David George Behm1, Tyler Cavanaugh2, Patrick Quigley2, Jonathan Christopher Reid2, Priscyla Silva Monteiro Nardi3, Paulo Henrique Marchetti3,4. 1. School of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 230 Elizabeth Ave. St. John's, Newfoundland, A1C 5S7, Canada. dbehm@mun.ca. 2. School of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 230 Elizabeth Ave. St. John's, Newfoundland, A1C 5S7, Canada. 3. Laboratory of Kinesiology, Institute of Orthopedics and Traumatology, School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Post Graduate Program in Science of Human Movement, College of Health Science (FACIS), Methodist University of Piracicaba, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There are conflicts in the literature concerning the crossover or non-local effects of stretching. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether static (SS) and dynamic (DS) stretching of the shoulders would affect hip flexor range of motion (ROM) and performance and reciprocally whether SS and DS of the lower body would affect shoulder extension ROM and performance. METHODS: A randomized crossover study design examined the acute effects of upper and lower body SS and DS on lower and upper body performance measures, respectively. Experimental sessions included upper and lower body control tests, upper body (shoulder horizontal abduction) SS and lower body (hip abduction) SS, upper body (shoulder horizontal abduction and adduction) DS and lower body DS (hip abduction and adduction). Passive static and dynamic ROM (hip flexion, shoulder extension), leg flexor and elbow flexor maximal voluntary contraction isometric force, fatigue endurance and electromyography were measured. RESULTS: There were significant shoulder ROM increases following lower body SS (P < 0.010, ∆% = 8.2%) and DS (P < 0.019, ∆% = 9%). There was a significant hip flexor ROM (P < 0.016, ∆% = 5.2%) increase following upper body SS. There were no significant main effects or interactions for dynamic ROM or muscle force and activation variables. CONCLUSION: The lack of stretch-induced force and fatigue changes suggests that rather than a mechanical or neural drive mechanism, an enhanced stretch tolerance was likely the significant factor in the improved ROM.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: There are conflicts in the literature concerning the crossover or non-local effects of stretching. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether static (SS) and dynamic (DS) stretching of the shoulders would affect hip flexor range of motion (ROM) and performance and reciprocally whether SS and DS of the lower body would affect shoulder extension ROM and performance. METHODS: A randomized crossover study design examined the acute effects of upper and lower body SS and DS on lower and upper body performance measures, respectively. Experimental sessions included upper and lower body control tests, upper body (shoulder horizontal abduction) SS and lower body (hip abduction) SS, upper body (shoulder horizontal abduction and adduction) DS and lower body DS (hip abduction and adduction). Passive static and dynamic ROM (hip flexion, shoulder extension), leg flexor and elbow flexor maximal voluntary contraction isometric force, fatigue endurance and electromyography were measured. RESULTS: There were significant shoulder ROM increases following lower body SS (P < 0.010, ∆% = 8.2%) and DS (P < 0.019, ∆% = 9%). There was a significant hip flexor ROM (P < 0.016, ∆% = 5.2%) increase following upper body SS. There were no significant main effects or interactions for dynamic ROM or muscle force and activation variables. CONCLUSION: The lack of stretch-induced force and fatigue changes suggests that rather than a mechanical or neural drive mechanism, an enhanced stretch tolerance was likely the significant factor in the improved ROM.
Entities:
Keywords:
Crossover fatigue; Electromyography; Flexibility; Non-local muscle fatigue; Range of motion; Strength
Authors: Josinaldo Jarbas da Silva; David George Behm; Willy Andrade Gomes; Fernando Henrique Domingues de Oliveira Silva; Enrico Gori Soares; Érica Paes Serpa; Guanis de Barros Vilela Junior; Charles Ricardo Lopes; Paulo Henrique Marchetti Journal: J Sports Sci Med Date: 2015-05-08 Impact factor: 2.988
Authors: Saied Jalal Aboodarda; David B Copithorne; Kevin E Power; Eric Drinkwater; David G Behm Journal: Appl Physiol Nutr Metab Date: 2015-05-06 Impact factor: 2.665
Authors: Markus Amann; Massimo Venturelli; Stephen J Ives; John McDaniel; Gwenael Layec; Matthew J Rossman; Russell S Richardson Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2013-05-30
Authors: David G Behm; Shahab Alizadeh; Saman Hadjizadeh Anvar; Ben Drury; Urs Granacher; Jason Moran Journal: Sports Med Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Antoine Nordez; Raphaël Gross; Ricardo Andrade; Guillaume Le Sant; Sandro Freitas; Richard Ellis; Peter J McNair; François Hug Journal: Sports Med Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Samantha K Andrews; Jesse M Horodyski; Daniel A MacLeod; Joseph Whitten; David G Behm Journal: J Sports Sci Med Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 2.988