Content uploaded by Pablo B. Costa
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pablo B. Costa on Oct 31, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
THE ACUTE EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT DURATIONS OF
STATIC STRETCHING ON DYNAMIC BALANCE
PERFORMANCE
PABLO B. COSTA,
1
BARBARA S. GRAVES,
2
MICHAEL WHITEHURST,
2
AND PATRICK L. JACOBS
2
1
Department of Health and Exercise Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma; and
2
Department of Exercise Science
and Health Promotion, Florida Atlantic University, Davie, Florida
ABSTRACT
Costa, PB, Graves, BS, Whitehurst, M, and Jacobs, PL. The
acute effects of different durations of static stretching on
dynamic balance performance. J Strength Cond Res 23(1):
141–147, 2009—The purpose of this study was to examine the
effects of different durations of static stretching on dynamic
balance. Women (N= 28) were tested before and after 2
stretching interventions and a control condition on 3 separate
days, at least 48 hours apart. The stretching sessions involved
a cycle ergometer warm-up at 70 rpm and 70 W followed by
passive stretching of the lower-body muscles. Each stretching
position was held at a point of mild discomfort and repeated 3
times with 15 seconds between stretches. In the 2 stretching
protocols, the positions were maintained for 15 or 45 seconds.
The control condition involved the same cycle ergometer warm-
up, with a 26-minute rest period between pre- and posttests.
Balance was assessed using the Biodex Balance System. A
2-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was used with
the effects of study condition (control, 15 seconds, 45
seconds) and time (pre-, postscores). Post hoc paired t-tests
were used when appropriate to determine possible statistical
significance between pre- and posttest scores. Analyses
indicated no significant main effects for either study condition
or time. However, there was a significant condition 3time
interaction (p,0.05). Post hoc analyses indicated that the
15-second condition produced a significant improvement in the
balance scores (p,0.01), with no significant effects with
the control condition or the 45-second treatment. The results of
this study reveal that a stretching protocol of 45-second hold
durations does not adversely affect balance when using the
current stabilometry testing procedure. Furthermore, a stretch-
ing intervention with 15-second hold durations may improve
balance performance by decreasing postural instability.
Strength and conditioning professionals concerned with
reported performance limitations associated with static stretch-
ing should consider applying shorter-duration stretching
protocols when aiming to improve balance performance.
KEY WORDS Biodex, flexibility, stability, warm-up, women
INTRODUCTION
Stretching is possibly the most commonly practiced
routine used by sports trainers and sports medicine
professionals for injury prevention and sports
performance enhancement (60). Experts have
commonly recommended stretching as part of a preexercise
warm-up (2,19,29). According to Schilling and Stone (49),
stretching is believed to improve athletic performance and
prevent sports injury. Thus, the practice of stretching seems
to be a widely accepted means applied in the attempt to
reduce injuries and improve performance (7,52). Although
stretching is routinely practiced, research documenting the
benefits is limited (37).
Stretching has not been shown to reduce delayed-onset
muscle soreness (27,31,40) or reduce injury risk (47,48). In
addition, several studies examining the effects of stretching
on performance have reported adverse effects from stretch-
ing (8,10,12,14,17,18,37,65). However, studies using relatively
moderate stretching protocols and/or more performance-
based measures tend to report no significant effects of
stretching on performance (1,33,35,36,39,58,62). For exam-
ple, Ogura et al. (45) found a decrease in maximal voluntary
contraction with 60 seconds, but not 30 seconds, of static
stretching.
Previous studies investigating the effects of stretching on
factors associated with performance have used stretching
routines of a single muscle group (15–30 minutes) for durations
considerably longer than those commonly applied in the field.
Young and Behm (65) believe that the stretching protocols in
many studies are not representative of typical warm-up
methods used by athletes to prepare for exercise or compe-
tition. Furthermore, Fletcher and Jones (17) believe that longer
stretching protocols (90 seconds to an hour) are unlikely to be
used by athletes when preparing for competition.
Address correspondence to Patrick L. Jacobs, pjacobs4@fau.edu.
