Sei sulla pagina 1di 7

WUp c/ alongamento dinâmico = melhoria no tempo dos

testes de agilidade sobretudo em atletas mais noviços

ACUTE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT STRETCHING


METHODS ON ILLINOIS AGILITY TEST IN
SOCCER PLAYERS
MOHAMMADTAGHI AMIRI-KHORASANI,1 MANSOUR SAHEBOZAMANI,2 KOUROSH G. TABRIZI,2
1
AND ASHRIL B. YUSOF
1
Sports Centre, University of Malaya, Malaysia; and 2Physical Education and Sport Science Faculty,
Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran

ABSTRACT experienced players demonstrate better agility skills due to


Amiri-Khorasani, M, Sahebozamani, M, Tabrizi, KG, and Yusof, AB. years of training and playing soccer.
Acute effect of different stretching methods on Illinois agility KEY WORDS football, movement, performance, dynamic
test in soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 24(10): 2698– warm-up
2704, 2010—The purpose of this study was to examine the
effects of static, dynamic, and the combination of static and
INTRODUCTION
dynamic stretching within a pre-exercise warm-up on the Illinois

S
agility test (IAT) in soccer players. Nineteen professional soccer occer is a sport requiring high-intensity, intermit-
players (age = 22.5 6 2.5 years, height = 1.79 6 0.003 m, tent, noncontinuous exercise that includes agility,
many sprints of different durations, rapid acceler-
body mass = 74.8 6 10.9 kg) were tested for agility per-
ations, and jumping, among others (20,21). High-
formance using the IAT after different warm-up protocols
speed agility contributes to about 11% of the total distance
consisting of static, dynamic, combined stretching, and no
covered during a game, which determines to winning
stretching. The players were subgrouped into less and more possession of the ball and to scoring of goals in soccer
experienced players (5.12 6 0.83 and 8.18 6 1.16 years, (20,28,30). The outcome of an agility test can discriminate
respectively). There were significant decreases in agility time elite soccer players from the general population better than
after no stretching, among no stretching vs. static stretching; any other field tests, such as strength, power, or flexibility
after dynamic stretching, among static vs. dynamic stretching; (28,30). Reilly and Williams (29) have also identified the
and after dynamic stretching, among dynamic vs. combined Illinois agility test (IAT) as one of best tests to measure of
stretching during warm-ups for the agility: mean 6 SD data soccer’s agility.
were 14.18 6 0.66 seconds (no stretch), 14.90 6 0.38 Preparation for agility and other performance training
seconds (static), 13.95 6 0.32 seconds (dynamic), and should involve both long- and short-term preparations. Long-
term preparation may include a well-developed agility
14.50 6 0.35 seconds (combined). There was significant
training program, while short-term preparation should
difference between less and more experienced players after
include a warm-up (3,4,32). Often, stretching is performed
no stretching and dynamic stretching. There was significant
as part of a warm-up prior to physical exertion. Stretching
decrease in agility time following dynamic stretching vs. static can be defined as the act of applying tensile force to lengthen
stretching in both less and more experienced players. Static muscles and connective tissues. Typically, stretching is used
stretching does not appear to be detrimental to agility to enhance the range of motion (ROM) about a joint
performance when combined with dynamic warm-up for (flexibility). There are various techniques of stretching, such
professional soccer players. However, dynamic stretching as static, ballistic, proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation,
during the warm-up was most effective as preparation for and dynamic stretching (15,16).
agility performance. The data from this study suggest that more Although the necessity of a warm-up might be obvious,
the specific elements that should be included in the warm-up
may be less clear. Static stretching is often performed before
exercise and athletic performance because it is widely
Address correspondence to Ashril B. Yusof, ashril@um.edu.my. believed that pre-exercise static stretching will decrease the
24(10)/2698–2704 risk of injury and improve performance (9). However, recent
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research studies (3,7,8,10) have shown that static stretching reduces
! 2010 National Strength and Conditioning Association muscular performance, and some others (11,21,22) have
the TM

2698 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

TABLE 1. Stature characteristics of the subjects and years of experience.

