ACUTE EFFECT OF CONSTANT TORQUE AND ANGLE
STRETCHING ON RANGE OF MOTION, MUSCLE PASSIVE
PROPERTIES, AND STRETCH DISCOMFORT PERCEPTION
CHRISTIAN E. T. CABIDO, JULIANA C. BERGAMINI, ANDRÉ G. P. ANDRADE, FERNANDO V. LIMA,
HANS J. MENZEL, AND MAURO H. CHAGAS
Biomechanics Laboratory, School of Physical Education, Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy, Federal University of
Minas Gerais, Minas Gerais, Brazil
ABSTRACT
Cabido, CET, Bergamini, JC, Andrade, AGP, Lima, FV, Menzel,
HJ, and Chagas, MH. Acute effect of constant torque and
angle stretching on range of motion, muscle passive proper-
ties, and stretch discomfort perception. J Strength Cond Res
28(4): 1050–1057, 2014—The aim of the present study was to
compare the acute effects of constant torque (CT) and con-
stant angle (CA) stretching exercises on the maximum range of
motion (ROMmax), passive stiffness (PS), and ROM corre-
sponding to the first sensation of tightness in the posterior
thigh (FSTROM). Twenty-three sedentary men (age, 19–33
years) went through 1 familiarization session and afterward
proceeded randomly to both CA and CT treatment stretching
conditions, on separate days. An isokinetic dynamometer was
used to analyze hamstring muscles during passive knee exten-
sion. The subjects performed 4 stretches of 30 seconds each
with a 15-second interval between them. In the CA stretching,
the subject reached a certain ROM (95% of ROMmax), and the
angle was kept constant. However, in the CT stretching exer-
cise, the volunteer reached a certain resistance torque (corre-
sponding to 95% of ROMmax) and it was kept constant. The
results showed an increase in ROMmax for both CA and CT
(p , 0.001), but the increase was greater for CT than for CA
(CA vs. CT in poststretching, p = 0.002). Although the PS
decreased for both CA and CT (p , 0.001), the decrease
was greater for CT than for CA (CA vs. CT in poststretching,
p = 0.002). The FSTROM increased for both CA and CT, but
the increase for CT was greater than that for CA (CA vs. CT in
poststretching, p = 0.003). The greater increase in ROMmax for
the CT stretch may be explained by greater changes in the
biomechanical properties of the muscle-tendon unit and
Address correspondence to Mauro H. Chagas, mauroufmg@hotmail.
com.
28(4)/1050–1057
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2014 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
1050 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
stretch tolerance, as indicated by the results of PS and
FSTROM.
KEY WORDS passive stiffness, stretching exercises, flexibility
training, stretch tolerance
INTRODUCTION
S
tretching exercises cause significant changes in the
maximum range of motion (ROMmax) (14,15,38,39),
and static or constant angle (CA) stretching has
been the most suitable exercise because of its ease
of application. However, the need to optimize the training
and rehabilitation process makes other stretching possibilities
worthy of investigation. Recent studies have evaluated
stretching with constant torque (CT) (14–16,31–34,38,39),
and it has been proposed that this stretching is more efficient
than the CA stretch (14,15,38,39). However, to the best of our
knowledge, only 4 studies compared the effects of CA and CT
stretching on ROMmax and the biomechanical properties of
the muscle-tendon unit (MTU), and the results of these stud-
ies were conflicting (14,15,38,39).
Yeh et al. (39) reported that CT stretching resulted in an
increase in ROMmax but found no difference between CA and
CT stretching on ROMmax (38). However, another study sug-
gested that the performance of CT was superior to CA
stretching in reducing passive stiffness (PS) (38). In a recent
work, the same group reported that only the CT stretch
reduced PS compared with CA (39). However, these studies
evaluated subjects with spasticity, making it difficult to extrap-
olate these findings to healthy individuals. In other studies,
Herda et al. (14,15) have reported that both CT and CA
stretching increased ROMmax at the same magnitude, but only
CT stretching reduced PS, regardless of the stretching dura-
tion (30, 60, and 120 seconds or 8 minutes) (14). Altogether,
these results suggest that CT stretching causes major changes
in the biomechanical properties of the MTU, as previously
proposed by Ryan et al. (32). This greater change could be
explained by the quality of CT stretching, whereupon the
maintenance in torque results in an increase of ROM during
stretching and consequently subjects the MTU to a greater
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

