Recently, there has been a shift from static stretching (SS) or proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching within a warm-up to a greater emphasis on dynamic stretching (DS). The objective of this review was to compare the effects of SS, DS, and PNF on performance, range of motion (ROM), and injury prevention. The data indicated that SS- (–3.7%), DS- (+1.3%), and PNF- (–4.4%) induced performance changes were small to moderate with testing performed immediately after stretching, possibly because of reduced muscle activation after SS and PNF. A dose–response relationship illustrated greater performance deficits with ≥60 s (–4.6%) than with <60 s (–1.1%) SS per muscle group. Conversely, SS demonstrated a moderate (2.2%) performance benefit at longer muscle lengths. Testing was performed on average 3–5 min after stretching, and most studies did not include poststretching dynamic activities; when these activities were included, no clear performance effect was observed. DS produced small-to-moderate performance improvements when completed within minutes of physical activity. SS and PNF stretching had no clear effect on all-cause or overuse injuries; no data are available for DS. All forms of training induced ROM improvements, typically lasting <30 min. Changes may result from acute reductions in muscle and tendon stiffness or from neural adaptations causing an improved stretch tolerance. Considering the small-to-moderate changes immediately after stretching and the study limitations, stretching within a warm-up that includes additional poststretching dynamic activity is recommended for reducing muscle injuries and increasing joint ROM with inconsequential effects on subsequent athletic performance.

The benefits of preexercise muscle stretching have been recently questioned after reports of significant poststretch reductions in force and power production. However, methodological issues and equivocal findings have prevented a clear consensus being reached. As no detailed systematic review exists, the literature describing responses to acute static muscle stretch was comprehensively examined. MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, SPORTDiscus, and Zetoc were searched with recursive reference checking. Selection criteria included randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials and intervention-based trials published in peer-reviewed scientific journals examining the effect of an acute static stretch intervention on maximal muscular performance. Searches revealed 4559 possible articles; 106 met the inclusion criteria. Study design was often poor because 30% of studies failed to provide appropriate reliability statistics. Clear evidence exists indicating that short-duration acute static stretch (60 s, with limited evidence for an effect on eccentric strength. The detrimental effects of static stretch are mainly limited to longer durations (≥ 60 s), which may not be typically used during preexercise routines in clinical, healthy, or athletic populations. Shorter durations of stretch (<60 s) can be performed in a preexercise routine without compromising maximal muscle performance.

The effects of static stretch on muscle and tendon mechanical properties and muscle activation were studied in fifteen healthy human volunteers. Peak active and passive moment data were recorded during plantar flexion trials on an isokinetic dynamometer. Electromyography (EMG) monitoring of the triceps surae muscles, real-time motion analysis of the lower leg, and ultrasound imaging of the Achilles-medial gastrocnemius muscle-tendon junction were simultaneously conducted. Subjects performed three 60-s static stretches before being retested 2 min and 30 min poststretch. There were three main findings in the present study. First, peak concentric moment was significantly reduced after stretch; 60% of the deficit recovered 30 min poststretch. This was accompanied by, and correlated with (r = 0.81; P < 0.01) reductions in peak triceps surae EMG amplitude, which was fully recovered at 30 min poststretch. Second, Achilles tendon length was significantly shorter during the concentric contraction after stretch and at 30 min poststretch; however, no change in tendon stiffness was detected. Third, passive joint moment was significantly reduced after stretch, and this was accompanied by significant reductions in medial gastrocnemius passive muscle stiffness; both measures fully recovered by 30 min poststretch. These data indicate that the stretching protocol used in this study induced losses in concentric moment that were accompanied by, and related to, reductions in neuromuscular activity, but they were not associated with alterations in tendon stiffness or shorter muscle operating length. Reductions in passive moment were associated with reductions in muscle stiffness, whereas tendon mechanics were unaffected by the stretch. Importantly, the impact on mechanical properties and neuromuscular activity was minimal at 30 min poststretch.

