The Effects of High-Intensity, Low-Duration and Low-Intensity, High-Duration Hamstrings Static Stretching on Contralateral Limb Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Increases in contralateral range of motion (ROM) have been shown following acute high-intensity and high-duration static stretching (SS) with no significant change in contralateral force, power, and muscle activation. There are currently no studies comparing the effects of a high-intensity, low-duration (HILD) or low-intensity, high-duration (LIHD) SS on contralateral performance. Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine how HILD and LIHD SS of the dominant leg hamstrings influence contralateral limb performance. Methods: Sixteen trained participants (8 females, 8 males) completed three SS interventions of the dominant leg hamstrings; 1) HILD (6x10s at maximal point of discomfort (POD)), 2) LIHD (6x30s at initial POD), and 3) control. Dominant and non-dominant ROM, maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) forces, muscle activation (electromyography (EMG)), unilateral CMJ and DJ heights were recorded pre-test and 1-minute post-test. Results: There were no significant contralateral ROM or performance changes. Following the HILD condition, the post-test ROM for the stretched leg (110.612.60) exceeded the pre-test (106.09.00) by 4.2% (p=0.008). Similarly, with LIHD, the stretched leg post-test (112.216.50) also exceeded (p=0.06) the pre-test ROM (109.316.20) by 2.6%. There were large magnitude impairments, evidenced by main effects for testing time for force, instantaneous strength, and associated EMG. A significant ROM interaction (p=0.02) showed that with LIHD, the stretched leg significantly (p=0.05) exceeded the contralateral leg by 13.4% post-test. Conclusion: The results showing no significant increase in contralateral ROM with either HILD or LIHD SS suggesting the interventions may not have been effective in promoting crossover effects.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".