Acute Effects Of Active, Ballistic, Passive And Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Stretching On Sprint And Vertical Jump Performance In Trained Young Soccer Players

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to compare the acute effects of active (AC), ballistic (BA), passive (PA), proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching (PNF) methods on performance in vertical jumping, sit and reach, and sprinting in young soccer players. Twelve trained soccer players (17.67 ± 0.87 years) participated in the study. The jump height (H), peak power (PP), and relative power (RP) in the squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ), the range of motion (ROM), the rate of perceived exertion (RPE), and time (s) in 10-20-30 m sprints were evaluated. Significant differences (p <0.05) in H were found in the comparisons between the PA and control condition (CO) for the SJ. For the CMJ, differences in H were observed between the PA and CO, and PNF with CO and BA, and in the PP between the PNF and CO, AC, and BA, as well as in the RP between the PNF and BA. Significant increases in ROM were found in the AC, BA, PA, and PNF, compared to the CO. In relation to RPE, higher scores were reported in the PA and PNF conditions compared to the AC and BA. No significant differences were found in 10-20-30 m sprints. Therefore, the AC and BA methods can be used prior to vertical jump and sprint activities, with the aim of increasing flexibility. However, the PA and PNF methods should be avoided, due to subsequent negative effects on vertical jump performance.

Full text

Downloaded from https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3cOpXZES1ihB6Mh9c2omM7dF1G3aoPjboCYvzXP5xRUM= on 08/11/2018
Downloadedfromhttps://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3cOpXZES1ihB6Mh9c2omM7dF1G3aoPjboCYvzXP5xRUM= on 08/11/2018
ACUTE EFFECTS OF ACTIVE,BALLISTIC,PASSIVE,AND
PROPRIOCEPTIVE NEUROMUSCULAR FACILITATION
STRETCHING ON SPRINT AND VERTICAL JUMP
PERFORMANCE IN TRAINED YOUNG SOCCER PLAYERS
LUCAS P. OLIVEIRA,
1
LUIZ H.P. VIEIRA,
1
RODRIGO AQUINO,
1,2
JOA
˜OP.V. MANECHINI,
1
PAULO R.
P. SANTIAGO,
3
AND ENRICO F. PUGGINA
1,3
1
Postgraduate Program in Rehabilitation and Functional Performance, Ribeira˜o Preto Medical School, University of Sa˜o Paulo,
Ribeira˜o Preto, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil;
2
CIFI2D, Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; and
3
School of Physical
Education and Sport of Ribeira˜o Preto, University of Sa˜o Paulo, Ribeira˜o Preto, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil
ABSTRACT
Oliveira, LP, Vieira, LHP, Aquino, R, Manechini, JPV,
Santiago, PRP, and Puggina, EF. Acute effects of active,
ballistic, passive, and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation
stretching on sprint and vertical jump performance in trained
young soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 32(8): 2199–
2208, 2018—The aim of this study was to compare the acute
effects of active (AC), ballistic (BA), passive (PA), and propri-
oceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching methods
on performance in vertical jumping, sit and reach, and sprinting
in young soccer players. Twelve trained soccer players (17.67
60.87 years) participated in the study. The jump height (H),
peak power (PP), and relative power (RP) in the squat jump
(SJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ), the range of motion
(ROM), the rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and time (sec-
onds) in 10–20–30-m sprints were evaluated. Significant dif-
ferences (p,0.05) in H were found in the comparisons
between the PA and control (CO) condition for the SJ. For
the CMJ, differences in H were observed between the PA
and CO, and PNF with CO and BA, and in the PP between
the PNF and CO, AC, and BA, as well as in the RP between
the PNF and BA. Significant increases in ROM were found
in the AC, BA, PA, and PNF compared with the CO. In relation
to RPE, higher scores were reported in the PA and PNF con-
ditions compared with the AC and BA. No significant differ-
ences were found in 10–20–30-m sprints. Therefore, the AC
and BA methods can be used before vertical jump and sprint
activities, with the aim of increasing flexibility. However, the PA
and PNF methods should be avoided because of subsequent
negative effects on vertical jump performance.
KEY WORDS team sport, flexibility, physical performance,
motor testing
INTRODUCTION
Stretching exercises are traditionally performed dur-
ing warm-up before training sessions or sports
competitions. Many coaches believe that this type
of practice reduces the incidence of injuries, accel-
erates recovery, and enhances athlete performance (34).
Previous studies have shown that stretching exercises can
actually interfere with physical performance and that their
effects seem to depend on the stretching method used
(1,3,5,8,12,22,25,29). It has been demonstrated that an acute
session of stretching involved the passive (PA) and proprio-
ceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) methods, which
can reduce maximal force production capacity (5) and sprint
(1) and vertical jump performance (8). However, the litera-
ture shows acute improvement in the power evaluated in
isokinetic apparatus (29), performance in sprints and agility
tests (3,25), and increments or no changes in vertical jumps
(12,22), after conducting ballistic (BA) and active (AC)
protocols.
However, most studies in the scientific literature includes
samples of university students, physically active subjects,
recreationists, and nonathletes with different levels of
training (e.g., beginners, moderately trained, or highly
trained), and nonstandard conditions in relation to the
type of test applied (e.g., sprints, vertical jump, and
isokinetic), stretch volume (e.g., short, medium, or long
duration), and stretch intensity (e.g., #or $point of dis-
comfort [POD]) (3,4,5,8,29,35,44). Furthermore, to the
best of our knowledge, there is no study that has included
in the same experimental design of all the stretching
methods used in this study (i.e., AC, BA, PA, and PNF),
comparing its effects in trained athletes. As already
described in the literature, the effects of stretching on
Address correspondence to Dr. Enrico F. Puggina, enrico@usp.br.
