EFFECTS OF DYNAMIC STRETCHING ON ENERGY
COST AND RUNNING ENDURANCE PERFORMANCE
IN TRAINED MALE RUNNERS
MICHAEL C. ZOURDOS,1 JACOB M. WILSON,2 BRIAN A. SOMMER,1 SANG-ROK LEE,1
YOUNG-MIN PARK,1 PAUL C. HENNING,1 LYNN B. PANTON,1 AND JEONG-SU KIM1
1
Department of Nutrition, Food, and Exercise Sciences, The Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida; and 2Department of
Exercise Science and Sports Studies, The University of Tampa, Tampa, Florida
ABSTRACT
Zourdos, MC, Wilson, JM, Sommer, BA, Lee, S-R, Park, Y-M,
Henning, PC, Panton, LB, and Kim, J-S. Effects of dynamic
stretching on energy cost and running endurance performance
in trained male runners. J Strength Cond Res 26(2): 335–341,
2012—The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of
dynamic stretching on running energy cost and endurance
performance in trained male runners. Fourteen male runners
performed both a 30-minute preload run at 65% V_ O2max and
a 30-minute time trial to assess running energy cost and
performance, respectively. The subjects repeated both the trials
after either 15 minutes of dynamic stretching (i.e., experimental
condition) or quiet sitting (i.e., control condition) while the order
was balanced between the subjects to avoid any order effect.
The total calories expended were determined for the 30-minute
preload run, whereas the distance covered was measured in the
time trial. Average resting V_ O2 increased significantly (p , 0.05)
after dynamic stretching (prestretch: 6.2 6 1.7 vs. poststretch:
8.4 6 2.1 ml
kg21
min21) but not during the quiet-sitting
condition. Caloric expenditure was significantly higher during
the 30-minute preload run for the stretching (416.3 6 44.9
kcal) compared with that during the quiet sitting (399.3 6 50.4
kcal) (p , 0.05). There was no difference in the distance
covered after quiet sitting (6.3 6 1.1 km) compared with that for
the stretching condition (6.1 6 1.3 km). These findings suggest
that dynamic stretching does not affect running endurance
performance in trained male runners.
KEY WORDS muscle stiffness, running economy, flexibility,
rating of perceived exertion
Address correspondence to Dr. Jeong-Su Kim, jkim6@fsu.edu.
26(2)/335–341
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2012 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
INTRODUCTION
T
here is debate over whether stretching exercises
should be included in an athlete’s warm-up routine
in an effort to maximize athletic performance (19).
For instance, static stretching seems to acutely
decrease muscle force production capacity in maximal
strength and strength endurance events (16). In contrast,
dynamic stretching seems to either increase or have no effect
on performance of high-intensity movements. Some studies
have demonstrated no changes in isometric peak torque (13),
and 1 repetition maximal bench press and leg press (3),
whereas others have found increases in leg extension power
(24) and 20-m sprint performance (9) with dynamic
stretching. The performance decrements resulting from
static stretching appear to last for at least 60 minutes after
the stretching routine (10). Dynamic stretching, however,
may be more effective than static stretching for improving
athletic performance possibly because of elevated baseline
oxygen consumption (V_ O2) before the task (6).
Elevating V_ O2 in the warm-up seems to be particularly
important for increasing endurance performance. Indeed,
a review by Bishop (5,6) suggested that warm-up protocols
that significantly elevated maximal oxygen consumption
(V_ O2max) produced improvements in endurance performance
(6). Accordingly, we recently demonstrated in a similar
population that static stretching increased the energy cost of
a 30-minute moderate-intensity run and decreased 30-minute
time trial distance. These results may have been obtained
because there was no elevation in baseline V_ O2 after the
stretching routine and because of a possible decrease in stiffness
of the musculoskeletal unit (23). In contrast, dynamic stretching
before a race may elevate baseline V_ O2 without compromising
running economy. Furthermore, because dynamic stretching
has been previously shown to increase athletic perform-
ance (9,24), it may have no effect on the stiffness of the
musculotendinous unit. We hypothesized that these unique
properties of dynamic stretching make it a possible candidate
to improve endurance performance when included in a prerun
warm-up routine. Therefore, the purpose of this study was
to investigate the effects of dynamic stretching on endurance
VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2012 | 335
 Effects of Dynamic Stretching on Endurance Performance
performance and total energy cost measured in calories exp-
ended on a treadmill in trained male runners.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This study had a randomized, crossover design in which the
subjects underwent a control and experimental condition
in a balanced order. Running energy cost and running
performance were assessed after either dynamic stretching
(i.e., experimental condition) or quiet sitting (i.e., control
condition). The subjects performed 10 different dynamic
stretching exercises lasting 15 minutes in the experimental
condition while they performed quiet sitting in the control
condition. Sit-and-reach performance was assessed before
and after each condition. After the sit-and-reach test, the
subjects had a 2-minute rest followed by a 30-minute preload
run at 65% of their V_ O2max to measure caloric expenditure
and a 30-minute performance run at a self-selected speed to
measure distance run.
