The Effects of High-Intensity, Short-Duration and Low-Intensity, Long-Duration Hamstrings Static Stretching on Contralateral Limb Performance

Introduction: Increases in contralateral range of motion (ROM) have been shown following acute high-intensity and high-duration static stretching (SS) with no significant change in contralateral force, power, and muscle activation. There are currently no studies comparing the effects of a high-inten...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Emily J. Philpott (Author), Mohammadmahdi Bahrami (Author), Mahta Sardroodian (Author), David G. Behm (Author)
Format: Book
Published: MDPI AG, 2024-09-01T00:00:00Z.
Subjects:
Online Access:Connect to this object online.
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

MARC

LEADER 00000 am a22000003u 4500
001 doaj_2fd08eba1f5b4b9abc48c8943a31bba8
042 |a dc 
100 1 0 |a Emily J. Philpott  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Mohammadmahdi Bahrami  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Mahta Sardroodian  |e author 
700 1 0 |a David G. Behm  |e author 
245 0 0 |a The Effects of High-Intensity, Short-Duration and Low-Intensity, Long-Duration Hamstrings Static Stretching on Contralateral Limb Performance 
260 |b MDPI AG,   |c 2024-09-01T00:00:00Z. 
500 |a 10.3390/sports12090257 
500 |a 2075-4663 
520 |a Introduction: Increases in contralateral range of motion (ROM) have been shown following acute high-intensity and high-duration static stretching (SS) with no significant change in contralateral force, power, and muscle activation. There are currently no studies comparing the effects of a high-intensity, short-duration (HISD) or low-intensity, long-duration (LILD) SS on contralateral performance. Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine how HISD and LILD SS of the dominant leg hamstrings influence contralateral limb performance. Methods: Sixteen trained participants (eight females, eight males) completed three SS interventions of the dominant leg hamstrings; (1) HISD (6 × 10 s at maximal point of discomfort), (2) LILD (6 × 30 s at initial point of discomfort), and (3) control. Dominant and non-dominant ROM, maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) forces, muscle activation (electromyography (EMG)), and unilateral CMJ and DJ heights were recorded pre-test and 1 min post-test. Results: There were no significant contralateral ROM or performance changes. Following the HISD condition, the post-test ROM for the stretched leg (110.6 ± 12.6°) exceeded the pre-test (106.0 ± 9.0°) by a small magnitude effect of 4.2% (<i>p</i> = 0.008, d = 0.42). With LILD, the stretched leg post-test (112.2 ± 16.5°) exceeded (2.6%, <i>p</i> = 0.06, d = 0.18) the pre-test ROM (109.3 ± 16.2°) by a non-significant, trivial magnitude. There were large magnitude impairments, evidenced by main effects for testing time for force, instantaneous strength, and associated EMG. A significant ROM interaction (<i>p</i> = 0.02) showed that with LILD, the stretched leg significantly (<i>p</i> = 0.05) exceeded the contralateral leg by 13.4% post-test. Conclusions: The results showing no significant increase in contralateral ROM with either HISD or LILD SS, suggesting the interventions may not have been effective in promoting crossover effects. 
546 |a EN 
690 |a range of motion 
690 |a maximal voluntary isometric contraction 
690 |a muscle activation 
690 |a stretch tolerance 
690 |a flexibility 
690 |a Sports 
690 |a GV557-1198.995 
655 7 |a article  |2 local 
786 0 |n Sports, Vol 12, Iss 9, p 257 (2024) 
787 0 |n https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/12/9/257 
787 0 |n https://doaj.org/toc/2075-4663 
856 4 1 |u https://doaj.org/article/2fd08eba1f5b4b9abc48c8943a31bba8  |z Connect to this object online.