Acute effects of stretching and/or warm-up on neuromuscular performance of volleyball athletes: a randomized cross-over clinical trial

Barbosa, Germanna Medeiros; Dantas, Glauko André Figueirêdo; Pinheiro, Scheila Marisa; Rêgo, Jeferson Tafarel Pereira do; Oliveira, Tuane Luíse Cirne; Silva, Kadja Kaline Ferreira; Dantas, Paulo Moreira Silva; Vieira, Wouber Hérickson de Brito

doi:10.1007/s11332-019-00576-8

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…EMG decrements have been reported after a variety of SS durations when tested either immediately (<1 min) (Babault et al 2010;Behm et al 2019;Marchetti 2017;Ryan et al 2014;Trajano et al 2013) or 10 (Behm et al 2001, 15 (Fowles et al 2000) or 60 min (Avela et al 1999) post-SS. In contrast, there were no significant EMG reductions after SS protocol durations of 30-120 s (Caldwell et al 2019;Power et al 2004;Reid et al 2018), 180 s (Kay and Blazevich 2009a), or 5 (Mizuno et al 2014), 9.2 (Herda et al 2008 or 10 min (Barbosa et al 2019). Mixed results were also reported by Damasceno et al (2014) who recorded both increased biceps femoris EMG activity and no change in the vastus medialis or gastrocnemius EMG during a 3-km running time trial following 3×30 s of SS.…”

Section: Changes In Muscle Activity (Electromyography: Emg)mentioning

confidence: 85%

Mechanisms underlying performance impairments following prolonged static stretching without a comprehensive warm-up

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whereas a variety of pre-exercise activities have been incorporated as part of a "warm-up" prior to work, combat, and athletic activities for millennia, the inclusion of static stretching (SS) within a warm-up has lost favour in the last 25 years. Research emphasised the possibility of SSinduced impairments in subsequent performance following prolonged stretching without proper dynamic warm-up activities. Proposed mechanisms underlying stretch-induced deficits include both neural (i.e. decreased voluntary activation, persistent inward current effects on motoneurone excitability) and morphological (i.e. changes in the force-length relationship, decreased Ca 2+ sensitivity, alterations in parallel elastic component) factors. Psychological influences such as a mental energy deficit and nocebo effects could also adversely affect performance. However, significant practical limitations exist within published studies, e.g. long stretching durations, stretching exercises with little task specificity, lack of warm-up before/after stretching, testing performed immediately after stretch completion, and risk of investigator and participant bias.Recent research indicates that appropriate durations of static stretching performed within a full warm-up (i.e. aerobic activities before and task-specific dynamic stretching and intense physical activities after SS) have trivial effects on subsequent performance with some evidence of improved force output at longer muscle lengths. For conditions in which muscular force production is compromised by stretching, knowledge of the underlying mechanisms would aid development of mitigation strategies. However, these mechanisms are yet to be perfectly defined. More information is needed to better understand both the warm-up components and mechanisms that contribute to performance enhancements or impairments when SS is incorporated within a pre-activity warm-up.

show abstract

Section: Changes In Muscle Activity (Electromyography: Emg)mentioning

confidence: 85%

Mechanisms underlying performance impairments following prolonged static stretching without a comprehensive warm-up

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

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

Afonso,

Andrade,

Rocha-Rodrigues

et al. 2024

Sports Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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).

show abstract

Effects of stretching on muscle strength, endurance, and power performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis

dos Reis,

de Oliveira,

de Souza

et al. 2024

IES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: The acute and chronic effects of stretching preceding exercises on strength, power and muscular endurance are still not entirely clear in the literature. OBJECTIVE: To verify the acute and chronic effects of the main types of stretching (static, dynamic, PNF, and ballistic) on muscle strength, power, and endurance. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in: PubMed, Web of Science, LILACS, Scopus, Science Direct, and CENTRAL. The methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. Meta-analysis were performed using the standardized mean difference (SMD). RESULTS: 43 studies were included in the systematic review and 30 in the meta-analysis calculations. Only two studies showed high methodological quality. In general, static stretching had an impact on the potentiated the gain in muscle strength of the lower limbs in the long term (0.60 [0.20–1.00]). The acute (ES = 0.38 [0.05–0.70]) and long-term (ES = 1.04 [0.21–1.88]) dynamic stretching was able to potentiate the gain of muscle power in the lower limbs, while the acute PNF had an impact on the worsening of the muscular endurance (ES = 1.68 [0.83–2.53]). CONCLUSIONS: When the training objective is linked to acute effects, dynamic stretching should be prioritized before the main activity. For long-term effects, static and dynamic stretching have been shown to potentiate muscle strength and power gain, respectively, and are recommended in these cases.

show abstract

Acute effects of stretching and/or warm-up on neuromuscular performance of volleyball athletes: a randomized cross-over clinical trial

Cited by 3 publications

References 27 publications

Mechanisms underlying performance impairments following prolonged static stretching without a comprehensive warm-up

Mechanisms underlying performance impairments following prolonged static stretching without a comprehensive warm-up

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

Effects of stretching on muscle strength, endurance, and power performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About