The Experts below are selected from a list of 7980 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
David G. Behm - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Effect of participants’ Static Stretching knowledge or deception on the responses to prolonged Stretching
Applied physiology nutrition and metabolism = Physiologie appliquee nutrition et metabolisme, 2016Co-Authors: W.c. Ian Janes, Brandon B.g. Snow, Caisie E. Watkins, Elecia A.l. Noseworthy, Jonathan C. Reid, David G. BehmAbstract:Much of the Static Stretching (SS) literature reports performance impairments with prolonged SS. However, it has been acknowledged that a limitation of these studies is participants’ knowledge or b...
-
A Comparison of Assisted and Unassisted Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Techniques and Static Stretching
Journal of strength and conditioning research, 2012Co-Authors: Meaghan E. Maddigan, Ashley A. Peach, David G. BehmAbstract:A comparison of assisted and unassisted proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation techniques and Static Stretching. J Strength Cond Res 26(5): 1238-1244, 2012-Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) Stretching often requires a partner. Straps are available allowing an individual to perform PNF Stretching alone. It is not known if a strap provides similar improvements in the range of motion (ROM) as partner-assisted PNF or Static Stretching. The purpose of this study was to compare assisted and unassisted (with a strap) PNF Stretching and Static Stretching. Hip joint ROM, reaction time (RT), and movement time (MT) were measured preStretching and postStretching. Thirteen recreationally active adults participated in this study. The participants were subjected to 5 different stretch interventions in a random order on separate days. Stretch conditions included unassisted PNF Stretching using (a) isometric, (b) concentric, and (c) eccentric contractions with a stretch strap, (d) partner-assisted isometric PNF, and (e) Static Stretching. The RT, MT, dynamic, active, passive hip flexion angle, and angular velocity with dynamic hip flexion were measured before and after the intervention. The ROM improved (p < 0.05) 2.6, 2.7, and 5.4%, respectively, with dynamic, active Static, and passive Static ROM, but there was no significant difference between the Stretching protocols. There was a main effect for time (p < 0.05) with all Stretching conditions negatively impacting dynamic angular velocity (9.2%). Although there was no significant effect on RT, MT showed a negative main effect for time (p < 0.05) slowing 3.4%. In conclusion, it was found that all 3 forms of active Stretching provided similar improvements in the ROM and postStretching performance decrements in MT and angular velocity. Thus, individuals can implement PNF Stretching techniques with a partner or alone with a strap to improve ROM, but athletes should not use these techniques before important competitions or training because of the impairment of limb velocity and MT.
-
Short Durations of Static Stretching when Combined with Dynamic Stretching do not Impair Repeated Sprints and Agility
Journal of sports science & medicine, 2011Co-Authors: Del P. Wong, Patrick W.c. Lau, Anis Chaouachi, David G. BehmAbstract:This study aimed to compare the effect of different Static Stretching durations followed by dynamic Stretching on repeated sprint ability (RSA) and change of direction (COD). Twenty-five participants performed the RSA and COD tests in a randomized order. After a 5 min aerobic warm up, participants performed one of the three Static Stretching protocols of 30 s, 60 s or 90 s total duration (3 stretches x 10 s, 20 s or 30 s). Three dynamic Stretching exercises of 30 s duration were then performed (90 s total). Sit-and-reach flexibility tests were conducted before the aerobic warm up, after the combined Static and dynamic Stretching, and post- RSA/COD test. The duration of Static Stretching had a positive effect on flexibility with 36.3% and 85.6% greater sit-and-reach scores with the 60 s and 90 s Static Stretching conditions respectively than with the 30 s condition (p ≤ 0.001). However there were no significant differences in RSA and COD performance between the 3 Stretching conditions. The lack of change in RSA and COD might be attributed to a counterbalancing of Static and dynamic Stretching effects. Furthermore, the short duration (≤ 90 s) Static Stretching may not have provided sufficient stimulus to elicit performance impairments. Key pointsThe duration of combined Static and dynamic Stretching had a positive effect on flexibility with 36.3% and 85.6% greater sit and reach scores with the 60 s and 90 s Static Stretching conditions respectively than with the 30 s condition (p ≤ 0.001).No significant differences in RSA and COD between the 3 Stretching conditions.The lack of change in RSA and COD might be attributed to a counterbalancing of Static and dynamic Stretching effects.The short duration (≤ 90 s) Static Stretching may not have provided sufficient stimulus to elicit performance impairments.
