Comparison between static and dynamic warm-up exercise regimes on lower limb muscle power

doi:10.4236/health.2009.12019

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Vol.1, No.2, 117-120 (2009)

doi:10.4236/health.2009.12019

SciRes

Health

Openly accessible at

Comparison between static and dynamic warm-up

exercise regimes on lower limb muscle power

Jose Shelton1, G. V. Praveen Kumar²

1Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia; [email protected]

²School of Biotechnology, Chemical & Biomedical Engineering, VIT University, Vellore, India; [email protected]

Received 26 April 2009; revised 17 May 2009; accepted 10 June 2009.

ABSTRACT

Aim: The purpose of this study was to compare

static and dynamic warm-up regimes on lower

limb muscle power and thereby the perform-

ance of the individual. Methodology: Twenty

eight (28) subjects were assigned into groups

consisting of 2 members. From each group, 1

subject performed the static stretching and the

other subject performed dynamic stretching as

warm-up. This was followed by non-counter

movement jumps on a force platform and the

vertical jump heights were recorded. Data were

analysed using one-way ANOVA and paired

t-test at 0.05 alpha. Result: The results showed

that dynamic stretching as warm-up causes

significant increase (p=0.01) in the vertical jump

height as compared to static stretching (p=0.03).

Discussion: The increase in vertical jump height

could be related to the increase in force pro-

duction which plays an important role during

the vertical jump test. On the other hand the

decrease in vertical jump height following static

stretching could be attributed to a decrease in

the force production in the muscles. Conclusion:

Dynamic warm-up increases the vertical lump

height, whereas static stretching decreases the

jump height of the athlete.

Keywords: Static Stretching; Dynamic Stretching;

Force Production; Post Activation Potentiation

1. INTRODUCTION

The primary aim of exercise physiologists, personal

trainers, bio-mechanical engineers and sports scientists

is to monitor and increase the performance levels of the

athletes under their training. When it comes to training

and prescribing exercises, there is always a debate be-

tween the types of stretching that are being used as warm

up before activity. This could also be used to check the

performance of the athlete owing to the particular type

of stretching.

Static stretching involves holding the muscle in the

stretched position for some time. This type of stretching

has been used as a traditional method of warm up as well

as performance enhancement for quite some time now.

But research performed by Rosenbaum and Hennig

(1995) [1], shows that static stretching decreases peak

force by 5% and rate of force production by 8%, there by

actually decreasing muscle strength. Static stretching of

calf, hamstrings and quadriceps reduces the peak vertical

velocity of a vertical jump according to studies done by

Knudson et al., 2000 [2]. Studies done by Kokkonen et

al., 1998 [3], have documented a rather harmful effect of

acute static stretching, that it actually decreases the per-

formance of those tasks where success is related to

maximal force development. Further studies by McNeal

and Sands, 2003 [4], with younger populations have also

illustrated impairment in jumping performance in teen-

agers following static stretching.

Dynamic stretching consists of functional based exer-

cises which use sport specific movements to prepare the

body for movement. It consists of controlled leg and arm

swings that are taken gently to the limits of range of mo-

tion. Studies done by Fredrick G. A., 2000 [5] have

shown the effectiveness of dynamic stretching, as this

increases core temperature, muscle temperature, elon-

gates the muscles and stimulates the nervous system,

thereby decreasing the chances of injury. Faigenbaum et

al., 2005 [6] studied dynamic warm-up versus static

stretching in different age groups and a variety of ath-

letes. And found that compared to static stretching, dy-

namic warm up increases flexibility and also improved

performances among children for vertical jump. Long-

jump performance also improved in the dynamic warm-

up. Studies by Duncan M. J. and Woodfield L. A., 2006

[7] suggest that there may be some advantage to per-

forming a low to moderate dynamic warm up protocol

prior to activities that require high power outputs.

