scholarly journals The Effect of Warm-Up Intensity on Range of Motion and Anaerobic Performance

1998 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 154-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian B. Stewart ◽  
Gordon G. Sleivert
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Anaerobic Performance ◽  
Warm Up

Is it time to move from mandatory stretching? We need to differentiate “Can I” from “Do I Have To?”

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Afonso ◽  
Jesús Olivares-Jabalera ◽  
Renato Andrade
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Injury Risk ◽  
Warm Up ◽  
Alternative Interventions ◽  
Passive Stretching ◽  
Effective Interventions ◽  
Potential Applications ◽  
The Times ◽  
The Many

The effects and usefulness of active and passive static stretching have raised heated debates. Over the years, the pendulum has swung from a glorified vision to their vilification. As most of the times, the truth often lies somewhere in-between. But even if there was no controversy surrounding the effects of static and passive stretching (which there is), and even if their effects were homogeneously positive (which they are not), that would not be sufficient to make stretching mandatory for practicing physical exercise, for most populations. Amidst the many discussions, an important issue has remained underexplored: the prerequisites to answer the question “Can I?” are not sufficient to answer the question “Do I have to?”, especially when alternative interventions are available. In this current opinion paper, we address four potential applications of stretching: (i) warm-up; (ii) cool-down; (iii) range of motion; and (iv) injury risk. We argue that while stretching can be used in the warm-up and cool-down phases of the training, its inclusion is not mandatory, and its effectiveness is still questionable. Stretching can be used to improve range of motion, but alternative and effective interventions are available. The role of stretching in injury risk is also controversial, and the literature often misinterprets association with causation and assumes that stretching is the only intervention to improve flexibility and range of motion. Overall, the answer to the question “Can I stretch?” is “yes”. But the answer to the question “Do I have to?” is “no, not really”.

A Biomechanical Comparison of the Fastball and Curveball in Adolescent Baseball Pitchers

2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (8) ◽  
pp. 1492-1498 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl W. Nissen ◽  
Melany Westwell ◽  
Sylvia Õunpuu ◽  
Mausam Patel ◽  
Matthew Solomito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Kinetic Data ◽  
Mixed Model ◽  
Warm Up ◽  
Risk Of Injury ◽  
Bony Landmarks ◽  
Elbow Injuries ◽  
Baseball Pitchers ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Biomechanical Comparison

Background The incidence of shoulder and elbow injuries in adolescent baseball players is rapidly increasing. One leading theory about this increase is that breaking pitches (such as the curveball) place increased moments on the dominant arm and thereby increase the risk of injury. Hypothesis There is no difference in the moments at the shoulder and elbow between fastball and curveball pitches in adolescent baseball pitchers. Study Design Controlled laboratory study. Methods Thirty-three adolescent baseball pitchers with a minimum of 2 years of pitching experience underwent 3-dimensional motion analysis using reflective markers aligned to bony landmarks. After a warm-up, pitchers threw either a fastball or curveball, randomly assigned, from a portable pitching mound until 3 appropriate trials were collected for each pitch technique. Kinematic and kinetic data for the upper extremities, lower extremities, thorax, and pelvis were collected and computed for both pitch types. Statistical analysis included both the paired sample t test and mixed model regression. Results There were lower moments on the shoulder and elbow when throwing a curveball versus when throwing a fastball. As expected, speed for the 2 pitches differed: fastball, 65.8 ± 4.8 mph; and curveball, 57.7 ± 6.2 mph (P <. 001). Maximal glenohumeral internal rotation moment for the fastball was significantly higher than for the curveball (59.8 ± 16.5 N·m vs 53.9 ± 15.5 N·m; P <. 0001). Similarly, the maximum varus elbow moment for the fastball was significantly higher than for the curveball (59.6 ± 16.3 N·m vs 54.1 ± 16.1 N·m; P <. 001). The wrist flexor moment was greater in the fastball, 8.3 ± 3.6 N·m, than in the curveball, 7.8 ± 3.6 N·m (P <. 001), but the wrist ulnar moment was greater in the curveball, 4.9 ± 2.0 N·m, than in the fastball, 3.2 ± 1.5 N·m (P <. 001). Relatively minor motion differences were noted at the shoulder and elbow throughout the pitching motion, while significant differences were seen in forearm and wrist motion. The forearm remained more supinated at each point in the pitching cycle for the curveball but had less overall range of motion (62° ± 20°) than with the fastball (69° ± 17°) (P <. 001), and the difference in the forearm pronation and supination moment between the pitches was not significant (P =. 104 for pronation and P =. 447 for supination). The wrist remained in greater extension during the fastball from foot contact through ball release but did not have significantly different total sagittal range of motion (53° ± 11°) when compared with the curveball (54° ± 15°) (P =. 91). Conclusion In general, the moments on the shoulder and elbow were less when throwing a curveball than when throwing a fastball. In each comparison, the fastball demonstrated higher moments for each individual pitcher for both joints. Clinical Relevance The findings based on the kinematic and kinetic data in this study suggest that the rising incidence of shoulder and elbow injuries in pitchers may not be caused by the curveball mechanics. Further evaluation of adolescent and adult baseball pitchers is warranted to help determine and subsequently reduce the risk of injury.