Loading characteristics of stretching techniques likely influence the specific mechanisms responsible for acute increases in range of motion (ROM). Therefore, the effects of a version of contract-relax (CR) proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching, static stretching (SS), and maximal isometric contraction (Iso) interventions were studied in 17 healthy human volunteers. Passive ankle moment was recorded on an isokinetic dynamometer, with EMG recording from the triceps surae, simultaneous real-time motion analysis, and ultrasound-imaging-recorded gastrocnemius medialis muscle and Achilles tendon elongation. Subjects then performed each intervention randomly on separate days before reassessment. Significant increases in dorsiflexion ROM (2.5°-5.3°; P < 0.01) and reductions in whole muscle-tendon stiffness (10.1%-21.0%; P < 0.01) occurred under all conditions, with significantly greater changes detected following CR stretching (P < 0.05). Significant reductions in tendon stiffness were observed after CR stretching and Iso (17.7%-22.1%; P < 0.01) but not after SS (P > 0.05), whereas significant reductions in muscle stiffness occurred after CR stretching and SS (16.0%-20.5%; P < 0.01) but not after Iso (P > 0.05). Increases in peak passive moment (stretch tolerance) occurred after Iso (6.8%; P < 0.05), CR stretching (10.6%; P = 0.08), and SS (5.2%; P = 0.08); no difference in changes between conditions was found (P > 0.05). Significant correlations (rs = 0.69-0.82; P < 0.01) were observed between changes in peak passive moment and maximal ROM under all conditions. Although similar ROM increases occur after Iso and SS, changes in muscle and tendon stiffness are distinct. Concomitant reductions in muscle and tendon stiffness after CR stretching suggest a broader adaptive response that likely explains its superior efficacy in acutely increasing ROM. Although mechanical changes appear tissue-specific between interventions, similar increases in stretch tolerance after all interventions are strongly correlated with changes in ROM.

The neuromuscular adaptations in response to muscle stretch training have not been clearly described. In the present study, changes in muscle (at fascicular and whole muscle levels) and tendon mechanics, muscle activity, and spinal motoneuron excitability were examined during standardized plantar flexor stretches after 3 wk of twice daily stretch training (4 × 30 s). No changes were observed in a nonexercising control group ( n = 9), however stretch training elicited a 19.9% increase in dorsiflexion range of motion (ROM) and a 28% increase in passive joint moment at end ROM ( n = 12). Only a trend toward a decrease in passive plantar flexor moment during stretch (−9.9%; P = 0.15) was observed, and no changes in electromyographic amplitudes during ROM or at end ROM were detected. Decreases in H_max:M_max(tibial nerve stimulation) were observed at plantar flexed (gastrocnemius medialis and soleus) and neutral (soleus only) joint angles, but not with the ankle dorsiflexed. Muscle and fascicle strain increased (12 vs. 23%) along with a decrease in muscle stiffness (−18%) during stretch to a constant target joint angle. Muscle length at end ROM increased (13%) without a change in fascicle length, fascicle rotation, tendon elongation, or tendon stiffness following training. A lack of change in maximum voluntary contraction moment and rate of force development at any joint angle was taken to indicate a lack of change in series compliance of the muscle-tendon unit. Thus, increases in end ROM were underpinned by increases in maximum tolerable passive joint moment (stretch tolerance) and both muscle and fascicle elongation rather than changes in volitional muscle activation or motoneuron pool excitability.

Purpose: This study aimed to examine the effects of static and dynamic stretching routines performed as part of a comprehensive warm-up on flexibility and sprint running, jumping, and change of direction tests in team sport athletes. Methods: A randomized, controlled, crossover study design with experimenter blinding was conducted. On separate days, 20 male team sport athletes completed a comprehensive warm-up routine. After a low-intensity warm-up, a 5-s static stretch (5S), a 30-s static stretch (30S; 3 × 10-s stretches), a 5-repetition (per muscle group) dynamic stretch (DYN), or a no-stretch (NS) protocol was completed; stretches were done on seven lower body and two upper body regions. This was followed by test-specific practice progressing to maximum intensity. A comprehensive test battery assessing intervention effect expectations as well as flexibility, vertical jump, sprint running, and change of direction outcomes was then completed in a random order. Results: There were no effects of stretch condition on test performances. Before the study, 18/20 participants nominated DYN as the most likely to improve performance and 15/20 nominated NS as least likely. Immediately before testing, NS was rated less “effective” (4.0 ± 2.2 on a 10-point scale) than 5S, 30S, and DYN (5.3–6.4). Nonetheless, these ratings were not related to test performances. Conclusion: Participants felt they were more likely to perform well when stretching was performed as part of the warm-up, irrespective of stretch type. However, no effect of muscle stretching was observed on flexibility and physical function compared with no stretching. On the basis of the current evidence, the inclusion of short durations of either static or dynamic stretching is unlikely to affect sprint running, jumping, or change of direction performance when performed as part of a comprehensive physical preparation routine.