-
Three days of Static Stretching within a warm-up does not affect repeated-sprint ability in youth soccer players.
Journal of strength and conditioning research, 2011Co-Authors: Pui-lam Wong, David G. Behm, Patrick W.c. Lau, De Wei Mao, Ulrik WisløffAbstract:This study aimed to examine the repeated-sprint ability (RSA) in soccer players after 3 days of Static Stretching. Twenty soccer players (age: 16.8 ± 0.4 years) participated in 2 series of experiments with within-subject repeated-measure design (control series [CON]: 13-minute aerobic warm-up; and Static-Stretching series [SS]: 10-minute aerobic warm-up and 3-minute Static Stretching). Each series consisted of 5 days, and RSA (9 × 30 m separated by 25-second passive recovery) was tested on days 1 and 5. Static Stretching was performed for 3 consecutive days from days 2-4, before and after intermittent aerobic endurance exercise on each day. The same warm-up protocol was used before and after all RSA tests and exercises within 1 series. No significant difference between CON and SS was observed (p > 0.05) in RSA for overall (all sprints), early phase (first to third sprints), middle phase (fourth to sixth sprints), and final phase (seventh to ninth sprints). Short-term Static Stretching had trivial effects (Cohen's d < 0.35) on overall and split RSA phases (early, middle, and final). The present study showed that performing Static Stretching for 3 consecutive days and before repeated-sprint test did not negatively affect RSA. However, it is premature to recommend that Static Stretching could be included in in-season daily warm-up routine because some movements such as jump and single sprint were more sensitive to Static Stretching.
-
Effects of differing intensities of Static Stretching on jump performance.
European journal of applied physiology, 2007Co-Authors: David G. Behm, Armin KibeleAbstract:Acute bouts of Static Stretching have been shown to impair performance. Most published studies have incorporated Static Stretching that stressed the muscle(s) to the point of discomfort (POD). There are very few studies that have examined the effects of submaximal intensity (less than POD) Static Stretching on subsequent performance. Ten participants were pre-tested by performing two repetitions of three different stretches to assess range of motion (ROM) and two repetitions each of five different types of jumps. Following pre-testing, participants were stretched four times for 30 s each with 30 s recovery for the quadriceps, hamstrings and plantar flexors at 100% (POD), 75% and 50% of POD or a control condition. Five minutes following the stretch or control conditions, they were tested post-stretch with the same stretches and jumps as the pre-test. All three Stretching intensities adversely affected jump heights. With data collapsed over Stretching intensities, there were significant decreases in jump height of 4.6% (P = 0.01), 5.7% (P < 0.0001), 5.4% (P = 0.002), 3.8% (P = 0.009) and 3.6% (P = 0.008) for the drop jump, squat jump, countermovement jump (CMJ) to a knee flexion of 70°, CMJ using a preferred jump strategy and short amplitude CMJ respectively. An acute bout of maximal or submaximal intensity Stretching can impair a variety of jumping styles and based on previous research, it is hypothesized that changes in muscle compliance may play a role.
Warren B. Young - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Effects of Static Stretching in warm-up on repeated sprint performance.
Journal of strength and conditioning research, 2009Co-Authors: Aaron Y. Sim, Brian Dawson, Kym J. Guelfi, Karen E. Wallman, Warren B. YoungAbstract:The aim of this study was to examine the effects of Static Stretching during warm-up on repeated sprint performance and also to assess any influence of the order in which dynamic activities (i.e., run-throughs and drills) and Static Stretching are conducted. Thirteen male team sport players completed a repeated sprint ability test consisting of three sets of maximal 6 x 20-m sprints (going every 25 seconds) after performing one of three different warm-up protocols in a within-subjects counterbalanced design. Each warm-up protocol involved an initial 1000-m jog, followed by either dynamic activities only (D), Static Stretching followed by dynamic activities (S-D), or dynamic activities followed by Static Stretching (D-S). First (FST), best (BST) and total (TST) 20-m sprint times were determined for each individual set of the repeated sprint ability test and overall (3 sets combined). Although consistent significant differences were not observed between trials for TST, BST, and FST, the mean values for TST in all individual sets and overall were generally slowest in the D-S condition (D = 60.264 +/- 1.127 seconds; S-D = 60.347 +/- 1.774 seconds; D-S = 60.830 +/- 1.786 seconds). This trend was supported by moderate to large effect sizes and qualitative indications of "possible" or "likely" benefits for TST, BST, and FST for the D and S-D warm-ups compared to D-S. No significant differences or large effect sizes were noted between D and S-D, indicating similar repeated sprint ability performance. Overall, these results suggest that 20-m repeated sprint ability may be compromised when Static Stretching is conducted after dynamic activities and immediately prior to performance (D-S).
