Unilateral static and dynamic hamstrings stretching increases contralateral hip flexion range of motion

Abstract

Static (SS) and dynamic stretching (DS) can lead to subsequent performance impairments or enhancement with the stretched limb. Crossover or non-local muscle fatigue (NLMF) refers to unilateral fatigue-induced impairments in a contralateral or non-exercised muscle. Whereas there are conflicting findings in the NLMF literature, there are few studies examining the effect of an acute bout of SS or DS on contralateral flexibility, torque or power. Fourteen highly trained subjects (means ± standard deviations: 18 ± 2 years; 179·4 ± 4·6 cm; 70·5 ± 6·3 kg; %body fat: 10·7 ± 2·5%) were tested before and following separate sessions of eight repetitions of 30 s of unilateral hip flexion SS or DS. Pre- and postintervention testing at 1 and 10 min included hip flexor range of motion (ROM), isokinetic leg flexion torque and power at 60°.s and 300°.s of the stretched and contralateral limbs. The stretched limb had a 6·3% (P = 0·01; ES: 0·91) ROM increase with DS at 10 min. The contralateral non-stretched hip flexors experienced ROM increases with SS of 5·7% (P = 0·02; ES: 0·68) from pretest to 1 min post-test, whereas DS showed 7·1% (P<0·0001; ES: 1·09) and 8·4% (P = 0·005; ES: 0·89) increases, respectively. There were no relative differences in ROM changes between conditions or limbs nor any stretch-induced changes in isokinetic torque or power. In conclusion, unilateral SS and DS augment contralateral limb ROM likely through an increased stretch tolerance.

Acute Effects of Different Anterior Thigh Self-Massage on Hip Range-of-Motion in Trained Men

“…For example, if one has a wound to which pressure cannot be applied, but increased ROM is desired, such as following a proximal hamstrings repair, 36 then self-massage applied to the quadriceps may be a viable option for increasing hip flexion ROM. The findings of this investigation and others 13,15,32,33 evidence that nonlocal changes do indeed occur, which can allow for practitioners to improve their patients' ROM without endangering the potentially-sensitive tissue surrounding the muscle of interest. Lastly, the choice of modality (i.e., FR or RM) may not be as important for maximal effectiveness.…”

“…In essence, descending inhibition may have a role in stretch tolerance and, due to its diffuse nature, may explain the non-local effects observed in this study and others. 13,15,32,33 However, despite the logical basis for the aforementioned neurophysiological mechanisms, the present investigation did not investigate them, and direct research into the mechanisms of self-massage are needed to further elucidate such mechanisms.…”

“…These effects are similar to the non-local effects observed in stretching. 32,33 Furthermore, it has been suggested that self-massage of the agonist can impede muscle activation of the antagonist, 34 but it should be noted that it cannot be said for certain that the observed difference was real, since it did not exceed the MDC. 35 Therefore, it appears that the effects of self-massage are not specific to the region(s) treated.…”

An Exploratory Study on the Acute Effects of Proprioceptive Exercise and/or Neuromuscular Taping on Balance Performance

“…The greater increased stability ability following the EXERCISE + TAPING protocol may have occurred due to an increased sensory onset and consequent activity induced by the stimulation caused by the combined use of proprioceptive exercises and neuromuscular tape; because when the visual feedback is lacking the contribution of sensorimotor, proprioceptive, and vestibular systems is required (30).…”

Stretching adversely modulates locomotor capacity following spinal cord injury via activation of nociceptive afferents.

“…Another theory suggests that stretching may disrupt the number of myosin-actin interactions necessary for optimal force production through cross-bridge formation during a muscle contraction [354]. However, these theories cannot account for the strength-loss (as well as increase in ROM) that occurs not only in the stretched, but also in the contralateral unstretched leg [219,355]. These observations implicate a neural-based mechanism for stretch-induced strength loss.…”