23(1)/141–147
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó2009 National Strength and Conditioning Association
VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2009 | 141
Copyright © . N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited
Static stretching for periods of 45 seconds has been shown
to decrease balance, increase reaction time, and increase
movement time (8). By comparison, a shorter protocol with 3
repetitions of 15-second stretching did not have any positive
or negative effect on reaction time or explosive force (1).
Irrgang et al. (30) believe balance to be important for athletes
because, if the ability to maintain balance is not successful,
a fall may occur, and inefficient balance strategies may also
result in poor athletic performance. Thus, decreased balance
performance has also been associated with higher injury risk
(43,56,57). This decrease could pose an even greater concern
when taking into account that exertion decreases balance
performance (26,32,46,53,55,59,61). In addition, only a few
research studies have specifically focused on the effects of
stretching in women (12–14,16,58). The only previously
published study investigating the effects of stretching on
balance was limited to male subjects (8). Furthermore,
Cramer et al. (13) have recently stated that more evidence on
the effects of stretching in women is needed.
The effects of different durations of static stretching on
balance performance have not been examined. Thus, the
purpose of this study was to examine and compare the acute
effects of 2 different durations of static stretching on dynamic
balance performance in young (college aged) recreationally
active healthy women. On the basis of previously published
research, it was hypothesized that longer duration stretching
protocols, but not protocols of shorter duration, would
adversely affect balance.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
A randomized, experimental, crossover design was employed.
Testing took place on 3 occasions at least 48 hours apart in the
Strength and Conditioning Laboratory at Florida Atlantic
University. Balance tests were performed in 3 separate
sessions, with 1 session serving as a control condition and
2 other sessions as interventions. The 2 stretching in-
tervention sessions were the same except for different
stretching durations (15 and 45 seconds). In all 3 testing
days, subjects were tested with a Biodex Stability System
(BSS) device before (pretest) and after (posttest) the control
and intervention conditions. Subjects were asked to avoid
strenuous activity or exercise, alcohol, and any medication
before testing that could otherwise affect balance.
During the 2 intervention conditions, the subjects
performed the pretests (balance) on the Biodex device, and
then they performed a warm-up on a cycle ergometer (Lode,
Corival-906900, Groningen, Netherlands) at 70 rpm with 70-
W power output for 5 minutes adapted from Behm et al. (8).
After the cycle warm-up, subjects participated in the
treatment condition assigned for that session. In the 2
stretching interventions, the main lower-body muscle groups—
quadriceps, hamstrings, and plantar flexor muscles—were
passively stretched, based on a stretching protocol as described
by Behm et al. (8). During the control session, the subjects
rested in a chair for 26 minutes, the approximate time required
to complete the 45-second stretching intervention. After the
treatment assigned for that session, the subjects repeated the
balance testing on the Biodex device.
Subjects
Twenty-eight healthy, recreationally active women between
the ages of 18 and 35 voluntarily participated in the
experiment (Table 1). ‘‘Recreationally active’’ was defined as
having participated in a minimum of 1 exercise session per
week for the preceding 2 months and to have not participated
in structured exercise training during that period. Individuals
with previous history of lower-body injury, any impairments of
the spinal column, or dysfunction of the vestibular system that
could otherwise affect testing procedures or outcomes were
excluded from the study. A health history questionnaire was
used to determine the health and injury status of the subjects.
The participants were asked to maintain their current exercise
and daily lifestyle activities during the course of the study.
Each participant was verbally informed of the protocol and
asked to read and sign a consent form. The study was
approved by the Florida Atlantic University Institutional
Review Board before any subject recruitment or data collection.
Static Stretching
The subjects performed a stretching protocol based on
a previous study by Behm et al. (8) investigating the effects
stretching had on balance, reaction time, and movement
velocity. The present study expanded on that work by
examining the effects of the stretching protocol used in the
Behm study (45 seconds) in comparison with the effects of
a protocol the authors considered to more closely reflect
those regularly used in field settings (15 seconds). The
stretching movements included passive unilateral knee
flexion, supine hip flexion, ankle dorsiflexion with an
extended knee, and ankle dorsiflexion with a semiflexed
knee. During all stretches, the targeted limb was moved
slowly until a mild discomfort was acknowledged by the
subject, who was instructed to relax while the stretched
position was maintained for 45 or 15 seconds, depending on
which stretching intervention was performed for that
particular day. Each stretch was repeated 3 times, with
a 15-second rest between each stretch repetition, and
repeated on the opposite limb. The same researcher
TABLE 1. Physical characteristics of women
subjects.
