Acute Effects of Antagonist Static Stretching in the Inter-Set Rest Period on Repetition Performance and Muscle Activation

Miranda, Humberto; Maia, Marianna de Freitas; Paz, Gabriel Andrade; Costa, Pablo B.

doi:10.1080/15438627.2014.975812

Cited by 24 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The 90% CI suggests that a positive effect is again, likely. Contrary to Miranda et al 14 , the re-stretch protocol also caused a significant additive effect when compared to experimental trial 1. However, in this instance ES was 'moderate' and the 90% CI between the stretching trials show that there is a slight chance that a negative effect is possible.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 88%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of acute antagonist static stretching on upper-body agonist power

Elliott

Massey

2019

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are many studies showing acute static stretching to be detrimental to power generation. However, the majority have focused upon the impact of stretching the agonist musculature. To date, few have examined the potential benefits of acute antagonist static stretching; none have focused on upper-body power. Utilising a repeated-measures design, 30 male participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups whereupon they performed four bench-throw tests; two control (NO-STRETCH) and two experimental (STRETCH), in a counter-balanced manner. Prior to the experimental measures, participants undertook a series of static antagonist stretches. Mean Pmax (SD) in the NO-STRETCH trials was 862.76 (146)W and 898.50 (144)W, respectively. For STRETCH trial 1, Pmax = 930.10 (146)W and trial 2, Pmax = 953.36 (136)W. When compared to the respective NO-STRETCH trials, antagonist static stretching did have a significant effect on Pmax for both the initial ( P < 0.01, d = 1.33) and the re-stretching procedures ( P < 0.01, d = 1.35). A significant difference was also found between the STRETCH trials ( P < 0.01, d = 0.46). The results have practical implications for those involved in upper-body power activities. Specifically, incorporating upper-body antagonist static stretching into pre-performance routines might offer a simple and effective means of enhancing agonist power.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 88%

“…We will also Antagonist Stretching 5 examine the consequence of a re-stretch protocol. 14 The outcomes could have practical implications for the multitude of sports/activities that demand such actions. 1,4,21,22…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of acute antagonist static stretching on upper-body agonist power

Elliott

Massey

2019

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another interesting finding was that no significant differences were found in the number of repetitions between stretching methods (SS and PNF) when compared with the no stretching control. Although no studies have investigated the effects of stretching volume of the PNF and SS methods on the number of repetitions and RPE in women, some studies have investigated the acute influence of PNF and/or static stretching on strength 2,12,14 and number of repetitions 2,15,28 in men. However, only three studies reported an influence of these stretching methods on the maximum number of repetitions of the bench press exercise 2,12,14 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this context, several studies found acute influences of PNF and/or static stretching (SS) on muscle strength 2,13,14 and number of repetitions 2,4,15 . Other investigations compared the effects of SS on the rating of perceived exertion (RPE) between men and women 16,17 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acute effects of static versus proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching volume on the maximum number of repetitions and perceived exertion

Mangueira¹,

Cirilo-Sousa

Novaes

et al. 2018

Motriz: rev. educ. fis.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: The purpose of this study was to examine the acute effects between different volumes of static stretching (SS) and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching (30 and 60 seconds) on the maximum number of repetitions at 40 and 80% 1RM and rating of perceived exertion (RPE). Methods: Eleven recreationallytrained women (26.45 ± 5.27 years) performed ten experimental protocols using a repeated measures crossover design: (a) 30 s of SS followed by 40% of 1RM (SS1); (b) 60 s of SS followed by 40% of 1RM (SS2); (c) 30 s of SS followed by 80% of 1RM (SS3); (d) 60 s of SS followed by 80% of 1RM (SS4); (e) 30 s of PNF followed by 40% of 1RM (PNF1); (f) 60 s of PNF followed by 40% of 1RM (PNF2); (g) 30 s of PNF followed by 80% of 1RM (PNF3); (h) 60 s of PNF followed by 80% of 1RM (PNF4); (i) 40% of 1RM with no stretching (NS1); and (j) 80% of 1RM with no stretching (NS2). In both stretching protocols, shoulder girdle muscle exercises were performed. Results: Stretching volume did not seem to significantly decrease the number of repetitions after a bench press session (p > 0.05). However, RPE was greater for PNF2 (28.5 ± 1.0; p = 0.016) when compared with PNF1 (26.9 ± 1.9). Conclusion: Stretching volume does not seem to decrease the maximum number of repetitions after a bench press session; however, greater stretching volume appears to increase perception of effort in women when using PNF stretching of longer duration.

show abstract

“…In a study by Miranda et al 20 performed with ten recreationally trained subjects with previous experience in strength training, the effects of passive static stretching of 40 seconds of the pectoralis major muscle, antagonist in the sitting row exercise were verified. During the interval between sets in the performance of seated row repetitions, the results demonstrated significant improvement in the volume of maximal repetitions completed after SS of antagonist muscles.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acute effect of intra-set static stretching on antagonists versus passive interval on the performance of maximum repetitions of agonists in leg extension machine

Souza

Teixeira

Batista

et al. 2020

Rev. bras. cineantropom. desempenho hum.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to investigate the acute effect of intra-set antagonist static stretching (hamstrings) on the performance of maximum repetitions of knee extensors adopting muscle endurance training zone. The sample consisted of 15 healthy male volunteers with experience in strength training (23.7 ± 4.3 years, 81.9 ± 15.0 kg, 1.8 ± 0.1 m). Two experimental protocols were conducted: protocol without static stretching (PT) and antagonist stretching protocol (PAA) in the knee extension exercise. The results showed that there was no difference between protocols or interactions between protocols and sets in maximum repetitions performance (PT, set1 – 21.3 ± 3.4; set2 – 16.1 ± 1.9; set3 – 13.5 ± 1.3 / PAA, set1 – 21.0 ± 2.0; set2 – 16.7 ± 2.6; set3 – 13.7 ± 2.2) (p ≤ 0.05) (p ≤ 0.05). Therefore, antagonist static stretching does not influence performance of maximum repetitions of knee extensors over multiple sets focused on muscle endurance.

show abstract

Acute Effects of Antagonist Static Stretching in the Inter-Set Rest Period on Repetition Performance and Muscle Activation

Cited by 24 publications

References 24 publications

Effect of acute antagonist static stretching on upper-body agonist power

Effect of acute antagonist static stretching on upper-body agonist power

Acute effects of static versus proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching volume on the maximum number of repetitions and perceived exertion

Acute effect of intra-set static stretching on antagonists versus passive interval on the performance of maximum repetitions of agonists in leg extension machine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About