32(8)/2199–2208
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2018 | 2199
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

physical performance depend on the stretch method (5),
stretch volume and intensity (44), and conditioning level
of athletes (3), emphasizing the importance of strict con-
trol of these variables.
Therefore, despite the increase in the number of studies
dedicated to investigating the effects of stretching on several
parameters of physical performance, we also note the lack of
studies that present an experimental design of the cross-over
type with repeated measurements in which the same
participants are subjected to different methods of stretching
with standardization in relation to the types of tests applied,
intensity, and volume of stretching, allowing for direct
comparison between the results, especially in trained
athletes.
Based on this assumption, the objective of this study was
to compare the acute effects of AC, BA, PA, and PNF
stretching methods on vertical jump, sit and reach, and 10–
20–30-m sprint performance in young trained soccer players.
The hypotheses formulated for
the present investigation were
that the PA and PNF methods
may be able to reduce perfor-
mance and the AC and BA
methods promote an increase
or no change in performance
in the evaluated motor tests.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to
the Problem
Before the beginning of the
study, 2–3 familiarization ses-
sions were conducted for the
participants with the tests and
stretching exercises proposed
in the experimental protocol
in an attempt to avoid possible
interferences in the results as
Figure 1. Sequence of stretching exercises performed during the experimental protocol for the active (A), both passive and proprioceptive neuromuscular
facilitation (B), and ballistic stretching methods (C).
TABLE 1. Performance characterization of the study participants.*†
Mean 6SD Min–max
H
SJ
(cm) 41.98 64.50 36.40–49.00
PP
SJ
(W) 3,534.94 6317.15 3,076.69–4,081.24
RP
SJ
(W$kg
21
) 52.47 64.39 47.23–58.47
H
CMJ
(cm) 44.30 64.40 37.20–52.80
PP
CMJ
(W) 3,563.74 6297.65 3,185.34–4,146.54
RP
CMJ
(W$kg
21
) 52.88 63.65 47.91–59.41
ROM (cm) 41.42 64.64 31.50–49.00
10 m (s) 1.80 60.08 1.68–1.96
20 m (s) 3.10 60.10 2.94–3.26
30 m (s) 4.23 60.09 4.17–4.44
*H = jump height; SJ = squat jump; PP = peak power; RP = relative power; CMJ =
countermovement jump; ROM = range of motion; 10 m = time in ten meters; 20 m = time
in twenty meters; 30 m = time in thirty meters.
†Only the control (CO) condition data are shown in this table.
Different Stretching Methods on Power Performance
2200
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

a function of learning and coordination of movements. The
player’s fitness characterization was obtained by anthropo-
metric measures as follows: height (sensitivity = 0.0015 m;
Bosch, Stuttgart, Germany), body mass (sensitivity = 0.1 kg;
DLK Sports, Barueri, Brazil), body fat percentage (according
to Jackson and Pollock (21)), and maximal oxygen uptake
(V
_
O
2
max) estimation by Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test
level 1 (Deprez et al. (13)). To evaluate the behavior of the
power, preceded or not by stretching exercises, the partic-
ipants were evaluated on 5 separate days, all being in the
same period of the day. The mean daily temperatures were
day 1, 328C(898F); day 2, 338C (918F); day 3, 308C (868
F); day 4, 328C(898F); and day 5, 308C (868F) (climatic
record of the Meteorological Research Institute, IPMet,
Bauru, Sa
˜o Paulo, Brazil). On the day of the evaluation, each
participant performed a general warm-up consisting of 5 mi-
nutes of running, on a treadmill at a speed of 9 km$h
21
,
followed by an initial flexibility test. Immediately after, each
participant performed 1 of the 5 experimental study condi-
tions (AC, PA, BA, PNF stretching, or control [CO] condi-
tion) in a randomized fashion with a minimum interval of 48
hours between conditions. The randomization was con-
ducted in a draw form, performed on the assessment day.
In the conditions involving stretching, the stretching session
was performed with a total duration of 15 minutes, whereas in
the CO condition, the participants remained for the same time
at rest. Finally, a new flexibility test was performed, followed by
vertical jump and 10–20–30-m sprint motor tests.
Subjects
Twelve trained soccer players (mean 6SD: age 17.67 60.87
years [age range: 16–19 years old], height 1.76 60.06 m,
body mass 67.38 64.82 kg, body fat 6.80 62.43%, and
V
_
O
2
max 49.76 62.12 ml$kg
21
$min
21
), belonging to the
base category of a team that plays in the third division of
the Chinese national league participated in the study. The
study was conducted in the preseason, during which the
athletes undergo systemic training with a frequency of 8
weekly sessions (;100 minutes per session), including
a friendly match. It is important to note that the practice
of stretching exercises during the evaluation period was
avoided, guaranteed by the physical coach of the team. As
inclusion criteria, it was required that the players did not
present any musculoskeletal injuries or health problems
TABLE 2. Acute effects of active (AC), ballistic (BA), passive (PA), and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation
(PNF) stretching methods and control (CO) condition on jump height (H), peak power (PP), and relative power (RP)
for squat jump (SJ).*
Test CO AC BA PA PNF
H
SJ
(cm)
Mean
6SD
41.98 64.50 41.77 64.38 42.06 63.72 39.73 64.15†40.78 64.23
D(%) — 20.37 65.02 0.48 64.96 25.21 64.30z22.73 64.35
ES — 0.05 20.02 0.52 0.27
Trivial Trivial Large Moderate
QC (%) — 4/85/11 8/86/5 0/2/98 0/33/67
Unclear Unclear Very likely 2Possibly 2
PP
SJ
(W)
Mean
6SD
3,534.94 6317.15 3,525.53 6275.82 3,509.45 6299.16 3,360.58 6315.89 3,414.75 6300.80
D(%) — 0.04 66.98 20.58 64.61 24.80 65.47§ 23.30 64.05
ES — 0.03 0.08 0.55 0.38
Trivial Trivial Large Moderate
QC (%) — 14/65/21 4/76/20 0/4/96 0/12/88
Unclear Unclear Very likely 2Likely 2
RP
SJ
(W$kg
21
)
Mean
6SD
52.48 64.40 52.58 64.07 52.85 63.53 50.74 63.75 51.73 63.94
D(%) — 0.33 64.35 0.88 63.34 23.18 63.51 21.33 62.90
ES — 0.02 0.09 0.42 0.17
Trivial Trivial Moderate Small
QC (%) — 11/83/6 14/84/1 0/10/90 0/67/33
Unclear Likely trivial Likely 2Possibly 2
*The effect size (ES) and probability quantitative chance (QC) values were obtained from mean and SD values of H, PP, and RP in
each stretching condition (AC, BA, PA, and PNF) compared with CO, being QC the percentage chance of positive/trivial/negative
effect, respectively.
