BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation (Aug 2024)

Effects of slow dynamic, fast dynamic, and static stretching on recovery of performance, range of motion, balance, and joint position sense in healthy adults

  • Abdolhamid Daneshjoo,
  • Elham Hosseini,
  • Safoura Heshmati,
  • Mansour Sahebozamani,
  • David George Behm

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-024-00841-5
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 16, no. 1
pp. 1 – 11

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Introduction Considering the effects of fatigue on athletic performance and the subsequent increase in the probability of injury, the purpose of this study was to compare the effects of slow dynamic, fast dynamic, and static stretching on the recovery of performance, range of motion (ROM), balance, and joint position sense. Methods Fifteen collegiate healthy females were involved in four separate sessions of slow dynamic stretching (SDS), fast dynamic stretching (FDS), static stretching (SS), and control condition (CC; without stretching), in a random order with at least 48 h of rest between sessions. After warming up, the individuals performed ROM, balance, joint position sense (JPS) maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) force as well as countermovement (CMJ) and squat jump (SJ) as pre-tests. After performing the knee fatigue protocol of 4 sets of knee extension and flexion at 60% of 1 repetition maximum (RM) to exhaustion (CC; without stretching) or stretching programs (SDS or FDS or SS), the subjects repeated all the tests at post-test 1 (after 5 min) and post-test 2 (after 60 min). Results A significantly lower JPS error was detected with SDS while JPS error increased in the SS and control conditions (p < 0.0001). MVIC force significantly increased with SDS and FDS but decreased in control and SS conditions (p < 0.0001). Moreover, a significant decrease in CMJ and SJ height in SS and control conditions was revealed (p < 0.0001). Also, a significant decrease in balance with the control condition was revealed. But only SDS minimized fatigue-induced balance decrements (p < 0.0001). Additionally, the control condition experienced a significant decrease in knee extensor ROM, which contrasted with the significant increase in the quadriceps flexibility with the stretching conditions. Conclusions The present results support the idea that SDS may increase quadriceps MVIC force, knee extensor ROM and knee JPS. So according to the present results, it is suggested that the SDS could be implemented and incorporated into a regular recovery program.

Keywords