ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Effects of secondary warm up following stretching

Alan J. Pearce Æ Dawson J. Kidgell ÆJames Zois Æ John S. Carlson

Accepted: 23 September 2008 / Published online: 11 October 2008

� Springer-Verlag 2008

Abstract Evidence suggests that static stretching inhibits

muscular power. However, research does not reflect prac-

tice whereby individuals follow up stretching with

secondary activity. This study investigated muscular power

following stretching, and after a second bout of activity.

Participants (n = 13) completed 3 randomized testing

sessions which included a 5 min warm-up, followed by a

vertical jump (VJ) on a force platform; an intervention

(static stretching, dynamic, or control), followed by a

second VJ. Participants then completed a series of move-

ments, followed by a VJ, up to 60 min post activity.

Immediately following the intervention, there was a 10.7%

difference in VJ between static and dynamic stretching.

The second warm up bout increased VJ height following

the dynamic intervention, whereas the static stretching

condition did not show any differences. The novel finding

from this study demonstrates a second exercise bout does

not reverse the effects of static stretching and is still det-

rimental to VJ.

Keywords Warm-up � Static stretching �Dynamic stretching � Vertical jump

Introduction

The notion of including static stretching, taking the

muscle to its end range and maintaining the stretch for a

specific duration (Bloomfield et al. 1994), prior to par-

taking in exercise has come under considerable scrutiny

recently. Once considered an essential component of the

warm up to protect the individual from muscular injury

and improve performance (Safran et al. 1989; Shellock

and Prentice 1985), recent evidence suggests that pre-

activity static stretching does not protect the individual

from acute injury (see review by Shrier 1999, 2002a, b).

Moreover, an acute bout of static stretching has been

shown to inhibit muscular force and power (Behm et al.

2001; Cornwell et al. 2001) showing changes up to

60 min (Fowles et al. 2000) and 120 min (Power et al.

2004). However, despite this growing body of evidence

there is still reluctance by sport scientists and sports

medicine practitioners to recommend foregoing pre-

activity stretching (Brandenburg et al. 2007). One reason

for this may stem from the variety of study protocols

published involving different types and intensity of

stretches, as well as the length of time to which a stret-

ched muscle, or group of muscles, inhibit performance

(Brandenburg et al. 2007). Recently, it has been suggested

that the published research, testing after an acute bout of

stretching, does not reflect current practice where indi-

viduals follow up a bout of stretching with further activity

(Young 2007). Therefore, the aim of this study was to

investigate the use of stretching followed by a secondary

bout of movement. In reviewing the previous research in

light of the aim of the present study, it is important to

outline the research design of previous investigations, and

define the types of stretches used and compared in these

studies.

A. J. Pearce (&) � J. S. Carlson

Centre for Ageing, Rehabilitation, Exercise and Sport (CARES),

Victoria University, PO Box 14428, Melbourne, Victoria 8001,

Australia

e-mail: alan.pearce@vu.edu.au

D. J. Kidgell

School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University,

Melbourne, Australia

J. Zois

School of Sport and Exercise Science, Victoria University,

Melbourne, Australia

123

Eur J Appl Physiol (2009) 105:175–183

DOI 10.1007/s00421-008-0887-3

Previous studies have used a variety of methods to

determine muscular performance following static, propri-

oceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) and/or dynamic

stretching (Fletcher and Jones 2004). These include neu-

romuscular measures such as electromyography (EMG)

activity (Avela et al. 1999; Behm et al. 2001), tendon tap

reflex (Rosenbaum and Hennig 1995), and interpolated

twitch technique (Power et al. 2004). However, the

majority of studies have been conducted in an applied

setting whereby participants perform a power based

activity, such as vertical jump (VJ) height, post-stretching.

Many studies have examined the acute effects of both

static and dynamic stretching on VJ height performance

(Church et al. 2001; Cornwell et al. 2001; Faigenbaum

et al. 2005, 2006a, b; McNeal and Sands 2003; Wright

et al. (2006). Church et al. (2001), comparing the effects of

static stretching and PNF on jump performance to a no

stretching warm up (control), showed a reduced VJ height

performance following PNF stretching when compared to

static or no stretching. Similarly, Cornwell et al. (2001)

found a significant decrease in VJ height when compared to

a no stretching warm up condition in both countermove-

ment (4.4 ± 1.3% decrement) and noncounter movement

jump trials (4.3 ± 1.3% decrement) post static stretching

treatments. Wright et al. (2006) compared the effects of

static, dynamic and no stretching warm ups on VJ perfor-

mance, demonstrating an increased jump height following

the warm up with no stretching or dynamic stretching

whereas the static condition recorded the lowest jump

height with a decreased VJ height between 1.27 and

2.63 cm (P \ 0.05). Similar findings of a decreased VJ

height post static stretching have also been found in chil-

dren and teenage populations (Faigenbaum et al. 2005,

2006a, b; McNeal and Sands 2003).

