Acute Effects of Intermittent and Continuous Static Stretching on Hip Flexion Angle in Athletes with Varying Flexibility Training Background

The Effects of 5 Minutes of Static Stretching on Joint Flexibility and Muscle Strength Are Comparable Between Ballet Dancers and Non-Dancers

Introduction: Ballet dancers have a special morphology, such as a large muscle thickness that affects passive torque. Ballet dancers also possess specialized mechanical, and neural properties of muscles and tendons. These characteristics may produce different static stretching effects than non-dancers. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the differences in the effects of static stretching on joint range of motion, passive torque, and muscle strength between ballet dancers and non-dancers. Methods: This study included 13 ballet dancers and 13 college students. The muscle and tendon thicknesses were assessed using ultrasonography. In the right lower extremity, torque-angle data and muscle-tendon junction displacement measurements were obtained during isokinetic passive dorsiflexion before and after a 5-minute static stretch against the right plantar flexors. The relative stretching intensity was calculated by dividing the stretching angle by the maximal dorsiflexion angle pre-stretch. Additionally, the isometric maximal voluntary plantar flexion torque on the left ankle was measured before and after 5 minutes of static stretching against the left plantar flexors. Results: Ballet dancers had significantly greater muscle thickness than non-dancers (22.4 ± 2.2 vs 18.1 ± 1.7 mm), whereas no significant difference was observed in the Achilles tendon thickness. No significant difference was observed in the stretching angle; however, the relative stretching intensity was higher in the control group (65.9 ± 19.8 vs 127.5 ± 63.8%). Static stretching increased the maximal dorsiflexion angle (dancer: 30.4° ± 9.6° to 33.9° ± 9.5°, non-dancer: 18.4° ± 8.6° to 20.5° ± 9.5°) and maximal passive torque in both groups, whereas the maximal isometric plantar flexion torque and submaximal passive torque decreased. However, no significant differences were observed in the changes between the groups. Conclusion: These results indicate that despite having a lower relative stretching intensity, ballet dancers experienced similar changes as non-dancers after 5 minutes of static stretching.

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 ).

Acute effects of static and dynamic stretching for ankle plantar flexors on postural control during the single-leg standing task

Static stretching (SS) and dynamic stretching (DS) are widely used as warm-ups before sports. However, whether stretching affects postural control remains unclear. We compared the effects of SS and DS on the plantar flexors and postural control during single-leg standing. Fifteen healthy young participants performed SS, DS, or no stretching (control). The stretch condition consisted of four sets lasting 30 s each. The control condition was a rest with standing for 210 s. Center of pressure (COP) displacement was measured using a force plate before and after each intervention to assess postural control during the single-leg standing task. The COP area, COP velocity, and anteroposterior (COPAP) and mediolateral (COPML) range were calculated. DS significantly decreased in the COPML range (21.5 ± 4.1 to 19.0 ± 2.5 mm; P = 0.02), COP velocity (33.8 ± 7.6 to 29.8 ± 6.5 mm/s; P < 0.01), and COP area (498.6 ± 148.3 to 393.3 ± 101.1 mm2; P < 0.01), whereas SS did not change in the COP parameters (COP area 457.2 ± 108.3 to 477.8 ± 106.1 mm2, P = .49; COP velocity 31.2 ± 4.2 to 30.7 ± 5.8 mm/s, P = 0.60; COPAP 25.4 ± 3.1 to 25.3 ± 3.2 mm, P = 0.02; COPML 20.7 ± 3.3 to 21.1 ± 2.5 mm, P = 0.94). Therefore, DS of the plantar flexors enhances postural control during single-leg standing and may be effective for both injury prevention and performance enhancement.

Acute Effects of Various Stretching Techniques on Range of Motion: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Background

Although stretching can acutely increase joint range of motion (ROM), there are a variety of factors which could influence the extent of stretch-induced flexibility such as participant characteristics, stretching intensities, durations, type (technique), and muscle or joint tested.

Objective

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the acute effects of stretching on ROM including moderating variables such as muscles tested, stretch techniques, intensity, sex, and trained state.

Methods

A random-effect meta-analysis was performed from 47 eligible studies (110 effect sizes). A mixed-effect meta-analysis subgroup analysis was also performed on the moderating variables. A meta-regression was also performed between age and stretch duration. GRADE analysis was used to assess the quality of evidence obtained from this meta-analysis.

Results

The meta-analysis revealed a small ROM standard mean difference in favor of an acute bout of stretching compared to non-active control condition (ES = −0.555; Z = −8.939; CI (95%) −0.677 to −0.434; p  < 0.001; I2 = 33.32). While there were ROM increases with sit and reach (P  = 0.038), hamstrings (P  < 0.001), and triceps surae (P  = 0.002) tests, there was no change with the hip adductor test (P  = 0.403). Further subgroup analyses revealed no significant difference in stretch intensity (P  = 0.76), trained state (P  = 0.99), stretching techniques (P  = 0.72), and sex (P  = 0.89). Finally, meta-regression showed no relationship between the ROM standard mean differences to age (R2 = −0.03; P  = 0.56) and stretch duration (R 2 = 0.00; P  = 0.39), respectively. GRADE analysis indicated that we can be moderately confident in the effect estimates.

