Influence of stress relaxation and load during static stretching on the range of motion and muscle–tendon passive stiffness

Context: Hamstring injuries are common, and lack of hamstring flexibility may predispose to injury. Static stretching not only increases range of motion (ROM) but also results in reduced muscle strength after stretching. The effects of stretching on the hamstring muscles and the duration of these effects remain unclear. Objective: To determine the effects of static stretching on the hamstrings and the duration of these effects. Design: Randomized crossover study. Setting: University laboratory. Participants: A total of 24 healthy volunteers. Interventions: The torque–angle relationship (ROM, passive torque [PT] at the onset of pain, and passive stiffness) and isometric muscle force using an isokinetic dynamometer were measured. After a 60-minute rest, the ROM of the dynamometer was set at the maximum tolerable intensity; this position was maintained for 300 seconds, while static PT was measured continuously. The torque–angle relationship and isometric muscle force after rest periods of 10, 20, and 30 minutes were remeasured. Main Outcome Measures: Change in static PT during stretching and changes in ROM, PT at the onset of pain, passive stiffness, and isometric muscle force before stretching were compared with 10, 20, and 30 minutes after stretching. Results: Static PT decreased significantly during stretching. Passive stiffness decreased significantly 10 and 20 minutes after stretching, but there was no significant prestretching versus poststretching difference after 30 minutes. PT at the onset of pain and ROM increased significantly after stretching at all rest intervals, while isometric muscle force decreased significantly after all rest intervals. Conclusions: The effect of static stretching on passive stiffness of the hamstrings was not maintained as long as the changes in ROM, stretch tolerance, and isometric muscle force. Therefore, frequent stretching is necessary to improve the viscoelasticity of the muscle–tendon unit. Muscle force decreased for 30 minutes after stretching; this should be considered prior to activities requiring maximal muscle strength.

Download Full-text

Effects of low-intensity and short-duration isometric contraction after static stretching on range of motion, passive stiffness, and isometric muscle force

The Journal of Physical Fitness and Sports Medicine ◽

10.7600/jpfsm.9.247 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 9 (5) ◽

pp. 247-255

Author(s):

Shin Goto ◽

Shingo Matsuo ◽

Masahiro Iwata ◽

Wakako Tsuchida ◽

Genki Hatano ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Range Of Motion ◽

Short Duration ◽

Isometric Contraction ◽

Muscle Force ◽

Static Stretching ◽

Passive Stiffness ◽

Low Intensity ◽

Isometric Muscle ◽

Isometric Muscle Force

Download Full-text

Immediate effects of static and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching of hamstring muscles on straight leg raise, craniovertebral angle, and cervical spine range of motion in neck pain patients with hamstring tightness: A prospective randomized controlled trial

Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation ◽

10.3233/bmr-201840 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-10

Author(s):

Eun-Dong Jeong ◽

Chang-Yong Kim ◽

Nack-Hwan Kim ◽

Hyeong-Dong Kim

Keyword(s):

Cervical Spine ◽

Neck Pain ◽

Range Of Motion ◽

T Test ◽

Static Stretching ◽

Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation ◽

Before And After ◽

Straight Leg Raise ◽

Pain Patients ◽

Group Effects

BACKGROUND: The cranio-cervical flexion exercise and sub-occipital muscle inhibition technique have been used to improve a forward head posture among neck pain patients with straight leg raise (SLR) limitation. However, little is known about the cranio-vertebral angle (CVA) and cervical spine range of motion (CROM) after applying stretching methods to the hamstring muscle. OBJECTIVE: To compare the immediate effects of static stretching and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching on SLR, CVA, and CROM in neck pain patients with hamstring tightness. METHODS: 64 subjects were randomly allocated to the static stretching (n1= 32) or proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (n2= 32) stretching group. The SLR test was performed to measure the hamstring muscle’s flexibility and tightness between the two groups, with CROM and CVA also being measured. The paired t-test was used to compare all the variables within each group before and after the intervention. The independent t-test was used to compare the two groups before and after the stretching exercise. RESULTS: There were no between-group effects for any outcome variables (P> 0.05). However, all SLR, CVA, and CROM outcome variables were significantly improved within-group (P< 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: There were no between-group effects for any outcome variable; however, SLR, CVA, and CROM significantly improved within-group after the one-session intervention in neck pain patients with hamstring tightness.

Download Full-text

Acute Comparative Effect of Foam Rolling and Static Stretching on Range of Motion in Rowers

Sustainability ◽

10.3390/su13073631 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 13 (7) ◽

pp. 3631

Author(s):

Alfonso Penichet-Tomas ◽

Basilio Pueo ◽

Marta Abad-Lopez ◽

Jose M. Jimenez-Olmedo

Keyword(s):

Range Of Motion ◽

Repeated Measures ◽

Static Stretching ◽

Foam Rolling ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Post Test ◽

Alternating Treatment Design ◽

Stroke Amplitude ◽

Treatment Design ◽

Over Time

Rowers’ anthropometric characteristics and flexibility are fundamental to increase stroke amplitude and optimize power transfer. The aim of the present study was to analyze the effect of foam rolling and static stretching on the range of motion over time. Eight university rowers (24.8 ± 3.4 yrs., height 182.3 ± 6.5 cm, body mass 79.3 ± 4.6 kg) participated in an alternating treatment design study with two-way repeated measures ANOVA. The sit and reach test was used to measure the range of motion. Both in the foam rolling and in the static stretching method, a pre-test (T0), a post-test (T1), and a post-15-min test (T2) were performed. A significant effect was observed on the range of motion over time (p < 0.001), but not for time x method interaction (p = 0.680). Significant differences were found between T0 and T1 with foam rolling and static stretching (p < 0.001, d = 0.4); p < 0.001, d = 0.6). The differences between T0 and T2 were also significant with both methods (p = 0.001, d = 0.4; p < 0.001, d = 0.4). However, no significant difference was observed between T1 and T2 (p = 1.000, d = 0.1; p = 0.089, d = 0.2). Foam roller and static stretching seem to be effective methods to improve the range of motion but there seems to be no differences between them.

Download Full-text