A Comparison of Assisted and Unassisted Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Techniques and Static Stretching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comparison of assisted and unassisted proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation techniques and static stretching. J Strength Cond Res 26(5): 1238-1244, 2012-Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching often requires a partner. Straps are available allowing an individual to perform PNF stretching alone. It is not known if a strap provides similar improvements in the range of motion (ROM) as partner-assisted PNF or static stretching. The purpose of this study was to compare assisted and unassisted (with a strap) PNF stretching and static stretching. Hip joint ROM, reaction time (RT), and movement time (MT) were measured prestretching and poststretching. Thirteen recreationally active adults participated in this study. The participants were subjected to 5 different stretch interventions in a random order on separate days. Stretch conditions included unassisted PNF stretching using (a) isometric, (b) concentric, and (c) eccentric contractions with a stretch strap, (d) partner-assisted isometric PNF, and (e) static stretching. The RT, MT, dynamic, active, passive hip flexion angle, and angular velocity with dynamic hip flexion were measured before and after the intervention. The ROM improved (p < 0.05) 2.6, 2.7, and 5.4%, respectively, with dynamic, active static, and passive static ROM, but there was no significant difference between the stretching protocols. There was a main effect for time (p < 0.05) with all stretching conditions negatively impacting dynamic angular velocity (9.2%). Although there was no significant effect on RT, MT showed a negative main effect for time (p < 0.05) slowing 3.4%. In conclusion, it was found that all 3 forms of active stretching provided similar improvements in the ROM and poststretching performance decrements in MT and angular velocity. Thus, individuals can implement PNF stretching techniques with a partner or alone with a strap to improve ROM, but athletes should not use these techniques before important competitions or training because of the impairment of limb velocity and MT.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".