重新审视拉伸引起的力量不足:对急性效应进行系统回顾和多层次荟萃分析:重新审视拉伸引起的力量不足。

IF 9.7 1区 医学 Q1 HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM
Journal of Sport and Health Science Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-10 DOI:10.1016/j.jshs.2024.05.002
Konstantin Warneke, Lars Hubertus Lohmann
{"title":"重新审视拉伸引起的力量不足:对急性效应进行系统回顾和多层次荟萃分析:重新审视拉伸引起的力量不足。","authors":"Konstantin Warneke, Lars Hubertus Lohmann","doi":"10.1016/j.jshs.2024.05.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>When recommending avoidance of static stretching prior to athletic performance, authors and practitioners commonly refer to available systematic reviews. However, effect sizes (ES) in previous reviews were extracted in major part from studies lacking control conditions and/or pre-post testing designs. Also, currently available reviews conducted calculations without accounting for multiple study outcomes, with ES: -0.03 to 0.10, which would commonly be classified as trivial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Since new meta-analytical software and controlled research articles have appeared since 2013, we revisited the available literatures and performed a multilevel meta-analysis using robust variance estimation of controlled pre-post trials to provide updated evidence. Furthermore, previous research described reduced electromyography activity-also attributable to fatiguing training routines-as being responsible for decreased subsequent performance. The second part of this study opposed stretching and alternative interventions sufficient to induce general fatigue to examine whether static stretching induces higher performance losses compared to other exercise routines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Including 83 studies with more than 400 ES from 2012 participants, our results indicate a significant, small ES for a static stretch-induced maximal strength loss (ES = -0.21, p = 0.003), with high magnitude ES (ES = -0.84, p = 0.004) for stretching durations ≥60 s per bout when compared to passive controls. When opposed to active controls, the maximal strength loss ranges between ES: -0.17 to -0.28, p < 0.001 and 0.040 with mostly no to small heterogeneity. However, stretching did not negatively influence athletic performance in general (when compared to both passive and active controls); in fact, a positive effect on subsequent jumping performance (ES = 0.15, p = 0.006) was found in adults.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Regarding strength testing of isolated muscles (e.g., leg extensions or calf raises), our results confirm previous findings. Nevertheless, since no (or even positive) effects could be found for athletic performance, our results do not support previous recommendations to exclude static stretching from warm-up routines prior to, for example, jumping or sprinting.</p>","PeriodicalId":48897,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sport and Health Science","volume":" ","pages":"805-819"},"PeriodicalIF":9.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11336295/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting the stretch-induced force deficit: A systematic review with multilevel meta-analysis of acute effects.\",\"authors\":\"Konstantin Warneke, Lars Hubertus Lohmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jshs.2024.05.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>When recommending avoidance of static stretching prior to athletic performance, authors and practitioners commonly refer to available systematic reviews. However, effect sizes (ES) in previous reviews were extracted in major part from studies lacking control conditions and/or pre-post testing designs. Also, currently available reviews conducted calculations without accounting for multiple study outcomes, with ES: -0.03 to 0.10, which would commonly be classified as trivial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Since new meta-analytical software and controlled research articles have appeared since 2013, we revisited the available literatures and performed a multilevel meta-analysis using robust variance estimation of controlled pre-post trials to provide updated evidence. Furthermore, previous research described reduced electromyography activity-also attributable to fatiguing training routines-as being responsible for decreased subsequent performance. The second part of this study opposed stretching and alternative interventions sufficient to induce general fatigue to examine whether static stretching induces higher performance losses compared to other exercise routines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Including 83 studies with more than 400 ES from 2012 participants, our results indicate a significant, small ES for a static stretch-induced maximal strength loss (ES = -0.21, p = 0.003), with high magnitude ES (ES = -0.84, p = 0.004) for stretching durations ≥60 s per bout when compared to passive controls. When opposed to active controls, the maximal strength loss ranges between ES: -0.17 to -0.28, p < 0.001 and 0.040 with mostly no to small heterogeneity. However, stretching did not negatively influence athletic performance in general (when compared to both passive and active controls); in fact, a positive effect on subsequent jumping performance (ES = 0.15, p = 0.006) was found in adults.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Regarding strength testing of isolated muscles (e.g., leg extensions or calf raises), our results confirm previous findings. Nevertheless, since no (or even positive) effects could be found for athletic performance, our results do not support previous recommendations to exclude static stretching from warm-up routines prior to, for example, jumping or sprinting.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48897,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Sport and Health Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"805-819\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11336295/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Sport and Health Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2024.05.002\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sport and Health Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2024.05.002","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:当建议避免在运动表现前进行静态拉伸时,作者和从业人员通常会参考现有的系统综述。然而,以往综述中的效应大小(ES)主要是从缺乏对照条件和/或前后测试设计的研究中提取的。此外,目前可用的综述在进行计算时未考虑多项研究结果,ES值为-0.03至0.10,通常被归类为微不足道:由于自2013年以来出现了新的荟萃分析软件和对照研究文章,我们重新审视了现有文献,并利用对照前后试验的稳健方差估计进行了多层次荟萃分析,以提供最新证据。此外,之前的研究表明,肌电图活动减少(也可归因于疲劳训练)是导致后续表现下降的原因。本研究的第二部分对拉伸和其他足以引起全身疲劳的干预措施进行了对比,以考察静态拉伸与其他锻炼方法相比是否会引起更高的成绩下降:我们的结果表明,与被动对照组相比,静态拉伸诱发最大力量损失的ES显著而较小(ES = -0.21,p = 0.003),拉伸持续时间≥60秒/次的ES较高(ES = -0.84,p = 0.004)。与主动对照组相比,最大力量损失介于 ES:-0.17 至 -0.28,p < 0.001 和 0.040 之间,大部分没有异质性或异质性很小。然而,拉伸对运动成绩总体上没有负面影响(与被动和主动对照组相比);事实上,在成人中发现拉伸对随后的跳跃成绩有积极影响(ES = 0.15,p = 0.006):结论:关于孤立肌肉的力量测试(如腿部伸展或小腿上举),我们的结果证实了之前的研究结果。尽管如此,由于没有发现静态拉伸对运动表现有影响(甚至是积极的),我们的结果并不支持之前的建议,即在跳跃或短跑等运动前的热身过程中不进行静态拉伸。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Revisiting the stretch-induced force deficit: A systematic review with multilevel meta-analysis of acute effects.