Time course changes, where performance following a

bout of stretching has been measured for intermittent

periods post stretching intervention, have been limited and

varied from isometric MVC force (Fowles et al. 2000) and

EMG (Behm et al. 2001), to VJ height (Bradley et al. 2007;

Brandenburg et al. 2007; Power et al. 2004). However,

static stretching has consistently shown to be detrimental

on muscular power performance, compared to dynamic

stretching, for periods up to 120 min post stretching

intervention (Behm et al. 2001; Bradley et al. 2007;

Brandenburg et al. 2007; Fowles et al. 2000; Power et al.

2004).

It has been suggested that research design should reflect

the context of an athletic warm up (Young 2007). There-

fore, testing of individuals should include a secondary or

sport specific warm up after the stretching phase, as well as

comparing effects to warm-ups with no stretching com-

ponent (Young 2007). A limited number of studies have

aimed to implement this research design showing

conflicting results (Little and Williams 2006; Rosenbaum

and Hennig 1995; Unick et al. 2005; Woolstenhulme et al.

2006; Young et al. 2004). A reason for this may be, in part,

due to the disparity in protocol designs such as the sport

specific warm up component; moreover, studies have not

appeared to control for intensity of the secondary activity,

using arbitrary measures for example, based on partici-

pants’ perceived efforts (Little and Williams 2006; Young

et al. 2004) that may have affected results in one direction

or the other.

Based on the research to date, and methodological

design relative to current athletic practice, this study

investigated the effects of a secondary bout of activity post

static and dynamic stretching. The study also aimed to

ensure control of intensity throughout all components of

the warm-up phases, relative to the individual’s heart rate

response, and standardization of post-stretching activity.

Methods

Thirteen healthy participants (11 males, 2 females, 18–

28 years of age) were recruited from the university student

population. Participants were pre-screened, prior to testing,

and any volunteers presenting with a musculoskeletal

injury in the previous 6 months, or with any cardiovascular

condition, were excluded from participating in the study.

Written informed consent was obtained from all partici-

pants prior to voluntarily participating in the study. The

study was approved by the local university human ethics

committee and was conducted in accordance to the Dec-

laration of Helsinki. Participant details are listed in

Table 1.

Participants visited the university laboratory on four

occasions 1-week apart: visit one, to complete a maximal

aerobic treadmill running test to ascertain maximal heart

rate (HR); visits two to four, to complete warm-up and

jump testing sessions. Each session lasted between 60 and

90 min. Prior to data collection, participants were famil-

iarized with all protocols and the equipment used for

maximal aerobic testing and measurement of VJ height.

Participants were instructed to perform a double-foot,

Table 1 Mean (±SE) data of all participants

Age (years) 22.46 ± 0.98

Height (cm) 174.50 ± 2.50

Weight (kg) 70.86 ± 2.85

_VO2 max (ml kg min) 51.98 ± 1.87

_VO2peak (ml kg) 53.52 ± 1.88

Max HR at _VO2 max (bpm) 191.54 ± 2.07

Warm up H/R (bpm) 124.50 ± 1.34

176 Eur J Appl Physiol (2009) 105:175–183

123

counter-movement VJ with their hands placed on their hips

during the entire jump performance.

Participants’ first testing session included the comple-

tion of a progressive _VO2 max test, completed on a motor

driven Quinton Q65 treadmill ergometer (Quinton Instru-

ments, USA) in accordance with the recommendations

described by the American College of Sports Medicine

(Franklin 2000). Participants began with a 5 min warm up

on the treadmill at a resistance of 8 km/h. Once warm up

was completed, the main phase of the test began with the

participant running at 10 km/h increasing each minute by

1 km/h until 16 km/h was reached. Increments in resis-

tance was then implemented through raising the gradient

on the treadmill by 1� every 30 s (whilst maintaining

16 km/h) until volitional fatigue was reached.

Measures of HR, _VO2 and _VCO2 were collected every

15 s of the test using a heart rate monitor (Polar, Finland)

and a custom built metabolic cart, with data being recorded

via TurboFit (Vacumed, USA) metabolic software. Maxi-

mal HR was taken at the point of _VO2 max using the criteria

of Withers et al. (2000).

Participants completed three separate testing sessions,

once per week, for 3 weeks. Figure 1, Tables 2 and 3

outlines the three warm-up and jump testing protocols

which participants completed in a randomised order. More

detailed descriptions of each stretch are detailed elsewhere

(Anderson et al. 2000; Faigenbaum et al. 2006a). Table 4

outlines the movement activity exercises.