that was commonly used in other studies (2,13). Despite the

comparison made of CA and TC in ROMmax by Herda et al.
(14) in short stretching durations (30, 60, and 120 seconds), on
this study during the CA stretching protocol, in each series of
exercises the volunteer reached the ROMmax, which was
defined as ROM at which the volunteer fold discomfort but
not pain. However, it was different from what has been done
in other studies, in which the volunteer reached the same
ROM value during each series of stretching exercise
(18,22,36). Thus, further studies are required to examine if
CT stretching is more effective than CA stretching when
changing the ROMmax and PS to stretching durations close
to those recommended for sports, using the CA stretching
protocol in which the volunteer keeps the same ROM value
throughout the exercise sessions.
The increase in ROMmax found in some studies was not
accompanied by a reduction in PS (11,19,21,40), suggesting
that factors other than the change in biomechanical proper-
ties are involved in the alteration of ROMmax. Thus, although
some studies report that increasing ROMmax can be attributed
to changes in the biomechanical properties of the MTU
(18,24,25), others suggest that increased stretch tolerance is
Figure 1. Isokinetic dynamometer (Flexmachine). the main responsible factor (11,12,21,40). Nevertheless, unlike
the biomechanical alteration that is commonly assessed by PS
(37), a consensus does not exist regarding which variable
load for the same duration. However, the aforementioned should be used to measure stretch tolerance (23). The first
studies (15,38,39) used a total stretching duration of 30 mi- sensation of tightness (FST) when stretching, recorded as
nutes (38,39) and 8 minutes (15), which are beyond the rec- a function of the ROM (FSTROM), is a suggested variable that
ommended duration of 2 minutes (30 seconds 3 4 sets) (1) was used by Halbertsma and Göeken (10), Halbertsma et al.
(11), and Ylinen et al. (40).
These studies showed that CA
stretching increases FSTROM,
indicating that the subject per-
ceives the FST to stretching at
a higher ROM. Thus, the
increase in this variable together
with the increase in ROMmax
could enhance the perspective
of sensory theory. However,
we found no studies that veri-
fied the effects of CT stretching
on FSTROM or that compared
the effects of CA and CT
stretching on FSTROM.
Therefore, the aim of this
study was to compare the acute
effect of CA and CT stretching
on ROMmax, PS, and FSTROM.
The results may provide addi-
tional information to the dis-
Figure 2. An example of a passive angle-torque curve during passive stiffness assessment. Passive stiffness was cussion of the mechanisms
defined as the change in torque (N$m) divided by the change in ROM (in degrees) (ΔRT/ΔROM) and was responsible for the acute increase
expressed as the slope of the torque-angle curve in the third part of joint range of motion (ROM). PS = passive
stiffness; ROMmax = maximal range of motion; ROMmaxpre = ROMmax measured in the pretest; RT = resistance in ROMmax after 2 different
torque; I, II, and III = first, second, and third parts of the torque-angle curve. stretches and could reinforce
the indication of CT stretching

VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2014 | 1051

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

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Effect of Constant Torque and Angle Stretching

