Scand J Med Sci Sports 2010: 20: 268–281
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.00923.x
Acute effects of static and dynamic stretching on leg flexor and
extensor isokinetic strength in elite women athletes
U. Sekir1, R. Arabaci2, B. Akova1, S. M. Kadagan1
1
Department of Sports Medicine, Medical School of Uludag University, Bursa, Turkey, 2Department of Physical Education and
Sport, Faculty of Education, Uludag University, Bursa, Turkey
Corresponding author: Ufuk Sekir, Associate Professor, MD, Department of Sports Medicine, Medical School of Uludag
University, 16059 Gorukle, Bursa, Turkey. Tel: 190 (224) 295 35 00, Fax: 190 (224) 442 87 27, E-mail: ufuksek@gmail.
com
Accepted for publication 8 January 2009
The aim of this study was to explore the effects of static and
dynamic stretching of the leg flexors and extensors on
concentric and eccentric peak torque (PT) and electromyo-
graphy (EMG) amplitude of the leg extensors and flexors in
women athletes. Ten elite women athletes completed the
following intervention protocol in a randomized order on
separate days: (a) non-stretching (control), (b) static
stretching, and (c) dynamic stretching. Stretched muscles
were the quadriceps and hamstring muscles. Before and
after the stretching or control intervention, concentric and
eccentric isokinetic PT and EMG activity of the leg
extensors and flexors were measured at 60 and 1801/s.
Concentric and eccentric quadriceps and hamstring muscle
Strength, one of the muscular performance indica-
tors, is an important physical fitness factor that
affects various sport performances. Many athletes
use some type of pre-participation warm-up routine
to prepare themselves for athletic practice or compe-
tition. Traditionally, these warm-ups have included
some form of stretching, and stretching has been
commonplace in a multitude of sports (ACSM, 2000;
Holcomb, 2000). Many athletes, athletic trainers and
other rehabilitation professionals believe that
stretching promotes better performance and/or re-
duces the risk of musculoskeletal injury during stren-
uous exercise or strength assessment tests by
improving flexibility or pain-free range of motion
about a joint (Shellock & Prentice, 1985; Alter,
1997). Athletes and coaches use many different types
of stretching that are usually based only on their
personal preference, but no optimal type or amount
of stretching has been identified. There are various
techniques of stretching, including ballistic, proprio-
ceptive neuromuscular facilitation, static, and dy-
namic stretching (Alter, 1997; Hedrick, 2000).
Among these, static stretching is widely used because
268
& 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S
strength at both test speeds displayed a significant decrease
following static stretching (Po0.01–0.001). In contrast, a
significant increase was observed after dynamic stretching
for these strength parameters (Po0.05–0.001). Parallel
to this, normalized EMG amplitude parameters exhibited
significant decreases following static (Po0.05–0.001)
and significant increases following dynamic stretching
(Po0.05–0.001) during quadriceps and hamstring muscle
actions at both concentric and eccentric testing modes. Our
findings suggest that dynamic stretching, as opposed to
static or no stretching, may be an effective technique for
enhancing muscle performance during the pre-competition
warm-up routine in elite women athletes.
its application is easy and safe (Alter, 1997; Hedrick,
2000).
Recently, numerous studies have examined the
effects of static or dynamic stretching on maximal
isometric, concentric, or eccentric dynamic muscle
strength and muscle electromyography (EMG) activ-
ity for the knee joint (Kokkonen et al., 1998; Young
& Elliott, 2001; Behm et al., 2004; Cramer et al.,
2004, 2005, 2006, 2007a, b; Marek et al., 2005; Ogura
et al., 2007; Yamaguchi et al., 2007). Typically, it was
shown that pre-exercise static stretching may tem-
porarily compromise a muscle’s ability to produce
strength either isometrically or isokinetically (Kok-
konen et al., 1998; Avela et al., 1999; Behm et al.,
2001; Nelson et al., 2001a, b; Cramer et al., 2004,
2005, 2007a; Marek et al., 2005; Yamaguchi et al.,
2006). In contrast, some evidence exists indicating
that dynamic stretching exercises may improve mus-
cle strength performance (Yamaguchi & Ishii, 2005;
Yamaguchi et al., 2007). This has implications for
athletes involved in sports that require high levels of
strength and force production. Some researchers
have proposed that static stretching before competi-

tion may hinder performance and prompted recom-
mendations that static stretching be omitted or
replaced by dynamic stretching during warm-ups
(Kokkonen et al., 1998; Nelson et al., 2001b; Young
& Elliott, 2001; Cramer et al., 2004; Yamaguchi et
al., 2006, 2007). When all these studies were scruti-
nized, except the study by Behm et al. (2004) that
investigated the effects of stretching of the quadri-
ceps, hamstring, and plantar flexors on quadriceps
maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) strength, it is
obvious that only single muscle groups like the
quadriceps (Cramer et al., 2004, 2005, 2006,
2007a, b; Marek et al., 2005; Yamaguchi & Ishii,
2005; Ogura et al., 2007; Yamaguchi et al., 2007) or
hamstrings (Ogura et al., 2007; Herda et al., 2008)
were stretched for the investigation. During the
warm-up routine, however, athletes prefer to stretch
for the knee joint both of their quadriceps and
hamstring muscles. Thus, it is important to know
how stretching of the hamstring and quadriceps
muscles together, closely related to the actual de-
mands of sport, affects the strength performance of
these muscles. Additionally, although there are stu-
dies indicating improved muscle strength perfor-
mance following dynamic stretching (Yamaguchi &
Ishii, 2005; Yamaguchi et al., 2007), it is not known
how dynamic stretching affects strength and EMG
activity during isokinetic quadriceps and hamstring
contractions in concentric and eccentric modes. Be-
sides, there is also no knowledge in the literature
about the effects of static hamstring stretching on
hamstring EMG activity during maximal voluntary
contractions. Furthermore, to date, no research has
investigated the effects of these two modes of stretch-
ing exercises for the quadriceps and hamstring mus-
cles on muscle performance parameters in women
elite athletes.
Therefore, the specific purposes of this study were
to examine the effects of static and dynamic stretch-
ing of the leg flexor and extensors within a warm-up
routine on concentric and eccentric peak torque (PT)
and EMG amplitude of the leg extensors (vastus
lateralis and rectus femoris) and flexors (medial and
lateral hamstring) in women elite athletes.
Material and methods
Subjects
A total of 10 healthy Caucasian female subjects volunteered to
participate in the present study. Their physical characteristics
were: age, 20  2 years; height, 165  7 cm; weight, 58  8 kg.
All subjects were elite competitive athletes and members of the
National Athletics clubs. They participated in regular athletics
sport activities like hammer throw, triple jump, heptathlon,
high jump, 100 m hurdles, and long- and middle-distance track
events. Their training backgrounds were determined according
to declarations made by the team coaches and the athletes. On
average, they trained for 7  2 years and 11  3 h per week.
Static and dynamic stretching: women athletes
The test procedure took place in the subject’s dominant leg,
and all of the subjects used the right leg. Limb dominance was
determined by asking subjects which leg they would use to
naturally kick a ball. None of the subjects were naı̈ve to the
‘‘stretching-induced force deficit’’ phenomena. We told them
that we only want to investigate whether strength would show
changes following dynamic or static stretching. Anyone with a
current or a recent low-back-, hip-, knee-, or ankle-related
injury, complaining of pain, swelling, or functional limitations
in these joints and apparent limitations in knee range of
motion was excluded from this study. After being informed
about the study and test procedures, and any possible risks
and discomfort that might ensue, their written informed
consent to participate was obtained in accordance with the
Helsinki Declaration (WMADH, 2000).
Experimental procedure
Before the experiments, each subject visited the laboratory to
receive instructions and participated in a familiarization trial
to practice leg extensor and flexor strength tests in concentric
and eccentric modes at selected angular velocities. Thereafter,
during the second laboratory visit, all subjects completed the
following intervention protocol in a randomized order on
separate days: (a) non-stretching (control), (b) static stretch-
ing, and (c) dynamic stretching. The test procedure was
conducted on three non-consecutive days and was completed
within 1 week. Before (pre) and after (post) the stretching or
control intervention, concentric and eccentric isokinetic PT
for leg extension and flexion, and electromyographic activity
of the leg extensors and flexors were measured. In addition,
each subject performed a 5-min warm-up at 50 W on a
stationary cycle ergometer before the initial isokinetic testing
on all test days. The average duration for each of the static and
dynamic stretching procedures was 6  1 min. Therefore, in
the non-stretching (control) period, each subject was allowed a
5-min rest interval in a sitting or a supine position with both
legs extended.
Static stretching exercises
In order to stretch the quadriceps and hamstring muscles in
the dominant limb, two static unassisted stretching exercises
were designed for both the extensor and the flexor muscle
groups. The subject performed two successive repetitions of
each unassisted stretching exercise for 20 s to the threshold of
mild discomfort, but not pain, as acknowledged by the subject.
Between each stretching repetition and at the time of changing
the stretching exercise and the muscle group, the leg was
returned to a neutral position for a 15-s rest period. The total
stretching time was 6  1 min. It is generally recommended
that stretches are held longer than this; however, this was the
amount of time that the athletes typically held stretches before
activity and this time interval was selected to mimic those
conditions. Static stretching for both of the quadriceps and
hamstring muscles was carried out in the standing and sitting
position.
Quadriceps
(a) For the standing quadriceps stretching exercise, the subject
stood upright with one hand against a wall for balance. The
subject then flexed the dominant leg (right) to a knee joint
angle of 901. The ankle of the flexed leg was grasped by the
right hand, and the foot was raised so that the heel of the
dominant foot approached the buttocks and extended the hip
joint [Fig. 1(a)]. (b) The subjects executed the stretching
269
Sekir et al.
exercises in the sitting position on a medium-density polyfoam
exercise mat. After sitting on the mat they flexed their
dominant legs so that the heel reached the buttocks and curled
the non-dominant legs so that the sole was against the inside
of the dominant thigh. Thereafter, in order to stretch the
quadriceps, they leaned their body backwards [Fig. 1(c)].
Hamstring
(a) In the standing stretch position, the subjects placed the
dominant foot being stretched forward on a bench or a step
with the leg slightly bent. While supporting most of their
weight on the other non-dominant foot, they leaned forward
at the waist and bent from the hips with the arms reaching for
the toes until they felt the stretch in the hamstrings [Fig. 1(b)].
(b) The sitting stretch position was made as for the quadriceps
muscle on the exercise mat. The subjects straightened the
dominant legs and curled the non-dominant legs so that the
sole was against the inside of the dominant thigh. Thereafter,
they leaned forward with their backs straight and tried to hold
the extended leg as far as possible with the hands until feeling
tension on the hamstring muscles. The holding point of the
stretch was set at the maximal possible length without feeling
pain or discomfort [Fig. 1(d)].
Dynamic stretching exercises
For dynamic stretching, similar to static stretching exercises,
two different stretching modes were designed for both the
extensor and the flexor muscle groups. Each subject con-
270
Fig. 1. The four types of static stretching
exercise for the quadriceps and ham-
string muscles.
tracted the antagonist of the target muscle (either the quad-
riceps or hamstring) intentionally in the standing upright
position and flexed or extended some joints once every 2 s so
that the target muscle was stretched. Before performing each
stretching exercise, we explained to the subjects the muscle
groups that should be contracted. The subjects performed two
repetitions of every stretching exercise. Each stretching was
performed five times, slowly at first, and then 10 times as
quickly and powerfully as possible without bouncing. Between
each stretching repetition and at the time of changing the
stretching exercise and the muscle group, subjects stood
upright for a 15-s rest period. The total duration of the
dynamic stretching was 6  1 min.
Quadriceps
(a) In the standing upright position, the subject contracted her
hamstrings intentionally and flexed her leg so that her heel
touched her buttock [Fig. 2(a)].
(b) In the standing upright position, the subject leaned
forward and raised her foot from the floor with her hip and
leg lightly flexed. Then, the subject contracted her hip ex-
tensors and hamstring muscles so that her leg was extended to
the posterior aspect of the body while the hips nearly came to
full extension and the leg to full flexion [Fig. 2(b)].
Hamstring
(a) In the standing upright position, the subject contracted the
hip flexors intentionally with the leg extended and flexed her