Participants, wearing a HR monitor during each warm

up condition, performed a general jog/run warm up for

5 min on the treadmill ergometer at a variable speed

controlled by one of the investigators to maintain 65%

(±5 beats per min) of their maximal HR (previously

determined from the _VO2 max test) to increase peripheral

muscular temperature (Edwards et al. 1972). At the com-

pletion of the warm up participants completed two pre-

intervention stationary maximal height double-foot

vertical jumps. Participants then completed either: (1) the

series of lower-limb static stretching exercises (Table 2)

with participants holding each stretch for a period of 30 s

with a 15 s rest between each stretch; (2) the series of

lower-limb dynamic stretching exercises (Table 3) con-

sisting of two sets of ten repetitions; or (3) no static or

dynamic stretching (movement activity only; Table 4);

followed by two maximal height double-foot vertical

jumps. Participants then completed the standardized

movement activity protocol which consisted of mimicking

generalized warm-up movement patterns (Table 4) whilst

maintaining their individual pre-determined target HR

range. Investigators monitored and recorded HR responses

following each stretching exercise during all warm up

conditions to ensure the participant did not exceed the

identified target HR range. Jump testing was then con-

ducted immediately following secondary warm up with

follow up testing at 10, 20, 30, 45 and 60 min post sec-

ondary activity protocol. During this time, between jumps,

participants where instructed to participate in low level

activity (i.e., walking).

With difficulties in maintaining consistency and reli-

ability of using a counter-movement jump (Power et al.

2004), jump testing consisted of a counter-movement, but

without upper limb movement, VJ. All jump data was

recorded on a custom built force platform, recording at a

rate of 2,000 Hz for 3 s and analyzed off-line using a

customized program built from Labview 8.5 software

(National Instruments, USA), which calculated VJ height,

velocity at take off from the platform, peak power and

power to weight ratio. Participants were instructed to place

their hands on their hips during each jump and to jump as

high as possible. In order to control for consistency in jump

performances, and to optimize the force-length profile of

the knee extensors, participants were required to descend to

a knee angle of 60�–80� (Kulig et al. 1984; Schmidt 1973),

as measured by an electronic goniometer (Biometrics,

Fig. 1 Flow chart of the testing

protocol participants undertook

over a period of 4 weeks

Eur J Appl Physiol (2009) 105:175–183 177

123

USA). This approach was taken as previous data suggest

that peak force occurs around this angle range (Kulig et al.

1984; Schmidt 1973). Jumps were deemed ‘‘suitable’’ if the

participant maintained hands on hips and knee flexion was

within the appropriate range prior to jump take-off. If the

hands released from the hips and/or knee flexion was not

Table 2 Static stretching exercises

Stretch Sets Time

Seated single leg hamstring. In a seated position with one leg straight, place the other leg on the inside of the straight

leg and reach forward

2 30 s stretch: 15 s

relax

Double leg gastrocnemius. In a standing position with feet together about one meter from a wall, lean against the wall

with both hands, keeping the legs straight

2 30 s stretch: 15 s

relax

Seated single gluteal. Seated on the floor with the outside of the lower leg bent in front and the inside of the opposite

leg bent to the side. Position the bottom of the forward foot against the knee of the opposite leg. Place hands on floor

in front of the forward leg

2 30 s stretch: 15 s

relax

Hip/thigh flexor lunge. Standing in a forward lunge position (as wide apart as is comfortably possible), then lowers

centre of body slowly until stretch is felt through the hip flexor muscles

2 30 s stretch: 15 s

relax

Quadriceps stretch. In the standing position with an erect spine, bend one knee and bring heel towards buttocks while

holding the foot with one hand

2 30 s stretch: 15 s

relax

Phase lasted 12–15 min

Table 3 Dynamic stretching exercises

Stretch Sets Time/repetition/

distance

Walking high knee to chest. While walking, lift knee towards chest, raise body on toes 2 10 repetitions each

leg

Leg swinging––antero-posterior direction. With the arm outstretched to the side and leaning against a wall, the

opposing leg is stretched through full range of movement in the sagital plane, undergoing both hip flexion on the

forwards motion and hip extension on the backwards motion

1 10 repetitions each

leg

Leg swinging––medio-lateral direction. With the arm outstretched to the side and leaning against a wall, the opposing

leg is stretched through a dynamic, full range movement in the coronal plane (side to side direction)

1 10 repetitions each

leg

Hurdler’s knee raise––forward movement. Whilst travelling forwards, participant raises trailing leg and places hip in

flexion (approximately 908) in an abducted and externally rotated position, with the knee flexed at 908. In this

position the limb is displaced forwards as though they where stepping over an object just below waist height and

returned to normal walking stride position

1 10 m

Hurdler’s knee raise––reverse movement. Same as above but traveling in reverse direction 1 10 m

Heel ups. Rapidly kick heels towards buttocks while moving forward 2 10 m

Tip-toe walking. Travelling forward to prescribed distance whilst completing alternating plantar flexion (tip-toe) with

every step forwards. Aim is to raise the body as high as possible through tip-toeing