of the hamstring on ROMmax,

PS, and FSTROM. Both limbs of
the volunteers were assessed:
the right limb was assigned to
stretching and the left limb was
used to measure reliability (arbi-
trarily chosen). The participants
visited the laboratory for 3 ses-
sions, each separated by 48 or
72 hours. For each volunteer, all
sessions were held at the same
time of the day (62 hours). The
first visit was a familiarization
trial in which the height and
body mass were also measured.
The subsequent 2 visits con-
sisted of the experimental trials
and included the CA and CT
stretching in random order.
Figure 3. Constant angle stretch recording in 1 subject. A) Range of motion (in degrees). B) Resistance torque During each experimental trial,
(N$m); both were recorded during stretch time (s).
a pretest followed by 4 sets 3
30 seconds of stretching (CA or
CT) was conducted with a 15-
for sports and rehabilitation by optimizing the effects of stretch- second rest between sets, followed by a posttest. The pretest
ing. We hypothesized that CT stretching would result in and posttest both consisted of 3 attempts at stretching, and
a greater change in ROMmax, PS, and FSTROM. the average of the 2 closest values was used for the analysis.
Subjects
METHODS The volunteers for this study were 23 male physical
Experimental Approach to the Problem education students (mean [SD]: age, 23.6 [3.9] years; body
This study used a randomized repeated-measures crossover mass, 72.1 [9.7] kg; and height, 176.6 [5.7] cm). None of the
design to examine the acute effect of CA and CT stretching volunteers performed regular flexibility training or had mus-
culoskeletal injuries in the
lower limbs, spine, and pelvis
in the past 6 months. Those
volunteers who did not appear
at the collection sites on the
scheduled day and time, or
achieved full extension of the
knee during the ROMmax assess-
ment in the pretest, were
excluded from the study. This
study was approved by the local
Research Ethics Committee
(COEP 0610.0.203.000-10), and
all volunteers read and signed
a free and informed consent
form before participating in the
study.
Procedures
Instrumentation. The training
and testing were performed
Figure 4. Constant torque stretch recording in 1 subject. A) Range of motion (ROM) (in degrees). B) Resistance
torque (RT) (N$m); both were recorded during stretch time (s). The dotted line represents ROM increases (A) for on an isokinetic dynamome-
RT adjustment (B). ter called the Flexmachine
(UFMG, Belo Horizonte,
the TM

1052 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

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

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

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

1408 to ensure the safety of

the volunteers. Thus, it was pos-
sible to measure the maximum
ROM achieved by the mechan-
ical arm. Subsequently, the arm
was positioned at various
known angles to check the
accuracy of the measurements.
The distal portion of this
mechanical arm contains a force
plate (Refitronic, Schmitten,
Germany) that is individually
adjustable to the specific leg
length. For data acquisition,
the potentiometer and the force
plate were connected to a 16-
channel box (BioVision, Wehr-
heim, Alemanha) that was con-
Figure 5. Mean 6 SE of maximal range of motion (in degrees) in the passive knee extension from prestretching nected to the computer by
(open circles) and poststretching (shaded circle). *Difference between prestretching and poststretching for means of a data translation
constant torque (CT) and constant angle (CA) (p , 0.001). #Difference between CA and CT (p = 0.002). (DT BNC Box USB 9800
Series) analog/digital converter.
Signal collection and analysis
Brazil) (Figure 1), which was used to measure the ROM of were performed by using the Dasylab 10.0 software (National
passive knee extension and resistance torque (RT). This instruments Corporation, Texas, EUA).
device consists of 2 chairs connected laterally to a mechanical
arm. The movement of the mechanical arm is accomplished
by an induction motor (SEW Eurodrive, São Paulo, Brazil) Positioning of Individuals. Each volunteer was seated on the
driven by a handheld device with 2 buttons, 1 for up and 1 for Flexmachine with the distal third of the thigh being
down. The potentiometer was fixed on the axis of rotation of examined supported on a base attached to the chair. The
the mechanical arm for recording the ROM. The angle of the thigh was placed at a 458 hip flexion relative to the ground
mechanical arm was programmed to reach a maximum of using a digital goniometer (DWM 40 L; Bosch, São Paulo,
Brazil), and the heel was posi-
tioned under the force plate,
which was adjusted to the leg
length of the volunteer. The
individual was secured by 2
straps, 1 on the anterior-supe-
rior iliac spine and the other on
the distal third of the leg to be
tested (Figure 1). In this study,
the starting position deter-
mined as zero (0) degrees cor-
responded to 278 knee extension
from 458 hip flexion. In this
position, 638 knee extension
placed the volunteer’s leg in
a horizontal position.
Assessment of ROMmax,
Passive Stiffness, and
FSTROM. The ROMmax was
operationally defined as the
Figure 6. Mean 6 SE of passive stiffness (N$m$deg21) in the passive knee extension from prestretching (open
circles) and poststretching (shaded circle). *Difference between prestretching and poststretching for constant maximum stretching tolerated
torque (CT) and constant angle (CA) (p , 0.001). #Difference between CA and CT (p = 0.002). by each volunteer, in which
the stretching became so

VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2014 | 1053

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

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Effect of Constant Torque and Angle Stretching
Figure 7. Mean 6 SE of the first sensation of pain (FSTROM; in degrees) in the passive knee extension from
prestretching (open circles) and poststretching (shaded circle). *Difference between prestretching and
poststretching for constant torque and constant angle (p , 0.001). #Difference between CA and CT (p = 0.003). after the pretest. In CA stretch-
uncomfortable that it could not be increased further because
the subject could not tolerate further movement or stretch
in the hamstrings for passive knee extension (12,22). Passive
stiffness was calculated using the slope of the last third part of
the TRxROM curve (3,20,28), considering 80% of the ROM-
max reached during the pretest of that session. To this end,
the TRxROM curve was divided into 3 parts, and the slope
of the third part of this curve was used in the analysis
(Figure 2). The FSTROM was recorded by means of a man-
ual device with a central button. The subjects were asked
to indicate (by pushing a button) when they first felt
stretching in the hamstrings. This FST was recorded as
a function of the knee extension angle generating the
FSTROM variable. To assess the reliability of the variables
analyzed in this study, the intraclass correlation coefficient
(ICC) was calculated for the left lower limb in the last trial,
after assessment of the right leg. To this end, the left leg
was held a pretest and posttest positions without stretching
and remained at rest during the time devoted to stretching
(63 minutes). The test-retest reliability for this study indi-
cated an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC3,k) of ROMmax
= 0.98, PS = 0.83, and FSTROM = 0.93 with a SEM of
ROMmax = 2.23%, PS = 8.86%, and FSTROM = 5.62%.
Familiarization Session. In this session, anthropometric meas-
urements and the length and weight of the right leg and left
leg were taken for gravity correction. The volunteer was
properly positioned and was familiarized with the Flexma-
chine device.
Experimental Sessions. A pretest, an intervention (CA or CT),
and a posttest were performed in each experimental session.
In the pretest and posttest, 3 repetitions of passive knee
the TM
1054 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
extension were performed until
reaching ROMmax. This move-
ment was always performed at
a speed of 58$s21 with an inter-
val of approximately 15 sec-
onds between each repetition
(the time required for the indi-
vidual to return to the initial
position and prepare for
a new repetition).
Stretching
The stretching of the ham-
strings consisted of 4 sets of
30 seconds, and the intensity of
the stimulus was predefined at
95% of ROMmax. This value
had been recorded for both
the CA and CT stretches,
which were initiated shortly
ing, the subject reached a cer-
tain ROM (95% of ROMmax)
and kept it constant for 30 seconds (Figure 3A) while the
RT was reduced (Figure 3B). In CT stretching, the volunteer
reached a certain RT (corresponding to 95% of ROMmax)
and kept it constant for 30 seconds (Figure 4A). The vol-
unteer maintained CT by changing the ROM whenever
necessary. The value at which the torque was to be main-
tained constant was provided to the volunteer by a monitor
located in front of him. The volunteer was instructed to
increase the ROM when a reduction of 5 N$m in RT
occurred (Figure 4B).
Statistical Analyses
To analyze the differences between stretching treatments
for ROMmax, PS, and FSTROM, 3 separate 2-way repeated-
measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) (time [prestretch-
ing vs. poststretching] 3 treatment [CA vs. CT]) were used.
The statistical powers of ANOVA for ROMmax, PS, and
FSTROM were 0.98, 0.97, and 0.85, respectively. When
appropriate, follow-up analyses were performed using
dependent-samples t-tests with Bonferroni correction. An
alpha level of p # 0.05 was considered statistically significant
for all comparisons. Data are presented as mean 6 SE. All
statistical analyses were performed by using SPSS v. 18.0
(SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). In addition, partial eta
squared (h2p ) values are reported to reflect the magnitude
of the differences among each treatment (small = 0.01,
medium = 0.06, and large = 0.14) (4).
RESULTS
For ROMmax, a significant 2-way interaction (treatment 3
time, F1,22 = 19.204, p , 0.001, h2p = 0.47) was observed.
The ROMmax increased from prestretching to poststretch-
ing for CA (71.51 6 2.61 to 79.23 6 2.81, p , 0.001) and

