The effects of different passive static stretching intensities on recovery from unaccustomed eccentric exercise – a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effects of passive static stretching intensity on recovery from unaccustomed eccentric exercise of right knee extensors was investigated in 30 recreationally active males randomly allocated into 3 groups: high-intensity (70%-80% maximum perceived stretch), low-intensity (30%-40% maximum perceived stretch), and control. Both stretching groups performed 3 sets of passive static stretching exercises of 60 s each for hamstrings, hip flexors, and quadriceps, over 3 consecutive days, post-unaccustomed eccentric exercise. Muscle function (eccentric and isometric peak torque) and blood biomarkers (creatine kinase and C-reactive protein) were measured before (baseline) and after (24, 48, and 72 h) unaccustomed eccentric exercise. Perceived muscle soreness scores were collected immediately (time 0), and after 24, 48, and 72 h postexercise. Statistical time × condition interactions observed only for eccentric peak torque (p = 0.008). Magnitude-based inference analyses revealed low-intensity stretching had most likely, very likely, or likely beneficial effects on perceived muscle soreness (48-72 h and 0-72 h) and eccentric peak torque (baseline-24 h and baseline-72 h), compared with high-intensity stretching. Compared with control, low-intensity stretching had very likely or likely beneficial effects on perceived muscle soreness (0-24 h and 0-72 h), eccentric peak torque (baseline-48 h and baseline-72 h), and isometric peak torque (baseline-72 h). High-intensity stretching had likely beneficial effects on eccentric peak torque (baseline-48 h), but likely had harmful effects on eccentric peak torque (baseline-24 h) and creatine kinase (baseline-48 h and baseline-72 h), compared with control. Therefore, low-intensity stretching is likely to result in small-to-moderate beneficial effects on perceived muscle soreness and recovery of muscle function post-unaccustomed eccentric exercise, but not markers of muscle damage and inflammation, compared with high-intensity or no stretching.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".