Subjects
Fourteen trained male runners (23.0 6 4.3 years, V_ O2max of
63.1 6 8.3 ml
kg21
min21 and percent body fat of 7 6 2%)
were recruited for the study from running and triathlon teams
at the Florida State University. Criteria for acceptance in the
study included a V_ O2max $ 55 ml
kg21
min21, a minimum
average run of 20 miles
wk21, recent (#3 months) partici-
pation in a competitive running endurance event (.5 km)
and at least 3 years of competition experience. All the runners
included stretching exercises on a daily basis as part of their
training regimen. The subjects were informed of the
experimental risks and signed an informed consent form
before the investigation. The investigation was approved by
the Florida State University Institutional Review Board for
use of human subjects.
Experimental Protocol
The subjects reported to the laboratory on 3 separate
occasions, separated by a 1-week interval to control for the
specific day and time the experimental protocol was
performed. The subjects were instructed to maintain their
training routines throughout the experimental period and to
refrain from intense exercise for 48 hours before each visit.
On the first visit, the subject’s body composition was
estimated using the sum of 3 skin-fold measurements (14).
V_ O2max was determined on a motor-driven treadmill (Model,
WoodwayÒ Waukesha, WI, USA) using a progressive exercise
test to exhaustion as described previously (17). Gas exchange,
caloric expenditure, and ventilatory parameters were mea-
sured by means of indirect calorimetry using a metabolic
measurement system (Parvomedics TruemaxÒ 2400, Con-
sentius Technologies, Sandy, UT, USA). Before each test, the
gas analyzer was calibrated by using ambient air and a gas
of a known composition containing 20.9% O2 and 4 CO2.
The turbine flowmeter was calibrated using a 3-L syringe
(Hans Rudolph, Inc., Kansas City, MO, USA). The heart rate
the TM
336 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
(HR) was monitored using an HR monitor (Model, PolarTM,
Lake Success, NY, USA). After the V_ O2max test, the running
speed corresponding to 65% of the subjects V_ O2max was
determined by walking the subjects at 6.4 km
h21 for 1 minute,
followed by a 0.8-km
h21 increase each minute until the
subject’s V_ O2 values reached a steady state at 65% of their
previously recorded V_ O2max.
The experimental protocol took place on visits 2 and 3.
Initially, the gas analyzer system was attached to the subjects.
The average resting V_ O2 values were recorded for 5 minutes
before the dynamic stretching protocol and the quiet sitting.
The subjects walked for 5 minutes at 3 mph. After the
5-minute walk, a sit-and-reach assessment was performed
using a Figure Finder Flex-TesterÒ sit-and-reach box (Novel
Products, Inc., Rockton, IL, USA). Then, the subjects either
remained seated for 15 minutes or performed the dynamic
stretching protocol (described below). The sit-and-reach
performance was reassessed after both the quiet-sitting and
the dynamic stretching conditions. Each subject performed
3 trials of the sit-and-reach test of which the best trial was
used for analysis. V_ O2 values were also recorded after both
the quiet-sitting and dynamic stretching conditions. Finally,
the subjects performed a preload run for 30 minutes at an
intensity corresponding to 65% of their V_ O2max. The total
caloric expenditure was calculated using the sum of the
caloric expenditure averages obtained over 30-second
intervals (22). Upon completion of the preload run, the
treadmill was stopped, and the subjects were disconnected
from the metabolic cart and permitted 2 minutes to drink
water. The water volume was recorded and used for the next
experimental session. During the 30-minute performance
run, the subjects were asked to cover their maximal distance
possible for 30 minutes. They were allowed to view the time
display and to control the treadmill speed but were blinded to
the distance covered and the treadmill speed (8). In addition,
the HR was recorded every minute, whereas the ratings of
perceived exertion (RPE) were assessed every 5 minutes
during both the preload and performance runs.