CT (72.78 6 2.21 to 85.11 6 2.35, p , 0.001). A difference
between CA and CT was found only in poststretching (p =
0.002) (Figure 5).
For PS, a significant 2-way interaction (treatment 3
time, F1,22 = 8.430, p = 0.008, h2p = 0.28) was observed.
The PS decreased from prestretching to poststretching
for CA (0.83 6 0.03 for 0.69 6 0.28, p , 0.001) and CT
(0.82 6 0.35 for 0.61 6 0.29, p , 0.001). A difference
between CA and CT was observed only in poststretching
(p = 0.002; Figure 6).
For FSTROM, no significant 2-way interaction was
observed (time 3 treatment, F1,22 = 1.554, p = 0.226, h2p =
0.07), but a main effect for time (F1,22 = 56.913, p , 0.001,
h2p = 0.721) and for treatment (F1,22 = 6.354, p = 0.019, h2p =
0.224) was found. The FSTROM increased from prestretching
to poststretching (collapsed across CA and CT treatments)
of 9.15 6 1.21. However, a difference was observed between
CA and CT in poststretching (55.70 6 2.47 vs. 60.63 6 2.78,
respectively, p = 0.003), but not in prestretching (47.93 6
2.40 vs. 50.08 6 2.11, respectively, p = 0.306) (Figure 7).
DISCUSSION
The main findings of the present study were that CT
stretching resulted in greater changes in the ROMmax, stiff-
ness, and FSTROM compared with CA stretching. These
results confirm our initial hypothesis and are consistent with
previous studies because it shows that CT stretching induces
greater load on MTU than CA stretching (14,15,38,39).
Additionally, CA stretching increased ROMmax, reduced
stiffness, and increased FSTROM, which is consistent with
previous studies (12,15,18,19,24).
The angle to be held constant in the first repetition
remains the same for the other repetitions during CA
stretching (18,22,36), whereas the angle to be maintained
constant increases with each repetition in CT stretching
because the stretching angle that must be maintained is set
by the torque (33). Additionally, during CA stretching, the
ROM is kept constant with a reduction of torque, that is,
relaxation under tension (22,36). In contrast, it is necessary
to increase the ROM for the torque to be held constant in
CT stretching (33,34). Thus, because the ROM has been
used as an intensity parameter of stretching (41), and it is
suggested that higher intensities are related to larger adjust-
ments (8,35), the subjects may have been subjected to greater
intensity when they performed CT stretching, which would
explain the greater change in ROMmax, stiffness, and
FSTROM after this stretch.
The greater increase in ROMmax after a CT stretching
protocol found in this study is consistent with the results
of Yeh et al. (39), but it is contradictory to another study
also by Yeh et al. (38) and by Herda et al. (14,15), who have
found no difference between CA and CT in increasing the
ROMmax. We cannot compare our result with those of Yeh
et al. (38,39) because both studies evaluated subjects with
spasticity. However, it is possible that the differences in the
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
application of CA stretching exercises between our study
and those of Herda et al. (14,15) are the main factors respon-
sible for the discrepancy in results.
In our study, the ROM reached by the volunteer for each
repetition of CA stretching was the same (95% of ROMmax
measured in that session), and this ROM was kept constant
during the 30 seconds of stretching (18,22,36). In contrast,
the studies by Herda et al. (14,15), for the ROM to be kept
constant, determined the torque tolerated by the subject at
each repetition. This was the same criterion used to deter-
mine the initial ROM during the CT stretching and for the
test in which the ROMmax was measured. Thus, for the same
torque to be obtained, it was necessary to achieve a greater
ROM from 1 repetition to another (34), which occurred for
both CT and CA stretching. Ryan et al. (34) measured ROM
and torque in 4 sets of 30 seconds of CT stretching. It was
found that there was an increase in ROM until the third set
with a plateau being observed. Using the same criteria of
Ryan et al. (33) for initial ROM determination, Herda et al.
(14) found no difference in the ROMmax between CT and
CA in any set, despite the ROMmax in the 16th were greater
