An Acute Bout of Static Stretching: Effects on Force and Jumping Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were to examine whether a static stretching (SS) routine decreased isometric force, muscle activation, and jump power while improving range of motion (ROM). Second, the study attempted to compare the duration of the dependent variable changes with the duration of the change in ROM. METHODS: Twelve participants were tested pre- and post- (POST, 30, 60, 90, and 120 min) SS of the quadriceps and plantar flexors (PF) or a similar period of no stretch (control). Measurements during isometric contractions included maximal voluntary force (MVC), evoked contractile properties (peak twitch and tetanus), surface integrated electromyographic (iEMG) activity of the agonist and antagonistic muscle groups, and muscle inactivation as measured by the interpolated twitch technique (ITT). Vertical jump (VJ) measurements included unilateral concentric-only (no countermovement) jump height as well as drop jump height and contact time. ROM associated with seated hip flexion, prone hip extension, and plantar flexion-dorsiflexion was also recorded. RESULTS: After SS, there were significant overall 9.5% and 5.4% decrements in the torque or force of the quadriceps for MVC and ITT, respectively. Force remained significantly decreased for 120 min (10.4%), paralleling significant percentage increases (6%) in sit and reach ROM (120 min). After SS, there were no significant changes in jump performance or PF measures. CONCLUSION: The parallel duration of changes in ROM and quadriceps isometric force might suggest an association between stretch-induced changes in muscle compliance and isometric force output.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".