†Significant difference in comparison with the CO condition (p,0.05).
zSignificant difference in comparison with BA condition (p,0.05).
§Significant difference in comparison with AC condition (p,0.05).
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2018 | 2201
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

TABLE 3. Acute effects of active (AC), ballistic (BA), passive (PA), and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching methods and control (CO)
condition on jump height (H), peak power (PP), and relative power (RP) for countermovement jump (CMJ).*
Test CO AC BA PA PNF
H
CMJ
(cm)
Mean 6SD 44.30 64.40 43.93 65.13 43.65 64.16 42.07 64.68†41.58 63.92†z
D(%) — 20.89 64.83 21.26 65.75 25.05 63.80 25.98 64.76z
ES — 0.08 0.15 0.49 0.65
Trivial Small Moderate Large
QC (%) — 2/80/17 2/63/34 0/1/99 0/1/99
Likely trivial Possibly 2Very likely 2Very likely 2
PP
CMJ
(W)
Mean 6SD 3,563.74 6297.65 3,560.44 6274.57 3,509.27 6286.27 3,418.74 6325.21 3,383.44 6304.28†z§
D(%) — 0.14 66.32 21.44 63.95 24.02 65.12 25.00 64.63z§
ES — 0.01 0.18 0.46 0.59
Trivial Small Moderate Large
QC (%) — 15/67/18 1/58/41 0/7/92 0/2/98
Unclear Unclear Likely 2Very likely 2
RP
CMJ
(W$kg
21
)
Mean 6SD 52.88 63.65 53.10 63.91 52.85 63.32 51.60 63.57 51.20 63.03z
D(%) — 0.48 64.74 0.04 63.28 22.35 63.90 23.07 63.43z
ES — 0.05 0.008 0.35 0.50
Trivial Trivial Moderate Moderate
QC (%) — 21/70/8 7/86/8 0/20/80 0/6/94
Unclear Unclear Likely 2Likely 2
*The effect size (ES) and probability quantitative chance (QC) values were obtained from mean and SD values of H, PP, and RP in each stretching condition (AC, BA, PA, and PNF)
compared with CO, being QC the percentage chance of positive/trivial/negative effect, respectively.
†Significant difference in comparison with the CO condition (p,0.05).
zSignificant difference in comparison with BA condition (p,0.05).
§Significant difference in comparison with AC condition (p,0.05).
Different Stretching Methods on Power Performance
2202
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

limiting the practice of physical exercises. This study was
approved by an Institutional Research Ethics Committee
(School of Physical Education and Sport of Ribeira
˜o Preto,
Brazil; No. 1050789) and conducted in accordance with the
principles established by the Declaration of Helsinki. All the
players and their legal guardians signed consent forms, con-
firming the voluntary participation.
Procedures
Stretching Sessions. The stretching sessions were composed on
the basis of 4 exercises (i.e., the sitting toe touch, the lateral
quadriceps stretch, the supine knee flex, and the step stretch;
[more details in Baechle and Earle (23)]), alternating the
stretching methods used (Figure 1). The stretching exercises
were aimed at the primary muscles in the execution of ver-
tical jumping and sprint movements (i.e., quadriceps femoris,
hamstrings, gluteus maximus, and triceps surae).
For all the stretching methods used in the study, 3 series
were performed after the protocol proposed by Barroso et al.
(5). During the AC method, each series of exercises was com-
posed of 30 seconds of maintenance in the elongated position,
followed by a 30-second interval. In the PA method, the same
protocol was used, but progressive increases were made in the
stretching amplitude, based on the subjective perception re-
ported, aided by a licensed physiotherapist. For the BA
method, the participants performed oscillatory stretching
movements at a rate of 1:1 second per cycle for 1 minute;
the frequency is controlled by a metronome. Finally, during
the PNF method, the hold-relax technique was used, consist-
ing of 5 seconds of PA stretching followed by 5 seconds of
submaximal isometric contraction (;65% of the maximum
(38), determined by subjective form) of the stretched muscle,
muscle group relaxation, and 20 seconds of PA stretching
applied by a licensed physiotherapist. The intensity of the
stretching was set at the maximum POD (100% of the
POD), i.e., level 100 on a 0–150 a.u. scale of effort perception,
developed and validated specifically for stretching exercises
(see more details in Freitas et al. (16)). The total volume of
stretching was equalized between the conditions, and 3 sets of
30-second stretching were performed with a 30-second inter-
val, and 1 exercise for each muscle group (quadriceps femoris,
hamstrings, gluteus maximus, and triceps surae). Immediately
after each stretching session, the CR-10 scale, adapted by
Foster et al. (14), was presented to each athlete to verify the
rating of perceived exertion (RPE).
Motor Tests: Vertical Jump, Sit and Reach, and 10–20–30-m
Sprint. For the vertical jump test, the participants performed
2 execution techniques, the squat jump (SJ) and counter-
movement jump (CMJ). For the SJ technique, the partic-
ipants started from a static half-squat position, with
approximately 908of knee flexion and their hands positioned
at the waist, and performed a vertical jump to the maximum
possible height. For the CMJ technique, the participants
performed a previous flexion and extension movement, with
a rapid transition between the flexion and extension phases,
followed by a vertical jump to the maximum possible height.
