Sports Med
DOI 10.1007/s40279-013-0053-x
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Effects of Stretching on Performances Involving
Stretch-Shortening Cycles
Heidi Kallerud • Nigel Gleeson
Ó Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013
Abstract
Background Alongside its role in athletic conditioning,
stretching has commonly been integrated in warm-up rou-
tines prior to athletic performance. Numerous studies have
reported detrimental acute effects on strength following
stretching. Consequently, athletes have been recommended
to discontinue stretching as part of warm-ups. In contrast,
studies indicate that chronic stretching performed as a sep-
arate bout from training or competition may enhance per-
formance. However, the influence of stretching on complex
performances has received relatively little attention.
Objective The purpose of this study was to review both
the acute and chronic effects of stretching on performances
involving the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC).
Methods A systematic search for literature was under-
taken (January 2006–December 2012) in which only ran-
domized controlled trials (RCTs) or studies with repeated
measures designs were included. The Physiotherapy Evi-
dence Database (PEDro) rating scale was used for quality
assessment of the evidence.
Results The review included 43 studies, from which
conflicting evidence emerged. Approximately half of the
studies assessing the acute effect of static stretching
reported a detrimental effect on performance, while the
remainder found no effect. In contrast, dynamic stretching
showed no negative effects and improved performance in
half of the trials. The effect size associated with static and
dynamic stretching interventions was commonly low to
H. Kallerud (&)
N. Gleeson
Queen Margaret University Edinburgh,
Edinburgh EH21 6UU, UK
e-mail: heidi.kallerud@gmail.com
N. Gleeson
e-mail: ngleeson@qmu.ac.uk
moderate, indicating that the effect on performance might
be limited in practice. Factors were identified that might
have contributed to the conflicting results reported across
studies, such as type of SSC performance and carrying out
dynamic activity between the stretching bout and perfor-
mance. Few studies since 2006 have addressed the chronic
effect of stretching on functional and sports performance.
Although negative effects were not reported, robust evi-
dence of the overall beneficial effects within current bib-
liographic databases remains elusive. Plausible mechanisms
for the observed effects from stretching are discussed, as
well as possible factors that may have contributed to con-
tradictory findings between studies.
Limitations Considerable heterogeneity in study design
and methods makes comparison between studies chal-
lenging. No regression analysis of the contribution of dif-
ferent predictors to variation between trials had previously
been performed. Hence, predictors had to be selected on
the basis of a qualitative analysis of the predictors that
seemed most influential, as well as being identified in
previous narrative reviews.
Conclusion Different types of stretching have differential
acute effects on SSC performances. The recommended
volume of static stretching required to increase flexibility
might induce a negative acute effect on performances
involving rapid SSCs, but the effect sizes of these decre-
ments are commonly low, indicating that the acute effect
on performance might be limited in practice. No negative
acute effects of dynamic stretching were reported. For
athletes that require great range of motion (ROM) and
speed in their sport, long-term stretching successfully
enhances flexibility without negatively affecting perfor-
mance. Acute dynamic stretching may also be effective in
inducing smaller gains in ROM prior to performance
without any negative effects being observed.

1 Introduction
Activities involving stretch-shortening cycles (SSC) of
muscular activation are intrinsic to exercise and sporting
endeavours. Antecedent stretching of muscle prior to
shortening provokes enhanced performance [81] in a pro-
cess associated with the storage and release of mechanical
work as elastic energy in the muscle–tendon units (MTU)
[24].
The acute effect of stretching on muscle strength has
been studied extensively over the past two decades with
research suggesting that a single bout of stretching imme-
diately prior to strength performance induces an acute
impairment [37, 44, 65]. Similarly, reduced muscular
power, rate of force development, peak isokinetic torque
and diminished performance of complex movements
involving SSCs [44, 59, 63] have questioned the efficacy of
antecedent stretching [46]. Although the relative impor-
tance of factors such as intensity, mode of stretching and
the optimal way of incorporating it into the warm-up rou-
tine has yet to be fully determined in the extent of acute
impairment that might occur [44], even detrimental effects
of 0–4 % observed in sprint and jump performance could
impact adversely on competitive outcomes [68]. By con-
trast, chronic effects of stretching aimed at increasing
range of motion (ROM) over an extended period appear to
be beneficial to performances involving the SSC [59, 63].
Improved ROM due to more compliant tissue, and the
enhanced ability to extend sporting movement patterns
with efficiency are considered fundamental to performance
[86].
Expectations for performance in manoeuvres involving
SSCs being enhanced by pre-event stretching to provoke
increased MTU compliancy and storage of elastic energy
[24, 81, 85] might be simplistic given the findings of recent
reviews suggesting that pre-participation stretching induces
an acute reduction in neuromuscular performance [44]. It is
plausible that careful marshalling of the best features of
established, beneficial chronic effects of conditioning for
flexibility with those emerging from research involving
acute responses to pre-event stretching will facilitate
optimal performance in exercise and sporting movements
associated with SSCs.
A consensus about the adverse acute effect of pre-par-
ticipation static stretching on selected indices of neuro-
muscular performance, such as power and peak torque [44,
46, 59], led the American College of Sports Medicine
(ACSM) to recommend stretching after activity rather than
during the warm-up [3]. Early reviews attempting to
summarize the acute and chronic effects of stretching have
cautiously indicated a negative impact on performances
involving the SSC, but these conclusions have been based
necessarily on either conflicting or inconclusive evidence
H. Kallerud, N. Gleeson
[46, 59]. A review by Shrier [63] reported a similar extent
of decrements for both dynamic and static modes of
stretching, whereas McHugh and Cosgrave [44] and Behm
and Chaouachi [8] concluded that only certain combina-
tions of volume and intensity of pre-event stretching might
provoke decrements in SSC-related performance activities.
Previous reviews have often been based on results obtained
from isolated indices of muscle strength, such as power or
rate of force development. The effect sizes of stretch-
induced decrements in SSC-related performance are com-
monly smaller than decrements in performance measures
of strength where tentative comparisons have been possible
[44] and this compromises extrapolation of findings to
functionally relevant and sporting performance.
Recently published systematic reviews [37, 65] have
provided sound evidence for a negative acute effect of
static stretching. This negative effect diminishes as stretch
duration reduces [37, 65]. However, little evidence exists
regarding the effect of other types of stretching or the
chronic effect of long-term stretching as part of flexibility
conditioning.
Although a clear dose–response trend has been identi-
fied as an important factor influencing the effect of acute
stretching, Kay and Blazevich [37] pointed out that further
research is needed in order to clarify the factors affecting
varying results among studies.
There have been few previous attempts to systematically
investigate the contribution of potential determinants of the
effect of stretching on performances involving the SSC.
The relative importance of potential determinants such as
type and volume of stretching, its intensity and incorpo-
ration into the warm-up routine amongst other components
of pre-event warm-up might offer an understanding of the
composition of optimal pre-event preparation and overall
conditioning practices. Conclusions drawn previously
might not reflect possible effects of dynamic and proprio-
ceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching
because earlier experimental trials have almost exclusively
concentrated on static stretching [37, 44, 46, 65].
The evidential basis for recent reviews of the literature
has become increasingly more robust with the inclusion
criteria focusing on controlled and randomized controlled
trials (RCT) with systematic quality assessment of the trials
included in the review for the most part (Shrier [63]; Behm
and Chaouachi [8]; Simic et al. [65]; Kay and Blazewich
[37]) but not always (Rubini et al. [59]; McHugh and
Cosgrave [44]). Increased procedural robustness counters
the potential for intrusion of bias and might offer superior
interpretive rigour. Other recent reviews have offered
narrative contributions [44, 46] which, although informa-
tive, warrant interpretive caution.
Conclusive research findings might ultimately depend
on the cumulative emergence of evidence from sufficient
Antecedent stretching and functional performance
numbers of studies with congruent designs, cohorts and
outcome measures to warrant the appropriate use of meta-
analytical approaches. Nevertheless, there is an impetus for
clarification of the role of various types of stretching for
performance and to be able to prescribe optimal warm-up
and flexibility regimes to athletes and those engaged in
exercise. This challenge is endorsed by recent reviews
arguing for clarification of the effect of the different types
of stretching as part of the traditional warm-up [37]. To
date, although other systematic reviews examining the
acute effects of stretching exist, few systematic reviews
have focused specifically on both the acute and chronic
effects of stretching as well as systematically attempting to
differentiate the potential differing effects of different
types of stretching on functionally relevant and sporting
events. This review also provides an exploration of the
mechanisms underlying the indicated varying effects of
different types of stretching.
The aim of this paper was to critically and selectively
review the determinants for efficacy of flexibility regimes
as they impact on acute and longer-term responses within
performances involving the SSC.
2 Methods
2.1 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Research involving RCTs or studies with repeated mea-
sures designs in which participants served as their own
controls were eligible for inclusion. Healthy participants
aged 18–60 years old were included, irrespective of fitness
or activity level. Interventions assessing the acute or
chronic effect of static, dynamic or PNF stretching of one
or more muscles of the lower limb were included. Static
stretching was defined as movement of a limb to its end
ROM and maintaining the stretched position for certain
amount of time [26]. Dynamic stretching was defined as
controlled movement through the active ROM of the joint,
often performed stationary [26]. Dynamic activities as part
of interventions were differentiated from dynamic stretch-
ing on the premises that these activities were more active
and resembled the succeeding performance to a larger
extent, e.g. walking lunges or sideways jumps. Outcome
measures of performances associated with the lower limb
and involving the SSC were used and these included sprint
time, vertical jump height, jump length, kick velocity, or
distance covered during running tasks. Studies assessing
squat jump performance from a static starting position were
excluded on the basis that this manoeuvre can be consid-
ered an isometric-concentric movement [23]. For inclusion,
a study needed to have within its experimental design
either an appropriate control condition involving repeated
measures or a non-stretching control group that partici-
pated in the same volume of exercise as the intervention
group. Chronic stretching interventions failing to increase
ROM were excluded as any potential effect on SSC per-
formance might not have been concomitant. Studies pub-
lished from January 2006 to December 2012 were eligible
for inclusion and this date coincided with that of the pub-
lication of a substantive systematic review involving SSC-
related outcomes and which provoked further scrutiny of
more recent evidence in bibliographic databases. Full-text
publications in English or Norwegian were included.
2.2 Search Strategy
A systematic search for literature was undertaken in the
databases Cochrane, PEDro, PubMed and SPORTDiscus.
The search terms ‘‘stretching’’ OR ‘‘flexibility’’ AND
‘‘performance’’ OR ‘‘jump’’ OR ‘‘sprint’’ OR ‘‘running’’
OR ‘‘stretch-shortening cycle’’ were combined in a sys-
tematic sequence. Reviewers screened the titles and
abstracts of all identified papers to determine those
potentially relevant to the review. Titles and/or abstracts
were read and sorted into categories of ‘‘relevant’’,
‘‘unsure’’ or ‘‘irrelevant’’. The full manuscripts were then
retrieved and each paper assessed for inclusion/exclusion
criteria and any doubts or disagreements were discussed
between authors until a consensus was reached. Articles
categorised as ‘‘unsure’’ were read in full text in order to
avoid inadvertent exclusion of relevant studies. The refer-
ence lists of relevant articles were searched by hand for
further articles that were not identified in the database
searches. Articles referenced by authors online or articles
with restricted full text online were found in hardcopy form
in library archives. The PRISMA flow chart (Fig. 1)
illustrates the process by which manuscripts were selected
and numbers involved.
2.3 Quality Assessment and Statistical Analyses
The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) rating scale
was chosen for quality assessment of the included trials,
because the reliability of the scale has been tested and it
has been widely used to assess the quality of RCTs in
reviews [43, 55]. Maher et al. [43] found the inter-rater
reliability of the rating of individual items and the total
sum in the Pedro scale to vary between ‘‘fair’’ and ‘‘good’’
(intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.40–0.75), while
Tooth et al. [72] reported good to excellent inter-rater
reliability (ICC 0.71–0.89). None of the trials in this review
achieved the maximum score when assessed with the
PEDro scale, because of the difficulty with blinding the
participants and therapist to the purpose of this type of
intervention [63].

