THE EFFECTS OF STATIC AND DYNAMIC STRETCHING ON SPRINT
SPEED OF THE PHYSICALLY ACTIVE

A THESIS
Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Graduate Studies
and Research
of
California University of Pennsylvania in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science

by
Mark C. Webber

Research Advisor, Dr. Thomas F. West
California, Pennsylvania
2012

ii

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank my parents,
Michael and Elaine, for their love and support in
everything I do. They have always been there for me whether
it was assisting me succeed academically or attending every
single athletic event of my life. I love you and am very
proud to be your son. I would also like to thank my family
and friends for providing me with the strength and courage
to accomplish any task, no matter the difficulty. Abby,
thank you for your love and support throughout this year in
Pennsylvania.
I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr.
Thomas West, Dr. Laura Miller, and Mr. Adam Annaccone, for
their time, advice, and commitment to making this thesis a
success. Dr. West, thank you for all you have done, from
start to finish. Your willingness to take time to answer
questions and add suggestions is greatly appreciated.
I would also like to acknowledge all the staff
athletic trainers and undergraduate athletic training
students for their enthusiasm each and every day. Adam,
thank you for lending support and advice while dealing with

iv
injuries and coaches. You have enhanced my development as
an athletic trainer greatly.
Finally, I would like to thank all my classmates at
CalU. I have had a lot of fun with all of you. I wish the
best for you in your future endeavors. Good Luck! I would
also like to acknowledge Curt Snyder’s Mustache, which
brightened my day, reminded me to laugh, and allowed me to
be a free spirit and an overall better person each and
every day I set foot in the athletic training room.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SIGNATURE PAGE

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
INTRODUCTION
METHODS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Research Design
Subjects

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Preliminary Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Procedures

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Hypothesis

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Data Analysis
RESULTS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Demographic Information
Hypothesis Testing

. . . . . . . . . . . 17

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Discussion of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Recommendations

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

vi
APPENDIX A: Review of Literature

. . . . . . . . 32

Introduction to Stretching and Flexibility . . . . 34
Mechanisms of Stretching . . . . . . . . . . 34
Injury Prevention/DOMS . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Stretching

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Static Stretching . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Dynamic Stretching

. . . . . . . . . . . 41

Ballistic Stretching

. . . . . . . . . . 42

Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation . 43
Speed

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

What is Sp eed and How is it Measured? . . . 44
Training Techniques Used to Impr ove Speed . 45
Stretching and Speed

. . . . . . . . . . . 46

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
APPENDIX B: The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Basic Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Delimitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . 61
Significance of the Study

. . . . . . . . . . 62

APPENDIX C: Additional Methods . . . . . . . . . 64
Informed Consent Form (C1) . . . . . . . . . . 65
Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (C2) 69

vii
Physical Examination Release Waiver (C3)
Physical Activ ity Survey (C4)

. . 71

. . . . . . . 73

Functional Instruments (C5) . . . . . . . . . . 75
Stretching Protocols (C6)

. . . . . . . . . . 78

IRB: Institutional Review Board (C7) . . . . . . 84
Data Collection Sheet (C8)

. . . . . . . . . . 99

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

viii
LIST OF TABLES

Table Title

Page

1

40 Yard Sprint Descriptive Statistics . . . . 20

2

Differences in Time Between Protocols . . . . 20

1

INTRODUCTION

Stretching has been widely accepted within the
athletic population for decades. Static stretching was once
dominant for a pre-activity warm-up. However, recent
studies have shown that static stretching may lead to an
increased risk of injury and also a decrease in
performance. There has also been an increasing number of
studies1-7 identifying the positive effects of dynamic
stretching when compared to static stretching. Therefore,
there has been a significant shift towards dynamic
stretching as part of a pre-activity warm-up.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect
of three different stretching protocols on the sprint
performance of physically active individuals. These three
stretching protocols include static stretching, dynamic
stretching, and a combination of static and dynamic
stretching. Furthermore, this study is intended to provide
statistical evidence in order to determine which stretching
protocol would be most beneficial for physically active
individuals.

2
Every athlete wants to perform at the highest level
possible. Stretching as part of a warm-up may increase
performance; however, the type of stretching performed is
essential to perform at an optimal level. Static stretching
before competition has been the traditional method to
utilize in order to prepare the muscular system for work.
Speed may be one of the most important aspects of
performance. Studies have shown that dynamic stretching is
appropriate to achieve optimal speed performance. Siatras
et al4 investigated the acute effect of a stretching
protocol, including warm-up and static and dynamic
stretching exercises, on speed during vaulting in
gymnastics. The results showed that the static stretching
protocol significantly decreased the speed performance
during vault execution. Therefore, it may not be advisable
to include static stretching exercises just prior to vault
execution.
Similar to Siatras et al,4 Fletcher5,6 conducted two
studies testing the speed of athletes after performing
different stretching protocols. In the first study,5 the
researchers were interested in determining the effect of
different static and dynamic stretch protocols on 20-m
sprint performance. The Active Dynamic Stretching group had
a significant decrease in sprint time (increase in

3
performance). The decrease in performance for the two
static stretch groups was attributed to an increase in the
musculotendinous unit (MTU) compliance, leading to a
decrease in the MTU ability to store elastic energy in its
eccentric phase. Static stretching as part of a warm-up may
decrease short sprint performance, while active dynamic
stretching seems to increase 20-m sprint performance.
Following this study, Fletcher6 investigated the
effects of incorporating passive static stretching in a
warm-up. The purpose of the study was to investigate the
effect of manipulating the static and dynamic stretch
components associated with a traditional track-and-field
warm-up. The active dynamic stretch group resulted in
significantly faster times compared to any other group
tested. Passive static stretching in a warm-up decreases
sprint performance, despite being combined with dynamic
stretches, when compared to the solely dynamic stretching
protocol.
There are many studies suggesting the benefits of
including a dynamic warm-up prior to activity.1-6 There has
also been research performed to study the possible negative
effects of static stretching on speed.7-9 Kistler7 found that
previous research has shown static stretching has an
inhibitory effect on sprinting performances up to 50 m. The

4
purpose of this study was to determine if the same effects
would take place at longer distances such as those seen in
competition. Results showed a significant slowing in
performance with static stretching in the second 20 (20-40)
m of the sprint trials. In conclusion, it seems potentially
harmful to include static stretching in the warm-up
protocol of collegiate male sprinters in distances up to
100 m.
Winchester8 also used track-and-field athletes in his
study which aimed to establish whether the deleterious
effects of static stretching would diminish the performance
enhancements obtained from the dynamic warm-up. The results
showed that the no stretching group vs. the static
stretching group was significantly faster for the entire 40
m. Similar to Kistler7, this study suggests that performing
a static stretching protocol following a dynamic warm-up
will inhibit sprint performance in collegiate athletes.
In a study by Nelson,9 the researcher attempted to
establish whether the deleterious effects of passive
stretching seen in laboratory settings would manifest in a
performance setting. Four different stretching protocols
were performed which included no stretch of either leg,
both legs stretched, forward leg in the starting position
stretched, and rear leg in the starting position stretched.

5
Three stretching exercises were performed (hamstring
stretch, quadriceps stretch, calf stretch) for the
stretching protocols. The three stretching protocols
induced a significant increase in the 20 m sprint time.
They concluded, pre-event stretching may negatively impact
the performance of high-power short-term exercise. This
study suggests that static stretching is more detrimental
to performance than no stretching at all.
Many studies have shown that static stretching may be
detrimental to athletic performance. However, some studies
suggest that static stretching may not be detrimental to
athletic performance. A study by Little10 examined the
effects of different modes of stretching within a preexercise warm-up on high-speed motor capacities important
to soccer performance. Eighteen professional soccer players
were tested in vertical jump, stationary 10-m spring,
flying 20-m spring, and agility performance after different
warm-ups consisting of static stretching, dynamic
stretching, or no stretching. There was no significant
difference among warm-ups for the vertical jump. The
dynamic stretching protocol produced significantly faster
10-m sprint times than did the no-stretching protocol. The
dynamic and static stretching protocols produced faster
flying 20-m sprint times as opposed to the no stretching

6
protocol. The dynamic stretching protocol also produced
significantly faster agility performance than both the
static and no stretching protocol. In conclusion, static
stretching does not appear to be detrimental to high-speed
performance when included in a warm-up for professional
soccer players. However, dynamic stretching during the
warm-up was most effective as preparation for high-speed
performance.
Similar to Little,10 Knudson11 studied the serving
percentage and radar measurements of ball speed to examine
the acute effect of stretching on tennis serve performance.
There was no short-term effect of stretching in the warm-up
on the tennis serve performance of adult players. So,
adding stretching to the traditional five minute warm-up in
tennis does not affect serve performance. These two studies
suggest that static stretching may not be detrimental to
the performance of either the lower or upper extremity,
however it is crucial that more research be performed.
The ideas of static stretching and flexibility have
been around for years. Athletes have incorporated static
stretching not only in their warm-up but also as part of
their training programs. The thought of increasing
flexibility through static stretching to improve athletic
performance has been the driving factor in research on

7
stretching protocols. However, recent research suggests
that static stretching may have negative results on
athletic performance. Performance areas that can be
negatively affected include muscle strength, power,
agility, and speed.
Research has shown that a different type of stretching
protocol may be most beneficial. Since these studies have
been published, there has been a massive shift from
traditional static stretching to a dynamic warm-up before
athletic activity. Athletic trainers must provide the best
possible care for athletes. By reading and interpreting the
recent literature, athletic trainers must adapt stretching
protocols, especially if a certain type of stretching
protocol could potentially be harmful towards the athlete.
If dynamic stretching is more effective as a warm-up than
static stretching, additional research should be performed
to apply validity and reliability to the study to begin
implementing a change from solely static stretching to a
dynamic warm-up.

