Maximal strength, number of repetitions , and total volume are differently affected by static-ballistic, and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching


Autoria(s): Silva, Renato Barroso da; Tricoli, Valmor Alberto Augusto; Gil, Saulo dos Santos; Ugrinowitsch, Carlos; Roschel, Hamilton
Contribuinte(s)

UNIVERSIDADE DE SÃO PAULO

Data(s)

20/09/2013

20/09/2013

01/09/2012

Resumo

Barroso, R, Tricoli, V, dos Santos Gil, S, Ugrinowitsch, C, and Roschel, H. Maximal strength, number of repetitions, and total volume are differently affected by static-, ballistic-, and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching. J Strength Cond Res 26(9): 2432-2437, 2012-Stretching exercises have been traditionally incorporated into warm-up routines before training sessions and sport events. However, the effects of stretching on maximal strength and strength endurance performance seem to depend on the type of stretching employed. The objective of this study was to compare the effects of static stretching (SS), ballistic stretching (BS), and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching on maximal strength, number of repetitions at a submaximal load, and total volume (i.e., number of repetitions 3 external load) in a multiple-set resistance training bout. Twelve strength-trained men (20.4 +/- 4.5 years, 67.9 +/- 6.3 kg, 173.3 +/- 8.5 cm) volunteered to participate in this study. All of the subjects completed 8 experimental sessions. Four experimental sessions were designed to test maximal strength in the leg press (i.e., 1 repetition maximum [1RM]) after each stretching condition (SS, BS, PNF, or no-stretching [NS]). During the other 4 sessions, the number of repetitions performed at 80% 1RM was assessed after each stretching condition. All of the stretching protocols significantly improved the range of motion in the sit-and-reach test when compared with NS. Further, PNF induced greater changes in the sit-and-reach test than BS did (4.7 +/- 1.6, 2.9 +/- 1.5, and 1.9 +/- 1.4 cm for PNF, SS, and BS, respectively). Leg press 1RM values were decreased only after the PNF condition (5.5%, p < 0.001). All the stretching protocols significantly reduced the number of repetitions (SS: 20.8%, p < 0.001; BS: 17.8%, p = 0.01; PNF: 22.7%, p < 0.001) and total volume (SS: 20.4%, p < 0.001; BS: 17.9%, p = 0.01; PNF: 22.4%, p < 0.001) when compared with NS. The results from this study suggest that, to avoid a decrease in both the number of repetitions and total volume, stretching exercises should not be performed before a resistance training session. Additionally, strength-trained individuals may experience reduced maximal dynamic strength after PNF stretching.

Identificador

JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH, PHILADELPHIA, v. 26, n. 9, pp. 2432-2437, SEP, 2012

1064-8011

http://www.producao.usp.br/handle/BDPI/33555

10.1519/JSC.0b013e31823f2b4d

http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31823f2b4d

Idioma(s)

eng

Publicador

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS

PHILADELPHIA

Relação

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Direitos

restrictedAccess

Copyright LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS

Palavras-Chave #TRAINING #SKELETAL MUSCLE #RANGE OF MOTION #STRUCTURES IN-VIVO #MUSCLE STRENGTH #PASSIVE STRETCH #MULTIPLE SETS #POWER OUTPUT #PEAK TORQUE #PERFORMANCE #RESISTANCE #EXERCISE #SINGLE #SPORT SCIENCES
Tipo

article

original article

publishedVersion