Age (y) Body mass (kg) Height (cm)
n= 28 24.7 64.5 60.6 67.9 160.7 67.4
Values are mean 6SD.
142
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Static Stretching and Dynamic Balance Performance
Copyright © . N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited
controlled the range of motion and resistance for all
participants.
Balance Testing
Dynamic balance was measured using a BSS (Biodex Medical
Systems Inc., 1999, Shirley, NY). This Biodex device consists
of a movable circular platform measuring 55 cm in diameter.
The BSS has been proven to provide reliable measures of
dynamic balance (4,5,11,28,50). The platform can tilt 20°
from horizontal in all directions (360°range of motion),
anterior-posterior and medial-lateral, simultaneously.
According to Testerman and Vander Griend (54), this
dynamic condition is similar to actual functional activities
resulting in instability. The BSS device is interfaced with
dedicated software (Biodex, Version 1.08, Biodex, Inc.)
allowing the BSS to measure the degree of tilt in each axis,
providing an average sway score. Eight springs located
underneath the outer edge of the platform provide the
resistance to movement. Resistance levels range from 8 (most
stable) to 1 (least stable). One of the outcome measures for
the Biodex device is the overall stability index (OSI). The OSI
is an index of the average tilt in degrees from the center of the
platform. Testerman and Vander Griend (54) believe OSI to
be the best indicator of the overall stability of an individual to
balance the platform. The higher the OSI numeric value, the
greater the variability from horizontal positioning—that is, the
greater the instability in balancing the platform. Conversely,
lower scores indicate greater stability.
Stability testing was performed without footwear. Subjects
were instructed to establish a foot position and comfortable
stance width that allowed them to maintain the platform as
stabilized (leveled horizontally) as possible. Foot position was
recorded and marked with tape using coordinates on the
platform’s grid to ensure the same stance and, therefore,
consistency on future tests. Foot placement was extremely
important for testing the BSS because the position of the foot
in reference to the center of the platform can change the
way balance is maintained and, consequently, alter stability
scores (50).
Subjects were instructed to maintain the platform in as level
a position as possible for the duration of the test. Subjects were
required to maintain an upright posture while keeping arms to
their sides and looking straight ahead at a wall approximately
0.5 m away. Subjects were allowed 3 practice trials before each
test trial. Each testing trial lasted 20 seconds. The resistance
level used was set at number 3 on a scale ranging from 1 (least
stable) to 8 (most stable).
Statistical Analyses
A232 (intervention 3time) repeated-measures analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the results of the
balance testing. A significance level of p#0.05 was
considered statistically significant for this analysis. When
justified, paired t-tests were performed between pre- and
posttests to confirm significant changes within each
condition. Bonferroni-type adjustment was employed to
establish a significance level of p,0.0167 for these tests. All
statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical
Package for Social Sciences for Microsoft Windows (version
15.0, 2006; SPSS, Inc., Chicago, Ill).
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to examine and compare the
acute effects of 2 different durations of static stretching on
dynamic balance performance. Repeated-measures ANOVA
did not detect significant main effects for either intervention
(p= 0.456) or for time (p= 0.540). However, there was
a significant intervention 3time interaction (p,0.05). The
paired t-test analyses indicated that the control condition and
the 45-second stretching protocol did not significantly alter
balance scores. Conversely, the 15-second stretching
protocol significantly improved balance scores by 18.0%
(p= 0.004). Table 2 summarizes the results of the pre- and
posttests for the control, 15-second duration, and 45-second
duration protocols. Figures 1, 2, and 3 display the pre- and
post scores for the control, 15-second, and 45-second
condition, respectively. Figure 4 displays the change scores
for all conditions.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of
different durations of static stretching on dynamic balance.
