4.4 Article

AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT WARM-UP MODALITIES ON SPECIFIC MOTOR SKILLS RELATED TO SOCCER PERFORMANCE

期刊

JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH
卷 24, 期 8, 页码 2096-2101

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e312db

关键词

dynamic stretching; static stretching; musculotendinous unit stiffness; preparation for soccer

资金

  1. University of Bedfordshire

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fletcher, IM and Monte-Colombo, MM. An investigation into the effects of different warm-up modalities on specific motor skills related to soccer performance. J Strength Cond Res 24(8): 2096-2101, 2010-The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of different warm-up stretch modalities on specific high-speed motor capabilities important to soccer performance. Twenty-seven male soccer players performed 3 warm-up conditions, active warm-up (WU), WU with static stretching (SPS), and WU with dynamic stretching (ADS). Heart rate, countermovement jump, 20-m sprint, and Balsom agility tests were performed after each intervention. Vertical jump heights were significantly greater (p < 0.01) in the WU and ADS conditions compared to those in the SPS trial. The 20-m sprint and agility times showed that the SPS condition was significantly slower (p < 0.01) than the WU and ADS conditions, with the ADS trial being significantly faster (p < 0.05) than the WU condition. Heart rate was significantly higher (p < 0.01) for participants post-WU and -ADS trials compared to the SPS condition. These findings suggest that the superior performance of the dynamic stretch and warm-up-only conditions compared to the static stretch condition may be linked to increases in heart rate. The reasons for the dynamic stretch trial superiority compared to the warm-up condition are less clear and as yet to be established. We recommend for optimal performance, specific dynamic stretches be employed as part of a warm-up, rather than the traditional static stretches.

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

4.4
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