Fig. 2. The four types of dynamic stretching exercise for the quadriceps and hamstring muscles.
hip joint so that her leg was swung up to the anterior aspect of
her body [Fig. 2(c)].
(b) In the standing upright position, the subject contracted her
hip flexors and flexed her hip joint, raising her thigh parallel to
the ground with her leg flexed at about 901. Then, the subject
contracted her quadriceps with the height of her thigh main-
tained and extended her knee joint so that her leg extended to
the anterior aspect of her body [Fig. 2(d)].
Isokinetic testing procedure
The Cybex NORM isokinetic system (Lumex Inc., Ronkon-
koma, New York, USA) was used for the concentric and
eccentric PT of the quadriceps and hamstring muscles. The
Cybex NORM dynamometer is a hydraulically driven and
microcomputer-controlled device operating in a continuous
passive motion, isometric, isotonic and isokinetic concentric
and eccentric modes. The Cybex dynamometer was calibrated
as part of the regular schedule for maintenance of equipment
used for this testing device (Ronkonkoma, 1995).
The knee to be tested was placed on the leg flexion-
extension plate of the Cybex NORM device, according to
the manufacturer’s instructions for isolating leg flexion and
extension, and was secured with Velcro straps (Ronkonkoma,
1995). The length of the dynamometer was adapted to the
length of the knee of each subject. Standard stabilization
strapping was placed across the distal thigh and chest, and
placements were limited to grasping the waist stabilization
strap. Before the testing session started, to familiarize them-
selves with the testing device, subjects were instructed to
perform three active repetitions of leg movement ranging
from maximal flexion to maximal extension. The same in-
vestigator performed all the tests to ensure standardization.
Static and dynamic stretching: women athletes
Subjects were instructed to give 100% effort and received
positive feedback during testing. The concentric and eccentric
PT measurements were carried out separately; eccentric mea-
surement was followed by concentric measurement. At the
beginning of the test condition, subjects were allowed three
submaximal contractions of the quadriceps and hamstring
muscle group to familiarize themselves with the test condi-
tions. Following the three submaximal trials, they were given
four maximal contractions at the angular velocities of 60 and
1801/s. Eccentric strength measurement was performed at the
same angular velocities as in the concentric measurement. A
1-min rest was allowed between each of the test velocities, and
a minimum of a 3-min rest was allowed between the concentric
and eccentric measurements to prevent the buildup of fatigue.
The best PT of the four maximal contractions for each test
condition was collected for data analysis.
EMG measurements
The electromyographic activity was recorded from the leg
extensor (vastus lateralis and rectus femoris) and flexor [biceps
femoris (BF) and semitendinosus (ST)] muscles with a porta-
ble 8-channel Muscle Testert device (ME3000P, Mega Elec-
tronics, Kuopio, Finland). Bipolar pregelled Ag/AgCl surface
electrodes (Kendall-Arbo electrodes with 1 cm silver–silver
chloride disks; Tyco Healthcare, Neustadt/Donau, Germany)
were used to record the EMG from these muscles. Before the
electrode placements, the skin was shaved and cleaned with an
isopropyl alcohol and then rubbed with sandpaper to main-
tain the inter-electrode impedance below 2000 O and minimize
skin impedance. All the electrodes were attached to the skin
over the belly of the muscles along a line approximately
parallel to the direction of the underlying muscle fibers. The
271
Sekir et al.
distance between the centers of the electrode pairs was 20 mm. Reliability
The electrodes for the vastus lateralis were placed at 66% of To determine the test–retest reliability of our laboratory for
the distance from the anterior superior iliac spine to the lateral PT and EMG amplitude values during isokinetic concentric
border of the patella. For the rectus femoris, electrodes were and eccentric leg extension and flexion movements, the tests
placed at 50% of the distance from the anterior superior iliac were repeated twice at 3–5-day intervals in 11 healthy female
spine to the superior aspect of the patella. The electrode recreational athletes. Tables 1 and 2 show the mean and
locations for the BF were over the long head of the BF standard deviations from the first and second tests, and the
halfway along the line between the ischial tuberosity and the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) scores for PT and
lateral condyle of the femur. For the ST, electrodes were EMG amplitude measures, respectively. The ICC for PT and
placed at halfway along the line between the ischial tuberosity EMG amplitude ranged from 0.90 to 0.98, and 0.69 to 0.80,
and the medial condyle of the femur. The electrodes remained respectively. There were no significant differences between the
on the skin throughout the stretching exercises. The signals two testing sessions for all the measured parameters (P40.05).
were amplified with analog differential amplifiers placed close
to the recording electrodes (common mode rejection ratio
typical 110 dB), low pass filtered (8–500 Hz, 3 dB points),
12-bit analog-to-digital converted, and stored in a microcom-
puter (Mega Electronics, ME3000P system). This unit sampled
Results
the analog EMG signal at a frequency of 1000 Hz. During Isokinetic strength
recording, the data were transmitted online to a personal Tables 3 and 4 present the mean PT values, including
computer with an optic cable and the raw EMG amplitude
values (mV) were calculated automatically by means of
concentric and eccentric strength, in all the three
ME3000P software (MegaWin v2.2, Mega Electronics) for a groups for the quadriceps and hamstring muscle,
period that corresponded to a 901 range of motion from respectively. There were no statistically significant
approximately full leg extension to 901 of flexion at the differences among the three groups’ pre-test scores
knee. The stored raw EMG data were expressed as absolute
root-mean-square amplitude values (mV) by the software. The
Table 1. Test–retest reliability data for peak torque measures during
values calculated from the EMG signals were synchronized to
the isokinetic data using the onset of the EMG signal as the isokinetic concentric and eccentric leg extension and flexion movements
onset of concentric and eccentric torque production; therefore, at 60 and 1801/s angular velocities (mean  SD)
the representative isokinetic values corresponded to EMG
First test Second test ICC P value
values.
ConQ60 (N m) 227  49 228  47 0.98 0.797
ConQ180 (N m) 134  29 131  29 0.94 0.425
Normalization EccQ60 (N m) 266  79 273  76 0.92 0.588
EccQ180 (N m) 234  66 214  59 0.94 0.056
The EMG amplitude has been normalized against the MVC ConH60 (N m) 150  34 157  32 0.90 0.255
trial that yielded the highest PT value and was carried out ConH180 (N m) 107  22 109  24 0.90 0.675
before the stretching and first isokinetic testing intervention. EccH60 (N m) 161  52 162  44 0.90 0.879
MVCs were attained during the isometric contractions on the EccH180 (N m) 161  44 162  49 0.94 0.916
isokinetic dynamometer at 601 for leg extensors (vastus
lateralis and rectus femoris) and 301 for leg flexors (BF and Ecc, eccentric; Con, concentric; Q, quadriceps; H, hamstring; 60, 601/s,
ST). The mean muscular activity for the four concerned 180, 1801/s.
muscle group was expressed separately as the percentage
(%MVC) of the amplitude values obtained during the middle
Table 2. Test–retest reliability data for EMG amplitude measures during
2-s epoch of the 5-s MVC trial. In this way, normalization of
the EMG amplitude values allowed for comparisons between isokinetic concentric and eccentric leg extension and flexion movements
muscles, limbs, and velocities (Soderberg & Knutson, 2000). at 60 and 1801/s angular velocities (mean  SD)

