Acute effects of static and dynamic stretching on jump performance after 15 min of reconditioning shooting phase in basketball players

Annino, Giuseppe; Ruscello, Bruno; Lebone, Pietro; Palazzo, Francesco; Lombardo, Mauro; Padua, Elvira; Verdecchia, Luca; Tancredi, Virginia; Iellamo, Ferdinando

doi:10.23736/s0022-4707.16.06143-0

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Muscular power was assessed predominantly using jump tests, with 80 (58%) of the 137 studies in this review employing 18 different jump tests (Table 4 of the ESM). The three most frequent jump tests adopted across studies were the CMJ (43 studies, 54% of studies assessing muscular power) [ 14 , 16 , 27 , 48 , 51 , 54 , 55 , 58 , 61 – 75 77 – 96 ], VJ (27 studies, 34% of studies assessing muscular power) [ 3 , 14 , 28 , 39 , 56 , 59 , 62 , 66 , 82 , 90 – 92 , 96 – 100 , 102 – 111 ], and SJ (15 studies, 18% of studies assessing muscular power) [ 27 , 58 , 61 , 63 , 67 , 72 , 77 – 79 , 81 , 89 , 90 , 93 , 95 , 96 ]. Additional jump tests used across studies are reported in Table 4 of the ESM.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Researchers and practitioners are encouraged to diligently consider the tests they select when assessing physical characteristics in players, as each test and testing methodology has an inherent level of accuracy and reproducibility [ 140 ]. For example, when considering the methodology of jumping tests, a range of technology with varying levels of accuracy have been used to assess jump height, including force platforms [ 16 , 61 , 71 , 110 ], three-dimensional cameras [ 110 ], contact mats [ 62 , 83 , 96 ], Vertec [ 107 ], and chalk marks on a wall [ 103 , 104 ]. The nuances associated with the various methodologies could influence results and need to be considered when comparing results between studies [ 140 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Systematic Review on Fitness Testing in Adult Male Basketball Players: Tests Adopted, Characteristics Reported and Recommendations for Practice

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background As basketball match-play requires players to possess a wide range of physical characteristics, many tests have been introduced in the literature to identify talent and quantify fitness in various samples of players. However, a synthesis of the literature to identify the most frequently used tests, outcome variables, and normative values for basketball-related physical characteristics in adult male basketball players is yet to be conducted. Objective The primary objectives of this systematic review are to (1) identify tests and outcome variables used to assess physical characteristics in adult male basketball players across all competition levels, (2) report a summary of anthropometric, muscular power, linear speed, change-of-direction speed, agility, strength, anaerobic capacity, and aerobic capacity in adult male basketball players based on playing position and competition level, and (3) introduce a framework outlining recommended testing approaches to quantify physical characteristics in adult male basketball players. Methods A systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify relevant studies. To be eligible for inclusion, studies were required to: (1) be original research articles; (2) be published in a peer-reviewed journal; (3) have full-text versions available in the English language; and (4) include the primary aim of reporting tests used and/or the physical characteristics of adult (i.e., ≥ 18 years of age) male basketball players. Additionally, data from the top 10 draft picks who participated in the National Basketball Association combined from 2011–12 to 2020–21 were extracted from the official league website to highlight the physical characteristics of elite 19- to 24-year-old basketball players. Results A total of 1684 studies were identified, with 375 being duplicates. Consequently, the titles and abstracts of 1309 studies were screened and 231 studies were eligible for full-text review. The reference list of each study was searched, with a further 59 studies identified as eligible for review. After full-text screening, 137 studies identified tests, while 114 studies reported physical characteristics in adult male basketball players. Conclusions Physical characteristics reported indicate a wide range of abilities are present across playing competitions. The tests and outcome variables reported in the literature highlight the multitude of tests currently being used. Because there are no accepted international standards for physical assessment of basketball players, establishing normative data is challenging. Therefore, future testing should involve repeatable protocols that are standardised and provide outcomes that can be monitored across time. Recommendations for testing batteries in adult male basketball players are provided so improved interpretation of data can occur. Clinical Trial Registration This review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews and allocated registration number CRD42020187151 on 28 April, 2020.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review on Fitness Testing in Adult Male Basketball Players: Tests Adopted, Characteristics Reported and Recommendations for Practice

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Fletcher et al showed [ 53 ] that DS was able to significantly elevate muscle temperature and ultimately reverse longitudinal jump performance compared to SS. Furthermore, some scholars have found that the ability of DS to enhance subsequent explosive could be related to the preactivation of movement patterns [ 46 , 54 ]. Studies have shown that it might stimulate the muscle shuttle to increase muscle reflex activity, thus allowing the muscle to better complete active contractions based on the characteristics of the subsequent movement and ultimately inducing a postactivation potentiation effect (PAP) [ 55 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review and net meta-analysis of the effects of different warm-up methods on the acute effects of lower limb explosive strength

