Experience in resistance training does not

prevent reduction in muscle strength evoked

by passive static stretching.
Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23207883
This study examined whether passive static stretching reduces the maximum muscle strength achieved by different body
segments in untrained and resistance-trained subjects. Twenty adult men were assigned to 1 of the following groups:
untrained (UT, N = 9) and resistance-trained (RT, N = 11) groups. The subjects performed six 1 repetition maximum
(1RM) load tests of the following exercises: horizontal bench press, lat pull-downs, bicep curls, and 45° leg press. The
results achieved in the last two 1RM tests were used for statistical analyses. A passive static stretching program was
incorporated before the sixth 1RM test. The body fat content was significantly higher in the UT group compared with
the RT group (p < 0.0001). Moreover, the RT group showed significantly higher proportion of lean body mass
compared with the UT group (p < 0.0001). Maximum muscle strength on all 4 exercises was significantly reduced
in both groups after stretching (p < 0.01). Furthermore, the magnitude of muscle strength reduction was similar
for the UT and the RT groups. The exception was for barbell curls, in which the muscle strength depression was
significantly higher in the UT group compared with the RT group (p < 0.0001). In conclusion, the passive static
stretching program was detrimental to upper- and lower-body maximal muscle strength performance in several
body segments. The negative effects of stretching were similar for subjects participating in resistance training
regimens.

Acute effect of passive static stretching on lower-body strength

in moderately trained men.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22692125

Abstract
The purpose of this investigation was conducted to determine the acute effect of passive static stretching (PSS) of the
lower-body musculature on lower-body strength in a 1 repetition maximum (1RM) squat exercise in young (18-
24 years.) moderately trained men (n = 17). Two supervised warm-up treatments were applied before each
performance testing session using a counterbalanced design on nonconsecutive days. The first treatment consisted of an
active dynamic warm-up (AD) with resistance machines (i.e., leg extension/leg flexion) and free weights (i.e., barbell
squat), whereas the second treatment added PSS of the lower body plus the AD treatment. One repetition maximum was
determined using the maximum barbell squat following a progressive loading protocol. Subjects were also asked to
subjectively evaluate their lower-body stability during 1RM testing sessions for both the AD and PSS treatments. A
significant decrease in 1RM (8.36%) and lower-body stability (22.68%) was observed after the PSS treatment.
Plausible explanations for this observation may be related to a more compliant muscle tendon unit and/or
altered or impaired neurologic function in the active musculature. It is also possible that strength was impaired by
the PSS because of joint instability. The findings of this study suggest that intensive stretching such as lower-body PSS
should be avoided before training the lower body or performing the 1RM in the squat exercise in favor of an AD
dynamic warm-up using resistance training equipment in the lower-body musculature.

Effects of low- and high-volume stretching on bench

press performance in collegiate football players.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20145564

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of acute low- and high-volume static and proprioceptive
neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching on 1-repetition maximum (1RM) bench press. Fifteen healthy male
National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II football players (age: 19.9 +/- 1.1 years; weight: 98.89 +/- 13.39 kg;
height: 184.2 +/- 5.7 cm; body composition: 14.6 +/- 7.4%; and 1RM bench press: 129.7 +/- 3.3 kg) volunteered to
participate in the study. Subjects completed 5 different stretching protocols integrated with a 1RM dynamic warm-up
routine followed by 1RM testing in randomly assigned order. The protocols included (a) nonstretching (NS), (b) low-
volume PNF stretching (LVPNFS), (c) high-volume PNF stretching (HVPNFS), (d) low-volume static stretching
(LVSS), and (d) high-volume static stretching (HVSS). Two and 5 sets of stretching were completed for the low- and
high-volume protocols, respectively. The stretching protocols targeted triceps and chest/shoulder muscle groups using 2
separate exercises. There were no significant differences in 1RM bench press performance (p > 0.05) among any of the
stretching protocols NS (129.7 +/- 3.3 kg), LVPNFS (128.9 +/- 3.8 kg), HVPNFS (128.3 +/- 3.7 kg), LVSS (129.7 +/-
3.7 kg), and HVSS (128.2 +/- 3.7 kg). We conclude that low- and high-volume PNF and static stretching have no
significant acute effect on 1RM bench press in resistance-trained collegiate football players. This suggests that
resistance-trained athletes can include either (a) a dynamic warm-up with no stretching or (b) a dynamic warm-up in
concert with low- or high-volume static or PNF flexibility exercises before maximal upper body isotonic resistance-
training lifts, if adequate rest is allowed before performance.

