Cross Education Training Effects are Evident with Twice Daily, Self-Administered Band Stretch Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently there are recommendations for stretching type, repetitions and duration within a training session to improve flexibility. It is, however, unclear whether multiple daily stretch training sessions provide greater flexibility than single daily sessions. The objective was to investigate the effectiveness of single (1×day) versus twice daily (2×day) unilateral stretch training sessions on hip flexion range of motion (ROM), agonist and antagonist force and jump performance of the stretched and contralateral, non-stretched legs. Groups included a control, 1×day and 2×day stretch training groups. Static stretching (SS) involved self-administered (stretch band), unilateral, hamstrings and quadriceps stretching for 2-weeks. Pre- and post-testing involved hip flexion ROM, knee extension and flexion maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) forces and unilateral drop jumps (DJ). The 2×day group showed a 12.8% (p = 0.08) greater active ROM versus Control. The 1×day group showed a 7.5% (p=0.1) ballistic ROM increase with no significant changes with the 2×day and Control groups. The stretched leg experienced a 5.01% (p = 0.1) hip flexion ballistic ROM increase contrasting with a 2.3% increase for the contralateral leg. Twice daily training provided 7.1% (p = 0.07) and 6.6% (p = 0.01) quadriceps MVC force increases of the stretched trained and contralateral legs respectively. Contralateral DJ height improved 22.6% (p = 0.002) with 2×day training. In conclusion, 1xday and 2×day stretch training tended to improved ballistic and active ROM respectively, whereas 2×day training improved MVIC force and DJ height. The findings may apply to fitness enthusiasts and rehabilitation as unilateral stretching may retain performance and active ROM of the stretched and contralateral limbs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".