Fig. 1 PRISMA flow chart
In order to determine the magnitude of the differences
between the groups or experimental conditions, Cohen’s
d effect size was calculated using pooled standard devia-
tions for each study that provided absolute mean data and
standard deviations [70]. Effect sizes of less than 0.4 rep-
resented a small magnitude of change while 0.41–0.7 and
greater than 0.7 represented moderate and large magnitudes
of change, respectively [70].
3 Results
3.1 Search Results and Quality of Included Trials
Initially, 2,583 articles were identified in the initial sear-
ches; 2,210 of these articles were deemed irrelevant on the
basis of the title. A further 204 studies were excluded
owing to irrelevant outcome measures or inadequacy of the
control groups, and 123 were excluded as duplicate pub-
lications across databases. One article was identified
through the reference lists of other articles. Scrutiny of the
remaining 47 articles resulted in exclusion of another 6
trials because they did not fulfil all of the inclusion criteria.
Three of these studies lacked adequate control groups, one
measured squat jump performance from a static starting
position, another did not evaluate SSC performance and
one chronic stretching intervention failed to increase ROM.
Lastly two more articles were identified while preparing
this manuscript. The 43 studies meeting the inclusion
H. Kallerud, N. Gleeson
criteria are listed in Table 1. Five of these studies were
RCTs with between-group statistical comparison. The
remaining 38 studies were repeated measures designs. The
studies were heterogeneous in numerous methodological
aspects, many of which were further investigated to eval-
uate the influence of these differences across studies.
The methodological quality of the included studies
ranged between 3 and 7 on the PEDro scale (maximum
rating 10) (Table 1). The majority of the studies were
awarded either 5 (12 studies) or 6 points (12 studies). None
of the final selection of studies reported concealed or
blinded allocation of participants, but 38 of the 43 studies
used a repeated measures design in which all participants
undertook all of the interventions, and so lessened potential
concerns about systematic bias [55]. Only one study
reported ‘blinding’ of the assessor to the purpose of the
research.
3.2 Acute Effect of Stretching
3.2.1 Static Stretching
Thirty-five of the 43 studies investigated the acute effect of
static stretching on one or more types of SSC perfor-
mances. Vertical jump performance involving counter-
movements (CMJ) or drop jumps (DJ) was assessed in 21
of these studies, of which nine found a significant decline
in jump performance after a static stretching intervention
compared to a non-stretching control group. Small to
moderate effect sizes were commonly reported
(d = 0.15–0.5) [9, 27, 28, 35], with one study [57]
reporting a large effect size of 0.85 after a relatively high
volume of stretching. No acute effect from static stretching
was observed in ten studies when compared to the non-
stretching control intervention [10, 14, 15, 18, 22, 42, 54,
61, 77, 79]. Pacheco et al. [52] was the only study that
reported improved performance after SS. One trial [16]
described reduced jump performance after a combination
of passive warm-up and static stretching, but not after static
stretching alone or combined with an active warm-up.
Sprint performance was assessed in 14 of the 35 studies.
Five studies reported no difference in sprint performance
immediately after static stretching [18, 25, 64, 67, 76], six
reported reduced performance (d = 0.24–0.36) [7, 27, 38,
62, 69, 83], while the remaining study [42] reported
improved sprint time. Agility performance was also being
assessed in six studies [7, 18, 27, 42, 45, 75], but only one
study [27] observed reduced performance compared to the
control group which did not undertake static stretching.
Various indicators of running economy were assessed in 4
of the 35 studies, of which 3 found no change [1, 32, 47],
while 1 study [82] reported impaired running performance
immediately after static stretching (d = 0.19–0.37).
Table 1 Summary of studies included in the review
Ref Author (year) Stretching method Subjects Repetitions and duration (total) Muscle Performance indicator Results Pedro
no. Activity level [minutes between stretching and test] stretched score

[1] Allison et al. SS/C 10 men 3 9 40 s 8: q, h, i, ts Running economy, hamstring ROM, CMJ : ROM SS pre to post (d = 1.06) 5/11
(2008) Recreational [3] height, stride rate, stride length ; CMJ height SS pre to post (d = 0.5)
athletes No change in RE or stride parameters
No difference in C pre to post
[7] Beckett et al. SS/C 20 men 1 9 20 s (4 min) 6: q, h, i, 20 m sprint time, agility speed : mean sprint time 0–5 m set 2 (d = 0.40) 6/11
(2009) Athletes [0] ad, ga, : mean sprint time 0–20 m set 2 (d = 0.27)
so
: mean total sprint time set 2 (d = 0.30)
[9] Behm and C/SS 100 %/SS 7 men 4 9 30 s (12 min) 3: q, h, ts Jump height: DJ, slow CMJ, fast CMJ, ; DJ height all SS vs. C (d = 0.22) 6/11
Kibele 75 %/SS 50 % of 3 women [5] self-selected speed CMJ, ROM ; squat jump height SS vs. C (d = 0.36)
(2007) pod
Unknown ; CMJslow height SS vs. C (d = 0.35)
; CMJself-selected height SS vs. C (d = 0.26)
Antecedent stretching and functional performance

; CMJfast height SS vs. C (d = 0.3)