8

METHODS

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the
effect of three different stretching protocols on sprint
speed. The three stretching protocols include: Static
Stretching Protocol, Dynamic Stretching Protocol, and a
Combination (both static and dynamic) Stretching Protocol.
This section will serve to provide an overview of how the
experiment was conducted. It will include sections
dedicated to Research Design, Subjects, Instrumentation,
Procedures, Hypotheses, and Data Analysis.

Research Design

This research utilized a quasi-experimental design, in
which the subjects served as their own control. The
independent variable was the stretching protocol utilized
before testing. This variable had three levels, a static
stretching warm-up protocol, a dynamic stretching warm-up
protocol, and a combination warm-up protocol including both
static and dynamic stretches. The dependent variable was

9
the time it took the subject to complete a 40 yard sprint.
A strength of the study was that the subjects performed
each stretching protocol in a counterbalanced order.

Subjects

The subjects in this study consisted of 16 physically
active individuals (n=16). For this study, physically
active is defined as an individual that partakes in
moderate to intense physical activity such as running,
biking, elliptical, stair climber, and/or lower extremity
weight training at a minimum of three days a week for at
least 30 minutes per session. All subjects were college
students and had not sustained a lower extremity injury
requiring medical care within the past six months. The
volunteers were chosen as a sample of convenience. The
subjects were asked about previous history of lower
extremity injuries, and those who have had such injuries
within the past six months were excluded from the study.
All subjects in the study signed an Informed Consent Form
(Appendix C1) prior to participation in the study. Along
with the Informed Consent Form, each subject signed a
Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire, PAR-Q (Appendix
C2) to determine if they were able to participate in this

10
study. Also, the researcher gathered information from each
subject’s college entrance physical examination. First,
each subject signed a waiver (Appendix C3) in order for
this information to be collected. The information taken
regarded each subjects physical activity recommendation,
given by their physician. Also, in order to determine if
each subject was physically active, they were asked to
complete a Physical Activity Survey (Appendix C4) to
determine their level of activity.
The study was approved by the Institutional Review
Board at California University of PA.

Each subject’s

identity remained confidential and was not included in the
study. To maintain confidentiality, each subject was given
a number prior to participating in the study.

Preliminary Research

A pilot study was conducted for this research project.
Three subjects who fit the inclusion criteria were used to
review the study protocols. Each pilot study subject
performed all of the testing procedures.

The researcher

used these trials to determine the subject’s ability to
understand directions and determine the amount of time it
would take to complete the tasks.

11

Instruments

The testing instrument that was used in this study was
the Speed Trap II timing system. The Speed Trap II TimerTM
(Appendix C5) is a timing system that starts timing when
pressure is released from the starting pad, and stops when
the subject crosses the reflective beam at the finish line.
The times are recorded on the clock that sits on top of the
beam. This timing system is accurate to 1/100th of a second,
and is capable of timing an athlete up to 55 yards
accurately.12 This piece of equipment was used to measure
the speed at which each subject could run the 40 yard
sprint.
Speed is movement distance per unit time and is
typically quantified as the time taken to cover a fixed
distance. Tests of speed are not usually conducted over
distances greater than 200 m because longer distances
reflect aerobic capacity more than absolute ability to move
the body at maximal speed.13 The 40 yard sprint is a simple
way of assessing sprint speed. A starting point is marked.
From this position, 40 yards are measured ending with a
finish point which is also marked. The subject sprints from
starting point to finish point. This test was performed in

12
the gymnasium in Hamer Hall. The subjects performed this
test on a basketball court. Their attire included a tshirt, mesh shorts, and running sneakers. The 40 yard
sprint was scored using the time recorded from the Speed
Trap II TimerTM. The Speed Trap II TimerTM was used to
measure the speed in seconds of each subject to determine
how fast the subject could complete the 40 yard sprint.

Procedures

The study was approved by the California University of
Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Appendix C7)
prior to any data collection. A random sample of volunteer
physically active subjects, was obtained who had not
sustained a lower extremity injury in the past six months.
Prior to the subject’s involvement in the study, the
researcher held a group meeting that each volunteer subject
attended. This meeting consisted of explaining the concept
of the study and everything it entailed to each of the
subjects. At this meeting, each subject completed the
Informed Consent Form (Appendix C1), a PAR-Q form, a
Physical Activity Survey, and also a waiver allowing the
researcher to gather information on their physical

13
examination. Also at this meeting, an explanation of the
procedure as well as the risks involved were addressed.
Each subject was informed they would be tested on
three separate days with at least 48 hours separating each
testing session. Each subject was assigned a time slot so
only one subject was participating at a time. This was
utilized to ensure proper timing for each subject to
perform the given tasks. One stretching protocol was
performed on each of the testing days. On each of the
testing days, the subjects were randomly assigned to one of
the stretching protocols in counterbalanced order; static
stretching warm-up, dynamic stretching warm-up, or a
combination warm-up. Each subject randomly selected one of
six possible testing procedures. For example, Subject 1
performed the Static Stretching Protocol on day one,
Dynamic Stretching Protocol on day two, and Combination
Stretching Protocol on day three. Subject 2 performed the
Dynamic Stretching Protocol on day one, Static Stretching
Protocol on day two, and Combination Stretching Protocol on
day three. Each stretching protocol was randomized until
all six testing procedures were fulfilled. Subject 7
performed the same testing procedure as Subject 1.
On testing days, each subject was first given
instruction on the specific stretches that would be

14
included that day. This was done to ensure each subject
performed each stretch correctly. On each of the testing
days, each subject performed a 5 minute light jog warm-up
at their own pace before any stretching or testing. After
the warm-up, subjects were given one minute to rest.
Immediately after the one minute of rest, subjects were
asked to perform their randomly assigned protocol.
The static stretching warm-up protocol (SS) (Appendix
C6) that was used consisted of a hamstring stretch,
quadriceps stretch, hip flexor stretch, adductor stretch,
abductor stretch, gluteal stretch, and a
gastrocnemius/soleus stretch. Each stretch was held for 25
seconds, each bilaterally. The subject was given 5 seconds
to rest in between each stretch.
The dynamic stretching warm-up (DS) (Appendix C6) that
was used included: high knees (gluteals and hamstrings),
butt kicks (quadriceps and hip flexors), lateral shuffles
(abductors and adductors), Russian walks (hamstrings),
walking lunges (hip flexors), figure fours (abductors), and
heel to toe walks (gastrocnemius/soleus). Subjects
performed each of these stretches for 40 seconds, while
having 20 seconds of rest in between. Both the static and
dynamic protocols took the same amount of time to complete.
The dynamic stretching protocol gave the athlete more time

15
to rest because they are stretching dynamically, as the
athlete should not become fatigued.
The combination warm-up (CS)(Appendix 6) consisted of
performing four static stretches that are most common for
any physically active person to do. These four static
stretches include hamstring stretch, quadriceps stretch,
hip flexor stretch, and adductor stretch. Each subject was
randomly assigned to perform three of the seven dynamic
stretches, before testing. The time allowed for each
stretch was the same as the previous two conditions, so the
overall time was the same.
The researcher prepared a tape recording that
instructed the subjects when to change the stretch to
ensure the protocols were consistent between each subject.
After the subjects were finished with their assigned
protocol, they were given another rest period of two
minutes in order to prepare for their performance test.
They then performed three trials of the 40 yard sprint with
another two minutes of rest in between trials. The three
trials were timed using the Speed Trap II timing system,
and the best of the three trials was recorded. These
results were recorded on the data collection forms
(Appendix C5). This process was repeated until all subjects
performed each of the protocols.

16

Hypothesis

The following hypothesis is based on previous research
and the researcher’s intuition based on a review of the
literature.
1.

There will be no significant difference for the
40 yard sprint time for sprint speed between the
three stretching protocols.

Data Analysis

All data was analyzed by SPSS version 18.0 for Windows
at an alpha level of 0.05.

The research hypothesis was

analyzed using a repeated measures analysis of variance.

17

RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of
three different stretching protocols on sprint speed. The
three protocols include: a static stretching protocol,
dynamic stretching protocol, and a combination of both
static and dynamic protocol. Each volunteer subject
completed one stretching protocol per testing session. Each
subject completed 3 trials of a 40 yard sprint after each
protocol. The following results section will be divided
into two sections: Demographic Information and Hypothesis
Testing.

Demographic Information

Subjects used in this study (N=16) were volunteers
from California University of Pennsylvania. The subjects
included eleven males and five females. The subjects age
ranged from 18-23 years. Each subject was physically active
as defined by the physical activity survey. For this study,
physically active means each subject must partake in

18
moderate to intense physical activity. Such activity may
include running, biking, elliptical, stair climber, and/or
lower extremity weight training. Subjects must participate
in this type of exercise at a minimum of three days a week
for at least 30 minutes per session.

Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis Testing was performed on the data using
SPSS software. All subjects were tested for sprint speed
following each of the stretching interventions. A repeated
measures analysis of variance was used with an alpha level
of .05.

Hypothesis 1: There will be no significant difference
for the 40 yard sprint time for sprint speed between
the three stretching protocols.

Conclusion: To test the hypothesis, each subject’s
fastest time was recorded for each of the three warm-up
protocols. These include: the Static Stretching protocol,
the Dynamic Stretching protocol, and the Combination
Stretching protocol. A repeated measures ANOVA was used to
compare the times for the subjects under each condition.

19
Table 1 illustrates the mean times for each condition. A
significant effect was found (F

2,30

= .03 p < .05).