Several studies have reported decrements in performance
after a session of static stretching (8,12,14,37,65). However,
only one research study has examined the acute effects of
stretching on balance (8). Our study was the first to
investigate the effects of different durations of stretching
and the first to examine the effects within a population of
women. The results of the current study demonstrate that
a relatively moderate stretching protocol may actually
improve dynamic balance. Moreover, the control and 45-
second stretching protocol did not significantly change from
pre- to posttest, suggesting that longer-duration stretching
protocols may not adversely affect balance.
The findings of the present study are not consistent with
those of Behm et al. (8), who found a decrease in balance
performance a 45-second-duration stretching protocol. This
TABLE 2. Results of overall stability index testing for
the 3 study conditions.
Control 15 s 45 s
Pre 3.20 60.31 3.73 60.35 3.40 60.28
Post 3.18 60.24 3.06 60.28* 3.71 60.48
Data are mean 6SEM.
*Indicates significant pre- to posttest difference,
p,0.01.
VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2009 | 143
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright © . N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited
difference in outcomes could be due to different testing
devices or to different biomechanical responses due to
gender. Behm and associates assessed balance using a self-
constructed device, whereas the present study used a com-
mercial apparatus commonly applied in research settings.
Additionally, Knudson et al. (33) have stated that a reverse
placebo effect may exist, by which individuals would expect
to perform better after stretching.
Mechanical and neural factors influence the responses to
stretching (23). Accordingly, changes in joint range of motion
after static stretching have been reported to be caused by
changes in musculotendinous stiffness (15,21,22,38) or in
pain tolerance (24,25,41,42). Consequently, a less stiff
musculotendinous unit may increase the time for forces
and signals to be transmitted between the central nervous
system and skeletal system (18). Therefore, Young and Elliott
(64) have stated that a high level of musculotendinous
stiffness may ensure a fast transmission of muscular force to
the bones. Behm et al. (8) have suggested that a more
compliant musculotendinous unit has more slack on the
connective tissue, hence affecting muscle activation, which
could alter reaction and movement time, consequently
affecting balance and stability, or the proprioception of
a limb.
Although measurement of musculotendinous stiffness was
beyond the scope of this study, a moderate stretching
protocol (15 seconds) may cause changes in muscle-tendon
unit stiffness that are not detrimental in nature given the
positive outcomes with such stretching protocol. Addition-
ally, repeated and prolonged passive stretching has been
shown to decrease reflex activity resulting from reduced
sensitivity of the muscle spindles to repeated stretch (3),
which may partly explain the effects of stretching on balance.
Again, a moderate stretching protocol may avoid possibly
unfavorable reflex activity decrements. Moreover, static
stretching has been shown to improve joint position sense,
which investigators believe could be an increased pro-
prioceptive feedback (20). This improvement in propriocep-
tion could be a mechanism that might, consequently,
improve balance.
Brandenburg (10) believes that studies with longer
stretching protocols yield larger decrements in performance,
Figure 1. Results of overall stability index testing (mean 6SEM) for the
control condition, p= 0.952.
Figure 2. Results of overall stability index testing (mean 6SEM) for the
15-second condition. *Indicates statistically significant pre- to posttest
difference, p= 0.004.
Figure 3. Results of overall stability index testing (mean 6SEM) for the
45-second condition, p= 0.498.
Figure 4. Change scores for the control, 15-second, and 45-second
conditions, p= 0.049.
144
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Static Stretching and Dynamic Balance Performance
Copyright © . N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited
whereas shorter protocols elicit smaller reductions in
performance. Brandenburg suggests that these studies seem
to point toward an association between performance and
stretch duration (10). This association of performance and
stretch duration has been clearly demonstrated by Ogura
et al. (45), who has reported decreases in maximal voluntary
contractions with 60, but not 30, seconds of static stretching.
In our study, the 15-second stretching protocol significantly
improved balance scores. On the other hand, these results
were not similar to the findings by Brandenburg (10) or
Kokkonen et al. (37), who observed strength performance
decrements with a 15-second stretch protocol. In addition,
Fletcher and Jones (17) found improved sprint performance
(as evidenced by decreased sprint times) with 1 set of
20-second stretching.