Knee flexion was not permitted in either technique during
the aerial phase. The test was conducted on Ergo Jump
equipment (Cefise, Nova Odessa, Brazil), with variable
heights (H), absolute peak power (PP), and relative power
TABLE 4. Acute effects of active (AC), ballistic (BA), passive (PA), and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation
(PNF) stretching methods and control (CO) condition on range of motion (ROM) and rating of perceived exertion
(RPE).*
Test CO AC BA PA PNF
ROM (cm)
Mean 6SD (pre) 41.42 64.64 40.58 65.93 40.71 65.49 40.29 65.65 39.75 66.01
Mean 6SD (post) 41.75 64.55 42.29 66.29†42.54 65.11†42.50 65.59†42.21 65.59†
D(%) 0.85 61.32 4.19 62.25z4.73 63.44z5.67 64.76z6.51 64.05z
ES — 1.81 1.48 1.37 1.87
Very large Very large Very large Very large
QC (%) 0/100/0 94/6/0 96/4/0 97/3/0 100/0/0
Almost certain trivial Likely + Very likely + Very likely + Almost certain +
RPE (a.u.)
Mean 6SD — 5.42 61.68 6.17 61.85 8.50 61.31§jj 8.83 60.94§jj
*The effect size (ES) values were obtained from the mean and SD of the alteration delta (D) of the ROM in the stretching conditions
(AC, BA, PA, and PNF) in comparison with CO condition. The probability quantitative chances (QCs) were obtained from mean and
SD values of the ROM in comparison between the prestretching and poststretching moments, represented as percentage of positive/
trivial/negative effect, respectively.
†Significant difference in comparison with the prestretching moment (p,0.05).
zSignificant difference in comparison with the CO condition (p,0.05).
§Significant difference in comparison with AC condition (p,0.05).
kSignificant difference in comparison with BA condition (p,0.05).
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2018 | 2203
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

(RP) of body mass measured from flight time and accelera-
tion of gravity (7,37). In addition, the elastic capacity index
(EI) was calculated through the equation: EI (%) = ([CMJ 2
SJ] 3100/SJ) (2).
To measure a range of motion (ROM), the sit-and-reach
test, originally proposed by Wells and Dillon (42), was used,
after the Canadian Standardized Test of Fitness (40). The
participants remained seated, knees extended, with the soles
of their feet resting on the evaluation box. For the execution,
the participants made 3 preparatory movements, and on the
fourth movement, their hands overlapped the ruler, moving
the trunk forward to reach as far as possible and maintaining
the position for 2 seconds.
Before the sprint test, the participants performed a specific
warm-up consisting of three 30-m sprints at submaximal
intensities, the intensity being progressively increased, with
a complete recovery interval (2–3 minutes) between the
repetitions. The test was conducted from an upright initial
position and the times took to cover distances of 10–20–
30 m were determined using the Fspeed photocell system
(FEsistemas, Sorocaba, Brazil). The procedure was per-
formed on a soccer field with artificial grass, and all players
used sports materials traditional for training and com-
petitions (club uniform and soccer cleats) during the sprints.
For all the described procedures, 3 attempts were allowed,
only the best measure being considered for statistical
purposes. The recovery interval was 1 minute between trials
and 5 minutes between the SJ and CMJ techniques for the
vertical jump test (39), and 2–3 minutes between trials for the
30-m sprint test (25). Feedback was provided to all participants
after each attempt, on execution and performance technique, as
well as verbal encouragement during the performance.
Statistical Analyses
Initially, the normality of the data was tested and confirmed
by the Shapiro-Wilk test, after which descriptive analyzes
were performed (mean 6SD, minimum and maximum val-
ues). To compare the results of the motor tests applied in the
study at the moments evaluated (pre vs. post), a Student’s
t-test was used for paired samples, and in the experimental
conditions (AC, BA, PA, PNF stretching, or CO), analysis of
variance was used for repeated measures, followed by Bon-
ferroni’s post hoc test. The effect size (ES) was calculated by
the Cohen “d” (9): trivial ,0.1; 0.1 $small #0.20; 0.20 $
moderate #0.50; 0.50 $large #0.80; and very large .0.80.
The effect of the quantitative chances (QCs) of increases/
positive or reductions/negative in performance was inter-
preted qualitatively as follows: almost certainly not ,1%;
very unlikely 1–5%; unlikely 5–25%; possible 25–75%; likely
75–95%; very likely 95–99%; and almost certain .99%. If the
chance of an increase/positive or reduction/negative in per-
formance was both .5%, the true difference was interpreted
TABLE 5. Acute effects of active (AC), ballistic (BA), passive (PA), and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation
(PNF) stretching methods and control (CO) condition on time obtained in the 10, 20, and 30 m.*
Test CO AC BA PA PNF
10 m (s)
Mean 6SD 1.80 60.08 1.81 60.07 1.82 60.08 1.81 60.09 1.84 60.07
D(%) — 0.24 65.31 0.90 65.32 0.36 65.73 2.27 66.27
ES — 20.13 20.25 20.11 20.53
Small Moderate Small Large
QC — 29/47/25 45/42/13 33/42/24 73/22/6
Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear
20 m (s)
Mean 6SD 3.10 60.10 3.11 60.10 3.14 60.11 3.12 60.13 3.16 60.16
D(%) — 0.17 62.61 1.08 62.90 0.48 64.11 1.95 65.09
ES — 20.10 20.38 20.17 20.44
Small Moderate Small Moderate
QC (%) — 23/64/14 65/32/5 41/42/18 79/17/5
Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear
30 m (s)
Mean 6SD 4.23 60.09 4.31 60.12 4.35 60.14 4.32 60.17 4.42 60.26
D(%) — 20.17 62.05 0.71 62.53 0.13 63.10 2.24 65.16
ES — 20.75 21.02 20.66 20.97
Large Very large Large Very large
QC (%) — 29/47/25 45/42/13 33/42/24 73/22/6
Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear
*The effect size (ES) and probability quantitative chance (QC) values were obtained from mean and SD values of 10-, 20-, and 30-
m times in each stretching conditions (AC, BA, PA, and PNF) in comparison with the CO condition, being QC the percentage chance
of positive/trivial/negative effect, respectively.