Since the ANOVA results were significant, post-hoc
analysis of the data was performed. In order to perform
post-hoc testing, protected dependent t tests were
utilized. With this testing, all three warm up conditions
were compared to one another. The Static Stretching
protocol was compared to the Dynamic Stretching protocol.
The Static Stretching protocol was compared to the
Combination Stretching protocol. Lastly, the Dynamic
Stretching protocol was compared to the Combination
Stretching protocol. Conducting three tests has the
potential to inflate the Type I error rate, so a
significance level of .017 (.05/3) was used to maintain an
overall significance level of .05. Follow-up protected t
tests revealed that times decreased significantly between
the Static Stretching protocol (5.660s +/- .492) and the
Combination Stretching protocol (5.575s +/- .496). The
differences in time between all three stretching protocols
are summarized in Table 2.

20
Table 1. 40 Yard Sprint Descriptive Statistics
Stretching
Mean(s)
Std.
Condition
Deviation
Static
5.660
.492
Dynamic
5.600
.474
Combination
5.575
.496
Table 2. Differences in Time Between Stretching Protocols
Static
Dynamic
Combination
Static
0
-0.06
-0.085
Dynamic
0.06
0
-0.025
Combination
0.085
0.025
0

21

DISCUSSION

The following discussion is divided into three
subsections: Discussion of Results, Conclusions, and
Recommendations.

Discussion of Results

Stretching prior to activity has been widely accepted
within the athletic population for decades. Static
stretching was once dominant for a pre-activity warm-up,
however, recent studies have shown that static stretching
may lead to an a decrease in performance.7-9 There has also
been an increasing number of studies1-7 identifying the
positive effects of dynamic stretching when compared to
static stretching. Therefore, there has been a significant
shift towards dynamic stretching as part of a pre-activity
warm-up.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect
of three different stretching protocols on the sprint
performance of collegiate athletes. These three stretching

22
protocols include static stretching, dynamic stretching,
and a combination of static and dynamic stretching.
Furthermore, this study is intended to provide statistical
evidence in order to determine which stretching protocol
would be most beneficial for physically active individuals
and athletes prior to performance.
It was hypothesized that there would be no significant
difference for the 40 yard sprint time for sprint speed
between the three stretching protocols. Performance of the
40 yard sprint was measured in seconds by the Speed Trap II
timing system.12 Statistical analysis revealed that there
was a significant difference in performance between the
three stretching protocols. As shown in Table 1,
combination stretching intervention produced the fastest
mean scores.
During the stretching interventions, subjects were
asked if they felt one of the warm ups better prepared them
for participation in the study. Many of the subjects
reported that dynamic stretching prepared them best for the
40 yard sprint. However, five subjects felt more prepared
after the static stretching intervention. These subjects
were unfamiliar with dynamic stretching, and have always
performed static stretching only before exercise. These
subjects also reported that they had felt minor fatigue

23
after performing the dynamic stretching intervention, which
may have impacted their time.
The results of this study are similar to those
reported by Siatras et al,4 Fletcher,5,6 and Little10. These
studies all found significant differences in sprint speed
between the stretching conditions.
This study is similar to the studies within the
literature in that they use anaerobic measurements of
performance. All the studies utilized tests that averaged
under twelve seconds to complete. The study by Siatras et
al,4 measured vaulting speed from the start of the runway
until contact with the vault was made, which is about 7.5
seconds. The results showed that the static stretching
protocol significantly decreased the speed performance. The
studies by Fletcher5,6 measured the time to sprint twenty
meters and fifty meters respectively. For the twenty meter
test, all times were under 4 seconds. For the fifty meter
test, all times were under 7.5 seconds. In a study by
Little,10 the researchers measured the time to complete a 10
meter sprint and also a 20 meter flying sprint. Both of
these tests took less than 5 seconds to complete. These
findings support the fact that short distance anaerobic
events positively benefit from dynamic stretching and do
not benefit from static stretching.

24
Two studies have looked at using a combination of both
static and dynamic stretching. In the first study by
Winchester8, the researchers had subjects perform dynamic
stretching followed by static stretching. They were
interested in determining if static stretching would have
deleterious effects on performance enhancement gains from
dynamic stretching. Winchester found that static stretching
resulted in a significantly faster forty meter time.
Similar to Winchester, Wong et al14 used a combination of
both static and dynamic stretching and measured their
effect on a twenty meter sprint. Each subject performed one
of three static stretching protocols followed by the same
dynamic stretching protocol following a given static
stretching protocol. This study differed from Winchester in
that the subjects performed static stretching before
dynamic stretching. They found that there was no
significant difference between the stretching protocols.
This study did not compare solely static vs. dynamic vs.
combination of both.
There may be a few explanations as to why the results
of this study differed from the literature. According to
the majority of the literature, dynamic stretching is the
best method of warm-up for athletes. However, this study
used physically active individuals. The subjects may not

25
have been used to dynamic stretching or stretching at all.
This may have affected their ability to run a 40 yard
sprint. Subjects were also unaccustomed to performing a
dynamic warm-up. During this stretching protocol, some
subjects became fatigued and it may have altered their
performance while running the 40 yard sprint. Most athletes
are very involved with stretching both before and after
activity. It is possible that the subjects in this study do
not stretch efficiently before they workout. Overall, the
combination stretching protocol produced the fastest mean
times. The static stretching part of this warm-up may have
increased range of motion and elongation of the stretched
muscle. Then, the dynamic stretching part of this warm-up
increased blood flow to musculature and provided a stretch
throughout the entire range of motion. This may be more
beneficial for physically active individuals than athletes.
However, more research must be done in order to determine
if a combination stretching warm-up is more beneficial for
athletes as well.

Conclusions

This study revealed that the type of stretching
protocol (Static stretching, dynamic stretching, or

26
combination stretching) had a significant effect on a timed
40 yard sprint of physically active individuals. This
significance is important in running a 40 yard sprint. The
results showed a significant difference in times which are
key in terms of sprint performance. The subjects in this
study performed each stretching protocol once, followed by
three trials of a 40 yard sprint. Results showed that there
was a significant decrease in sprint time when preceded by
a combination of static stretching followed by dynamic
stretching. Although not significant, the dynamic
stretching protocol did produce faster mean 40 yard sprint
times as compared to the static stretching intervention.
According to the literature, it is essential to incorporate
dynamic stretching as part of a warm-up, however it may
also be beneficial to incorporate static stretching prior
to a dynamic warm-up. The results of this study suggest
that performing solely static stretching should be avoided
prior to physical activity. Based on the results of this
study and the literature, a proper dynamic warm-up should
be included prior to physical activity. Static stretching
may be beneficial to increase range of motion and tissue
length while a dynamic warm-up will increase blood flow and
prepare musculature for activity. Further research must be
performed to determine if a combination of static

27
stretching followed by dynamic stretching is more
beneficial compared to just a dynamic warm-up.

Recommendations

It is important for Certified Athletic Trainers to
remain up-to-date on the research regarding stretching in
order to implement the safest and most beneficial warm-up
techniques for athletes. Many studies investigating
stretching and warm-up focus on short distance sprinting.
It may be beneficial to incorporate a study which
determines which type of stretching is beneficial for
longer distances.
One area from this study that could be modified is the
duration of the dynamic stretching protocol. Many subjects
reported that they were semi-fatigued. A shorter dynamic
stretching protocol may have produced faster times than the
results indicate.
Another area that could be modified is to use
athletes. Physically active individuals were used in this
study, who may not be accustomed to sprinting for 40 yards.
Using athletes who are accustomed to this type of activity
may be more beneficial. Athletes who participate in sports

28
such as football, basketball, and soccer would be useful
subjects.
Another possibility is to incorporate different
stretching protocols. It may be beneficial to have multiple
static stretching protocols, dynamic stretching protocols,
and combination stretching protocols. All of these
suggestions could add to the current research and knowledge
athletic trainers have regarding stretching protocols as
part of an athlete’s warm-up.

29
REFERENCES
1.

Arabaci R. Acute Effects of Differential Stretching
Protocols on Physical Performance in Young Soccer
Players. NWSA. 2009; 4 (2); 50-63.

2.

Faigenbaum AD, Bellucci M, Bernieri A, Bakker B,
Hoorens K. Acute Effects of Different Warm-up
Protocols on Fitness Performance in Children. J
Strength Cond Res. 2005; 19 (2); 376-381.

3.

Faigenbaum A, et al. Acute Effects of Different WarmUp Protocols on Anaerobic Performance in Teenage
Athletes. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2006; 18 (1); 64-75.

4.

Siatras T, Papadopoulos G, Mameletzi D, Gerodimos V,
Kellis S. Static and Synamic Acute Stretching Effect
on Gymnasts’ Speed in Vaulting. Pediatr Exerc Sci.
2003; 15 (4); 383-391.

5.

Fletcher IM, Jones B. The Effect of Different Warm-Up
Stretch Protocols on 20 Meter Sprint Performance in
Trained Rugby Union Players. J Strength Cond Res.
2004; 18 (4); 885-888.

6.

Fletcher IM, Anness R. The Acute Effects of Combined
Static and Dynamic Stretch Protocols on Fifty-Meter
Sprint Performance in Track-and-Field Athletes. J
Strength Cond Res. 2007; 21 (3); 784-787.

7.

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);
2280-2284.

8.

Winchester JB, Nelson AG, Landin D, Young MA,
Schexnayder IC. Static Stretching Impairs Sprint
Performance in Collegiate Track-and-Field Athletes. J
Strength Cond Res. 2008; 22 (1); 13-18.

9.

Nelson AG, Driscoll NM, Landin DK, Young MA,
Schexnayder IC. Acute Effects of Passive Muscle

30
Stretching on Sprint Performance. J Sprt Sci. 2005; 23
(5); 449-454.
10.

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); 203-207.

11.

Knudson DV, Noffal GJ, Bahamonde RE, Bauer JA,
Blackwell JR. Stretching Has No Effect on Tennis Serve
Performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2004; 18 (3); 654656.

12.

Brower Timings Systems. http://www.browertiming.com.
Accessed November 11, 2011.

