest interval require-
accessible population. The minimal training level required ments of an exercise performed at 90–100% of maximum
was for subjects to be actively involved in some form of power as suggested by the NSCA (10).
basketball training an average of 3 d
wk21 for 6 weeks The testing began with the subjects performing 10 minutes of
consisting of actual game play, drill practice, conditioning, or slow jogging at a rating of perceived exertion of 3–5 on the Borg
any combination of these. Collegiate athletes were in their CR10 scale (7), exceeding the minimum requirements of
off-season during testing and completed testing between a general warm-up recommended by the NSCA to increase
May and early September. Recreational athletes completed heart rate, blood flow, muscle temperature, respiration rate,
perspiration, and to decrease
viscosity of joint fluids (21). All
subjects were given a 3-minute
rest at the end of the jog. After
the rest, the SS and DS groups
TABLE 4. Tukey Honestly Significant Difference.* performed their respective
stretching protocols. Stretching
(I) Group (J) Group Mean difference (I 2 J) (s) SE Significance
intervention lasted approxi-
DS NS 20.102† 0.0382 0.026 mately 8.5 minutes, meeting
SS 20.112† 0.0382 0.013 NSCA sport-specific warm-up
NS DS 0.102† 0.0382 0.026
criteria (21). While the stretch-
SS 20.010 0.0382 0.962
SS DS 0.112† 0.0382 0.013 ing interventions were per-
NS 0.010 0.0382 0.962 formed, the NS group was
instructed on how to perform
*DS = dynamic stretching; SS = static stretching; NS = no stretching.
†Significantly different at p , 0.05. the 505 agility test and given the
opportunity to do a partial speed
practice run of the test twice.

VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2011 | 3017

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Acute Stretching and Agility Performance
After completing the instructional portion of the test, the NS
group performed the 505 test 3 times with 2–5 minutes of rest
between repetitions. This concluded the testing session for the
NS group. Once the SS and DS groups completed their
stretching interventions, they followed the same testing
procedure as the NS groups had performed after a 3-minute
rest and instructional period. Testing was performed on
hardwood indoor basketball court surfaces. Subjects were
required to perform in shorts, t-shirt, and basketball shoes. No
compensation was offered to the subjects for participating in
the study.
505 Agility Test
Concerns with current closed agility skills, such as the Illinois
agility test and the T-Test, are their high correlation to sprint
performance (11,31), and less so to acceleration. Although
the role of acceleration in closed skill agility has been
questioned (23), it is still widely considered an important
component (11,31,32,37). Because open skill agility tests are
still early in development (37,38), the use of a closed skill
agility test was decided upon for this study. The 505 agility
test is a closed linear running agility skill test involving a 180°
change of direction (11). It has been shown to correlate
highly to acceleration rather than maximal velocity (11).
Although some correlation to sprinting speed was recently
evaluated by Gabbett et al. (16), the 505 test demonstrated
the lowest correlation to sprinting speed of the 4 agility tests
used. Based on the high correlation to acceleration, low
correlation to maximal velocity and sprinting speed, and the
ease of administration of the 505 agility test, it was selected
for this study.
Timing was measured using the Brower Speed Trap I Timing
System (Brower Timing Systems, Salt Lake City, UT, USA).
The timer tripod was set at a height of 42 cm. This height was
selected to prevent the timer from being triggered by the
subject’s arm, permitting only the legs to trigger timing to begin
and end. Cones were placed at 15, 5, and 0 m (Figure 1).
Distance from the optical lens of the timer to the opposite cone
was set at 2.74 m to meet the 0.31- to 3.66-m limitations of the
timer. The timer was located at the 5-m mark.
The 505 agility test was performed as follows. Subjects
sprinted forward from the 15-m cones and the timing began
once they passed the 5-m cones. When the subjects reached
the 0-m cones, the subject made a 180° change of direction
and sprinted back through the 5-m cones, at which point the
timer was stopped. All subjects completed 3 trials of the 505
agility test with 2–5 minutes’ rest between each trial.