Different Stretching Methods on Power Performance
2204
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

as unclear (20). All statistical procedures were performed in
IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 20.0 (IBM Corp.), p,
0.05 being adopted as a criterion of significance.
RESULTS
Table 1 presents the descriptive data regarding the perfor-
mance of study participants in all motor tests applied.
Tables 2 and 3 present the comparisons of vertical jump
performance in different experimental conditions. For the ver-
tical jump using SJ, mean values were significantly lower for H
in the PA condition compared with the CO (p=0.02),and
reductions were found in the delta change of H in the PA
condition compared with the BA (p= 0.04). Likewise, reduc-
tions were found in the delta change of PP in the PA condition
compared with the AC (p= 0.04) (Table 2). In the vertical jump
using CMJ, significantly lower mean values of H were also
found in the PA condition compared with the CO (p=
0.008). In addition, we found significantly lower mean values
of H in the PNF condition compared with the CO (p=0.01)
and BA (p= 0.01) conditions, and for this condition, lower
mean PP values were obtained compared with the CO (p=
0.03), AC (p= 0.01), and BA conditions (p= 0.02). In addition,
significantly lower mean RP values were found in the PNF
condition compared with the BA (p= 0.01), as well as reduc-
tions in the RP delta change in the PNF condition compared
with the BA (p= 0.01) (Table 3). No significant differences
were found in the EI in the AC (5.15 64.75%; ES = 0.12;
QC = 19/40/41), BA (3.75 62.22%; ES = 0.57; QC = 3/20/
77), PA (5.88 64.00%; ES = 20.05; QC = 26/57/17), and PNF
conditions (2.16 64.81%; ES = 0.77; QC = 0/3/97), compared
with the CO condition (5.68 64.24%) (not described in table
or graph form).
Table 4 presents the comparisons of the ROM between
the moments before and after experimental conditions, and
the RPE reported in the conditions involving stretching.
Significantly higher mean values of ROM were found in
the AC (p= 0.00), BA (p= 0.00), PA (p= 0.001), and
PNF stretching conditions (p= 0.00) at the postmoment
compared with the premoment. Likewise, increases were
observed in the ROM delta change in the AC (p= 0.002),
BA (p= 0.01), PA (p= 0.02), and PNF (p= 0.006) conditions
when compared with the CO condition (Table 4). For RPE,
significantly higher scores were reported after the PA
stretching sessions when compared with the AC (p= 0.01)
and BA (p= 0.01) and also after PNF compared with the AC
(p= 0.002) and BA (p= 0.003) (Table 4).
Table 5 presents the comparisons of the time obtained in
the 10–20–30-m sprints for the different experimental con-
ditions. No significant differences were found in the times
obtained at distances of 10–20–30 m between experimental
conditions and the CO condition (Table 5).
DISCUSSION
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first cross-
over study with repeated measurements comparing the
acute effects of AC, PA, BA, and PNF stretching methods
on performance in the motor tests; vertical jumps, sit and
reach, and 10–20–30-m sprints in trained athletes. The main
results were the performance reductions in vertical jump
tests after the PA and PNF stretching sessions. In addition,
increases in flexibility were found after all conditions involv-
ing stretching, with no differences between the conditions.
Data from the scientific literature corroborate with the
findings of this study and indicate an extensive possibility of
negative effects on vertical jump performance after acute
stretching sessions involving PA and PNF methods (8,24),
and increments or no changes after AC and BA methods
(12,22). These reductions in physical performance are asso-
ciated with neural or mechanical factors, or a combination of
both (10,11,15,36). One of the mechanisms associated with
this phenomenon is the decrease in the stiffness of the
muscle-tendon unit (i.e., mechanical factor) (36). Because
a function of the tendons is to transfer the force produced
by the skeletal muscle to the bones and joints, a less rigid or
more malleable muscle-tendon unit can negatively affect the
force transmission, causing a decrease in performance in
activities that require maximum rate of force production in
the least possible time interval, such as the SJ and CMJ tests
used in this study. Furthermore, a decrease in the stiffness of
the muscle-tendon unit may promote changes in the length-
tension relationship of the sarcomere (43). The sarcomere
has an optimal length for the force production, which is
between 2.00 and 2.25 mm (30), and in lengths above or
below this value, the AC force produced by the sarcomere
decreases because of the lower possibility of the cross-
bridges formation. According to Wilson et al. (43), a decrease
in stiffness of the muscle-tendon unit would lead to a tran-
sient shortening response in the absence of overload, which
would place the contractile elements of the sarcomere in
a position less favorable for force generation. Another mech-
anism mentioned in the literature is the decrease in the
recruitment capacity of motor units (i.e., neural factor)
(10,11,15). These reductions in muscle activation capacity
may occur because of the reciprocal inhibition mechanism
promoted by the Golgi tendon organs. This mechanism is
triggered as a form of protection to potential damages to the
structures of the muscle-tendon unit caused by excessive PA
or AC tensions. In addition, Cramer et al. (11) indicate that
reductions in physical performance may be induced by an
inhibitory mechanism from the central nervous system level,
which has not been identified yet.
