Article Critique #2a Effect of Pre-Exercise Stretching on Running Economy

Article Critique #2 Due November 14, 2011 By: Kale Burbine B00494353 Instructor: Carolyn A. King Module 2 PHYT 5202: Dalhousie University School of Physiotherapy

Article Critique #2a Effect of Pre-Exercise Stretching on Running Economy Upon review of Pre-Exercise Stretching Does Not Impact Upon Running Economy (Hayes and Walker, 2007), the first noticeable omission was that upon reading the aforementioned title of the article, there was no mention of the target population or exercise intensity within it. The title should not simply read upon running economy, but rather upon moderate intensity running economy in trained male runners. I really liked how this article used prior research as a way of narrowing in on their purpose of the study. The authors used past findings such as the Godges et al. (1989), to springboard their research purpose of using a similar idea, but testing trained runners instead. This adds to the importance of including the target population in the title, as a reader of the previous study may believe it to be a verbatim experiment. The participants selected for the study limits the clinical relevance of the findings. A very small sample is used (n=7) which can lead to debatable results, while findings will relate to moderate intensity running only. Also, only approximately 25-40 year old males participated, which may cause the results to only be applicable to this small subset of the population. The choice of a randomized, counterbalanced, repeated measures design is a strong one as all three features help to reinforce the weakness of the others. In repeated measures designs, if each participant receives the same treatment order, the problematic order effect becomes apparent. Using a randomized order helps to control for order effects by eliminating confounding variables, yet increases error variance (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1989). Randomized studies are advantageous due to their power, yet this increased error variance reduces power. One way to regain the power of a randomized study is by using a counterbalanced design where separate groups of subjects each receive a treatment order (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1989). This is helpful as any variance caused by order effects is merely a between-groups source of variance which can be removed entirely using an analysis of variance (ANOVA), as is exhibited in this study.

Article Critique #2a Effect of Pre-Exercise Stretching on Running Economy I would have preferred the researchers to have told the participants to avoid strenuous exercise for 48-72 hours before testing rather than 24 hours, in order to reduce the chance that delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS), which usually peaks between 24-72 hours post-exercise (MacIntyre, Reid, Lyster, Szasz, & McKenzie, 1996), would affect performance. This is an especially important consideration since three of the seven participants take part in a regular resistance training program where eccentric contractions, the main cause of DOMS (Yu, Malm, & Thornell, 2002), are present. The dependent variables were clearly stated along with the manners in which they would be measured. These outcome measures were lactate threshold, steady-state VO2, and range of movement. I agree with the usage of the former two measures as a measure of running economy as maximal levels relate to fatigue while running. However, there is not much explanation given as to why range of movement is included as outcome measure, other than Jones (2002) study which found that a sit-and-reach range of motion test negatively affected running economy. The findings of just one study should not serve as rationale for inclusion of an outcome measure, and I would have liked to have seen more of an explanation by Hayes and Walker (2007) as to their rationale of selecting the sit-and-reach test as one of three determinants of running economy. Since the study had a relatively small number of participants, (n=7), the use of the Shapiro-Wilk test as a manner of measuring for normality is appropriate. The Shapiro-Wilk test is very useful for small samples (n<50). I was forced to assume that the researchers failed to reject the null hypothesis and the samples were found to be taken from a normal distribution since an ANOVA is used afterwards and a data transformation test was not mentioned. The oneway ANOVA measured differences in VO2 and running economy to determine whether the stretching caused a significant difference in running economy and VO2, while the two-way

Article Critique #2a Effect of Pre-Exercise Stretching on Running Economy ANOVA was necessary for sit-and reach data as both factors were considered rather than just one (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1989). This article, in accordance to eligibility criteria, has a PEDro score of 6/10. Contributing to this score was having participants that were similar at baseline for the most important indicators, such as VO2 max where 95% of participants had a maximum of 60-74 ml/kg/min. Also, statistically comparing the static stretching and progressive static stretching groups for the steady-state VO2 outcome measure helped the articles rating on the PEDro scale. A lack of blinding the participants and the assessors caused the PEDro score to be lower as bias may be a factor for the participants who know the treatment and want the study to find a certain significant result. Those who had a routine of statically stretching prior to running, may focus more on that treatment in order to obtain results which show that their pre-exercise routine was most effective all along. According to the American Academy of Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine (2008) Levels of Evidence rating system, small randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which consist of n<100 such as this study by Hayes and Walker (2007) receive a level II level of evidence. Further reason for this rating is that the study is based around outcome measurements. Considering the research question, I believe that the article determined that running performance of moderate intensity is not inhibited by pre-exercise static stretching although personally, I would have liked to have seen more participants take part in the study. Therefore, if I were a clinician, I would feel equally competent advising a trained male runner between the ages of 20-40 that stretching before running at moderate intensity is a matter of personal preference and a matter of discretion, but I would not feel confident in providing the same advice to runners of a different sex, age, or intensity level until further research in performed.

Article Critique #2a Effect of Pre-Exercise Stretching on Running Economy References Godges, J.J., MacRae, H., Longdon, C., Tinberg, C., and MacRae, P. The effect of two stretching procedures on hip range of motion and gait economy. Journal of Orthopedic Sports Physical Therapy. 10:350-357. 1989. Hayes, P.R., and Walker, A. Pre-exercise stretching does not impact upon running economy. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 21(4):1227-1232. 2007. Jones, A.M. Running economy is negatively related to sit-and-reach test performance in international-standard distance runners. International Journal of Sports Medicine. 23:4043. 2002. MacIntyre, D.L., Reid, W.D., Lyster, D.M., Szasz, I.J., McKenzie, D.C. Presence of WBC, decreased strength, and delayed soreness in muscle after eccentric exercise. Journal of Applied Physiology. 80:10061013. 1996. Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. Using Multivariate Statistics, Second Edition. New York: Harper and Row, 1989. Yu J.G., Malm C., and Thornell L.E. Eccentric contractions leading to DOMS do not cause loss of desmin nor fibre necrosis in human muscle. Histochemical Cell Biology. 118: 29-34. 2002.