2 10 m

Phase lasted 12–15 min

Table 4 Movement activity (control) exercises

Movement exercise Sets Repetition/

distance

High knees run. Emphasise knee lift and arm swing while moving forward quickly 2 10 m

Side stepping. Move laterally 10 m whilst continually abducting leading leg and adducting trailing leg to replace foot

placement of leading leg

2 10 m

Cross-overs. Similar to side skipping however, this time the subject’s trailing leg travels past foot placement of leading

leg and in a sweeping motion the trailing leg alternates by crossing in front of and behind leading leg. Return to the

start by repeating movement in opposite direction

2 10 m

Skip-steps (high skips). While skipping, emphasise height, high knee lift and arm action 2 10 m

Zig-zag running. Ten cones/markers are placed in two parallel lines (five cones per line) with a stager of 2 m between

them. Line A starts at position x, whilst line B begins at position x ? 1 m. Participants run through in a ‘‘zigzag’’

pattern

1 20 m circuit

Phase lasted 10–12 min

178 Eur J Appl Physiol (2009) 105:175–183

123

within the acceptable range, then the participant repeated

the jump after a 1 min rest interval to avoid fatigue.

All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS v15

(SPSS Inc., Chicago IL). One-way analysis of variance

(ANOVA), with Scheffe test post-hoc, was used to com-

pare mean HR data from the three conditions. One sample

t-tests were used to compare intra-group post intervention

changes for each condition (static, dynamic and movement)

separately. To test the hypothesis that following a second

bout of activity VJ height would remain higher following

dynamic stretching than static stretching, a one-way a pri-

ori univariate (ANOVA) was conducted. Repeated

measures ANOVA, with Scheffe test post-hoc, was used

for multiple group comparisons over the period of time

following warm-up protocols. All data is presented as mean

(±SE) and significance set at an alpha of P \ 0.05.

Results

Pre-testing reliability of force platform data was conducted,

using test-retest method, on six participants on two separate

occasions, one week apart. Test-retest reliability was

assessed by applying paired samples t-test, and technical

error of measurement calculations (TEM) using the method

described by Hopkins (2000). TEM and co-efficient of

variation showed consistency in the platform measures

with 0.3 and 0.4% error respectively (P [ 0.05). Validity

in the force platform data was demonstrated through testing

the relationship between peak power and VJ height using

Pearson correlation analysis. For each condition there was

a significant (r = 0.8, P \ 0.001) correlation between peak

power and VJ height.

Warm-up heart rate intensities

Comparison of mean HR taken during each intervention

showed a significant decrease in mean HR during the static

stretching condition compared to HR data taken for each

other condition (P \ 0.001, Fig. 2). Moreover, group mean

HR taken during the static stretching conditions was

88.3 ± 4.2 bpm lower compared to mean HR of

121.4 ± 1.85 bpm taken during the movement activity

proceeding the static stretching component (P \ 0.001,

Fig. 2). Similarly, there was significant difference

(P \ 0.001) in HR from the dynamic stretching condition

compared to the post-dynamic stretching movement

activity (115.9 ± 2.6 to 126.2 ± 1.2 bpm, respectively,

Fig. 2). However, comparison of each movement activity

(post-static and post-dynamic stretching; and the control

condition) revealed no significant differences in group

mean HRs (Fig. 2).

Jump height and power

For all jumps in all conditions, knee flexion angles were

between the pre-determined ranges of 60�–80�. There were

no significant differences between knee flexion for each

condition (control, static and dynamic) being 76.7� ± 0.7�,

78.0� ± 0.9�, and 78.9� ± 0.9� respectively.

Comparison between the dynamic and static stretching

conditions (Fig. 3, ‘‘post-stretch’’) showed a 10.7% dif-

ference in VJ height (P = 0.02). Comparison of all three

groups post-second intervention (movement activity)

showed significant differences in VJ height between the

dynamic and movement activity conditions to the static

stretching condition immediately following the second

intervention (Fig. 3, ‘‘0 min’’) to 30 min post activity.

The dynamic stretching intervention showed a mean

increase of 3% in VJ height, immediately post dynamic

stretching (Fig. 3, ‘‘post-stretch’’), which was not signifi-

cant (P = 0.25). However, following the secondary bout of

movement activity (Fig. 3, ‘‘0 min’’) there was a signifi-

cant mean increase, compared to pre-stretch value, in VJ

height of 7.2% (P = 0.02). Similarly, the movement

activity (no stretching) condition showed a significant

mean increase in VJ height following the movement

activity of 8.52% (P = 0.02, Fig. 3, ‘‘0 min’’). Alterna-

tively, the static stretching intervention showed a

significant mean decrease in VJ height of 7.7% (P \ 0.001,

Fig,. 3, ‘‘post-stretch’’). Following the secondary bout of

movement activity (Fig. 3, ‘‘0 min’’), VJ height had

improved by a mean of 3.7% (to 96.0% of pre-stretching

values), however, this result was not statistically significant

(P = 0.29).