Stretching Protocol
The stretching protocol used in this study consisted of dynamic
stretching, focusing on the quadriceps, hamstrings, calves,
and hip extensors and flexors (23). A total of 10 different
movements were used and completed in 15 minutes by
performing 2 sets of 4 repetitions of each movement. The
dynamic stretching movements were performed in the
following order: (a) Toe and Heel Walks: In these exercises,
the subjects walked on their toes for 4 steps followed by
walking on their heels for 4 steps to stretch the entire calf
complex. (b) Hip Series: The subjects performed a dynamic
stretch of the hip flexors and extensors by placing their hands
on a wall with their arms fully extended so that their body was
at a 45° angle. In this position, each subject lifted his leg off
the ground while bringing the knee to the chest and stepping
over a hurdle placed laterally before returning to the starting
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

Dietary Log
To control for diet, the subjects
kept a record of their diet (all
food and beverages) for 72 hours
before the first experimental
session they participated in.
The diet log was then given to
the subject with instructions to
replicate the food consumption
for 72 hours before the second
experimental session (2). The
subjects were also instructed to
Figure 1. A) Mean energy expended (kilocalories) under the stretching and nonstretching control conditions. B)
maintain current training and
Individual energy expenditure (kilocalories) under the stretching and control conditions. not to perform any strenuous
exercise 48 hours before all
laboratory visits.

position. (c) Hand Walks: The subjects stretched their calves
and hamstrings by beginning in a pushup position and walking
their feet as close to their hands while keeping their heels flat.
As soon as the subjects’ heels came off the ground, they
ÔwalkedÕ with their hands back to a pushup position. After the
hand walks, the subjects performed a series of walking lunges,
including (d) rear lunges, (e) lateral lunges, (f) forward lunges,
(g) a knee pull to a lunge, and (h) an ankle pull to a lunge
to focus on the quadriceps and gluteus maximus. (i) Walking
Groiners: The subjects began this movement in a pushup
position and then brought 1 foot next to the same side hand as
to perform a groiner. Instead of holding this position, the
subjects ÔwalkedÕ their hands out to return to the starting
position before performing the action on the opposite leg. (j)
Frankensteins: The subjects stood with their feet together and
their arms extended straight out in front of them so that their
arms were parallel to the ground. While walking, the subjects
were instructed to kick 1 leg up to touch the opposite hand to
focus on the hamstrings. Every time a step was taken, a kick
was made. On nonstretching days, the subjects sat quietly for
15 minutes before the exercise protocol (16).
Statistical Analyses
The influence of the dynamic stretching routine on the sit-
and-reach performance was tested with a 2 3 2 (trial 3 time)
repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). The
possible effects of dynamic stretching on total caloric
expenditure on both the preload and performance runs were
evaluated using paired t-tests (i.e., nonstretching 3 stretching
condition). A number of 2 3 7 (group 3 time) repeated
measures ANOVAs were used to test for the differences in
HR and RPE during both the 30-minute preload and 30-
minute performance runs. Whenever a significant F-value
was obtained, a Tukey post hoc test was performed to
localize the effect(s). Data were reported as means and SDs.
The statistical procedures were performed using the software
StatisticaÒ, and the level of significance was set at p # 0.05.
RESULTS
Flexibility
Sit-and-reach average values increased significantly after the
dynamic stretching exercises from 32.3 6 8.6 to 37.6 6 8.1 cm
(p , 0.05) and did not change
(32.5 6 8.1 to 34.0 6 8.1 cm)
after the quiet sitting. More-
over, poststretching values after
dynamic stretching were signif-
icantly greater than postsitting
values for the control condition
(p , 0.05).

Resting V_ O2 and Energy Cost

of the 30-Minute Preload Run
The average resting V_ O2 values
increased significantly after the
dynamic stretching condition
Figure 2. A) Mean distance run in 30 minutes under the stretching and nonstretching control conditions. B) from prestretch: 6.2 6 1.7 vs.