All players Less experience More experience

Age (y) 22.5 6 2.47 22.37 6 1.59 22.63 6 2.01


Height (m) 1.79 6 0.003 1.80 6 0.05 1.78 6 0.06
Mass (kg) 74.84 6 10.99 76.09 6 6.81 73.93 6 5.91
Years of experience 6.89 6 1.85 5.12 6 0.83 8.18 6 1.16
No. of players 19 9 10

reported that dynamic stretching improves performances. more than 72 hours after a match or hard physical training to
On the other hand, some researchers (12,13) have in- minimize the fatiguing effects from previous exercise. The
vestigated the combination effects of static and dynamic warm-up protocols differed only in the mode of stretching
stretching on power, agility, and speed, but the results were methods used, whereas all other exercises used in the warm-
not clear to what effect the different combinations have on up were identical. The stretching modes used were static,
agility and other performance. dynamic, combined stretch, and no stretch. Illinois agility test
To date, no research has investigated the combined effect was conducted after each warm-up protocol.
of static and dynamic stretching on Illinois agility in soccer
players and the effect between more and less experienced Subjects
soccer players. Thus, we aimed to test the hypotheses that Nineteen soccer players from a Kerman State League Premier
static, dynamic, and combination stretching methods are Division club were tested as part of their athletic training
detrimental to agility and this was further elucidated in more program. The sample included 19 men with a mean (SD) age
experienced players. Therefore, the specific purpose of this of 22.5 (2.47) years. The mean (SD) height and body mass
study was to examine the effects of static, dynamic, and were 1.79 (0.003) m and 74.84 (10.99) kg, respectively, as
combined stretching within a warm-up protocol on agility of illustrated in Table 1. The subjects were subgrouped into
soccer players. (a) more experienced players who had more than 7 years
of professional training (8.18 6 1.16 years) and (b) less
experienced players who had less than 7 years of experience
METHODS (5.12 6 0.83 years) as summarized in Table 1. All subjects,
Experimental Approach to the Problem who had no history of major lower limb injury or disease,
In a within-subject experimental design, soccer players volunteered to participate in this study. The university’s
conducted 4 different warm-up protocols on 4 nonconsec- institutional review board gave approval for all procedures.
utive test days within 1 week. Each test day was conducted Subjects were required to report to our research laboratory to

TABLE 2. Testing schedule for 19 soccer players.

First day Second day

Group 4-min jogging Stretching method 2-min rest Test 4-min jogging Stretching method 2-min rest Test

1 + No + + + Combine + +
2 + Static + + + No + +
3 + Dynamic + + + Static + +
4 + Combine + + + Dynamic + +
Third day Fourth day
1 + Dynamic + + + Static + +
2 + Combine + + + Dynamic + +
3 + No + + + Combine + +
4 + Static + + + No + +

(+) denotes activity included.

VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 10 | OCTOBER 2010 | 2699

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Stretching Methods and Agility in Soccer Players

Figure 2. The time to complete the Illinois agility test (IAT) for all the
players. Significant differences (*denotes p , 0.05) are shown between
no-stretching and static, static and dynamic, and dynamic and combined
stretching methods.

no. 21 (gastrocnemius), no. 69 (hamstrings, modified with


the subject holding his own leg), no. 101 (hip and flexor and
quadriceps, modified with vertical thigh and trunk
alignment), no. 114 (gluteals), and the saddle (adductors)
described by Alter (1). For static stretching, subjects held
the stretch for 30 seconds on one leg before changing
immediately to the contralateral side. Subjects were told to
stretch until they approached the end of the ROM but
within the pain threshold. Subjects performed the dynamic
stretches on alternate legs for 60 seconds at a rate of

Figure 1. Illinois agility test (IAT) procedures.

read and sign a medical questionnaire and an informed


consent.