Power measures (peak power and power to weight ratio)

showed similar trends with the dynamic stretching inter-

vention showing 0.7% increase (P = 0.32, Figs. 4, 5)

Fig. 2 Group mean (±SE) heart rate between conditions. Asteriskindicates a significant difference (P \ 0.001)

Eur J Appl Physiol (2009) 105:175–183 179

123

compared to the pre-stretching jump. However, following

the secondary bout of movement activity there was a 3.2%

increase in group mean power measures (P = 0.02, Figs. 4,

5). The control condition showed a significant increase in

group mean peak power of 3.5% (P = 0.02, Figs. 4, 5). A

similar trend was observed in the static stretching inter-

vention with a significant decrease in group mean power

measures of 2.4% (P = 0.03, Figs. 4, 5). Following the

secondary bout of movement activity, group mean peak

power in the static stretching intervention group had

remained unchanged and was not statistically significant

(P = 0.67, Figs. 4, 5). From 10–60 min, there were incre-

mental decreases in peak power which ranged from 3.8% at

10 min (P = 0.006) to 6.2% (P \ 0.001) at 60 min post.

Similar findings were observed for take-off velocity

(Fig. 6) with a significant decrease in take-off velocity of

2.5% (P = 0.03) seen in the static stretching condition and

significant increases of 2.2% in the dynamic stretching

condition (P = 0.01, Fig. 6).

Discussion

The present study aimed to address the question regarding

the impact of a secondary warm up, seen commonly in

athletic practice (Young 2007), following static or dynamic

stretching on vertical jump (VJ) height and associated

measures (power and velocity). The novel finding from this

study was that completing a secondary bout of activity

impacted the dependant variables with a significantly

improved performance following dynamic stretching but

not following static stretching. It should also be noted that

similar to recent research (Wright et al. 2006), best VJ

performance in this study was obtained in the control

condition where no stretching intervention was given.

As suggested by Young (2007), warm-up routines

include general sub-maximal activity (for example

Fig. 3 Time course mean (±SE) changes in VJ height. Asterisk refers

to significant increase in VJ height in the ‘‘movement’’ (control)

condition (open diamond) from ‘‘pre-stretch’’ to ‘‘0 min’’ and a

significant decrease in VJ height in the ‘‘static’’ stretching condition

(open circle) from ‘‘pre-stretch’’ to immediately ‘‘post-stretch’’; ? re-

fers to significant difference in VJ height between the ‘‘dynamic’’

stretching condition (open triangle) and the ‘‘static’’ stretching

condition; and hash refers to significant decrease in the ‘‘static’’

stretching condition compared to the ‘‘dynamic’’ or ‘‘movement’’

conditions at various time points up to 30 min post second warm-up

bout

Fig. 4 Peak power mean (±SE) measures between conditions.

Asterisk indicates a significant decrease (P = 0.03) and hashindicates a significant increase (P = 0.02) compared to ‘‘pre-stretch’’

condition

Fig. 5 Power to weight mean (±SE) measures between conditions.

Asterisk indicates a significant decrease (P = 0.03) and hashindicates a significant increase (P = 0.02) compared to ‘‘pre-stretch’’

condition

180 Eur J Appl Physiol (2009) 105:175–183

123

jogging) followed by a series of static stretches, finishing

with a specific component involving specific movements

relevant to the activity to be undertaken. The methodology

in this study aimed to reproduce this practice as previous

studies generally have not reflected athletic practice

(Young 2007). Two recent studies, however, have

attempted to address this issue (Little and Williams 2006;

Young et al. 2004) by comparing warm-up design with and

without the inclusion of static stretching on a range of

motor performances (such as VJ, 10 m sprint, and kicking

an Australian football). Both studies reported little differ-

ence in performances whether static stretching was

included or not included in the warm-up. As noted by

Young (2007), both studies used ‘‘moderate volume’’

(Young 2007) of static stretching with Little and Williams

(2006) incorporating one set of 30 s stretching of four

lower limb muscle groups; and Young et al. (2004) using

3 9 30 s stretches on three muscle groups (quadriceps and

hip-flexors). The limited number of stretches may not have

had an effect or any acute effects from the stretches may

have been diluted by the other warm-up components

(Young 2007).