13.

Baechle T, Earle R. Essentials of Strength Training
and Conditioning. National Strength and Conditioning
Association; 2008.

14.

Wong DP, Chauuachi A, Lau PWC, Behm D. Short durations
of static stretching when combined with dynamic
stretching do not impair repeated sprints and agility.
J Sci Med Sport. 2011; 10; 408-416

31

APPENDICES

32

APPENDIX A
Review of Literature

33

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This review of the literature will examine the effects
of static and dynamic stretching techniques on athletic
performance. There has been much debate about the
effectiveness of static and dynamic stretching as part of
an athlete’s warm-up before athletic activity. There has
been a shift in the thought of which stretching technique
is more beneficial for the athlete. For many years, static
stretching was thought to be the most effective part of the
warm-up, the act of moving a muscle into a stretch position
and holding it for a number of seconds. However, there has
been a recent shift, accompanied by supporting research,
which encourage the utilization of a dynamic warm-up before
athletic activity. Thus, the purpose of this literature
review is to examine different types of warm-up protocols
and determine their overall effect on athletic performance.
This review of the literature will be separated into three
sections: 1) Introduction to Stretching and Flexibility 2)
Speed 3) Stretching and Speed. Finally, a summary will draw
conclusions from the literature reviewed.

34
Introduction to Stretching and Flexibility

Stretching has always been an important tool that
athletes use as part of a warm-up before athletic activity.
From youth athletics to professional athletics, stretching
has been at the forefront as part of the warm-up. However,
the evolution of different stretching protocols in the
literature has left many athletes, as well as athletic
trainers, contemplating which type of stretching is most
beneficial before athletic activity. There is the potential
that some types of stretching may have many benefits,
however there is also the potential that stretching may
have detrimental effects. In order to understand the
literature concerning the effect of stretching on
performance, it is crucial that one understands the
neurophysiologic basis of stretching.

Mechanisms of Stretching
Stretching is defined as movement applied by an
external and/or internal force in order to increase muscle
flexibility and/or joint range of motion. The aim of
stretching before exercise is to increase muscle-tendon
unit (MTU) length and flexibility.1 Stretching results in

35
elongation of muscles and soft tissues through mechanical
and neurological mechanisms.1,5
MTUs can be lengthened in two ways; muscle contraction
and passive stretching. When a muscle contracts, the
contractile elements are shortened, and the passive
elements are thus lengthened. When muscle tissue is
lengthening, the muscle fibers and connective tissues are
elongated because of the application of external force.2
Stretching increases MTU length by affecting the
biomechanical properties of muscle (range of motion and
viscoelastic properties of the MTU).1-4
Two sensory organs of MTUs, the muscle spindle and the
Golgi tendon organ (GTO), are mechanoreceptors that convey
information to the central nervous system (CNS) about what
is occurring in a MTU and affect a muscle’s response to
stretch.3 Muscle spindles are the major sensory organ of
muscle and are sensitive to quick and sustained stretch.
Muscle spindles are small, encapsulated receptors composed
of afferent sensory fiber endings, efferent motor fiber
endings, and specialized muscle fibers. The main function
of muscle spindles is to receive and convey information
about changes in the length of a muscle. When muscle
spindles are stimulated, a reflexive response is created
which causes a muscle to contract.2-3 When a muscle is put

36
in a stretch position, the muscle contracts preventing an
overstretching of the muscle. This act is known as the
stretch reflex.
The other sensory organs of MTUs are known as Golgi
tendon organs. The GTO functions to monitor changes in
tension of the MTU. These sensory organs are sensitive to
slight changes of tension on a MTU as the result of passive
stretch of a muscle or with active muscle contractions
during normal movement.3 When tension within a muscle
develops, the GTO fires causing a decrease in tension in
the MTU being stretched. Originally, the GTO was thought to
fire and inhibit muscle activation only in the presence of
high levels of muscle tension as a protective mechanism.
However, the GTO has a low threshold for firing, so it can
continuously monitor and adjust the force of active muscle
contractions during movement or the tension in muscle
during a passive stretch.3,4-5

Injury Prevention/DOMS
One of the main reasons why athletes stretch before
participating in athletics is to avoid injury. The thought
is, lengthening muscle groups by stretching will prepare
the muscular system to perform. The literature relating to
this idea of stretching to prevent injury needs to be

37
further researched. However, some studies have suggested
that injury may be related to either too little or too much
flexibility.6-8
A study by Johannson et al6 investigated the effects of
pre-exercise stretching on delayed onset muscle soreness.
Ten female volunteers performed 10 sets of 10 maximal
isokinetic eccentric contractions for knee flexion with
both legs after a 5 minutes cycle ergometer warm-up. Prior
to the exercise for one leg, 4 X 20 sec of static
stretching for the hamstring muscle group was implemented.
No differences were found when comparing stretched and nonstretched legs. In conclusion, the study suggests that preexercise static stretching has no preventative effect on
muscle soreness, tenderness and force loss that follows
heavy eccentric exercise.
In a study by Lund et al,7 the researchers found that
passive stretching did not have any significant influence
on muscle pain and muscle strength. In this study, the
purpose was to measure if passive stretching would
influence delayed onset muscle soreness and dynamic muscle
strength following eccentric exercise. Seven women (28-46
years) performed eccentric exercise with right quadriceps
in an isokinetic dynamometer until exhaustion. Two separate
experiments were performed. In the first experiment, no

38
stretching was implemented. The second experiment, roughly
13-23 months later, incorporated passive stretching (3 X 30
sec) of the quadriceps. Stretching was performed before and
immediately after the eccentric exercise. There was no
difference in the reported variables between experiments
one and two. The researchers suggest that passive
stretching after eccentric exercise does prevent delayed
onset muscle soreness.
Witvrouw et al8 researched the relationship between the
type of sports activity, stretching, and injury prevention.
In this review, the researchers provided insight to the
relationship between stretching and injury prevention.
Several authors have suggested that stretching has a
beneficial effect on injury prevention. However, clinical
evidence has reported that stretching before exercise does
not prevent injuries. The researchers believe that the
contradictions between theories can be explained by
considering the type of sports activity and individual
participates in. Sports that require high intensity
stretch-shortening cycles require a muscle-tendon unit that
is compliant enough to store and release high amounts of
elastic energy. If participants in these types of sports
activities have insufficient compliant muscle-tendon unit,
the demands in energy absorption and release may exceed the

39
capacity of the muscle-tendon unit, thus causing injury. On
the other hand, sports activities that are low-intensity,
there is no need for a compliant muscle-tendon unit. So,
stretching may not be as advantageous.

Stretching

For years, stretching has been the most important
component of an athlete’s warm-up. Athletes have always
known that stretching their muscles before activity is
important for injury prevention and performance. It is
important to understand the different types of stretching.
Different methods of stretching include: Static Stretching,
Dynamic Stretching, Ballistic Stretching, and
Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation. The importance
of two of these techniques will be examined in the
following sections.

Static Stretching
Static stretching is a commonly used method of
stretching in which soft tissues are elongated just past
the point of tissue resistance and then held in the
lengthened position with a sustained stretch force over a
period of time, usually around 30 seconds.1 Static

40
stretching is an effective form of stretching to increase
flexibility, and is considered a safer form of stretching
when compared to ballistic stretching.1,4-5 Despite utilizing
static stretching as a means to increase flexibility, there
is some research that suggests that static stretching may
not be the most beneficial method and may even be
detrimental to an athlete’s performance.20-23 Static
stretching may not be the most beneficial method of warm-up
because it fails to stretch a muscle group throughout the
full range of motion.
During sports activity, the body is constantly moving
and changing direction. In order to prepare the body for
these movements, an athlete should warm-up their muscles in
similar fashion. Incorporating static stretching as part of
a warm-up for athletics may not prepare the muscles as well
as stretching that incorporates functional movements.
However, static stretching may be beneficial to use after
competition to increase range of motion.10
Although static stretching may not be beneficial for
warming-up before athletic activity, it may be valuable
after exercise to decrease delayed muscle onset soreness.
Lucas and Koslow9 performed a study looking at static,
dynamic, and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation
stretching techniques on flexibility. Sixty-three college

41
women were the subjects in a 7-week study. Subjects were
assigned to one of three treatment groups. There was a
pretest, a midtest (after 11 days of treatment), and a
posttest (after 21 days of treatment). By comparing the
pretest and posttest means, they found that all three
methods of stretching produced significant improvements in
flexibility.

Dynamic Stretching
Dynamic stretching is a type of functionally based
stretching that uses sports-specific movements to prepare
the body for activity.11 Dynamic stretching places an
emphasis on the movement requirements of the sport or
activity rather than on individual muscles.11 The ability to
actively move a joint throughout a range of motion is
generally far more sport specific than the ability to
statically hold a stretch.11 The use of dynamic stretches
during a specific part of the warm-up provides numerous
advantages: 1. Dynamic stretching helps promote the
temperature-related benefits of the warm-up, 2. A number of
joints can be integrated into a single stretch, 3. The
muscle does not relax during the stretch but instead is
active throughout the range of motion.11

42
One study by Mann12 examined the benefits and
guidelines for implementing a dynamic stretching program
and to further examine static, ballistic, and
proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching
techniques. The researchers concluded dynamic stretching
should be implemented before sport activity. Static
stretching should be utilized immediately following sport
activity to increase range of motion.