First test Second test ICC P value

ConRF60 (%MVC) 83  12 81  11 0.74 0.626

Statistical analysis ConVL60 (%MVC) 94  20 98  13 0.80 0.363
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 16.0 ConRF180 (%MVC) 74  13 70  15 0.74 0.316
ConVL180 (%MVC) 91  19 98  11 0.76 0.103
(SPSS, SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois, USA) software. Mean,
EccRF60 (%MVC) 58  15 54  14 0.80 0.423
standard error of mean, and 95% confidence intervals were
EccVL60 (%MVC) 67  14 68  11 0.72 0.742
used to describe all variables. All tests were two-tailed and the EccRF180 (%MVC) 57  15 52  13 0.76 0.294
level of significance was set at Po0.05. Repeated-measures 3 EccVL180 (%MVC) 68  16 69  12 0.71 0.769
(stretch type)  2 (time) analysis of variance (ANOVA) model ConBF60 (%MVC) 104  31 102  22 0.78 0.777
was used for comparisons of changes in strength and normal- ConST60 (%MVC) 98  18 94  11 0.75 0.413
ized EMG parameters (%MVC) in both stretching conditions ConBF180 (%MVC) 92  18 87  20 0.69 0.431
(static and dynamic stretching) and the non-stretching control ConST180 (%MVC) 81  18 83  17 0.69 0.668
condition. When an appropriate and significant interaction EccBF60 (%MVC) 68  16 71  11 0.72 0.411
was indicated, follow-up analyses included paired-samples t- EccST60 (%MVC) 79  12 78  14 0.71 0.802
tests to examine the difference between pre- and post-inter- EccBF180 (%MVC) 69  25 65  12 0.70 0.529
vention within the three stretching conditions. In addition, a EccST180 (%MVC) 74  13 77  16 0.78 0.583
one-way ANOVA model was used to see whether there was a
probability for a significant difference among the three groups’ Ecc, eccentric; Con, concentric; BF, biceps femoris; ST, semitendinosus;
pre-test mean scores. %MVC, percent maximum voluntary contraction; 60, 601/s; 180, 1801/s.

272
 Static and dynamic stretching: women athletes
Table 3. Peak muscle strength of the quadriceps before and after stretching intervention in the three groups [mean  SEM (95% CI)]

Control Static Dynamic P value

(group  time)
Before After Before After Before After

ConPT60 (N m) 233  15 229  16 235  15 217  16*** 226  17 245  17*** o0.001
(204–262) (199–260) (206–264) (187–247) (145–180) (134–166)
ConPT180 (N m) 137  9 136  9 133  10 121  9*** 127  10 142  10** o0.001
(120–155) (119–154) (114–151) (104–138) (98–128) (90–118)
EccPT60 (N m) 276  24 279  23 283  23 255  21*** 269  21 308  19*** o0.001
(229–323) (233–324) (237–328) (213–296) (229–309) (271–345)
EccPT180 (N m) 246  17 247  17 252  18 227  17*** 246  18 283  17*** o0.001
(212–280) (214–281) (217–286) (195–260) (212–281) (251–316)

**Po0.01 (following stretching).

***Po0.001 (following stretching).
Ecc, eccentric; Con, concentric; PT, peak torque.

Table 4. Peak muscle strength of the hamstring before and after stretching intervention in the three groups [mean  SEM (95% CI)]

Control Static Dynamic P value

(group  time)
Before After Before After Before After

ConPT60 (N m) 156  9 158  9 163  9 150  8** 147  9 157  9* o0.001

(139–174) (140–175) (145–180) (134–166) (128–165) (139–175)
ConPT180 (N m) 108  7 110  7 113  8 104  7** 102  7 109  6 o0.001
(95–121) (97–123) (98–128) (90–118) (88–116) (96–122)
EccPT60 (N m) 169  15 168  13 168  13 148  14*** 163  13 186  14*** o0.001
(141–198) (142–194) (142–194) (122–174) (137–189) (158–214)
EccPT180 (N m) 164  14 164  14 166  16 143  14*** 159  15 182  14*** o0.001
(136–192) (138–191) (136–197) (116–170) (130–187) (155–210)

*Po0.05 (following stretching).

**Po0.01 (following stretching).
***Po0.001 (following stretching).
Ecc, eccentric; Con, concentric; PT, peak torque.

for quadriceps and hamstring PT values (P40.05).
According to the 3  2 ANOVA model, the PT for
the quadriceps muscle showed a significant stretch
type  time interaction (P 5 0.0001 for concentric
and eccentric modes at 60 and 1801/s, Table 3). As
shown also in Table 3, besides the non-significant
differences in the control condition (P40.05), con-
centric and eccentric quadriceps muscle strength at
both test speeds (60 and 1801/s) displayed a signifi-
cant decrease following static stretching (Po0.001).
In contrast, a significant increase was observed
after dynamic stretching for these strength para-
meters (Po0.01 and Po0.001). Similar to the
quadriceps muscle strength changes, the 3  2
ANOVA model for the PT of the hamstring muscle
displayed a significant stretch type  time interaction
(P 5 0.0001 for concentric and eccentric modes at 60
and 1801/s, Table 4). Besides, muscle strength in the
hamstring muscles (Table 4) showed a significant
reduction after static stretching (Po0.01 and
Po0.001) and, except for concentric PT at 1801/s
velocity, a significant improvement after dynamic
stretching (Po0.05 and Po0.001), whereas no
changes were observed in the non-stretching control
group (P40.05).
EMG
Tables 5 and 6 present the mean values for the
normalized EMG amplitudes in all the three groups
during concentric and eccentric test modes at both
velocities (60 and 1801/s) for the quadriceps (rectus
femoris and vastus lateralis) and hamstring muscle
(BF and ST), respectively. Except for a significant
difference in the normalized EMG value for the
vastus lateralis during concentric contraction at
1801/s (P 5 0.019), there were no other statistically
significant differences among the three groups’ pre-
test scores for quadriceps and hamstring EMG
amplitude values (P40.05). After executing the
3  2 ANOVA model, the normalized EMG ampli-
tude values for the quadriceps and hamstring muscles
exhibited a significant stretch type  time interaction
(P 5 0.001 for vastus lateralis during eccentric con-