No significant difference between SS
conditions
: ROM (d = 0.41)
[10] Behm, Plewe SS/DS/C 10 young men SS: 4 9 30 s 3: q, h, pf Jump height: CMJ, DJ : CMJ height DS vs. SS (d = 0.49) 6/11
et al. (2011) 8 middle-aged DS: 8 9 30 s : CMJ height DS vs. C (d = 0.43)
men [0] : DJ height DS vs. SS (d = 0.28)
Physically : DJ height DS vs. C (d = 0.05)
active
[13] Bradley et al. C/(CR)PNF/SS 18 men SS: 4 9 30 s 5: q 9 2, CMJ height. 0, 5, 15, 30, 45, 60 min post ; CMJ height SS vs. C 0 min 6/11
(2007) Physically PNF: 4 (25 s contract, 5 s relax) h, ad, ts stretch ; CMJ height PNF vs. C 0 min
active/ (10 min) ; CMJ height PNF vs. C 5 min
sedentary
[0.5] No difference between SS and PNF. Deficit
returned to C values within 15 min
[14] Brandenburg SS/C 9 men 3 9 30 s 3: q, h, ts CMJ height, EMG (vastus lateralis, Ga) No significant difference 5/11
et al. (2007) 9 women (9 min)
Physically [1]
active
[15] Carvalho et al. DS/aSS/pSS/C 16 men SS: 2 9 15 s 3: h, q, ts CMJ : CMJ height DS vs. passive SS 7/11
(2012) Athletes DS: 2 9 30 s : CMJ height active SS vs. passive SS
Table 1 continued
Ref Author (year) Stretching method Subjects Repetitions and duration (total) Muscle Performance indicator Results Pedro
no. Activity level [minutes between stretching and test] stretched score

[16] Cè et al. (2008) SS/DA (C)/DA ? SS/PW/PW ? SS/NP 15 men 4 9 30 s 4: q, h, i, CMJ flight time, CMJ peak force, ; CMJ flight time PW vs. 6/11
Physically (8 min) ts CMJ maximal power DA(C)
active [1] ; CMJ flight time PW ? SS
vs. DA(C)
; CMJ peak force NP vs.
DA(C), S, DA ? SS
; CMJ peak force PW and
PW ? SS vs. DA(C)
; CMJ maximal power PW
and PW ? SS vs. DA(C)
[18] Chaouachi et al. SS pod/SS \ pod/DS/SSpod ? DS/ 19 men 2 9 30 s 5: q, h, a, 30 m sprint time, CMJ height, : sprint time DS ? SS \ pod 3/11
(2010) SS \ pod ? DS/DS ? SSpod/ Athletes [5: specific warm-up, 2: rest] i, ts 5 jump test distance, agility vs. C
DS ? SS \ pod/C (d = -0.50)
[19] Christensen and C/(CR)PNF/DS 36 men PNF: 3 reps PNF: 4: CMJ height No significant difference in 5/11
Nordstrom 32 women DS: 5 reps q, h, CMJ height after any
(2008) ad, ts intervention
Athletes [2]
DS: 8 No difference between sex
[22] Dalrymple et al. SS/DS/C 12 women SS: 3 9 15 s 4: q, h, g, CMJ height No significant difference 6/11
(2010) Athletes DS: 2 reps 9 2 set ts
(8 min)
[1]
[25] Favero et al. SS/C 10 men 2 9 45 s 4: q, h, g, Hamstring ROM, 40 m sprint : ROM SS vs. C (d = 0.25) 6/11
(2009) Recreational (12 min) ts time, peak and mean sprint No significant difference in
athletes velocity sprint performance
[1]
[26] Fletcher (2010) C/DSs/DSf 24 men 2 9 10 reps 8 CMJ height, DJ height, EMG : HR DSf vs. C (d = 3.55) 5/11
Recreational [2] (Ga, Ta, biceps femoris, vastus : HR DSs vs. C (d = 1.94)
athletes lateralis), HR, T
: T DSf and DSs vs. C
(d = 0.85)
CMJ height:
: in DSf vs. DSs (d = 0.24)
: in DSf vs. C (d = 0.29)
: EMG Ga DSf vs. C
(d = 1.56)
DJ height:
: in DSf vs. DSs (d = 0.32)
: in DSf vs. C (d = 0.53)
: in DSs vs. C (d = 0.22)
: EMG biceps femoris DSf
vs. C (d = 1.49)
: EMG vastus lateralis DSf
vs. C (d = 1.3)
H. Kallerud, N. Gleeson
Table 1 continued
Ref Author (year) Stretching method Subjects Repetitions and duration (total) Muscle stretched Performance indicator Results Pedro
no. Activity level [minutes between stretching and test] score

[27] Fletcher and Monte-Colombo SS/DS/C 20 men SS: 2 9 15 s 8: q, h, ab, ad, g, i, ga, HR, CMJ, 20 m sprint, agility : CMJ height C vs. SS 6/11
(2010) Athletes 1 9 15 s sol run (d = 0.4)
(6) [1] : CMJ height DS vs. SS
(d = 0.46)
DA: 2 9 12 reps
; sprint time DS vs. C
(d = 0.69)
; sprint time C vs. SS
(d = 0.41)
; agility run time DS vs. C
(d = 0.59)
; agility run time C vs. SS
(d = 0.31)
: HR DS and C vs. SS
Antecedent stretching and functional performance

[28] Fletcher and Monte-Colombo SS/DS/C 21 men SS: 1–2 9 15 s 8: q, h, ab, ad, g, i, ga, Jump height: CMJ, DJ HR, T, : CMJ height DS vs. SS 6/11
(2010) Athletes DS: 2 9 12 reps so EMG (d = 0.79)
[1] : CMJ height C vs. SS
(d = 0.37)
: CMJ height DS vs. C
(d = 0.39)
: DJ height DS vs. SS
(d = 0.64)
: DJ height C vs. SS (d = 0.48)
: DJ height DS vs. C
(d = 0.09)
: HR DS vs. SS and C
: HR C vs. S
: T DS vs. C and SS
: EMG DS vs. S
[32] Hayes and Walker (2007) SS/progressive SS/ 7 men 2 9 30 s 5: q, h, i, g, ts Running economy, steady No significant difference 6/11
DS/C Athletes [10] state VO2
[34] Holt and Lambourne (2008) SS/DS/E/C 64 men SS: 3 9 5 s SS: 5: q, h, i, g, l CMJ height ; CMJ height SS vs. E, DS, C 5/11
Athletes DS: 1 9 10 reps DS: 8
E: 6
Table 1 continued
Ref Author (year) Stretching method Subjects Repetitions and duration (total) Muscle stretched Performance indicator Results Pedro
no. Activity level [minutes between stretching and test] score

[35] Hough et al. DS/SS/C 11 men 1 9 30 s 5; q, h, i, g, ts VJ height, EMG ; VJ height SS vs. C (d = 0.3) 6/11
(2009) Recreational (7 min) : VJ height DS vs. C (d = 0.2)
athletes [2] ; VJ height SS vs. DS (d = 0.56)
; EMG SS vs. DS (d = 2.21)
[36] Jaggers et al. DS/C 10 men 2 9 30 s 5 CMJ height, force, power : CMJ power DS vs. C (d = 0.13) 6/11
(2008) 10 women No difference between sex
Physically
active/
sedentary
[38] Kistler et al. SS/C 18 participants SS: 30 s 4: h, ts, q 100 m sprint : sprint time SS vs. C during first 5/11
(2010) Athletes [\2] 20–40 m of 100 m sprint
(d = 0.52)
[39] Kokkonen Chronic SS/C 38 3 9 15 s (40 min), 3 9 week/ 15: q, h, ad, ab, ts, ta, external ROM, long jump distance, CMJ : ROM (d = 0.61) 5/11
et al. (2007) Sedentary 10 weeks and internal hip rotators height, 20 m sprint time : long jump distance (d = 0.07)
: CMJ jump height (d = 0.05)
; 20 m sprint time (d = 0.17)
[42] Little and SS/DS/C 18 SS: 1 9 30 s 6: q, h, i, a, g, ts CMJ height, stationary 10 m sprint ; 10 m sprint time DS vs. C 3/11
Williams Athletes DS: 1 9 60 s [4: specific warm-up, time, flying 20 m sprint time, agility (d = 0.23)
(2006) 2: rest] ; 20 m sprint time DS vs. C
(d = 0.32)
; 20 m sprint time SS vs. C
(d = 0.33)
No significant difference DS vs. SS
; agility time DS vs. C (d = 0.31)
; agility time DS vs. SS (d = 0.39)
[45] McMillian SS/DA/NP 20 cadets (men 1 9 20 s 5: g, h, i, q, ga, (?3 upper 5 step jump distance, agility speed : 5 step jump distance DA vs. NP 4/11
et al. (2006) and women) [0] body stretches) (d = 0.46)
: 5 step jump distance DA vs. SS
(d = 0.23)
: 5 step jump distance SS vs. NP
(d = 0.23)
; agility speed DA vs. NP (d = 0.26)
; agility speed DA vs. SS (d = 0.16)
[47] Mojock et al. SS/C 14 women SS: 4 reps 5: q, h, ts, i, gl 30 min running economy, ROM, HR, : ROM 7/11
(2011) Recreational Duration of stretch not stated distance covered No other significant differences
athletes
H. Kallerud, N. Gleeson
Table 1 continued
Ref Author (year) Stretching method Subjects Repetitions and duration (total) Muscle stretched Performance indicator Results Pedro
no. Activity level [minutes between stretching and test] score