Individual distance run in 30 minutes under the stretching and control conditions. poststretch: 8.4 6 2.1 ml
kg21

min21 (p , 0.05) but did not

VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2012 | 337

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Effects of Dynamic Stretching on Endurance Performance
Figure 3. Individual mean heart rate and ratings of perceived exertion values from 1 to 30 minutes under dynamic stretching and nonstretching control conditions
during the preload and performance runs. Values are mean 6 SD, *p # 0.05, significantly different from 0 time point, there were no differences among conditions.
change in the control condition (prestretch: 5.8 6 1.1 vs.
poststretch: 6.1 6 1.0 ml
kg21
min21).
The average velocity that was run at 65% V_ O2max was
10.5 6 1.9 km
h21. After the dynamic stretching exercises,
the mean energy expended was significantly greater in the
stretching (416.7 6 44.9 kcal) vs. the control (399.3 6 50.4
kcal) condition (p , 0.05). Figure 1A illustrates the mean
caloric expenditure, and Figure 1B shows the individual
values for each subject during the 30-minute run at 65%
V_ O2max. The effect size for energy cost was 0.4 in favor of the
stretching condition. These results demonstrate that signif-
icantly more calories were expended after dynamic stretch-
ing when compared with those expended after nonstretching
with absolute differences ranging from 1 to 77 additional
kilocalories.
Distance Run
After the stretching exercises, the mean distance run in
the control condition was 6.3 6 1.1 and 6.1 6 1.3 km in the
stretching condition (p . 0.05). The effect size for the
distance run was 0.2 demonstrating little correlation between
condition and distance covered. Figure 2A depicts both the
mean values, and Figure 2B shows the individuals values for
the stretching and control.
the
338 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Heart Rate and Ratings of Perceived Exertion
There were no group 3 time interactions for the HR during
the preload or the performance runs; however, there were
significant time effects for both (p , 0.05). The mean HR
values peaked at 162 6 18 and 168 6 18 b
min21 in the
stretching and non-tretching control conditions, respectively,
during the preload run, and at 189 6 8 and 189 6 9 b
min21
in the stretching and control conditions, respectively, during
the performance run. Similarly, no group 3 time interactions
were found for RPE during the preload or the performance
runs; however, there were significant time effects for both
(p , 0.05). The mean RPE values peaked at 11 6 3 and
12 6 3 in the stretching and control conditions, respectively,
during the preload run (Figure 3), and at 18 6 1 vs. 18 6 1 in
the stretching and control conditions, respectively, during
the performance runs.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of
dynamic stretching on endurance performance and total caloric
expenditure on a treadmill run in trained male runners. The
main findings in this study were that there was no difference in
endurance performance (i.e., distance covered) between the
dynamic stretching and control (nonstretching) conditions.
TM

Dynamic stretching, however, significantly increased caloric
expenditure during the preload run at 65% of V_ O2max (p ,
0.05) when compared with the control condition (Figure 1B).
These results are likely explained by higher V_ O2 values at the
beginning of the preload run because of the increase in
metabolic demand during the stretching protocol (23).
Our previous study (23) demonstrated a 17% increase in the
sit-and-reach performance after a 16-minute static stretching
protocol, which was similar to the 16% increase seen after our
dynamic stretching protocol. Although static stretching
resulted in a decrease in running performance, our study
showed no significant differences in performance with
dynamic stretching, despite similar changes in the range of
motion (ROM). This finding suggests that dynamic stret-
ching acutely increases joint ROM to the same extent as
static stretching does but without deleterious effects on
performance.
Dynamic stretching and active warm-up are widely used
to elevate core temperature, whereas increasing oxygen
consumption and efficiency of substrate use via increased
vasodilation of the working muscles (6,18). However, it has
been suggested that this increase in the temperature may not
be beneficial to endurance performance (6). Furthermore, if
the warm-up intensity and duration are too high or .10
minutes, respectively, the warm-up can be detrimental to
performance (5,6). For example, Uckert and Joch (21)
reported a decrease in performance during a treadmill run
up to exhaustion in 20 male runners after a 20-minute warm-
up protocol. These results may be attributed to an increased
tympanic and skin temperature above baseline levels when
compared with a control condition (21). However, they also
showed an increase in the runners’ time to exhaustion after
sitting in a cooling vest for 20 minutes. The cooling vest
increased the tympanic temperature greater than the control
did, but to a lesser magnitude than the warm-up condition
did. Further, the cooling vest also decreased the skin
temperature compared with that in the control condition
(21). The authors concluded that the increase in the runners’
time to exhaustion after wearing the cooling vest was related
to the decrease in skin temperature. In addition, Hajoglou
et al. (12) noted an increase in 3-km cycling time trial
performance after both an easy warm-up of 15 minutes at 70,
80, and 90% ventilatory threshold for 5 minutes each and
a hard warm-up of the same protocol followed by 3 minutes
of cycling at the respiratory compensation threshold when
compared with a no warm-up condition (12). Hajoglou et al.