273
Sekir et al.
Table 5. Normalized EMG amplitude values from the rectus femoris and vastus lateralis muscles before and after stretching intervention in the three
groups during the isokinetic leg extension and flexion movements in concentric and eccentric modes [mean  SEM (95% CI)]

Control Static Dynamic P value

(group  time)
Before After Before After Before After

ConRF60 (%MVC) 86  5 82  5* 101  12 90  12** 80  4 87  5** o0.001

(75–96) (72–91) (78–125) (67–113) (71–88) (77–97)
ConVL60 (%MVC) 91  7 90  6 99  5 89  4** 79  5 83  5* o0.001
(76–105) (77–102) (90–109) (81–98) (69–89) (73–94)
ConRF180 (%MVC) 75  5 75  5 91  12 78  12*** 71  5 81  5*** o0.001
(67–84) (65–85) (66–115) (55–101) (61–81) (72–90)
ConVL180 (%MVC) 90  6 89  6 96  3 82  3*** 75  5 89  7** o0.001
(77–102) (78–101) (90–102) (76–89) (64–85) (74–103)
EccRF60 (%MVC) 57  5 56  4 69  7 61  6** 55  4 64  5** o0.001
(48–66) (48–64) (57–82) (50–73) (46–63) (55–73)
EccVL60 (%MVC) 66  4 65  5 72  7 66  7** 55  3 66  4** o0.001
(58–74) (55–74) (59–86) (53–80) (50–61) (58–73)
EccRF180 (%MVC) 56  5 57  4 67  8 61  7* 51  4 61  3** o0.001
(47–65) (49–65) (51–83) (47–75) (43–59) (55–68)
EccVL180 (%MVC) 69  6 67  6 70  4 64  5** 55  6 64  6* o0.01
(57–80) (55–79) (62–79) (54–74) (43–66) (52–75)

*Po0.05 (following stretching).

**Po0.01 (following stretching).
***Po0.001 (following stretching).
Ecc, eccentric; Con, concentric; RF, rectus femoris; VL, vastus lateralis; %MVC, percent maximum voluntary contraction; EMG, electromyography.

Table 6. Normalized EMG amplitude values from the biceps femoris and semitendinosus muscles before and after stretching intervention in the three
groups during the isokinetic leg extension and flexion movements in concentric and eccentric modes [mean  SEM (95% CI)]

Control Static Dynamic P value

(group  time)
Before After Before After Before After

ConBF60 (%MVC) 106  12 102  11** 103  7 90  6** 95  6 104  8* o0.001

(84–129) (81–123) (89–117) (79–100) (84–106) (89–119)
ConST60 (%MVC) 99  6 96  6 95  4 85  3*** 85  5 96  6** o0.001
(87–112) (85–107) (88–102) (80–91) (76–95) (84–108)
ConBF180 (%MVC) 97  9 93  10 91  6 76  4** 88  6 94  7 o0.001
(79–115) (74–112) (80–102) (68–85) (76–99) (81–106)
ConST180 (%MVC) 80  6 78  6 82  6 70  5** 78  4 85  6* o0.001
(69–92) (67–90) (71–93) (61–79) (69–86) (74–96)
EccBF60 (%MVC) 71  7 68  7 73  3 64  3** 65  5 73  5* o0.001
(58–85) (55–82) (67–80) (58–70) (55–75) (63–83)
EccST60 (%MVC) 80  4 76  4 81  5 70  4*** 73  4 83  5* o0.001
(72–88) (69–84) (72–91) (63–77) (65–81) (73–93)
EccBF180 (%MVC) 68  8 65  7 64  4 56  3** 59  4 65  5* o0.001
(53–83) (51–79) (57–72) (51–61) (51–67) (56–74)
EccST180 (%MVC) 75  4 71  5 76  5 64  5*** 71  6 81  7** o0.001
(66–83) (62–80) (66–87) (54–74) (60–83) (67–95)

*Po0.05 (following stretching).

**Po0.01 (following stretching).
***Po0.001 (following stretching).
Ecc, eccentric; Con, concentric; BF, biceps femoris; ST, semitendinosus; %MVC, percent maximum voluntary contraction; EMG, electromyography.

traction at 1801/s, and P 5 0.0001 for vastus lateralis
during eccentric contraction at 601/s, concentric
contraction at 60 and 1801/s, and for rectus femoris,
BF and ST during concentric and eccentric contrac-
tions at 60 and 1801/s, Table 5 and 6). On the other
hand, as can be seen in the tables, the normalized
EMG amplitude parameters exhibited significant
decreases following static (Po0.05–0.001) and, ex-
cept for the normalized EMG amplitude value for
BF during concentric contraction at 1801/s velocity,
significant increases following dynamic stretching
(Po0.05–0.001) during quadriceps (Table 5) and
hamstring (Table 6) contractions at both concentric
and eccentric testing modes. Although no significant

