Denis César Leite Vieira1,2, Jules Opplert1, Nicolas Babault3. 1. Center for Performance Expertise, INSERM UMR1093-CAPS, Faculty of Sports Sciences, University of Burgundy, Dijon, France. 2. College of Physical Education, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil. 3. Center for Performance Expertise, INSERM UMR1093-CAPS, Faculty of Sports Sciences, University of Burgundy, Dijon, France. Nicolas.babault@u-bourgogne.fr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The present study aimed to investigate the acute effects of dynamic stretching on neurophysiological and mechanical properties of plantar flexor muscles and to test the hypothesis that dynamic stretching resulted from an interaction between stretching, movement, and contraction. METHODS: The dynamic stretching conditioning activity (DS) was compared to static stretching (SS), passive cyclic stretching (PCS), isometric contractions (IC), static stretching followed by isometric contractions (SSIC), and control (CO) conditions. Stretching amplitude (DS, SS, PCS and SSIC), contraction intensity (DS, IC and SSIC) and duration (all 6 conditions) were matched. Thirteen volunteers were included. Passive torque, fascicle length, and stiffness were evaluated from a dynamometer and ultrasonography during passive dorsiflexion. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation was used to investigate contractile properties [peak twitch torque (PTT), and rate of torque development (RTD)] and muscle voluntary activation (%VA). Gastrocnemius lateralis electromyographic activity (GL EMG/Mwave) was obtained during maximal voluntary contraction. All of these parameters were measured immediately before and 10 s after each experimental condition. RESULTS: Peak twitch torque, RTD, %VA, GL EMG/Mwave remained unaltered, while passive torque was significantly reduced after DS (- 8.14 ± 2.21%). SS decreased GL EMG/Mwave (- 7.83 ± 12.01%) and passive torque (- 2.16 ± 7.25%). PCS decreased PTT (- 3.40 ± 6.03%), RTD (- 2.96 ± 5.16%), and passive torque (- 2.16 ± 2.05%). IC decreased passive torque (- 7.72 ± 1.97%) and enhanced PTT (+ 5.77 ± 5.19%) and RTD (+ 7.36 ± 8.35%). However, SSIC attenuated PTT and RTD improvements as compared to IC. CONCLUSION: These results suggested that dynamic stretching is multi-component and would result from an interaction between stretching, contraction, and movement.
PURPOSE: The present study aimed to investigate the acute effects of dynamic stretching on neurophysiological and mechanical properties of plantar flexor muscles and to test the hypothesis that dynamic stretching resulted from an interaction between stretching, movement, and contraction. METHODS: The dynamic stretching conditioning activity (DS) was compared to static stretching (SS), passive cyclic stretching (PCS), isometric contractions (IC), static stretching followed by isometric contractions (SSIC), and control (CO) conditions. Stretching amplitude (DS, SS, PCS and SSIC), contraction intensity (DS, IC and SSIC) and duration (all 6 conditions) were matched. Thirteen volunteers were included. Passive torque, fascicle length, and stiffness were evaluated from a dynamometer and ultrasonography during passive dorsiflexion. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation was used to investigate contractile properties [peak twitch torque (PTT), and rate of torque development (RTD)] and muscle voluntary activation (%VA). Gastrocnemius lateralis electromyographic activity (GL EMG/Mwave) was obtained during maximal voluntary contraction. All of these parameters were measured immediately before and 10 s after each experimental condition. RESULTS: Peak twitch torque, RTD, %VA, GL EMG/Mwave remained unaltered, while passive torque was significantly reduced after DS (- 8.14 ± 2.21%). SS decreased GL EMG/Mwave (- 7.83 ± 12.01%) and passive torque (- 2.16 ± 7.25%). PCS decreased PTT (- 3.40 ± 6.03%), RTD (- 2.96 ± 5.16%), and passive torque (- 2.16 ± 2.05%). IC decreased passive torque (- 7.72 ± 1.97%) and enhanced PTT (+ 5.77 ± 5.19%) and RTD (+ 7.36 ± 8.35%). However, SSIC attenuated PTT and RTD improvements as compared to IC. CONCLUSION: These results suggested that dynamic stretching is multi-component and would result from an interaction between stretching, contraction, and movement.
Authors: Richard L Gajdosik; Darl W Vander Linden; Peter J McNair; Tammy J Riggin; Jeff S Albertson; Danita J Mattick; Joseph C Wegley Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2005-07-20 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Anthony J Blazevich; Nicholas D Gill; Thue Kvorning; Anthony D Kay; Alvin G Goh; Bradley Hilton; Eric J Drinkwater; David G Behm Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Daniel J Cipriani; Megan E Terry; Michelle A Haines; Amir P Tabibnia; Olga Lyssanova Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Nicolas Babault; Gaelyann Rodot; Marrain Champelovier; Carole Cometti Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-08 Impact factor: 3.390