Neuromuscular Correlates of the Contralateral Stretch-induced Strength Loss

Neuromuscular and balance adaptations following acute stretching exercise: a randomized control trial

Purpose

This study aimed to examine the acute effects of static stretching (SS) and dynamic stretching (DS) on neuromuscular function and balance in recreationally active men.

Method

Sixty participants were randomly assigned to SS, DS, or no stretching (NS) groups. Before and after their respective stretching protocols, participants were assessed using the stork balance test (SBT), Y-balance test (YBT), T-change of direction test (CoD T-test), countermovement jump test (CMJT), squat jump test (SJT), and five-time jump test (FJT).

Results

Significant main effects of time were observed for the SBT, YBT, and CoD T-test. Significant interactions between time and group were found for the SBT, YBT, CoD T-test, and CMJT (P < 0.05). Compared to the NS group, the SS group showed significant improvement in the SBT (P < 0.05), while the DS group demonstrated significant improvements in the SBT, YBT (all directions), CoD T-test, CMJT, and SJT (P < 0.05). Post-training, the DS group showed greater improvements than the SS group in the YBT, CoD T-test, CMJT, and SJT (P < 0.05), with no significant differences in the SBT.

Conclusion

SS acutely improves static balance, while DS has a broader impact, enhancing both neuromuscular function and balance.

Synergistic difference in the effect of stretching on electromechanical delay components

This study investigated the synergistic difference in the effect of stretching on electromechanical delay (EMD) and its components, using a simultaneous recording of electromyographic, mechanomyographic, and force signals. Twenty-six healthy men underwent plantar flexors passive stretching. Before and after stretching, the electrochemical and mechanical components of the EMD and the relaxation EMD (R-EMD) were calculated in gastrocnemius medialis (GM), lateralis (GL) and soleus (SOL) during a supramaximal motor point stimulation. Additionally, joint passive stiffness was assessed. At baseline, the mechanical components of EMD and R-EMD were longer in GM and GL than SOL (Cohen's d from 1.78 to 3.67). Stretching decreased joint passive stiffness [-22(8)%, d = -1.96] while overall lengthened the electrochemical and mechanical EMD. The mechanical R-EMD components were affected more in GM [21(2)%] and GL [22(2)%] than SOL [12(1)%], with d ranging from 0.63 to 1.81. Negative correlations between joint passive stiffness with EMD and R-EMD mechanical components were found before and after stretching in all muscles (r from -0.477 to -0.926; P from 0.007 to <0.001). These results suggest that stretching plantar flexors affected GM and GL more than SOL. Future research should calculate EMD and R-EMD to further investigate the mechanical adaptations induced by passive stretching in synergistic muscles.

Corticospinal excitability and reflex modulation in a contralateral non-stretched muscle following unilateral stretching

PURPOSE

Muscle stretching effect on the range of motion (ROM) and force deficit in non-stretched muscle, and the underlying mechanisms, is an ongoing issue. This study aimed to investigate crossover stretching effects and mechanisms on the plantar flexor muscles.

METHODS

Fourteen recreationally active females (n = 5) and males (n = 9) performed six sets of 45-s static stretching (SS) (15-s recovery) to the point of discomfort of the dominant leg (DL) plantar flexors or control (345-s rest). Participants were tested for a single 5-s pre- and post-test maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) with each plantar flexor muscle and were tested for DL and non-DL ROM. They were tested pre- and post-test (immediate, 10-s, 30-s) for the Hoffman (H)-reflex and motor-evoked potentials (MEP) from transcranial magnetic stimulation in the contralateral, non-stretched muscle.

RESULTS

Both the DL and non-DL-MVIC force had large magnitude, significant (↓10.87%, p = 0.027, pƞ2 = 0.4) and non-significant (↓9.53%, p = 0.15, pƞ2 = 0.19) decreases respectively with SS. The SS also significantly improved the DL (6.5%, p < 0.001) and non-DL (5.35%, p = 0.002) ROM. The non-DL MEP/MMax and HMax/MMax ratio did not change significantly.

