Neurophysiological Mechanisms Underpinning Stretch-Induced Force Loss

Trajano, Gabriel S.; Nosaka, Kazunori; Blazevich, Anthony J.

doi:10.1007/s40279-017-0682-6

Cited by 67 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 140 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Static stretching (SS) is traditionally incorporated into pre-exercise routines in rehabilitation and sporting environments [1]. It usually involves moving a limb to its end range of motion (ROM) and holding this stretched position for several seconds [2], and has been demonstrated to be an effective method of increasing ROM about a joint [3], which may also acutely impair muscle function [4]. Whilst it has been suggested that peripheral (muscular) adaptations such as reductions in musculotendinous stiffness [5] might underpin the changes in muscle function, some evidence indicates that acute changes at multiple sites within the central nervous system (supra-spinal, spinal) are more critical [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Static stretch and dynamic muscle activity induce acute similar increase in corticospinal excitability

Opplert¹,

Païzis²,

Papitsa³

et al. 2020

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Even though the acute effects of pre-exercise static stretching and dynamic muscle activity on muscular and functional performance have been largely investigated, their effects on the corticospinal pathway are still unclear. For that reason, this study examined the acute effects of 5×20 s of static stretching, dynamic muscle activity and a control condition on spinal excitability, corticospinal excitability and plantar flexor neuromuscular properties. Fifteen volunteers were randomly tested on separate days. Transcranial magnetic stimulation was applied to investigate corticospinal excitability by recording the amplitude of the motorevoked potential (MEP) and the duration of the cortical silent period (cSP). Peripheral nerve stimulation was applied to investigate (i) spinal excitability using the Hoffmann reflex (H max ), and (ii) neuromuscular properties using the amplitude of the maximal M-wave (M max ) and corresponding peak twitch torque. These measurements were performed with a background 30% of maximal voluntary isometric contraction. Finally, the maximal voluntary isometric contraction torque and the corresponding electromyography (EMG) from soleus, gastrocnemius medialis and gastrocnemius lateralis were recorded. These parameters were measured immediately before and 10 s after each conditioning activity of plantar flexors. Corticospinal excitability (MEP/M max ) was significantly enhanced after static stretching in soleus (P = 0.001; ES = 0.54) and gastrocnemius lateralis (P<0.001; ES = 0.64), and after dynamic muscle activity in gastrocnemius lateralis (P = 0.003; ES = 0.53) only. On the other hand, spinal excitability (H max /M max ), cSP duration, muscle activation (EMG/M max ) as well as maximal voluntary and evoked torque remained unaltered after all pre-exercise interventions. These findings indicate the presence of facilitation of the corticospinal pathway without change in muscle function after both static stretching (particularly) and dynamic muscle activity.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such changes are suggestive of an altered efferent neural (i.e. central) drive to the muscle [4] and also sensory afferent inputs from muscle spindles, mechanoreceptors and nociceptors [18]. It is known that mechanisms underlying changes in excitability could be mediated by a number of central and peripheral sources.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Static stretch and dynamic muscle activity induce acute similar increase in corticospinal excitability

Opplert¹,

Païzis²,

Papitsa³

et al. 2020

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If muscle spindle and cutaneous afferent firing do not underlie the spinal‐level changes in excitability demonstrated by the CMEP, other afferents need to be considered. Autogenic inhibition mediated by Ib afferents from Golgi tendon organs could contribute to stretch‐induced changes at more extended angles, although this is unlikely here given that Golgi tendon organs are typically activated during contraction, and autogenic inhibition is relatively short lasting (for review, see Trajano, Nosaka, & Blazevich, ). There might, however, be a role for heteronymous muscle afferents.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Elbow angle modulates corticospinal excitability to the resting biceps brachii at both spinal and supraspinal levels

