PURPOSE: To compare the immediate effects of a hold-relax proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching (HR-PNF) versus static stretch (SS) on hamstring flexibility in healthy, asymptomatic subjects. SUBJECTS:Thirty subjects (13 female; mean age 25.7 ± 3.0, range 22-37) without excessive hamstring muscle flexibility were randomly assigned to one of two stretch groups: HR-PNF or SS. METHODS: The left leg was treated as a control and did not receive any intervention. The right leg was measured for ROM pre- and post-stretch interventions, with subjects receiving randomly assigned interventions one week apart. Data were analyzed with a 3 (intervention: HR-PNF, SS, control) × 2 (time: pre and post) factorial ANOVA with repeated measures and appropriate post-hoc analyses. RESULTS: A significant interaction was observed between intervention and time for hamstring extensibility, F(2,58) = 25.229, p < .0005. Main effect of intervention for the tested leg was not significant, p = .782 indicating that there was no difference between the two stretch conditions. However, main effect for time was significant (p < .0005), suggesting that hamstring extensibility (for both stretching conditions) after intervention was greater than before. CONCLUSION: No significant differences were found when comparing the effectiveness of HR-PNF and SS techniques. Both stretching methods resulted in significant immediate increases in hamstring length.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the immediate effects of a hold-relax proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching (HR-PNF) versus static stretch (SS) on hamstring flexibility in healthy, asymptomatic subjects. SUBJECTS: Thirty subjects (13 female; mean age 25.7 ± 3.0, range 22-37) without excessive hamstring muscle flexibility were randomly assigned to one of two stretch groups: HR-PNF or SS. METHODS: The left leg was treated as a control and did not receive any intervention. The right leg was measured for ROM pre- and post-stretch interventions, with subjects receiving randomly assigned interventions one week apart. Data were analyzed with a 3 (intervention: HR-PNF, SS, control) × 2 (time: pre and post) factorial ANOVA with repeated measures and appropriate post-hoc analyses. RESULTS: A significant interaction was observed between intervention and time for hamstring extensibility, F(2,58) = 25.229, p < .0005. Main effect of intervention for the tested leg was not significant, p = .782 indicating that there was no difference between the two stretch conditions. However, main effect for time was significant (p < .0005), suggesting that hamstring extensibility (for both stretching conditions) after intervention was greater than before. CONCLUSION: No significant differences were found when comparing the effectiveness of HR-PNF and SS techniques. Both stretching methods resulted in significant immediate increases in hamstring length.