Download Manuscrip

Research in Physical Education, Sport and Health
2014, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 29-33
ISSN(Print):1857-8152; ISSN(Online):1857-8160
ACUTE EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT WARM-UP PROGRAM ON
FLEXIBILITY PERFORMANCE
UDC:796.012.23
796.015.52
(Original scientific paper)
Jelena Obradović, Mila Vukadinović, Milan Pantović, Goran Dimitrić
Faculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Novi Sad, Serbia
Abstract
The athletes use different means and methods, in order to prepare for the activities or contests that
follow. Different methods of warm-up, in the form of static and dynamic stretching, increase the
amplitude range of motion, reduce muscle tension, are used for the prevention of injury and improve
circulation. On the sample of 25 adult males, students of the Faculty of Sport and Physical Education,
age 19 ±6 months, the effects of different warm-up methods were investigated. Manifestation of flexibility
measured with a 6 motor tests. The aim of this study was to determine differences in the manifestation of
flexibility depending on the applied static and dynamic methods of preparation for the work. The
differences were determined by t-test for paired samples. The results show a statistically significant
difference in range of motion after the static and dynamic stretching, and observed acute effects on
increasing flexibility. There was no statistically significant difference in range of motion of joints after
application of static and dynamic stretching methods on the sample.
Key Words: static stretching, dynamic stretching, range of motion of joints
Introduction
Flexibility is a basic motor skill and represents an ability of a man to perform motion with full
amplitude of movement in joints. It can be said that it depends on the mobility of the joints and the
elasticity of the muscles. A range of factors affect the level of flexibility, such as: age, time of day,
temperature, fatigue, fitness, sex, while influence of warm-up is of a particular interest for this study.
Warming-up aims at increasing the temperature of muscles which will be engaged in physical activity.
Stewart & Sleivert (1998) found that skin temperature increases rapidly after 5 to 10 minutes of warm-up.
According to this, it is assumed that warm-up exercises increase the temperature of the skin, as well as
body temperature, and thereby increase the effect of the muscle stretching.
Performing stretching during warm-up represents preparing of the body for the activities that follow.
Stretching is commonly used to increase the range of motion in the joints (Ferber,Ostering & Gravelle,
2002; Harvey, Herbert,& Crosbie, 2002). There are various speculations regarding when to implement the
stretching within the musculature warm-up. Maffetone (1999) states that stretching should be carried out
during the main part of the training, while O'Connor & Hurley (2003) conclude that it should be carried at
the end of the training, because it causes a state of relaxation which is not desirable at the beginning of a
training.
The combination of warm-up and static stretching at the beginning of training significantly increases
the mobility of knee joint for 10.3° (extension of knee in straight-leg forward), ankle (plantar flexion of
foot is increased) and lumbar spine (De Weijer, Gorniak, & Shamus, 2003; Beedle & Mann, 2007). Static
stretching as an independent method of warm-up at the start of training produces statistically significantly
better effects on the mobility of joints than dynamic stretching (O'Sullivan, Murray,& Sainsbury, 2009).
Opposite results were obtained by Aguilar et al. (2012). Authors suggest that the dynamic method of
warm-up at the start of training achieved better effect on the mobility of joints compared to static warmup. Different results suggest that further analysis is needed.
Subject of research are the effects of different warm-up methods (static and dynamic stretching) in the
introductory part of the class on the flexibility of the participants. The aim of the study was to determine
www.pesh.mk
29
ACUTE EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT WARM-UP PROGRAM …
the acute effects of different warm-up methods (static and dynamic stretching), the maximum range of
motion (ROM) in certain joints (hip, shoulder, hands and feet) in participants. Then, to determine whether
there is a difference between the ranges of motion after application of static and dynamic stretching.
Material & methods
Participants
The sample consisted of 25 male students of the Faculty of Sport and Physical Education in Novi Sad,
aged 19 years ± 6 months. Testing took place during regular school classes on the course of
Anthropomotorics in the hall of the Faculty. Microclimate suited test conditions. All participants agreed
to voluntarily participate in the experiment and were informed in advance of the experimental protocol
described below.