CONCLUSION

Prolonged static stretching improved the stretched muscle's ROM. However, the stretched limb's force was negatively affected following the stretching protocol. The ROM improvement and large magnitude force impairment (statistically non-significant) were transferred to the contralateral muscles. The lack of significant changes in spinal and corticospinal excitability confirms that the afferent excitability of the spinal motoneurons and corticospinal excitability may not play a substantial role in non-local muscle's ROM or force output responses.

Enhanced corticospinal excitability in the tibialis anterior during static stretching of the soleus in young healthy individuals

Corticospinal excitability is known to be affected by afferent inflow arising from the proprioceptors during active or passive muscle movements. Also during static stretching (SS) afferent activity is enhanced, but its effect on corticospinal excitability received limited attention and has only been investigated as a single average value spread over the entire stretching period. Using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) the present study was conducted to explore the time course of corticospinal excitability during 30 seconds SS. Motor evoked potentials (MEPs) after TMS were recorded from soleus (SOL) and tibialis anterior (TA) muscles in 14 participants during: a passive dynamic ankle dorsiflexion (DF), at six different time points during maximal individual SS (3, 6, 9, 18, 21 and 25 seconds into stretching), during a passive dynamic ankle plantar flexion (PF) and following SS. To explore the time course of corticospinal excitability during the static lengthened phase of a muscle stretch, the stretching protocol was repeated several times so that it was possible to collect a sufficient number of stimulations at each specific time point into SS, as well as during DF and PF. During passive DF, MEPs amplitude was greater than baseline in both TA and SOL (p = .001 and p = .005 respectively). During SS, MEPs amplitude was greater than baseline in TA (p = .006), but not in SOL. No differences between the investigated time points were found and no trend was detected throughout the stretching time. No effect in either muscle was observed during passive PF and after SS. These results could suggest that an increased activity of secondary afferents from SOL muscle spindles exert a corticomotor facilitation on TA. The muscle-nonspecific response observed during passive DF could instead be attributed to an increased activation within the sensorimotor cortical areas as a result of the awareness of the foot passive displacements.

Is the Interpolated-Twitch Technique-Derived Voluntary Activation Just Neural? Novel Perspectives from Mechanomyographic Data

PURPOSE

Voluntary activation (VA) determined by interpolation-twitch technique could be affected by the characteristics of the in-series elastic components. To overcome this possible bias, a novel approach based on the mechanomyographic (MMG) signal to detect voluntary activation (VA MMG ) has been proposed. We examined the changes in VA and VA MMG after passive stretching to check the influence of neural and mechanical factors in the force output.

METHODS

Twenty-six healthy men underwent VA assessment using the interpolated-twitch technique before and after unilateral passive stretching of the plantarflexors (five 45-s on + 15-s off). In addition to the force signal, the MMG signal was detected on gastrocnemius medialis, gastrocnemius lateralis, and soleus. From the force and MMG signal analysis, VA and VA MMG were calculated in the stretched and contralateral nonstretched limbs. Joint passive stiffness was also defined.

RESULTS

In the stretched limb, passive stretching increased dorsiflexion range (mean ± SD = +18% ± 10%, P < 0.001, ES = 1.54) but reduced joint passive stiffness (-22% ± 8%, P < 0.001, ES = -1.75), maximum voluntary contraction (-15% ± 7%, P < 0.001, ES = -0.87), VA (-7% ± 3%, P < 0.001, ES = -2.32), and VA MMG (~-5% ± 2%, P < 0.001, ES = -1.26/-1.14). In the contralateral nonstretched limb, passive stretching increased dorsiflexion range (+10% ± 6%, P < 0.001, ES = 0.80) but reduced joint passive stiffness (-3% ± 2%, P = 0.041, ES = -0.27), maximum voluntary contraction (-4% ± 3%, P = 0.035, ES = -0.24), VA (-4% ± 2%, P < 0.001, ES = -1.77), and VA MMG (~- 2% ± 1%, P < 0.05, ES = -0.54/-0.46). The stretch-induced changes in VA correlated with VA MMG ( R ranging from 0.447 to 0.583 considering all muscles) and with joint passive stiffness (stretched limb: R = 0.503; contralateral nonstretched limb: R = 0.530).

CONCLUSIONS

VA output is overall influenced by both neural and mechanical factors, not distinguishable using the interpolated-twitch technique. VA MMG is a complementary index to assess the changes in VA not influenced by mechanical factors and to examine synergistic muscles.