Stretch Interventions
Static Stretching. The SS protocol was designed to be as close
as possible to currently used preactivity stretching while
remaining standardized for research purposes. The SS group
emphasized stretching the primary locomotive muscle groups
(gastrocnemius, hamstrings, quadriceps, hip flexors, hip
adductors and abductors, gluteals) and 4 additional stretches
for the abdominals, obliques, pectorals, and spinal erectors.
the TM
3018 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Some previous studies have used SS time periods of 2 minutes
or greater (28); however, time lengths of greater than a single
set of 30 seconds have demonstrated no additional increases
in ROM (3). Based on this evidence, and in consideration of
practical time limitations presented in a real-world training
session, each stretch was performed for a single set of 30
seconds. Stretches were performed in the order shown in
Table 1.
Dynamic Stretching. The dynamic stretch selection and
repetition range chosen was designed to abridge commonly
used prepractice and pregame or competition DS techniques.
Similar protocols are currently used worldwide, including the
Parisi Warm-up Method, which has been used by over
250,000 athletes across all levels of competition (34). The DS
group partook in a blend of mobilization activities, controlled
movements through an active ROM, general movement
drills, and light plyometric activity. Movements emphasized
muscle groups of the lower extremity combined with active
upper-extremity movements to target the same muscle
groups used in the SS routine. Dynamic stretches were
performed in the order shown in Table 2.
Statistical Analyses
Sample size was determined using Nquery Advisor (version
7.0, Saugus, MA, USA). The following parameters were used:
effect size of 0.27 (based on McMillian agility study [27]),
power of 0.90, and alpha of 0.05. A 2-way repeated-measures
analysis of variance (ANOVA, athlete category, stretch group,
group 3 athlete interaction) was used to determine statistical
significance (p # 0.05). The conditions on this test were that
each group comes from an approximately normal population
with equal variance. A Tukey post hoc test was performed to
determine differences between groups. Statistical analysis
was performed using SPSS (version 17.0, Chicago, IL, USA).
RESULTS
The descriptive statistics for both collegiate and recreational
athletes are presented in Table 3. Mean times for both types of
athletes are presented in Figure 2. Cronbach’s Alpha
demonstrated acceptable test-retest reliability (a = 0.889). A
2-way repeated-measures ANOVA with trial as the repeated
factor (condition of sphericity was met, Mauchly’s test [p =
0.568]), indicates that trial effect is statistical insignificant (p ,
0.067). A small effect was noted for trials (d  0.227) (9), with
a power of 0.536. There was a significant difference in mean
times between the collegiate and recreational athlete categories
(p = 0.002) and also the 3 stretch groups (p = 0.024). The
collegiate athletes performed significantly faster (2.21 6 0.12
seconds, mean 6 SD) than the recreational athletes (2.33 6
0.15 seconds). However, interaction between the type of
athlete and stretching group was not significant (p = 0.520).
The results of the Tukey post hoc test are displayed in Table 4.
The DS group demonstrated the greatest performance increases
on the agility test with significantly faster times (2.22 6 0.12

seconds) in comparison to both the SS (2.33 6 0.15 seconds,
p = 0.013) and NS group (2.32 6 0.12 seconds, p = 0.026),
regardless of whether the athlete belonged to either the
collegiate or recreational population. The difference between
the SS and NS groups was not significant (p = 0.962). The
observed power for detecting difference between groups was
0.689 (a = 0.05). Using Cohen’s Categories of Effect Size (9),
there were large effect sizes between DS and NS (d = 0.83) and
DS and SS (d = 0.81) but a trivial effect size between NS and SS
(d = 0.08). The confidence interval has determined with 95%
confidence that the athlete effect accounts for between 2.3 and
31.8% of the variance in the dependent variable, that the group
effect accounts for between 0 and 27% of the variance in the
dependent variable, and that the athlete 3 group interaction
effect accounts for between 0 and 11.8% of the variance in the
dependent variable (41).
