Morgan Melton

Document Type

Presentation

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: A typical warm-up involves some form of stretching depending upon the activity being performed. Stretches can be either dynamic (meaning they involve motion) or static (meaning they involve no motion). Dynamic stretches affect dynamic flexibility and static stretches affect static flexibility (and dynamic flexibility to some degree). Static stretches are designed to hold a position for a joint/muscle that is minimally challenging. Dynamic movement stretches are designed to take a joint/muscle through a challenging and repetitive motion, moving a body part farther with each repetition. Research over the benefits and risks of static and dynamic stretching protocols during warming up are limited and most opinions conflict. Although static stretching is said to be a safe method that will increase range of motion it is also stated to negatively affect strength and power performance. The opposite is said to be true for dynamic movements. Youth coaches and physical education teachers have more recently encouraged dynamic stretching warm-ups prior to exercise. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the differences between static and dynamic stretching on athletic performance in youth. METHODS: Sixteen youth consisting of nine boys (age 9.22 + 0.97 yrs, weight 63.56 ± 3.94 lbs., height 53.89 ± 3.86 in) and six girls (age 9.29 + 1.11 yrs, weight 62.29 ± 6.05 lbs., height 52.29 ± 2.93 in) volunteered to participate in this study. A t-test between groups showed no significant differences in age (p = 0.56), height (p = 0.63) and weight (p = 0.08). Each participant had ankle plantar flexion and dorsiflexion range of motion (ROM), Sit and Reach flexibility, speed, agility and dynamic movement measured. Participants were randomized into two groups (dynamic or static) and performed stretching routine of approximately 25 min every other day for three days during one week. At the end of the week, ROM, speed, agility, and dynamic movement were assessed again. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 19.0 for Windows. Values are expressed as means ± SD. A single factor ANCOVA was used to determine the effect of flexibility training (static, dynamic) on ankle plantar flexion, ankle dorsiflexion, speed, agility and a repeated lunge test when controlling for the pre-test value for each variable. Follow-up tests of significant ANOVA effects were compared using the Sidak post hoc test. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: The static group (2.13 ±1.64 cm) improved significantly more than the dynamic group (-0.5 ±2.45 cm) when measuring for pre to post changes during the Sit and Reach. The static group (4.13 ±2.23 deg) improved significantly more than the dynamic group (1.38 ±1.92 deg) when measuring for changes of ROM in ankle plantar flexion. The static group (4.88 ±2.03 deg) improved significantly more than the dynamic group (1.38 ±1.30 deg) when measuring for changes of ROM in ankle dorsiflexion. No significant differences were observed in the pre to post changes for speed, agility and dynamic movement lunge test. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that static stretching training programs significantly affect ROM in ankle plantar flexion, dorsiflexion and low back and hamstring flexibility as measured by the Sit and Reach test. No significant effects were observed for speed, agility and dynamic movement; however the lunge test was near significance. Results conclude that a three session static training program shows more gains in athletic performance than dynamic in children age 8 to 11 yrs when measuring ankle plantar flexion, ankle dorsiflexion, speed, agility and a repeated lunge.

Disciplines

Kinesiology | Life Sciences

Publication Date

12-1-2013

Download

Included in

Kinesiology Commons

Share

COinS