Effects of secondary warm up following stretching

Pearce, Alan J.; Kidgell, Dawson; Zois, James; Carlson, John S.

doi:10.1007/s00421-008-0887-3

Cited by 52 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, these claims are now refuted, with injury prevention regarded as unlikely (Shier 1999;Thacker et al 2004), while there is compelling evidence to show a decrease in strength (Bacurau et al 2009;Costa et al 2009;Herda et al 2008;Morse et al 2008), power (Manoel et al 2008;Samuel et al 2008), speed (Fletcher and Anness 2007;Fletcher and Jones 2004;Nelson et al 2005;Sayers et al 2008), jump performance (Holt and Lambourne 2008;Pearce et al 2009) and agility (Little and Williams 2006) linked to the incorporation of static stretches in a warm-up routine. In response to this evidence there has started to be a drift towards replacing the static stretch component of a warmup with dynamic stretching (deWned as controlled movement through the active range of motion for each joint, Fletcher and Jones 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The effect of different dynamic stretch velocities on jump performance

Fletcher

2010

Eur J Appl Physiol

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dynamic stretching has gained popularity, due to a number of studies showing an increase in high intensity performance compared to static stretch modalities. Twenty-four males (age mean 21 +/- 0.3 years) performed a standardised 10 min jogging warm-up followed by either; no stretching (NS), slow dynamic stretching at 50 b/min (SDS) or fast dynamic stretching at 100 b/min (FDS). Post-warm-up, squat, countermovement and depth jumps were performed. Heart rate, tympanic temperature, electromyography (EMG) and kinematic data (100 Hz) were collected during each jump. Results indicated that the FDS condition showed significantly greater jump height in all tests compared to the SDS and NS conditions. Further, the SDS trial resulted in significantly greater performance in the drop and squat jump compared to the NS condition. The reasons behind these performance changes are multi-faceted, but appear to be related to increases in heart rate and core temperature with slow dynamic stretches, while the greater increase in performance for the fast dynamic stretch intervention is linked to greater nervous system activation, shown by significant increases in EMG. In conclusion, a faster dynamic stretch component appears to prepare an athlete for a more optimum performance.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The effect of different dynamic stretch velocities on jump performance

Fletcher

2010

Eur J Appl Physiol

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, vertical jumping ability has been shown to improve following strength-related WU (Burkett et al 2005;Gourgoulis et al 2003;Saez Saez de Villarreal et al 2007), but deteriorated if WU includes some stretching (Holt and Lambourne 2008;Young and Behm 2003). Moreover, the detrimental effect of stretching during WU has been reported to be reversed (Stewart et al 2007;Taylor et al 2008a, b) or not (Pearce et al 2009) if followed by a second bout of specific exercise. This might explain why it is so difficult to design the optimal (e.g., duration, intensity, recovery) WU routine that would be the perfect balance between benefits due to slight muscle temperature increase and neural adaptations without the detrimental effects of reduced muscle stiffness or contractility.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Running versus strength-based warm-up: acute effects on isometric knee extension function

Girard

Carbonnel²,

Candau

et al. 2009

Eur J Appl Physiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the influence of two warm-up protocols on neural and contractile parameters of knee extensors. A series of neuromuscular tests including voluntary and electrically evoked contractions were performed before and after running- (R(WU); slow running, athletic drills, and sprints) and strength-based (S(WU); bilateral 90 degrees back squats, Olympic lifting movements and reactivity exercises) warm ups (duration approximately 40 min) in ten-trained subjects. The estimated overall mechanical work was comparable between protocols. Maximal voluntary contraction torque (+15.6%; P < 0.01 and +10.9%; P < 0.05) and muscle activation (+10.9 and +12.9%; P < 0.05) increased to the same extent after R(WU) and S(WU), respectively. Both protocols caused a significant shortening of time to contract (-12.8 and -11.8% after R(WU) and S(WU); P < 0.05), while the other twitch parameters did not change significantly. Running- and strength-based warm ups induce similar increase in knee extensors force-generating capacity by improving the muscle activation. Both protocols have similar effects on M-wave and isometric twitch characteristics.

show abstract

“…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%

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

Effects of secondary warm up following stretching

Cited by 52 publications

References 42 publications

The effect of different dynamic stretch velocities on jump performance

The effect of different dynamic stretch velocities on jump performance

Running versus strength-based warm-up: acute effects on isometric knee extension function

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About