## 4 Discussion  
While previous studies have compared the effects of neural techniques with conventional stretching, to our knowledge, the isolated effect of neural load within a static stretch has not been explored. Our findings revealed that neither intervention demonstrated superior efficacy after the first session, post-treatment, or at the one-month follow-up. Consequently, the results of this study do not confirm the initial hypothesis that neural load stretching would lead to greater improvements in flexibility, pressure pain threshold, and strength loss, either in the short or medium term. Although no significant differences were observed between the two groups, the group performing neural load stretches showed more favorable results across all measured variables. Furthermore, this group maintained improved flexibility during the follow-up, unlike the group that engaged in stretching \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variables**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Time (1)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Time (2)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**CG**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**NLG**} \\ \cline{3-8}  & & & **MD** & **95\% CI** & \(P\) & **MD** & **95\% CI** & \(p\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{ROM KEA} & Baseline & After 1 st Session & \(-\)3.9 & \(-\)7.3 to \(-\)0.5 & 0.018 & \(-\)5.2 * & \(-\)8.4 to \(-\)2.0 & \(<\)0.001 \\  & & Post-Treatment & \(-\)8.1 * & \(-\)12.2 to \(-\)3.9 & \(<\)0.001 & \(-\)8.6 * & \(-\)12.5 to \(-\)4.7 & \(<\)0.001 \\  & & Follow-Up & \(-\)3.9 & \(-\)7.8 to 0.02 & 0.052 & \(-\)6.4 * & \(-\)10.1 to \(-\)2.8 & \(<\)0.001 \\  & Baseline & After 1 st Session & \(-\)0.3 & \(-\)1.1 to 0.4 & 1.000 & \(-\)0.7 & \(-\)1.4 to 0.02 & 0.061 \\  & & Post-Treatment & \(-\)0.3 & \(-\)0.8 to 0.2 & 0.830 & \(-\)0.3 & \(-\)0.7 to 0.2 & 0.643 \\  & & Follow-Up & \(-\)0.2 & \(-\)0.7 to 0.3 & 1.000 & \(-\)0.3 & \(-\)0.8 to 0.2 & 0.481 \\  & Baseline & After 1 st Session & \(-\)1.1 & \(-\)9.0 to 6.7 & 1.000 & \(-\)0.2 & \(-\)7.6 to 7.2 & 1.000 \\ Strength & & Post-Treatment & \(-\)6.1 & \(-\)20.8 to 8.7 & 1.000 & \(-\)13.1 & \(-\)27.0 to 0.7 & 0.072 \\  & & Follow-Up & \(-\)4.6 & \(-\)17.5 to 8.3 & 1.000 & \(-\)7.4 & \(-\)19.5 to 4.7 & 0.605 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Within-group differences after the first session, at post-treatment, and at one-month follow-up with respect to pre-intervention with respect to pre-intervention values. Figure 2: Changes in flexibility (**a**), PPT of tibial nerve (**b**), and maximum isometric hamstring strength (**c**) over time in both NGL and CG. without neural load. This partially supports the hypothesis that neural load stretching may result in better medium-term adaptation concerning flexibility. Stretching plays a crucial role in sports practices due to its numerous benefits, with flexibility improvement being one of the most significant, as it is closely linked to athletic performance [2]. The primary aim of this study was to assess the effects of stretching with and without neural load on flexibility to determine which type of stretch may be more effective in the context of sports. Regarding flexibility, although no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups, both the neural load stretching group and the non-neural-load stretching group showed improvements after the first session and at post-treatment, with the neural load group exhibiting greater flexibility gains. Additionally, the improvements in the neural load stretching group were sustained at follow-up, while this was not the case in the non-neural-load group. The findings are in consonance with those of [PERSON] et al. [35], [PERSON] et al. [34], [PERSON] et al. [21], [PERSON] et al. [36], [PERSON] et al. [37], a recent systematic review [38], and a recent systematic review with meta-analysis [39] suggesting that involving neural structures alongside muscle tissue can enhance hamstring flexibility.