Effect of submaximal contraction intensity in contract-relax proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching

被引:81
作者
Feland, JB [1 ]
Marin, HN [1 ]
机构
[1] Brigham Young Univ, Provo, UT 84602 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1136/bjsm.2003.010967
中图分类号
G8 [体育];
学科分类号
04 ; 0403 ;
摘要
Objective: To determine if submaximal contractions used in contract-relax proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (CRPNF) stretching of the hamstrings yield comparable gains in hamstring flexibility to maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVICs). Method: Randomised controlled trial. A convenience sample of 72 male subjects aged 18 - 27 was used. Subjects qualified by demonstrating tight hamstrings, defined as the inability to reach 70degrees of hip flexion during a straight leg raise. Sixty subjects were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: 1, 20% of MVIC; 2, 60% of MVIC; 3, 100% MVIC. Twelve subjects were randomly assigned to a control group ( no stretching). Subjects in groups 1 - 3 performed three separate six second CRPNF stretches at the respective intensity with a 10 second rest between contractions, once a day for five days. Goniometric measurements of hamstring flexibility using a lying passive knee extension test were made before and after the stretching period to determine flexibility changes. Results: Paired t tests showed a significant change in flexibility for all treatment groups. A comparison of least squares means showed that there was no difference in flexibility gains between the treatment groups, but all treatment groups had significantly greater flexibility than the control group. Conclusion: CRPNF stretching using submaximal contractions is just as beneficial at improving hamstring flexibility as maximal contractions, and may reduce the risk of injury associated with PNF stretching.
引用
收藏
页数:2
相关论文
共 11 条
[1]   The effect of time and frequency of static stretching on flexibility of the hamstring muscles [J].
Bandy, WD ;
Irion, JM ;
Briggler, M .
PHYSICAL THERAPY, 1997, 77 (10) :1090-1096
[2]  
Cornelius WL., 1987, J APPL SPORT SCI RES, V1, P39
[3]  
ETNYRE BR, 1986, AM J PHYS MED REHAB, V65, P189
[4]  
Funk DC, 2003, J STRENGTH COND RES, V17, P489
[5]  
Holt L E, 1995, Can J Appl Physiol, V20, P407
[6]   COMPARATIVE-STUDY OF STATIC, DYNAMIC, AND PROPRIOCEPTIVE NEUROMUSCULAR FACILITATION STRETCHING TECHNIQUES ON FLEXIBILITY [J].
LUCAS, RC ;
KOSLOW, R .
PERCEPTUAL AND MOTOR SKILLS, 1984, 58 (02) :615-618
[7]   Mechanical and physiological responses to stretching with and without preisometric contraction in human skeletal muscle [J].
Magnusson, SP ;
Simonsen, EB ;
Aagaard, P ;
DyhrePoulsen, P ;
McHugh, MP ;
Kjaer, M .
ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION, 1996, 77 (04) :373-378
[8]  
SADY SP, 1982, ARCH PHYS MED REHAB, V63, P261
[9]   IMPROVEMENT OF MUSCLE FLEXIBILITY - A COMPARISON BETWEEN 2 TECHNIQUES [J].
WALLIN, D ;
EKBLOM, B ;
GRAHN, R ;
NORDENBORG, T .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 1985, 13 (04) :263-268
[10]  
Walter J, 1996, CLIN KINESIOL, V50, P40