Ballistic Stretching
Ballistic stretching is one stretching technique that
is not utilized as often as static or dynamic stretching.
Ballistic stretching is defined as a rapid, forceful
intermittent stretch that is a high speed and high
intensity stretch.3 It is characterized by the use of quick,
bouncing-type movements that in which the end position is
not held.3,11 Ballistic stretching may be used as a preexercise warm-up; however, it may injure muscles or
connective tissues, especially when there has been a
previous injury. Ballistic stretching usually triggers the
stretch reflex that does not allow the involved muscles to
relax and defeats the purpose of stretching.11

43
Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation
Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation (PNF) is a
method of stretching, mainly in order to increase
flexibility.3,11 PNF techniques involve both passive movement
as well as active (concentric and isometric) muscle
actions. PNF may be superior to other stretching methods,
however it is often impractical to use as part of a warm-up
because most of the stretches require a partner with some
expertise.11 There are three basic types of PNF stretching
techniques which include: hold-relax, contract-relax, and
hold-relax with agonist contraction.3,11 The hold-relax
technique begins with a passive pre-stretch that is held at
the point of mild discomfort for 10 seconds. The clinician
then applies a hip flexion force and instructs the athlete
to hold that position against resistance for 6 seconds. The
athlete then relaxes and a passive stretch is performed and
held for 30 seconds. The second technique, contract-relax,
also begins with a passive pre-stretch that is held at the
point of mild discomfort for 10 seconds. The athlete then
extends the hip against resistance provided by the
clinician so that a concentric muscle action through the
full range of motion occurs. The athlete then relaxes, and
a passive hip flexion stretch is applied and held for 30
seconds. Lastly, the hold-relax with agonist contraction

44
technique is identical to the hold-relax in the first two
phases. During the third phase, a concentric action of the
agonist is used in addition to the passive stretch to add
to the stretch force.3,11 These three techniques may provide
an increase in flexibility. However, it may not be
appropriate to utilize this technique as part of a warm-up
due to the need for an experienced clinician to instruct
and execute each stretch correctly.

Speed

Most athletes are always trying to improve their
athletic performance. Some areas of interest are strength,
power, agility, and speed. Speed is often difficult to
define and can also be difficult to improve. It is
important to understand what speed is, how it is measured,
muscle physiology of speed, and training techniques to
improve speed.

What is Speed and How is it Measured?
One aspect of performance that many athletes try to
improve is speed. Speed is movement distance per unit time
and is typically quantified as the time taken to cover a
fixed distance.11 More specifically, running speed is a

45
ballistic mode of locomotion with an alternating flight
phase and single leg support phase. Sprinting is a series
of running strides that repeatedly launch the athlete’s
body as a projectile at maximal acceleration or velocity
(or both), usually over brief distances.11

There are many

tests that measure speed, the most popular being the 40
yard sprint. This test is utilized in many sports to
determine the athlete’s performance level. Tests of speed
are not usually conducted over distances greater than 200m
because longer distances reflect anaerobic or aerobic
capacity more than absolute ability to move the body at a
maximal speed.11

Training Techniques Used to Improve Speed
Improving an athlete’s speed can often be a difficult
task. The implementation of certain speed drills is
essential in increasing an athlete’s speed. As seen in an
article by Cissik13, many aspects of speed are examined,
including flexibility, fatigue, technique, stride length,
and frequency. These are all areas that must be improved in
order to increase an athlete’s speed. This article also
provides a series of exercise drills designed to improve
training technique. Studying sprint technique more in depth
was Cronin14. In this study, the biomechanical differences

46
between the acceleration phase and the maximum velocity
phase of sprinting are considered. Research on the various
resisted sprinting techniques are examined, linking these
techniques to the biomechanics of the acceleration phase.
Lastly, suggestions are made regarding the application of
these findings to the training of athletes.
In a study by Harrison,15 the researchers investigated
whether a resistance sprint training intervention would
enhance the running speed and dynamic strength measures in
male rugby players. Fifteen male rugby players (mean age
20.5) were randomly assigned to either a control or
resistance sprint groups. The resistance sprint group
performed two sessions per week for six weeks, while the
control group did no training. The results show a
significant decrease in time to 5 m for the 30- m sprint
for the resistance sprint group. In conclusion, the study
suggests that it may be beneficial to employ a resistance
sprint training program with the aim of increasing initial
acceleration from a static start for sprinting.

Stretching and Speed

Every athlete wants to perform at the highest level
possible. Stretching as part of a warm-up may increase

47
performance, however, the type of stretching performed is
essential to perform at an optimal level. Static stretching
before competition has been the traditional method to
utilize in order to prepare the muscular system for work.
However, there has been much research to suggest that
static stretching is not the most beneficial means of warmup.16-23
McMillian et al16 compared the effect of a dynamic warm
up with a static-stretching warm up on different measures
of power and agility. Thirty subjects completed the study
(16 men, 14 women, 18-24 years). On three consecutive days,
subjects performed 1 of 2 warm up routines or performed no
warm up. The warm up protocols lasted 10 minutes. The tests
included a T-shuttle run, underhand medicine ball throw for
distance, and 5-step jump. The results showed there were
better performance scores after the dynamic warm up for all
three tests. Warm up routines that use static stretching as
the stand-alone activity should be reevaluated and/or
replaced with a dynamic warm up.
In a similar study Arabaci17 examined the acute effects
of dynamic, static, and no stretching within a warm-up on
vertical jump, agility, maximal speed, anaerobic power, and
reaction time of young elite soccer players. The results
showed that the dynamic stretching results were better than

48
the results of static stretching and no stretching. There
was a significant difference between the results of the
dynamic warm-up as compared to static or no stretching.
Dynamic stretching should be the preferred warm-up for
young elite soccer players.
Faigenbaum et al18,19 conducted two studies which are
very similar. In the first study, Faigenbaum18 compared the
acute effects on youth fitness of three different warm-up
protocols utilizing static stretching or dynamic exercise
performance. Sixty children (mean age 11.3 years) performed
three different warm-up routines in random order on
nonconsecutive days. The warm-up consisted of 5 minutes of
walking and 5 minutes of static stretching, 10 minutes of
dynamic stretching, or 10 minutes of dynamic exercise plus
3 drop jumps from 15-cm boxes. After each warm-up, subjects
were tested on the vertical jump, long jump, shuttle run,
and v-sit flexibility. Results showed that vertical jump
and shuttle run performance declined significantly
following the static stretch warm-up compared to the two
dynamic warm-ups. There were no significant differences in
flexibility following the three warm-up treatments. In
conclusion, children should perform moderate to high
intensity dynamic exercise prior to sport activities that
require a high power output.

49
In the second study conducted by Faigenbaum19, the
researchers examined the acute effects of pre-event static
stretching, dynamic stretching, and combined static and
dynamic stretching on vertical jump, medicine ball toss,
10-yard sprint, and pro-agility shuttle run. Thirty teenage
athletes (mean age 15.5 years) participated in three
testing sessions in random order on three nonconsecutive
days. Before testing, subjects performed 5 mm of
walking/jogging followed by one of three warm-up protocols.
Results showed an increase of performance for all
performance areas except agility after the dynamic and
combined warm-ups as compared to just the static warm-up.
The study indicates that pre-event dynamic exercise or
static stretching followed by dynamic exercise may be more
beneficial than static stretching alone in teenage athletes
who perform power activities. These studies suggest that
dynamic stretching may be more beneficial than static
stretching. The results show that dynamic stretching
increases important aspects of performance including power,
agility, and speed.
Speed may be one of the most important aspects of
performance. Studies have shown that dynamic stretching is
appropriate to achieve optimal speed performance. Siatras
et al20 investigated the acute effect of a protocol,

50
including warm-up and static and dynamic stretching
exercises, on speed during vaulting in gymnastics. Eleven
boys were asked to perform three different protocols
consisting of warm-up, warm-up and static stretching, and
warm-up and dynamic stretching on three nonconsecutive
days. The results showed that the static stretching
protocol significantly decreased the speed performance
during a run of vault. Therefore, it is not advisable to
include static stretching exercises just prior to vault
execution.
Fletcher21,22 conducted two studies testing the speed of
different athletes after different stretching protocols. In
the first study by Fletcher21, the researchers were
interested in determining the effect of different static
and dynamic stretch protocols on 20-m sprint performance.
Ninety-seven male rugby players were randomly assigned to
four groups: passive static stretch (PSS), active dynamic
stretch (ADS), active static stretch (ASST), and static
dynamic stretch (SDS). All groups performed a standard 10minute jog warm-up, followed by two 20-m sprints. The 20-m
sprints were then repeated after subjects had performed
their assigned stretch protocol. The PSS and ASST groups
had a significant increase in sprint time, while the ADS
group had a significant decrease in sprint time. The

51
decrease in performance for the two static stretch groups
was attributed to an increase in the musculotendinous unit
(MTU) compliance, leading to a decrease in the MTU ability
to store elastic energy in its eccentric phase. In
conclusion, static stretching as part of a warm-up may
decrease short sprint performance, while active dynamic
stretching seems to increase 20-m sprint performance.
Following this study, Fletcher22 investigated the
effects of incorporating passive static stretching in a
warm-up. The purpose of the study was to investigate the
effect of manipulating the static and dynamic stretch
components associated with a traditional track-and-field
warm-up. Eighteen experienced sprinters were randomly
assigned in a repeated-measures, within-subject design
study with three interventions: active dynamic stretch
(ADS), static passive stretch combined with ADS (SADS), and
static dynamic stretch combined with ADS (DADS). A
standardized 800-m jogged warm-up was performed before each
different stretch protocol, followed by two 50-m sprints.
Results showed that the SADS intervention yielded
significantly slow 50-m sprint times then either the ADS or
DADS protocols. It was concluded that passive static
stretching in a warm-up decreases sprint performance,