DISCUSSION
The principal results of this study support our hypothesis that
acute DS significantly improves time performance on the
505 agility test in comparison to both acute SS and NS. The
data also reveal that this improvement was expressed in both
our recreational and collegiate athlete populations. However,
our second hypothesis that SS would negatively impact time
performance on the 505 test compared to a NS control group
was not supported. No significant difference in time
performance on the agility test was shown between the SS
and NS groups. Therefore, we conclude, that in comparison
to static or NS, DS significantly improves performance on
closed linear running agility skills involving a 180° change of
direction.
The results of this study support the results of Khorasan
et al. (22), Little and Williams. (24) and McMillian et al. (27)
regarding the beneficial effect of DS on a closed skill agility
test, despite the use of different agility tests between all of
the studies. The lack of significant difference between SS and
NS was also noted in both prior studies. Only the work of
Chaouachi et al. (8) did not demonstrate improvements from
DS on a closed agility test in comparison to NS and SS. This
apparent inconsistency presented by Chaouachi et al. (8) may
potentially be related to the unspecified sport population of
their study, whereas those studies demonstrating a positive
effect, including this study, involved subjects who were
principally trained in sports sharing movement patterns
similar to the closed skill agility tests used in the studies.
The design of this study limits the ability to propose an
explanation for the performance improvement produced by
DS. The existing literature regarding the effects of SS and DS
on athletic performance has been primarily focused on the SS-
induced force loss and less on why DS improves athletic
performance. Because the purpose of this discussion is not to
be an all inclusive overview of proposed mechanisms
regarding SS-induced force deficits or physiological media-
tors of increase performance from DS, we will briefly cover
current discussion related to the topic.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
Several studies have proposed the SS-induced force loss
may be in part related to the mechanically based length–
tension relationship of storing elastic energy during the
eccentric phase of the stretch shortening cycle (18,27,45).
Herda et al. (18) hypothesized that the SS-induced decrease
in passive stiffness of the tendon would yield a decrease in
muscle fiber shortening at specific lengths as determined by
joint angles. This would cause the observed stretch-induced
force deficit to be apparent at muscle lengths shorter than the
length for optimal force production. Other possible influen-
ces of SS-induced force loss may include neural inhibition of
muscle. Previous work by Behm et al. (6) examined the effect
of SS-induced force loss on muscle contractile properties
(twitch and tetanic force) and noted that although twitch
forces were significantly decreased after SS, there was no
decrease in tetanic forces. This led them to propose that post-
SS force decrements are more likely affected by muscular
inhibition than changes in the viscoelastic (mechanical)
properties of muscle.
The role of increased muscle temperature may play an
important role in understanding the effects of both SS and DS.
Increased muscle temperature has shown to decrease muscle
stiffness (30), increase maximal peak force and anaerobic
power (35), decrease blood and muscle lactate (17), and
increase muscle glycogenolysis, glycolysis, and promote
high-energy phosphate degradation (14). Static stretching is
a passive activity and therefore likely does not yield an
increase in muscle temperature, whereas DS is an active
activity, which may yield an increase in muscle temperature.
It can be theorized that adding a conditioning activity that
yields an increase in muscle temperature after an SS inter-
vention may restore SS-induced performance losses. How-
ever, studies combining SS and DS in a single intervention
have produced contradictory results. Fletcher and Anness
(15) found that a combined SS and DS regimen still produced
a significant decrease in sprint performance, whereas Taylor
et al. (42) found a high-intensity skill-based warm-up after SS
restored SS-induced sprint performance losses. Chaouachi
et al. (8)found no differences between SS, DS, or different
orders of combined SS and DS. More recently, Khorasani
et al. (22) found that combined SS and DS restored agility
performance losses in comparison to SS but that DS and NS
still yielded greater performance.
