These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Effects of proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching and static stretching on maximal voluntary contraction.
    Author: Miyahara Y, Naito H, Ogura Y, Katamoto S, Aoki J.
    Journal: J Strength Cond Res; 2013 Jan; 27(1):195-201. PubMed ID: 22395281.
    Abstract:
    This study was undertaken to investigate and compare the effects of proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching and static stretching on maximal voluntary contraction (MVC). Thirteen male university students (age, 20 ± 1 years; height, 172.2 ± 4.6 cm; weight, 68.4 ± 6.7 kg; mean ± SD) completed 3 different conditions on 3 nonconsecutive days in randomized order: static stretching (SS), PNF stretching (PNF), and no stretching (control, CON). Each condition consisted of a 5-minute rest accompanied by one of the following activities: (a) control, (b) SS, or (c) PNF stretching. The hip flexion range of motion (ROM) was evaluated immediately before and after the activity. The MVC of knee flexion was then measured. Surface electromyography was recorded from the biceps femoris and vastus lateralis muscles during MVC tests and stretching. Although increases in ROM were significantly greater after PNF than after SS (p < 0.01), the decreases in MVC were similar between the 2 treatments. These results suggest that, although PNF stretching increases ROM more than SS, PNF stretching and SS is detrimental to isometric maximal strength.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]