52
despite being combined with dynamic stretches, when
compared to the solely dynamic stretching protocol.
Kistler23 found that previous research has shown that
static stretching has an inhibitory effect on sprinting
performances up to 50 m. The purpose of this study was to
see what would happen to these effects at longer distances
such as those seen in competition. Eighteen male subjects
completed both static stretching and no stretching
conditions across two days of testing. On each day, all
subjects first completed a generalized dynamic warm-up
routine that included a self-paced 800-m run, followed by a
series of dynamic movements, sprints, and hurdle drills.
After this warm-up subjects were assigned to either a
static stretching or a no-stretching condition. They then
immediately performed 2 100-m trials with timing gates set
up at 20, 40, 60, and 100 m. Results showed a significant
slowing in performance with static stretching in the second
20 (20-40) m of the sprint trials. In conclusion, it seems
harmful to include static stretching in the warm-up
protocol of collegiate male sprinters in distances up to
100 m.
Winchester24 also used track-and-field athletes in his
study which aimed to establish whether the deleterious
effects of static stretching would wash out the performance

53
enhancements obtained from the dynamic warm-up. Eleven
males and eleven females, who were athletes of a NCAA
Division 1 track team, performed a dynamic warm-up followed
with either static stretching or rest. After the warm-up
was completed, three 40 m sprints were performed to
investigate the effects of the static stretching condition
on sprint performance when preceded by a dynamic warm-up.
The results showed that the no stretching group vs. the
static stretching group was significantly faster for the
entire 40 m. Similar to Kistler23, this study suggests that
performing a static stretching protocol following a dynamic
warm-up will inhibit sprint performance in collegiate
athletes.
In a study by Nelson25, the researchers wanted to
establish whether the deleterious effects of passive
stretching seen in laboratory settings would manifest in a
performance setting. Sixteen subjects (11 males, 5 females)
on a Division I NCAA track athletics team performed
electronically timed 20m sprint with and without prior
stretching of the legs. Four different stretching protocols
were performed which included no stretch of either leg,
both legs stretched, forward led in the starting position
stretched, and rear leg in the starting position stretched.
Three stretching exercises were performed (hamstring

54
stretch, quadriceps stretch, calf stretch) for the
stretching protocols. The three stretching protocols
induced a significant increase in the 20 m time. In
conclusion, pre-event stretching may negatively impact the
performance of high-power short-term exercise. This study
suggests that static stretching is more detrimental to
performance than no stretching at all.
Many studies have shown that static stretching is
detrimental to athletic performance. However, some studies
suggest that static stretching may not be detrimental to
athletic performance. A study by Little26 examined the
effects of different modes of stretching within a preexercise warm-up on high-speed motor capacities important
to soccer performance. Eighteen professional soccer players
were tested in vertical jump, stationary 10-m spring,
flying 20-m spring, and agility performance after different
warm-ups consisting of static stretching, dynamic
stretching, or no stretching. There was no significant
difference among warm-ups for the vertical jump. The
dynamic stretching protocol produced significantly faster
10-m sprint times than did the no- stretching protocol. The
dynamic and static stretching protocols produced faster
flying 20-m sprint times as opposed to the no stretching
protocol. The dynamic stretching protocol also produced

55
significantly faster agility performance than both the
static and no stretching protocol. In conclusion, static
stretching does not appear to be detrimental to high-speed
performance when included in a warm-up for professional
soccer players. However, dynamic stretching during the
warm-up was most effective as preparation for high-speed
performance.
In a study by Knudson27, the researchers studied the
serving percentage and radar measurements of ball speed to
examine the acute effect of stretching on tennis serve
performance. Eighty-three tennis players from beginning to
advanced level volunteered to serve following traditional
warm-up and traditional plus stretching conditions. There
was no short-term effect of stretching in the warm-up on
the tennis serve performance of adult players, so adding
stretching to the traditional 5- minute warm-up in tennis
does not affect serve performance. These two studies
suggest that static stretching may not be detrimental to
performance, so it is crucial that further research be
conducted.

56
Summary

Before any type of athletic activity, athletes stretch
their muscles. As an athletic trainer, it is important to
educate athletes about stretching. Through an understanding
of the physiology of the musculotendinous unit as well as
by reading up to date literature on the matter, athletic
trainers will be able to choose a stretching protocol that
will be most beneficial to the athlete. It is important
that athletic trainers educate athletes not only about how
stretching can improve performance, but also that
stretching may prevent injury and increase flexibility.
However, more research must be done to determine whether
different stretching protocols are advantageous in reducing
injury rates.
Overall, the majority of the studies that compare
different stretching protocols reveal the same conclusions.
Almost all the studies examined found dynamic stretching to
be most beneficial. There was no literature found
suggesting that dynamic stretching is detrimental to
performance. Some studies have found static stretching to
be detrimental to the performance of athletes in various
areas. Other studies conclude that dynamic stretching is
more beneficial than static stretching. These results have

57
caught the interest of athletes, coaches, and sports
medicine professionals. Through observation, many athletes
are beginning to stray away from the traditional static
stretching protocol and switch to an active dynamic warmup.

58

APPENDIX B
The Problem

59
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Statement of the Problem
Stretching has been widely accepted within the
athletic population for decades. Static stretching was once
dominant for a pre-activity warm-up. However, recent
studies have shown that static stretching may lead to an
increase risk of injury and also a decrease in performance.
There have also been more studies on the positive effects
of dynamic stretching. So, there has been a massive shift
towards dynamic stretching as part of a pre-activity warmup. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect
of different stretching protocols on the sprint performance
of physically active adults.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect
of three different stretching protocols on the sprint
performance of physically active adults. These three
stretching protocols include static stretching, dynamic
stretching, and a combination of static and dynamic
stretching. Furthermore, this study is intended to provide
statistical evidence in order to determine which stretching
protocol would be most beneficial for a collegiate athlete.

60

Definition of Terms
The following definitions of terms will be defined for
this study:
1) Flexibility – The ability to move a single joint or
series of joints smoothly and easily through an
unrestricted, pain-free ROM.3
2) Stretching - Movement applied by an external or
internal force in order to increase muscle
flexibility and/or joint range of motion.1
3) Static Stretching – Holding a stretch for a period of
time with little or no movement.1,3
4) Dynamic Stretching – Controlled movement through the
active range of motion.1
5) Golgi Tendon Organ (GTO) – Sensory nerve endings
located in tendons that sense change in muscle
tension.3
6) Muscle Spindles – Proprioceptors found in skeletal
muscle that are sensitive to stretch, and signals
muscle length and rate of change in muscle length.3

Basic Assumptions
The following are basic assumptions of this study:

61
1) The subjects did not perform any other stretching
other than the stretching asked of them in this study.
2) The subjects performed the 40-yard sprint to the best
of their ability.
3) The equipment was calibrated and utilized properly
during the course of this study.
4) The 40-yard sprint is a valid test for assessing
sprint speed.
5) The subjects were “physically active” according to the
physical activity survey

Limitations of the Study
The following are possible limitations of the study:
1) Subjects may not put forth maximal effort.
2) Some subjects may be in better shape than others.

Delimitations of the Study
The following are possible delimitations of the study:
1) The same person serves as the researcher, the data
collector, and the Athletic Trainer.
2) The subjects were volunteers by a convenience sample.
3) The results can only be generalized to physically
active adults.

62
Significance of the Study
The ideas of static stretching and flexibility have
been around for years. Athletes have incorporated static
stretching in not only their warm-up but also as part of
their training programs. The thought of increasing
flexibility by static stretching will improve athletic
performance has been the driving factor in research on
stretching protocols. However, recent research suggests
that static stretching may have negative results on
athletic performance. Performance areas that can be
negatively affected include muscle strength, power,
agility, and speed.
Research has shown that a different type of stretching
protocol may be most beneficial. Since these studies have
been published, there has been a massive shift from
traditional static stretching to a dynamic warm-up before
athletic activity. Athletic trainers must provide the best
possible care for athletes. By reading and interpreting the
recent literature, athletic trainers must adapt stretching
protocols, especially if a certain type of stretching
protocol could potentially be harmful towards the athlete.
If dynamic stretching is more effective as a warm-up than
static stretching, additional research should be performed
to apply validity and reliability to the study to begin

63
implementing a change from solely static stretching to a
dynamic warm-up.

64

APPENDIX C
Additional Methods

65

APPENDIX C1
Informed Consent Form

66

Informed Consent Form
1. Mark Webber, who is a Graduate Athletic Training Student at California University of
Pennsylvania, has requested my participation in a research study at California University
of Pennsylvania. The title of the research is, The Effect of Static vs. Dynamic Stretching
on Sprint Speed.
2. I have been informed that the purpose of this study is to study the effects of static
stretching, dynamic stretching, and a combination of both stretches on sprint speed of
physically active individuals. I understand that I must be 18 years of age or older to
participate. I understand that I have been asked to participate along with 29 other
individuals because I have not sustained a lower extremity injury within the last 6
months, nor do I have any other health conditions that would prevent me from
participating in this study. I am also physically active, as defined as participating in
moderate to intense exercise at least 3 times a week. I understand that I will be asked to
complete a survey related to my physical activity to determine if I meet the definition of
physically active for this study.
3. I have been invited to participate in this research project. My participation is voluntary
and I can choose to discontinue my participation at any time without penalty or loss of
benefits. My participation will involve completing this informed consent form before
beginning this study. For the experimental portion of this study, I will be asked to
complete three different stretching protocols on three separate days with at least 48 hours
separating each test day. I will perform a 5 minute jog at my own pace, then I will be
instructed to perform either a static stretching protocol, a dynamic stretching protocol, or
a combination of static and dynamic stretching protocol. Following the stretching
protocol, I will complete 3 trials of a timed 40 yard sprint.
4. I understand there are foreseeable risks or discomforts to me if I agree to participate in
the study. With participation in a research program such as this there is always the
potential for unforeseeable risks as well. The possible risks and/or discomforts include
possible soreness due to activity. With any intense physical activity, there is a risk of
cardiovascular incidents such as cardiac arrest and exacerbation of other health issues. To
minimize these health risks I will complete a physical activity readiness questionnaire
(PAR-Q) and allow the researchers to obtain information from my CalU physical on file
with the Student Health Center. To minimize risks of muscle and joint injury and
discomfort the researcher has included a proper warm-up consisting of a 5 minute jog
before participating in the performance testing.
5. I understand that, in case of injury, I can expect to receive treatment or care in Hamer
Hall’s Athletic Training Facility. This treatment will be provided by the researcher, Mark
Webber, under the supervision of the CalU athletic training faculty, all of which can