274

normalized EMG amplitude differences were present
after the non-stretching condition, interestingly, only
normalized EMG amplitude for the rectus femoris
and BF muscles during the concentric leg extension
and flexion test modes at 601/s angular velocity
showed a significant reduction (Po0.05–0.01).
Raw data
All of the raw data for PT and EMG amplitude values
from the subjects (n 5 10) are given in separate tables
(Appendix 1, 2, and 3). Appendix 1 shows the PT values
and Appendix 2 and 3 the EMG amplitude values.
Discussion
As stretching exercises are traditionally recom-
mended before most physical activities, it is impor-
tant to determine to what extent a stretching routine
may influence the performance of the main activity.
In spite of stretching only a single muscle group,
during this phase, all of the activity-related muscle
groups are stretched, i.e. for knee joint the quad-
riceps and the hamstring muscles. In an attempt to
further elucidate the optimal pre-participation pro-
tocols for explosive-type activities, the current study
evaluated the acute effects of dynamic vs static
stretching of both the quadriceps and the hamstring
muscles on leg extensor and flexor muscle perfor-
mance with concentric and eccentric muscle actions
and on EMG activities of these muscles during these
actions. In brief, the results of the present study,
which was carried out in elite women athletes,
revealed that static stretching routines, which include
static stretching exercises of the leg extensors and
flexors, decrease concentric and eccentric isokinetic
strength in both the quadriceps and the hamstring
muscles. At the same time, the EMG activities of the
leg extensor and flexor muscles were also reduced
after static stretching. In contrast, concentric and
eccentric strength of the quadriceps and hamstring
muscles and their EMG activity displayed an in-
crease following dynamic stretching exercises of the
leg extensor and flexor muscles. These findings were
unique in that, to our knowledge, no other studies
have examined the effects of (a) dynamic stretching
on strength and EMG activity during isokinetic
quadriceps and hamstring contractions in concentric
and eccentric modes, and (b) static hamstring stretch-
ing on hamstring EMG activity.
The results of our study are partially consistent
with previous studies using similar muscle groups.
Various studies, with total stimuli duration varying
from 2 to 60 min, found that static stretching ex-
ercises preceding the main activity significantly de-
creases the force-producing capabilities of the
Static and dynamic stretching: women athletes
muscles (Kokkonen et al., 1998; Avela et al., 1999;
Fowles et al., 2000; Behm et al., 2001; Nelson et al.,
2001a, b, 2005; Cramer et al., 2004, 2005, 2007a;
Marek et al., 2005; Yamaguchi & Ishii, 2005; Bran-
denburg, 2006; Yamaguchi et al., 2006; Ogura et al.,
2007), whereas others have observed equivocal per-
formances immediately following a bout of static
stretching (Behm et al., 2004; Cramer et al., 2006;
Egan et al., 2006; Cramer et al., 2007b). Of these
investigations that have reported stretching-related
strength variations for isolated quadriceps or ham-
string muscle groups, the strength-testing protocols
have included isometric (Behm et al., 2001, 2004;
Nelson et al., 2001a; Ogura et al., 2007), isotonic
(Kokkonen et al., 1998; Nelson et al., 2005; Yama-
guchi & Ishii, 2005), dynamic constant external
resistance (Yamaguchi et al., 2006, 2007), or isoki-
netic (Holcomb, 2000; Cramer et al., 2004, 2005,
2006, 2007a, b; Marek et al., 2005; Brandenburg,
2006) muscle actions. Although the stretching time
in the present study was brief (80 s total for each
muscle), the isokinetic strength decrements found in
our study for the quadriceps and hamstring muscles
at concentric (8%) and eccentric (10–14%) modes
were profound. These findings of the present study
are unique based on previous studies that used longer
stretching durations (90–480 s) (Cramer et al., 2004,
2005, 2007a; Marek et al., 2005). When the studies
measuring strength with isokinetic protocols as in
our study were taken into consideration, for exam-
ple, Cramer et al. (2004, 2005, 2007a) showed that
concentric isokinetic leg extension PT declined after
static stretching of the leg extensors. Decreases
ranged from 2.6% to 3.4%. Similarly, Marek et al.
(2005) demonstrated that concentric quadriceps
strength following static stretching of the quadriceps
muscle decreases for about 2.8%. On the other hand,
Brandenburg (2006) also exhibited a concentric
strength decrement following static stretching in the
hamstring muscles (3%). The results obtained from
the present study regarding concentric strength de-
creases of the quadriceps and hamstring muscles
after static stretching are in agreement with the
above studies showing decreases in concentric iso-
kinetic strength following static stretching. Besides,
although the only two studies in the literature to date
about eccentric isokinetic quadriceps strength fol-
lowing static quadriceps stretching have displayed no
changes (Cramer et al., 2006, 2007b), our results
elicited eccentric strength decrements both in the
quadriceps and in the hamstring muscles after static
stretching of these muscle groups. Interestingly, an-
other unique study examining eccentric hamstring
strength following static hamstring stretching re-
vealed torque reductions of about 6% (Brandenburg,
2006). The reason for the discrepancy between the
results of the previous two studies (Cramer et al.,
275
Sekir et al.
2006, 2007b) and those of this study could not be
clarified from the results of this study. It is suggested
that static stretching before performance is sport
specific and subjects who have greater leg extension
strength before static stretching show a greater
reduction in strength after stretching (Nelson et al.,
2001b). Accordingly, one possible cause for this
could be arousal in the elite athletic subjects in our
study. The subjects in the previous two studies
(Cramer et al., 2006, 2007b) were not involved in
competitive sports, whereas the subjects in the sub-
sequent study (Brandenburg, 2006) had a minimum
of 1-year recreational resistance training experience.
It is possible that the muscle strength output of
untrained individuals may not respond in the same
way as that of well-conditioned athletes, and this
could also be the reason for greater strength decre-
ments in the present study, even though the total
stretching time was brief. Therefore, our opinion is
that this issue may need to be resolved and reeval-
uated in the future in athletes from different sport
disciplines and different training status.
Previous studies regarding the effects of stretching
interventions on strength used only a single muscle
group, either quadriceps or hamstring, for static
stretching. This is a rare situation in the practical
athletic field. Athletic performances are generally
consequences of multiple muscle activities. There-
fore, it is important to know the effects of stretching
of both the hamstring and the quadriceps muscles
that are closely related to the actual demands of sport
on strength performance. Until recently, only Behm
et al. (2004), Kokkonen et al. (1998) and Nelson et al.
(2005) have used this kind of quadriceps and ham-
string stretching together in their studies. Behm et al.
(2004) studied the effects of quadriceps, hamstring,
and plantar flexor stretching on MVC strength of the
quadriceps muscle only and found no significant
difference between static stretching and the control
condition. On the other hand, Kokkonen et al. (1998)
and Nelson et al. (2005) examined strength from both
of the quadriceps and hamstring muscles and found
that static stretching of these muscles reduces quad-
ricep strength by 3.2–8.1% and hamstring strength
by 5.5–7.3%. Although the contraction mode in
these studies was isotonic, the strength decrements
measured in the isokinetic action in the quadriceps
and hamstring muscles following static stretching
were closely consistent with these results.
Dynamic stretching has recently become popular
(Hedrick, 2000), but the effect of this technique on
muscular performance has not been examined com-
pletely. There are studies investigating only some
functional tasks (Fletcher & Jones, 2004; Little &
Williams, 2006; McMillian et al., 2006; Holt &
Lambourne, 2008) or isometric (Yamaguchi et al.,
2007; Herda et al., 2008) and dynamic constant
276
external resistance strength (Yamaguchi & Ishii,
2005, 2007) evaluations following dynamic stretch-
ing. To our knowledge, however, this is the first study
to examine the acute effects of dynamic stretching on
concentric and eccentric isokinetic strength. Previous
studies have reported acute increases in 20-m sprint
performance (Fletcher & Jones, 2004), vertical jump
height (Little & Williams, 2006; Holt & Lambourne,
2008) and T-drill performance (McMillian et al.,
2006) as a result of dynamic stretching. Yamaguchi
and Ishii (2005), Yamaguchi et al. (2007) reported an
increase in power output measured under dynamic
constant external resistance after the dynamic
stretching. In contrast, a study by Herda et al.
(2008) showed no changes in the isometric hamstring
strength at 1011, 811, 611, and 411 knee joint angles
from pre- to post-stretching for the dynamic stretch-
ing condition. The unique contribution of the present
study was that dynamic stretching elicited increases
in concentric and eccentric isokinetic PT of the
quadriceps and hamstring muscles. Thus, the present
study extended and appended the findings of the
above-mentioned studies regarding the effects of
dynamic stretching and supports the hypothesis
that dynamic stretching may be less detrimental to
muscle force production than static stretching.
Although the exact mechanisms by which static
stretching impairs strength performance are not
known, at least two primary hypotheses have been
proposed: (a) mechanical factors involving the vis-
coelastic properties of the musculotendinous unit
(Wilson et al., 1994; Kokkonen et al., 1998; Fowles
et al., 2000; Nelson et al., 2001a, b; Cramer et al.,
2004, 2005, 2007a; Marek et al., 2005; Yamaguchi
et al., 2006; Herda et al., 2008) and (b) neural factors
such as decreases in motor neuron pool excitability
that may reduce peripheral muscle activation or
altered reflex sensitivity that may result from the
inhibition of the acute response of musculotendinous
proprioceptors (Moore, 1984; Avela et al., 1999;
Fowles et al., 2000; Behm et al., 2001, 2004; Cramer
et al., 2004, 2007a, b; Herda et al., 2008). Fowles
et al. (2000) suggested that stretching-induced de-
creases in neural drive could only account for a
percentage of the force deficit, and thus mechanical
as well as neural factors may contribute to the
stretching-induced force deficit.
Regarding the neural factor, given that we have
also measured the EMG activity, it has been hy-
pothesized that neural factors such as decreased
motor unit activation, reduced firing frequency,
and/or altered reflex sensitivity contribute to the
stretching-induced decrease in strength (Moore,
1984; Avela et al., 1999; Fowles et al., 2000; Behm
et al., 2001, 2004; Cramer et al., 2004, 2007a, b).
Several studies have supported this hypothesis by
demonstrating stretching-induced decreases in mus-