-
should Static Stretching be used during a warm up for strength and power activities
Strength and Conditioning Journal, 2002Co-Authors: Warren B. Young, David G. BehmAbstract:Should Static Stretching Be Used During a Warm-Up for Strength and Power Activities? Warren Young;David Behm; Strength and Conditioning Journal
Joel T. Cramer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
acute effects of Static Stretching on peak torque and the hamstrings to quadriceps conventional and functional ratios
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 2013Co-Authors: Pablo B Costa, Eric D Ryan, Trent J Herda, Ashley A Walter, Jason M Defreitas, Jeffery R Stout, Joel T. CramerAbstract:Recent evidence has shown acute Static Stretching may decrease hamstring-to-quadriceps (H:Q) ratios. However, the effects of Static Stretching on the functional H:Q ratio, which uses eccentric hamstrings muscle actions, have not been investigated. This study examined the acute effects of hamstrings and quadriceps Static Stretching on leg extensor and flexor concentric peak torque (PT), leg flexor eccentric PT, and the conventional and functional H:Q ratios. Twenty-two women (mean ± SD age=20.6 ± 1.9 years; body mass=64.6 ± 9.1 kg; height=164.5 ± 6.4 cm) performed three maximal voluntary unilateral isokinetic leg extension, flexion, and eccentric hamstring muscle actions at the angular velocities of 60 and 180°/s before and after a bout of hamstrings, quadriceps, and combined hamstrings and quadriceps Static Stretching, and a control condition. Two-way repeated measures ANOVAs (time × condition) were used to analyze the leg extension, flexion, and eccentric PT as well as the conventional and functional H:Q ratios. Results indicated that when collapsed across velocity, hamstrings-only Stretching decreased the conventional ratios (P<0.05). Quadriceps-only and hamstrings and quadriceps Stretching decreased the functional ratios (P<0.05). These findings suggested that Stretching may adversely affect the conventional and functional H:Q ratios.
-
Acute effects of Static Stretching on maximal eccentric torque production in women
Journal of strength and conditioning research, 2006Co-Authors: Joel T. Cramer, Terry J. Housh, Jared W. Coburn, Travis W. Beck, Glen O. JohnsonAbstract:Cramer, J.T., T.J. Housh, J.W. Coburn, T.W. Beck, and G.O. Johnson. Acute effects of Static Stretching on maximal eccentric torque production in women. J. Strength Cond. Res. 20(2):354-358. 2006.-The purpose of this study was to examine the acute effects of Static Stretching on peak torque (PT) and the joint angle at PT during maximal, voluntary, eccentric isokinetic muscle actions of the leg extensors at 60 and 180°·s?1 for the stretched and unstretched limbs in women. Thirteen women (mean age ± SD = 20.8 ± 0.8 yr; weight ± SD = 63.3 ± 9.5 kg; height ± SD = 165.9 ± 7.9 cm) volunteered to perform separate maximal, voluntary, eccentric isokinetic muscle actions of the leg extensors with the dominant and nondominant limbs on a Cybex 6000 dynamometer at 60 and 180°·s?1. PT (Nm) and the joint angle at PT (°) were recorded by the dynamometer software. Following the initial isokinetic assessments, the dominant leg extensors were stretched (mean Stretching time ± SD = 21.2 ± 2.0 minutes) using 1 unassisted and 3 assisted Static Stretching exercises. After the Stretching (4.3 ± 1.4 minutes), the isokinetic assessments were repeated. The statistical analyses indicated no changes (p > 0.05) from pre- to postStretching for PT or the joint angle at PT. These results indicated that Static Stretching did not affect PT or the joint angle at PT of the leg extensors during maximal, voluntary, eccentric isokinetic muscle actions at 60 and 180°·s?1 in the stretched or unstretched limbs in women. In conjunction with previous studies, these findings suggested that Static Stretching may affect torque production during concentric, but not eccentric, muscle actions.