Knudson and Noffal (34) report meaningful decreases in
maximal handgrip only after 20–40 seconds of stretching. In
another study, 3 repetitions of 15-second stretching did not
significantly alter vertical jump kinematics (33). Also, 2
repetitions of 15 seconds did not significantly affect tennis
serve performance (35). In addition, a stretching protocol
with 3 repetitions of 15 seconds did not have a positive or
negative effect on reaction time or explosive force (1). Even
longer-duration stretching protocols of 30 seconds for 3
repetitions did not significantly alter vertical jump perfor-
mance in trained women (58) or kicking range of motion or
foot speed in trained men (63). Similarly, Koch et al. (36)
found no significant differences in broad jump performance
in trained and untrained men and women with a 10-second
stretching of various muscle groups. Furthermore, Young and
Elliott (64) found that 3 repetitions of 15-second stretching
decreased drop jump but not concentric jump performance.
A trend seems to exist whereby static stretching of
moderate duration produces either no significant change or
a positive effect, particularly with performance-based meas-
ures. Little and Williams (39), who found no detrimental
effects from 30 seconds of stretching on performance
measures, suggest that if static stretching is to be used,
minimizing stretches to short durations may minimize
decrements to performance. Similarly, Ogura et al. (2007)
state that previous studies reporting performance decreases
from stretching have used protocols that are not represen-
tative of practical stretching regimens (45). Moreover, static
stretching has been shown to improve joint position sense,
which investigators believe could be caused by increased
proprioceptive feedback (20). This improvement in pro-
prioception could be a mechanism that might, consequently,
improve balance.
Although range of motion was not measured in our study,
women have generally been shown to have greater flexibility
than men (6,9,51). Thus, the women might have been less
affected by the stretching protocol than a population of men
would be. Similarly, women did not demonstrate decreases in
peak torque or mean power output even with 4 repetitions of
30 seconds of stretching (16). The current study did not
assess trained athletes, which may limit the generalizations to
this specific population. Similarly, because the present study
used only women subjects, the effects of different durations of
static stretching on balance should be examined in men and
also in older adults and children. Also, future stretching and
balance research should focus on the chronic effects of a
consistent static stretching exercise program. Furthermore,
other performance-related measures should be scientifically
reassessed using the relatively shorter stretch durations used
in the current study. In addition, Young and Elliott (64)
believe the effects of stretching may be diluted by a positive
influence of a jogging warm-up. By contrast, physical
exertion has been shown to decrease balance performance
(46,53,55), and, therefore, future studies investigating the
effects of stretching on balance should consider avoiding
active warm-ups.
The results of this study have revealed that a stretching
protocol with 45-second hold durations does not adversely
affect balance. In addition, the current study reveals that a
moderate, 15-second stretching protocol induced significant
improvements in dynamic balance performance by increasing
postural stability. Therefore, a moderate stretching protocol
with 15-second durations of stretching on each muscle
group seems to be sufficient to improve dynamic balance
performance.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
One factor to be considered with stretching programs is the
time allocated for this component of training. According to
the American College of Sports Medicine (2), a stretching
routine should last 15–30 minutes. Potential benefits related
to stretching need to be objectively considered relative to the
time necessary for this type of training. Because of a lack of
positive effects, McMillian et al. (44) concluded that stretch-
ing may be unnecessary for athletes and teams under certain
time constraints. Knowing whether the time spent on
a stretching program would be better used in a more specific
training regimen is important. When aiming to improve
individual aspects of an athlete or a team, consideration must
be taken regarding the cost-benefit relationship between
a stretching protocol and the possible benefits.
Strength and conditioning professionals and sport coaches
who may be concerned with possible balance performance
decreases from static stretching may not have to avoid this
form of preexercise activity when dealing with a young,
recreationally active population of women. More impor-
tantly, moderate, shorter-duration stretching protocols seem
to improve dynamic balance performance in young women.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank all of the subjects who participated
in this study. The results of the current study do not constitute
endorsement of any of the products by the authors or the
NSCA.
VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2009 | 145
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright © . N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited
REFERENCES
1. Alpkaya, U and Koceja, D. The effects of acute static stretching
on reaction time and force. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 47: 147–150,
2007.