Influence of warm-up duration and recovery interval prior to exercise on anaerobic performance

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 361-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed Frikha ◽  
Nesrine Chaâri ◽  
Adnene Gharbi ◽  
Nizar Souissi
Keyword(s):  
Anaerobic Performance ◽  
Warm Up ◽  
Recovery Interval

Changes in Passive Tension of the Hamstring Muscles During a Simulated Soccer Match

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 594-601 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul W.M. Marshall ◽  
Ric Lovell ◽  
Jason C. Siegler
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Intermittent Exercise ◽  
Muscle Tension ◽  
Sport Activity ◽  
Angular Position ◽  
Rest Period ◽  
Passive Tension ◽  
Warm Up ◽  
Soccer Match ◽  
Passive Muscle

Purpose:Passive muscle tension is increased after damaging eccentric exercise. Hamstring-strain injury is associated with damaging eccentric muscle actions, but no research has examined changes in hamstring passive muscle tension throughout a simulated sport activity. The authors measured hamstring passive tension throughout a 90-min simulated soccer match (SAFT90), including the warm-up period and every 15 min throughout the 90-min simulation.Methods:Passive hamstring tension of 15 amateur male soccer players was measured using the instrumented straight-leg-raise test. Absolute torque (Nm) and slope (Nm/°) of the recorded torque-angular position curve were used for data analysis, in addition to total leg range of motion (ROM). Players performed a 15-min prematch warm-up, then performed the SAFT90 including a 15-min halftime rest period.Results:Reductions in passive stiffness of 20–50° of passive hip flexion of 22.1−29.2% (P < .05) were observed after the warm-up period. During the SAFT90, passive tension increased in the latter 20% of the range of motion of 10.1−10.9% (P < .05) concomitant to a 4.5% increase in total hamstring ROM (P = .0009).Conclusions:The findings of this study imply that hamstring passive tension is reduced after an active warm-up that includes dynamic stretching but does not increase in a pattern suggestive of eccentric induced muscle damage during soccer-specific intermittent exercise. Hamstring ROM and passive tension increases are best explained by improved stretch tolerance.

Relationship of Body Core Temperature and Warm-up to Knee Range of Motion

1991 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 126-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terrence M. Gillette ◽  
George J. Holland ◽  
William J. Vincent ◽  
Steven F. Loy
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Core Temperature ◽  
Body Core Temperature ◽  
Warm Up ◽  
Body Core ◽  
Relationship Of

scholarly journals Intra- and inter-rater reliability of joint range of motion tests using tape measure, digital inclinometer and inertial motion capturing

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. e0243646
Author(s):  
Laura Fraeulin ◽  
Fabian Holzgreve ◽  
Mark Brinkbäumer ◽  
Anna Dziuba ◽  
David Friebe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Inertial Motion ◽  
Rater Reliability ◽  
Warm Up ◽  
Joint Range Of Motion ◽  
Tape Measure ◽  
Digital Inclinometer ◽  
The Right ◽  
Joint Range

Background In clinical practice range of motion (RoM) is usually assessed with low-cost devices such as a tape measure (TM) or a digital inclinometer (DI). However, the intra- and inter-rater reliability of typical RoM tests differ, which impairs the evaluation of therapy progress. More objective and reliable kinematic data can be obtained with the inertial motion capture system (IMC) by Xsens. The aim of this study was to obtain the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the TM, DI and IMC methods in five RoM tests: modified Thomas test (DI), shoulder test modified after Janda (DI), retroflexion of the trunk modified after Janda (DI), lateral inclination (TM) and fingertip-to-floor test (TM). Methods Two raters executed the RoM tests (TM or DI) in a randomized order on 22 healthy individuals while, simultaneously, the IMC data (Xsens MVN) was collected. After 15 warm-up repetitions, each rater recorded five measurements. Findings Intra-rater reliabilities were (almost) perfect for tests in all three devices (ICCs 0.886–0.996). Inter-rater reliability was substantial to (almost) perfect in the DI (ICCs 0.71–0.87) and the IMC methods (ICCs 0.61–0.993) and (almost) perfect in the TM methods (ICCs 0.923–0.961). The measurement error (ME) for the tests measured in degree (°) was 0.9–3.3° for the DI methods and 0.5–1.2° for the IMC approaches. In the tests measured in centimeters the ME was 0.5–1.3cm for the TM methods and 0.6–2.7cm for the IMC methods. Pearson correlations between the results of the DI or the TM respectively with the IMC results were significant in all tests except for the shoulder test on the right body side (r = 0.41–0.81). Interpretation Measurement repetitions of either one or multiple trained raters can be considered reliable in all three devices.

