Effects of a Home-Based Stretching Program on Bench Press Maximum Strength and Shoulder Flexibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research showed significant stretch-mediated maximum strength increases when performing stretching between 5 to 120 minutes per day with the calf muscle. However, since the practical applicability of these long stretching durations was questioned and studies exploring the transferability to the upper body are scarce, the aim of this study was to investigate the possibility of using a home-based stretching program to induce significant increases in maximum strength and flexibility. Therefore, 31 recreationally active participants (intervention group: 18, control group: 13) stretched the pectoralis major for 15min/day for eight weeks, incorporating three different stretching exercises. The maximum strength was tested isometrically and dynamically in the bench press (one-repetition maximum: 1RM) as well as shoulder range of motion (ROM) performing bilateral shoulder rotation with a scaled bar. Using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures, the results showed high magnitude Time effects (ƞ² = 0.388-0.582, p < 0.001) and Group*Time interaction (ƞ² = 0.281-0.53, p < 0.001-0.002), with increases of 7.4 ± 5.6% in 1RM and of 9.8 ± 5.0% in ROM test in the intervention group. In the isometric testing, there was a high-magnitude Time effect (ƞ² = 0.271, p = 0.003), however, the Group*Time interaction failed to reach significance (p = 0.75). The results are in line with previous results that showed stretch-mediated maximum strength increases in the lower extremity. Future research should address the underlying physiological mechanisms such as muscle hypertrophy, contraction conditions as well as pointing out the relevance of intensity, training frequency and stretching duration.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".