The Effects of High-Intensity, Short-Duration and Low-Intensity, Long-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, short-duration (HISD) or low-intensity, long-duration (LILD) SS on contralateral performance. Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine how HISD and LILD SS of the dominant leg hamstrings influence contralateral limb performance. Methods: Sixteen trained participants (eight females, eight males) completed three SS interventions of the dominant leg hamstrings; (1) HISD (6 × 10 s at maximal point of discomfort), (2) LILD (6 × 30 s at initial point of discomfort), and (3) control. Dominant and non-dominant ROM, maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) forces, muscle activation (electromyography (EMG)), and unilateral CMJ and DJ heights were recorded pre-test and 1 min post-test. Results: There were no significant contralateral ROM or performance changes. Following the HISD condition, the post-test ROM for the stretched leg (110.6 ± 12.6°) exceeded the pre-test (106.0 ± 9.0°) by a small magnitude effect of 4.2% (p = 0.008, d = 0.42). With LILD, the stretched leg post-test (112.2 ± 16.5°) exceeded (2.6%, p = 0.06, d = 0.18) the pre-test ROM (109.3 ± 16.2°) by a non-significant, trivial magnitude. 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 LILD, the stretched leg significantly (p = 0.05) exceeded the contralateral leg by 13.4% post-test. Conclusions: The results showing no significant increase in contralateral ROM with either HISD or LILD 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".