Conclusion

A single bout of stretching can be considered effective for providing acute small magnitude ROM improvements for most ROM tests, which are not significantly affected by stretch intensity, participants’ trained state, stretching techniques, and sex.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40798-023-00652-x.

The meta-analysis on joint range of motion (ROM) increases revealed a small effect size in favor of an acute bout of stretching compared to the control condition. Subgroup analysis revealed a significant increase in ROM with sit and reach, hamstrings, and triceps surae tests, but no improvement with the hip adductor tests. Whereas all moderating variables presented significant increases in ROM, further subgroup analyses revealed no significant difference in ROM gains with the stretch intensity, trained state of the participants, stretching techniques, and sex. A meta-regression showed no relationship between the effect sizes to age and stretch duration, respectively.

Intra and interrater reliability for lower limb flexibility assessment using photogrammetry

INTRODUCTION

Photogrammetry represents an advancement in the flexibility evaluation, and although it was highly explored for postural assessment, there is a scarcity of studies analyzing lower limb angular measurements using it. The purpose of this study is to verify the reliability of intrarater and interrarater photogrammetry in assessing lower limb flexibility.

METHODS

This was a randomized cross-sectional observational study with test-retest design and a two-day interval. Thirty healthy, physically active adults were included. Three novice raters assessed the participants through flexibility tests of iliopsoas, hamstring, quadriceps and gastrocnemius on two occasions, and independently analyzed the captured images to establish reliability. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), and minimal detectable change (MDC) were calculated.

RESULTS

Intrarater reliability was excellent for iliopsoas (ICC = 0.96; SEM = 1.4; MDC = 3.8), hamstring (ICC = 0.99; SEM = 1.1; MDC = 3.1), quadriceps (ICC = 0.99; SEM = 0.8; MDC = 2.3) and gastrocnemius (ICC = 0.98; SEM = 0.9; MDC = 2.5). Interrater reliability was excellent for iliopsoas (ICC = 0.94; SEM = 1.7; MDC = 4.6) and gastrocnemius (ICC = 0.91; SEM = 2.1; MDC = 5.8), but good for hamstring (ICC = 0.90; SEM = 2.8; MDC = 7.9) and quadriceps (ICC = 0.85; SEM = 3.0; MDC = 8.3).

CONCLUSIONS

The excellent intrarater and good to excellent interrater reliability suggest that photogrammetry assessment of lower limb flexibility by novice raters is reliable. However, clinicians should consider the higher threshold of range of motion change necessary to outweigh measurement error due to interrater variability.

Effects of cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation on hip range of motion of healthy sedentary women: A crossover study

The improvements in range of motion (ROM) by cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (c-tDCS) were only found in sedentary men and not in females. Thus, the study investigated the effect of c-tDCS on hip flexion range of motion (HFROM) in sedentary women. Ten healthy (27.2 ± 6.4 years for age, 67.9 ± 17.8 kg for body mass, 159.1 ± 7.1 cm for height, and 87.1 ± 3.3° for HFROM) and right-leg-dominant women performed a counterbalanced crossover design in two experimental sessions, separated a week apart: c-tDCS and placebo stimulus (sham). Before and after experimental conditions (Pre-stimulation, Post-stimulation), participants had their HFROM measured. A significant interaction was demonstrated for conditions × time (F_{(1, 9)} = 10.666; ƞ² = 0.542; p = 0.01), indicating an increase in HFROM in the post-condition (89.0 ± 2.6°) compared to pre-condition (86.5° ± 2.9°) only in the c-tDCS. However, the HFROM improvements varied from 0.3 % to 6.5 % following c-tDCS. This study suggests that c-tDCS applied over the sensorimotor cortex of healthy sedentary women can acutely improve HFROM, but with a low percentage increase.

Acute and long-term effects of two different static stretching training protocols on range of motion and vertical jump in preadolescent athletes

This study examined the acute and long-term effects of two static stretching protocols of equal duration, performed either as a single stretch or multiple shorter duration repetitions on hip hyperextension range of motion (ROM) and single leg countermovement jump height (CMJ). Thirty female gymnasts were randomly assigned to stretching (SG) or control groups (CG). The SG performed two different protocols of static stretching, three times per week for 9 weeks. One leg performed repeated stretching (3 × 30 s with 30 s rest) while the other leg performed a single stretch (90 s). The CG continued regular training. ROM and CMJ were measured pre- and 2 min post-stretching on weeks 0, 3, 6, 9, and 3 weeks into detraining. CMJ height increased over time irrespective of group (main effect time, p = 0.001), with no statistical difference between groups (main effect group, p = 0.272). Three-way ANOVA showed that, CMJ height after stretching was not affected by either stretching protocol at any time point (p = 0.503 to 0.996). Both stretching protocols equally increased ROM on weeks 6 (10.9 ± 13.4%, p < 0.001, d = 0.42), and 9 (21.5 ± 13.4%, p < 0.001, d = 0.78), and this increase was maintained during detraining (17.0 ± 15.0%, p < 0.001, d = 0.68). No increase in ROM was observed in the CG (p > 0.874). Static stretching of long duration applied either as single or multiple bouts of equal duration, results in similar acute and long-term improvements in ROM. Furthermore, both stretching protocols do not acutely affect subsequent CMJ performance, and this effect is not influenced by the large increase in ROM and CMJ overtime.