Recently, some investigators have suggested that post-
activation potentiation (PAP) may play a role in increased DS
performance (13,27,44). Postactivation potentiation can be
defined as the enhancement in force produced from muscle
twitch after submaximal or maximal contraction from
a conditioning activity (18). Baudry and Duchateau (4) have
provided additional support for the role PAP plays in DS
performance increases. In their study, they found that
voluntary ballistic contractions performed in advance of
a maximal power test yielded an increase in power.
Further research on the influence of DS and SS on
contractile history (such as PAP), muscle stiffness, neural
VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2011 | 3019
 Acute Stretching and Agility Performance
inhibition, and muscle temperature in skeletal muscle
performance is necessary. Not only may it provide a rationale
for the importance of DS intervention but it may also reveal if
the type of DS technique (mobility, ballistic, sport-specific,
non–sport specific, etc.) and the order in which they are
performed (mobility before ballistic, non–sport specific before
sport specific, etc.) has any influence on overall performance.
As discussed during the introduction, there is a need for
a consensus on the definition of agility and its measurement.
The development and identification of closed and open agility
skill tests that are sport specific and that have a predictive
value of athlete skill level specific (37) to the sport is of great
importance. A significant flaw in this study and previous
studies is the inability to broadly apply the results to all agility
activities. The 505 agility test can only be applied to sports
involving running agility skills containing a 180° turn (e.g.,
basketball, netball, or tennis) and lacks the ability to evaluate
the cognitive component of open skill agility. Future studies
should include examining the effects of SS and DS on both
open agility tests, such as the Reactive Agility test developed
by Sheppard et al. (38), and closed skill agility tests that have
been evaluated to independently examine the physical aspect
of agility exclusive of other components of athletic
performance (e.g., maximal velocity).
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The results of this study indicate that, in comparison to SS or
NS, a bout of acute DS significantly improves performance on a
closed linear running agility test. Although SS-induced
performance decrements are not always evident and combined
SS and DS research is still greatly conflicted; DS has thus far
shown no performance decrements or increased risk of injury.
Therefore, based on available research, DS as a whole
demonstrates greater athletic performance benefits as a part
of activity warm-up in comparison to SS. This appears
particularly important for agility based sports such as basketball,
soccer, football, and other rapid change of direction sports.
With this in mind, the coach and strength and conditioning
professional should greatly consider preferential use of DS
during preactivity stretching. Additional thought should be
made for the individual demands of a sport which may require
greater levels of passive ROM, in which case a further
evaluation of the benefits of increased passive ROM must be
carefully assessed in comparison to the possible performance
decrements of acute SS.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The results of this study do not constitute endorsement by
National Strength and Conditioning Association. Supported
by GVSU S3 Grant. Structural and grammatical review by
Fred Meijer Center for Writing and Michigan Authors.
Statistical assistance by Phyllis Curtiss, Sango Otieno, and
Neal Rogness of the GVSU Statistical Consulting Center.
the TM
3020 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
REFERENCES
1. Amako, M, Oda, T, Masuoka, K, Yokoi, H, and Campisi, P. Effect of
static stretching on prevention of injuries for military recruits. Mil
Med 168: 442–446, 2003.
2. Atler, MJ. Types and varieties of stretching. In: The Science of
Flexibility. Atler, MJ, ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers,
2004. pp. 159–162.
3. Bandy, WD, Irion, JM, and Briggler, M. The effect of time and
frequency of static stretching on flexibility of the hamstring muscles.
Phys Ther 77: 1090–1096, 1997.
4. Baudry, S and Duchateau, J. Postactivation potentiation in a human
muscle: Effect on the load–velocity relation of tetanic and voluntary
shortening contractions. J Appl Physiol 103: 1318–1325, 2007.
5. Behm, DG, Bambury, A, Cahill, F, and Power, K. Effect of acute
static stretching on force, balance, reaction time, and movement
time. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 1397–1402, 2004.