Dongés

Taylor

Nuzzo

2019

Experimental Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New Findings What is the central question of this study?Corticospinal excitability to biceps brachii is known to modulate according to upper‐limb posture. Here, cervicomedullary stimulation was used to investigate potential spinal contributions to elbow angle‐dependent changes in corticospinal excitability at rest. What is the main finding and its importance?At more extended elbow angles, biceps responses to cervicomedullary stimulation were decreased, whereas cortically evoked responses (normalized to cervicomedullary‐evoked responses) were increased. Results suggest decreased spinal excitability but increased cortical excitability as the elbow is placed in a more extended position, an effect that is unlikely to be attributable to cutaneous stretch receptor activation. Abstract Corticospinal excitability to biceps brachii is known to modulate according to upper‐limb posture. In study 1, our aim was to investigate potential spinal contributions to this modulation and the independent effect of elbow angle. Biceps responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation (motor evoked potentials; MEPs) and electrical cervicomedullary stimulation (cervicomedullary motor evoked potentials; CMEPs) were measured at five elbow angles ranging from full extension to 130 deg of flexion. In study 2, possible contributions of cutaneous stretch receptors to elbow angle‐dependent excitability changes were investigated by eliciting MEPs and CMEPs in three conditions of skin stretch about the elbow (stretch to mimic full extension, no stretch or stretch to mimic flexion). Each study had 12 participants. Evoked potentials were acquired at rest, with participants seated, the shoulder flexed 90 deg and forearm supinated. The MEPs and CMEPs were normalized to maximal compound muscle action potentials. In study 1, as the elbow was moved to more extended positions, there were no changes in MEPs (P = 0.963), progressive decreases in CMEPs (P < 0.0001; CMEPs at 130 deg flexion ∼220% of full extension) and increases in the MEP/CMEP ratio (P = 0.019; MEP/CMEP at 130 deg flexion ∼20% of full extension). In study 2, there were no changes in MEPs (P = 0.830) or CMEPs (P = 0.209) between skin stretch conditions. Therefore, although results suggest a decrease in spinal and an increase in supraspinal excitability at more extended angles, the mechanism for these changes in corticospinal excitability to biceps is not cutaneous stretch receptor feedback.

show abstract

“…Longer periods of SS (> 45-60 s) may induce greater decrements in muscle force output, which may be due to neurological impairments such as decrements in spinal excitability, increased pre-synaptic inhibition or disfacilitation of reflex-induced afferent excitability [14][15][16][17][18]. These negative effects generally last only for short periods of time before there is a return to baseline values [19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acute Effects of Stretching on Flexibility and Performance: A Narrative Review

Lima

Ruas

Behm

et al. 2019

J. of SCI. IN SPORT AND EXERCISE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Passive and active stretching techniques have been shown to increase both chronic and acute range of motion (ROM). Acute ROM improvements can be countered by decreases in muscle performance, primarily after prolonged static stretching (SS) and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) techniques when not incorporated into a full warm up procedure. In contrast, ballistic stretching and dynamic stretching techniques typically induce either an increase or no change in muscular force and power. This review explores studies that have investigated stretching responses on ROM, muscle functionality and performance. Collectively, the literature demonstrates that prolonged acute SS and PNF stretching can elicit the greatest changes in flexibility, but without additional dynamic activities (i.e. full warm up) can induce neuromuscular force and power output impairments, while increasing ROM and some sports specific performance. Muscle response to stretching may be determined by the manipulation of confounding variables such as duration, population, volume, test specificity and frequency. An increased dosage of some of these variables during stretching in isolation, augments ROM increases while attenuating muscle force output, except for stretching intensity which may lead to similar responses. Populations with high flexibility may have positive effects from stretching when tested on their sport specific performance, while general population may suffer greater negative effects. Not controlling these variables during stretching protocols may lead to misleading information regarding its effects on muscle performance.

show abstract

Neurophysiological Mechanisms Underpinning Stretch-Induced Force Loss

Cited by 67 publications

References 140 publications

Static stretch and dynamic muscle activity induce acute similar increase in corticospinal excitability

Static stretch and dynamic muscle activity induce acute similar increase in corticospinal excitability

Elbow angle modulates corticospinal excitability to the resting biceps brachii at both spinal and supraspinal levels

Acute Effects of Stretching on Flexibility and Performance: A Narrative Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About