Effect of participants’ static stretching knowledge or deception on the responses to prolonged stretching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much of the static stretching (SS) literature reports performance impairments with prolonged SS. However, it has been acknowledged that a limitation of these studies is participants' knowledge or bias. Since many participants have knowledge of the literature, their performance may be subconsciously influenced by expectations. Hence, the objective of this study was to examine the effect of stretching knowledge or deception on subsequent force output following SS. Two groups of male participants who were either aware (BIASED: 14) or unaware (DECEPTION: 14) of the SS literature participated. Unaware participants were misinformed that SS increases force production. Testing involved maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVC) of the quadriceps and hamstrings at pre-, post-, and 5 min post-intervention (three 30-s passive hamstring stretches to the point of discomfort with 30-s rest intervals) or control. While the DECEPTION group displayed impaired knee flexion force (p = 0.04; 3.6% and 10.4%) following hamstrings SS, there was no significant impairment with the BIASED (-1.1% and +0.9%) group. Both groups exhibited hamstrings F200 (force produced in the first 200 ms) impairments following SS. Whereas BIASED participants exhibited an overall decrease (p < 0.05; 1.8% and 4.2%) in knee extension MVC, DECEPTION participants showed (p = 0.005; 8.8% and 5.1%) force increases. The quadriceps F200 was not significantly affected with the BIASED group but overall there were 4.5% and 8.7% F200 impairments at 1 and 5 min post-intervention (p = 0.05) with the DECEPTION group. Thus while deception resulted in enhanced quadriceps muscle force output, there was no knowledge or deception advantage when stretching the hamstrings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".