(12) went on to note that a faster rate in V_ O2 elevation at the
start of the time trial as a possible mechanism for increased
performance in both warm-up conditions (12). These
findings suggest that endurance performance may be
negatively affected by a long warm-up protocol, whereas
intermediate performance (i.e., .5 seconds, but ,5 minutes)
is improved regardless of the warm-up intensity. The
dynamic stretching protocol in this study seems to have
some benefits for endurance performance (i.e., increasing
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
baseline V_ O2). However, it also has a controversial length of
15 minutes and a possible elevation in skin temperature,
which has been shown to negatively affect endurance
performance. Nevertheless, our data suggest that the
relatively long duration of our dynamic stretching protocol
had no deleterious effect on endurance performance possibly
because it produced an increase in V_ O2 values after the
dynamic stretching protocol (8.4 6 2.1 ml
kg21
min21).
Other investigators have also proposed that the length and
the intensity of the warm-up protocol are important for
yielding positive effects on performance (1,4). It has been
previously suggested that a warm-up of approximately 70%
V_ O2max may be appropriate for intermediate duration
exercise (7,20). However, a warm-up of too high an intensity
can cause the accumulation of metabolites, negatively affect
O2 deficit, deplete glycogen stores, and increase thermoreg-
ulatory strain and as a result may not be beneficial for long-
term performance (6). For example, Andzel (1) reported an
increase in 1-mile run performance when runners had an
increased resting V_ O2 at the start of the 1-mile run because of
a warm-up, which raised their HR to 140 b
min21 (1). On the
other hand Billat et al. (4) reported a lower total run time in
a run to exhaustion in trained long-distance runners because
of a fatiguing warm-up protocol (4). Billat et al. used runs
.70% in their warm-up protocol (4). This intensity may be
too fatiguing because recommended warm-up intensity for
improving endurance performance is between 60 and 70%
V_ O2max. Additionally, Bishop suggests in his review that
a proper warm-up for increasing endurance performance is
one which elevates V_ O2, lasts 5–10 minutes, and does not
cause thermoregulatory strain nor deplete muscle glycogen
stores (6). Furthermore, Gregson et al. (11) reported
a decreased time in a run to exhaustion at 70% V_ O2max in
well-trained soccer players (11). These findings are consistent
with that of Billat et al. because Gregson’s study also
employed a warm-up of 70% V_ O2max. In this study, the
dynamic stretching protocol significantly elevated V_ O2;
however, it lasted for 15 minutes, possibly negating positive
effects seen from a 5- to 10-minute warm-up. Moreover, most
studies, which have reported increases in endurance
performance after a warm-up with elevated V_ O2, have
consisted of a performance trial between 5 and 25 minutes
(6). The performance run in this study lasted for 30 minutes
and was always preceded by the same preload run. It is
therefore likely that the positive effects of dynamic stretching
are not relevant to a run of this particular distance. Finally,
even though dynamic exercise performance is increased
when the body temperature is elevated, this phenomenon
may be more beneficial for short-term performance (e.g., ,10
seconds) rather than for endurance performance (6).
Static stretching does not seem to increase resting V_ O2 and
results in a decrease in performance in male collegiate
runners (23). The decrease in performance with static
stretching seems to be caused by a decline in running
economy, which is associated with a greater stress-relaxation
VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2012 | 339
 Effects of Dynamic Stretching on Endurance Performance
effect. In fact, the changes in the stress-relaxation property
of the muscle tissue resulted in a decreased mechanical
efficiency of the stretch shortening cycle (15). On the other
hand, dynamic stretching has been reported to increase the
performance in anaerobic exercise (9,24). This increase in
anaerobic performance as a result of dynamic stretching is
likely because of the specificity that dynamic stretching has
to the performance activity. Thus, it is reasonable to suggest
that dynamic stretching does not result in a decrease of the
musculotendinous unit such as in the case of static stretching.