The purpose of this study is to find out which type of

stretching exercise used as warm-up affects lower limb

muscle power and therefore affects performance of an

individual.

http://www.scirp.org/journal/HEALTH/

J. Shelton et al. / HEALTH 1 (2009) 117-120118

Openly accessible at

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. Subjects

Twenty eight moderately trained subjects (16 male and

12 female) ranging in the age group of 20 to 35 years

were taken for the study. They were randomly divided

into groups consisting of 2 members. From each group,

one subject performed the static stretching and the other

subject performed the dynamic stretching as part of the

warm up.

2.2. Procedure of Data Collection:

Baseline Measurement

Both the groups performed an initial non-counter

movement jump with both hands on the hips on a force

platform and the vertical jump height was recorded.

The subjects in both the groups were made to jog 12

laps (up to 60% VO2 max) up and down in the corridor

after which the heart rate (Carotid artery) was recorded.

Then they performed the first non-counter movement

jump on the force platform and the vertical jump heights

were recorded.

2.3. Stretching Protocol

The static stretching group subjects actively performed

some static calf, hamstrings, quads, gluteal and hip

flexor stretching exercises for 2 repetitions 30 seconds

each, for both the legs.

While the dynamic stretching group subjects per-

formed some dynamic stretching exercises like tip-toe

walking, forward and backward leg swings, sagittal

plane leg swings, walking knee pull ups, walking lunges

with hip rotation and walking quads stretches for 2x10

repetitions for both legs.

2.4. Post Stretch Measurement

Then the second heart rate (Carotid artery) was recorded

for both the groups. After which they performed the

second non-counter movement jump on the force plat-

form and the vertical jump heights were recorded. Then

the subjects were asked to remain standing, without do-

ing any activity for 10 minutes. Then they performed the

third and final non-counter movement jump on the force

platform and the vertical jump heights were recorded.

Finally the vertical jump heights and heart rate readings

for both the static and dynamic groups were recorded.

2.5. Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics of range, mean and standard devia-

tion were computed on all data. One way ANOVA was

calculated across the recording of both the groups. A

paired t-test was computed to compare the static and

dynamic stretching groups. Level of significance was set

at 0.05 alpha.

3. RESULTS

The mean and standard deviation of the jump heights of

the subjects in both the static and dynamic stretching

groups are shown in Tables 1 and 2.

The static stretching group showed a decrease of

0.61% in the final jump as compared to the dynamic

Table 1. Jump heights of the subjects in the static stretching

group (N=14)

Subjects Initial

Jump

III HR IHR

n=1 0.1390.1840.138 0.175 104 96

n=2 0.1740.1640.186 0.202 128 100

n=3 0.1340.1080.123 0.152 180 128

n=4 0.0860.1450.127 0.137 172 126

n=5 0.1320.1320.107 0.141 168 88

n=6 0.2880.3310.309 0.293 152 100

n=7 0.2650.2080.149 0.183 138 102

n=8 0.2550.3090.28 0.291 144 88

n=9 0.1240.2230.205 0.21 150 100

n=10 0.1760.2010.193 0.158 92 64

n=11 0.15 0.2160.18 0.158 140 94

n=12 0.0840.0830.055 0.047 132 96

n=13 0.3450.3450.203 0.233 144 92

n=14 0.1490.1710.192 0.206 150 112

AVG 0.1720.2010.174 0.184 142.4299

STDEV 0.0770.0790.066 0.063 24.0415.95

Table 2. Jump heights of the subjects in the dynamic stretching

group (N=14).