than the fourth and both greater than the first set. Conse-
quently, the lack of differences between CA and CT stretch-
ing in ROMmax found by Herda et al. (14,15) can be because
of CA stretching methods.
Another possible explanation for the differences in result
was the application of CT stretching. In this study, the
volunteer adjusted the ROM himself to keep CT during the
30 seconds of stretching, differentiating from Herda et al.
(14,15), in studies where the equipment automatically
adjusted the ROM itself. However, the principle for adjusting
the ROM was the same, after a reduction in torque because
of the viscoelastic stress relaxation, the ROM is increased to
maintain the torque during the stretching exercise, resulting
in the CT stretching (Figure 4). Therefore, it is considered
that this variation in the CT stretching method is not the
main factor responsible for differences in results among this
study and those of Herda et al. (14,15).
Although the actual mechanisms responsible for an acute
increase in ROMmax are not yet fully understood, changes in
biomechanical properties (18,24,26) and in the stretch toler-
ance (11,19,21) have been proposed as potential mecha-
nisms. In this study, the changes in the biomechanical
properties of the MTU were evaluated through PS (15,31).
However, FSTROM was used to assess the perception of
discomfort, which could allow inferences about the individ-
ual tolerance to stretching (11,12,40).
We found a greater reduction in stiffness after CT
stretching compared with CA stretching, which is consistent
with the findings of Herda et al. (14,15). However, unlike the
present study, these authors did not found a reduction in
stiffness after CA stretching. These different results are likely
because of differences in determining the ROMmax, which
was operationally defined as the maximum stretching toler-
ated by the individual in this study (5,9,29). Moreover, the
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2014 | 1055
 Effect of Constant Torque and Angle Stretching
ROMmax was determined to be the torque tolerated to the
point of discomfort but without pain in the works of Herda
et al. (14,15). Thus, because the point of discomfort but no
pain is observed at a ROM below the maximum tolerated
stretch (20), it is possible that the subjects of this study were
subjected to more intense stretching during training.
This study did not aim to establish which structures and
mechanisms are responsible for altering the biomechanical
properties of the MTU. However, previous studies have
shown that reduction of stiffness after stretching can be
mainly attributed to possible changes in intramuscular tissue
(28), mainly the perimysium (7), and the redistribution of
water and polysaccharides in the extracellular matrix sur-
rounding collagen fibers (27,30). Additionally, it has been
suggested that the stretching of noncontractile intrasarco-
meric proteins (7), the increase in the compliance of the
tendon (17), and the increase in the length of the muscular
fascicle (6) have roles in reducing stiffness. These changes
would cause the MTU to offer a lower resistance to stretch-
ing, allowing a greater ROMmax to be attained. Therefore,
the greater reduction in PS and increased ROMmax after CT
stretching compared with CA stretching suggests that CT
stretching had a greater effect on the above mentioned
changes, enhancing the perspective of mechanical theory
on the acute effect of stretching exercise on changes in mus-
cle length.
For a better understanding of the effects of stretching on
the sensory response, the present study also evaluated the
first feeling of discomfort because of stretching at a particular
ROM (FSTROM). The increased FSTROM after CT and CA
stretching demonstrates that the volunteer FST at a greater
ROM was expected based on results from previous studies
performed with CA stretching (10–12,40). This supports the
previously proposed notion that nociceptive nerve endings
that are sensitive to mechanical stress in the muscles and
joints are involved in increasing the individual’s tolerance
to stretching (19). Thus, the larger increase in FSTROM after
CT stretching suggests that this variable is also involved in