[52] Pacheco et al. (2011) pSS/aSS/PNF/C 14 women pSS: 1 9 30 s 3: q, h, ts CMJ, DJ : CMJ height pre- to post-pSS (d = 0.19) 6/11
35 men aSS: 1 9 4–6 s : CMJ height pre- to post-PNF (d = 0.26)
Physically active PNF: 1 9 15 s : CMJ height pre- to post-aSS (d = 0.52)
: DJ height pre- to post-pSS (d = 0.19)
: DJ height pre- to post-PNF (d = 0.15)
: DJ height pre- to post-aSS (d = 0.36)
: CMJ height aSS vs. C (d = 0.5)
: CMJ height PNF vs. C (d = 0.52)
[53] Pearce et al. (2009) C/SS/DS 11 men SS: 2 9 30 s 5: q, h, g, i, ga CMJ height, CMJ peak ; CMJ height SS vs. DS post-stretch 6/11
2 women DS: 1–2 9 30 s (12–15 min) power, HR ; CMJ height SS vs. DS and C 0 min post 2nd
Physically active [0] warm-up
; CMJ height SS vs. DS and C 10 min post 2nd
Antecedent stretching and functional performance

warm-up
; CMJ height SS vs. DS and C 20 min post 2nd
warm-up
; CMJ height SS vs. DS and C 30 min post 2nd
warm-up
All better at post 2nd warm-up vs. pre, but only
significant for DS and C
; HR in SS vs. DS and C
[54] Perrier et al. (2011) SS/DS-DA/C 21 men SS: 2 9 30 s SS: 7: q, h, i, ad, CMJ, ROM : CMJ height DS vs. C (d = 0.24) 6/11
Recreational DS: 2 sets ab, ts, back : CMJ height DS vs. SS (d = 0.17)
athletes DS-DA: 11 : ROM SS vs. C (d = 0.35)
exercises
: ROM DS vs. C (d = 0.41)
[56] Place et al. (2012) PNF/C 12 men PNF: 4 9 5 s (20 s) 1: q Jump height: CMJ, DJ No significant change in any parameter 6/11
Physically active ROM (knee flexion,
hip extension)
[57] Robbins and C/various volume 20 men 2 9/4 9/6 9 15 s (B15 min) 3: q, h, ts VJ height ; VJ height SS 6 sets vs. all other pre- 4/11
Scheuermann SS Athletes/ [4] interventions (d = 0.85)
(2008) recreational
athletes
[58] Ross (2007) Chronic SS/C 8 men 5 9 30 s 1: h Hamstring ROM, : ROM SS pre to post (d = 0.89) 5/11
5 women 7 9 week/15 days SHDT : SHDT SS pre to post (d = 0.27)
Physically active
[61] Samuel et al. (2008) SS/C 12 women 3 9 30 s 2: q, h CMJ height, torque, ; power SS vs. C 5/11
12 men (1,5 min) power
Physically active [0,5]
Table 1 continued
Ref Author (year) Stretching method Subjects Repetitions and duration (total) Muscle stretched Performance indicator Results Pedro
no. Activity level [minutes between stretching and test] score

[62] Sayers et al. SS/C 17 women 3 9 30 s 3: q, h, ts 30 m sprint time (total, acceleration : total sprint time 5/11
(2008) Athletes [1] phase, maximal-velocity phase) (d = 0.36)
: time in acceleration
phase (d = 0.36)
: time in maximal-
velocity phase
(d = -0.44)
[64] Sim et al. (2009) DA-C/DA-SS/SS-DA 13 men 2 9 20 s 4: q, h, ga, so 20 m sprint time : total sprint time 3rd set 5/11
Athletes [3] DA-SS vs. DA-C
(d = -0.58)
No other significant
differences
[67] Stewart et al. SS only/warm-up 14 2 9 45 s 4: q, h, i, ts 40 m sprint time No significant difference 3/11
(2007) only (C)/C ? SS/ Athletes (12 min)
NP
[69] Taylor et al. SS-DA/DS-DA/C 11 men SS: 2 9 30 s 5: q, h, g, i, ga 40 m sprint : sprint time C vs. SS- 4/11
(2012) Athletes DS: 1–2 9 30 s DA
(12–15 min)
[5]
[75] Van Gelder and SS/DS/C 60 men: SS: 1 9 30 s SS: 7: h, q, i, ga, ad, ab, Agility run time ; agility run time DS vs. 7/11
Bartz (2011) 18 athletes, 42 DS: 1 9 8–20 reps g ? 4 abdominal stretches SS (d = 0.81)
recreational DS: 14 exercises ; agility run time DS vs.
athletes C (d = 0.83)
[76] Wallmann et al. SS/DS/C 16 men SS: 2 9 15 s 1: i 37 m sprint time ; sprint time C pre to 6/11
(2010) 9 women DS: 2 9 15 s post
Recreational [\1] No other significant
athletes differences
[77] Wallmann et al. DA-SS/DA-C 7 women 3 9 30 s 1: ga CMJ flight time, EMG No significant difference 4/11
(2008) 6 men (1.5 min)
Physically active
[79] Werstein and SS/DS/C 15 women SS: 3 9 30 s 4: g, h, q, DJ flight time : DJ flight time DS vs. 5/11
Lund (2012) Athletes DS: 3 9 10 reps SS
: DJ flight time DS vs. C
[82] Wilson et al. SS/C 10 men 4 9 30 s 5: q, h, i, g, ts Kcal expenditure, distance, 60 min : kcal expenditure 5/11
(2010) Athletes (16 min) run, ROM (d = 0.37)
; distance covered
(d = 0.19)
: ROM (d = 0.17)
H. Kallerud, N. Gleeson
Antecedent stretching and functional performance

3.2.2 Dynamic Stretching

ab abductors, ad adductors, aSS active static stretching, C control, CMJ countermovement jump, CR(PNF) contract-relax PNF, DA dynamic activity, DJ drop jump, DS dynamic stretching, DSs dynamic stretching slow, DSf
dynamic stretching fast, E exercises, EMG electromyography, ga gastrocnemius, g gluteus muscles, h hamstrings, HR heart rate, i iliopsoas, l lower back, NP no preparation, PNF proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation, pod
point of discomfort, pSS passive static stretching, PW passive warm-up, q quadriceps femoris, reps repetitions, ROM range of motion, s seconds, SHDT single hop for distance test, so soleus, SS static stretching, T core
Pedro
score

4/11

6/11

6/11
Twenty studies investigated the acute effect of dynamic
: 20–40 s sprint time (d = 0.10)

No significant difference in DJ
: ROM PNF vs. C (d = 1.19)
stretching on performance. Two measured running perfor-
: total sprint time (d = 0.24,

: ROM DS vs. C (d = 0.63)

: energy cost after DS vs. C
: ROM SS vs. C (d = 1.33)

within or between groups

mance, 15 investigated jump performance, agility was
tested in 2 studies, and 5 measured sprint time. Dynamic
stretching had no acute effect on performance in eight
studies. One study [18] found diminished performance

(d = 0.4)
when dynamic stretching was combined with static
Results

3 %)

stretching, while another study [88] reported reduced run-

ning economy when compared to no stretching. Ten studies
30 min running energy cost, distance covered

reported improved performance when comparing dynamic

stretching with a control group which participated in the
during 30 min running, HR, ROM

same amount of exercises but no stretching. Effect sizes of

Hamstring ROM, DJ flight time

these improvements ranged from low to moderate

(d = 0.05–0.53), while one study [27] reported a high
effect size of 0.69. Dynamic stretching had a beneficial
Performance indicator

effect on agility speed compared to static stretching in two

40 m sprint time

trials [42, 75] but offered no effect in another [18].

The acute effect of PNF stretching was only assessed in
four studies and all measured vertical jump performance.
Results showed significantly diminished performance in
two studies [13, 52], while no difference was observed in
5: q, h, g, i, ts (in total

the remaining two studies [19, 56].

10 movements)
Muscle stretched

4: q, h, g, ts

3.3 Chronic Effect of Stretching

2: h, ts

temperature, ta tibialis anterior, ts triceps surae, VJ vertical jump, VO2 oxygen uptake, : increase, ; decrease

Three studies have assessed the chronic effect of stretching

on performance since 2006. One study [87] involving
[minutes between stretching and test]

dynamic stretching found no effect on jump performance,

Repetitions and duration (total)

PNF: 10 s stretch, 5 s contract.

while two trials [39, 58] reported improved jump perfor-

mances in response to dynamic and static stretching,
4 9 week/6 weeks

respectively. These observations were associated with low

3 9 30 s (10 min)

effect sizes (d = 0.07–0.27) compared to pre-intervention

DS: 2 9 4 reps
SS: 4 9 30 s

performance. One study also showed enhanced sprint per-

formance after chronic stretching (d = 0.17).
Activity level

4 Discussion
11 women

Physically
Subjects

Athletes

Athletes
active
11 men

28 men

14 men

4.1 Acute Effects of Stretching

This review could not confirm that stretching in general is

Stretching method

detrimental to performance involving the SSC as consid-

(CR)PNF/C
Chronic SS/

erable conflict emerged from the bibliographic evidence.