Maximal strength, number of repetitions, and total

volume are differently affected by static-, ballistic-, and
proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22914099

Abstract
Stretching exercises have been traditionally incorporated into warm-up routines before training sessions and sport
events. However, the effects of stretching on maximal strength and strength endurance performance seem to depend on
the type of stretching employed. The objective of this study was to compare the effects of static stretching (SS), ballistic
stretching (BS), and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching on maximal strength, number of
repetitions at a submaximal load, and total volume (i.e., number of repetitions × external load) in a multiple-set
resistance training bout. Twelve strength-trained men (20.4 ± 4.5 years, 67.9 ± 6.3 kg, 173.3 ± 8.5 cm) volunteered to
participate in this study. All of the subjects completed 8 experimental sessions. Four experimental sessions were
designed to test maximal strength in the leg press (i.e., 1 repetition maximum [1RM]) after each stretching condition
(SS, BS, PNF, or no-stretching [NS]). During the other 4 sessions, the number of repetitions performed at 80% 1RM
was assessed after each stretching condition. All of the stretching protocols significantly improved the range of motion
in the sit-and-reach test when compared with NS. Further, PNF induced greater changes in the sit-and-reach test than
BS did (4.7 ± 1.6, 2.9 ± 1.5, and 1.9 ± 1.4 cm for PNF, SS, and BS, respectively). Leg press 1RM values were
decreased only after the PNF condition (5.5%, p < 0.001). All the stretching protocols significantly reduced the number
of repetitions (SS: 20.8%, p < 0.001; BS: 17.8%, p = 0.01; PNF: 22.7%, p < 0.001) and total volume (SS: 20.4%, p <
0.001; BS: 17.9%, p = 0.01; PNF: 22.4%, p < 0.001) when compared with NS. The results from this study suggest
that, to avoid a decrease in both the number of repetitions and total volume, stretching exercises should not be
performed before a resistance training session. Additionally, strength-trained individuals may experience reduced
maximal dynamic strength after PNF stretching.

A review of the acute effects of static and

dynamic stretching on performance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21373870

bstract
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.

Latent effect of passive static stretching on driver clubhead speed, distance, accuracy, and consistent ball contact
in young male competitive golfers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21068685
Abstract
This investigation was conducted to determine the effect of 2 different warm-up treatments over time on driver
clubhead speed, distance, accuracy, and consistent ball contact in young male competitive golfers. Two supervised
warm-up treatments, an active dynamic warm-up with golf clubs (AD) and a 20-minute total body passive static
stretching routine plus an identical AD warm-up (PSS), were applied before each performance testing session using a
counterbalanced design on nonconsecutive days. Immediately after the AD treatment, subjects were instructed to hit 3
full swing golf shots with their driver with 1-minute rest between trials. Immediately after the PSS treatment, subjects
were instructed to hit 3 full-swing golf shots with their driver at t0 and thereafter at t15, t30, t45, and t60 minutes with
1-minute rest between swing trials to determine any latent effects of PSS on golf driver performance measures. Results
of paired t-tests revealed significant (p < 0.05) decreases in clubhead speed at t0 (-4.92%), t15 (-2.59%), and t30 (-
2.19%) but not at t45 (-0.95) or t60 (-0.99). Significant differences were also observed in distance at t0 (-7.26%), t15 (-
5.19%), t30 (-5.47%), t45 (-3.30%), and t60 (-3.53%). Accuracy was significantly impaired at t0 (61.99%), t15
(58.78%), t30 (59.46%), and t45 (61.32%) but not at t60 (36.82%). Finally, consistent ball contact was significantly
reduced at t0 (-31.29%), t15 (-31.29%), t30 (-23.56%), t45 (-27.49%), and t60 (-15.70%). Plausible explanations for
observed performance decrements include a more compliant muscle-tendon unit (MTU) and an altered neurological
state because of the PSS treatment. Further, the findings of this study provide evidence supporting the theory that the
mechanical properties of the MTU may recover at a faster rate than any associated neurological changes. The results of
this inquiry strongly suggest that a total-body passive static stretching routine should be avoided before practice or
competition in favor of a gradual AD. Athletes with poor mechanics because of lack of flexibility should perform these
exercises after a conditioning session, practice, or competition.