Procedures
Subjects were divided into 4 groups. Each group performed
4 different warm-up protocols on 4 nonconsecutive days.
The warm-up protocol used for each group was performed
in a randomized manner, which is displayed in Table 2.
The protocol for this study was to have each group jog
for 4 minutes, perform one of the stretching programs
(except for no-stretch protocol), rest for 2 minutes, and then
perform the IAT. Electronic timing gates (MTAK16, Tehran,
Iran) with an error of 1 microsecond and with reliability of
0.99 were used, and the test was performed on grass with
soccer-specific cleats. Figure 3. Time to complete the Illinois agility test (IAT) relative to the no-
stretching condition in less experienced players. There was a significant
The principal locomotive leg muscle groups were (*denotes p , 0.05) difference in the time between the static and
stretched (gastrocnemius, hamstrings, quadriceps, gluteals, dynamic stretching methods.
adductors, and abductors). The static stretches used were
the TM

2700 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

approximately 1 stretch cycle every 2 seconds or


unilaterally for 30 seconds, then they repeated on the
other leg at a rate of approximately 1 stretch cycle every
second. The dynamic stretches used were the backward
reach run (quadriceps) lateral lunge (adductors), drop
lunge (gluteals), and straight leg march (hamstrings)
described in Fredrick and Szymanski (14); and the heel-
to-toe walk (gastrocnemius), where the subject landed in
maximal dorsiflexion and moved to maximal plantar
flexion with each step. Subjects were instructed to try
and attain maximal ROM with each repetition.
In the combined stretching protocol, subjects performed
the same movements, thereby stretching the same muscles,
as the static and dynamic stretching protocols, but they
performed at first static stretching protocol and then
performed dynamic stretching protocol (13). In the no-
stretch protocol, subjects rested for 2 minutes after the
general warm-up and then they performed the agility test.
Figure 4. Time to complete the Illinois agility test (IAT) relative to the no-
The IAT was used to assess agility performance. There stretching condition in the more experienced group. Static method was
were 2 different IAT setup, so that the 19th subject significantly (*denotes p , 0.05) different from the dynamic method.
undergoing the test had the same amount of rest as the first
person. Subjects started in a prone position at the starting
cone. The length of the Illinois agility course is 10 m and
the width (distance between the start and finish points) is Statistical Analyses
5 m. Four cones were used to mark the start, 2 turning The effect of different stretching methods on agility in all
points, and the finish. Another 4 cones were placed players was determined using 1-way analysis of variance
down the center an equal distance apart. Each cone in the (ANOVA) for repeated measures. A 2 (group) 3 4 (conditions)
center is spaced equal distance (3.3 m) apart. See Figure 1 repeated measures ANOVA was used to analyze the results of
for illustration and description of the procedure for the less and more experienced players over 4 different
the IAT. stretching methods. A significance level of p # 0.05 was
considered statistically signifi-
cant for this analysis. When
justified, paired t-tests were per-
formed to confirm significant
changes within each condition.

RESULTS
The results for the agility meas-
ures after the different warm-up
procedures are presented in
Figures 2–5. Figure 2 shows
the time to complete the IAT
for all 4 conditions and indi-
cates that there was a significant
difference (p , 0.05) between
no stretching (14.18 6 0.66
seconds) and static stretching
(14.90 6 0.38 seconds), static
stretching and dynamic
stretching (13.95 6 0.32 sec-
onds), and dynamic stretching
and combined stretching (14.50
Figure 5. Illinois agility test (IAT) between more experienced and less experienced players. The more experienced
players showed significantly (*denotes p , 0.05) faster agility times when not stretching or performing dynamic 6 0.35 seconds). On the other
stretching compared with less experienced players. hand, there was no significant
difference between no

VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 10 | OCTOBER 2010 | 2701

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Stretching Methods and Agility in Soccer Players

