4.4 Article

THE EFFECTS OF TWO STRETCHING PROTOCOLS ON THE REACTIVE STRENGTH INDEX IN FEMALE SOCCER AND RUGBY PLAYERS

Journal

JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH
Volume 26, Issue 6, Pages 1564-1567

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318231ac09

Keywords

dynamic; static; force

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Werstein, KM, and Lund, RJ. The effects of two stretching protocols on the reactive strength index in female soccer and rugby players. J Strength Cond Res 26(6): 1564-1567, 2012-The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of 2 stretching protocols on stretch-shortening cycle performance in female Division I soccer players and female club rugby players. Fifteen soccer and rugby players (20.1 +/- 5.9 years, 170.5 +/- 14.2 cm, 70.4 +/- 22.3 kg) participated in 3 test sessions with different treatments. The first treatment involved a warm-up of 10 minutes of exercise on a cycle ergometer (warm-up only [WO]), the second was this warm-up followed by static stretching (SS), and the third was this warm-up followed by dynamic stretching (DS). The treatments were administered randomly to negate an order effect. Each treatment was immediately followed by a reactive strength index (RSI) test requiring the athletes to drop off a box (45 cm in height) on to a force plate and upon landing immediately jump into the air while minimizing contact time (CT, milliseconds) and maximizing flight time (FT, milliseconds). The RSI was FT: CT. Repeated measures analysis of variance indicated that a significant treatment effect existed for RSI (F = 7.95, 2; p = 0.002) and FT (F = 7.43, 2; p = 0.003) but no significant effect for CT (F = 1.53, 2; p = 0.235). The RSI and FT were significantly greater in DS compared with that in SS and WO. Dynamic stretching is the preferred warm-up before an athletic event involving considerable jumping.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available