The Comparison of Different Stretching Intensities on the Range of Motion and Muscle Stiffness of the Quadriceps Muscles.
high-intensity stretching
shear elastic modulus
static stretching
stretch tolerance
visual analog scale
Journal
Frontiers in physiology
ISSN: 1664-042X
Titre abrégé: Front Physiol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101549006
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
13
11
2020
accepted:
09
12
2020
entrez:
1
2
2021
pubmed:
2
2
2021
medline:
2
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Muscle strain is one of the most frequent sports injuries, having the rectus femoris (RF) muscle as the reported preferred site of quadriceps muscle strain. The decrease muscle stiffness could be an effective RF muscle strain prevention. In recent studies, a high-intensity static stretching intervention decreased passive stiffness, though no study has investigated on the effect of the different static stretching intervention intensities on quadriceps muscle stiffness. The purpose of this study was to investigate the three different quadriceps muscle stiffness intensities (120 vs. 100 vs. 80%). Eighteen healthy, sedentary male volunteers participated in the study and randomly performed three intensities. The static stretching intervention was performed in knee flexion with 30° hip extension. Three 60-second stretching intervention with a 30-second interval were performed at each stretching intensity. We measured knee flexion range of motion and shear elastic modulus of the RF muscle used by ultrasonic shear-wave elastography before and after the static stretching intervention. Our results showed that the knee flexion range of motion was increased after 100% (
Identifiants
pubmed: 33519530
doi: 10.3389/fphys.2020.628870
pmc: PMC7838703
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
628870Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Nakamura, Sato, Murakami, Kiyono, Yahata, Sanuki, Yoshida, Fukaya and Takeuchi.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Am J Sports Med. 2010 Oct;38(10):2058-64
pubmed: 20595555
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2020 Nov 5;:
pubmed: 33151438
Sports Biomech. 2017 Sep;16(3):361-373
pubmed: 28553879
Phys Ther. 2010 Mar;90(3):438-49
pubmed: 20075147
PLoS One. 2020 Feb 6;15(2):e0228583
pubmed: 32027694
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2017 Jan;27(1):99-106
pubmed: 26669626
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2010 Apr;20(2):169-81
pubmed: 20030776
Am J Sports Med. 2004 Apr-May;32(3):710-9
pubmed: 15090389
Man Ther. 2013 Jun;18(3):211-5
pubmed: 23294911
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013 Jul;45(7):1348-54
pubmed: 23299765
Front Physiol. 2020 Nov 20;11:601912
pubmed: 33329054
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2019 Jan;61:222-226
pubmed: 30599387
Man Ther. 2015 Aug;20(4):610-3
pubmed: 25795108
Am J Sports Med. 1996;24(6 Suppl):S2-8
pubmed: 8947416
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2014 Sep;40(9):1991-7
pubmed: 24973829
Int J Sports Med. 2018 Apr;39(4):243-254
pubmed: 29506306
Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2017 Dec;32:98-103
pubmed: 28988152
J Sports Sci Med. 2020 May 01;19(2):429-435
pubmed: 32390737
Med Ultrason. 2019 May 2;21(2):136-143
pubmed: 31063516
J Sport Rehabil. 2019 Oct 18;29(5):578-582
pubmed: 31094610
Br J Sports Med. 2017 Sep;51(17):1265-1271
pubmed: 28756389
Br J Sports Med. 2020 Sep;54(18):1103-1107
pubmed: 32024646
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012 Aug 13;13:146
pubmed: 22889146
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2016 May;116(5):911-8
pubmed: 26945574
J Strength Cond Res. 2017 Dec;31(12):3403-3410
pubmed: 27984497
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015 Oct;47(10):2181-90
pubmed: 25668401
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2018 Mar;28(3):794-806
pubmed: 28801950