Revisiting the stretch-induced force deficit: A systematic review with multilevel meta-analysis of acute effects.

Background: When recommending avoidance of static stretching prior to athletic performance, authors and practitioners commonly refer to available systematic reviews. However, effect sizes (ES) in previous reviews were extracted in major part from studies lacking control conditions and/or pre-post testing designs. Also, currently available reviews conducted calculations without accounting for multiple study outcomes, with ES: -0.03 to 0.10, which would commonly be classified as trivial.

Methods: Since new meta-analytical software and controlled research articles have appeared since 2013, we revisited the available literatures and performed a multilevel meta-analysis using robust variance estimation of controlled pre-post trials to provide updated evidence. Furthermore, previous research described reduced electromyography activity-also attributable to fatiguing training routines-as being responsible for decreased subsequent performance. The second part of this study opposed stretching and alternative interventions sufficient to induce general fatigue to examine whether static stretching induces higher performance losses compared to other exercise routines.

Results: Including 83 studies with more than 400 ES from 2012 participants, our results indicate a significant, small ES for a static stretch-induced maximal strength loss (ES = -0.21, p = 0.003), with high magnitude ES (ES = -0.84, p = 0.004) for stretching durations ≥60 s per bout when compared to passive controls. When opposed to active controls, the maximal strength loss ranges between ES: -0.17 to -0.28, p < 0.001 and 0.040 with mostly no to small heterogeneity. However, stretching did not negatively influence athletic performance in general (when compared to both passive and active controls); in fact, a positive effect on subsequent jumping performance (ES = 0.15, p = 0.006) was found in adults.

Conclusion: Regarding strength testing of isolated muscles (e.g., leg extensions or calf raises), our results confirm previous findings. Nevertheless, since no (or even positive) effects could be found for athletic performance, our results do not support previous recommendations to exclude static stretching from warm-up routines prior to, for example, jumping or sprinting.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
18.30
自引率
1.70%
发文量
101
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Sport and Health Science (JSHS) is an international, multidisciplinary journal that aims to advance the fields of sport, exercise, physical activity, and health sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Shanghai University of Sport, JSHS is dedicated to promoting original and impactful research, as well as topical reviews, editorials, opinions, and commentary papers. With a focus on physical and mental health, injury and disease prevention, traditional Chinese exercise, and human performance, JSHS offers a platform for scholars and researchers to share their findings and contribute to the advancement of these fields. Our journal is peer-reviewed, ensuring that all published works meet the highest academic standards. Supported by a carefully selected international editorial board, JSHS upholds impeccable integrity and provides an efficient publication platform. We invite submissions from scholars and researchers worldwide, and we are committed to disseminating insightful and influential research in the field of sport and health science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信