In response to this issue, the present study aimed to

reflect current athletic practice by incorporating stretching

(static and dynamic) of all major muscle groups in the hips

and lower limbs, providing a clearly defined ‘‘stretching

phase’ in the warm-up routine. In the present study, the

stretching phase lasted 12–15 min, and the movement

activity phase lasted 10–12 min. We also monitored HR

throughout each of the conditions, not only to ensure that

participants were not ‘‘over-exerting’’ themselves (and

possibly causing fatigue or alternatively potentiating

muscle activation) but also to document the physical

responses between each condition. The significant decrease

in static stretching HR responses demonstrated the reduc-

tion in physical activity during the static stretching

component of the warm up which was then reflected with

an associated decrease in VJ height. Similar findings of

reduced HR following static stretching have also been

reported by Faigenbaum et al. (2005). By including a phase

of low-intensity static stretching, the individual is effec-

tively reversing the effects of increasing physiological

activity in the preceding general warm-up phase, that is

increasing peripheral muscular temperature, greater effi-

cacy of enzymatic reactions, lower oxygen deficit at the

onset of work, and a decreased RER during subsequent

activity (Edwards et al. 1972; Febbraio et al. 1996; Robergs

et al. 1992). Significant differences were also observed in

HR between the dynamic stretching and movement activity

(post dynamic stretching) which may also explain the time-

course improvement in VJ height immediately after the

movement activity treatments following the dynamic

stretching.

The present study also aimed to address the issue that

any negative effects from acute bouts of static stretching

would be lessened by the use of a secondary dynamic or

activity based warm up (Fletcher and Anness 2007;

McMillian et al. 2006; Rosenbaum and Hennig 1995). Our

findings showed that a secondary warm up, did not show

any significant improvement and performance still

remained reduced (compared to the dynamic and move-

ment activity conditions) for the period of up to one hour

suggesting that a bout of acute static stretching induced a

transient reflexive inhibition (Hutton and Atwater 1992;

Pollock et al. 1998), which appears to remain inhibited

even after follow-up dynamic activity. Previous studies

have demonstrated decreased muscular activation for up to

2 h (Fowles et al. 2000; Power et al. 2004), however, this is

the first study to show continued reduced performance,

despite a follow up bout of active movement activity,

following static stretching.

Conversely, the results showed an increased perfor-

mance when the movement activity was combined with the

dynamic stretching. This is in contrast to recent findings by

Fletcher and Anness (2007) who did not find any benefit

when combining dynamic stretching followed by move-

ment exercise compared to dynamic stretching alone.

However, as noted by the authors (Fletcher and Anness

2007) movement complexity may have played a part, as

their study measured 50 m sprint performance whereas our

study measured VJ height. The dynamic stretching protocol

differences between our study and that of Fletcher and

Anness (2007) may also explain the differing results as the

dynamic stretching protocol described by Fletcher and

Anness (2007) was completed in a stationary position,

Fig. 6 Take off velocity mean (±SE) measures between conditions.

Asterisk indicates a significant decrease (P = 0.03) and hashindicates a significant increase (P = 0.01) compared to ‘‘pre-stretch’’

condition

Eur J Appl Physiol (2009) 105:175–183 181

123

whereas our dynamic stretching drills were completed

actively (moving). As previously suggested (Bishop 2003;

Fletcher and Jones 2004) the phenomena of active dynamic

warm-ups increasing performance has been linked to a

rehearsal of specific movement patterns, increasing meta-

bolic demands as well as assisting in greater compliance to

enable the muscle to utilize stretch-shortening cycle more

efficiently. Moreover, dynamic stretching evokes the

myotatic reflex, increasing muscle contraction, which is

influenced by movement/stretch velocity (Gollhofer and

Rapp 1993). The findings in this study appear to concur

with previous suggestions that increased stretching speed,

through dynamic stretching and movement activity, may be

reflected in greater myotatic reflex amplitude (Fletcher and

Anness 2007).

It has been widely suggested that prolonged static

stretching contributes to muscular force loss, may be

attributed to neural mechanisms. Previous investigations

(Behm et al. 2001; Fowles et al. 2000) have suggested

decreased excitability in a-motorneuron activity following

Golgi tendon reflex inhibition from increased muscle ten-

sile strength during the stretch. However, as suggested by

Fowles et al. (2000), Golgi tendon organ activity is tran-

sient, rarely persisting during the maintained stretch.

Others have suggested that alteration in muscle proprio-

ceptor sensitivity may occur following stretching

(Kokkonen et al. 1998). Static stretching, altering the

absolute length in muscle, may influence muscle spindle

discharge (Fletcher and Anness 2007). Avela et al. (1999)

demonstrated a decrease in Hoffmann (H)-reflex ampli-

tude, suggesting impaired excitation of the a-motorneuron

pool, arising from reduced muscle spindle discharge, but

not maximal compound mass action potential (M wave),

indicating no failure in excitation or conduction in the

muscle fibers. However, as we did not assess neuromus-

cular activity, it is not possible to imply neuromuscular

excitability or inhibitory correlates for the results found in

this study. Further studies, using this research design,

should include investigation of neural activity at both

central (motor cortex and spinal) and peripheral levels

underlying the changes observed from the present study.