Subjects Initial

Jump

III HR IHR

n=1 0.35 0.27 0.406 0.338 120 104

n=2 0.1190.1560.149 0.163 156 141

n=3 0.2510.1460.244 0.121 176 148

n=4 0.1350.1290.156 0.187 132 128

n=5 0.2240.1590.15 0.19 144 120

n=6 0.12 0.01 0.118 0.12 168 120

n=7 0.1880.2010.214 0.212 152 140

n=8 0.0980.0920.107 0.102 160 132

n=9 0.0990.0920.105 0.101 160 130

n=10 0.2370.2720.304 0.264 164 128

n=11 0.1640.1790.156 0.168 180 108

n=12 0.2820.2820.259 0.266 118 100

n=13 0.1870.1690.189 2 100 88

n=14 0.2450.2310.353 0.296 140 128

AVG 0.1920.1700.207 0.323 147.85122.5

STDEV0.075 0.077 0.094 0.488 23.4617.09

http://www.scirp.org/journal/HEALTH/

J. Shelton et al. / HEALTH 1 (2009) 117-120119

Openly accessible at

Static Stretching Group

0.155

0.16

0.165

0.17

0.175

0.18

0.185

0.19

0.195

0.2

0.205

Initial Jump I Jump II Jump III Jump

No of Jumps

Height (Mts)

Figure 1. Graph showing the differences in vertical jump

height in the static stretching group.

Dynamic Stretching Group

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Initial Jump I Jump II Jump III Jump

No of Jumps

Height (Mts)

Figure 2. Graph showing the differences in vertical jump

height in the dynamic stretching group.

stretching group which showed an increase of 13.06%,

as shown in Figures 1 and 2.

4. DISCUSSION

As the result shows dynamic warm up can definitely

increase the vertical jump height and therefore signifi-

cantly influences fitness performance, as compared to

the group that did static stretching as warm up. These

findings are similar to the studies done by Duncan and

Woodfield 2006 [7] and Faigenbaum et al., 2005 [6]

which show that dynamic stretching increases flexibility

as well as muscle power.

Among the subjects who did static stretching, from

Figure 3, we can see that there is a decrease in jump

height between the first and second jumps. This shows

that static stretching might actually reduce force produc-

tion, which is similar to the studies done by Rosenbaum

and Hennig, 1995 [1]. The main muscles involved in a

vertical jump are the calf, quadriceps and hamstrings.

These muscles were part of the static stretching protocol

of the warm up. On the other hand, we can see an in-

crease in the vertical jump height between second and

third jumps, this change could be because of the ten

minutes rest period in between the jumps. And this rest

period would have given time for the muscles to recover

after the period of static stretching. This implies that

static stretching actually causes a decrease in the force

production in these muscles as also shown in the studies

by Kokkonen et al., 1998 [3] and Knudson et al., 2000

[2]. Therefore the performance of the activity (vertical

jump height) is also decreased as a result of static

stretching which is also similar to the studies done by

McNeal J. and Sands W., 2003 [4]. The reason for this

decrease in performance could be attributed to an in-

crease in the musculo-tendinous unit (MTU) compliance,

leading to a decrease in the MTU ability to store elastic

energy in its eccentric phase as reported by Fletcher IM,

Jones B, 2004 [8]. The above evidences suggest that

static stretching prior to activity is not the best solution.

Static stretching does not necessarily lead to a decrease in

injury but may actually decrease the force production and

thereby decrease the vertical jump height for the athlete.

On the other hand we can see from Figure 4, there is

a significant increase in the vertical jump height in the

group that did dynamic stretching as part of the warm up,

which is similar to studies done by Faigenbaum et al,

2005 [6]. Studies by Duncan and Woodfield, 2006 [7]

have suggested that performing pre-event dynamic warm

up protocols may create an optimal environment for ex-

Static Vs Dynamic Stretching with STDEV

-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Initial Jump I JumpII Jump III Jump

No of Jumps

Height (Mts)

Static Stretching Group

Dynamic Stretching Group

Figure 3. Graph showing the differences in vertical jump

height between the static and dynamic stretching groups (Us-

ing AVERAGE +/- STDEV).

