Rebecca Wilkinson

Bio: Rebecca Wilkinson is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Hamstring & PNF stretching. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 16 citations.

The Effectiveness of PNF Versus Static Stretching on Increasing Hip-Flexion Range of Motion

Abstract: Clinical Scenario: Stretching is applied for the purposes of injury prevention, increasing joint range of motion (ROM), and increasing muscle extensibility. Many researchers have investigated various methods and techniques to determine the most effective way to increase joint ROM and muscle extensibility. Despite the numerous studies conducted, controversy still remains within clinical practice and the literature regarding the best methods and techniques for stretching. Focused Clinical Question: Is proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching more effective than static stretching for increasing hamstring muscle extensibility through increased hip ROM or increased knee extension angle (KEA) in a physically active population? Summary of Key Findings: Five studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. All 5 studies were randomized control trials examining mobility of the hamstring group. The studies measured hamstring ROM in a variety of ways. Three studies measured active KEA, 1 study measured passive KEA, and 1 study measured hip ROM via the single-leg raise test. Of the 5 studies, 1 study found greater improvements using PNF over static stretching for increasing hip flexion, and the remaining 4 studies found no significant difference between PNF stretching and static stretching in increasing muscle extensibility, active KEA, or hip ROM. Clinical Bottom Line: PNF stretching was not demonstrated to be more effective at increasing hamstring extensibility compared to static stretching. The literature reviewed suggests both are effective methods for increasing hip-flexion ROM. Strength of Recommendation: Using level 2 evidence and higher, the results show both static and PNF stretching effectively increase ROM; however, one does not appear to be more effective than the other.

The Acute Effects of Static and Cyclic Stretching on Muscle Stiffness and Hardness of Medial Gastrocnemius Muscle.

Abstract: This study aimed to clarify the acute effects of static stretching (SS) and cyclic stretching (CS) on muscle stiffness and hardness of the medial gastrocnemius muscle (MG) by using ultrasonography, range of motion (ROM) of the ankle joint and ankle plantar flexor. Twenty healthy men participated in this study. Participants were randomly assigned to SS, CS and control conditions. Each session consisted of a standard 5-minute cycle warm-up, accompanied by one of the subsequent conditions in another day: (a) 2 minutes static stretching, (b) 2 minutes cyclic stretching, (c) control. Maximum ankle dorsiflexion range of motion (ROM max) and normalized peak torque (NPT) of ankle plantar flexor were measured in the pre- and post-stretching. To assess muscle stiffness, muscle-tendon junction (MTJ) displacement (the length changes in tendon and muscle) and MTJ angle (the angle made by the tendon of insertion and muscle fascicle) of MG were measured using ultrasonography at an ankle dorsiflexion angle of -10°, 0°, 10° and 20° before and after SS and CS for 2 minutes in the pre- and post-stretching. MG hardness was measured using ultrasound real-time tissue elastography (RTE). The results of this study indicate a significant effect of SS for ROM maximum, MTJ angle (0°, 10°, 20°) and RTE (10°, 20°) compared with CS (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in MTJ displacement between SS and CS. CS was associated with significantly higher NPT values than SS. This study suggests that SS of 2 minutes' hold duration significantly affected muscle stiffness and hardness compared with CS. In addition, CS may contribute to the elongation of muscle tissue and increased muscle strength.

Effects of a Single Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Stretching Exercise With and Without Post-stretching Activation on the Muscle Function and Mechanical Properties of the Plantar Flexor Muscles.

Abstract: A single proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching exercise can increase the range of motion (ROM) of a joint but can lead to a decrease in performance immediately after the stretching exercise. Post-stretching activation (PSA) exercises are known as a possible way to counteract such a drop in performance following a single stretching exercise. However, to date, no study has investigated the combination of PNF stretching with PSA. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare the effects of a PNF stretching exercise with and without PSA on the muscle function (e.g., ROM) and mechanical properties of the plantar flexor muscles. Eighteen physically active males volunteered in the study, which had a crossover design and a random order. The passive shear modulus of the gastrocnemius medialis (GM) and gastrocnemius lateralis (GL) was measured in a neutral position with shear wave elastography, both pre- and post-intervention. Maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) peak torque, maximum voluntary dynamic contraction peak torque, dorsiflexion ROM, and passive resistive torque (PRT) were also measured with a dynamometer. The interventions were 4×30s of PNF stretching (5s of contraction) and two sets of three exercises with 20 or 40 fast ground contacts (PNF stretching+PSA) and PNF stretching only. ROM was found to have increased in both groups (+4%). In addition, the PNF stretching+PSA group showed a decrease in PRT at a given angle (-7%) and a decrease in GM and mean shear modulus (GM+GL; -6%). Moreover, the MVIC peak torque decreased (-4%) only in the PNF stretching group (without PSA). Therefore, we conclude that, if PNF stretching is used as a warm-up exercise, target-muscle-specific PSA should follow to keep the performance output at the same level while maintaining the benefit of a greater ROM.

A Survey on Stretching Practices in Women and Men from Various Sports or Physical Activity Programs.

Abstract: Recommendations for prescribing stretching exercises are regularly updated. It appears that coaches progressively follow the published guidelines, but the real stretching practices of athletes are unknown. The present study aimed to investigate stretching practices in individuals from various sports or physical activity programs. A survey was completed online to determine some general aspects of stretching practices. The survey consisted of 32 multiple-choice or open-ended questions to illustrate the general practices of stretching, experiences and reasons for stretching. In total, 3546 questionnaires were analyzed (47.3% women and 52.7% men). Respondents practiced at the national/international level (25.2%), regional level (29.8%), or recreationally (44.9%). Most respondents (89.3%) used stretching for recovery (74.9%) or gains of flexibility (57.2%). Stretching was generally performed after training (72.4%). The respondents also indicated they performed stretching as a pre-exercise routine (for warm-up: 49.9%). Static stretching was primarily used (88.2%) but when applied for warm-up reasons, respondents mostly indicated performing dynamic stretching (86.2%). Only 37.1% of the respondents indicated being supervised. Finally, some gender and practice level differences were noticed. The present survey revealed that the stretching practices were only partly in agreement with recent evidence-based recommendations. The present survey also pointed out the need to improve the supervision of stretching exercises.