Efficacy of Static Stretching and Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Stretch on Hamstrings Length After a Single Session

O'Hora, J, Cartwright, A, Wade, CD, Hough, AD, and Shum, GLK. Efficacy of static stretching and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretch on hamstrings length after a single session. J Strength Cond Res 25(6): 1586-1591, 2011—

A number of studies have investigated the efficacy of several repetitions of proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching (PNF) and static stretching (SS). However, there is limited research comparing the effects of a single bout of these stretching maneuvers. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a single bout of a therapist-applied 30-second SS vs. a single bout of therapist-applied 6-second hamstring (agonist) contract PNF. Forty-five healthy subjects between the ages of 21 and 35 were randomly allocated to 1 of the 2 stretching groups or a control group, in which no stretching was received. The flexibility of the hamstring was determined by a range of passive knee extension, measured using a universal goniometer, with the subject in the supine position and the hip at 90° flexion, before and after intervention.

A significant increase in knee extension was found for both intervention groups after a single stretch (SS group = 7.53°, p < 0.01 and PNF group = 11.80°, p < 0.01). Both interventions resulted in a significantly greater increase in knee extension when compared to the control group (p < 0.01). The PNF group demonstrated significantly greater gains in knee extension compared to the SS group (mean difference 4.27°, p < 0.01). It can be concluded that a therapist applied SS or PNF results in a significant increase in hamstring flexibility. A hamstring (agonist) contract PNF is more effective than an SS in a single stretching session. These findings are important to physiotherapists or trainers working in clinical and sporting environments. Where in the past therapists may have spent time conducting multiple repetitions of a PNF and an SS, a single bout of either technique may be considered just as effective.

A key component of the study methodology was the exclusion of a warm-up period before stretching. Therefore, the findings of efficacy of a single PNF are of particular relevance in sporting environments and busy clinical settings where time may be limited.

The Effects of Circadian Rhythmicity of Salivary Cortisol and Testosterone on Maximal Isometric Force, Maximal Dynamic Force, and Power Output

Teo, W, McGuigan, MR, and Newton, MJ. The effects of circadian rhythmicity of salivary cortisol and testosterone on maximal isometric force, maximal dynamic force, and power output. J Strength Cond Res 25(6): 1538-1545, 2011—

The study investigated the effects of circadian rhythm of cortisol (C) and testosterone (T) on maximal force production (Fpeak) and power output (Ppeak). Twenty male university students (mean age = 23.8 ± 3.6 years, height = 177.5 ± 6.4 cm, weight = 78.9 ± 11.2 kg) performed 4 time-of-day testing sessions consisting of countermovement jumps (CMJs), squat jumps (SJ), isometric midthigh pulls (IMTPs), and a 1-repetition maximum (1RM) squat. Saliva samples were collected at 0800, 1200, 1600, and 2000 hours to assess T and C levels on each testing day. Session rate-of-perceived exertion (RPE) scores were collected after each session.

The results showed that Fpeak and Ppeak presented a clear circadian rhythm in CMJ and IMTP but not in SJ. One repetition maximum squat did not display a clear circadian rhythm. Session RPE scores collected at 0800 and 2000 hours were significantly (p ≤ 0.05) higher than those obtained at 1200 and 1600 hours. Salivary T and C displayed a clear circadian rhythm with highest values at 0800 hours and lowest at 2000 hours; however, no significant correlation was found between T and C with Fpeak and Ppeak. A very strong correlation was found between Taural with Fpeak of CMJ and IMTP and Ppeak of CMJ (r = 0.86, r = 0.84 and r = 0.8, p ≤ 0.001). The study showed the existence of a circadian rhythm in Fpeak and Ppeak in CMJ and IMTP.

The evidence suggests that strength and power training or testing should be scheduled later during the day. The use of Taural seemed to be a more effective indicator of physical performance than hormonal measures, and the use of session RPE should also be closely monitored because it may present a circadian rhythm.

I have found that using cortisol (C) and testosterone (T) testing with athletes has given me new insight into performance and recovery and this piece of research I find very interesting.