Aerobic activity before and following short-duration static stretching improves range of motion and performance vs. a traditional warm-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many activities necessitate a high degree of static joint range of motion (ROM) for an extended duration. The objective of this study was to examine whether ROM could be improved with a short duration and volume of static stretching within a warm-up, without negatively impacting performance. Ten male recreationally active participants completed 2 separate protocols to examine changes in ROM and performance, respectively, with different warm-ups. The warm-up conditions for the ROM protocol were static stretching (SS), consisting of 6 repetitions of 6 s stretches; 10 min of running prior to the SS (AS); and 5 min of running before and after the SS (ASA). The performance protocol included a control condition of 10 min of running. Measures for the ROM protocol included hip flexion ROM, passive leg extensor tension, and hamstring electromyographic (EMG) activity at pre-warm-up, and at 1, 10, 20, and 30 min post-warm-up. Performance measures included countermovement jump (CMJ) height, reaction time (RT), movement time (MT), and balance at pre-warm-up and at 1 and 10 min post-warm-up. The ASA produced greater ROM overall than the SS and AS conditions (p < 0.0001), persisting for 30 min. There were no significant alterations in passive muscle tension or EMG. For the performance protocol, there were no main effects for condition, but there was a main effect for time, with CMJ height being greater at 1 and 10 min post-warm-up (p = 0.0004). Balance ratios and MT improved at 10 min post-warm-up (p < 0.0001). Results indicate that the ASA method can provide ROM improvements for 30 min with either facilitation or no impairment in performance. This may be especially important for athletes who substitute later into a game with minimal time for a full warm-up.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".