-
Acute effects of Static Stretching on peak torque in women.
Journal of strength and conditioning research, 2004Co-Authors: Joel T. Cramer, Terry J. Housh, Glen O. Johnson, Joshua M. Miller, Jared W. Coburn, Travis W. BeckAbstract:The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of Static Stretching on concentric, isokinetic leg extension peak torque (PT) at 60 and 240 degrees.s(-1) in the stretched and unstretched limbs. The PT of the dominant (stretched) and nondominant (unstretched) leg extensors were measured on a calibrated Cybex 6000 dynamometer. Following the preStretching PT assessments, the dominant leg extensors were stretched using 1 active and 3 passive Stretching exercises. After the Stretching, PT was reassessed. The results of the statistical analyses indicated that PT decreased following the Static Stretching in both limbs and at both velocities (60 and 240 degrees.s(-1)). The present findings suggested that the Stretching-induced decreases in PT may be related to changes in the mechanical properties of the muscle, such as an altered length-tension relationship, or a central nervous system inhibitory mechanism. Overall, these findings, in conjunction with previous studies, indicated that Static Stretching impairs maximal force production. Strength and conditioning professionals should consider this before incorporating Static Stretching in preperformance activities. Future studies are needed to identify the underlying mechanisms that influence the time course of Stretching-induced decreases in maximal force production for athletes and nonathletes across the age span.
Geoff Middleton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Effects of Static Stretching following a dynamic warm-up on speed, agility and power
Journal of Human Sport and Exercise, 2013Co-Authors: Daniel Bishop, Geoff MiddletonAbstract:Static Stretching prior to sport has been shown to decrease force production in comparison to the increasing popularity of dynamic warm-up methods. However some athletes continue to use a bout of Static Stretching following dynamic methods. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects on speed, agility and power following a period of additional Static Stretching following a dynamic warm-up routine. Twenty-five male University students who participated in team sports performed two warm-up protocols concentrating on the lower body one week apart through a randomised cross over design. The Dynamic Warm-up (DW) protocol used a series of specific progressive exercises lasting 10 minutes over a distance of 20m. The Dynamic Warm-up plus Static Stretching (DWS) protocol used the same DW protocol followed by a 5 minute period during which 7 muscle groups were stretched. Following each warm-up the subjects performed a countermovement vertical jump, 20m sprint and Illinois agility test, 1 minute apart. The results demonstrated no significant differences in speed, agility and jump performance following the two protocols DW and DWS. The study concludes that performing Static Stretching following a dynamic warm-up prior to performance does not affect speed, agility and vertical jump performance.
Ulrik Wisløff - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Three days of Static Stretching within a warm-up does not affect repeated-sprint ability in youth soccer players.
Journal of strength and conditioning research, 2011Co-Authors: Pui-lam Wong, David G. Behm, Patrick W.c. Lau, De Wei Mao, Ulrik WisløffAbstract:This study aimed to examine the repeated-sprint ability (RSA) in soccer players after 3 days of Static Stretching. Twenty soccer players (age: 16.8 ± 0.4 years) participated in 2 series of experiments with within-subject repeated-measure design (control series [CON]: 13-minute aerobic warm-up; and Static-Stretching series [SS]: 10-minute aerobic warm-up and 3-minute Static Stretching). Each series consisted of 5 days, and RSA (9 × 30 m separated by 25-second passive recovery) was tested on days 1 and 5. Static Stretching was performed for 3 consecutive days from days 2-4, before and after intermittent aerobic endurance exercise on each day. The same warm-up protocol was used before and after all RSA tests and exercises within 1 series. No significant difference between CON and SS was observed (p > 0.05) in RSA for overall (all sprints), early phase (first to third sprints), middle phase (fourth to sixth sprints), and final phase (seventh to ninth sprints). Short-term Static Stretching had trivial effects (Cohen's d < 0.35) on overall and split RSA phases (early, middle, and final). The present study showed that performing Static Stretching for 3 consecutive days and before repeated-sprint test did not negatively affect RSA. However, it is premature to recommend that Static Stretching could be included in in-season daily warm-up routine because some movements such as jump and single sprint were more sensitive to Static Stretching.