Static Vs Dynamic Stretching

(using STDEV)

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Initial

Jump

I Jump II Jump III Jump

No of Jumps

Height (Mts)

Static Stretching

Dynamic Stretching

Figure 4. Graph showing the differences in vertical jump

height between the static and dynamic stretching groups (Using

STDEV values).

J. Shelton et al. / HEALTH 1 (2009) 117-120

120

plosive force production by enhancing neuromuscular

function. This occurrence has been termed the ‘postac-

tivation potentiation’ (PAP) [9] and is believed to in-

crease the rate of force development, thereby increasing

speed and power production. This finding was similar to

the study done by Faigenbaum et al., 2005 [6]. Dynamic

warm up activities used in the study may have influ-

enced the excitability of fast twitch motor units and

therefore readied these units to play a more significant

role during the vertical jump test. However no tests of

neuromuscular activation were performed in this study.

Neuromuscular activation studies can be done in future

to measure the excitability of fast twitch motor units.

The results of the current study suggest that there may be

some advantage to performing a low to moderate dy-

namic warm up protocol prior to activities that require

high power outputs. And the increase in vertical jump

height following dynamic warm up compared to static

warm up is considerable.

Openly accessible at

Faigenbaum et al. 2005 [6] in his study also says that

the evidence supporting the injury-reducing and per-

formance-enhancing potential of static stretching is

presently lacking. So it may be desirable to perform dy-

namic stretching during the warm up period and static

stretching during the cool down. The purpose of warm

up exercise is to warm-up the body, but static stretching

seems to cause cool down of the body.

5. CONCLUSIONS

From the above study it can be concluded that the effect

of dynamic stretching as warm up has the following

benefits. Dynamic Stretching increase force production

prior to activity, which in turn can improve the vertical

jump height of the athlete.

As exercise physiologists and sports scientists our

main objective is to decrease the injury levels and in-

crease the performance levels of the athletes. And the

above evidences from related literature suggest that dy-

namic stretching is the best type of stretching that can be

performed during warm-up in order to increase the jump

height of the athlete and to increase performance levels

of the athlete. From the findings of the study in order to

increase the vertical jump height of the athlete we can

recommend a sports performance program that includes

dynamic activities during warm up and static stretching

as part of the cool down.

REFERENCES

[1] Rosenbaum, D. and E. M. Hennig (1995) The influence

of stretching and warm-up exercises on Achilles tendon

reflex activity. Journal of Sport Sciences, 13(6), 481-90.

[2] Knudson, D., Bennet, K., Corn, R., Leick, D., Smith, C.,

(2000) Acute effects of stretching are not evident in the

kinematics of the vertical jump. Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport, 71(1-Supplement), A-30.

[3] Kokkonen, J., Nelson, A. G., Cornwell, A. (1998) Acute

muscle stretching inhibits maximal strength performance.

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 411-415.

[4] McNeal, J. and Sands, W., (2003) Acute static stretching

reduces lower extremity power in trained children. Pedi-

atric Exercise Science, 15, 139-145.

[5] Frederick, G.A. (2001) Baseball part-1 dynamic flexibil-

ity. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 23(1), 21-30.

[6] Faigenbaum, A.D., Bellucci, M.A., Bernieri, A, Bakker,

B., Hoorens, K., (2005) Acute effects of different warm

up protocols on fitness performance in children. Journal

of Strength & Conditioning Research, 19(2), 376–381.

[7] Duncan, M.J. and Woodfield, L.A., (2006) Acute effects

of warm up protocol on flexibility and vertical jump in

children. Journal of Exercise Physiologyonline, online, 9

(3), 9-16.

[8] Fletcher, I.M. and Jones, B., (2004) The effects of dif-

ferent warm up stretch protocols on 20metre sprint per-

formance in trained rugby union players. Journal of

Strength and Conditioning Research, 18(4), 885.

[9] Sale, D., (2002) Postactivation potentiation: Role in hu-

man performance. Exercise Sport Science Review, 30(3),

138-143.