Procedure
Static stretching as a form of warm-up (SS) consisted of 6 exercises. The exercises focused on muscle
groups that comprise the joint for which the maximum range of motion was measured. Each exercise took
1 x 30 seconds. Exercises performed were: 1) Lifting right leg on the bench, arms up; 1-lateral circle
forward, deep forward bend; 2) Perpendicular position with both feet, arms up; 1-deep forward bend; 3)
Small straddle position, forearms leaned against a wall, dorsal flexion of the foot; 4) Front lying position,
arms against the body; 1-arms behind the body; 5)Sitting with both feet, arms forward (bat in hands),
palms placed slightly wider than shoulder width; 1-arms up; 6) Kneeling with hands on the ground,
fingers facing knees, thumbs out ; 1-leaning backward, keeping your palms on the ground.
Dynamic stretching as a form of warm-up consisted of the same exercises. Each exercise was repeated
12 times.
Test protocol
Maximum ranges of motion (ROM) in certain joints (hip, shoulder, hands and feet)was measured in
students at the beginning of the class, and then again immediately after static stretching as warm-up
method. After 5 days, the same procedure was applied, but the participants practiced dynamic stretching
method.
Instruments
Flexibility of the participants was measured by motor tests: straight-leg forward from lying on the
back (SFB) – hip joint; forward bend on the bench (DB); dorsal flexion of the foot (DFF); lying anterior
on the Swedish box, arms behind the body (ABBL); sitting on both feet with arms up (AUS); dorsal
flexion of wrist (DFW). The maximum range of motion of the wrist, which was manifested in motor tests,
was measured by goniometer except in the case of forward bend on the bench.
Statistical analysis
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality of the distribution shows that the results at the initial
measurements, after static and dynamic stretching are normally distributed (p>0.05). The differences
between the initial and final measurements (after static and dynamic stretching) were determined by Ttest for dependent samples. The difference between the final measurements (after static and dynamic
stretching) was also determined by T-test for dependent samples, and also between the differences
obtained.
Results
Table 1 shows the results of the differences between the initial measurements and immediately after
static stretching as a method of warm-up.
Table 2 shows the results of the differences between the initial measurements and immediately after
dynamic stretching as a method of warm-up.
Table 3 shows the results of the differences between static and dynamic stretching as a method of
warm-up in participants.
Table 4 shows the differences between the obtained differences between the initial measurement and
after static stretching, and also between the initial measurement and after dynamic stretching. For each
30
www.pesh.mk
J. Obradović et al.
participant the difference was calculated by subtracting the results obtained at the initial measurement of
the results achieved after static or dynamic stretching.
Table 1 The difference between the initial and final measurements (after static stretching)
Variables
SFB (°)
DB (cm)
DFF (°)
AUS (°)
ABBL (°)
DFW (°)
AS1
84,68
48,24
47,32
195,88
82,80
108,24
AS2
91,31
51,96
53,00
206,28
93,36
109,68
r
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,03
t
-5,31
-5,43
-4,42
-4,44
-6,77
-0,61
p
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,54
Legend: AS1 - arithmetic mean of the initial measurement; AS2 - arithmetic mean after static stretching, r - the statistical significance of the
Pearson correlation coefficient (p<0.05), t - value of t test; p - statistical significance of the t - test (p<0.05)
Table 2 The difference between the initial and final measurements (after dynamic stretching)
Variables
SFB (°)
DB (cm)
DFF (°)
AUS (°)
ABBL (°)
DFW (°)
AS1
84,68
48,24
47,32
195,88
82,80
108,24
AS2
91,56
52,08
51,72
201,80
93,50
110,24
r
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,25
0,00
0,20
t
-6,46
-6,13
-3,58
-2,52
-6,35
-0,78
p
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,01
0,00
0,44
Legend: AS1 - arithmetic mean of the initial measurement; AS2 - arithmetic mean after dynamic stretching, r - the statistical significance of the
Pearson correlation coefficient (p<0.05), t - value of t test; p - statistical significance of the t - test (p<0.05)
Table 3 The difference between the results of static and dynamic stretching
Variables
SFB (°)
DB (cm)
DFF (°)
AUS (°)
ABBL (°)
DFW (°)
AS1
91,32
51,96
53,00
206,28
93,36
109,68
AS2
91,56
52,08
51,72
201,80
93,52
110,24
r
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
t
-0,22
-0,27
1,59
1,81
-0,58
-0,13
P
0,82
0,78
0,12
0,08
0,56
0,89
Legend: AS1 - arithmetic meanafter static stretching; AS2 - arithmetic mean after dynamic stretching, r - the statistical significance of the
Pearson correlation coefficient (p<0.05), t - value of t test; p - statistical significance of the t - test (p<0.05)
Table 4 The difference between the obtained differences at the initial and final measurement (after static and
dynamic stretching) on a given sample
Variables
SFB (°)
DB (cm)
DFF (°)
AUS (°)
ABBL (°)
DFW (°)
AS1
6,24
3,68
5,68
10,40
10,56
1,44
AS2
6,88
3,76
4,40
5,92
10,72
2,00
r
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
t
-0,61
-0,17
1,59
1,81
-0,13
-0,58
P
0,54
0,86
0,12
0,08
0,89
O,56
Legend: AS1 - arithmetic meanafter static stretching; AS2 - arithmetic mean after dynamic stretching, r - the statistical significance of the
Pearson correlation coefficient (p<0.05), t - value of t test; p - statistical significance of the t - test (p<0.05)
Discussion
The analysis of Table 1 shows that there is a statistically significant difference (p<0.05) between the
initial measurement and after static stretching as a form of warm-up, in the ROM at the hip, shoulder and
ankle joint. Regarding wrist, no statistically significant difference was obtained between the initial
www.pesh.mk
31
ACUTE EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT WARM-UP PROGRAM …
measurement and after static stretch. By interpretation of the t-test it can be observed that in all the
variables (SFB, DB, DFF, ABBL, AUS and DFW) better results were obtained during the second
measurement (after static stretching). ROM of the hip joint after static stretching was increased in average
for 6.63º. These results are in line with the results obtained by Harvey, et al. (2002); Davis, Ashby,
McCale, McQuain,& Wine (2005). The authors believe that static stretching for 30 seconds significantly
increases the range of motion of the knee joint and the hip in a short period of time. Harvey, et al. (2002)
in a review of the literature suggest that ROM in joints increases after static stretching by 8°. Opposite
results were obtained by Aguilar, et al.(2012) who concluded that static stretching does not show
significant acute effects on increasing ROM at the hip joint. Their experimental protocol, and the method
of testing is different from the procedure specified in this document, and it is difficult to compare the
results. Radford, Landorf, Buchbinder,& Cook (2007) reported that static stretching of muscles at the
beginning of training increases flexibility of dorsal flexion of the ankle joint, which is contrary to the
results obtained in our study(p>0.05).
The analysis of Table 2 shows that there is a statistically significant difference (p<0.05) between the
initial measurement and after dynamic stretching as a method of warm-up regarding the maximum range
of motion in the hip, shoulder and ankle joint. Regarding the wrist joint no significant difference was
obtained between the initial measurement and after dynamic stretching (p>0.05). Dynamic stretching is
observed to increase ROM in the hip, shoulder, ankle and wrist joint. Samson, Button, Chaouachi,&
Behm (2012) explored the dynamic and static stretching during warm-up and the results show that the
dynamic method increases flexibility by 4.27° but not as good as static method, where the increase is
11.42°. Turki-Belkhiria, et al.(2014) found that there is a lack of research on the dynamic stretching and
its acute effects on the ROM of the joints. The authors used two methods of stretching: active dynamic
stretching (ADS) and passive dynamic stretching (PDS) in an experiment that lasts 8 weeks. The results
show that ADS and PDS cause similar effects in improving flexibility (ADS 45, 1 %, PDS 57, 6 %).
Interpretation of Table 3 shows that there is no statistically significant difference in the ROM of the
hip, shoulder, wrist and ankle joint between static stretching and dynamic, as warming-up methods.
Results coincide with the results obtained by Beedle & Mann (2007); Perrier, Pavol,& Hoffman, 2011.
By analyzing Table 4 it can be seen that there is no difference between the obtained differences
between the initial measurement both after static stretching and after dynamic stretching, regarding the
maximum range of motion of joints.