In conclusion, the findings from this study should not be

confused with flexibility per se. Indeed, flexibility as a

training modality on its own should be encouraged. Fre-

quent flexibility training, of a minimum of two to three

days per week (Pollock et al. 1998), has been previously

reported to improve joint range of motion and function

(Hubley et al. 1984) reducing the likelihood of injury

(Ekstrand et al. 1983; Fredericson 1996; Hilyer et al. 1990).

Recently, Kokkonen et al. (2007) demonstrated that flexi-

bility training programs, used in isolation of any other form

of physical activity, can improve specific exercise perfor-

mance. However, this study has provided further evidence

supporting the notion that including a static stretching

phase in the pre-activity warm up is detrimental to mus-

cular power activities. Moreover, results from this study

have demonstrated that current athletic practice, whereby

individuals follow up a secondary bout of activity follow-

ing static stretching, is also inhibiting an athlete’s full

muscular power potential. Further investigation needs to

continue using this study paradigm, using more complex

movements, such as running or kicking; as well as using

this exercise design when exploring the neuromuscular

excitability or inhibitory processes underpinning the

improvement or reduction in performance following static

or dynamic stretching.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Mr. Ian Fair-

weather for his expert technical assistance in designing and building

the force platform and software used in this study. No financial

assistance was provided for the completion of this study.

References

Anderson B, Anderson J, Turlington C (2000) Stretching: 20th

anniversary. Shelter Publications, Bolinas

Avela J, Kyrolainen H, Komi PV (1999) Altered reflex sensitivity

after repeated and prolonged passive muscle stretching. J Appl

Physiol 86:1283–1291

Behm DG, Button DC, Butt JC (2001) Factors affecting force loss

with prolonged stretching. Can J Appl Physiol 26:261–272

Bishop D (2003) Warm up II: performance changes following active

warm up and how to structure the warm up. Sports Med 33:483–

498. doi:10.2165/00007256-200333070-00002

Bloomfield J, Ackland TR, Elliot BC (1994) Applied anatomy and

biomechanics in sport. Blackwell, Melbourne

Bradley PS, Olsen PD, Portas MD (2007) The effect of static,

ballistic, and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretch-

ing on vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 21:223–

226

Brandenburg J, Pitney W, Luebbers P et al (2007) Time course of

changes in vertical-jumping ability after static stretching. Int J

Sports Phys Perf 2:170–181

Church JB, Wiggins MS, Moode FM et al (2001) Effect of warm-up

and flexibility treatments on vertical jump performance. J

Strength Cond Res 15:332–336

Cornwell AG, Nelson AG, Heise GD et al (2001) Acute effects of

passive muscle stretching on vertical jump performance. J Hum

Mov Stud 40:307–324

Edwards RH, Harris RC, Hultman E et al (1972) Effect of

temperature on muscle energy metabolism and endurance during

successive isometric contractions, sustained to fatigue, of the

quadriceps muscle in man. J Physiol 220:335–352

Ekstrand J, Gillquist J, Liljedahl S (1983) Prevention of soccer

injuries: supervision by doctor and physiotherapist. Am J Sports

Med 11:116–120. doi:10.1177/036354658301100302

Faigenbaum AD, Bellucci M, Bernieri A et al (2005) Acute effects of

different warm-up protocols on fitness performance in children. J

Strength Cond Res 19:376–381

Faigenbaum AD, Kang J, McFarland J et al (2006a) Acute effects of

different warm-up protocols on anaerobic perfomance in teenage

athletes. Pediatr Exerc Sci 17:64–75

Faigenbaum AD, McFarland JE, Schwerdtman JA et al (2006b)

Dynamic warm-up protocols, with and without a weighted vest,

182 Eur J Appl Physiol (2009) 105:175–183

123

and fitness performance in high school female athletes. J Athl

Train 41:357–363

Febbraio MA, Carey MF, Snow RJ et al (1996) Influence of elevated

muscle temperature on metabolism during intense, dynamic

exercise. Am J Physiol 271:R1251–R1255

Fletcher IM, Anness R (2007) The acute effects of combined static

and dynamic stretch protocols on fifty-meter sprint performance

in track and field athletes. J Strength Cond Res 21:784–787. doi:

10.1519/R-19475.1

Fletcher IM, Jones B (2004) The effect of different warm-up stretch

protocols on 20 m sprint performance in trained rugby union

players. J Strength Cond Res 18:885–888. doi:10.1519/14493.1

Fowles JR, Sale DG, MacDougall JD (2000) Reduced strength after

passive stretch of the human plantarflexors. J Appl Physiol

89:1179–1188

Franklin BA (ed) (2000) ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and

prescription, 6th edn. Lippincott/Williams & Wilkins, Philadel-

phia/Baltimore

Fredericson M (1996) Common injuries in runners: diagnosis,

rehabilitation, and prevention. Sports Med 21:49–72. doi:

10.2165/00007256-199621010-00005

Gollhofer A, Rapp W (1993) Recovery of stretch reflex responses

following mechanical stimulation. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup

Physiol 66:415–429. doi:10.1007/BF00599614

Hilyer JC, Brown KC, Sirles AT et al (1990) A flexibility intervention

to reduce the incidence and severity of joint injuries among

municipal firefighters. J Occup Med 32:631–637. doi:10.1097/

00043764-199007000-00015

Hopkins WG (2000) Reliability from consecutive pairs of trials. A

new view of statistics http://www.sportsci.or/stats/xrely.xls.

