Affiliations 

  • 1 Wu Tsai Human Performance Alliance, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California
  • 2 Kinesiology Department, The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas
  • 3 Department of Human Performance and Recreation, Brigham Young University-Idaho, Rexburg, Idaho
  • 4 Doctor of Occupational Therapy Program, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Health Sciences, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas
  • 5 Doctor of Physical Therapy Program, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Health Sciences, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas
  • 6 PhD in Interdisciplinary Health Science Program, College of Health Sciences, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas
  • 7 Team GAP H2F | 1st Armored Division Sustainment Brigade, Fort Bliss, Texas
  • 8 Department of Public Health Sciences, College of Health Sciences, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas; and
  • 9 Sport Sciences Department, National Sports Institute of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
J Strength Cond Res, 2024 Oct 24.
PMID: 39446677 DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004937

Abstract

Montalvo, S, Gonzalez, MP, Dietze-Hermosa, MS, Martinez, A, Rodriguez, S, Gomez, M, Ibarra-Mejia, G, Tan, E, and Dorgo, S. Effects of different stretching modalities on the antagonist and agonist muscles on isokinetic strength and vertical jump performance in young men. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2024-Exercise warm-up may include static or dynamic stretching, impacting performance differently. This study investigated the effects of various stretching protocols on isokinetic strength, muscular activity, and vertical jump performance. Sixteen subjects, divided evenly between trained and untrained groups, underwent 8 distinct stretching conditions in random order. Outcomes measured included isokinetic knee extension and flexion torque and power, muscular activity (vastus lateralis, vastus medialis, and biceps femoris), and jump performance (jump height and modified reactive strength index [RSImod]). Responses to the stretching conditions were analyzed using a mixed-methods approach. For isokinetic knee extension, dynamic stretching of both agonist and antagonist (DY-AG-ANT) and combined dynamic agonist with static antagonist stretching (DY-AG ST-ANT) produced significant improvements. Dynamic stretching of both agonist and antagonist increased peak torque by 12.72% and average torque by 30.80%, while DY-AG ST-ANT increased peak torque by 15.61% and average torque by 41.06%. Muscular activity also improved significantly; DY-AG ST-ANT increased EMG activity of the vastus lateralis by 29.43% and vastus medialis by 70.75%. Biceps femoris saw a 33.18% increase with DY-AG and a 22.15% increase with ST-AG. Countermovement jump height improved with DY-AG-ANT (12.6%) and static antagonist (ST-ANT) conditions (11.3%) ( p < 0.05). Dynamic stretching of both agonist and antagonist also enhanced average power knee extension by 32.41%, while ST-AG DY-ANT improved it by 31.09% ( p < 0.05). Dynamic stretching, especially when combined with static stretching, optimizes isokinetic strength, muscular activity, and jump height. Coaches should incorporate dynamic stretching, alone or with static antagonist stretching, to maximize performance.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.