The Acute Effects of Antagonist Static Stretching on Agonist Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stretching the antagonist muscle to enhance agonist performance has gained considerable attention. However, most studies have focused on one stretching duration. Hence, the aim of this study was to compare varying durations (40-, 80-, and 120-seconds) of antagonist (dorsiflexors) static stretching (SS) on agonist (plantar flexors: PF) muscle performance. In this randomized crossover study, 16 participants (six females) underwent four sessions (40-, 80-, 120-s dorsiflexors SS and control), with pre- and post-intervention measurements of slow (600/s) and fast (2400/s) PF isokinetic, isometric peak torque, total work, stiff leg drop jump (SDJ) performance (height, reactive strength index (RSI) and peak power), and tibialis anterior and soleus electromyography (EMG). Dorsiflexors SS protocol involved 1x40-s (40-s), 2x40-s (80-s), and 3x40-s (120-s). There were no significant pre- to post-intervention changes in any parameter. A main effect for time demonstrated an overall decrease in fast (p < 0.0001, 5.9%, d = 0.24) and slow (p = 0.05, 6.6%, d = 0.24) isokinetic peak torque, total work (p = 0.02, 5.1%, d = 0.20) and all SDJ measures (SDJ height: p = 0.02, 2.7%, d = 0.15, RSI: p < 0.0001, 5.9%, d = 0.23, peak power: p = 0.002, 4.4%, d = 0.22). Soleus EMG decreased from pre- to post-SS after 120-s in both isometric (p = 0.002, 13.6%, d = 0.73) and slow isokinetic (p = 0.002, 12.3%, d = 0.91) peak torque as well as 80-s with slow isokinetic peak torque (p = 0.02, 6.6%, d = 0.75). In summary, different durations of dorsiflexors SS (40-s, 80-s, 120-s) did not significantly influence PF performance. However, deficits associated with a main effect for time suggested possible testing effects as detected with the control condition.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".