In this study, significantly higher RPE scores were
reported after stretching sessions involving the PA (8.50
a.u.) and PNF methods (8.83 a.u.) compared with the AC
(5.42 a.u.) and BA (6.17 a.u.). The literature points out that
there is a critical threshold between volume and intensity
for physical performance reductions occur, suggesting
that extensive and high-intensity (e.g., 2 or
more minutes [4 sets 330 seconds] at 100% of POD)
sessions promote significant reductions, whereas short
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2018 | 2205
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

and/or low-intensity (e.g., 1 minute [2 sets 330 seconds]
at 100% of POD or 2 minutes [4 sets 330 seconds] at 90%
of POD) stretching sessions do not alter physical perfor-
mance (44). Therefore, the fact that the volume between
the different stretching methods was equalized (3 sets 3
30 seconds of stretching), leads us to believe that the re-
ductions in physical performance found in this study may
have been mediated by the high stretching intensities
reached in the PA and PNF. On this way, our findings
extend previous knowledge, demonstrating that besides
the control of the manipulation of the variables volume
and intensity of stretching, it is important to pay attention
to the stretching method used. According to our results,
the PA and PNF methods generate a greater physiological
stress in comparison with the AC and BA methods, pro-
moting reductions in vertical jump performance. There-
fore, these methods should be avoided before activities
that require the maximal power of lower limbs.
In addition, significant increases in ROM were found in all
conditions involving stretching, which suggests that all the
stretching methods employed can be used to increase the
level of flexibility in an acute manner. However, no
significant differences were found in the comparison of the
ROM delta change between the experimental conditions
(AC, BA, PA, and PNF). Conflicting results have been found
in the literature on which of the stretching methods promote
greater gains in ROM in an acute manner (4,5,26,33,35).
Although some studies have shown higher gains after using
the PNF method when compared with the AC (5,33), others
show similar gains (6,26). In the same way, similar gains have
been found for the BA compared with the AC (35), whereas
other studies have shown lower efficiency (4,5). Therefore,
further studies are needed to assess which methods are most
effective in acutely increasing levels of flexibility.
As demonstrated, the AC, BA, PA, and PNF stretching
methods allow for different levels of intensity to be reached,
which influences the mechanisms responsible for increasing
ROM. Although the precise mechanisms are not yet well
established in the literature, studies show that increases in
ROM after PA and PNF stretching sessions are associated
with increased stretching tolerance (28,31) and reduction in
stiffness of the muscle-tendon unit (27,32), added to which
the PNF has also been pointed out to induce autogenic
inhibition (19), whereas increases in ROM after AC and
BA stretching sessions seem to be associated with increased
stretching tolerance (28) and a reduction in stiffness of the
muscle-tendon unit (18,32).
For the sprint test, no significant changes in 10–20–30-m
performances were found after the different stretching meth-
ods. By contrast, the literature has pointed to acute reduc-
tions in 10–20-m sprint performance after stretching sessions
involving PA and PNF methods (1), and increases or no
changes in 30-m sprint performance after AC and BA meth-
ods (17). In this sense, 3 explanatory hypotheses were
pointed out: (a) conditioning level, (b) the transient stretch
effect, and (c) reversion of the effect after an inclusion of
specific warm-up. About the conditioning level, it was
recently demonstrated that athletes with a moderate level
of performance (10 m .1.82 seconds and 20 m .3.01
seconds) seem to benefit from acute short-duration stretches
(,30 seconds) on sprint performance, whereas athletes with
a high level of performance (10 m ,1.82 seconds and 20 m
,3.01 seconds) are not affected by short- or medium-
duration stretches (30–60 seconds) (3). In the comparison
between the descriptive data of performance found in this
study and these references values, it is possible to verify that
the mean times obtained in the 10 m (1.80 seconds), 20 m
(3.10 seconds), and 30 m (4.23 seconds) are very close to the
abovementioned high-performance reference values (3).
Therefore, it is possible that the conditioning level (high
level) of the athletes who participated in this study and the
relatively low volume of stretching (3 sets 330 seconds of
stretching) interfered in the results, preventing negative ef-
fects on sprint performance. However, the fact that perfor-
mance alterations were found in the vertical jump in the PA
and PNF conditions but not in the sprint performance leads
us to believe that other variables may have interfered in the
results. It has been shown that the negative effect of stretch-
ing on sprint performance is only transient, returning to
normal levels approximately 15–20 minutes after the
stretching session (1). Therefore, a plausible explanation is
that the time interval between the end of the stretching
section and the sprint test (;15 minutes) was enough for the
negative effect of stretching on physical performance to get
dissipated. Moreover, it has also been shown that the neg-
ative effect of stretching can be attenuated if followed by
a moderate- to high-intensity sport-specific warm-up (41).
Therefore, a third explanatory hypothesis is that the inclu-
sion of a specific warm-up (3 sprints of 30 m with increasing
intensity) after the stretching session and before the sprint
test attenuated the negative effect caused by the PA and PNF
stretching sessions. It should be emphasized that the associ-
ation between stretching exercises and a specific warm-up is
a common practice used in most sports, especially in the
sport evaluated in this study, which is soccer. Based on these
assumptions, (a) the hypotheses, (b) dissipation of the effect
because of the interval between the stretching session and
the sprint test, and (c) reversion of the effect after an inclu-
sion of specific warm-up, or a combination of these factors,
seem to be more consistent as an explanation for the results
found in this study. Thus, a PA or AC interval of approxi-
mately 15 minutes seems to be sufficient for dissipating the
negative effect of stretching even after more aggressive
methods such as PA and PNF.
