Explore the vast range of titles available.

An objective of a warm-up prior to an athletic event is to optimize performance. Warm-ups are typically composed of a submaximal aerobic activity, stretching and a sport-specific activity. The stretching portion traditionally incorporated static stretching. However, there are a myriad of studies demonstrating static stretch-induced performance impairments. More recently, there are a substantial number of articles with no detrimental effects associated with prior static stretching. The lack of impairment may be related to a number of factors. These include static stretching that is of short duration (<90 s total) with a stretch intensity less than the point of discomfort. Other factors include the type of performance test measured and implemented on an elite athletic or trained middle aged population. Static stretching may actually provide benefits in some cases such as slower velocity eccentric contractions, and contractions of a more prolonged duration or stretch-shortening cycle. Dynamic stretching has been shown to either have no effect or may augment subsequent performance, especially if the duration of the dynamic stretching is prolonged. Static stretching used in a separate training session can provide health related range of motion benefits. Generally, a warm-up to minimize impairments and enhance performance should be composed of a submaximal intensity aerobic activity followed by large amplitude dynamic stretching and then completed with sport-specific dynamic activities. Sports that necessitate a high degree of static flexibility should use short duration static stretches with lower intensity stretches in a trained population to minimize the possibilities of impairments.

Background The current literature on the chronic effects of static stretching (SS) exercises on muscle strength and power is unclear and controversial. Objective We aimed to examine the chronic effects of SS exercises on muscle strength and power as well as flexibility in healthy individuals across the lifespan. Design Systematic review with meta-analysis of (randomized) controlled trials. Data Sources A systematic literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and SPORTDiscus up to May 2022. Eligibility Criteria for Selecting Studies We included studies that investigated the chronic effects of SS exercises on at least one muscle strength and power outcome compared to an active/passive control group or the contralateral leg (i.e., using between- or within-study designs, respectively) in healthy individuals, irrespective of age, sex, and training status. Results The main findings of 41 studies indicated trivial-to-small positive effects of chronic SS exercises on muscle strength (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.21, [95% confidence interval 0.10–0.32], p  = 0.001) and power (SMD = 0.19, 95% confidence interval 0.12–0.26], p  < 0.001). For flexibility, moderate-to-large increases were observed (SMD = 0.96, [95% confidence interval 0.70–1.22], p  < 0.001). Subgroup analyses, taking the participants’ training status into account, revealed a larger muscle strength improvement for sedentary (SMD = 0.58, p  < 0.001) compared with recreationally active participants (SMD = 0.16, p  = 0.029). Additionally, larger flexibility gains were observed following passive (SMD = 0.97, p  < 0.001) compared with active SS exercises (SMD = 0.59, p  = 0.001). The chronic effects of SS on muscle strength were moderated by the proportion of female individuals in the sample ( β  = 0.004, p  = 0.042), with higher proportions experiencing larger gains. Other moderating variables included mean age ( β  = 0.011, p  < 0.001), with older individuals showing larger muscle strength gains, and the number of repetitions per stretching exercise and session ( β  = 0.023, p  = 0.004 and β  = 0.013, p  = 0.008, respectively), with more repetitions associated with larger muscle strength improvements. Muscle power was also moderated by mean age ( β  = 0.006, p  = 0.007) with larger gains in older individuals. The meta-regression analysis indicated larger flexibility gains with more repetitions per session ( β  = 0.094, p  = 0.016), more time under stretching per session ( β  = 0.090, p  = 0.026), and more total time under stretching ( β  = 0.078, p  = 0.034). Conclusions The main findings indicated that chronic SS exercises have the potential to improve muscle strength and power. Such improvements appear to benefit sedentary more than recreationally active participants. Likewise, chronic SS exercises result in a marked enhancement in flexibility with larger effects of passive, as compared with active, SS. The results of the meta-regression analysis for muscle strength indicated larger benefits of chronic SS exercises in samples with higher proportions of female, older participants, and a higher number of repetitions per stretching exercise and session. For muscle power, results suggested larger gains for older participants. Regarding flexibility, findings indicated larger benefits following a higher number of repetitions per exercise and a longer time under stretching per session as well as a longer total time under stretching.

Background A single foam-rolling exercise can acutely increase the range of motion (ROM) of a joint. However, to date the adaptational effects of foam-rolling training over several weeks on joint ROM are not well understood. Objective The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effects of foam-rolling training interventions on joint ROM in healthy participants. Methods Results were assessed from 11 studies (either controlled trials [CT] or randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) and 46 effect sizes by applying a random-effect meta-analysis. Moreover, by applying a mixed-effect model, we performed subgroup analyses, which included comparisons of the intervention duration (≤ 4 weeks vs > 4 weeks), comparisons between muscles tested (e.g., hamstrings vs quadriceps vs triceps surae), and study designs (RCT vs CT). Results Our main analysis of 290 participants with a mean age of 23.9 (± 6.3 years) indicated a moderate effect of foam-rolling training on ROM increases in the experimental compared to the control group (ES = 0.823; Z  = 3.237; 95% CI 0.325–1.322; p  = 0.001; I 2  = 72.76). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant differences between study designs ( p  = 0.36). However, a significant difference was observed in the intervention duration in favor of interventions > 4 weeks compared to ≤ 4 weeks for ROM increases ( p  = 0.049). Moreover, a further subgroup analysis showed significant differences between the muscles tested ( p  = 0.047) in the eligible studies. Foam rolling increased joint ROM when applied to hamstrings and quadriceps, while no improvement in ankle dorsiflexion was observed when foam rolling was applied to triceps surae. Conclusion Longer duration interventions (> 4 weeks) are needed to induce ROM gains while there is evidence that responses are muscle or joint specific. Future research should examine possible mechanisms underpinning ROM increases following different foam-rolling protocols, to allow for informed recommendations in healthy and clinical populations.

Whereas a variety of pre-exercise activities have been incorporated as part of a “warm-up” prior to work, combat, and athletic activities for millennia, the inclusion of static stretching (SS) within a warm-up has lost favor in the last 25 years. Research emphasized the possibility of SS-induced impairments in subsequent performance following prolonged stretching without proper dynamic warm-up activities. Proposed mechanisms underlying stretch-induced deficits include both neural (i.e., decreased voluntary activation, persistent inward current effects on motoneuron excitability) and morphological (i.e., changes in the force–length relationship, decreased Ca2+ sensitivity, alterations in parallel elastic component) factors. Psychological influences such as a mental energy deficit and nocebo effects could also adversely affect performance. However, significant practical limitations exist within published studies, e.g., long-stretching durations, stretching exercises with little task specificity, lack of warm-up before/after stretching, testing performed immediately after stretch completion, and risk of investigator and participant bias. Recent research indicates that appropriate durations of static stretching performed within a full warm-up (i.e., aerobic activities before and task-specific dynamic stretching and intense physical activities after SS) have trivial effects on subsequent performance with some evidence of improved force output at longer muscle lengths. For conditions in which muscular force production is compromised by stretching, knowledge of the underlying mechanisms would aid development of mitigation strategies. However, these mechanisms are yet to be perfectly defined. More information is needed to better understand both the warm-up components and mechanisms that contribute to performance enhancements or impairments when SS is incorporated within a pre-activity warm-up.

PurposeStretching and foam rolling are common warm-up exercises and can acutely increase the range of motion (ROM) of a joint. However, possible differences in the magnitude of change on ROM between these two interventions on the immediate and prolonged effects (e.g., 10 min after the intervention) are not yet well understood. Thus, the purpose of this review was to compare the immediate and prolonged effects of a single bout of foam rolling with a single bout of stretching on ROM in healthy participants.MethodsIn total, 20 studies with overall 38 effect sizes were found to be eligible for a meta-analysis. For the main analysis, subgroup analysis, we applied a random-effect meta-analysis, mixed-effect model, respectively. The subgroup analyses included age groups, sex, and activity levels of the participants, as well as the tested muscles, the duration of the application, and the study design.ResultsMeta-analyses revealed no significant differences between a single stretching and foam rolling exercise immediately after the interventions (ES = 0.079; P = 0.39) nor a difference 10 min (ES =  − 0.051; P = 0.65), 15 min (ES =  − 0.011; P = 0.93), and 20 min (ES =  − 0.161; P = 0.275) post-intervention. Moreover, subgroup analyses revealed no other significant differences between the acute effects of stretching and foam rolling (P > 0.05).ConclusionIf the goal is to increase the ROM acutely, both interventions can be considered as equally effective. Likely, similar mechanisms are responsible for the acute and prolonged ROM increases such as increased stretch tolerance or increased soft-tissue compliance.

Increasing muscle strength and cross-sectional area is of crucial importance to improve or maintain physical function in musculoskeletal rehabilitation and sports performance. Decreases in muscular performance are experienced in phases of reduced physical activity or immobilization. These decrements highlight the need for alternative, easily accessible training regimens for a sedentary population to improve rehabilitation and injury prevention routines. Commonly, muscle hypertrophy and strength increases are associated with resistance training, typically performed in a training facility. Mechanical tension, which is usually induced with resistance machines and devices, is known to be an important factor that stimulates the underlying signaling pathways to enhance protein synthesis. Findings from animal studies suggest an alternative means to induce mechanical tension to enhance protein synthesis, and therefore muscle hypertrophy by inducing high-volume stretching. Thus, this narrative review discusses mechanical tension-induced physiological adaptations and their impact on muscle hypertrophy and strength gains. Furthermore, research addressing stretch-induced hypertrophy is critically analyzed. Derived from animal research, the stretching literature exploring the impact of static stretching on morphological and functional adaptations was reviewed and critically discussed. No studies have investigated the underlying physiological mechanisms in humans yet, and thus the underlying mechanisms remain speculative and must be discussed in the light of animal research. However, studies that reported functional and morphological increases in humans commonly used stretching durations of > 30 min per session of the plantar flexors, indicating the importance of high stretching volume, if the aim is to increase muscle mass and maximum strength. Therefore, the practical applicability seems limited to settings without access to resistance training (e.g., in an immobilized state at the start of rehabilitation), as resistance training seems to be more time efficient. Nevertheless, further research is needed to generate evidence in different human populations (athletes, sedentary individuals, and rehabilitation patients) and to quantify stretching intensity.