cle activation through the use of surface (Fowles
et al., 2000; Behm et al., 2001; Marek et al., 2005;
Cramer et al., 2007a, b) and fine-wire (Avela et al.,
1999) EMG as well as twitch interpolation (Fowles et
al., 2000; Behm et al., 2001). Fowles et al. (2000)
reported that 60% of the decreases in the force of the
triceps surae were due to neural factors. Behm et al.
(2001) suggested that at least part of the stretching-
induced decreases in maximal force production of the
leg extensors was a result of decreases in muscle
activation. In addition, Cramer et al. (2007a, b) also
reported decreases in PT and surface EMG ampli-
tude after static stretching of the leg extensor mus-
cles. Furthermore, Avela et al. (1999) showed
decreases in motor unit recruitment (EMG ampli-
tude) and firing frequency (zero crossing rate) after
repeated passive stretch for the plantar flexor mus-
cles. They suggested that the decrease in the excita-
tion of the motoneuron pool resulted from a
reduction in excitatory drive from the Ia afferents
onto the á-motoneurons, possibly due to decreased
resting discharge of the muscle spindles via increased
compliance of the muscle–tendon unit.
In parallel to this information, it has been ob-
served that muscle spindles are active during con-
centric actions (Wilson et al., 1997; Kakuda &
Nagaoka, 1998). Activation of the muscle spindle
during concentric muscle actions appears to result
from the ability of the fusimotor system to maintain
tension in the intrafusal fibers. Provided the intrafu-
sal fibers remain taut, afferent muscle spindle activity
will remain elevated and continue to facilitate activa-
tion of the á-motoneuron pool (Kakuda & Nagaoka,
1998). However, if following static and continuous
stretching the sensitivity of the muscle spindle was
reduced (Avela et al., 1999) afferent activity originat-
ing from the intrafusal fibers would also be reduced,
with the end result being a decrement in neural drive
and thereby concentric strength. When looked from
another perspective, this alteration of the muscle
spindle activity could also be responsible for the
eccentric PT deficits following static stretching seen
in the present study. If prolonged exposure to static
stretching reduced the sensitivity of the muscle spin-
dle, the strength or contribution of the muscle
spindle reflex or stretch reflex to eccentric torque
production would also have diminished (Avela et al.,
1999). The results of the present study support those
of the previous studies (Avela et al., 1999; Fowles
et al., 2000; Behm et al., 2001; Cramer et al., 2005;
Marek et al., 2005) and indicate static stretching-
induced decreases in EMG amplitude at 60 and 1801/
s for the leg extensor (rectus femoris and vastus
lateralis) and flexor muscles (BF and ST) during
concentric and eccentric actions.
It is also necessary to consider the reason
why dynamic stretching improved concentric and
Static and dynamic stretching: women athletes
eccentric quadriceps and hamstring muscle strength.
Previous studies (Hedrick, 2000; McMillian et al.,
2006) suggested that a dynamic stretching exercise
might exert positive effects on muscular performance
by an elevation of muscular temperature (Bishop,
2003) or post-activation potentiation (PAP) caused
by voluntary contractions of the antagonist of the
target muscle (Bishop, 2003; Robbins, 2005; Yama-
guchi & Ishii, 2005; Little & Williams, 2006; Yama-
guchi et al., 2007). Bishop (2003) cited possible
factors related to temperature and signified these as
to decreased stiffness of the muscles and joints;
increased sensitivity of nerve receptors and increased
transmission rate of nerve impulses; changes in the
force–velocity relationship; and increased glycogen-
olysis, glycolysis, and high-energy phosphate degra-
dation. Another possible mechanism is PAP. PAP is
commonly defined as an increase in the efficiency of
the muscle to produce force after a conditioning
contractile activity (Sale, 2002). The principal me-
chanisms of PAP are considered to be phosphoryla-
tion of myosin regulatory light chains, which renders
the actin–myosin interaction more sensitive to Ca21
released from the sarcoplasmic reticulum. Increased
sensitivity to Ca21 has the greatest effect at low
myoplasmic levels of Ca21, thereby improving mus-
cular performance (Sale, 2002). Yamaguchi and Ishii
(2005), Yamaguchi et al. (2007) hypothesized that the
increase in force output after dynamic stretching was
caused by an enhancement of neuromuscular func-
tion, and they implied that the dynamic stretching
had a PAP effect on performance. Although we did
not measure muscle temperature directly in the pre-
sent study, our EMG activity measurements follow-
ing dynamic stretching support these suggestions
from the previous studies and indicate that increased
motor unit activation, either resulting from PAP or
increased temperature, was responsible at least for
the increased concentric strength. To explain the
possible mechanism for the increase in eccentric
strength, the activity of the muscle spindles can be
scrutinized again. Normally, in response to a quick
discontinuous stretch, as is in dynamic stretching, the
muscle spindle is stimulated, which ultimately height-
ens activation of the motor neurons innervating the
stretched muscle (Komi, 2000). This increased neural
drive to the stretched muscle may have elevated the
eccentric torque production of the quadriceps and
hamstring muscles.
In conclusion, the results of the present study
showed that static stretching exercises for the leg
extensors and flexors decrease concentric and ec-
centric isokinetic strength in both the quadriceps
and the hamstring muscles. In contrast, concentric
and eccentric strength of the quadriceps and ham-
string muscles displayed an increase following dy-
namic stretching exercises of the leg extensor and
277
Sekir et al.
flexor muscles. Owing to the EMG activity measure-
ments in the study, it is possible to state that the
underlying mechanism for these strength alterations
may be neuromuscular in origin. Women athletes
who perform stretching exercises for both the quad-
riceps and the hamstring muscles before athletic
activities should consider these results and may
prefer to use dynamic exercises as stretching routines.
Study limitations
This study did not evaluate change in the range of
motion or change in resistance to stretch before and
after each intervention. Therefore, it is not known
whether the stretching interventions were actually
effective in increasing flexibility or in decreasing
muscle stiffness. This limitation is a common pro-
blem in many of these studies; hence, future investi-
gations should take this into account. The other
remarkable limitation of the present study is that
only PT values were measured instead of assessing
the angle of PT or torque at different positions of the
ROM, i.e. at terminal ranges of leg extension or leg
flexion. Nelson et al. (2001a) and Herda et al. (2008)
have demonstrated static stretching-induced strength
loss at short muscle lengths, but not at long muscle
lengths during isometric contractions. It would be
interesting to know whether there are also strength
changes following dynamic and static stretching at
different muscle lengths during isokinetic contrac-
tions. Although they measured only PT values in
their studies, McHugh and Nesse (2008) suggested
that the unaffected isokinetic concentric and ec-
centric hamstring strength by stretching could be
explained by the fact that PT occurred close to end
of the ROM, and therefore at long muscle lengths
(111 for eccentric, 221 for concentric). Future studies
should examine isokinetic torque curves to assess
dynamic and/or static stretching effects at angles
other than the angle at which PT occurred.
Perspectives
Most of the previous studies used only single muscle
groups like the quadriceps or the hamstring for
the stretching intervention. However, during the
warm-up routine athletes prefer to stretch all of the
activity-related muscle groups, i.e. for knee joint the
quadriceps and the hamstring muscles. Therefore, it
is important to know how stretching of the hamstring
and quadriceps muscles together, closely related to
the actual demands of sport, affects the strength
performance of the muscles. Based on our results,
clinicians, coaches, and elite women athletes should
consider the possible effect of stretching on muscle
strength before competitive events or conducting
strength tests to make decisions for rehabilitation
progression and return to play. The decreases in
quadriceps and hamstring strength as a result of
static stretching may adversely affect the perfor-
mance of elite women athletes. Dynamic stretching,
however, had a positive effect on the strength of these
muscles. Therefore, our findings suggest that dy-
namic stretching, as opposed to static or no stretch-
ing, may be an effective technique for enhancing
muscle performance during the pre-competition
warm-up routine. In addition, to our knowledge,
the effect of dynamic stretching of the leg extensor
and flexor muscles on the concentric and eccentric
isokinetic strength of these muscles has not been
examined in any study.
Key words: static and dynamic stretching, eccentric
isokinetic torque, concentric isokinetic torque, EMG
activity, elite women athletes.

