This study evaluated the effects of 4 different weekly stretching protocols on the rate of gain and decline in hamstring flexibility over an 8-week period, across sex. Using a randomized single-blind design, 53 healthy subjects aged 18-46 years were assigned to 1 of 4 stretching protocols or a control group. The stretching protocols consisted of either daily or 3 times per week stretching and performed once or twice each day. These protocols differed in terms of frequency and total weekly stretching time. All the subjects stretched their hamstring muscles for 4 weeks and were measured weekly for their hip range of motion (ROM). Stretching ceased the final 4 weeks as the weekly measurements continued. The results revealed no significant differences in the rate of gain or the rate of loss between the different stretching protocols (2-way analysis of variance, F = 2.60, p > 0.05). All the stretching groups gained in hip ROM from pre to week 4 (F = 269.24, p < 0.001). After cessation, the rate of loss was similar for all the 4 stretching groups (F = 102.86, p < 0.001); all the groups retained significant gains at the end of the study (p < 0.001). The control group did not change over time. Those who stretched at least 6 times per week gained more than those who stretched 3 times per week (24 and 16.8%, respectively, F = 5.20, p < 0.05). Subject sex did not influence ROM changes (p > 0.05). Stretching appears to be equally effective, whether performed daily or 3 times per week, provided individuals stretch at least 2 times each day. Moreover, although women are more flexible than men are, there was no sex difference in terms of stretching response.
recent vears, the predominant philosophv of physical therapists and athletic trainers in treating lower extremity injuries has focused on the use of closed kinetic chain exercises. This is based on both observational and experimental data that suggest such exercises are more effective, safer, and more functional than previouslv emploved open kinetic chain exercises (3,8,9,12,20,23,29,30,37,58,41). M'hile a variety of techniques are typically used to create a closed kinetic chain environment, one that has evoked particular interest is backward walking (19,24,25). The functionality of both backward and forward walking in rehabilitation is quite obvious. However, it has been suggested that backward walking mav off'er some benefits beyond those experienced through forward walking alone. Gray reported his observation that backward walking appeared to create "more muscle activity in proportion to effort" than forward walking (24). This observation is supported by research demonstrating that the energy cost of backward walking is greater than that of forward walking ( 1 ) . Both Vilenskv et al (48) and Kramer and Reid (27) concluded that backward walking was different from forward walking. Thev reported that backward walking was associated with increased cadence and decreased stride length when compared with forward walking. These authors also observed that thejoint kinematics involved in backward walking were substantially different from those of forward walking (27.48). In contrast, however, Winter and Pluck (51) concluded that backward walking was a near mirror image of forward walking. Thev reported that, in order to produce the muscle activation patterns involved in forward walking, the
Wearing a wrist extension orthosis appears to place additional stress on the proximal joint musculature beyond that found without splint use. The study has implications for the prescription of wrist extension orthoses, especially for patients whose proximal joints are already compromised.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.