6. Behm, DG, Button, DC, and Butt, JC. Factors affecting force loss
with prolonged stretching. Can J Appl Physiol 26: 261–272, 2001.
7. Borg, G. Borg’s Perceived Exertion and Pain Scales. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics Publishers, 1998.
8. Chaouachi, A, Castagna, C, Chtara, M, Brughelli, M, Turki, O, Galy, O,
Chamari, K, and Behm, D. Effect of warm-ups involving static or
dynamic stretching on agility, sprinting, and jumping performance in
trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res 24: 2001–2011, 2010.
9. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Academic Press, 1988.
10. Cramer, JT. Bioenergetics of exercise testing and training. In:
Essentials of Strength and Conditioning. Baechle, TR and Earle, RW,
eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, 2008. pp. 37.
11. Draper, JA and Lancaster, MG. The 505 test: A test for agility in the
horizontal plane. Austr J Sci Med Sport 17: 15–18, 1985.
12. Ellis, L, Gastin, P, Lawrence, S, Savage, B, Buckeridge, A, and Stapf, A.
Protocols for the physiological assessment of team sport players. In:
Physiological Tests for Elite Athletes. Gore, CJ, ed. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics Publishers, 2000. pp. 135.
13. Faigenbaum, AD, Bellucci, M, Bernieri, A, Bakker, B, and Hoorens, K.
Acute effects of different warm-up protocols on fitness performance
in children. J Strength Cond Res 19: 376–381, 2005.
14. Febbraio, MA, Carey, MF, Snow, RJ, Stathis, CG, and Hargreaves, M.
Influence of elevated muscle temperature on metabolism during
intense, dynamic exercise. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 271:
R1251–R1255, 1996.
15. Fletcher, I and Anness, R. The acute effects of combined static and
dynamic stretch protocols on fifty-meter sprinter performance in
track-and-field athletes. J Strength Cond Res 21: 784–787, 2007.
16. Gabbett, TJ, Kelly, JN, and Sheppard, JM. Speed, change of direction
speed, and reactive agility of rugby league players. J Strength Cond
Res 22: 174–181, 2008.
17. Gray, SC, Devito, G, and Nimmo, MA. Effect of active warm-up on
metabolism prior to and during intense dynamic exercise. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 34: 2091–2096, 2002.
18. Herda, TJ, Cramer, J, Ryan, E, and McHugh, MP. Acute effects of
static versus dynamic stretching on isometric peak torque,
electromyography, and mechanomyography of the biceps femoris
muscle. J Strength Cond Res 22: 809–817, 2008.
19. Herman, SL and Smith, DT. Four-week dynamic stretching warm-
up intervention elicits longer-term performance benefits. J Strength
Cond Res 22: 1286–1297, 2008.
20. Jaggers, JR, Swank, AM, Frost, KL, and Lee, CD. The acute effects of
dynamic and ballistic stretching on vertical jump height, force, and
power. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1844–1849, 2008.
21. Jeffreys, I. Warm-up and stretching. In: Essentials of Strength and
Conditioning. Baechle, TR and Earle, RW, eds. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics Publishers, 2008. pp. 296–301.

22. Khorasani, MA, Sahebozamani, M, Tabrizi, KG, and Yusof, AB.
Acute effect of different stretching methods on Illinois agility test in
soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 24: 2698–2704, 2010.
23. Little,TandWilliams,AG.Specificityofacceleration,maximumspeed,and
agility in professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 19: 76–78, 2005.
24. Little, Tand Williams, AG. Effects of differential stretching protocols
during warm-ups on high speed motor capacities in professional
soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 20: 203–207, 2006.
25. Magnusson, SP, Simonsen, EB, Aagaard, P, and Kjaer, M. Bio-
mechanical responses to repeated stretches in human hamstring
muscle in vivo. Am J Sports Med 24: 622–628, 1996.
