Static Stretching Can Impair Explosive Performance for At Least 24 Hours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the effects of static vs. dynamic stretching (DS) on explosive performances and repeated sprint ability (RSA) after a 24-hour delay. Sixteen young male soccer players performed 15 minutes of static stretching (SS), DS, or a no-stretch control condition (CC) 24 hours before performing explosive performances and RSA tests. This was a within-subject repeated measures study with SS, DS, and CC being counterbalanced. Stretching protocols included 2 sets of 7 minutes 30 seconds (2 repetitions of 30 seconds with a 15-second passive recovery) for 5 muscle groups (quadriceps, hamstring, calves, adductors, and hip flexors). Twenty-four hours later (without any kind of stretching in warm-up), the players were tested for the 30-m sprint test (with 10- and 20-m lap times), 5 jump test (5JT), and RSA test. Significant differences were observed between CC, SS, and DS with 5JT (F = 9.99, p < 0.00, effect size [ES] = 0.40), 10-m sprint time (F = 46.52, p < 0.00, ES = 0.76), 20-m sprint time (F = 18.44, p < 0.000, ES = 0.55), and 30-m sprint time (F = 34.25, p < 0.000, ES = 0.70). The significantly better performance (p < 0.05) was observed after DS as compared with that after CC and SS in 5JT, and sprint times for 10, 20, and 30 m. In contrast, significantly worse performance (p < 0.05) was observed after SS as compared with that after CC in 5JT, and sprint times for 10, 20, and 30 m. With RSA, no significant difference was observed between different stretching protocols in the total time (F = 1.55, p > 0.05), average time (F = 1.53, p > 0.05), and fastest time (F = 2.30, p > 0.05), except for the decline index (F = 3.54, p < 0.04, ES = 0.19). Therefore, the SS of the lower limbs and hip muscles had a negative effect on explosive performances up to 24 hours poststretching with no major effects on the RSA. Conversely, the DS of the same muscle groups are highly recommended 24 hours before performing sprint and long-jump performances. In conclusion, the positive effects of DS on explosive performances seem to persist for 24 hours.
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 | 0.001 | 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".