Effects of slow dynamic, fast dynamic, and static stretching on recovery of performance, range of motion, balance, and joint position sense in healthy adults

Considering the effects of fatigue on athletic performance and the subsequent increase in the probability of injury, the purpose of this study was to compare the effects of slow dynamic, fast dynamic, and static stretching on the recovery of performance, range of motion (ROM), balance, and joint pos...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation medicine & rehabilitation, 2024-08, Vol.16 (1), p.167-11, Article 167
Hauptverfasser: Daneshjoo, Abdolhamid, Hosseini, Elham, Heshmati, Safoura, Sahebozamani, Mansour, Behm, David George
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Considering the effects of fatigue on athletic performance and the subsequent increase in the probability of injury, the purpose of this study was to compare the effects of slow dynamic, fast dynamic, and static stretching on the recovery of performance, range of motion (ROM), balance, and joint position sense. Fifteen collegiate healthy females were involved in four separate sessions of slow dynamic stretching (SDS), fast dynamic stretching (FDS), static stretching (SS), and control condition (CC; without stretching), in a random order with at least 48 h of rest between sessions. After warming up, the individuals performed ROM, balance, joint position sense (JPS) maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) force as well as countermovement (CMJ) and squat jump (SJ) as pre-tests. After performing the knee fatigue protocol of 4 sets of knee extension and flexion at 60% of 1 repetition maximum (RM) to exhaustion (CC; without stretching) or stretching programs (SDS or FDS or SS), the subjects repeated all the tests at post-test 1 (after 5 min) and post-test 2 (after 60 min). A significantly lower JPS error was detected with SDS while JPS error increased in the SS and control conditions (p 
ISSN:2052-1847
2052-1847
DOI:10.1186/s13102-024-00841-5