67
administer emergency care. Additional services needed for prolonged care will be
referred to the attending staff at the Downey Garofola Health Services located on
campus.
6. There are no feasible alternative procedures available for this study.
7. I understand that the possible benefits of my participation in the research will provide
more current research, adding to the existing research, which will contribute to which
type of stretching protocol will be the most effective in terms of improving performance
as well as decreasing injury in athletics.
8. I understand that the results of the research study may be published but my name or
identity will not be revealed. Only aggregate data will be reported. In order to maintain
confidentially of my records, Mark Webber will maintain all documents in a secure
location on campus and password protect all electronic files so that only the student
researcher and research advisor can access the data. Each subject will be given a specific
subject number to represent his or her name so as to protect the anonymity of each
subject.
9. I have been informed that I will not be compensated for my participation.
10. I have been informed that any questions I have concerning the research study or my
participation in it, before or after my consent, will be answered by:
Mark C. Webber, ATC
STUDENT/PRIMARY RESEARCHER
Web2404@calu.edu
774-266-6383
Dr. Thomas West Ph.D., ATC
RESEARCH ADVISOR
West_t@calu.edu
724-938-5933
11. I understand that written responses may be used in quotations for publication but my
identity will remain anonymous.
12. I have read the above information and am electing to participate in this study. The
nature, demands, risks, and benefits of the project have been explained to me. I
knowingly assume the risks involved, and understand that I may withdraw my consent
and discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefit to myself. In
signing this consent form, I am not waiving any legal claims, rights, or remedies. A copy
of this consent form will be given to me upon request.
13. This study has been approved by the California University of Pennsylvania
Institutional Review Board.

68

14. The IRB approval dates for this project are from: 01/01/12 to 12/31/12.

Subject's signature:________________________________ Date:________________
Witness signature:_________________________________ Date:________________

69

APPENDIX C2
Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q)

70

71

Appendix C3
Physical Examination Release Waiver

72

Physical Examination Release Waiver

I ______________________________ give the University Health Center permission to
provide the researcher (Mark C. Webber) and research advisor (Dr. Thomas West) my
physical. I understand that the information gathered by the researcher will be used to
determine recommendations my physician has given regarding my physical activity.

Student Signature__________________________________

Date: _________

73

Appendix C4
Physical Activity Survey

74

Physical Activity Survey
1. How many days per week do you partake in moderate to intense exercise? ___days

2. For each of the following activities, please indicate how much time you spend per
week. (Note: each activity must be done at a moderate to intense level of exertion)
a. Running (road, track, treadmill):

_________________

b. Biking

_________________

c. Elliptical

_________________

d. Stair Climber

_________________

e. Weight Training

_________________

75

Appendix C5
Functional Instruments

76

http://nats.us/cm-combines/cm-drills/cm-drills-speed.html

77

Speed Trap II Timer™
http://www.powersystems.com/nav/closeup.aspx?c=19&g=1354#

78

Appendix C6
Stretching Protocols

79
Static Stretching Protocol
Stretch

Muscles

Sets

Repetitions

Rest

Hamstring
Stretch
Quad Stretch

Hamstrings

1

Quadriceps

1

25 s,
bilaterally
25 s,
bilaterally
25 s,
bilaterally
25 s,
bilaterally
25 s,
bilaterally
25 s,
bilaterally
25 s,
bilaterally

5 s,
bilaterally
5 s,
bilaterally
5 s,
bilaterally
5 s,
bilaterally
5 s,
bilaterally
5 s,
bilaterally
5 s,
bilaterally

Hip Flexor
Hip Flexors
Stretch
Adductor
Adductors
Stretch
Abductor
Abductors
Stretch
Gluteal
Gluteals
Stretch
Gastroc/Soleus Gastrocnemius
Stretch
and Soleus

A)

B)

1
1
1
1
1

80

C)

D)

E)

F)

G)
KEY:
A)
B)
C)
D)
E)
F)
G)

Hamstring Stretch
Quadriceps Stretch
Adductor Stretch
Hip Flexor Stretch
Abductor Stretch
Gluteal Stretch
Gastroc/Soleus Stretch

81
Dynamic Stretching Protocol
Stretch
High
Knees
Butt
Kicks
Lateral
Shuffles
Russian
Walks
Walking
Lunges
Figure
Fours
Heel to
Toe Walks

)

C)

Muscles
Gluteals/Hamstrings

Sets
1

Repetitions
40 s.

Rest
20 s.

Quadriceps/Hip
Flexors
Abductors/Adductors

1

40 s.

20 s.

1

40 s.

20 s.

Hamstrings

1

40 s.

20 s.

Hip Flexors

1

40 s.

20 s.

Abductors

1

40 s.

20 s.

Gastrocnemius/Soleus

1

40 s.

20 s.

B)

D)

82

E)

G)
KEY:
A) High Knees
B) Butt Kicks
C) Lateral Shuffles
D) Russian Walks
E) Walking Lunge
F) Figure Four
G) Heel to Toe Walk

F)

83
Combination Stretching Protocol
Stretch

Muscles

Hamstrin
g
Stretch
Quad
Stretch

Hamstrings

Hip
Flexor
Stretch
Adductor
Stretch

Hip Flexors

High
Knees
Butt
Kicks
Lateral
Shuffles

Gluteals/Hamstring
s
Quadriceps/Hip
Flexors
Adductors/Abductor
s

Quadriceps

Adductors

Sets Repetition
s
1
25 s,
bilaterall
y
1
25 s,
bilaterall
y
1
25 s,
bilaterall
y
1
25 s,
bilaterall
y
1
40 s.

Rest

1

40 s.

20 s.

1

40 s.

20 s.

5 s,
bilaterall
y
5 s,
bilaterall
y
5 s,
bilaterall
y
5 s,
bilaterall
y
20 s.

84

Appendix C7
Institutional Review Board
California University of Pennsylvania

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

Below are my responses to issues that arose during the IRB review of my proposal(#11032) titled “the effects of static and dynamic stretching on sprint speed.” These changes
resulted in a modification of the Informed Consent so it is also attached to this email.
Please let me know if any additional information is needed.

--Criteria for inclusion in the study are somewhat nonspecific (“physically active”
and “moderate to intense lower extremity activity”). Because the research activity
(running 40m at maximum speed) is strenuous, a clearer, objective level of physical
activity must be defined.
Subjects participating in this study must partake in moderate to intense physical
activity. Such activity may include running, biking, elliptical, stair climber, and/or weight
training. Subjects must participate in this type of exercise at a minimum of three days a
week for at least 30 minutes per session. Subjects will complete the attached survey in
regards to their physical activity. They must indicate that they engage in one or more of
the listed exercises for a minimum total of 30 minutes per session with at least 3 sessions
per week to be included in the study. (Physical Activity Survey, attached) The intention is
to include individuals that regularly perform moderate to intense exercise that utilizes the
lower extremity. These activities would tax the body in ways that would train aerobic
and anaerobic systems and result a reduced risk of injury.
--As running 40m is an intense anaerobic activity (done 3x) this could be a
significant stress on the cardiovascular and musculoskeletal system, along with
other potential health implication (e.g. sickling in pts with sickle cell). The sole
screening criterion (a question regarding Lower Extremity injury) appears
insufficient to minimize risks. A more detailed screening is required (e.g. PARQ –
physical activity readiness questionnaire could be a starting point–it is the
researcher’s responsibility to decide on an appropriate protocol) along with
additional evidence-based information on potential risks given to participants (e.g.
risk of cardiovascular incident)—peer reviewed references are needed for this
response.
I have included a PAR-Q form (attached) for each potential subject to complete to
minimize any potential cardiovascular risks. Also, each student must have a physical
performed by a physician on file prior to their enrollment at the University. On page four
of the physical, there is a question that reads “Recommendations for physical activity
(Physical Education, Athletics, etc.)”. The physician checks either unlimited or limited.
Any potential subject with “Limited” checked off will be excluded from the study.

97
Subjects will sign a waiver (attached) to allow the University Health Center to provide
the researcher with this information. This physical should also be an effective screen for
other potential health implications and in combination with the PARQ should adequately
screen for cardiovascular risk factors.
In relation to the potential risks of a CV incident, Van Camp1 states, “it is
estimated an absolute rate of exercise-related death among high school and college
athletes of only 1 per 133,000 men and 1 per 769,000 women.” Another study by
Borjesson and Pelliccia2 states “The incidence of sudden cardiac death (SCD) among
young athletes is estimated to be 1-3 per 100,000 person years, and may be
underestimated. The risk of SCD in athletes is higher than in non-athletes because of
several factors associated with sports activity that increase the risk in people with an
underlying cardiovascular abnormality.” Overall the risks of CV incident is very small,
and the stresses of this type of test may create risks lower than those seen in athletes.
Still, the researcher will watch the subjects for signs of CV distress throughout the testing
session.
References:
1. Van Camp, S.P., C.M. Bloor, F.O. Mueller, R.C. Cantu, and H.G. Olson.
Nontraumatic sports death in high school and college athletes. Med. Sci. Exerc.
27:641-647, 1995.
2. Borjesson, M., Pelliccia, A. Incidence and etiology of sudden cardiac death in
young athletes: an international perspective. British Journal of Sports Medicine.
43(9): 644-648, 2009.
--Where will the 40m runs be done (indoors/outdoors). Is there deceleration room?
Will weather conditions be a factor?
The runs will take place indoors in the Hamer gymnasium. The runs will be run
diagonally across the entire gymnasium. The length of the gym is 150 ft and the width is
110 ft. Diagonally, the test will take 120 ft (40 yards) and there is 66 ft for deceleration
(roughly 20 yards).There is ample deceleration room. A diagram is provided.
--It is not clear what parameters will be measured. A sample data collection sheet
should be included in the response.
A sample data collection sheet is provided. Each subject’s time, in seconds, will
be recorded. The best time will be used for data analysis.