Approximately half of the studies that investigated the
DS/C
SS/C

acute effect of static stretching reported impaired perfor-

mance, while the remaining studies found no effect. Fur-
Table 1 continued

Kaya (2007)
et al. (2008)

Zourdos et al.
Author (year)

Yuktasir and

thermore, the low to moderate effect sizes of those studies

Winchester

(2012)

reporting decrements in performance following static

stretching suggest a muted impact in practice unless the
highest level of sporting endeavours are being considered.
[83]

[87]

[88]
Ref
no.

It was notable that the studies were methodologically


heterogeneous in various aspects of their protocols that
might have provoked volatility amongst findings.
Interestingly, diminished performance was only reported
in one [88] of the studies that investigated the acute effect
of dynamic stretching. However, the reported increased
energy cost following dynamic stretching was in this study
explained by a higher initial heart rate after the intervention
when starting the performance test [88]. Earlier reviews
have suggested that dynamic stretching enhances perfor-
mance [44]. In the current review more than half of
the studies review reported enhanced performance, while
the remaining studies found no effect. Effect sizes of the
observed benefits following dynamic stretching were low
to moderate when compared to the control intervention.
However, many studies reported a beneficial effect from
dynamic stretching when compared to static stretching,
which commonly was associated with larger effect sizes
[10, 15, 27, 28, 34, 35, 53, 54, 75, 79]. For example, Hough
et al. [35] reported low effect size for the detrimental and
beneficial effects of static and dynamic stretching respec-
tively when compared to control, but a moderate effect size
of 0.56 when the two stretching types were compared.
Similarly a large effect size was seen in Fletcher and
Monte-Colombo [28] when comparing dynamic stretching
to static stretching, while moderate effect sizes were seen
when comparing static or dynamic stretching to the control
intervention. Hence, the choice of stretching method prior
to performance might therefore have an impact on perfor-
mance, especially in sports where only minor differences in
capability ultimately determine success.
The ability of dynamic stretching to increase ROM has
earlier been considered limited [6, 44]. However, both
Zourdos et al. [88] and Perrier et al. [54] observed
enhanced ROM after dynamic stretching interventions.
These findings were associated with moderate effect sizes,
indicating that dynamic stretching might induce a clinically
significant increase in ROM and prove to be applicable in
pre-participation warm-ups aimed at enhancing flexibility.
It was notable that stretching appears to moderate the
patterns of neuromuscular activation amongst the studies
that were reviewed. For example, electromyographic
(EMG) records remained unchanged when no effect on
performance was observed after an intervention [14]
whereas in two studies [28, 35] static stretching was
associated with reduced EMG activity during CMJ com-
pared to performance after dynamic stretching. Similarly,
Fletcher [26] found increased EMG activity accompanied
by very large effect sizes (d = 1.3–2.21) for increased
CMJ performance after dynamic stretching when compared
to control.
In accordance with the findings of the review by Rubini
et al. [59], studies included in this review provided con-
flicting evidence concerning the acute effect of stretching
H. Kallerud, N. Gleeson
on SSC performance. The detrimental effect of stretching
might depend on the characteristics of the performance
being measured [81]. Behm and Chaouachi [8] stated in
their review that performances involving longer SSC will
not be affected by stretching to the same degree as short
duration SSC performances. This suggestion is supported
by the findings of this review. Two studies [1, 32] reported
reduced CMJ height after static stretching, while long-
distance running performance remained unchanged. Long-
distance running involves slower SSCs compared to
explosive performances such as sprinting and jumping that
require maximal force generation [1]. Fletcher [26]
observed greater beneficial acute effects of dynamic
stretching on jump performances that involved fast velocity
SSCs, compared to those of slower SSCs. It was hypoth-
esised that rapid SSCs rely more on storage and release of
elastic energy than SSCs of longer ground-contact times
and slower transition between phases. It was further
hypothesised that rapid transitions induce a greater
stretching velocity and thereby increases activity of stretch-
induced reflexes [26]. Changes in series elastic component
(SEC) stiffness after static stretching have been observed
only at loading levels close to maximum voluntary con-
traction (MVC), while no differences in stiffness were
evident at loads that were lower than 70 % of MVC [80].
Force output during long-distance running might therefore
be too low for the inhibitory effect of static stretching to be
apparent. In contrast, Wilson et al. [82] observed reduced
running performance after static stretching in which par-
ticipants were asked to run as fast as possible for 30 min.
The self-regulated running task might have nevertheless
provoked sufficient bursts of speed to have simulated
sprint-related SSCs. Stretching prior to performance might
therefore have different effects on various types of per-
formances because of inherent reliance on specific char-
acteristics of storage and release of elastic energy.
Stretching is also commonly included in warm-ups before
experimental trials investigating the effect of various
interventions on indices of muscle performance and idio-
syncratic neuromuscular responses to stretching and sub-
sequent exercise stress might bias the measurement of
outcome measures. For example, performing a short bout
of dynamic activity between stretching and performance
seems to diminish the acute negative effect of static
stretching. One study [53] observed that decrements after
static stretching diminished after a second warm-up. Sim-
ilarly, no effect was seen in studies where a second warm-
up was performed between stretching and performance [18,
42].
High volumes of static stretching have been correlated
with reduced performance [8, 37, 44, 65]. A stretching
duration of 60–90 s has been found to impair performance,
while 30 s of static stretching does not influence
Antecedent stretching and functional performance
performance [8, 37, 44, 65]. Evidence of a dose–response
trend receives further support in this review. Robbins and
Scheuermann [57] specifically investigated different vol-
umes of static stretching and found that only the highest
volume resulted in performance decrements. Across the
studies included in this review a total stretch duration of
5–6 min consistently resulted in reduced performance, with
only a few exceptions, e.g. when stretching was followed
by dynamic activity. Static stretching volumes of
1.5–4 min commonly showed no effect on SSC-related
performance. Stretching interventions in which a muscle
was stretched for 2 min or more also consistently resulted
in reduced SSC-related performance and this finding is
largely congruent with recent recommendations for short-
duration static stretching (\1.5 min) to avoid compromised
performance [8, 37, 65]. These findings imply that a certain
volume of stretching is required to induce stretch-induced
strength loss. It could be speculated that this effect might
be more pronounced when stretching a large number of the
muscles that are involved in the activity.
It is believed that high MTU stiffness enhances the
ability of the SEC to produce work [20]. Static stretching
reduces MTU stiffness and might thereby also reduce the
elastic potentiation produced during the stretch phase. A
high volume of static stretching is likely to reduce MTU
stiffness to a greater extent than lower stretching volumes.
Altered MTU compliance has been considered as one of
the primary mechanisms underpinning stretch-induced
strength loss, possibly resulting in both neural and
mechanical mechanisms purported to reduce performance
[59]. It has been hypothesised that static stretching reduces
performance through alterations of the length–tension
relationship in the stretched muscle. Altered the length–
tension relationship following stretching has been found to
affect force-generating capacity [4, 59, 78]. The lengthened
muscle will subsequently be at a shorter and less than
optimal length for force production when returned to the
same joint angle after stretching [29]. This theory might be
applicable to force generation during isometric contrac-
tions, but has less impact on the patterns of force genera-
tion associated with a range of joint angles during dynamic
activities.
It has also been hypothesised that altered MTU prop-
erties through static stretching inhibit myoelectrical
potentiation, through changes in reflex activity. The
eccentric phase of an SSC generates myoelectric potenti-
ation, which causes an increase in muscle activation for the
subsequent concentric contraction [27]. For example, the
increased jump height during CMJ compared to squat jump
has been attributed to myoelectrical potentiation, because
increased EMG activity has been recorded during the
concentric phase of the CMJ compared to squat jump [12].
In this review altered EMG activity following stretching
was reported by three studies [26, 28, 35] indicating neu-
romuscular adaptations. The H-reflex is a measure of
motoneuronal excitability and transmission capacity from
Ia afferents in muscle spindles to motoneurons [30]. Sev-
eral authors [4, 5, 78] have observed suppression of the
H-reflex after static stretching. The acute reduction in EMG
activity associated with performance decrements observed
by Hough et al. [35] could be explained by inhibition of
myoelectric potentiation [20].
It has been suggested that reduced H-reflex response
could be explained by reflex inhibition induced by the
Golgi tendon organ (GTO) reflex [20, 31]. This reflex
inhibits agonist activity and force production as a response
to lengthening [17]. However, a very intense stretch is
necessary to elicit the GTO reflex, and the discharge rarely
continues after the stretching stimuli has been removed
[17]. The GTO reflex is therefore unlikely to cause longer-
lasting effects on performance following stretching. How-
ever, muscle spindles respond to stretching by initiating the
myotatic stretch reflex [2]. Stretching may desensitize the
muscle spindles through alterations in the mechanical
properties of the MTU, hence reducing the activity of
group I and II afferents and reflex activity [5, 78]. Ensuing
reductions to excitation of the alpha motoneuron pool
would lead to reduced muscle stimuli and reflexive con-
tribution to force production [4]. This hypothesis is sup-
ported by Hough et al.’s [35] finding of lowered EMG
activity and reduced jump performance following static
stretching, indicating reduced activation of motoneurons
[4, 5, 78].
Research on electromechanical delay (EMD) and rate of
force development (RFD) further supports the hypotheses
that static stretching-induced performance decrements are
related to MTU stiffness. EMD is affected by the amount of
slack in the SEC that must be taken up in order to transmit
force to the skeletal muscles. Increased MTU stiffness
enhances force transmission and thereby reduces EMD.
Static stretching reduces MTU stiffness by increasing the
elasticity and reducing viscosity [41, 60]. Costa et al. [21]
recorded prolonged EMD after 20 min of static stretching,
which was associated with a reduction in peak twitch force.
EMD is inversely related to RFD [74], and Oliveira et al.
[50] observed reduced RFD in the late phase of muscle
contraction after a bout of static stretching. MTU stiffness
accounts for much of the variance in RFD measured during
the late phase [50], which suggests that reduced MTU
stiffness can reduce RFD during muscle contraction. Thus,
reduced MTU stiffness following stretching could lead to
increased EMD and reduced RFD, and negatively influence
SSC performances through the diminished rate at which
force is initiated and subsequently developed [21].
A meta-analysis by Simic et al. [65] revealed that the
negative acute effect of static stretching was evident