References
ACSM. General principles of exercise
prescription. In: Franklin BA, Whaley
MH, Howley ET, Balady GJ, eds.
ACSM’s guideline for exercise testing
and prescription. Baltimore: Williams
and Wilkins, 2000: 137–164.
Alter MJ. Sports stretch. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics, 1997.
Avela J, Kyrolainen H, Komi PV. Altered
reflex sensitivity after repeated and
prolonged passive muscle stretching. J
Appl Physiol 1999: 86: 1283–1291.
Behm DG, Bambury A, Cahill F, Power
K. Effect of acute static stretching on
force, balance, reaction time, and
movement time. Med Sci Sports Exerc
2004: 36: 1397–1402.
Behm DG, Button DC, Butt JC. Factors
affecting force loss with prolonged
stretching. Can J Appl Physiol 2001:
26: 261–272.
Bishop D. Warm-up I. Potential
mechanisms and the effects of passive
warm up on exercise performance.
Sports Med 2003: 33: 439–454.
Brandenburg JP. Duration of stretch does
not influence the degree of force loss
following static stretching. J Sports
Med Phys Fitness 2006: 46: 526–534.
Cramer JT, Beck TW, Housh TJ, Massey
LL, Marek SM, Dangelmaier SM,
Purkayastha S, Culbertson JY, Fitz
KA, Egan AD. Acute effects of static
stretching on characteristics of the
isokinetic angle–torque relationship,
surface electromyography, and
mechanomyography. J Sports Sci
2007a: 25: 687–698.
Cramer JT, Housh TJ, Coburn JW, Beck
TW, Johnson GO. Acute effects of
static stretching on maximal eccentric
torque production in women. J
Strength Cond Res 2006: 20: 354–358.
Cramer JT, Housh TJ, Johnson GO,
Miller JM, Coburn JW, Beck TW.
Acute effects of static stretching on
peak torque in women. J Strength
Cond Res 2004: 18: 236–241.
Cramer JT, Housh TJ, Johnson GO, Weir
JP, Beck TW, Coburn JW. An acute
bout of static stretching does not affect

278

maximal eccentric isokinetic peak
torque, the joint angle at peak torque,
mean power, electromyography, or
mechanomyography. J Orthop Sports
Phys Ther 2007b: 37: 130–139.
Cramer JT, Housh TJ, Weir JP, Johnson
GO, Coburn JW, Beck TW. The acute
effects of static stretching on peak
torque, mean power output,
electromyography, and
mechanomyography. Eur J Appl
Physiol 2005: 93: 530–539.
Egan AD, Cramer JT, Massey LL, Marek
SM. Acute effects of static stretching
on peak torque and mean power output
in National Collegiate Athletic
Association Division I women’s
basketball players. J Strength Cond
Res 2006: 20: 778–782.
Fletcher IM, Jones B. The effect of
different warm-up stretch protocols on
20 meter sprint performance in trained
rugby union players. J Strength Cond
Res 2004: 18: 885–888.
Fowles JR, Sale DG, Macdougall JD.
Reduced strength after passive stretch
of the human plantar flexors. J Appl
Physiol 2000: 89: 1179–1188.
Hedrick A. Dynamic flexibility training.
Strength Cond J 2000: 22: 33–38.
Herda TJ, Cramer JT, Ryan ED,
McHugh MP, Stout JR. Acute effects
of static versus dynamic stretching on
isometric peak torque,
electromyography, and
mechanomyography of the biceps
femoris muscle. J Strength Cond Res
2008: 22: 809–817.
Holcomb WR. Stretching and warm-up.
In: Baechle TR, Earle RW, eds.
Essentials of strength training and
conditioning, 2nd edn. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics, 2000: 321–342.
Holt BW, Lambourne K. The impact of
different warm-up protocols on vertical
jump performance in male collegiate
athletes. J Strength Cond Res 2008: 22:
1–10.
Kakuda N, Nagaoka M. Dynamic
response of human muscle spindle
afferents to stretch during voluntary
contraction. J Physiol 1998: 513:
621–628.
Kokkonen J, Nelson AG, Cornwell A.
Acute muscle stretching inhibits
maximal strength performance. Res Q
Exerc Sport 1998: 69: 411–415.
Static and dynamic stretching: women athletes
Komi PV. Stretch-shortening cycle: a
powerful model to study normal and
fatigued muscle. J Biomech 2000: 33:
1197–1206.
Little T, Williams AG. Effects of
differential stretching protocols during
warm-ups on high-speed motor
capacities in professional soccer
players. J Strength Cond Res 2006: 20:
203–207.
Marek SM, Cramer JT, Fincher AL,
Massey LL, Dangelmaier SM,
Purkayastha S, Fitz KA, Culbertson
JY. Acute effects of static and
proprioceptive neuromuscular
facilitation stretching on muscle
strength and power output. J Athl
Train 2005: 40: 94–103.
McHugh MP, Nesse M. Effect of
stretching on strength loss and pain
after eccentric exercise. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 2008: 40: 566–573.
McMillian DJ, Moore JH, Hatler BS,
Taylor DC. Dynamic vs. static-
stretching warm-up: the effect on
power and agility performance.
J Strength Cond Res 2006: 20:
492–499.
Moore JC. The Golgi tendon organ: a
review and update. Am J Occ Therapy
1984: 38: 227–236.
Nelson AG, Allen JD, Cornwell A,
Kokkonen J. Inhibition of maximal
voluntary isometric torque production
by acute stretching is joint-angle
specific. Res Q Exerc Sport 2001a: 72:
68–70.
Nelson AG, Guillory IK, Cornwell A,
Kokkonen J. Inhibition of maximal
voluntary isokinetic torque production
following stretching is velocity-specific.
J Strength Cond Res 2001b: 15: 241–
246.
Nelson AG, Kokkonen J, Eldredge C.
Strength inhibition following an acute
stretch is not limited to novice
stretchers. Res Q Exerc Sport 2005: 76:
500–506.
Ogura Y, Miyahara Y, Naito H,
Katamoto S, Aoki J. Duration of static
stretching influences muscle force
production in hamstring muscles. J
Strength Cond Res 2007: 21: 788–792.
Robbins DW. Postactivation potentiation
and its practical applicability: a brief
review. J Strength Cond Res 2005: 19:
453–458.
Ronkonkoma NY. Cybex Norm Int Inc:
testing and rehabilitation system:
pattern selection and set up: automated
protocols. User’s guide. New York:
Blue Sky Software Corporation, 1995.
Sale DG. Postactivation potentiation:
role in human performance. Exerc
Sport Sci Rev 2002: 30: 138–143.
Shellock FG, Prentice WE. Warming-up
and stretching for improved physical
performance and prevention of sports-
related injuries. Sports Med 1985: 2:
267–287.
Soderberg GL, Knutson LM. A guide for
use and interpretation of kinesiologic
electromyographic data. Phys Ther
2000: 80: 485–498.
Wilson LR, Gandevia SC, Burke D.
Discharge of human muscle spindle
afferents innervating ankle dorsiflexors
during target isometric contractions. J
Physiol 1997: 504: 221–232.
Wilson GJ, Murphy AJ, Pryor JF.
Musculotendinous stiffness: its
relationship to eccentric, isometric, and
concentric performance. J Appl Physiol
1994: 76: 2714–2719.
WMADH. World medical association
declaration of Helsinki: ethical
principles for medical research
involving human subjects. J Am Med
Assoc 2000: 284: 3043–3045.
Yamaguchi T, Ishii K. Effects of static
stretching for 30 seconds and dynamic
stretching on leg extension power. J
Strength Cond Res 2005: 19: 677–683.
Yamaguchi T, Ishii K, Yamanaka M,
Yasuda K. Acute effect of static
stretching on power output during
concentric dynamic constant external
resistance leg extension. J Strength
Cond Res 2006: 20: 804–810.
Yamaguchi T, Ishii K, Yamanaka M,
Yasuda K. Acute effects of dynamic
stretching exercise on power output
during concentric dynamic constant
external resistance leg extension. J
Strength Cond Res 2007: 21: 1238–
1244.
Young W, Elliott S. Acute effects of static
stretching, proprioceptive
neuromuscular facilitation stretching,
and maximum voluntary contractions
on explosive force production and
jumping performance. Res Q Exerc
Sport 2001: 72: 273–279.
279
Sekir et al.
Appendix 1

Table A1. Raw isokinetic concentric and eccentric leg extension and flexion peak torque values for three stretching conditions from the subjects