increasing ROMmax, which was also higher after this stretch.
A limitation of this study is the use of a sample composed
of physically active young men. This makes it difficult to
extrapolate these results to other populations that seem to
respond differently when subjected to stretching, such as
women and the elderly.
Therefore, the results of this study demonstrate that both CA
and CT stretches were effective in increasing ROMmax, reduc-
ing stiffness, and increasing FSTROM to the hamstrings during
a period close to that recommended for sports in healthy men.
However, CT stretching proved to be more effective in chang-
ing these variables. Furthermore, our results suggest that the
reduction in PS and increased FSTROM are involved in the
acute increase in the ROMmax, indicating that both mechanical
and sensorial theories were involved in this increase. However,
further studies are required to determine the true contribution
of each of these theories to acute increases in ROMmax.
the TM
1056 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
In this study, stretching with a CT was more effective in
increasing ROMmax and FSTROM and in reducing PS. Thus,
coaches and physical therapists could opt for this stretching
modality to obtain better results, although the stretch with
a CA also changed these variables. Thus, both stretching
strategies may be used as a variation of stimulus training,
which is an important aspect in organizing training load.
Additionally, future studies should investigate whether CT
stretching exercises result in greater changes in ROMmax and
biomechanical properties than CA stretching in other pop-
ulations, such as athletes, the elderly, and women.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was funded by CAPES; PRPq da Universidade
Federal de Minas Gerais.
REFERENCES
1. American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM position stand:
Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining
cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in
apparently healthy adults: Guidance for prescribing exercise. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 43: 1334–1359, 2011.
2. Behm, DG and Kibele, A. Effects of differing intensities of static
stretching on jump performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 101: 587–594,
2007.
3. Caroway, II, Sunnerhagen, SK, Kasper, CE, and Svantesson, U.
Passive stiffness of the plantar flexion in relation to age and
functional performance. Isokinet Exerc Sci 14: 25–31, 2006.
4. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1988.
5. Davis, DS, Ashby, PE, McCale, KL, McQuain, JA, and Wine, JM.
The effectiveness of 3 stretching techniques on hamstring flexibility
using consistent stretching parameters. J Strength Cond Res 19:
27–32, 2005.
6. Fowles, JR, Sale, DG, and MacDougall, JD. Reduced strength after
passive stretch of the human plantarflexors. J Appl Physiol (1985) 89:
1179–1188, 2000.
7. Gajdosik, RL. Passive extensibility of skeletal muscle: Review of the
literature with clinical implications. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 16:
87–101, 2001.
8. Gajdosik, RL. Relation of age and passive properties of an ankle
dorsiflexion stretch to the timed one-leg stance test in older women.
Percept Mot Skills 103: 177–182, 2006.
9. Guissard, N and Duchateau, J. Effect of static stretch training on
neural and mechanical properties of the human plantar-flexor
muscles. Muscle Nerve 29: 248–255, 2004.
10. Halbertsma, JPK and Göeken, LNH. Stretching exercises: Effect on
passive extensibility and stiffness in short hamstring of healthy
subjects. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 75: 976–981, 1994.
11. Halbertsma, JP, van Bolhuis, AI, and Goeken, LN. Sport stretching:
Effect on passive muscle stiffness of short hamstrings. Arch Phys Med
Rehabil 77: 688–692, 1996.
12. Halbertsma, JP, Göeken, LN, Hof, AL, Groothoff, JW, and
Eisma, WH. Extensibility and stiffness of the hamstrings in patients
with nonspecific low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 82: 232–238,
2001.
13. Herda, TJ, Cramer, JT, Ryan, ED, McHugh, MP, and Stout, JR.
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.

