Version 1
: Received: 26 July 2024 / Approved: 29 July 2024 / Online: 29 July 2024 (11:48:26 CEST)
How to cite:
Philpott, E. J.; Bahrami, M.; Sardroodian, M.; Behm, D. G. The Effects of High-Intensity, Low-Duration and Low-Intensity, High-Duration Hamstrings Static Stretching on Contralateral Limb Performance. Preprints2024, 2024072298. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202407.2298.v1
Philpott, E. J.; Bahrami, M.; Sardroodian, M.; Behm, D. G. The Effects of High-Intensity, Low-Duration and Low-Intensity, High-Duration Hamstrings Static Stretching on Contralateral Limb Performance. Preprints 2024, 2024072298. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202407.2298.v1
Philpott, E. J.; Bahrami, M.; Sardroodian, M.; Behm, D. G. The Effects of High-Intensity, Low-Duration and Low-Intensity, High-Duration Hamstrings Static Stretching on Contralateral Limb Performance. Preprints2024, 2024072298. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202407.2298.v1
APA Style
Philpott, E. J., Bahrami, M., Sardroodian, M., & Behm, D. G. (2024). The Effects of High-Intensity, Low-Duration and Low-Intensity, High-Duration Hamstrings Static Stretching on Contralateral Limb Performance. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202407.2298.v1
Chicago/Turabian Style
Philpott, E. J., Mahta Sardroodian and David George Behm. 2024 "The Effects of High-Intensity, Low-Duration and Low-Intensity, High-Duration Hamstrings Static Stretching on Contralateral Limb Performance" Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202407.2298.v1
Abstract
Introduction: Increases in contralateral range of motion (ROM) have been shown following acute high-intensity and high-duration static stretching (SS) with no significant change in contralateral force, power, and muscle activation. There are currently no studies comparing the effects of a high-intensity, low-duration (HILD) or low-intensity, high-duration (LIHD) SS on contralateral performance. Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine how HILD and LIHD SS of the dominant leg hamstrings influence contralateral limb performance. Methods: Sixteen trained participants (8 females, 8 males) completed three SS interventions of the dominant leg hamstrings; 1) HILD (6x10s at maximal point of discomfort (POD)), 2) LIHD (6x30s at initial POD), and 3) control. Dominant and non-dominant ROM, maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) forces, muscle activation (electromyography (EMG)), unilateral CMJ and DJ heights were recorded pre-test and 1-minute post-test. Results: There were no significant contralateral ROM or performance changes. Following the HILD condition, the post-test ROM for the stretched leg (110.612.60) exceeded the pre-test (106.09.00) by 4.2% (p=0.008). Similarly, with LIHD, the stretched leg post-test (112.216.50) also exceeded (p=0.06) the pre-test ROM (109.316.20) by 2.6%. There were large magnitude impairments, evidenced by main effects for testing time for force, instantaneous strength, and associated EMG. A significant ROM interaction (p=0.02) showed that with LIHD, the stretched leg significantly (p=0.05) exceeded the contralateral leg by 13.4% post-test. Conclusion: The results showing no significant increase in contralateral ROM with either HILD or LIHD SS suggesting the interventions may not have been effective in promoting crossover effects.
Keywords
Range of motion; maximal voluntary isometric contraction; muscle activation; stretch tolerance; flexibility
Subject
Biology and Life Sciences, Other
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