This theory is supported by our findings showing dynamic
stretching to have no effect on running endurance perfor-
mance, whereas our previous study demonstrates static
stretching to decrease running endurance performance (23).
Reviews on warm-up and performance from Shellock and
Prentice (18) and Bishop (5,6) suggest that it is critical to
design a specific warm-up protocol for a specific athletic
event instead of generalizing the warm-up protocol (6,18).
Bishop expanded upon this idea by reporting that an active
warm-up, which uses a task-specific burst of activity, may
provide ergogenic benefits greater than that of a nonspecific
active warm-up for intermediate and long-term exercise
performance (6). The stretch shortening cycle is performed
and repeated with a greater percentage of maximal force in
anaerobic exercise than in long-distance endurance running.
It is therefore possible that dynamic stretching is more
specific and thus effective at increasing short-term and
intermediate duration exercise performance than endurance
performance is. Thus, a specific running activity, which
increases baseline V_ O2 at the start of the performance trial
and is nonfatiguing may be more suitable than dynamic
stretching as a method to increase endurance running
performance. This theory is supported by Andzel (1) who
used a submaximal running warm-up to increase subsequent
1-mile run performance (1).
Caution should be exercised to extrapolate the findings of
this study to recreational runners, because we tested only
trained male athletes. It is possible that residual fatigue
induced by a dynamic stretching protocol may become
apparent in a more recreationally trained population or those
who are not used to performing stretching exercises. Even
though all of the subjects were trained (V_ O2max $ 55
ml
kg21
min21), some were elite, and some were moderately
trained as V_ O2maxs ranged from 55 to 81 ml
kg21
min21.
Shellock and Prentice (18) indicate that elite athletes may
need longer warm-ups to properly prepare, suggesting that
a more trained individual needs a longer warm-up because
of their thermoregulatory center being more efficient at
responding to exercise generated heat (18). With these
thoughts, it is interesting to note that our top 2 performance
runners both increased their performance under the dynamic
stretching condition with the top runner seeing the largest
increase in distance covered in the dynamic stretching
condition of 0.2 km. Furthermore, the 2 runners in our study
who covered the shortest distance performed better during
the TM
340 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the nonstretching control condition with the worst perfor-
mance runner seeing the largest decline in performance after
the stretching condition (i.e., 0.6 km). It is possible that elite
endurance runners need a warm-up protocol of greater
intensity and duration than do recreationally trained runners.
Additional biomechanical assessments seem necessary, such
as changes in stiffness and ground contact times, to have
a better understanding on the mechanisms underlying the
effects of stretching on both performance and the energy cost
of running.
In summary, this study reports 2 important findings on the
effects of dynamic stretching on endurance performance in
trained male runners. First, it was found that dynamic
stretching increases the energy expended during moderate-
intensity treadmill exercise most likely because of an increase
in O2 consumption. Second, in contrast to static stretching
(23), dynamic stretching does not seem to decrease
endurance performance and may increase performance in
male elite runners during our particular experimental pro-
tocol. Further research is needed to ascertain the underlying
mechanisms behind our findings possibly with more
sophisticated biomechanical and physiological measure-
ments. Further investigations are also necessary using diverse
warm-up protocols specific to the endurance events (e.g.,
types, duration) in different populations (e.g., women,
untrained).
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The present findings along with our previous research on
static stretching (23) suggest that athletes can use both forms
of stretching as a mechanism to improve short-term ROM.
However, it can be suggested for coaches to consider that
static stretching resulted in a 3% decline in endurance
performance in trained male runners. If athletes are
committed to prerace stretching techniques, coaches may
need to consider dynamic stretching because it has no
deleterious effect on endurance performance. However, it is
also important to note that our findings can be only
applicable to the similar populations and conditions
specifically tested in our studies.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
No external financial support was received to fund this
project.
REFERENCES
1. Andzel, WD. One mile run performance as a function of prior
exercise. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 22: 80–84, 1982.
