4.6 Article

Acute effects of 15 min static or contract-relax stretching modalities on plantar flexors neuromuscular properties

期刊

JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE IN SPORT
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 247-252

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2008.12.633

关键词

Electromyography; Evoked contractions; Maximal voluntary contractions; Medial gastrocnemius; Soleus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study aimed to investigate the immediate effects of 15 min static or sub-maximal contract-relax stretching modalities on the neuromuscular properties of plantar flexor muscles. Ten male volunteers were tested before and immediately after 15 min static or contract-relax stretching programs of plantar flexor muscles (20 stretches). Static stretching consisted in 30 s stretches to the point of discomfort. For the contract-relax stretching modality, subjects performed 6 s sub-maximal isometric plantar flexion before 24 s static stretches. Measurements included maximal voluntary isometric torque (MVT) and the corresponding electromyogsraphic activity of soleus (SOL) and medial gastrocnemius (MG) muscles (RMS values), as well as maximal peak torque (Pt) elicited at rest by single supramaximal electrical stimulation of the tibial nerve. After 15 min stretching, significant MVT and SQL RMS decreases were obtained (-6.9 +/- 11.6% and 6.5 +/- 15.4%, respectively). No difference was obtained between stretching modalities. Pt remained unchanged after stretching. MG RMS changes were significantly different between stretching modalities (-9.4 +/- 18.3% and +3.5 +/- 11.6% after static and contract-relax stretching modalities, respectively). These findings indicated that performing 15 min static or contract-relax stretching had detrimental effects on the torque production capacity of plantar flexor muscles and should be precluded before competition. Mechanisms explaining this alteration seemed to be stretch modality dependent. (C) 2009 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据