regardless of sex. The data in this review did not facilitate
inference about sex differences in the acute responses to
stretching. Only two studies [19, 36] investigated the
influence of sex but found neither significant acute
responses to stretching nor sex differences. This was pos-
sibly due to a low stretching volume compared to what was
frequently associated with stretch-induced strength loss in
this review. Winter and Brookes [84] observed that females
had higher EMD latencies than men with hypothesised
concomitant sex-specific differences in musculotendinous
elasticity. Longer reflex activity following a stretch stim-
ulus is commonly seen in individuals with stiffer MTUs
[2]. Tendencies for altered reflex activity after stretching
are also mainly seen in ‘‘stiffer’’ subject [2]. Men could
therefore be more susceptible to altered reflex activity as a
response to stretching. Morse [49] observed greater muscle
stiffness in males compared to females, and proposed that
this difference was due to viscoelastic properties. These
physiological mechanisms might ultimately be shown to
determine differences in acute responses to stretching
amongst men and women once the requisite volume and
quality of evidence become available.
Only two studies [13, 19] addressed the acute effects of
PNF stretching on SSC-related performance, of which one
observed a negative effect. It is therefore difficult to
determine if PNF has a consistent impact on performance,
but neither evidence from this nor earlier reviews have
reported a beneficial effect. Since PNF increases ROM and
MTU compliance to a similar extent as static stretching
[19, 87], it is plausible that depending on the type of SSC-
related performance, PNF and static stretching might be
expected to provoke similar acute detrimental adaptations
The ability of dynamic stretching to increase flexibility
is considered to be smaller than what is obtained through
static stretching [6, 44]. Hence, detrimental effects of
dynamic stretching could be less likely to occur plainly
because changes in MTU stiffness do not occur to the same
extent as after static stretching. This concurs with the lar-
gely equivocal findings from this review in which 8, 2 and
9 studies showed no effect, reduced and improved (low to
moderate effect size) countermovement jumping perfor-
mance, respectively. It has been suggested that perfor-
mance of muscle contractions during dynamic stretching
could induce post-activation potentiation (PAP). Previ-
ously, PAP has commonly been studied mainly following
electrically stimulated, maximal or near maximal voluntary
contractions [33]; however, in recent years potentiating
effects of submaximal contractions have also been reported
[48, 66]. In this review two studies found increased EMG
activity following dynamic stretching. PAP has been found
to increase RFD of isometric force [33]. This could plau-
sibly increase power output during explosive dynamic
H. Kallerud, N. Gleeson
movements [71]. However, very few studies have investi-
gated neuromuscular output, such as H-reflex response and
twitch force, following voluntary contractions together
with subsequent measures of dynamic performance [33,
71]. A more modest potentiation is reported after sub-
maximal compared to electrically stimulated or maximal
effort muscle contractions [51, 66]. The potentiating effect
of pre-performance muscle contraction seems to become
more prominent with increasing levels of contraction [51].
Differences in the level of muscle activation caused by
variations in the dynamic stretching exercises chosen in the
included studies could therefore be a plausible factor
contributing to the conflicting results. A volume effect
linked to the balance between PAP and fatigue following
dynamic stretching has also been demonstrated [73]. If the
volume of dynamic stretching is too high, the effect on
performance of PAP might be overruled by fatigue [73].
Therefore, further studies investigating the optimal amount
of dynamic stretching required to enhance performance are
warranted.
Performance benefits following dynamic stretching
could also be temperature related [26]. Three studies
recorded increased heart rate and elevated core temperature
following dynamic stretching compared to control or static
stretching [26, 28, 53]. Heart rate and concomitant
increases in blood flow could allow subsequent perfor-
mance to begin with elevated levels of rate of oxygen
uptake and the potentiation of muscle performance [11]. It
is plausible that dynamic stretching increases performance
through mechanisms related to body temperature and heart
rate that might not be evident after a passive period of
static stretching or a control intervention. If dynamic
stretching enhances performance through these mecha-
nisms the considerably different types of dynamic stretches
used in interventions might have contributed to the varying
results regarding the acute effect of dynamic stretching. For
example, while some interventions involved stationary
rhythmic movements, others involved more dynamic
movements that simulated parts of the sport. Bishop [11]
found that activity at C40 % of maximal oxygen uptake
(VO2 max) and higher is necessary to induce temperature-
related performance benefits. It is thereby plausible that the
interventions involving more dynamic forms of stretching
would increase body temperature and heart rate to a greater
extent, thereby further potentiating performance. It has also
been hypothesised that dynamic stretching enhances neu-
romuscular control and muscle activation owing to its
characteristics involving practising task-specific move-
ments similar to the particular sport [11]. Increased EMG
activity during jump performance following dynamic
stretching compared to control was observed in two studies
[26, 36], which might suggest increased neuromuscular
Antecedent stretching and functional performance
activation. If dynamic stretching enhances neuromuscular
control and activation, the equivocal results in this review
for the acute effect of dynamic stretching could be further
explained by the different types of dynamic stretches used
across studies.
4.2 Chronic Effects of Stretching
In accordance with the review by Rubini et al. [59] no
negative effects on SSC performances were reported fol-
lowing long-term stretching. All three RCTs involved static
[39, 58, 87] or PNF stretching interventions [87], all of
which were successful in increasing ROM, showing mod-
erate to large effect sizes (d = 0.61–1.33). Despite the
belief that improved flexibility following long-term
stretching will enhance running speed by increasing stride
length [2], only two [39, 58] studies reported improved
SSC-related performance, while one found no effect [87].
Furthermore, the effect sizes of the reported performance
enhancements were small (d = 0.05–0.27). It is interesting
to speculate that amongst the myriad of determinants of the
effects of stride length on SSC performance, proper tech-
nique in particular is required to make use of a greater
ROM [2]. Participants’ varying capabilities in this respect
might have contributed to heterogeneity of response to
chronic stretching noted in this review. Nonetheless, since
no detrimental effects have been reported, long-term
stretching might remain as a safe way to increase ROM
without negatively affecting performance, and especially in
sports where flexibility is crucial.
It has been suggested that long-term stretching could
enhance performance through altered MTU hysteresis.
Hysteresis refers to energy loss in viscoelastic structures
during repeated loading and unloading of the tissue [2, 40].
Lost energy is converted into heat, while efficient reuse of
energy increases the elastic recoil that contributes to
mechanical work [2]. Kubo et al. [40] found reduced
hysteresis after a period of stretching which significantly
increased flexibility, while no change in muscle strength
was observed. They hypothesised that increased compli-
ance enhanced the MTUs ability to store and release elastic
energy, hence facilitating the concentric phase of the SSC.
Guissard and Duchateau [30] observed decreased maximal
H/M ratio after a stretching intervention lasting 6 weeks.
No change in M-wave response was observed, indicating
altered H-reflex activity only. These adaptations were first
observed after 30 stretching sessions, while stiffness was
reduced after only 10 sessions. Reduced H-reflex activity
has been shown in subjects involved in sports requiring
large amounts of flexibility conditioning [2]. However,
whether these changes occur as a result of stretching and
would actually improve performance remains a hypothesis
as scientific evidence is lacking.
5 Practical Applications and Conclusions
This review has shown that different types of stretching
have differential acute effects on SSC performances. The
recommended volume of static stretching required to
increase flexibility might induce a negative acute effect on
performances involving rapid SSCs, but results of biblio-
graphic analysis since 2006 were inconsistent. Further-
more, the effect size of these decrements was commonly
low, indicating that the acute effect on performance might
be limited in practice. Stretching volume, type of SSC
performance and dynamic activity between the stretching
bout and performance are variables that may contribute to
the differing results seen across trials. No negative acute
effects of dynamic stretching were reported, but only about
half of the studies reported improved performance.
Dynamic stretching has the potential to induce sufficient
gains in ROM, but too high volume presents a risk of
fatigue. Until further research on the optimal volume of
dynamic stretching is presented, athletes that require great
ROM and speed in their sport are recommended to engage
in long-term stretching to successfully enhance flexibility
without negatively affecting performance. However, since
the extent of acute effects of stretching generally were
limited, coaches and athletes should evaluate the impor-
tance of both ROM and speed when designing conditioning
regimes for flexibility and warm-up.
Further investigation of the hierarchy of importance
associated with potential determinants of heterogeneity
amongst the findings of studies in this review is warranted
for both acute and chronic effects of stretching. Trials using
appropriate experimental design sensitivity and focusing
attention on the responses of females under varying vol-
umes and intensities of stretching, including PNF, are
warranted in order to further investigate the extent to which
stretch-induced strength loss is influenced by sex. In col-
lating evidence from RCTs since 2006, this review has
identified the increasing need within RCTs for acute and
chronic stretching interventions that offer ecological
validity and better reflect the styles of flexibility condi-
tioning used in contemporary practice, together with the
routine recording of ROM and properties of MTU stiffness
to facilitate the understanding of mechanisms of change.
Acknowledgments No funding was received for this work. There
are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication.
References
1. Allison SJ, Bailey DM, Folland JP. Prolonged static stretching
does not influence running economy despite changes in neuro-
muscular function. J Sports Sci. 2008;26(14):1489–95.
2. Alter MJ. Science of flexibility. 3rd ed. Champaign: Human
Kinetics; 2004.

