Secondary Logo

Share this article on:

FLETCHER IAIN M.; JONES, BETHAN
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: November 2004
ORIGINAL RESEARCH: PDF Only

ABSTRACTThe purpose of this study was to determine the effect of different static and dynamic stretch protocols on 20-m sprint performance. The 97 male rugby union players were assigned randomly to 4 groups: passive static stretch (PSS; n = 28), active dynamic stretch (ADS; n = 22), active static stretch (ASST; n = 24), and static dynamic stretch (SDS; n = 23). All groups performed a standard 10-minute jog warm-up, followed by two 20-m sprints. The 20-m sprints were then repeated after subjects had performed different stretch protocols. The PSS and ASST groups had a significant increase in sprint time (p ≤ 0.05), while the ADS group had a significant decrease in sprint time (p ≤ 0.05). The decrease in sprint time, observed in the SDS group, was found to be nonsignificant (p ≥ 0.05). The decrease in performance for the 2 static stretch groups was attributed to an increase in the musculotendinous unit (MTU) compliance, leading to a decrease in the MTU ability to store elastic energy in its eccentric phase. The reason why the ADS group improved performance is less clear, but could be linked to the rehearsal of specific movement patterns, which may help increase coordination of subsequent movement. It was concluded that static stretching as part of a warm-up may decrease short sprint performance, whereas active dynamic stretching seems to increase 20-m sprint performance.

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of different static and dynamic stretch protocols on 20-m sprint performance. The 97 male rugby union players were assigned randomly to 4 groups: passive static stretch (PSS; n = 28), active dynamic stretch (ADS; n = 22), active static stretch (ASST; n = 24), and static dynamic stretch (SDS; n = 23). All groups performed a standard 10-minute jog warm-up, followed by two 20-m sprints. The 20-m sprints were then repeated after subjects had performed different stretch protocols. The PSS and ASST groups had a significant increase in sprint time (p ≤ 0.05), while the ADS group had a significant decrease in sprint time (p ≤ 0.05). The decrease in sprint time, observed in the SDS group, was found to be nonsignificant (p ≥ 0.05). The decrease in performance for the 2 static stretch groups was attributed to an increase in the musculotendinous unit (MTU) compliance, leading to a decrease in the MTU ability to store elastic energy in its eccentric phase. The reason why the ADS group improved performance is less clear, but could be linked to the rehearsal of specific movement patterns, which may help increase coordination of subsequent movement. It was concluded that static stretching as part of a warm-up may decrease short sprint performance, whereas active dynamic stretching seems to increase 20-m sprint performance.

Address correspondence to Iain M. Fletcher, i.fletcher@herts.ac.uk.

© 2004 National Strength and Conditioning Association