Warm-Up With Dynamic Stretching: Positive Effects on Match-Measured Change of Direction Performance in Young Elite Volleyball Players

The influence of static and dynamic warm-up on knee temperature: infrared thermography insights before and after a change of direction exercise

Introduction

Infrared thermography is gaining attention in the field of sports medicine and performance. This study investigated the effects of static and dynamic warm-ups and a 90° change of direction (COD) exercise on the thermal response of the knee.

Methods

Thermograms were collected using the FlIR E54 Imaging Camera from 85 healthy young adults, 46 men and 39 women, aged 20-31 years. The participants were divided in two groups, static and dynamic warm-up. Four thermograms were taken: baseline (T0), warm-up (T1), COD (T2), and rest (T3). Four regions of interest (ROIs) of the knee were analyzed: anterior upper half (AUH), anterior lower half (ALH), posterior upper half (PUH), and posterior lower half (PLH). Mixed ANOVA with the Bonferroni-Holm test and independent t-test were used for pairwise comparison and to spot differences between the right and left knees at T1 and T2 and at T0 between men and women, respectively.

Results

The mixed ANOVA was significant for time points (p< 0.001) in all the ROIs and for the stretching/temperature interaction with different levels of significance. The t-test results for the right and left knees at T1 and T2 were not significant. The temperature in the static warm-up group followed a decrease at T1, a subsequent decrease at T2, and a recovery similar to the baseline at T3, in the ALH in men and women and in the PUH only in men.

Conclusion

Static stretching was more suitable for preparing the knee for the COD exercise than the dynamic one in terms of the thermal response.

What We Do Not Know About Stretching in Healthy Athletes: A Scoping Review with Evidence Gap Map from 300 Trials

BACKGROUND

Stretching has garnered significant attention in sports sciences, resulting in numerous studies. However, there is no comprehensive overview on investigation of stretching in healthy athletes.

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic scoping review with an evidence gap map of stretching studies in healthy athletes, identify current gaps in the literature, and provide stakeholders with priorities for future research.

METHODS

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 and PRISMA-ScR guidelines were followed. We included studies comprising healthy athletes exposed to acute and/or chronic stretching interventions. Six databases were searched (CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science) until 1 January 2023. The relevant data were narratively synthesized; quantitative data summaries were provided for key data items. An evidence gap map was developed to offer an overview of the existing research and relevant gaps.

RESULTS

Of ~ 220,000 screened records, we included 300 trials involving 7080 athletes [mostly males (~ 65% versus ~ 20% female, and ~ 15% unreported) under 36 years of age; tiers 2 and 3 of the Participant Classification Framework] across 43 sports. Sports requiring extreme range of motion (e.g., gymnastics) were underrepresented. Most trials assessed the acute effects of stretching, with chronic effects being scrutinized in less than 20% of trials. Chronic interventions averaged 7.4 ± 5.1 weeks and never exceeded 6 months. Most trials (~ 85%) implemented stretching within the warm-up, with other application timings (e.g., post-exercise) being under-researched. Most trials examined static active stretching (62.3%), followed by dynamic stretching (38.3%) and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching (12.0%), with scarce research on alternative methods (e.g., ballistic stretching). Comparators were mostly limited to passive controls, with ~ 25% of trials including active controls (e.g., strength training). The lower limbs were primarily targeted by interventions (~ 75%). Reporting of dose was heterogeneous in style (e.g., 10 repetitions versus 10 s for dynamic stretching) and completeness of information (i.e., with disparities in the comprehensiveness of the provided information). Most trials (~ 90%) reported performance-related outcomes (mainly strength/power and range of motion); sport-specific outcomes were collected in less than 15% of trials. Biomechanical, physiological, and neural/psychological outcomes were assessed sparsely and heterogeneously; only five trials investigated injury-related outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

There is room for improvement, with many areas of research on stretching being underexplored and others currently too heterogeneous for reliable comparisons between studies. There is limited representation of elite-level athletes (~ 5% tier 4 and no tier 5) and underpowered sample sizes (≤ 20 participants). Research was biased toward adult male athletes of sports not requiring extreme ranges of motion, and mostly assessed the acute effects of static active stretching and dynamic stretching during the warm-up. Dose-response relationships remain largely underexplored. Outcomes were mostly limited to general performance testing. Injury prevention and other effects of stretching remain poorly investigated. These relevant research gaps should be prioritized by funding policies.

REGISTRATION

OSF project ( https://osf.io/6auyj/ ) and registration ( https://osf.io/gu8ya ).