Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Strength Cond Res. 2013 Jan;27(1):195-201. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182510856.

Effects of proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching and static stretching on maximal voluntary contraction.

Author information

1
Department of Sports and Health Sciences, Faculty of Human Sciences, University of East Asia, Yamaguchi, Japan.

Abstract

This study was undertaken to investigate and compare the effects of proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching and static stretching on maximal voluntary contraction (MVC). Thirteen male university students (age, 20 ± 1 years; height, 172.2 ± 4.6 cm; weight, 68.4 ± 6.7 kg; mean ± SD) completed 3 different conditions on 3 nonconsecutive days in randomized order: static stretching (SS), PNF stretching (PNF), and no stretching (control, CON). Each condition consisted of a 5-minute rest accompanied by one of the following activities: (a) control, (b) SS, or (c) PNF stretching. The hip flexion range of motion (ROM) was evaluated immediately before and after the activity. The MVC of knee flexion was then measured. Surface electromyography was recorded from the biceps femoris and vastus lateralis muscles during MVC tests and stretching. Although increases in ROM were significantly greater after PNF than after SS (p < 0.01), the decreases in MVC were similar between the 2 treatments. These results suggest that, although PNF stretching increases ROM more than SS, PNF stretching and SS is detrimental to isometric maximal strength.

PMID:
22395281
DOI:
10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182510856
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wolters Kluwer
Loading ...
Support Center