2. American College of Sports Medicine. Position Stand. The
recommended quantity and quality of exercise for developing and
maintaining cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness, and flexibility in
healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 30: 975–991, 1998.
3. Avela, J, Kyrolainen, H, and Komi, PV. Altered reflex sensitivity
after repeated and prolonged passive muscle stretching. J Appl
Physiol 86: 1283–1291, 1999.
4. Aydog, ST, Aydog, E, Cxakci, A, and Doral, MN. Reproducibility
of postural stability scores in blind athletes. Isokinet Exerc Sci 12:
229–232, 2004.
5. Baldwin, SL, Vanarnam, TW, and Ploutz-Snyder, LL. Reliability of
dynamic bilateral postural stability on the Biodex Stability System in
older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: S30, 2004.
6. Barnes, CJ, Van Steyn, SJ, and Fischer, RA. The effects of age, sex,
and shoulder dominance on range of motion of the shoulder.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg 10: 242–246, 2001.
7. Beaulieu, JE. Developing a stretching program. Phys Sportmed 9:
59–65, 1981.
8. Behm, DG, Bambury, A, Cahill, F, and Power, K. Effect of acute
static stretching on force, balance, reaction time, and movement
time. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 1397–1402, 2004.
9. Bell, RD and Hoshizaki, TB. Relationships of age and sex with range
of motion of seventeen joint actions in humans. Can J Appl Sport Sci
6: 202–206, 1981.
10. Brandenburg, JP. Duration of stretch does not influence the degree
of force loss following static stretching. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 46:
526–534, 2006.
11. Cachupe, WJC, Shifflett, B, Kahanov, L, and Wughalter, EH.
Reliability of Biodex Balance System measures. Meas Phys Educ
Exerc Sci 5: 97–108, 2001.
12. Church, JB, Wiggins, MS, Moode, FM, and Crist, R. Effect of warm-
up and flexibility treatments on vertical jump performance. J Strength
Cond Res 15: 332–336, 2001.
13. Cramer, JT, Housh, TJ, Coburn, JW, Beck, TW, and Johnson, GO.
Acute effects of static stretching on maximal eccentric
torque production in women. JStrengthCondRes20: 354–358,
2006.
14. Cramer, JT, Housh, TJ, Johnson, GO, Miller, JM, Coburn, JW, and
Beck, TW. Acute effects of static stretching on peak torque in
women. J Strength Cond Res 18: 236–241, 2004.
15. Cross, KM and Worrell, TW. Effects of a static stretching program
on the incidence of lower extremity musculotendinous strains. J Athl
Train 34: 11–14, 1999.
16. Egan, AD, Cramer, JT, Massey, LL, and Marek, SM. Acute effects of
static stretching on peak torque and mean power output in National
Collegiate Athletic Association Division I women’s basketball
players. J Strength Cond Res 20: 778–782, 2006.
17. Fletcher, IM and Jones, B. The effect of different warm-up stretch
protocols on 20 meter sprint performance in trained rugby union
players. J Strength Cond Res 18: 885–888, 2004.
18. Fowles, JR, Sale, DG, and MacDougall, JD. Reduced strength
after passive stretch of the human plantarflexors. J Appl Physiol 89:
1179–1188, 2000.
19. Franklin, BA, Whaley, MH, Howley, ET, and Balady, GJ.
ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. Philadelphia:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2005.
20. Ghaffarinejad, F, Taghizadeh, S, and Mohammadi, F. Effect of static
stretching of muscles surrounding the knee on knee joint position
sense. Br J Sports Med 41: 684–687, 2007.
21. Gleim, GW and McHugh, MP. Flexibility and its effects on sports
injury and performance. Sports Med 24: 289–299, 1997.
22. Guissard, N and Duchateau, J. Effect of static stretch training on
neural and mechanical properties of the human plantar-flexor
muscles. Muscle Nerve 29: 248–255, 2004.
23. Guissard, N and Duchateau, J. Neural aspects of muscle stretching.
Exerc Sport Sci Rev 34: 154–158, 2006.