As a limitation, this study did not include measurement
instruments that could directly identify the neurophysiolog-
ical mechanisms mentioned as being responsible for the
reduction in physical performance after the different stretch-
ing methods. Therefore, future studies should include
evaluations that enable comparisons of the influence of
Different Stretching Methods on Power Performance
2206
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

mechanical and neural factors, or their association, on
performance after AC, BA, PA, and PNF stretching methods.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Based on the results found in this study, the AC and BA
methods do not promote negative effects on vertical jump
and sprint performance. However, the PA and PNF methods
should be viewed with caution, especially because of the
higher intensities reached in these methods and the exten-
sive possibility of negative effects on performance in
activities involving vertical jumps. Thus, physical trainers in
soccer can include AC and BA stretching sessions similar to
those in this study (3 sets 330 seconds of 100% POD
stretching) in their warm-up routines during training ses-
sions, allowing the players to increase their levels of flexibil-
ity without further negative effects on performance in
vertical jump and sprint activities. In addition, the PA and
PNF methods may be also used to increase flexibility levels.
However, immediately after these methods, a PA or AC
interval of approximately 15 minutes should be allowed,
with the inclusion of a sport-specific warm-up, for that the
stretching session does not have interference on physical
performance in posterior activities involving vertical jump
and sprint.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank the Sa
˜o Paulo Research Foundation (FA-
PESP) under grant (2014/16164-5). The results of this study
do not constitute endorsement of the product by the authors
or the National Strength and Conditioning Association. The
authors have no financial/conflicts of interest to disclose.
This study conforms to the Code of Ethics of the World
Medical Association (approved by the ethics advisory board
of Swansea University), was approved by the Research
Ethics Committee of School of Physical Education and
Sport of Ribeira
˜o Preto (protocol 1.050.789), and was con-
ducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
REFERENCES
1. Alemdaroglu, U, Koklu, Y, and Koz, M. The acute effect of different
stretching methods on sprint performance in taekwondo
practitioners. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 57: 1104–1110, 2016.
2. Arteaga, R, Dorado, C, Chavarren, J, and Calbet, JA. Reliability of
jumping performance in active men and women under different
stretch loading conditions. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 40: 26–34, 2000.
3. Avloniti, A, Chatzinikolaou, A, Fatouros, IG, Avloniti, C, Protopapa,
M, Draganidis, D, Stampoulis, T, Leontsini, D, Mavropalias, G,
Gounelas, G, and Kambas, A. The acute effects of static stretching
on speed and agility performance depend on stretch duration and
conditioning level. J Strength Cond Res 30: 2767–2773, 2016.
4. Bacurau, RF, Monteiro, GA, Ugrinowitsch, C, Tricoli, V, Cabral, LF,
and Aoki, MS. Acute effect of a ballistic and a static stretching
exercise bout on flexibility and maximal strength. J Strength Cond Res
23: 304–308, 2009.
5. Barroso, R, Tricoli, V, Santos Gil, SD, Ugrinowitsch, C, and Roschel,
H. Maximal strength, number of repetitions, and total volume are
differently affected by static-, ballistic-, and proprioceptive
neuromuscular facilitation stretching. J Strength Cond Res 26: 2432–
2437, 2012.
6. Beedle, BB and Mann, CL. A comparison of two warm-ups on joint
range of motion. J Strength Cond Res 21: 776–779, 2007.
7. Bosco, C, Belli, A, Astrua, M, Tihanyi, J, Pozzo, R, Kellis, S, Tsarpela,
O, Foti, C, Manno, R, and Tranquilli, C. A dynamometer for
evaluation of dynamic muscle work. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol
70: 379–386, 1995.
8. Bradley, PS, Olsen, PD, and Portas, MD. The effect of static,
ballistic, and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching on
vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 21: 223–226, 2007.
9. Cohen, J. The t Test for Means. In: Statistical power analysis for the
behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Routledge, 1988. pp. 19–74.
10. Cramer, JT, Beck, TW, Housh, TJ, Massey, LL, Marek, SM,
Danglemeier, S, Purkayastha, S, Culbertson, JY, Fitz, KA, and Egan,
AD. Acute effects of static stretching on characteristics of the
isokinetic angle-torque relationship, surface electromyography, and
mechanomyography. J Sports Sci 25: 687–698, 2007.
11. Cramer, JT, Housh, TJ, Weir, JP, Johnson, GO, Coburn, JW, and
Beck, TW. The acute effects of static stretching on peak torque,
mean power output, electromyography, and mechanomyography.
Eur J Appl Physiol 93: 530–539, 2005.
12. Dallas, G, Smirniotou, A, Tsiganos, G, Tsopani, D, Di Cagno, A, and
Tsolakis, C. Acute effect of different stretching methods on
flexibility and jumping performance in competitive artistic
gymnasts. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 54: 683–690, 2014.
13. Deprez, D, Coutts, AJ, Lenoir, M, Fransen, J, Pion, J, Philippaerts, R,
and Vaeyens, R. Reliability and validity of the Yo-Yo intermittent
recovery test level 1 in young soccer players. J Sports Sci 32: 903–
910, 2014.
14. Foster, C, Florhaug, JA, Franklin, J, Gottschall, L, Hrovatin, LA,
Parker, S, Doleshal, P, and Dodge, C. A new approach to
monitoring exercise training. J Strength Cond Res 15: 109–115, 2001.
15. Fowles, JR, Sale, DG, and MacDougall, JD. Reduced strength after
passive stretch of the human plantar flexors. J Appl Physiol 89: 1179–
1188, 2000.
16. Freitas, SR, Vaz, JR, Gomes, L, Silvestre, R, Hilario, E, Cordeiro, N,
Carnide, F, Pezarat-Correia, P, and Mil-Homens, PA. New tool to
assess the perception of stretching intensity. J Strength Cond Res 29:
2666–2678, 2015.
17. Gelen, E. Acute effects of different warm-up methods on sprint,
slalom dribbling, and penalty kick performance in soccer players. J
Strength Cond Res 24: 950–956, 2010.
18. Herda, TJ, Herda, ND, Costa, PB, Walter-Herda, AA, Valdez, AM,
and Cramer, JT. The effects of dynamic stretching on the passive
properties of the muscle-tendon unit. J Sports Sci 31: 479–487, 2013.
