A Study to Compare the Efficacy of Static Stretching and PNF Stretching on Forward Shoulder Posture

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Venkata Nagaraj Kakaraparthi ◽  
Khalid Alahmari ◽  
Irshad Ahmed

Author(s):  
Leyla Ataş Balci ◽  
Hasan K. Alptekin ◽  
Mirsad Alkan


Author(s):  
Seung-bong Cho ◽  
Mi-young Park ◽  
Ji-sun Won ◽  
Ye-lin Kim ◽  
Joon-taek Hong ◽  
...  


Author(s):  
Eun-Dong Jeong ◽  
Chang-Yong Kim ◽  
Nack-Hwan Kim ◽  
Hyeong-Dong Kim

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.



Author(s):  
Shibili Nuhmani

AbstractObjectivesObjective of the study is to investigate whether Soft tissue mobilization (STM) can assist with static stretching to improve hamstring flexibly.MethodsThe design of the study was repeated measure design. The study was conducted at the physical therapy laboratory of Jamia Hamdard University, New Delhi. Participants included 78 healthy males with hamstring tightness, randomly assigned to either the control group (static stretching) or the experimental group (STM and static stretching). The experimental group received five sets of four different STM techniques, followed by two sets of 30-s static stretches 3 days per week over the course of 12 weeks. The control group received 5 min of sham ultrasound with an inactive probe prior to static stretching. Active knee extension test (AKE) was the outcome measure.ResultsBoth groups showed significant improvement in AKE compared with the baseline measurements. With ingroup analysis showed a significant difference in AKE across all measured time periods (weeks 4, 8, and 12) with pre-test in both groups (p<0.05). No significant difference in AKE improvement was found between groups (p>0.05).ConclusionThe results of this study show that STM prior to static stretching does not significantly improve hamstring flexibility among healthy individuals. Although this study cannot be generalized, the results may be useful for evidence-based practice in the management of hamstring tightness.



Author(s):  
Nicolas Babault ◽  
Gaelyann Rodot ◽  
Marrain Champelovier ◽  
Carole Cometti

Recommendations for prescribing stretching exercises are regularly updated. It appears that coaches progressively follow the published guidelines, but the real stretching practices of athletes are unknown. The present study aimed to investigate stretching practices in individuals from various sports or physical activity programs. A survey was completed online to determine some general aspects of stretching practices. The survey consisted of 32 multiple-choice or open-ended questions to illustrate the general practices of stretching, experiences and reasons for stretching. In total, 3546 questionnaires were analyzed (47.3% women and 52.7% men). Respondents practiced at the national/international level (25.2%), regional level (29.8%), or recreationally (44.9%). Most respondents (89.3%) used stretching for recovery (74.9%) or gains of flexibility (57.2%). Stretching was generally performed after training (72.4%). The respondents also indicated they performed stretching as a pre-exercise routine (for warm-up: 49.9%). Static stretching was primarily used (88.2%) but when applied for warm-up reasons, respondents mostly indicated performing dynamic stretching (86.2%). Only 37.1% of the respondents indicated being supervised. Finally, some gender and practice level differences were noticed. The present survey revealed that the stretching practices were only partly in agreement with recent evidence-based recommendations. The present survey also pointed out the need to improve the supervision of stretching exercises.



Author(s):  
Taizan Fukaya ◽  
Masatoshi Nakamura ◽  
Shigeru Sato ◽  
Ryosuke Kiyono ◽  
Kaoru Yahata ◽  
...  


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 3631
Author(s):  
Alfonso Penichet-Tomas ◽  
Basilio Pueo ◽  
Marta Abad-Lopez ◽  
Jose M. Jimenez-Olmedo

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.



2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 307
Author(s):  
Carla Stecco ◽  
Carmelo Pirri ◽  
Caterina Fede ◽  
Can A. Yucesoy ◽  
Raffaele De Caro ◽  
...  

Stretching exercises are integral part of the rehabilitation and sport. Despite this, the mechanism behind its proposed effect remains ambiguous. It is assumed that flexibility increases, e.g., action on muscle and tendon, respectively, but this is not always present in the stretching protocol of the exercises used. Recently, the fasciae have increased popularity and seems that they can have a role to define the flexibility and the perception of the limitation of the maximal range of motion (ROM). Deep fascia is also considered a key element to transmit load in parallel bypassing the joints, transmitting around 30% of the force generated during a muscular contraction. So, it seems impossible dividing the action of the muscles from the fasciae, but they have to be considered as a “myofascial unit”. The purpose of this manuscript is to evaluate the mechanical behavior of muscles, tendons, and fasciae to better understand how they can interact during passive stretching. Stress-strain values of muscle, tendon and fascia demonstrate that during passive stretching, the fascia is the first tissue that limit the elongation, suggesting that fascial tissue is probably the major target of static stretching. A better understanding of myofascial force transmission, and the study of the biomechanical behavior of fasciae, with also the thixotropic effect, can help to design a correct plan of stretching.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document