Literature DB >> 12741862

A comparison of two stretching protocols on hip range of motion: implications for total daily stretch duration.

Daniel Cipriani1, Bobbie Abel, Dayna Pirrwitz.   

Abstract

It is theorized that the total stretch time in a day is more important than the actual single stretch duration time. The purpose of this study was to compare 2 stretching protocols, keeping total stretching time equivalent. The 2 protocols were a 10-second duration stretch and a 30-second duration stretch. Although the stretch durations differed, the total stretching time over the course of a day was held constant at 2 minutes for both protocols. Participants were randomly assigned a protocol to each of their legs: subjects stretched 1 leg with the 10-second protocol and the opposite leg with the 30-second protocol. The 10-second stretch was repeated 6 times for a total of 1 minute; the 30-second protocol was repeated 2 times for a total of 1 minute. Stretching was performed twice daily (a total of 2 minutes each day) for 6 weeks. All stretching was performed to the hamstring muscles. Hip flexion measurements were recorded at pretest, 3-weeks, and 6-weeks. Subjects demonstrated significant gains in range of motion for hip flexion over the course of 6 weeks, p = 0.000. No differences existed between the 2 protocols. Range of motion gains were equal between the 2 stretching protocols. The common denominator was total stretch time for a day. Regardless of the duration of a single stretch, the key to improvement was the total daily stretch time. These findings are important as they allow clinicians and individuals to customize stretching protocols to meet individual needs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12741862     DOI: 10.1519/1533-4287(2003)017<0274:acotsp>2.0.co;2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Strength Cond Res        ISSN: 1064-8011            Impact factor:   3.775


  8 in total

1.  Current concepts in muscle stretching for exercise and rehabilitation.

Authors:  Phil Page
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2012-02

2.  Standing and Supine Hamstring Stretching Are Equally Effective.

Authors:  Laura C Decoster; Rebecca L Scanlon; Kevin D Horn; Joshua Cleland
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 2.860

3.  The Case for Retiring Flexibility as a Major Component of Physical Fitness.

Authors:  James L Nuzzo
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 11.136

4.  Acute effects of cyclic versus static stretching on shoulder flexibility, strength, and spike speed in volleyball players.

Authors:  Aksel Çelik
Journal:  Turk J Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2017-05-11

5.  Superficial precooling on a 4-week static stretching regimen: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Jessica L Rancour; Megan E Terry; Clayton Holmes; Daniel J Cipriani
Journal:  Sports Health       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.843

6.  Impaired Microvascular Response to Muscle Stretching in Chronic Smokers With Type 2 Diabetes.

Authors:  Boon-Hua Low; Yue-Der Lin; Bo-Wen Huang; Taipau Chia; Jian-Guo Bau; Hao-Yu Huang
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2020-06-11

7.  Acute and long-term effects of two different static stretching training protocols on range of motion and vertical jump in preadolescent athletes.

Authors:  Olyvia Donti; Konstantina Papia; Argyris Toubekis; Anastasia Donti; William A Sands; Gregory C Bogdanis
Journal:  Biol Sport       Date:  2020-12-31       Impact factor: 4.606

8.  Is There a "Window of Opportunity" for Flexibility Development in Youth? A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Olyvia Donti; Andreas Konrad; Ioli Panidi; Petros C Dinas; Gregory C Bogdanis
Journal:  Sports Med Open       Date:  2022-07-06
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.