Li,

Guo,

et al. 2023

BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To evaluate the effects of different warm-up methods on the acute effect of lower limb explosive strength with the help of a reticulated meta-analysis system and to track the optimal method. Methods R software combined with Stata software, version 13.0, was used to analyse the outcome metrics of the 35 included papers. Mean differences (MD) were pooled using a random effects model. Results 1) Static combined with dynamic stretching [MD = 1.80, 95% CI: (0.43, 3.20)] and dynamic stretching [MD = 1.60, 95% CI: (0.67, 2.60)] were significantly better than controls in terms of improving countermovement jump height (cm), and the effect of dynamic stretching was influenced by the duration of stretching (I2 = 80.4%), study population (I2 = 77.2%) and age (I2 = 75.6%) as moderating variables, with the most significant effect size for dynamic stretching time of 7–10min. 2) Only dynamic stretching [MD = -0.08, 95% CI: (-0.15, -0.008)] was significantly better than the control group in terms of improving sprint time (s), while static stretching [MD = 0.07, 95% CI: (0.002, 0.13)] showed a significant, negative effect. 3) No results were available to demonstrate a significant difference between other methods, such as foam axis rolling, and the control group. Conclusion The results of this review indicate that static stretching reduced explosive performance, while the 2 warm-up methods, namely dynamic stretching and static combined with dynamic stretching, were able to significantly improve explosive performance, with dynamic stretching being the most stable and moderated by multiple variables and dynamic stretching for 7–10min producing the best explosive performance. In the future, high-quality studies should be added based on strict adherence to test specifications.

show abstract

“…For example, Fletcher et al showed 53 that DS was able to signi cantly elevate muscle temperature and ultimately reverse longitudinal jump height compared to SS. Furthermore, some scholars have found that the ability of DS to enhance subsequent explosive performance could be related to the preactivation of movement patterns 54,55 . Studies have shown that it might stimulate the muscle shuttle to increase muscle re ex activity, thus allowing the muscle to better complete active contractions based on the characteristics of the subsequent movement and ultimately inducing a postactivation potentiation effect (PAP) 56 .…”

Section: Dynamic Stretching Affects the Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review and net meta-analysis of the effects of different warm-up methods on the acute effects of lower limb explosive strength

Guo

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the effects of different warm-up methods on the acute effect of lower limb explosive strength with the help of a reticulated meta-analysis system and to track the optimal method. Methods: R software combined with Stata software, version 13.0, was used to analyse the outcome metrics of the 35 included papers. Results: 1) Static combined with dynamic stretching [MD = 1.80, 95% CI: (0.43, 3.20)] and dynamic stretching [MD = 1.60, 95% CI: (0.67, 2.60)] were significantly better than controls in terms of improving reverse long jump performance, and the effect of dynamic stretching was influenced by the duration of stretching (I2 = 80.4%), study population (I2 = 77.2%) and age (I2 = 75.6%) as moderating variables, with the most significant effect size for dynamic stretching time of 7-10 min. 2) Only dynamic stretching [MD = -0.08, 95% CI: (-0.15, -0.008)] was significantly better than the control group in terms of improving sprint performance, while static stretching [MD = 0.07, 95% CI: (0.002, 0.13)] showed a significant, negative effect. 3) No results were available to demonstrate a significant difference between other methods, such as foam axis rolling, and the control group. Conclusion: Static stretching was able to reduce explosive performance, while the 2 warm-up methods, namely dynamic stretching and static combined with dynamic stretching, were able to significantly improve explosive performance, with dynamic stretching being the most stable and moderated by multiple variables and dynamic stretching for 7-10 min producing the best explosive performance. In the future, high-quality studies should be added based on strict adherence to test specifications.

show abstract

Acute effects of static and dynamic stretching on jump performance after 15 min of reconditioning shooting phase in basketball players

Cited by 12 publications

References 31 publications

A Systematic Review on Fitness Testing in Adult Male Basketball Players: Tests Adopted, Characteristics Reported and Recommendations for Practice

A Systematic Review on Fitness Testing in Adult Male Basketball Players: Tests Adopted, Characteristics Reported and Recommendations for Practice

A systematic review and net meta-analysis of the effects of different warm-up methods on the acute effects of lower limb explosive strength

A systematic review and net meta-analysis of the effects of different warm-up methods on the acute effects of lower limb explosive strength

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About