scholarly journals Effects of Warm-up on Hamstring Stiffness, Stress–Relaxation, Flexibility and Knee Proprioception in Young Soccer Players

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danguole Satkunskiene ◽  
Mani Mirab Zadeh Ardekani ◽  
Ra'ad M. Khair ◽  
Goda Kutraite ◽  
Kristina Venckuniene ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stress Relaxation ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Acute Effect ◽  
Knee Extension ◽  
Position Sense ◽  
Joint Position Sense ◽  
Soccer Players ◽  
Warm Up ◽  
Hamstring Injuries ◽  
Resistance Torque

ABSTRACT Context: Nerves or fascia may limit motion in young soccer players, thereby contributing to frequent hamstring injuries. Nerve gliding exercises and self-myofascial release techniques may enhance the range of motion. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the acute effect of foam rolling (FR) and neurodynamic nerve gliding (NDNG) on hamstring flexibility, passive stiffness, viscoelasticity and proprioception during the warm-up of soccer players. Design: Crossover study design. Setting: Research laboratory. Participants: Fifteen male soccer players on the same team (age 18.0 ± 1.4 years, body mass 76.9 ± 7.8 kg, height 183 ± 6 cm). Intervention: FR and NDNG included six sets of 45 s with 15 s rest between each set. Over a two-week period subjects performed NDNG and FR on two separate occasions. Main Outcome Measure(s): Hip flexion angle (SLR), knee extension range of motion (ROM), knee joint position sense (AKJPS), hamstring passive resistance torque (PRT), stiffness (STFmax and STF80%) and viscoelasticity (stress-relaxation test (SRT)). Results: A significant interaction between time and intervention was found for knee ROM (p = 0.017), PRT (p = 0.044), and STFmax (p = 0.042). NDNG induced an increase in ROM (p = 0.011), PRT (p = 0.008), and STFmax (p = 0.030). Both NDNG and FR induced an increase in SLR (p &lt; 0.001). No interaction or main effects was found for SRT and AKJPS. Conclusion: The inclusion of NDNG in the warm-up routine increased the ROM more in comparison with FR and may be of benefit to soccer players.

scholarly journals Effects of Vibration Rolling with and without Dynamic Muscle Contraction on Ankle Range of Motion, Proprioception, Muscle Strength and Agility in Young Adults: A Crossover Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo-Jhang Lyu ◽  
Chia-Lun Lee ◽  
Wen-Dien Chang ◽  
Nai-Jen Chang
Keyword(s):  
Young Adults ◽  
Muscle Strength ◽  
Muscle Contraction ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Exercise Performance ◽  
Plantar Flexion ◽  
Ankle Dorsiflexion ◽  
Plantar Flexor ◽  
Flexor Muscle ◽  
Warm Up

Vibration rolling (VR) has emerged as a self-myofascial release (SMR) tool to aid exercise performance when warming up. However, the benefits of VR on exercise performance when combined with dynamic muscle contraction are unclear. The purpose of this study was to investigate the immediate effects of the combination of VR with dynamic muscle contraction (DVR), VR, and static stretching (SS) during warm-up on range of motion (ROM), proprioception, muscle strength of the ankle, and agility in young adults. In this crossover design study, 20 recreationally active adults without musculoskeletal disorders completed three test sessions in a randomized order, with 48 h of rest between each session. Participants completed one warm-up intervention and its measurements on the same day; different warm-up interventions and measurements were performed on each of the three days. The measurements included ankle dorsiflexion and plantarflexion ROM, ankle joint proprioception, muscle strength, and agility. After DVR and VR intervention, ankle dorsiflexion ROM (both DVR and VR, p < 0.001), plantarflexion ROM (both DVR and VR, p < 0.001), plantar flexor muscle strength (DVR, p = 0.007; VR, p < 0.001), and agility (DVR, p = 0.016; VR, p = 0.007) significantly improved; after SS intervention, ankle dorsiflexion and plantar flexion ROM (dorsiflexion, p < 0.001; plantar flexion, p = 0.009) significantly improved, but muscle strength and agility were not enhanced. Compared with SS, DVR and VR significantly improved ankle plantar flexor muscle strength (p = 0.008 and p = 0.001, respectively). Furthermore, DVR significantly improved ankle dorsiflexion compared with VR (p < 0.001) and SS (p < 0.001). In conclusion, either DVR, VR, or SS increased ankle ROM, but only DVR and VR increased muscle strength and agility. In addition, DVR produced considerable increases in ankle dorsiflexion. These findings may have implications for warm-up prescription and implementation in both rehabilitative and athletic practice settings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document