24. Halbertsma, JP and Goeken, LN. Stretching exercises: effect on
passive extensibility and stiffness in short hamstrings of healthy
subjects. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 75: 976–981, 1994.
25. Halbertsma, JP, Van Bolhuis, AI, and Goeken, LN. Sport stretching:
effect on passive muscle stiffness of short hamstrings. Arch Phys Med
Rehabil 77: 688–692, 1996.
26. Harkins, KM, Mattacola, CG, Uhl, TL, Malone, TR, and
McCrory, JL. Effects of 2 ankle fatigue models on the
duration of postural stability dysfunction. J Athl Train 40: 191–194,
2005.
27. High, DM, Howley, ET, and Franks, BD. The effects of static
stretching and warm-up on prevention of delayed-onset muscle
soreness. Res Q Exerc Sport 60: 357–361, 1989.
28. Hinman, M. Factors affecting reliability of the Biodex
Balance System: a summary of four studies. J Sport Rehabil 9:
240–252, 2000.
29. Holcomb, WR. Stretching and warm-up. In: Essentials of Strength and
Conditioning. T. Baechle and R. Earle, eds. Champaign: Human
Kinetics, 2000.
30. Irrgang, J, Whitney, S, and Cox, E. Balance and proprioceptive
training for rehabilitation of the lower extremity. J Sport Rehabil
3: 68–83, 1994.
31. Johansson, PH, Lindstrom, L, Sundelin, G, and Lindstrom, B. The
effects of preexercise stretching on muscular soreness, tenderness
and force loss following heavy eccentric exercise. Scand J Med Sci
Sports 9: 219–225, 1999.
32. Johnston, RB 3rd, Howard, M E, Cawley, PW, and Losse, GM. Effect
of lower extremity muscular fatigue on motor control performance.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 30: 1703–1707, 1998.
33. Knudson, D, Bennett, K, Corn, R, Leick, D, and Smith, C. Acute
effects of stretching are not evident in the kinematics of the vertical
jump. J Strength Cond Res 15: 98–101, 2001.
34. Knudson, D and Noffal, G. Time course of stretch-induced isometric
strength deficits. Eur J Appl Physiol 94: 348–351, 2005.
35. Knudson, DV, Noffal, GJ, Bahamonde, RE, Bauer, JA, and
Blackwell, JR. Stretching has no effect on tennis serve performance.
J Strength Cond Res 18: 654–656, 2004.
36. Koch, AJ, O’Bryant, HS, Stone, ME, Sanborn, K, Proulx, C, Hruby, J,
Shannonhouse, E, Boros, R, and Stone, MH. Effect of warm-up on
the standing broad jump in trained and untrained men and women.
J Strength Cond Res 17: 710–714, 2003.
37. Kokkonen, J, Nelson, AG, and Kornwell, A. Acute stretching
exercises inhibit maximal strength performance. Res Q Exerc Sport
69: 411–415, 1998.
38. Kubo, K, Kanehisa, H, and Fukunaga, T. Effects of resistance
and stretching training programmes on the viscoelastic
properties of human tendon structures in vivo. J Physiol 538:
219–226, 2002.
39. 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.
40. Lund, H, Vestergaard-Poulsen, P, Kanstrup, IL, and Sejrsen, P. The
effect of passive stretching on delayed onset muscle soreness, and
other detrimental effects following eccentric exercise. Scand J Med
Sci Sports 8: 216–221, 1998.
41. Magnusson, SP, Aagard, P, Simonsen, E, and Bojsen-Moller, F.
A biomechanical evaluation of cyclic and static stretch in human
skeletal muscle. Int J Sports Med 19: 310–316, 1998.
146
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Static Stretching and Dynamic Balance Performance
Copyright © . N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited
42. Magnusson, SP, Simonsen, EB, Aagaard, P, Sorensen, H, and
Kjaer, M. A mechanism for altered flexibility in human skeletal
muscle. J Physiol 497: 291–298, 1996.
43. McGuine, TA, Greene, JJ, Best, T, and Leverson, G. Balance as
a predictor of ankle injuries in high school basketball players. Clin J
Sport Med 10: 239–244, 2000.
