Effects of Static Stretching and Dynamic in Flexibility and Performance: Blind and Randomized Clinical Trial
Condition: Neuromuscular Manifestations
MeSH terms: Neuromuscular Manifestations
Study type: Interventional

Summary: 
      The purpose of this study is analyze the effects, acute and chronic, static and dynamic
      stretching on flexibility and neuromuscular and functional performance in active, healthy
      individuals.

      Study hypothesis:

        1. Static stretching program improves flexibility and reduces neuromuscular and functional
           performance in active, healthy individuals.

        2. Static stretching program improves flexibility and neuromuscular and functional
           performance in active, healthy individuals.
    

Detailed description: 
      It is a randomized, blinded clinical trial where the first researcher (P1) was responsible
      for assessments and reassessments; the second searcher (P2) at randomization and inquiry of
      the subjects in the intervention protocol and the third investigator (P3) for the statistical
      analyzes.The research was conducted at the Laboratory of therapeutic practices of the
      Department of Physical Therapy, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN) and started
      after the approval of the ethics committee.The sample was recruited by convenience by written
      disclosure, electronics and personal contact in academies and higher education institutions
      in the city of Natal / RN. The volunteers were randomly distributed through the electronic
      site http://www.randomization.com (Code: 21318). Two pieces of information were inserted,
      namely: the sample size and the number of groups. With this data, the site has generated a
      specific encoding for each group and distributed the subjects randomly into three groups:
      static stretching (gAE); dynamic stretching (gAD) and control (gC).

      Sample size calculation

      For the sample size calculation was used G * Power 3.1.0 software and the procedures followed
      the recommendations of studies prévios45. Based on a pilot study of four volunteers, it has
      adopted a power of 0.95, considering a significance level of 5%, a correlation coefficient of
      0.5, and 0.25 effect size for both, It calculated a "n" sample of 15 individuals for each
      group ("n" sample = 45). This analysis was performed to reduce the chance of Type II error
      and to determine the minimum number of individuals required for this investigation. Thus, the
      sample size was sufficient to provide 95.5% statistical power.

      Procedures and evaluation measures

      At first all subjects were recorded in the survey through an evaluation form containing
      information on identification, weight, height, injury history and physical activity .

      After the process of randomization and allocation held by P2, the volunteers underwent the
      first evaluation (AV1) under the instruction of P1. This evaluation was performed at least 48
      hours before the 1st stretching session to prevent possible residual effects of isokinetic
      and functional testing. Other evaluations AV2, AV3 and AV4, were made immediately after the
      1st (acute response) and 10th sessions (acute post elongation) and 48 hours after the last
      (residual chronic response), respectively, for EAG and GAD. Already the subject of gc were
      subject only to the four evaluation processes, where the last assessment (AV4) coincided with
      the time related to the stretching protocol of the experimental groups. Despite receiving the
      same guidelines of the other groups on the importance of stretching activities routines
      during the study period the volunteers were told they should not perform stretching in the
      day-to-day.

      All had non-dominant leg (MND) tested for flexibility, neuromuscular performance (muscle
      latency time and isokinetic performance) and functional performance (functional tests) in all
      four assessments. The MND was used because it is considered less skilled and more trainable,
      when compared to the MD46. For their identification was asked which member preferred to kick
      a bola15. However, during the interventions in the experimental groups (GAE, GAD), both
      members were elongated, evaluating the pain sensation at the end of each session and at the
      end of the intervention protocols, sensory perception (pleasure / displeasure) in performing
      elongation. The day of the period in which prevailed the assessments and reassessments was on
      afternoon shift.
    

Intervention name(s): intervention with static stretching; intervention with Dynamic Stretching; Control
Intervention type(s): Other; Other; Other
Intervention description(s): Members of static stretching group performed three sets of 30 second self hamstring stretch (IT) of both lower limbs, with 30 seconds of rest between sets, totaling 3 minute intervention so.; Each subject contracting antagonist muscle (quadriceps) to the target muscle (hamstring), performing dynamic movements of hip flexion with the knee extended, repeated every 1 second. They amounted to 3 of 30 repetitions completing approximately three minutes of dynamic stretching for each lower.; The control group volunteers no received intervention
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Single (Outcomes Assessor)
Primary purpose: Prevention
Keywords: exercise muscle stretching; range of motion; dynamometer of muscle strength; electromyography