stretching and dynamic stretching and no stretching and Recent evidence has suggested that a bout of static
combined stretching. stretching may actually cause acute decreases in muscle
Within-group analyses for less experienced players are strength (3,7,8,10,24,25,27), vertical jumping ability (5,6,23),
presented in Figure 3. There was a significant (p , 0.05) sprint speed (31), and balance and reaction (2). In contrast,
decrease in agility time after the dynamic stretching few studies have observed no detrimental effects of stretching
(20.48 6 0.56 seconds) compared with the static stretching on maximal strength of the plantar flexors (19), vertical jump
(0.37 6 0.67 seconds) relative to the no-stretching condition. kinematics (17), vertical jump performance (33), or tennis
There were no significant differences between the static and serve performance (18). However, Egan et al. (9) have
combined stretching or between dynamic and combined reported that despite some conflicting evidence regarding the
stretching. acute effects of static stretching before performance, that
Within-group analyses for more experienced players are limited evidence is available to suggest that preactivity static
shown in Figure 4. Relative to the no-stretching condition, stretching improves performance.
there was a significant (p , 0.05) decrease in agility time after Our result shows that the combination of static and
the dynamic stretching (20.05 6 0.89 seconds) compared dynamic stretching did not produce a faster time to complete
with the static stretching (0.88 6 0.76 seconds). There were the agility test (14.50 6 0.35 seconds) compared with
no significant differences between the static and combined dynamic stretching for all subjects (Figure 2) and the more
stretching (0.54 6 1.11 seconds) or between the dynamic and experienced players (Figure 5). These findings are not
combined stretching. consistent with previous studies (12,13) that have reported
In Figure 5, when comparing between the less and more no significant difference between dynamic stretching and
experienced players, there were significant (p , 0.05) combined stretching on agility. However, our data show that
differences between less (14.74 6 0.54 seconds) and more warm-up procedures that include combination of static
experienced (13.77 6 0.74 seconds) players with no stretching followed by dynamic stretching might be more
stretching and between less (14.26 6 0.51 seconds) and beneficial than static stretching in soccer players who
more experienced (13.71 6 0.50 seconds) players after perform agility activities (eta squared = 0.484).
dynamic stretching. There were no pairwise differences in When evaluating the no-stretching vs. static methods, our
the static and combined stretching methods between the less results showed a significant difference for all players and
and more experienced players. experienced players, which is not consistent with previous
research (21,22). To date, only one research study (21) has
Este artigo refere outros estudos que já tinham investigated the effect of static stretching on the agility of
DISCUSSION chegado à mesma conclusão soccer players. The authors of this study reported that there
The findings of this study showed that significant differences was no significant difference between the acute effect of static
in agility time were achieved comparing (a) the dynamic stretching and no stretching, but static stretching warm-up
stretching vs. static methods, (b) the dynamic vs. combined was shown to decrease agility performance on a 20-m zigzag
methods, and (c) no stretching vs. static stretching (Figure 2). course. McMillian et al. (22) also studied the effect of static
The dynamic method showed shorter completion time stretching on agility, but they investigated its effect on T-drill
(13.95 6 0.32 seconds) compared with the static stretching agility among cadets. They reported that there was no
method (14.90 6 0.38 seconds), which suggests that all the significant difference between acute effect of static stretching
players performed better in the IAT when incorporating the and no stretching, but static stretching warm-up has been
dynamic stretching component within the warm-up protocol. shown to increase agility performance (22). There is the
This finding is consistent with previous studies (11,12,21,22) possibility that the time to complete the IAT (mean time =
that have reported significant difference between static 14.18 6 0.66 seconds) compared with 20-m zigzag
stretching and dynamic stretching. The increase in time to (mean time = 5.20 6 0.16 seconds) and T-drill (mean time =
complete the IAT after static stretching may be explained by 9.77 6 0.82 seconds) tests is discriminative to contrast the
the suboptimal length-tension relationship in producing difference between no stretching and static stretching.
greater contraction (24,25). In contrast, a recent study by Undoubtedly, the fitness level of the subjects plays an
Faigenbaum et al. (12) reported that there was no significant important role in determining the score in an agility test.
difference between static and dynamic stretching on agility. These findings are important in selecting, which is the
However, their study was restricted to school-aged children most effective mode of stretching to be incorporated into
(15.5 6 0.9 years) who may vary in their developmental stage a warm-up protocol to produce the fastest agility times for
of growth, and the intensity and duration of the warm-up soccer players.
protocols introduced could explain the variance observed in Previous authors have proposed 2 hypotheses for the static
comparison with our finding. Furthermore, the difference stretching–induced decrease in performances (3,7,24,25): (a)
between dynamic and static stretching is shown both in less mechanical factors involving the viscoelastic properties of
and more experienced adult players in our present study the muscle that may affect the muscle’s length-tension
(Figures 3 and 4). relationship and (b) neural factors such as decreased muscle
the TM