2. Armstrong, LE, Whittlesey, MJ, Casa, DJ, Elliott, TA, Kavouras, SA,
Keith, NR, and Maresh, CM. No effect of 5% hypohydration on
running economy of competitive runners at 23 degrees C. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 38: 1762–1769, 2006.
3. Beedle, B, Rytter, SJ, Healy, RC, and Ward, TR. Pretesting static and
dynamic stretching does not affect maximal strength. J Strength Cond
Res 22: 1838–1843, 2008.

4. Billat, VL, Bocquet, V, and Slawinski, J. Effect of a prior intermittent
run at vV-dotO2max on oxygen kinetics during an all-out severe run
in humans. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 40: 185–194, 2000.
5. Bishop, D. Warm up I: Potential mechanisms and the effects of
passive warm up on exercise performance. Sports Med 33:
439–454, 2003.
6. Bishop, D. Warm up II: Performance changes following active warm
up and how to structure the warm up. Sports Med 33: 483–498, 2003.
7. Bishop, D, Bonetti, D, and Dawson, B. The influence of three
different warm up intensities on sprint kayak performance in trained
athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: 1026–1032, 2001.
8. Daries, HN, Noakes, TD, and Dennis, SC. Effect of fluid intake
volume on 2-h running performances in a 25 degrees C environment.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 32: 1783–1789, 2000.
9. Fletcher, IM and Jones, B. The effect of different warm-up stretch
protocols on 20 meter sprint performance in trained rugby union
players. J Strength Cond Res 18: 885–888, 2004.
10. Fowles, JR, Sale, DG, and MacDougall, JD. Reduced strength after
passive stretch of the human plantarflexors. J Appl Physiol 89:
1179–1188, 2000.
11. Gregson, WA, Drust, B, and Batterham, A. The effects of pre-
warming on the metabolic and thermoregulatory responses to
prolonged submaximal exercise in moderate ambient temperatures.
Eur J Appl Physiol 86: 526–533, 2002.
12. Hajoglou, A, Foster, C, De Koning, JJ, Lucia, A, Kernozek, TW, and
Porcari, JP. Effect of warm-up on cycle time trial performance. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 37: 1608–1614, 2005.
13. Herda, TJ, Cramer, JT, Ryan, ED, McHugh, MP and 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 22: 809–817, 2008.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
14. Jackson, AS and Pollock, ML. Generalized equations for predicting
body density of men. Br J Nutr 40: 497–504, 1978.
15. Nelson, AG, Driscoll, NM, Landin, DK, Young, MA, and
Schexnayder, IC. Acute effects of passive muscle stretching on sprint
performance. J Sports Sci 23: 449–454, 2005.
16. Nelson, AG, Kokkonen, J, and Arnall, DA. Acute muscle stretching
inhibits muscle strength endurance performance. J Strength Cond Res
19: 338–343, 2005.
17. Paavolainen, L, Häkkinen, K, Hamalainen, I, Nummela, A, and
Rusko, H. Explosive-strength training improves 5-km running
time by improving running economy and muscle power. J Appl
Physiol 86: 1527–1533, 1999.
18. Shellock, FG and Prentice, WE. Warming-up and stretching for
improved physical performance and prevention of sports-related
injuries. Sports Med 2: 267–278, 1985.
19. Shrier, I. Does stretching improve performance? A systematic and
critical review of the literature. Clin J Sport Med 14: 267–273, 2004.
20. Stewart, IB and Sleivert, GG. The effect of warm-up intensity on
range of motion and anaerobic performance. Orthop Sports Phys Ther
27: 154–161, 1998.
21. Uckert, S and Joch, W. Effects of warm-up and precooling on
endurance performance in the heat. Br J Sports Med 41: 380–384, 2007.
22. Whitham, M and McKinney, J. Effect of a carbohydrate mouthwash
on running time-trial performance. J Sports Sci 25: 1385–1392, 2007.
23. Wilson, JM, Hornbuckle, LM, Kim, JS, Ugrinowitsch, C, Lee, SR,
Zourdos, MC, Sommer, B, and Panton, LB. Effects of static
stretching on energy cost and running endurance performance.
J Strength Cond Res 24: 2274–2279, 2010.
24. Yamaguchi, T and Ishii, K. Effects of static stretching for 30 seconds
and dynamic stretching on leg extension power. J Strength Cond Res
19: 677–683, 2005.
VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2012 | 341