Short-Duration Massage at the Hamstrings Musculotendinous Junction Induces Greater Range of Motion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Massage for the purpose of health dates back to early civilization and more recently has been used in the management and prevention of sport injuries. Massage has also been used as part of a warm-up to help increase acute flexibility. However, the physiological benefits and mechanisms of massage are not well known. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effectiveness of 3 massage conditions on hip flexion range of motion (ROM). This experimentation involved a novel massage technique, which focused the massage on the musculotendinous junction for a short duration. Ten recreationally active women ranging from 21 to 36 years in age participated in this study. Participants were subjected to 3 massage conditions (no massage, 10-second massage, and 30-second massage) in a random order on separate days. Hip flexion angle, passive leg tension, and electromyography (EMG) were measured thrice before and within 10 seconds after the intervention. A main effect for conditions was found with the 30-second massage providing a 7.2% increase in hip flexion ROM that was significantly greater than the control condition (p < 0.05). Significant interactions occurred with an increased ROM (p < 0.05) from pre to posttests of 5.9 and 7.2% for the 10- and 30-second massage conditions, respectively. There were no significant differences in passive tension or EMG for any conditions or time. With a significant increase in hip angle and no associated increase in passive tension or EMG, there is a suggestion that 10 and 30 seconds of musculotendinous massage induces greater ROM through a modified stretch perception, increased stretch tolerance, or increased compliance of the hamstrings. Musculotendinous massage may be used as an alternative or a complement to static stretching for increasing ROM.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".