Accessed 24 May 2007

Hubley CL, Kozey JW, Stanish WD (1984) The effects of static

exercises and stationary cycling on range of motion at the hip

joint. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 6:104–109

Hutton RS, Atwater SW (1992) Acute and chronic adaptations of

muscle proprioceptors in response to increased use. Sports Med

14:406–412. doi:10.2165/00007256-199214060-00007

Kokkonen J, Nelson AG, Cornwell A (1998) Acute muscle stretching

inhibits maximal strength performance. Res Q Exerc Sport

69:411–415

Kokkonen J, Nelson AG, Eldredge C et al (2007) Chronic static

stretching improves exercise performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc

39:1825–1831. doi:10.1249/01.mss.0000274403.53826.d3

Kulig K, Andrews JG, Hay JG (eds) (1984) Human strength curves.

The Collamore Press, Lexington

Little T, Williams AG (2006) Effects of differential stretching

protocols during warm-ups on high-speed motor capacities in

professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 20:203–207.

doi:10.1519/R-16944.1

McMillian DJ, Moore JH, Hatler BS et al (2006) Dynamic vs. static-

stretching warm up: the effect on power and agility performance.

J Strength Cond Res 20:492–499. doi:10.1519/18205.1

McNeal J, Sands W (2003) Acute static stretching reduces lower

extremity power in trained children. Pediatr Exerc Sci 15:139–

145

Pollock ML, Gaesser GA, Butcher JD et al (1998) ACSM position

stand: the recommended quantity and quality of exercise for

developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory and muscular

fitness, and flexibility in healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc

30:975–991. doi:10.1097/00005768-199806000-00032

Power K, Behm D, Cahill F et al (2004) An acute bout of static

stretching: effects on force and jumping performance. Med Sci

Sports Exerc 36:1389–1396. doi:10.1249/01.MSS.0000135775.

51937.53

Robergs AR, Pascoe DD, Costill LD et al (1992) Effects of warm-up

on muscle glycogenolysis during intense exercise. Med Sci

Sports Exerc 23:37–43

Rosenbaum D, Hennig EM (1995) The influence of stretching and

warm-up exercises on Achilles tendon reflex activity. J Sports

Sci 13:481–490. doi:10.1080/02640419508732265

Safran MR, Seaber AV, Garrett WE (1989) Warm-up and muscular

injury prevention: an update. Sports Med 8:239–249

Schmidt G (1973) Biomechanical analysis of knee flexion and

extension. J Biomech 6:79–92. doi:10.1016/0021-9290(73)

90040-7

Shellock FG, Prentice WE (1985) Warming up and stretching for

improved physical performance and prevention of sports related

injuries. Sports Med 2:267–268. doi:10.2165/00007256-

198502040-00004

Shrier I (1999) Stretching before exercise does not reduce the risk of

local muscle injury: a critical review of the clinical and basic

science literature. Clin J Sport Med 9:221–227

Shrier I (2002a) Does stretching help prevent injuries? BMJ Books,

London

Shrier I (2002b) Does stretching help prevent injuries? Update. BMJ

Books, London

Unick J, Kieffer HS, Cheesman W et al (2005) The acute effects of

static and ballistic stretching on vertical jump performance in

trained women. J Strength Cond Res 19:206–212. doi:

10.1519/R-14843.1

Withers R, Gore C, Gass G et al (2000) Determination of maximal

oxygen consumption (VO2) or maximal aerobic power. In: Gore

GJ (ed) Physiological tests for elite athletes. Human Kinetics,

Champaign

Woolstenhulme MT, Griffiths CM, Woolstenhulme EM et al (2006)

Ballistic stretching increases flexibility and acute vertical jump

height when combined with basketball activity. J Strength Cond

Res 20:799–803. doi:10.1519/R-18835.1

Wright G, Williams L, Greany J et al (2006) Effect of Static

Stretching, dynamic stretching, and warm-up on active hip range

of motion and vertical jump. Med Sci Sports Exerc 38:S280–

S281. doi:10.1249/00005768-200605001-01217

Young WB (2007) The use of static stretching in warm-up for training

and competition. Int J Sports Physiol Perf 2:212–216

Young WB, Clothier P, Orago L et al (2004a) Acute effects of static

stretching on hip flexor and quadriceps flexibility, range of

motion and foot speed in kicking a football. J Sci Med Sport

12:230–235

Eur J Appl Physiol (2009) 105:175–183 183

123