19. Hindle, KB, Whitcomb, TJ, Briggs, WO, and Hong, J. Proprioceptive
neuromuscular facilitation (PNF): Its mechanisms and effects on
range of motion and muscular function. J Hum Kinet 31: 105–113,
2012.
20. Hopkins, WG, Marshall, SW, Batterham, AM, and Hanin, J.
Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise
science. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41: 3–13, 2009.
21. Jackson, AS and Pollock, ML. Generalized equations for predicting
body density of men. Br J Nutr 40:497–504, 1978.
22. Jaggers, JR, Swank, AM, Frost, KL, and Lee, CD. The acute effects
of dynamic and ballistic stretching on vertical jump height, force,
and power. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1844–1849, 2008.
23. Jeffreys, I. Warm-up and flexibility training. In: Baechle, TR and
Earle, RW. Essentials of strength training and conditioning (3rd ed.).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008. pp. 295–324.
24. Kirmizigil, B, Ozcaldiran, B, and Colakoglu, M. Effects of three
different stretching techniques on vertical jumping performance. J
Strength Cond Res 28: 1263–1271, 2014.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2018 | 2207
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

25. Little, T and Williams, AG. Effects of differential stretching
protocols during warm-ups on high-speed motor capacities in
professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 20: 203–207, 2006.
26. Maddigan, ME, Peach, AA, and Behm, DG. A comparison of
assisted and unassisted proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation
techniques and static stretching. J Strength Cond Res 26: 1238–1244,
2012.
27. Magnusson, SP, Simonsen, EB, Aagaard, P, Dyhre-Poulsen, P,
McHugh, MP, and Kjaer, M. Mechanical and physical responses to
stretching with and without preisometric contraction in human
skeletal muscle. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 77: 373–378, 1996.
28. Magnusson, SP, Simonsen, EB, Aagaard, P, Sørensen, H, and Kjaer,
M. A mechanism for altered flexibility in human skeletal muscle. J
Physiol 497: 291–298, 1996.
29. Manoel, ME, Harris-Love, MO, Danoff, JV, and Miller, TA. Acute
effects of static, dynamic, and proprioceptive neuromuscular
facilitation stretching on muscle power in women. J Strength Cond
Res 22: 1528–1534, 2008.
30. McArdle, WD, Katch, FI, and Katch, VL. Skeletal muscle: structure
and function. In: Exercise physiology: nutrition, energy, and human
performance (7th ed.) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, EUA: Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins, 2011. pp. 364–387.
31. Mitchell, UH, Myrer, JW, Hopkins, JT, Hunter, I, Feland, JB, and
Hilton, SC. Neurophysiological reflex mechanisms’ lack of
contribution to the success of PNF stretches. J Sport Rehabil 18:
343–357, 2009.
32. Morse, CI, Degens, H, Seynnes, OR, Maganaris, CN, and Jones, DA.
The acute effect of stretching on the passive stiffness of the human
gastrocnemius muscle tendon unit. J Physiol 586: 97–106, 2008.
33. O’Hora, J, Cartwright, A, Wade, CD, Hough, AD, and Shum, GL.
Efficacy of static stretching and proprioceptive neuromuscular
facilitation stretch on hamstrings length after a single session. J
Strength Cond Res 25: 1586–1591, 2011.
34. Ozmen, T, Yagmur Gunes, G, Dogan, H, Ucar, I, and Willems, M.
The effect of kinesio taping versus stretching techniques on muscle
soreness, and flexibility during recovery from nordic hamstring
exercise. J Bodyw Mov Ther 21: 41–47, 2017.
35. Perrier, ET, Pavol, MJ, and Hoffman, MA. The acute effects of
a warm-up including static or dynamic stretching on
countermovement jump height, reaction time, and flexibility. J
Strength Cond Res 25: 1925–1931, 2011.
36. Ryan, ED, Beck, TW, Herda, TJ, Hull, HR, Hartman, MJ, Costa, PB,
Defreitas, JM, Stout, JR, and Cramer, JT. The time course of
musculotendinous stiffness responses following different durations
of passive stretching. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 38: 632–639, 2008.
37. Sayers, SP, Harackiewicz, DV, Harman, EA, Frykman, PN, and
Rosenstein, MT. Cross-validation of three jump power equations.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 31: 572–577, 1999.
38. Sheard, PW and Paine, TJ. Optimal contraction intensity during
proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation for maximal increase of
range of motion. J Strength Cond Res 24: 416–421, 2010.
39. Smirniotou, A, Katsikas, C, Paradisis, G, Argeitaki, P,
Zacharogiannis, E, and Tziortzis, S. Strength-power parameters as
predictors of sprinting performance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 48:
447–454, 2008.
40. Sport, FA. Muscular strength, flexibility, and muscular endurance.
In: Canadian standardized test of fitness (CSTF): operations manual (3rd
ed.). Ottawa, ON: Fitness and Amateur Sport, 1986. pp. 27–29.
41. Taylor, KL, Sheppard, JM, Lee, H, and Plummer, N. Negative effect
of static stretching restored when combined with a sport specific
warm-up component. J Sci Med Sport 12: 657–661, 2009.
42. Wells, KF and Dillon, EK. The sit and reach: A test of back and leg
flexibility. Res Q 23: 115–118, 1952.
43. Wilson, GJ, Murphy, AJ, and Pryor, JF. Musculotendinous stiffness:
Its relationship to eccentric, isometric, and concentric performance.
J Appl Physiol 76: 2714–2719, 1994.
44. Young, W, Elias, G, and Power, J. Effects of static stretching volume
and intensity on plantar flexor explosive force production and range
of motion. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 46: 403–411, 2006.
Different Stretching Methods on Power Performance
2208
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.