3. American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM’s guidelines for
exercise testing and prescription. London: Wolters Kluwer/Lip-
pincott Williams & Wilkins; 2010.
4. Avela J, Finni T, Liikavainio T, Niemela E, Komi PV. Neural and
mechanical responses of the triceps surae muscle group after 1 h
of repeated passive stretches. J Appl Physiol. 2004;96(6):
2325–32.
5. Avela J, Kyrolainen H, Komi PV. Altered reflex sensitivity after
repeated and prolonged passive muscle stretching. J Appl Phys-
iol. 1999;86(4):1283–91.
6. Bandy W, Irion JM, Briggler MMS. The effect of static stretch and
dynamic range of motion training on the flexibility of the hamstring
muscles. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998;27(4):295–300.
7. Beckett JRJ, Schneiker KT, Wallmann KE, Dawson BT, Guelfi
KJ. Effects of static stretching on repeated sprint and change of
direction performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(2):
444–50.
8. Behm DG, Chaouachi A. A review of the acute effects of static
and dynamic stretching on performance. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2011;111:2633–51.
9. Behm DG, Kibele A. Effects of differing intensities of static
stretching on jump performance. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2007;101
(5):587–94.
10. Behm DG, Plewe S, Grage P, Rabbani A, Beigi T, Byrne JM,
Button DC. Relative static stretch-induced impairments and
dynamic stretch-induced enhancements are similar in young and
middle-aged men. Appl Physiol Nurt Metab. 2011;36:790–7.
11. Bishop D. Warm up II: performance changes following active
warm up and how to structure the warm up. Sports Med.
2003;33(7):482–98.
12. Bosco C, Tarkka I, Komi PV. Effect of elastic energy and
myoelectrical potentiation of triceps surae during stretch-short-
ening cycle exercise. Int J Sports Med. 1982;3(3):137–40.
13. Bradley PS, Olsen PD, Portas MD. The effect of static, ballistic
and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching on ver-
tical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21(1):223–6.
14. Brandenburgh J, Pitney WA, Luebbers PE, Veera A, Czajka A.
Time course of changes in vertical jumping ability after static
stretching. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2007;2(2):170–81.
15. Carvalho FLP, Carvalho MCGA, Simao R, Gomes TM, Costa
PB, Neto LB, Carvalho RLP, Dantas EHM. Acute effects of a
warm-up including active, passive, and dynamic stretching on
vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(9):
2447–52.
16. Cè E, Margonato V, Casacso M, Veicsteinas A. Effects of
stretching on maximal anaerobic power: the roles of active and
passive warm-ups. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(3):794–800.
17. Cè E, Rampichini S, Maggioni MA, Veicsteinas A, Merati G.
Effects of passive stretching on post-activation potentiation and
fibre conduction velocity of biceps brachii muscle. Sport Sci
Health. 2008;4(3):43–50.
18. Chaouachi A, Castagna C, Chtara M, Brughelli M, Turki O, Galy
O, Chamari K, Behm DG. Effect of warm-ups involving static or
dynamic stretching on agility, sprinting and jumping performance
in trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(8):2001–11.
19. Christensen BK, Nordstrom BJ. The effect of proprioceptive
neuromuscular facilitation and dynamic stretching techniques on
vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(6):
1826–31.
20. Cornwell A, Nelson AG, Sidaway B. Acute effects of stretching
on the neuromechanical properties of the triceps surae muscle
complex. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002;86(5):428–34.
21. Costa PB, Ryan ED, Herda TJ, Walter AA, Hoge KM, Cramer
TJ. Acute effects of passive stretching on the electromechanical
delay and evoked twitch properties. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2010;
108(2):301–10.
H. Kallerud, N. Gleeson
22. Dalrymple KJ, Davis SE, Dwyer GB, Moir GL. Effect of static
and dynamic stretching on vertical jump performance in colle-
giate women volleyball players. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;
24(1):149–55.
23. Enoka R. Neuromechanical basis of kinesiology. Campaign:
Human Kinetics; 1994.
24. Ettema GJG. Muscle efficiency: the controversial role of elas-
ticity and mechanical energy conversion in stretch-shortening
cycles. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2001;85(5):457–65.
25. Favero J, Midgley AW, Bentley DJ. Effects of an acute bout of
static stretching on 40m sprint performance: influence of baseline
flexibility. Res Sports Med. 2009;17(1):50–60.
26. Fletcher IM. The effect of different dynamic stretch velocities on
jump performance. Eur J Sports Med. 2010;109(3):491–8.
27. Fletcher IM, Monte-Colombo MM. An investigation into the effects
of different warm-up modalities on specific motor skills related to
soccer performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(8):2096–101.
28. Fletcher IM, Monte-Colombo MM. An investigation into the
possible physiological mechanisms associated with changes in
performance related to acute responses to different preactivity
stretch modalities. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2010;35:27–34.
29. Fowles JR, Sale DG, MacDougall JD. Reduced strength after
passive stretch of the human plantarflexors. J Appl Physiol.
2000;89(3):1179–88.
30. Guissard N, Duchateau J. Effect of static stretch training on
neural and mechanical properties of the human plantar-flexor
muscles. Muscle Nerve. 2004;29(2):248–55.
31. Guissard N, Duchateau J, Hainaut K. Mechanisms of decreased
motoneuron excitation during passive muscle stretching. Exp
Brain Res. 2001;137(2):163–9.
32. Hayes PR, Walker A. Pre-exercise stretching does not impact upon
running economy. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21(4):1227–32.
33. Hodgson M, Docherty D, Robbins D. Post-activation potentia-
tion: underlying physiology and implications for motor perfor-
mance. Sports Med. 2008;35(7):585–95.
34. Holt BW, Lambourne K. The impact of different warm-up pro-
tocols on vertical jump performance in male collegiate athletes.
J Strength Cond Res. 2008;23(2):226–9.
35. Hough PA, Ross EZ, Howatson G. Effects of dynamic and static
stretching on vertical jump performance and electromyographic
activity. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(2):507–12.
36. Jaggers JR, Swank AM, Frost KL, Lee CD. The acute effects of
dynamic and ballistic stretching on vertical jump height, force
and power. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(6):1844–9.
37. Kay AD, Blazevich AJ. Effect of acute static stretch on maximal
muscle performance: a systematic review. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2012;44(1):154–64.
38. Kistler BM, Walsh MS, Horn TS, Cox RH. The acute effects of
static stretching on the sprint performance of collegiate men in
the 60- and 100-m dash after a dynamic warm-up. J Strength
Cond Res. 2010;24(9):2280–4.
39. Kokkonen J, Nelson AG, Eldrege C, Winchester JB. Chronic
static stretching improves exercise performance. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 2007;39(10):1825–31.
40. Kubo K, Kanehisa H, Fukunaga T. Effect of stretching training
on the viscoelastic properties of the human tendon structures
in vivo. J Appl Physiol. 2002;92(2):595–601.
41. Kubo K, Kanehisa H, Kawasaki Y, Fukunaga T. Influence of
static stretching on viscoelastic properties of human tendon
structures in vivo. J Appl Physiol. 2001;90(2):520–7.
42. Little T, Williams AG. Effects of differential stretching protocols
during warm-ups on high-speed motor capacities in professional
soccer players. J Strength Cond Res. 2006;20(1):203–7.
43. Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Moseley AM, Elkins M.
Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized
controlled trials. Phys Ther. 2003;83(8):713–21.
Antecedent stretching and functional performance
44. McHugh MP, Cosgrave CH. To stretch or not to stretch: the role
of stretching in injury prevention and performance. Scand J Med
Sci Sports. 2010;20(2):169–81.
45. McMillian DJ, Moore JH, Hatler BS, Taylor DC. Dynamic vs.
static-stretching warm-up: the effect on power and agility per-
formance. J Strength Cond Res. 2006;20(3):492–9.
