Effects of Differential Stretching Protocols During Warm-Ups on High-Speed Motor Capacities in Professional Soccer Players

Little, Thomas D. C.; Williams, Alun G.

doi:10.1519/r-16944.1

Cited by 175 publications

(218 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

159

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results are in agreement with previous findings (Fletcher and Anness,2007, Fletcher and Jones, 2004, Little and Williams, 2006Nelson et al, 2005, Chaouachi et al, 2008, Paradisis et al, 2013, Vasileiou et al 2013, Papadopoulos et al, 2015, Famisis, 2015. Similar were the CMJ results.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…On the contrary, the improved sprint and CMJ performance after DS may be due to the elevated muscle and body temperature during the dynamic muscle stretching (Little and Williams 2006). According to Bishop (2003), additional warm-up time leads to increased muscle temperature and motor conduction velocity, while static stretching reduces the heart rate and the muscles and body temperature (Fletcher and MonteColombo 2010).…”

Section: Jpes ®mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although basketball coaches follow the aforementioned warm-up type, recent studies have examined the effect of static stretching during warm-up and found detrimental impact on performance (Faigenbaum et al 2006, Fletcher & Monte-Colombo 2010, Pearce et al 2009, Fowles et al 2000, Power et al 2004, Alikhajeh et al 2012, Little & Williams 2006, Chaouachi et al 2008, ο Nelson et al 2005, Sayers et al 2008, Fletcher & Jones 2004, Gelen 2010, Needman et al 2009, Winchester et al 2008Famisis 2015, Papadopoulos et al 2015. Reductions on vertical jump performance, lower limbs' power (Faigenbaum et al 2006, Fletcher & MonteColombo 2010, Pearce et al 2009), muscle strength (Fowles et al 2000;Power et al, 2004), power (Alikhajeh et al 2012, Little & Williams, 2006, acceleration (Chaouachi et al 2008, Nelson et al 2005, Sayers et al 2008)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reductions on vertical jump performance, lower limbs' power (Faigenbaum et al 2006, Fletcher & MonteColombo 2010, Pearce et al 2009), muscle strength (Fowles et al 2000;Power et al, 2004), power (Alikhajeh et al 2012, Little & Williams, 2006, acceleration (Chaouachi et al 2008, Nelson et al 2005, Sayers et al 2008)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Untitled

2017

JPES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study was to compare the acute effect of static and dynamic stretching on countermovement jump (CMJ) and ten meters sprint performance for basketball players. Twenty semiprofessional basketball players, 23.4 ± 0.5 yo, height 185.6 ± 2.8 cm, body mass 84.8 ± 6.2 kg, training age 10.4 ± 2.5 yr, performed a static (SS) and a dynamic (DS) stretching protocol in two different days, a week apart. Participants were randomly assigned to each protocol. Each session included: a) 10 min general basketball warm-up, b) initial evaluation of sprint and CMJ performance, c) five minutes static or dynamic stretching for the lower limbs, according to the protocol, and d) final evaluation of sprint and CMJ. The Photocells Powertimer 300 -PC Upgrade Kit and the jump mat (both from Newtest Powertimers, Oulu, Finland), were used for evaluating CMJ and sprint performance. Countermovement jumps with maximum effort were performed one minute after the intervention, with 30s recovery in between. Then athletes were asked to run 10 m with maximum speed. Athletes achieved better performance in both CMJ height and sprint time, with the DS protocol compared to the SS protocol. In conclusion, in sports of high strength and power demands, such as basketball, the use of dynamic stretching is preferable for its immediate effect on jumping and sprint performance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Jpes ®mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Untitled

2017

JPES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After dynamic stretching, the average equalled 43.5±3.6 cm, making a significant difference of 2.3±1.3 cm (t = 6.437, p<0.05, d = 1.86 -large effect). This discovery is contrary to some former studies (Little & Williams, 2006;Jaggers et al, 2008, etc. ), which stated that the application of dynamic stretching would not influence the height of the vertical jump (without countermovement).…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 87%

Untitled

2014

JPES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The aim of the study is to compare the impact of static and dynamic stretching on performance in terms of speed and speed-strength abilities. The studied subject was a group of professional ice hockey players (n = 12, goalkeeper = 1, defenders = 3, centres = 8, age = 22.9±3.4 years, height = 184.8±7.4 cm, weight = 86.2±7.6 kg) playing in the highest-level ice hockey competition in the 2011/2012 year of competition. The impact of static and dynamic stretching was determined via speed and speed-strength ability indicators (lower limb frequency velocity, lower limb explosive and dynamic strength). The average result of the players in terms of lower limb frequency velocity after static stretching was 69.7±2.9 taps, whereas after dynamic stretching we obtained 73.4±4.2 taps; There is therefore, an important difference between them (t = 4.031, p<0.05; d = 1.15 -large effect). In terms of the lower limb explosive strength, the average result after static performance was 41.1±3.8 cm in squat jump (SJ) and 45.3±3.6 cm in countermovement jump (CMJ). The same indicator after dynamic stretching was affected has shown the following results -43.5±3.6 cm in SJ and 47.3±3.5 cm in CMJ, showing an important difference again (SJ: t = 6.437, p<0.05, d = 1.86 -large effect; CMJ: t = 4.356, p<0.05, d = 1.26 -large effect). Testing the lower limb dynamic strength, we obtained the average result of 27.5±5.9 cm after the static and 33.3±4.7 cm after the dynamic stretching in plyometric jump (t = 6.756, p<0.05, d = 1.95 -large effect). The study proved distinctively higher values of all three studied indicators of speed and speed-strength abilities after dynamic more than static stretching.

show abstract

Stretch and sprint training reduces stretch-induced sprint performance deficits in 13- to 15-year-old youth

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recently reported static stretching impairments found in adults have not been studied in youth. Furthermore, stretch-training effects on sprint performance are equivocal, hence the purpose of this study was to examine the effect of stretch and sprint training on the acute effects of static stretching in 13-15 year olds. A total of 48 students were randomly divided into a sprint only and a stretch and sprint training groups who performed static stretching at the beginning and middle of the speed training sessions (6 weeks). Flexibility tests and 30-m sprints were performed before and after training. Sprint performance was evaluated with and without prior stretching. A main effect indicated that prior static stretching impairs sprint times at 10 (P = 0.01) and 30 m (P = 0.0005). Both groups improved times over 10 (0.7%; P = 0.04) and 30-m (1.5%; P = 0.0007) sprint distance after training. Stretch and sprint trained participants were more resistant to stretch-induced sprint deficits with 3.2% (P < 0.0001), 3.6% (P = 0.0002) and 1.3% (P < 0.0001) faster times at 5, 10, and 30 m, respectively, than the sprint only group. In conclusion, a stretch and sprint training program in 13-15 year olds diminished the detrimental effects of static stretching compared to a sprint only training program.

show abstract

Effects of Differential Stretching Protocols During Warm-Ups on High-Speed Motor Capacities in Professional Soccer Players

Cited by 175 publications

References 20 publications

Untitled

Untitled

Untitled

Stretch and sprint training reduces stretch-induced sprint performance deficits in 13- to 15-year-old youth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About