2702 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

activation or altered reflex sensitivity. Two of the authors the best stretching methods according to the player’s years
(24,25) mentioned above have also suggested that the of experience.
primary mechanism underlying the stretching-induced
decreases in force is related to increased muscle compliance
that may alter the muscle length-tension relationship, REFERENCES
increase sarcomere shortening distance and velocity, and 1. Alter, M. Science of Flexibility. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2004.
decrease force production due to the force-velocity relation- 2. Behm, DG, Bambury, A, Cahill, F, and Power, K. Effect of acute
ship. A stretching-induced change in the length-tension static stretching of force, balance, reaction time, and movement time.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 1397–1402, 2004.
relationship may also account for the negative effect on
agility performance. Although research by Pope et al. (26) 3. Behm, DG, Button, DC, and Butt, JC. Factors affecting force loss
with prolonged stretching. Can J Appl Physiol 26: 261–272, 2001.
suggests that general static stretching has minimal effect on
4. Burkett, LN, Phillips, WT, and Ziuraitis, J. The best warm-up for
injury prevention, evidence suggests that static stretching has the vertical jump in college-age athletic men. J Strength Cond Res
a greater effect on ROM than does no stretching and that 19: 673–676, 2005.
poor ROM is associated with increased risk of injury in 5. Church, JB, Wiggins, MS, Moode, FM, and Crist, R. Effect of warm-
soccer players. Therefore, static stretching on specific areas of up and flexibility treatments on vertical jump performance. J Strength
muscular tightness during warm-ups may improve ROM Cond Res 15: 332–336, 2001.
without compromising agility performance. 6. Cornwell, A, Nelson, AG, and Sidaway, B. Acute effects of stretching
on the neuromechanical properties of the triceps surae muscle
Our study has elucidated that the level of agility skills complex. Eur J Appl Physiol 86: 428–434, 2002.
as reflected by the years of experience in playing soccer 7. Cramer, JT, Housh, TJ, Johnson, GO, Miller, JM, Coburn, JW, and
improves the time in completing the IAT (Figure 5). Beck, TW. Acute effects of static stretching on peak torque in
Following the no-stretching warm-up and dynamic stretch- women. J Strength Cond Res 18: 236–241, 2004.
ing, the more experienced showed faster agility times 8. Cramer, JT, Housh, TJ, Johnson, GO, Miller, JM, Coburn, JW, and
(13.77 6 0.74 seconds and 13.71 6 0.50 s) compared with Beck, TW. The acute effects of static stretching on peak torque,
mean power output, electromyography, and mechanomyography.
the less experienced group (14.74 6 0.54 seconds and Eur J Appl Physiol 93: 530 539, 2005.
14.26 6 0.51 seconds). This is shown in the more experi-
9. Egan, AD, Cramer, JT, Massey, LL, and Marek, SM. Acute effects of
enced players where the time to complete the dynamic static stretching on peak torque and mean power output in national
stretching method is faster than the less experienced players collegiate athletic association division I women’s basketball players.
(13.71 6 0.50 seconds, 14.26 6 0.51 seconds, respectively). J Strength Cond Res 20: 778–782, 2006.
The more experienced players seem to show better adapta- 10. Eventovich, TK, Nauman, NJ, Conley, DS, and Todd, JB. Effect of
static stretching of the biceps brachii on torque, electromyography,
tion in performing new tasks.
mechanomyography during concentric isokinetic muscle actions.
In summary, this study examined the acute effects of 3 J Strength Cond Res 17: 484–488, 2003.
different warm-up protocols on agility in soccer players. 11. Faigenbaum, AD, Bellucci, M, Bernieri, A, Bakker, B, and Hoorens, K.
Unique to this investigation, warm-up protocols that included Acute effects of different warm-up protocols on fitness performance
dynamic exercise enhanced agility to a greater degree than in children. J Strength Cond Res 19: 376–381, 2005.
static stretching alone. Although popular among soccer 12. Faigenbaum, AD, Kang, J, McFarland, J, and Bloom, JM. Acute
effects of different warm-up protocols on anaerobic performance
players, the use of static stretching, which is performed
in teenage athletes. Pediatr Exerc Sci 17: 64–75, 2006.
routinely during soccer’s pretraining and precompetition
13. Fletcher, IM and Jones, B. The effect of different warmup stretch
warm-up, does appear detrimental to subsequent agility protocols on 20 meter sprint performance in trained rugby union
performance compared with no stretching and dynamic players. J Strength Cond Res 18: 885–888, 2004.
stretching. However, the benefit of using static stretching in 14. Fredrick, GA and Szymanski, DJ. Baseball (part 1): Dynamic
a warm-up remains questionable. flexibility. Strength Cond J 23: 21–30, 2001.
15. Hedrick, A. Dynamic flexibility training. Strength Cond J 22: 33–38,
2000.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS 16. Hedrick, A. Flexibility training for range of motion. Perform Train J
1: 13–20, 2002.
Dynamic stretching during warm-ups, as compared with
17. Knudson, D, Bennett, K, Corn, R, Leick, D, and Smith, C. Acute
static stretching, is probably most effective as a preparation effects of stretching are not evident in kinematics of the vertical jump.
for the immediate agility required in sports such as soccer. J Strength Cond Res 15: 98–101, 2001.
If static stretching is used, evidence suggests that it should 18. Knudson, D, Noffal, GJ, Bahamondde, RE, Bauer, JA, and
be combined with dynamic stretching to minimize decre- Blackwell, JR. Stretching has no effect on tennis serve performance.
ments to power-based performance (3,5,31). In addition, J Strength Cond Res 18: 654–656, 2004.
more experienced players demonstrated faster times in the 19. Kubo, K, Kanehisa, H, Kawakami, Y, and Fukunaga, T. Influence of
static stretching on viscoelastic properties of human tendon
IAT after no stretching and dynamic stretching compared structures in vivo. J Appl Physiol 90: 520–527, 2001.
with less experienced players, suggesting better agility
20. Little, T and Williams, AG. Specificity of acceleration, maximum
skills due to years of training and playing soccer. The results speed, and agility in professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res
obtained in this study can be used by coaches to determine 19: 76–78, 2005.

VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 10 | OCTOBER 2010 | 2703

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Stretching Methods and Agility in Soccer Players

21. Little, T and Williams, G. Effects of differential stretching protocols 27. Power, K, Behm, D, Cahill, F, Carroll, M, and Young, W. An acute
during warm-ups on high-speed motor capacities in professional bout of static stretching: Effects on force and jumping performance.
soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 20: 203–207, 2006. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 1389–1396, 2004.
22. McMillian, DJ and Moore, JH. Dynamic vs. static-stretching warm 28. Reilly, T, Bangsbo, J, and Franks, A. Anthropometric and
up: The effect on power and agility performance. J Strength Cond Res physiological predispositions for elite soccer. J Sports Sci 18: 669–
20: 492–499, 2006. 683, 2000.
23. McNeal, JR and Sands, WA. Acute static stretching reduces lower 29. Reilly, T and Williams, M. Science and Soccer. New York: Routledge
extremity power in trained children. Pediatr Exerc Sci 15: 139–145, USA, 2003. pp. 39–40.
2003. 30. Reilly, T, Williams, AM, Nevill, A, and Franks, A. A multidisciplinary
24. Nelson, AG, Allen, JD, Cornwell, A, and Kokkonen, J. Inhibition approach to talent identification in soccer. J Sports Sci 18: 695–702,
of maximal voluntary isometric torque production by acute 2000.
stretching is joint-angle specific. Res Q Exerc Sport 72: 68–70, 31. Siatras, T, Papadopoulos, G, Mameletzi, D, Gerodimos, V, and
2001. Kellis, S. Static and dynamic acute stretching effect on gymnasts’
25. Nelson, AG, Allen, JD, Cornwell, A, and Kokkonen, J. Inhibition of speed in vaulting. Pediatr Exerc Sci 15: 383–391, 2003.
maximal voluntary isokinetic torque production following stretching 32. Stone, M, Ramsey, MW, and Kinser, AM. Stretching: Acute and
is velocity-specific. J Strength Cond Res 15: 241–246, 2001. chronic? The potential consequences. Strength Cond J 28: 66–74, 2006.
26. Pope, RP, Herbert, RD, Kirwan, JD, and Graham, BJ. A randomized 33. Unick, J and Kieffer, HS. The acute effects of static and ballistic
trial of preexercise stretching for prevention of lower-limb injury. stretching on vertical jump performance in trained women.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 32: 271–277, 2000. J Strength Cond Res 19: 206–212, 2005.

the TM

2704 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Potrebbero piacerti anche