26. Manoel, ME, Harris-Love, MO, Danoff, JV, and Miller, TA. Acute
effects of static, dynamic, and proprioceptive neuromuscular
facilitation stretching on muscle power in women. J Strength Cond
Res 22: 1528–1534, 2008.
27. McMillian, DJ, Moore, J, Hatler, BS, and Taylor, DC. Dynamic vs.
static stretching warm up: The effect on power and agility
performance. J Strength Cond Res 20: 492–499, 2006.
28. Nelson, A, Driscoll, N, Landin, D, Young, M, and Schexnayder, I.
Acute effects of passive muscle stretching on sprint performance.
J Sports Sci 23: 449–454, 2005.
29. Nelson, AG, Kokkonen, J, and Arnall, DA. Acute muscle stretching
inhibits muscles strength endurance performance. J Strength Cond
Res 19: 338–343, 2005.
30. Noonan, TJ, Best, TM, Seaber, AV, and Garrett, WE. Thermal effects
on skeletal muscle tensile behavior. Am J Sports Med 21: 517–522, 1993.
31. Pauole, K, Madole, K, Garhammer, J, Lacourse, M, and Rozenek, R.
Reliability and validity of the T-Test as a measure of agility, leg
power, and leg speed in college-aged men and women. J Strength
Cond Res 14: 443–450, 2000.
32. Plisk, S. Speed, agility, and speed-endurance development. In:
Essentials of Strength and Conditioning. Baechle, TR and Earle, RW,
eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, 2008. pp. 458.
33. Pope, RP, Herbert, RD,Kirwan, JD, and Graham, BJ. A randomized
trial of preexercise stretching for prevention of lower-limb injury.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 32: 271–277, 2000.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
34. Rooney, M. Parisi Warm-Up Method. Fair Lawn, NJ: Parisi Sports Inc.,
2004.
35. Sargeant, AJ. Effect of muscle temperature on leg extension force
and short-term power output in humans. Eur J Appl Physiol 56:
693–698, 1987.
36. Sayers, A, Farley, R, Fuller, D, Jubenville, C, and Caputo, J. The effect
of static stretching on phases of sprint performance in elite soccer
players. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1416–1421, 2008.
37. Sheppard, J and Young, W. Agility literature review: Classifications,
training, and testing. J Sports Sci 24: 919–932, 2006.
38. Sheppard, JM, Young, W, Doyle, T, Sheppard, T, and Newton, R. An
evaluation of a new test of reactive agility and its relationship to
sprint speed and change of direction speed. J Sci Med Sport 9:
342–349, 2006.
39. Shrier, I. Stretching before exercise does not reduce the risk of
muscle injury: A critical review of clinical basic science literature.
Clin J Sport Med 9: 221–227, 1999.
40. Sim, A, Dawson, B, Guelfi, K, Wallman, K, and Young, W. Effects of
static stretching in warm-up on repeated sprint performance.
J Strength Cond Res 23: 2155–2162, 2009.
41. Steiger, JH. Beyond the F test: Effect size confidence intervals and
tests of close fit in the analysis of variance and contrast analysis.
Psychol Meth 9: 164–182, 2004.
42. Taylor, K-L, Sheppard, JM, Lee, H, and Plummer, N. Negative effect
of static stretching restored when combined with a sport specific
warm-up component. J Sci Med Sport 12: 657–661, 2008.
43. Winchester, JB, Nelson, AG, Landin, D, Young, MA, and Schexnayder,
IC. Static stretching impairs sprint performance in collegiate track and
field athletes. J Strength Cond Res 22: 13–19, 2008.
44. Yamaguchi, T and Ishii, K. Effects of static stretching for 30 seconds
and dynamic stretching on leg extension power. J Strength Cond Res
19: 677–683, 2005.
45. Young, W and Elliott, S. Acute effects of static stretching, pro-
prioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching, and maximum
voluntary contractions on explosive force production and jumping
performance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 72: 273–279, 2001.
VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2011 | 3021