Subject Stretching ConQ60 ConQ180 EccQ60 EccQ180 ConH60 ConH180 EccH60 EccH180

Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After

1 Control 226 217 154 152 298 289 256 244 162 154 125 132 152 147 138 140
Static 236 220 153 133 349 331 289 260 187 181 148 137 203 185 189 161
Dynamic 206 225 130 140 293 331 247 291 138 152 100 99 139 159 171 194
2 Control 255 243 163 159 244 248 275 270 140 152 105 110 146 151 164 168
Static 272 240 164 150 258 227 249 243 190 174 140 128 177 162 176 177
Dynamic 285 291 173 176 294 351 259 277 192 182 132 131 221 254 196 212
3 Control 299 305 187 182 330 343 316 326 147 157 102 101 173 174 177 183
Static 302 296 171 164 345 299 333 297 138 128 84 81 129 102 148 125
Dynamic 312 344 174 190 403 402 366 391 149 145 110 104 167 182 153 175
4 Control 226 233 140 135 288 292 253 263 156 161 132 126 225 215 221 221
Static 251 230 138 128 329 292 266 250 170 154 128 122 233 214 202 176
Dynamic 206 227 149 154 315 345 241 277 157 166 120 112 221 244 180 199
5 Control 239 236 133 145 232 244 208 215 163 171 88 97 162 165 175 180
Static 250 233 148 132 268 231 246 219 175 157 127 120 163 129 183 162
Dynamic 253 270 135 151 214 278 215 263 182 196 132 142 177 207 205 232
6 Control 282 271 152 154 383 375 303 291 204 200 138 135 240 233 224 218
Static 254 240 147 130 349 302 282 264 176 142 124 100 208 192 230 193
Dynamic 245 256 140 156 256 314 275 310 151 174 107 122 189 211 213 239
7 Control 207 196 126 125 284 284 237 241 181 173 107 115 194 186 181 171
Static 181 148 89 80 187 165 192 165 180 176 95 90 173 139 190 158
Dynamic 182 220 101 106 283 328 269 301 146 173 95 117 175 200 177 190
8 Control 174 166 104 99 150 155 147 152 122 116 85 81 92 97 82 86
Static 179 170 107 101 186 180 165 154 131 125 92 85 103 87 82 69
Dynamic 180 190 96 107 179 217 157 194 102 117 68 75 111 128 91 103
9 Control 152 150 93 90 182 187 176 178 108 107 78 74 117 117 104 107
Static 158 142 85 81 194 176 185 154 104 100 78 68 114 104 82 67
Dynamic 136 151 84 101 198 209 187 229 98 102 77 85 120 126 96 118
10 Control 272 277 119 122 369 368 289 293 178 184 120 124 191 191 172 170
Static 270 252 125 115 362 344 308 268 175 160 115 105 174 165 180 143
Dynamic 255 279 92 139 255 304 248 300 152 158 81 102 110 147 104 160

Ecc, eccentric; Con, concentric; Q, quadriceps; H, hamstring; 60, 601/s; 180, 1801/s.

Appendix 2

Table B1. Raw isokinetic concentric and eccentric leg extension EMG amplitude values (%MVC) for three stretching conditions from the subjects

Subject Stretching ConRF60 ConVL60 ConRF180 ConVL180 EccRF60 EccVL60 EccRF180 EccVL180

Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After

1 Control 78 69 62 60 80 75 81 76 56 47 51 42 53 55 44 41
Static 77 52 82 66 70 60 87 68 65 63 68 68 56 51 62 57
Dynamic 74 82 78 79 70 81 83 76 50 75 52 69 55 68 59 58
2 Control 116 107 73 80 98 108 79 85 78 69 60 56 83 72 68 59
Static 126 111 113 102 98 80 110 100 75 59 65 55 73 65 61 60
Dynamic 81 86 69 70 76 82 60 66 60 63 55 51 45 49 46 45
3 Control 85 80 91 87 85 86 88 90 54 49 60 63 60 62 102 96
Static 99 91 99 92 85 75 101 90 70 58 68 60 73 63 79 66
Dynamic 109 120 80 92 97 102 101 108 78 79 68 79 72 80 82 83
4 Control 72 77 87 91 74 70 70 68 47 50 63 66 53 52 84 81
Static 90 87 95 91 97 80 87 72 57 54 55 56 61 57 76 71
Dynamic 60 65 62 68 66 72 74 83 41 44 56 60 37 55 55 71
5 Control 70 70 80 82 50 53 71 73 32 35 63 60 34 36 53 51
Static 84 74 82 70 76 57 92 66 60 52 67 60 51 42 59 43
Dynamic 79 86 62 71 55 63 58 71 39 48 39 46 34 53 30 40
6 Control 65 60 69 67 58 55 76 74 51 46 51 50 49 45 50 48

280
 Static and dynamic stretching: women athletes
Table B1. (continued)
Subject Stretching ConRF60 ConVL60 ConRF180 ConVL180 EccRF60 EccVL60 EccRF180 EccVL180

Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After

Static 73 64 117 98 72 59 90 82 60 58 125 120 46 52 77 80

Dynamic 82 89 73 74 64 81 75 101 50 54 57 70 54 55 65 62
7 Control 79 74 126 108 64 63 111 115 48 50 68 64 50 52 75 75
Static 88 74 126 103 68 55 113 89 43 38 58 50 56 55 80 79
Dynamic 67 71 82 88 53 61 67 77 41 51 54 69 37 52 48 63
8 Control 86 84 132 127 83 76 135 124 58 70 93 98 45 56 79 85
Static 82 74 93 80 69 64 89 84 58 47 66 54 43 37 59 48
Dynamic 89 85 78 72 75 87 55 70 52 71 44 52 46 58 30 40
9 Control 108 101 85 88 81 85 90 91 71 66 68 64 60 61 55 52
Static 201 184 87 84 198 180 100 85 117 106 58 52 131 117 53 45
Dynamic 87 108 116 123 97 104 102 142 67 72 59 79 64 69 48 83
10 Control 96 95 101 106 80 80 95 98 76 77 82 82 76 80 76 82
Static 92 90 98 104 73 69 89 87 89 78 94 89 77 72 96 89
Dynamic 67 77 89 93 53 72 71 94 68 84 70 80 67 74 82 91

Ecc, eccentric; Con, concentric; RF, rectus femoris; VL, vastus lateralis; 60, 601/s; 180, 1801/s; EMG, electromyography.

Appendix 3

Table C1. Raw isokinetic concentric and eccentric leg flexion EMG amplitude values (%MVC) for three stretching conditions from the subjects

Subject Stretching ConBF60 ConST60 ConBF180 ConST180 EccBF60 EccST60 EccBF180 EccST180

Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After

1 Control 93 87 86 98 116 84 74 80 73 62 81 70 62 51 74 57
Static 86 94 82 76 90 84 70 63 85 78 66 56 66 58 57 46
Dynamic 75 76 89 96 77 75 80 85 53 59 66 97 61 53 64 82
2 Control 70 69 85 81 71 66 80 74 43 47 77 69 49 47 75 64
Static 94 83 94 82 81 72 80 65 72 68 94 73 55 57 79 68
Dynamic 91 96 75 83 74 78 66 73 55 58 65 68 41 43 49 53
3 Control 201 188 140 130 162 164 109 110 118 122 96 98 128 122 95 89
Static 132 105 102 85 98 79 75 61 70 65 71 58 78 71 80 59
Dynamic 119 132 86 92 116 121 82 85 74 101 59 71 79 84 72 77
4 Control 88 90 67 64 71 74 40 45 81 75 71 65 67 66 59 56
Static 91 88 83 78 77 61 57 49 63 64 63 64 52 51 50 49
Dynamic 98 97 60 58 96 97 52 55 98 95 57 52 54 68 31 36
5 Control 117 113 98 95 106 103 75 69 73 69 70 67 76 72 60 62
Static 147 112 90 75 135 108 83 64 82 61 67 61 77 55 59 43
Dynamic 117 140 98 114 120 121 87 87 69 84 84 95 71 77 84 86
6 Control 89 86 117 112 77 74 99 95 51 55 73 76 53 54 78 75
Static 88 66 108 97 76 67 107 98 76 59 100 83 67 53 98 81
Dynamic 111 124 113 132 94 104 104 124 77 80 94 97 76 86 96 116
7 Control 122 116 107 99 84 92 79 80 81 64 92 74 70 59 71 64
Static 125 118 109 96 87 78 91 83 72 60 78 71 62 54 76 68
Dynamic 96 99 97 100 71 83 72 84 62 69 73 98 54 66 79 90
8 Control 90 82 93 88 86 80 85 72 44 44 62 69 36 44 65 75
Static 83 77 105 98 98 64 115 77 51 46 90 75 43 39 83 75
Dynamic 70 74 83 89 64 59 83 77 40 48 85 92 41 47 82 101
9 Control 88 83 88 82 78 70 71 63 72 74 75 77 67 64 71 67
Static 90 78 77 76 80 70 68 56 85 79 75 68 69 59 78 58
Dynamic 72 77 73 91 81 89 75 82 55 66 67 74 62 64 75 78
10 Control 105 102 110 106 121 121 90 94 75 69 103 99 74 69 100 100
Static 91 74 101 91 88 80 77 80 75 62 106 92 75 60 101 95
Dynamic 98 120 80 102 82 109 74 97 70 70 80 89 52 59 81 89

Ecc, eccentric; Con, concentric; BF, biceps femoris; ST, semitendinosus; 60, 601/s; 180, 1801/s; EMG, electromyography.

281