14. Herda, TJ, Costa, PB, Walter, AA, Ryan, ED, and Cramer, JT. The
time course of the effects of constant-angle and constant-torque
stretching on the muscle-tendon unit. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2012.
Epub ahead of print. 10.1111/j.1600–0838.2012.01492.x
15. Herda, TJ, Costa, PB, Walter, AA, Ryan, ED, Hoge, KM,
Kerksick, CM, Stout, JR, and Cramer, JT. Effects of two modes of
static stretching on muscle strength and stiffness. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 43: 1777–1784, 2011.
16. Hoge, KM, Ryan, ED, Costa, PB, Herda, TJ, Walter, AA, Stout, JR,
and Cramer, JT. Gender differences in musculotendinous stiffness
and range of motion after an acute bout of stretching. J Strength
Cond Res 24: 2618–2626, 2010.
17. Kubo, K, Kanehisa, H, and Fukunaga, T. Is passive stiffness in human
muscles related to the elasticity of tendon structures? Eur J Appl
Physiol 85: 226–232, 2001.
18. Magnusson, SP, Simonsen, EB, Aagaard, P, Gleim, GW,
McHugh, MP, and Kjaer, M. Viscoelastic response to repeated static
stretching in the human hamstring muscle. Scand J Med Sci Sports 5:
342–347, 1995.
19. Magnusson, SP, Simonsen, EB, Aagaard, P, Sorensen, H, and
Kjaer, M. A mechanism for altered flexibility in human skeletal
muscle. J Physiol 497: 291–298, 1996.
20. Magnusson, SP, Simonsen, EB, Aagaard, P, Boesen, J, Johannsen, F,
and Kjaer, M. Determinants of musculoskeletal flexibility:
Viscoelastic properties, cross-sectional area, EMG and stretch
tolerance. Scand J Med Sci Sports 7: 195–202, 1997.
21. Magnusson, SP, Aagaard, P, Simonsen, EB, and Bojsen-Moller, F.
Biomechanical evaluation of cyclic and static stretch in human
skeletal muscle. Int J Sports Med 19: 310–316, 1998.
22. Magnusson, SP, Aagaard, P, Simonsen, EB, and Bojsen-Moller, F.
Passive tensile stress and energy of the human hamstring muscles
in vivo. Scand J Med Sci Sports 10: 351–359, 2000.
23. Marshall, PW, Cashman, A, and Cheema, BS. A randomized
controlled trial for the effect of passive stretching on measures of
hamstring extensibility, passive stiffness, strength, and stretch
tolerance. J Sci Med Sport 14: 535–540, 2011.
24. McHugh, MP, Magnusson, SP, Gleim, GW, and Nicholas, JA.
Viscoelastic stress relaxation in human skeletal muscle. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 24: 1375–1382, 1992.
25. McHugh, MP, Kremenic, IJ, Fox, MB, and Gleim, GW. The role of
mechanical and neural restraints to joint range of motion during
passive stretch. Med Sci Sports Exerc 30: 928–932, 1998.
26. McHugh, MP and Nesse, M. Effect of stretching on strength loss
and pain after eccentric exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 40: 566–573,
2008.
27. McNair, PJ, Dombroski, EW, Hewson, DJ, and Stanley, SN.
Stretching at the ankle joint: Viscoelastic responses to holds and
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
continuous passive motion. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: 354–358,
2001.
28. Morse, CI, Degens, H, Seynnes, OR, Maganaris, CN, and Jones, DA.
The acute effect of stretching on the passive stiffness of the human
gastrocnemius muscle tendon unit. J Physiol 586: 97–106, 2008.
29. Nordez, A, McNair, PJ, Casari, P, and Cornu, C. Static and cyclic
stretching: Their different effects on the passive torque-angle curve.
J Sci Med Sport 13: 156–160, 2010.
30. Purslow, PP, Wess, TJ, and Hukins, DW. Collagen orientation and
molecular spacing during creep and stress-relaxation in soft
connective tissues. J Exp Biol 201: 135–142, 1998.
31. Ryan, ED, Beck, TW, Herda, TJ, Hull, HR, Hartman, MJ, Costa, PB,
Defreitas, JM, Stout, JR, and Cramer, JT. The time course of
musculotendinous stiffness responses following different durations
of passive stretching. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 38: 632–639, 2008.
32. Ryan, ED, Herda, TJ, Costa, PB, Defreitas, JM, Beck, TW, Stout, J,
and Cramer, JT. Determining the minimum number of passive
stretches necessary to alter musculotendinous stiffness. J Sports Sci
27: 957–961, 2009.
33. Ryan, ED, Herda, TJ, Costa, PB, Walter, AA, Hoge, KM, Stout, JR,
and Cramer, JT. Viscoelastic creep in the human skeletal muscle–
tendon unit. Eur J Appl Physiol 108: 207–211, 2010.
34. Ryan, ED, Herda, TJ, Costa, PB, Walter, AA, and Cramer, JT.
Dynamics of viscoelastic creep during repeated stretches. Scand J
Med Sci Sports 22: 179–184, 2012.
35. Sullivan, MK, Dejulia, JJ, and Worrell, TW. Effect of pelvic position
and stretching method on hamstring muscle flexibility. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 24: 1383–1389, 1992.
36. Weir, DE, Tingley, J, and Elder, GCB. Acute passive stretching alters
the mechanical properties of human plantar flexors and the optimal
angle for maximal voluntary contraction. Eur J Appl Physiol 93: 614–
623, 2005.
37. Weppler, CH and Magnusson, SP. Increasing muscle extensibility: A
matter of increasing length or modifying sensation? Phys Ther 90:
438–449, 2010.
38. Yeh, CY, Tsai, KH, and Chen, JJ. Effects of prolonged muscle
stretching with constant torque or constant angle on hypertonic calf
muscles. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 86: 235–241, 2005.
39. Yeh, CY, Chen, JJ, and Tsai, KH. Quantifying the effectiveness of the
sustained muscle stretching treatments in stroke patients with ankle
hypertonia. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 17: 453–461, 2007.
40. Ylinen, J, Kankainen, T, Kautiainen, H, Rezasoltani, A,
Kuukkanen, T, and Häkkinen, A. Effect of stretching on hamstring
muscle compliance. J Rehabil Med 41: 80–84, 2009.
41. Young, W, Elias, G, and Power, J. Effects of static stretching volume
and intensity on plantar flexor explosive force production and range
of motion. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 46: 403–411, 2006.
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2014 | 1057