46. McNeal JR, Sands WA. Stretching for performance enhancement.
Curr Sports Med Rep. 2006;5(3):141–6.
47. Mojock CD, Kim JS, Eccles DW, Panton LB. The effects of static
stretching on running economy and endurance performance in
female distance runners during treadmill running. J Strength
Cond Res. 2011;25(8):2170–6.
48. Morana C, Perrey S. Time course of postactivation potentiation
during intermittent submaximal fatiguing contractions in endur-
ance- and power-trained athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(5):
1456–64.
49. Morse CI. Gender differences in the passive stiffness of the
human gastrocnemius muscle during stretch. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2011;111:2149–54.
50. Oliveira ALM, Greco CC, Molina R, Denadi BS. The rate of
force development obtained at early contraction phase is not
influenced by active static stretching. J Strength Cond Res.
2012;26(8):2174–9.
51. Oskouei AE, Herzog W. Observations on force enhancement in
submaximal voluntary contractions of human adductor pollicis
muscle. J Appl Physiol. 2005;98(6):2087–95.
52. Pacheco L, Balius R, Aliste L, Pujol M, Pedret C. The acute
effects of different stretching exercises on jump performance.
J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(11):2991–8.
53. Pearce AJ, Kidgell DJ, Zois J, Carlson JS. Effects of secondary warm
up following stretching. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2009;105(2):175–83.
54. Perrier ET, Pavol MJ, Hoffman MA. The acute effects of a warm-
up including static or dynamic stretching on countermovement
jump height, reaction time, and flexibility. J Strength Cond Res.
2011;25(7):1925–31.
55. Physiotherapy Evidence Database. PEDro Scale. 1999.
56. Place N, Blum Y, Armand S, Maffiuletti NA, Behm DG. Effects
of a short proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching
bout on quadriceps neuromuscular function, flexibility and ver-
tical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(2):
463–70.
57. Robbins JW, Scheuermann BW. Varying amounts of acute static
stretching and its effect on vertical jump performance. J Strength
Cond Res. 2008;22(3):781–6.
58. Ross MD. Effect of a 15-day pragmatic hamstring stretching
program on hamstring flexibility and single hop for distance
performance. Res Sports Med. 2007;15(4):271–81.
59. Rubini EC, Costa ALL, Gomes PSC. The effects of stretching on
strength and performance. Sports Med. 2007;37(2):213–24.
60. Ryan ED, Herda TJ, Costa PB, Defreitas JM, Beck TW, Stout J,
Cramer TJ. Determining the minimum number of stretches nec-
essary to alter musculotendinous stiffness. J Sports Sci. 2009;
27(9):957–61.
61. Samuel MN, Holcomb MA, Guadagnoli MA, Rubley MD,
Wallmann H. Acute effects of static and ballistic stretching on
measures of strength and power. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;
22(5):1422–8.
62. Sayers AL, Farley RS, Fuller DK, Jubenville CB, Caputo JL. The
effect of static stretching on phases of sprint performance in elite
soccer players. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(5):1416–21.
63. Shrier I. Does stretching improve performance? A systematic and
critical review of the literature. Clin J Sports Med. 2004;14(5):
267–73.
64. Sim AY, Dawson BT, Guelfi KJ, Wallmann KE, Young WB.
Effect of static stretching in warm-up on repeated sprint perfor-
mance. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;22(5):2155–62.
65. Simic L, Sarabon N, Markovic G. Does pre-exercise static
stretching inhibit maximal muscular performance? A meta-ana-
lytical review. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2013;23(2):131–48.
66. Smith CB, Cheng AJ, Rice CL. Potentiation of the triceps brachii
during voluntary submaximal contractions. Muscle Nerve. 2011;
43(6):859–65.
67. Stewart M, Adams R, Alonso A, van Koesveld A, Campbell S.
Warm-up or stretch as preparation for sprint performance? J Sci
Med Sport. 2007;10(6):403–10.
68. Stone M, Ramsey MW, Kinser AM, O’Bryant HS, Ayers C,
Sands WA. Stretching: acute or chronic? The potential conse-
quences. Strength Cond J. 2006;28(6):66–74.
69. Taylor J, Weston N, Portas MD. The effect of a short, practical
warm-up protocol on repeated-sprint performance. J Strength
Cond Res. 2012. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182736056.
70. Thomas JR, Nelson JK, Silverman SJ. Research methods in
physical activity. Leeds: Human Kinetics; 2005.
71. Tillin NA, Bishop D. Factors modulating post-activation poten-
tiation and its effect on performance on subsequent explosive
activities. Sports Med. 2009;39(2):147–66.
72. Tooth L, Bennett S, McClyskey A, Hoffmann T, McKenna K,
Lovarini M. Appraising the quality of randomized controlled
trials: inter-rater reliability for the OTseeker evidence database.
J Eval Clin Pract. 2005;11(6):547–55.
73. Turki O, Chaouachi A, Behm DG, Chtara H, Chtara M, Bishop D,
Chamari K, Amri M. The effect of warm-ups incorporating dif-
ferent volumes of dynamic stretching on 10- and 20-m sprint
performance in highly trained male athletes. J Strength Cond Res.
2012;26(1):63–72.
74. van Dieen JH, Thissen CE, van de Ven AJ, Toussaint HM. The
electromechanical delay of the erector spinae: influence of rate of
force development, fatigue and electrode location. Eur J Appl
Physiol Occup Physiol. 1991;63(3–4):216–22.
75. Van Gelder LH, Bartz SD. The effect of acute stretching on
agility performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(11):3014–21.
76. Wallmann HW, Christensen SD, Perry C, Hoover DL. The acute
effects of various types of stretching static, dynamic, ballistic,
and no stretch of the iliopsoas on 40-yard sprint times in recre-
ational runners. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2010;7(5):540–7.
77. Wallmann HW, Mercer JA, Landers MR. Surface electromyo-
graphic assessment of the effect of dynamic activity and dynamic
activity with static stretching of the gastrocnemius on vertical
jump performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(3):787–93.
78. Weir DE, Tingley J, Elder GCB. Acute passive stretching alters
the mechanical properties of human plantar flexors and the
optimal angle for maximal voluntary contraction. Eur J Appl
Physiol. 2005;93(5–6):614–23.
79. Werstein KM, Lund RJ. The effects of two stretching protocols
on the reactive strength index in female soccer and rugby players.
J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(6):1564–7.
80. Wilson GJ, Elliott BC, Wood GA. Stretch-shortening cycle per-
formance enhancement through flexibility training. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 1992;24:116–23.
81. Wilson JA, Flanagan EP. The role of elastic energy in activities
with high force and power requirements: a brief review.
J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(5):1705–15.
82. Wilson JM, Hornbuckle LM, Kim J, Ugrinowitch C, Lee M,
Zoundos MC, Sommer B, Panton LB. Effects of static stretching
on energy cost and running endurance performance. J Strength
Cond Res. 2010;24(9):2274–9.
83. Winchester JB, Nelson AG, Landin D, Young MA, Schneiker
KT. Static stretching impairs sprint performance in collegiate
track and field athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(1):13–8.
84. WInter EM, Brookes FBC. Electromechanical response times and
muscle elasticity in men and women. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup
Physiol. 1991;63(2):124–8.
 H. Kallerud, N. Gleeson

85. Witvrouw E, Mahieu N, Danneels L, McNair P. Stretching and 88. Zourdos MC, Wilson JM, Sommer BA, Lee SR, Park YM,
injury prevention: an obscure relationship. Sports Med. 2004;34 Henning PC, Panton LB, Kim JS. Effects of dynamic stretching
(7):443–9. on energy cost and running endurance performance in trained
86. Young WB. The use of static stretching in warm-up for training male runners. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(2):335–41.
and competition. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2007;2(2):212–6.
87. Yuktasir B, Kaya F. Investigation into the long-term effects of
static and PNF stretching exercises on range of motion and jump
performance. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2009;13(1):11–21.