44. McMillian, DJ, Moore, JH, Hatler, BS, and Taylor, DC. Dynamic vs.
static-stretching warm up: the effect on power and agility
performance. J Strength Cond Res 20: 492–499, 2006.
45. Ogura, Y, Miyahara, Y, Naito, H, Katamoto, S, and Aoki, J. Duration
of static stretching influences muscle force production in hamstring
muscles. J Strength Cond Res 21: 788–792, 2007.
46. Pendergrass, TL, Moore, JH, and Gerber, JP. Postural control after
a 2-mile run. Mil Med 168: 896–903, 2003.
47. Pope, R, Herbert, R, and Kirwan, J. Effects of ankle dorsiflexion range
and pre-exercise calf muscle stretching on injury risk in Army
recruits. Aust J Physiother 44: 165–172, 1998.
48. Pope, RP, Herbert, RD, Kirwan, JD, and Graham, BJ. A randomized
trial of preexercise stretching for prevention of lower-limb injury.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 32: 271–277, 2000.
49. Schilling, BK and Stone, MH. Stretching: acute effects on strength
and power performance. Strength Cond J 22(1): 44–47, 2000.
50. Schmitz, R, and Arnold, D. Intertester and intratester reliability of
a dynamic balance protocol using the Biodex Stability System.
J Sports Rehabil 7: 95–101, 1998.
51. Seow, CC, Chow, PK, and Khong, KS. A study of joint mobility in
a normal population. Ann Acad Med Singapore 28: 231–236, 1999.
52. Stamford, B. Flexibility and stretching. Phys Sportmed 12: 171, 1984.
53. Susco, TM, Valovich McLeod, TC, Gansneder, BM, and Shultz, SJ.
Balance recovers within 20 minutes after exertion as measured by
the balance error scoring system. J Athl Train 39: 241–246, 2004.
54. Testerman, C and Vander Griend, R. Evaluation of ankle
instability using the Biodex Stability System. Foot Ankle Int 20:
317–321, 1999.
55. Thomas, JR, Cotten, DJ, Spieth, WR, and Abraham, NL. Effects of
fatigue on stabilometer performance and learning of males and
females. Med Sci Sports Exerc 7: 203–206, 1975.
56. Trojian, TH and McKeag, DB. Single leg balance test to identify risk
of ankle sprains. Br J Sports Med 40: 610–613, 2006.
57. Tropp, H, Ekstrand, J, and Gillquist, J. Stabilometry in functional
instability of the ankle and its value in predicting injury. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 16: 64–66, 1984.
58. Unick, J, Kieffer, H S, Cheesman, W, and Feeney, A. The acute
effects of static and ballistic stretching on vertical jump
performance in trained women. J Strength Cond Res 19: 206–212,
2005.
59. Wilkins, JC, Valovich McLeod, TC, Perrin, DH, and Gansneder, BM.
Performance on the balance error scoring system decreases after
fatigue. J Athl Train 39: 156–161, 2004.
60. Witvrouw, E, Mahieu, N, Danneels, L, and McNair, P. Stretching and
injury prevention: an obscure relationship. Sports Med 34: 443–449,
2004.
61. Yaggie, JA and McGregor, SJ. Effects of isokinetic ankle fatigue on
the maintenance of balance and postural limits. Arch Phys Med
Rehabil 83: 224–228, 2002.
62. Yamaguchi, T and Ishii, K. Effects of static stretching for 30 seconds
and dynamic stretching on leg extension power. J Strength Cond Res
19: 677–683, 2005.
63. Young, W, Clothier, P, Otago, L, Bruce, L, and Liddell, D. Acute
effects of static stretching on hip flexor and quadriceps flexibility,
range of motion and foot speed in kicking a football. J Sci Med Sport
7: 23–31, 2004.
64. Young, W and Elliott, S. Acute effects of static stretching,
proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching, and maximum
voluntary contractions on explosive force production and jumping
performance. Res Q Exerc Sport 72: 273–279, 2001.
65. Young, WB and Behm, DG. Effects of running, static
stretching and practice jumps on explosive force production
and jumping performance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 43: 21–27,
2003.
VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2009 | 147
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright © . N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited
