AJSM PreView, published on February 13, 2006 as doi:10.

1177/0363546505284238

Effects of Stretching on Passive Muscle

Tension and Response to Eccentric Exercise
Dain P. LaRoche,*† PhD, and Declan A. J. Connolly,‡ PhD, FACSM
†
From the Department of Environmental and Health Sciences, Johnson State College, Johnson,
‡
Vermont, and the Human Performance Laboratory, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont

Background: Stretching is used in an attempt to improve performance and reduce the risk of muscle injury, with little evidence
to support its effectiveness.
Hypothesis: Four weeks of static or ballistic stretching can attenuate the increased soreness and decreased flexibility seen after
eccentric exercise.
Study Design: Controlled laboratory study.
Methods: Twenty-nine male subjects were randomly assigned to a static stretching, ballistic stretching, or control group. On
each of 4 consecutive days, they completed 4 maximal range of motion stretches using a Cybex isokinetic dynamometer to pas-
sively stretch the hamstrings at 0.087 rad · s–1 (5 deg · s–1). Stiffness from 0.87 to 1.48 rad (50°-85°), peak range of motion, work
absorption, peak resistive torque, and soreness were measured. Participants then completed 4 weeks of either static or ballistic
stretching for a total stretching duration of 3600 seconds. After training, the 4 days of testing were repeated with an eccentric
exercise task added after day 1.
Results: Stretching groups had an increase in range of motion and stretch tolerance after 4 weeks of stretching, with no change
in muscle stiffness, work absorption, or delayed onset muscle soreness. After eccentric exercise, they also had greater range of
motion and stretch tolerance than did controls.
Conclusion: Both static stretching and ballistic stretching increase range of motion, most likely as a result of enhanced stretch
tolerance rather than changes in muscle elasticity. Four weeks of stretching maintain range of motion and stretch tolerance in
the days after eccentric exercise.
Keywords: flexibility; stiffness; soreness; ballistic; static

Stretching is common in athletic populations in an attempt
to improve muscle flexibility, reduce the risk of skeletal
muscle injury, and improve performance. Although stretch-
ing is widely accepted by coaches, athletes, and recreation-
alists, there is little evidence to support the relationship
between muscle stretching and a reduction in injury risk.5
Furthermore, how the muscle changes to elicit improve-
ments in range of motion (ROM) is not clear.
There are a number of measures that can be used to assess
flexibility and monitor the effectiveness of stretching pro-
grams. Peak ROM is defined as the highest angle achieved
during the passive stretching process, and peak passive
torque is the highest torque achieved and is an indicator of
stretch tolerance. These measures are the end product of the
*Address correspondence to Dain P. LaRoche, PhD, Department of
Environmental and Health Sciences, Johnson State College, 337 College
Hill, Johnson, VT 05656 (e-mail: laroched@jsc.vsc.edu).
No potential conflict of interest declared.
The American Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. X, No. X
DOI: 10.1177/0363546505284238
© 2006 American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine
stretching process and explain little about how the muscle
accommodates changes in length. In contrast, stiffness and
work absorption are measures of the amount of resistive
force the muscle exerts as it is stretched and can provide
information about the nature of muscle compliance. The
stiffness and work-absorbing capacity of a muscle during
passive stretching can be determined by monitoring the
change in muscle length and the concurrent change in resis-
tive force. The ability to measure these elastic properties of
muscle in vivo is a useful tool in the attempt to quantify the
response of passively stretched skeletal muscle.10
Most data indicate that static stretching increases a
person’s stretch tolerance but does not affect the long-
term passive properties of the muscle.3,7,12 Magnusson et al12
reported that the 30% reduction in resistance to stretch after
an acute bout of static stretching disappeared 1 hour after
stretching. These data suggest that acute changes in mus-
cle stiffness and work absorption are transient.
Eccentric exercise involves active lengthening of the
muscle, which leads to disrupted sarcomeres and membrane
damage in the muscle if force levels are high enough.18
A single bout of eccentric exercise and the associated delayed

1
Copyright 2006 by the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine.
2 LaRoche and Connolly The American Journal of Sports Medicine

TABLE 1
Participant Descriptive Characteristics by Group at Beginning of Studya

Total (N = 29) Control (n = 10) Static (n = 9) Ballistic (n = 10) F P

Age, y 31.6 ± 15.2 35.1 ± 17.4 31.0 ± 16.4 28.2 ± 11.9 0.47 .62
Mass, kg 81.1 ± 15.0 80.1 ± 10.1 77.0 ± 9.2 86.3 ± 22.5 0.90 .42
Height, m 1.76 ± 0.06 1.76 ± 0.07 1.78 ± 0.18 1.77 ± 0.08 0.14 .86
Minutes of stretching week–1 17.5 ± 23.7 17.7 ± 26.5 16.3 ± 15.7 18.5 ± 29.4 0.04 .96
Initial range of motion, rad 1.71 ± 0.19 1.77 ± 0.22 1.69 ± 0.16 1.66 ± 0.17 1.08 .36
Initial peak torque, N·m 117.0 ± 36.6 131.1 ± 41.9 113.1 ± 30.3 105.3 ± 34.3 1.42 .26
Initial stiffness, N·m · rad–1 94.7 ± 27.6 84.4 ± 30.0 97.2 ± 23.1 101.6 ± 29.5 0.79 .46
Initial work absorption, N·m · s 423.4 ± 74.9 401.9 ± 2.8 440.4 ± 54.0 428.5 ± 97.1 0.67 .52

Data are means ± SD.

a

onset muscle soreness (DOMS) have been shown to protect

against muscle damage during future bouts of exercise, even
up to 6 months later, and are known as the repeated bout
effect.2,15,16 Both static stretching and ballistic stretching
induce small amounts of DOMS in a manner similar to mod-
erate eccentric exercise and should therefore provide a pro-
tective effect against future muscle damage.20 In addition,
the speed of ballistic stretching may invoke greater amounts
of eccentric muscle activity that would place greater strain
on the musculotendinous structures in comparison to static
stretching, thereby providing a protective effect against
future bouts of exercise. Therefore, ballistic and static
stretching may elicit differences in the response to eccentric
exercise. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of
4 weeks of stretching on the properties of passively stretched
muscle and to examine whether static or ballistic stretching
reduces the amount of muscle damage observed after a stren-
uous eccentric task designed to induce DOMS.1,6

Figure 1. Passive torque apparatus.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-nine male subjects who were able bodied, were

recreationally active, were 18 to 60 years, and had not par-
ticipated in an organized strength training or flexibility
program in the previous 6 months were randomly assigned
to the control (n = 10), static stretching (n = 9), or ballistic
stretching (n = 10) groups. Subjects on average were 31.6 ±
15.2 years, had a mass of 81.1 ± 15.0 kg, and had a height of
1.76 ± 0.06 m. There were no initial differences between
groups for initial ROM, peak passive torque, stiffness, work
absorption, or minutes of stretching per week (Table 1).
The project, including its risks and benefits, was explained
to the participants who gave their informed consent. The
research protocol was approved by the University of Vermont
Institutional Review Board.
Instrumentation
A custom hamstring resistive torque apparatus was built
to measure hamstring maximum voluntary torque and
resistance to stretch (Figure 1). It was designed with a
platform for the subject to lie on in the supine position; an
adjustable resistance arm; straps to secure the ankle, non-
test leg, and pelvis; and a Cybex II isokinetic dynamometer.
The resistance arm was instrumented with a load cell
(Transducer Techniques, Temecula, Calif) to measure force,
and the axis of the Cybex dynamometer was fit with an
electrogoniometer (Radio Shack, Fort Worth, Tex) to mea-
sure hip angle. Analog data from the load cell and electro-
goniometer were imported to a personal computer via a
BIOPAC MP30 data acquisition system (BIOPAC, Goleta,
Calif), digitized, processed, and stored on the computer’s
hard drive using data acquisition software (BIOPAC PRO
software). The load cell was calibrated at 0 N (0 kg) and at
98 N (10 kg) using a 10-kg mass applied inline with grav-
ity and the sensing axis of the load cell. The electrogo-
niometer was calibrated at 0.08 radian (5°) from table level
and at 1.57 radian (90°) from horizontal. Both force and
hip angle data were sampled at 50 Hz and were smoothed
every 10 samples using a mean averaging technique.
Procedures
All participants completed a familiarization protocol that
included assessment of peak voluntary torque to determine
Vol. X, No. X, 2006
4 Weeks’
Flexibility Training
Eccentric Exercise
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
Passive Resistance Passive Resistance
Soreness Rating
Figure 2. Experimental timeline.
the resistance used during the eccentric exercise task. One
week after the familiarization protocol, participants from
the experimental and control groups returned for assess-
ment of initial ROM, peak passive torque, stiffness, and
work absorption (Figure 2). After baseline testing, all par-
ticipants were advised not to participate in any organized
lower body weight training or stretching and to avoid stren-
uous activity throughout the duration of the study. The test-
ing protocol was repeated during the next 3 days to monitor
changes in the properties of passively stretched muscle
during 4 days of testing.
For the next 4 weeks, the 2 experimental groups met
3 times per week and followed a protocol that included
10 minutes of easy cycle ergometry, followed by investigator-
led static or ballistic stretching. Participants assigned to the
control group were instructed to maintain their normal
activities. After the 4 weeks of stretching, peak ROM, peak
passive torque,stiffness,work absorption,and soreness were
reassessed using the same protocol completed during the
first 4 days. After the first test session was completed, par-
ticipants performed the eccentric hamstring resistance exer-
cise, and all measures were repeated during the next 3 days.
Hamstring Passive Resistance to Stretch
To measure the flexibility of participants, the passive resis-
tance to stretch of the hamstring muscle group was assessed.
This technique has previously been used with a human
model to measure the compliance of skeletal muscle
in vivo.3,7,8,12,13,21 The procedure was completed using the
resistive torque apparatus described previously and was
completed on the left leg. Participants were placed in the
supine position with the axis of rotation of the resistance arm
aligned with the greater trochanter of the femur (Figure 1).
The resistance arm was secured to the lower leg at a distance
of 5 cm proximal to the medial malleolus, and the moment
arm length was recorded. The participant’s knee was braced
at approximately 3.0 radian (170°) using an adjustable rigid
frame knee brace (Donjoy, Vista, Calif). This bracing was
done to limit change in hamstring length as a result of knee
flexion and to limit the knee’s posterior joint capsule’s effect
on ROM. The participant’s torso was secured to the table by
a nylon strap placed around the pelvis, and the nonexercise
leg was secured to the table in the same manner proximal to
the knee.The hip was flexed at a constant angular velocity of
0.087 rad · s–1 (5 deg · s–1) from table level to the participant’s
Effects of Stretching on Passive Muscle Tension 3
Figure 3. Eccentric exercise task.
point of maximal tolerance. Five repetitions of the test were
completed, separated by 45 seconds, and mean scores of the
last 4 trials were used for analysis.
Stiffness was defined as the change in torque (N·m) divided
by the change in position (radians) and was expressed as
the slope of the torque-position curve.12 Stiffness and work
absorption measures were calculated from 0.87 to 1.48 rad
(50°-85°) to obtain measures from the middle to the end of
normal ROM. Work absorption in the muscle was calculated
by integrating the force curve to get the area under the curve
from 0.87 to 1.48 rad (50°-85°). Peak ROM was determined by
measuring the highest angle achieved during the stretching
protocol, and peak passive torque, calculated as the highest
torque measured, was used as a measure of stretch tolerance.
Eccentric Task
To induce DOMS, a hamstring curl weight machine was
used that positioned the participants in a prone position
with the knee axis of rotation located opposite the axis of
rotation of the resistance arm (Figure 3). The resistance
arm’s ankle pad was placed just superior to the medial
malleolus on the posterior aspect of the lower leg. The resis-
tive weight was calculated based on 70% of the peak volun-
tary hamstring torque measured during the familiarization
protocol. The investigators aided the participants by bring-
ing the resistance arm to a vertical position, after which the
participants were instructed to lower the weight to horizon-
tal in 2 seconds. The exercise was performed using 3 sets of
15 repetitions with 1 minute between sets. Participants
were instructed and observed to ensure that the proper lift-
ing technique was used and that a ROM of 1.57 rad (90°)
was achieved with each repetition of the exercise.
Visual Analog Soreness Scale
To assess perceived muscle soreness, participants were asked
to rate soreness using a visual analog scale as described by
Brown et al2 and McHugh et al.13 Participants were asked
4 LaRoche and Connolly
Figure 4. Stretching technique.
to rate their soreness by making a vertical line on an analog
scale of 0 to 100 mm, with 0 mm being no soreness and
100 mm being the worst possible soreness. Participants
rated soreness on each test day before the measurement of
passive resistance to stretch. The score was recorded by
measuring to the nearest millimeter and was determined
as the distance from the 0-mm end of the scale to the mark
made by the participants.
Stretching
Stretching of the hamstring muscle group was completed
while participants stood with their feet slightly narrower
than shoulder width and involved flexing at the waist by
extending the hands toward the toes (Figure 4). Participants
were instructed to keep their backs straight and to maintain
a slight bend in the knees. Static stretching involved slowly
stretching the muscles until a point of mild discomfort was
felt, at which time the participant held the stretch in
this position for 30 seconds. Static stretching participants
were watched carefully to prevent any ballistic movements.
Ballistic stretching uses the momentum created by repetitive
bouncing movements to produce muscle stretch. Participants
were instructed to move into and out of the stretch each
second, pushing to a feeling of mild discomfort with each
bounce. Each group performed 10 sets of stretching sepa-
rated by 30 seconds. Stretching was completed 3 times per
week during 4 weeks for a total stretch duration of 3600
seconds and was consistent for both stretching groups.
The American Journal of Sports Medicine
Statistical Methods
Group sizes were estimated by statistical software (Power
and Precision, Biostat, Englewood, NJ) using the variabil-
ity of the measures and expected effect sizes. Data were
normalized by calculating difference scores from baseline
for peak ROM, peak passive torque, stiffness, work absorp-
tion, and soreness. To determine the effects of 4 weeks
of stretching on passive resistance measures, percentage
change scores were calculated from test 1 to test 5. To
determine the effects of 4 weeks of stretching on the
response to eccentric exercise, percentage change scores
were calculated from tests 5 to 6, 5 to 7, and 5 to 8.
Repeated-measures analysis of variance (RMANOVA) was
used to assess time effects and to determine if difference
scores varied by group. Variations in mean difference
scores were compared between groups at each time point
using Tukey post hoc analysis. The normality of the data
was assessed with visual plots of the data and with esti-
mates of skewness and kurtosis. Levene statistic was cal-
culated to test the homogeneity of variance assumption.
The rejection criterion for all tests was set at P ≤ .05 and
was not adjusted for the multiple RMANOVAs performed
so that statistical power could be maintained in this small
exploratory study.
RESULTS
Before the stretching program, there were no differences
between groups for the initial measures of flexibility or
previous stretching experience (Table 1). After 4 weeks of
stretching, RMANOVA indicated that differences between
groups existed for ROM (P = .01) and passive torque (P = .04),
with no statistical differences evident for work absorption
(P = .08) and stiffness (P = .28) (Table 2). Range of motion
increased in all groups, but the increases were significantly
higher in the static stretching group (9.5% ± 6.7%, P = .02)
and ballistic stretching group (9.3% ± 9.3%, P = .02) when
compared with the control group (1.2% ± 4.4%). Both the
static and ballistic stretching groups had an increase in peak
passive torque, with the static stretching group increasing
by 30.1% ± 38.7% (P = .048) and the ballistic group increas-
ing by 25.4% ± 25.3% (P = .08); however, only the static
group was statistically different from controls (0.04% ±
26.4%). Observed power to detect statistical differences
between groups was .67 for ROM, .47 for peak passive
torque, .36 for work absorption, and .14 for stiffness.
After 4 weeks of stretching and after test 5, participants
performed an eccentric exercise task as described above.
Participants repeated the test protocol on the next 3 days to
monitor the effect of a “novel” eccentric exercise task on pas-
sive resistance to stretch measures. The RMANOVA
revealed that there was a significant time effect for an
increase in soreness and decreases in ROM and peak torque
in the days after eccentric exercise (P < .05). Differences
between groups at 24, 48, or 72 hours after the exercise task
existed for peak ROM and peak passive torque (P < .05), but
no differences existed for soreness, stiffness, or work
absorption (Figures 5-9). Post hoc analyses revealed that
Vol. X, No. X, 2006 Effects of Stretching on Passive Muscle Tension 5

TABLE 2
Change in Passive Resistance to Stretch After 4 Weeks of Stretching

Condition (Valid n) Range of Motion, rad Peak Torque, N·m Stiffness, N·m · rad–1 Work, N · s

Control (10)
Prestretching 1.81 ± 0.18 134.7 ± 38.7 86.1 ± 33.3 394.0 ± 76.9
Poststretching 1.83 ± 0.22 135.4 ± 54.1 81.6 ± 31.0 338.6 ± 80.3
Percentage ∆ 1.2 ± 4.4 0.04 ± 26.4 –2.0 ± 27.8 –14.0 ± 11.7
Static (9)
Prestretching 1.67 ± 0.15 118.2 ± 35.1 99.2 ± 30.9 424.1 ± 62.2
Poststretching 1.82 ± 0.13 148.9 ± 51.3 89.0 ± 17.7 388.9 ± 69.6
Percentage ∆ 9.5 ± 6.7a 30.1 ± 38.7a –10.3 ± 9.5 –8.0 ± 11.8
Ballistic (10)
Prestretching 1.66 ± 0.19 114.0 ± 32.8 102.7 ± 30.0 411.0 ± 81.4
Poststretching 1.83 ± 0.13 135.2 ± 35.7 85.9 ± 18.7 404.0 ± 77.8
Percentage ∆ 9.3 ± 9.3a 25.4 ± 25.3 –10.0 ± 19.5 0.06 ± 21.7

Different from control (P < .05).

a

40 15

10
Change (millimeters)

30
% Change

5 *

20 0

−5
10

−10
0 0 24 48 72
0 24 48 72 Hours after eccentric exericise
Hours after eccentric exercise
Control Static Ballistic
Control Static Ballistic
Figure 6. Range of motion after novel eccentric exercise.
Figure 5. Perceived soreness after novel eccentric exercise. *Different from control (P < .05).

there were no significant differences between groups for

change in ROM 24 or 48 hours after exercise, but a signifi-
cant difference existed 72 hours postexercise (P = .01).
Seventy-two hours after exercise, the control group had
a –3.9% ± 6.3% decrease in ROM, and the static stretching
group had an increase of 7.9% ± 9.3%, which was different
from controls (P = .009). The change in ROM for the ballis-
tic stretching group was not significantly different from
controls on any of the days after the eccentric task.
Differences in peak passive torque existed between the con-
trol and stretching groups at 48 and 72 hours after exercise;
48 hours after exercise, the control group had a decrease in
peak torque of –12.1% ± 12.2%, and at the same time, the
static and ballistic stretching groups were significantly
higher than controls with increases in peak passive torque
of 4.3% ± 12.8% (P = .02) and 2.0% ± 14.6% (P = .03), respec-
tively. Seventy-two hours after exercise, the control group
had a –10.4% ± 11.5% decrease in passive torque, whereas
the static stretching group experienced a 33.5% ± 50.8%
increase (P = .008). Observed power to detect statistical
differences between groups during the 3 days after the
eccentric task was .20 for soreness, .64 for ROM, .77 for peak
passive torque, .30 for stiffness, and .08 for work absorption.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to determine whether 4 weeks
of stretching could promote changes in the properties of
passively stretched muscle and whether it could provide a
protective effect against the muscle impairment seen after
eccentric exercise. Acute bouts of stretching have been
shown to decrease stiffness, work absorption, and passive
torque, but the adaptations are short lasting and generally
subside within an hour.12 Neither acute nor chronic
stretching has been associated with a reduction in nervous
activation of the muscle. A number of studies have docu-
mented no change in EMG after stretching while showing
6 LaRoche and Connolly The American Journal of Sports Medicine

50
40
* 16
30
% Change

14
20
12
10 ∗ 10

% Change
0 ∗ 8
6
−10
4
−20 2
0 24 48 72 0
Hours after eccentric exercise −2
−4
Control Static Ballistic 0 24 48 72
Figure 7. Peak passive torque after novel eccentric exercise. Hours after eccentric exercise
*Different from control (P < .05).
Control Static Ballistic

Figure 9. Work absorption after novel eccentric exercise.

30
25
20
15
% Change

10 significant decreases in stiffness or work absorption after

5 training. Therefore, in the current study, there were no
0
−5
−10
−15
0 24 48
Hours after eccentric exercise
Control Static Ballistic
Figure 8. Stiffness after novel eccentric exercise.
improvements in ROM.7,11 Thus, decreased motor neuron
activity does not appear to be a probable mechanism for
the improvements in ROM with stretching, as had previ-
ously been thought. Consequently, it is thought that
improvement in flexibility is due to an increase in ROM
as the result of enhanced stretch tolerance without accom-
panying changes in muscle elasticity or neuromuscular
activity.10
The notion that there are no long-term adaptations in
the elastic properties of skeletal muscle after a moderate-
duration stretching program is supported by the current
study. After 4 weeks of stretching, both the static and bal-
listic groups increased ROM significantly, which is compa-
rable to the increases shown by others using similar
training programs.3,7,12,19 The increase in peak passive
torque indicates that participants were capable of han-
dling higher muscle tensions after 4 weeks of stretching
than they were before and is likely the cause of the
increased ROM. In addition, the theory that improvements
in ROM and increases in peak passive torque are a result
of enhanced stretch tolerance is supported by a lack of
lasting changes in the elastic properties of the hamstring
muscle group that could account for the increased ROM.
How exactly improved tolerance to muscle force is achieved
is unclear, but the investigators hypothesize that it likely
involves changes in peripheral or central nervous system
72
functioning. Specifically, it is possible that the output
or central nervous system processing of nociceptors, mus-
cles spindles, or Golgi tendon organs may be attenuated.
Consequently, after stretching, a person may be able to
exhibit a greater ROM because of nervous system accom-
modation that occurs independently from changes in muscle
tissue properties.
Although not seen in the present study, it is possible that
stretching programs of greater duration (>4 weeks), inten-
sity, and volume could produce changes in the stiffness and
work-absorption capacity of skeletal muscle. The majority
of research studying the effects of stretching on the mate-
rial properties of muscle have been 4 to 8 weeks in dura-
tion and therefore may not have been long enough to elicit
histologic changes.3,7,11 It is quite probable that those who
have been long-term participants in stretching programs
or in activities requiring great amounts of flexibility have
elicited permanent changes in the physical properties of
the muscle. In this situation, it would be likely that
changes in the parallel or in-series connective tissue ele-
ments or increases in sarcomere number leading to
increased muscle length would occur. These theories are
shared by others and supported by animal data.10,18,21
When comparing stiffer persons to more flexible persons,
there is a leftward shift in the passive torque-position curve
for those who are less flexible.10 This change is also seen with
aging and may account for some of the between-subject vari-
ability seen in this study given the large age range of the par-
ticipants (18-60 years). Interestingly, the least flexible
persons demonstrate greater stiffness at lower joint angles
Vol. X, No. X, 2006
and decreased peak passive torque compared with those
who are more flexible. Therefore, more flexible persons
have reduced submaximal stiffness and work absorption,
increased ROM, and greater stretch tolerance than do their
less flexible counterparts.10 So, a decrease in submaximal
stiffness and work absorption appears to be related to
increased ROM, but the ability of training to elicit these
changes has not been demonstrated longitudinally. Perhaps
similarities can be drawn between gains in strength over
time and improvements in muscle flexibility. In the first
few weeks of a strength training program in untrained
persons, strength increases occur rapidly in the absence of
muscle hypertrophy up until about 4 weeks of training.14 It
is quite possible that improvements in flexibility follow a
similar pattern with neurologic adaptations accounting for
early gains and histologic adaptations accounting for long-
term gains.
Many persons participate in stretching in the hope of
reducing the risk of skeletal muscle strain during exercise.
Although there is some evidence suggesting that those who
are more flexible have a reduced injury risk, there is little
information demonstrating a prophylactic effect of stretch-
ing on injury prevention.4,5,17 McHugh et al13 demonstrated
that inflexible participants experienced increased symp-
toms of DOMS after eccentric exercise. Specifically, less
flexible participants experienced more pain, muscle ten-
derness, strength loss, and serum creatine kinase activity
than did their more flexible counterparts. Other studies
have attempted to reduce muscle impairment after eccen-
tric exercise through acute bouts of stretching with little
success.6,9 In the current study, all groups showed an increase
in soreness at 24, 48, and 72 hours after exercise, with sore-
ness peaking 48 hours after the eccentric task. Although not
statistically significant, the control group had a greater
increase in soreness than did the stretching groups 1, 2,
and 3 days after the muscle-damaging task. The data
appear to indicate an attenuation of muscle soreness in the
stretching groups, which might be statistically significant
with a greater number of subjects, longer duration of training,
or a more sensitive indicator of soreness.
Those who participated in 4 weeks of stretching had
reduced impairments in ROM and peak passive torque com-
pared with controls after unaccustomed eccentric exercise.
After stretching, ROM was significantly higher in the static
group than in the control group 3 days after the eccentric
exercise task. Although the mean for the ballistic group was
higher than that for the control group on each of the 3 days
after eccentric exercise, the differences were not statis-
tically significant. These data indicate that stretching
may have the ability to mitigate the loss in ROM normally
seen after novel eccentric exercise. In conjunction with an
increased ROM in the stretching groups, peak passive
torque was maintained at significantly higher levels in the
stretching groups than in the control group. Twenty-four,
48, and 72 hours after exercise, the static and ballistic
stretching groups were able to maintain and increase peak
resistive torque, whereas the control group experienced a
decrease in this measure across the 3 days. The increases in
ROM and peak torque seen in the stretching groups after
the exercise task resemble the previously documented
Effects of Stretching on Passive Muscle Tension 7
improvements in these measures across 4 days of the test
protocol.8 This response shows that stretching can attenu-
ate the loss of stretch tolerance seen in the muscle after
novel eccentric exercise. Because of the lack of differences in
stiffness and work absorption, these data indicate that
chronic stretching helps preserve the end measures of flex-
ibility but does not affect submaximal passive muscle prop-
erties in the days after eccentric exercise. Furthermore, it is
likely that a structured resistance training program would
provide a greater protective effect than that seen from
stretching.
In the current study, both static stretching and ballistic
stretching were used. Ballistic stretching is generally not
advocated, as many believe it is more likely to cause injury,
although this has not been documented. In fact, a study
by Smith et al20 indicated that although both static and
ballistic stretching elicited DOMS, persons participating in
static stretching had significantly more soreness than did
those completing ballistic stretching. No participants in
either the static or ballistic stretching group experienced
any muscle strain other than DOMS, but with only 19
subjects participating in stretching, this finding should not
indicate that either stretching technique is without risk.
To attenuate injury risk, the participants in this study
completed a mandatory warm-up and were closely super-
vised during stretching. The likelihood of recreationalists
taking such precautions is doubtful and may increase the
risk of muscle strain. Also, the speed of movement of bal-
listic stretching increases the tensile forces placed on the
muscle and should therefore be used with caution. Given
the dynamic nature of sport, the improvements seen in
ROM and peak passive torque with ballistic stretching,
and the lack of documented injury, the investigators
believe that ballistic stretching may be efficacious when
performed correctly. However, further research is needed to
study the usefulness, safety, and effects of ballistic stretch-
ing on skeletal muscle.
This study is consistent with the work of others showing
that improvements in ROM after a moderate-duration
stretching program are not related to changes in the elastic
properties of muscle but are due to enhanced stretch
tolerance.3,7,12 This study is also important in that it indi-
cates a protective effect of stretching on the loss of ROM
and stretch tolerance seen after eccentric exercise. This
finding supports the use of a regular stretching program
by those looking to reduce the muscle impairment nor-
mally seen after vigorous exercise. Finally, it demonstrated
that ballistic stretching appears to elicit similar changes in
flexibility to static stretching without apparent negative
effects.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This publication was made possible by the Vermont
Genetics Network through National Institutes of Health
grant number 1 P20 RR16462 from the BRIN Program of
the National Center for Research Resources. The authors
thank Lindsay Bilodeau, Justin Crowe, and Shane Lynch
for their help with data collection.
8 LaRoche and Connolly
REFERENCES
1. Brown S, Day S, Donnelly A. Indirect evidence of human skeletal
muscle damage and collagen breakdown after eccentric muscle
actions. J Sports Sci. 1999;17:397-402.
2. Brown SJ, Child RB, Day SH, Donnelly AE. Exercised-induced skeletal
muscle damage and adaptation following repeated bouts of eccentric
muscle contractions. J Sports Sci. 1997;15:215-222.
3. Chan SP, Hong Y, Robinson PD. Flexibility and passive resistance of
the hamstrings of young adults using two different static stretching
protocols. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2001;11:81-86.
4. Hartig DE, Henderson JM. Increasing hamstring flexibility decreases
lower extremity overuse injuries in military basic trainees. Am J Sports
Med. 1999;27:173-176.
5. Herbert RD, Gabriel M. Effects of stretching before and after exercis-
ing on muscle soreness and risk of injury: systematic review. Br Med
J. 2002;325:468-473.
6. Johansson PH, Lindstrom L, Sundelin G, Lindstrom B. The effects of
pre-exercise stretching on muscle soreness, tenderness and force
loss following heavy eccentric exercise. Scand J Med Sci Sports.
1999;9:219-225.
7. Kubo K, Kanehisa H, Fukunaga T. Effect of stretching training on the
viscoelastic properties of human tendon structures in vivo. J Appl
Physiol. 2002;92:595-601.
8. LaRoche DP, Bilodeau L, Crowe J, et al. Viscoelastic response of
skeletal muscle to four days of flexibility training [abstract]. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 2004;36:S345.
9. Lund H, Vestergaard-Poulsen P, Kanstrup IL, Sejrsen P. The effect of
passive stretching on delayed onset muscle soreness, and other detri-
mental effects following eccentric exercise. Scand J Med Sci Sports.
1998;8:216-221.
10. Magnusson SP. Passive properties of human skeletal muscle during
stretch maneuvers: a review. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 1998;8:65-77.
The American Journal of Sports Medicine
11. Magnusson SP, Simonsen EB, Aagaard P, Gleim GW, McHugh MP,
Kjaer M. Viscoelastic response to repeated static stretching in the
human hamstring muscle. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 1995;5:342-347.
12. Magnusson SP, Simonsen EB, Aagaard P, Kjaer M. Biomechanical
responses to repeated stretches in human hamstring muscle in vivo.
Am J Sports Med. 1996;24:622-628.
13. McHugh MP, Connolly DA, Eston RG, Kremenic IJ, Nicholas SJ,
Gleim GW. The role of passive muscle stiffness in symptoms of
exercise-induced muscle damage. Am J Sports Med. 1999;27:
594-599.
14. Moritani T, deVries HA. Neural factors versus hypertrophy in the time
course of muscle strength gain. Am J Phys Med. 1979;58:115-130.
15. Nosaka K, Clarkson PM, McGuiggin ME, Byrne JM. Time course of
muscle adaptation after high force eccentric exercise. Eur J Physiol
Occup Physiol. 1991;63:70-76.
16. Nosaka K, Sakamoto K, Newton M, Sacco P. How long does the pro-
tective effect on eccentric exercise-induced muscle damage last?
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001;33:1490-1495.
17. Pope RP, Herbert RD, Kirwan JD, Graham BJ. A randomized trial of
preexercise stretching for prevention of lower-limb injury. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 2000;32:271-277.
18. Proske U, Morgan DL. Muscle damage from eccentric exercise:
mechanism, mechanical signs, adaptation and clinical applications.
J Physiol. 2001;537:333-345.
19. Roberts JM, Wilson K. Effect of stretching duration on active and pas-
sive range of motion in the lower extremity. Br J Sports Med. 1999;33:
259-263.
20. Smith LL, Brunetz MH, Chenier TC, et al. The effects of static and ballis-
tic stretching on delayed onset muscle soreness and creatine kinase.
Res Q Exerc Sport. 1993;64:103-107.
21. Whitehead NP, Weerakkody NS, Gregory JE, Morgan DL, Proske U.
Changes in passive tension of muscle in humans and animals after
eccentric exercise. J Physiol. 2001;533:593-604.