While there is ample evidence on the effects of neuromuscular training (NMT) and stretching training on selected measures of physical fitness in young athletes, less is known on the mental well-being effects. Here, we aimed to examine the effects of NMT versus stretching training (ST) performed during the warm-up and active control (CG) on selected physical fitness measures and mental well-being in highly-trained male pubertal soccer players. A secondary aim was to investigate associations between training-induced changes in physical fitness and mental well-being. Forty-six pubertal participants aged 12.2 ± 0.6 years were randomly allocated to NMT, ST, or CG. The eight-weeks NMT included balance, strength, plyometric, and change-of-direction (CoD) exercises. ST comprised four weeks of lower limbs static stretching followed by four weeks of dynamic stretching. The CG performed a soccer-specific warm-up. Training volumes were similar between groups. Pre-, and post-training, tests were scheduled to assess dynamic balance (Y-balance test), 15-m CoD speed, power (five-jump-test [FJT]), cognitive (CA), somatic anxiety (SA), and self-confidence (SC). Findings showed significant group-by-time interactions for all physical fitness measures (d =  1.00-3.23; p < 0.05) and mental well-being (d = 0.97-1.08; p < 0.05) tests. There were significant pre-post changes for all tested variables (d = 0.69-4.23; p < 0.05) in favor of NMT but not ST and CG. Pooled data indicated significant moderate correlations between training-induced performance changes in FJT and SA (r = −0.378, p < 0.05), FJT and SC (r = 0.360, p < 0.05) and 15-m CoD and SA (r = 0.393, p < 0.01). NMT but not ST or CG resulted in improved measures of physical fitness and mental well-being in highly-trained pubertal male soccer players. NMT performed during the warm-up is a safe and effective training method as it exerts positive effects on physical fitness and self-confidence as well as the coping of anxiety in highly-trained male pubertal soccer players.

The Lower Extremity Functional Test (LEFT) is a reliable and valid test for the measurement of athletic fitness, fatigue resistance, and speed performance. Contradictory results exist regarding the screening value of the LEFT in predicting lower limb injuries. The purpose of this study was to investigate the screening value of the LEFT in predicting lower limb injuries in professional male footballers. One hundred and twenty-one professional male football players participated in the study. LEFT was recorded pre-season and the lower-limb injuries were recorded during a 9-month season. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the accuracy of the prognosis of LEFT. A total of twenty-five lower limb injuries were recorded. The model explained 53% of the variance in lower limb injury, showing that predictions by LEFT score is reliable, and correctly predicted 89.3% of cases, which is a large improvement. ROC analysis showed significant accuracy of the LEFT score (AUC 0.908, 95% CI 1.126–1.336, p = 0.001, OR = 1.227) in discriminating between injured and uninjured players. The optimum cut-off level of the LEFT score was 90.21 s; Our findings showed that the LEFT score was able to predict lower limb injuries in professional male footballers. The slower an athlete’s LEFT scores, the more susceptible they are to future injury risk. Sports medicine specialists, football coaches and managers are suggested to use LEFT as a pre-season screening test to identify and prevent the weakness and functional imbalance of the athletes before the injury occurs by conducting this test.

After an intense bout of exercise, foam rolling is thought to alleviate muscle fatigue and soreness (ie, delayed-onset muscle soreness [DOMS]) and improve muscular performance. Potentially, foam rolling may be an effective therapeutic modality to reduce DOMS while enhancing the recovery of muscular performance. To examine the effects of foam rolling as a recovery tool after an intense exercise protocol through assessment of pressure-pain threshold, sprint time, change-of-direction speed, power, and dynamic strength-endurance. Controlled laboratory study. University laboratory. A total of 8 healthy, physically active males (age = 22.1 ± 2.5 years, height = 177.0 ± 7.5 cm, mass = 88.4 ± 11.4 kg) participated. Participants performed 2 conditions, separated by 4 weeks, involving 10 sets of 10 repetitions of back squats at 60% of their 1-repetition maximum, followed by either no foam rolling or 20 minutes of foam rolling immediately, 24, and 48 hours postexercise. Pressure-pain threshold, sprint speed (30-m sprint time), power (broad-jump distance), change-of-direction speed (T-test), and dynamic strength-endurance. Foam rolling substantially improved quadriceps muscle tenderness by a moderate to large amount in the days after fatigue (Cohen d range, 0.59 to 0.84). Substantial effects ranged from small to large in sprint time (Cohen d range, 0.68 to 0.77), power (Cohen d range, 0.48 to 0.87), and dynamic strength-endurance (Cohen d = 0.54). Foam rolling effectively reduced DOMS and associated decrements in most dynamic performance measures.