Conclusions
Stretching (static and dynamic) as a method of warming-up leads to an increase in the maximum
range of motion in certain joints (hip, shoulder, ankle and wrist joints). When warming-up at the
beginning of the class, it is not essential which method of stretching (static or dynamic) will be practiced
because both methods generate the same acute effect on the mobility of the joints. Since we have obtained
the same acute effects on the flexibility of the participants, it is necessary to pay attention to how
stretching as a warming-up method affects the activities that are practiced in the main part of the class or
training. Static stretching as a method of warming-up leads to passive muscle relaxation due to reduced
neural activity, resulting in a decrease of physical activities in which muscular strength, speed and power
are exhibited (Evetovich, Numan, Conley,& Todd, 2003). In contrast to the static, dynamic stretching
during warm-up causes an increase in body temperature along with greater neural activity. Muscles are
warmed-up through movement, which will allow better demonstration of skills during the activity that
follows. Fatigue must be avoided during dynamic stretching, as it will affect the ability of the muscle to
generate sufficient force during the relevant activities, and will cause reduction of the elastic capabilities
of muscle. New research and results dealing with stretching and warm-up are necessary so through
implementation in the form of the periodization plan of sport training and competition, expected results
could be reached.
References
Aguilar, A.J., DiStefano, L.J., Brown, C.N., Herman, D.C., Guskiewicz, K.M., & Padua, D.A. (2012). A dynamic warm-up
model increases quadriceps strength and hamstring flexibility. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26 (4), 11301141.
Beedle, B.B., & Mann, C.L. (2007). A comparison of two warm-ups on joint range of motion. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 21 (3), 776-779.
32
www.pesh.mk
J. Obradović et al.
Davis, D.S., Ashby, P.E., McCale, K.L., McQuain, J.A, & Wine, J.M. (2003). The effectiveness of 3 stretching techiques on
hamstring fexibility using consistent strething parameters. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19 (1), 27-32.
De Weijer V.C, Gorniak G.C, & Shamus E. (2003). The effect of static stretch and warm-up exercise on hamstring length over
the course of 24 hours. Journal for Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 33 (12), 727-733.
Evtovich, T.K., Nauman, N.J., Conley, D.S, & Todd, J.B. Effect of static stretching of the biceps brachii on torque,
electromiyography, and mechanomyogrphy during concentric isokinetic muscle action. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 17 (2), 484-488.
Ferber, R., Ostering, L., & Gravelle, D. (2002). Effect of PNF stretch techniques on knee flexor muscle EMG activity in older
adults. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 12 (5), 391-397.
Harvey, L., Herbert, R., & Crosbie, J. (2002). Does stretching induce lasting increases in joint ROM?. Physiotherapy Research
International: the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy, 7 (1), 1-13.
Maffetone, P. (1999). Complementary Sport Medicine. Human Kinetics.
O’Connor, R., & Hurley, D.A. (2003). The effectiveness of physiotherapeutic interventions in the magnitude of delayed onset
muscle soreness: A systematic review. Physical Therapy Reviews, 8, 177-195.
O'Sullivan, K., Murray, E., & Sainsbury, D. (2009). The effect of warm-up, static stretching and dynamic stretching on hamstring
flexibility in previously injured subjects. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 10:30.
Perrier, E.T., Pavol, M.J., Hoffman, M.A., (2011) The acute effects of a warm-up including static or dynamic stretching on
countermovement jump height, reaction time, and flexibility. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25 (7), 19251931.
Radford, J., Landorf, K., Buchbinder, R., & Cook, C. (2007). Effectiveness of calf muscle stretching for the short-term treatment
of plantar heel pain.BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 8:36.
Stewart, I.B., & Sleivert G.G. (1998). The effect of warm-up intensity on rage of motion and anaerobic performance. The Journal
of orthopedic and sports physical therapy, 27 (2), 154-161.
Samson, M., Button, D.C., Chaouachi, A, & Behm, D.G. (2012). Effects of dynamic and static stretching within general and
activity specific warm-up protocols. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 11, 279-285.
Turki – Belkhiria, L., Chaouachi, A., Turki, O., Chtourou, H., Chtara, M., Chamari, K., & Amri, M., Behm, D.G. (2014). Eight
weeks of dynamic stretching during warm-ups improves jump power but not repeated or single sprint performance.
European journal of sport science, 14 (1), 19-27.
Corresponding Author
Mila Vukadinović
Faculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Novi Sad
Novi Sad,
Serbia,
E-mail: [email protected]
www.pesh.mk
33
ACUTE EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT WARM-UP PROGRAM …
34
www.pesh.mk