98

Institutional Review Board
California University of Pennsylvania
Morgan Hall, Room 310
250 University Avenue
California, PA 15419
instreviewboard@calu.edu
Robert Skwarecki, Ph.D., CCC-SLP,Chair
Dear Mark Christopher Webber:
Please consider this email as official notification that your proposal titled
"The effects of static and dynamic stretching on sprint speed” (Proposal
#11-032) has been approved by the California University of Pennsylvania
Institutional Review Board as amended.
The effective date of the approval is 2-23-2012 and the expiration date is 222-2013. These dates must appear on the consent form .
Please note that Federal Policy requires that you notify the IRB promptly
regarding any of the following:
(1) Any additions or changes in procedures you might wish for your
study (additions or changes must be approved by the IRB before
they are implemented)
(2) Any events that affect the safety or well-being of subjects
(3) Any modifications of your study or other responses that are
necessitated by any events reported in (2).
(4) To continue your research beyond the approval expiration date of
2-22-2013 you must file additional information to be considered for
continuing review. Please contact instreviewboard@calu.edu
Please notify the Board when data collection is complete.
Regards,
Robert Skwarecki, Ph.D., CCC-SLP
Chair, Institutional Review Board

99

Appendix C8
Data Collection Sheet

100
Sprint Times for the 40 Yard Sprint
Subject

Static
T1.
T2.
T3.
T1.
T2.
T3.
T1.
T2.
T3.
T1.
T2.
T3.
T1.
T2.
T3.
T1.
T2.
T3.
T1.
T2.
T3.

Dynamic
T1.
T2.
T3.
T1.
T2.
T3.
T1.
T2.
T3.
T1.
T2.
T3.
T1.
T2.
T3.
T1.
T2.
T3.
T1.
T2.
T3.

Combo
T1.
T2.
T3.
T1.
T2.
T3.
T1.
T2.
T3.
T1.
T2.
T3.
T1.
T2.
T3.
T1.
T2.
T3.
T1.
T2.
T3.

101
REFERENCES
1.

Weerapong P, Hume PA, Kolt GS. Stretching: Mechanisms
and Benefits for Sport Performance and Injury
Prevention. Physical Therapy Reviews. 2004; 9; 189206.

2.

Taylor D, Brooks D, Ryan J. Viscoelastic
Characteristics of Muscle: Passive Stretching Versus
Muscular Contractions. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1997; 29;
1619-24

3.

Kisner C, Colby L. Therapeutic Exercise: Foundations
and Techniques. Philadelphia, PA; F.A. Davis Company;
2007.

4.

Anderson B, Burke ER. Scientific, Medical and
Practical Aspects of Stretching. Clinics in Sports
Medicine. 1991; 10; 63-86.

5.

Janot JM, Dalleck LC, Reyment C. Pre-Exercise
Stretching and Performance. IDEA Fitness Journal.
2007; 4 (2); 44-51.

6.

Johansson PH, Lindstrom L, Sundelin G, Lindstrom B.
The Effects of Pre-Exercise Stretching on Muscular
Soreness, Tenderness and Force Loss Following Heavy
Eccentric Exercise. SCAND J MED SCI SPOR. 1999; 9 (4);
219-225.

7.

Lund H, Vestergaard-Poulsen P, Kanstrup IL, Sejrsen P.
The Effect of Passive Stretching on Delayed Onset
Muscle Soreness, and other Detrimental Effects
Following Eccentric Exercise. SCAND J MED SCI SPOR.
1998; 8 (4); 216-221.

8.

Witvrouw E, Mahieu N, Danneels L, McNair P. Stretching
and Injury Prevention: An Obscure Relationship. Sports
Med. 2004; 34 (7); 443-449.

102
9.

Lucas RC, Koslow R. Comparative Study of Static,
Dynamic, and Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation
Stretching Techniques on Flexibility. Percept Mot
Skills. 1984; 58 (2); 615-618

10.

Haff GG. Roundtable Discussion: Flexibility Training.
J Strength Cond Res. 2006; 28 (2); 64-85.

11.

Baechle T, Earle R. Essentials of Strength Training
and Conditioning. National Strength and Conditioning
Association; 2008.

12.

Mann D, Whedon C. Functional Stretching: Implementing
a Dynamic Stretching Program. Athlet Ther Today. 2001;
6 (3); 10-13.

13.

Cissik JM. Means and Methods of Speed Training, Part
I. J Strength Cond Res. 2004; 26 (4); 24-29.

14.

Cronin J, Hansen KT. Resisted Sprint Training for the
Acceleration Phase of Sprinting. J Strength Cond Res.
2006; 28 (4); 42-51.

15.

Harrison AJ, Bourke G. The Effect of Resisted Sprint
Training on Speed and Strength Performance in Male
Rugby Players. J Strength Cond Res. 2009; 23 (1); 275283.

16.

McMillian DJ, Moore JH, Hatler BS, Talor DC. Dynamic
vs. Static-Stretching Warm-Up: The Effect on Power and
Agility Performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2006; 20
(3); 492-499.

17.

Arabaci R. Acute Effects of Differential Stretching
Protocols on Physical Performance in Young Soccer
Players. NWSA. 2009; 4 (2); 50-63.

18.

Faigenbaum AD, Bellucci M, Bernieri A, Bakker B,
Hoorens K. Acute Effects of Different Warm-up
Protocols on Fitness Performance in Children. J
Strength Cond Res. 2005; 19 (2); 376-381.

103
19.

Faigenbaum A, et al. Acute Effects of Different WarmUp Protocols on Anaerobic Performance in Teenage
Athletes. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2006; 18 (1); 64-75.

20.

Siatras T, Papadopoulos G, Mameletzi D, Gerodimos V,
Kellis S. Static and Synamic Acute Stretching Effect
on Gymnasts’ Speed in Vaulting. Pediatr Exerc Sci.
2003; 15 (4); 383-391.

21.

Fletcher IM, Jones B. The Effect of Different Warm-Up
Stretch Protocols on 20 Meter Sprint Performance in
Trained Rugby Union Players. J Strength Cond Res.
2004; 18 (4); 885-888.

22.

Fletcher IM, Anness R. The Acute Effects of Combined
Static and Dynamic Stretch Protocols on Fifty-Meter
Sprint Performance in Track-and-Field Athletes. J
Strength Cond Res. 2007; 21 (3); 784-787.

23.

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);
2280-2284.

24.

Winchester JB, Nelson AG, Landin D, Young MA,
Schexnayder IC. Static Stretching Impairs Sprint
Performance in Collegiate Track-and-Field Athletes. J
Strength Cond Res. 2008; 22 (1); 13-18.

25.

Nelson AG, Driscoll NM, Landin DK, Young MA,
Schexnayder IC. Acute Effects of Passive Muscle
Stretching on Sprint Performance. J Sprt Sci. 2005; 23
(5); 449-454.

26.

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); 203-207.

27.

Knudson DV, Noffal GJ, Bahamonde RE, Bauer JA,
Blackwell JR. Stretching Has No Effect on Tennis Serve
Performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2004; 18 (3); 654656.

104
ABSTRACT
Title:

THE EFFECT OF STATIC AND DYNAMIC STRETCHING
ON SPRINT SPEED OF THE PHYSICALLY ACTIVE

Researcher:

Mark C. Webber

Advisor:

Dr. Thomas F. West

Date:

May 2012

Research Type: Master’s Thesis
Context:

Stretching has been widely accepted within
the athletic population for decades. Static
stretching was once dominant for a preactivity warm-up. However, recent studies
have shown that static stretching may lead
to an increased risk of injury and also a
decrease in performance. There have also
been an increasing number of studies
identifying the positive effects of dynamic
stretching when compared to static
stretching. Therefore, there has been a
significant shift towards dynamic stretching
as part of a pre-activity warm-up.

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to investigate
the effect of three different stretching
protocols on the sprint performance of
physically active individuals. These three
stretching protocols include static
stretching, dynamic stretching, and a
combination of static and dynamic
stretching.

Setting:

The testing was done in the Hamer Gymnasium
on the campus of California University of
Pennsylvania.

Participants:

Sixteen physically active individuals
volunteered for this study (11 males, 5
females).

Interventions: Each subject completed each of the three
stretching protocols on three separate days

105
with 48 hours in between each testing
session. Each subject then completed three
trials of a 40 yard sprint.
Main Outcome Measures:
A within subjects repeated measures ANOVA
was conducted to analyze the data. The
independent variable was the stretching
protocol used, which had three levels
(Static Stretching Warm-Up Protocol, Dynamic
Stretching Warm-Up Protocol, and Combination
of Static and Dynamic Stretching Warm-Up
Protocol).
Results:

The repeated measures ANOVA revealed there
was a significant effect of warm-up on
performance (F 2,30 = .03 p < .05). Follow-up
post-hoc testing using protected dependent t
tests was utilized. There was a significant
difference between the Combination
Stretching Protocol (5.575s +/- .496) and
the Static Stretching Protocol (5.660s +/.492).

Conclusion:

According to the literature, it is
beneficial to include dynamic stretching
prior to physical activity, while static
stretching should be avoided. However, the
results of this study show that a
combination of both static and dynamic
stretching is most beneficial for physically
active individuals.