CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 54Sports Performance and TrainingLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesUltrasound Imaging and Elastography

Comparison Between High- and Low-Intensity Static Stretching Training Program on Active and Passive Properties of Plantar Flexors

Open access
Nakamura, Masatoshi, Yoshida, Riku, Sato, Shigeru, Yahata, Kaoru, Murakami, Yuta, Kasahara, Kazuki, Fukaya, Taizan, Takeuchi, Kosuke +2 more·2021·Frontiers in Physiology
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2021.796497PMC PMC8718681
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare two static stretching (SS) training programs at high-intensity (HI-SS) and low-intensity (LI-SS) on passive and active properties of the plantar flexor muscles. Forty healthy young men were randomly allocated into three groups: HI-SS intervention group (n = 14), LI-SS intervention group (n = 13), and non-intervention control group (n = 13). An 11-point numerical scale (0–10; none to very painful stretching) was used to determine SS intensity. HI-SS and LI-SS stretched at 6–7 and 0–1 intensities, respectively, both in 3 sets of 60 s, 3×/week, for 4 weeks. Dorsiflexion range of motion (ROM), gastrocnemius muscle stiffness, muscle strength, drop jump height, and muscle architecture were assessed before and after SS training program. The HI-SS group improved more than LI-SS in ROM (40 vs. 15%) and decreased muscle stiffness (−57 vs. −24%), while no significant change was observed for muscle strength, drop jump height, and muscle architecture in both groups. The control group presented no significant change in any variable. Performing HI-SS is more effective than LI-SS for increasing ROM and decreasing muscle stiffness of plantar flexor muscles following a 4-week training period in young men. However, SS may not increase muscle strength or hypertrophy, regardless of the stretching discomfort intensity.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fphys.2021.796497

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Other studies were not able to induce significant hypertrophy in response to 4-6 weeks of stretching, using durations of 360 s per week, 4 × 30 s, to 6 × 5 min 2-3 days per week.

    “Other studies were also not able to induce significant hypertrophy in response to 4–6 weeks of stretching, using stretching durations of 360 s (1 × 360 s vs. 3 × 120 s per week) [161], 4 × 30 s [162] to 6 × 5 min [163] 2–3 days per week.”

    From Minimalist Training: Is Lower Dosage or Intensity Resistance Training Effective to Improve Physical Fitness? A Narrative Review (2024) · cites this paper as [162]

    The Conclusion (page unavailable) says this four-week stretching program did not appear to increase plantar-flexor hypertrophy. But Materials and Methods specifies 3 × 60 seconds per session, three days per week—not the 6 × 5 minutes attached to this citation in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Nakamura, M., Yoshida, R., Sato, S., Yahata, K., Murakami, Y., Kasahara, K., Fukaya, T., Takeuchi, K., Nunes, J. P., & Konrad, A.
Affiliations
  • Niigata University of Health and Welfare (JP)
  • Kyoto Kujo Hospital (JP)
  • Kobe International University (JP)
  • Universidade Estadual de Londrina (BR)
  • University of Graz (AT)
Corresponding author
Nakamura, Masatoshi
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Physiology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2021-12-17
Volume
12
Pages
796497-796497
ISSN
1664-042X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fphys.2021.796497
PMC
PMC8718681
OpenAlex
W4200007394
Cited by
54
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 7
FWCI
11.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Physiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Austrian Science Fund (P 32078-B)
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (19K19890)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Ultrasound Imaging and Elastography
Keywords
static stretching, plantar flexors, gastrocnemius, passive stiffness, range of motion, dorsiflexion, muscle strength, drop jump, muscle architecture, muscle hypertrophy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review