Search

BIO DESIGN

pISSN 1225-8962
eISSN 2287-982X

Article

Article

ARTICLE

Split Viewer

Phys. Ther. Korea 2020; 27(1): 30-37

Published online February 20, 2020

https://doi.org/10.12674/ptk.2020.27.1.30

© Korean Research Society of Physical Therapy

다양한 강도에서 수행된 고유감각신경근육촉진 스트레칭과 정적 스트레칭이 뒤넙다리근의 유연성에 미치는 효과

임우택1,2

1우송대학교 보건복지대학 물리치료학과, 2우송대학교 부설 재활과학연구소

The Effects of Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation and Static Stretching Performed at Various Intensities on Hamstring Flexibility

Woo-taek Lim1,2 , PhD, PT

1Department of Physical Therapy, College of Health and Welfare, Woosong University, 2Woosong Institute of Rehabilitation Science,
Woosong University, Daejeon, Korea

Correspondence to: Woo-taek Lim
E-mail: wootaeklimpt@wsu.ac.kr
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5523-6294

Received: September 16, 2019; Revised: October 13, 2019; Accepted: November 26, 2019

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0)which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background: To prevent or reduce the risk of strain injury, various approaches, including stretching techniques are currently being used. The effect of proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) and static stretching on flexibility has been demonstrated; however, it is not clear which one is superior.
Objects: This study aimed to evaluate the differences between the effects of PNF and static stretching performed at various intensities on muscle flexibility.
Methods: The maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) of the hamstrings using the PNF stretching technique was performed in the P100 group, while 70% of the MVIC was performed in the P70 group. The MVIC value obtained during the PNF stretching in both groups was used as a reference for setting the intensity of static stretching. Static stretching was performed at 130% (S130), 100% (S100), and 70% of the MVIC (S70). The active knee extension (AKE) values, defined as the knee flexion angle were measured before stretching (baseline), immediately after stretching (post), and at 3 minutes, 6 minutes, and 15 minutes.
Results: PNF stretching produce a greater improvement in flexibility compared with static stretching. Specifically, the ΔAKE was significantly higher in the S100 and S70 groups than in the P100 group at Post. In the comparison of ΔAKE over time in each group, the ΔAKE at Post showed a significant decrease compared to the value at Baseline in the S130 group; however, no significant difference was observed at 6 minutes while a significant increase was noted at 15 minutes.
Conclusion: This study found that PNF stretching is more effective than static stretching with respect to increasing and maintaining the flexibility of muscles. In addition, the increase in flexibility at maximal intensity was similar to that observed at submaximal intensity during both PNF and static stretching.

Keywords: Hamstring muscles, High-intensity, Low-intensity, Proprioceptive neuromuscular, facilitation stretching, Static stretching

Article

ARTICLE

Phys. Ther. Korea 2020; 27(1): 30-37

Published online February 20, 2020 https://doi.org/10.12674/ptk.2020.27.1.30

Copyright © Korean Research Society of Physical Therapy.

다양한 강도에서 수행된 고유감각신경근육촉진 스트레칭과 정적 스트레칭이 뒤넙다리근의 유연성에 미치는 효과

임우택1,2

1우송대학교 보건복지대학 물리치료학과, 2우송대학교 부설 재활과학연구소

Received: September 16, 2019; Revised: October 13, 2019; Accepted: November 26, 2019

The Effects of Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation and Static Stretching Performed at Various Intensities on Hamstring Flexibility

Woo-taek Lim1,2 , PhD, PT

1Department of Physical Therapy, College of Health and Welfare, Woosong University, 2Woosong Institute of Rehabilitation Science,
Woosong University, Daejeon, Korea

Correspondence to:Woo-taek Lim
E-mail: wootaeklimpt@wsu.ac.kr
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5523-6294

Received: September 16, 2019; Revised: October 13, 2019; Accepted: November 26, 2019

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0)which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background: To prevent or reduce the risk of strain injury, various approaches, including stretching techniques are currently being used. The effect of proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) and static stretching on flexibility has been demonstrated; however, it is not clear which one is superior.
Objects: This study aimed to evaluate the differences between the effects of PNF and static stretching performed at various intensities on muscle flexibility.
Methods: The maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) of the hamstrings using the PNF stretching technique was performed in the P100 group, while 70% of the MVIC was performed in the P70 group. The MVIC value obtained during the PNF stretching in both groups was used as a reference for setting the intensity of static stretching. Static stretching was performed at 130% (S130), 100% (S100), and 70% of the MVIC (S70). The active knee extension (AKE) values, defined as the knee flexion angle were measured before stretching (baseline), immediately after stretching (post), and at 3 minutes, 6 minutes, and 15 minutes.
Results: PNF stretching produce a greater improvement in flexibility compared with static stretching. Specifically, the ΔAKE was significantly higher in the S100 and S70 groups than in the P100 group at Post. In the comparison of ΔAKE over time in each group, the ΔAKE at Post showed a significant decrease compared to the value at Baseline in the S130 group; however, no significant difference was observed at 6 minutes while a significant increase was noted at 15 minutes.
Conclusion: This study found that PNF stretching is more effective than static stretching with respect to increasing and maintaining the flexibility of muscles. In addition, the increase in flexibility at maximal intensity was similar to that observed at submaximal intensity during both PNF and static stretching.

Keywords: Hamstring muscles, High-intensity, Low-intensity, Proprioceptive neuromuscular, facilitation stretching, Static stretching

Fig 1.

Figure 1.Subject undergoing proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching.
Physical Therapy Korea 2020; 27: 30-37https://doi.org/10.12674/ptk.2020.27.1.30

Fig 2.

Figure 2.Hand-held dynamometer.
Physical Therapy Korea 2020; 27: 30-37https://doi.org/10.12674/ptk.2020.27.1.30

Fig 3.

Figure 3.Subject undergoing static stretching.
Physical Therapy Korea 2020; 27: 30-37https://doi.org/10.12674/ptk.2020.27.1.30

Subject characteristics (N = 72).

Group (n)Age (y)Height (cm)Weight (kg)
S130a (14)20.7 ± 1.6* 169.3 ± 6.365.3 ± 7.0
S100b (13)20.9 ± 1.0* 168.9 ± 9.563.5 ± 8.4
S70c (14)20.3 ± 1.1* 167.5 ± 7.766.1 ± 10.2
P100d (13)22.6 ± 1.7164.4 ± 10.563.4 ± 11.8
P70e (12)21.1 ± 1.0* 167.0 ± 7.164.9 ± 12.5

Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation. a A static stretching group of 130% maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC), ba static stretching group of 100% MVIC, ca static stretching group of 70% MVIC, da proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching group of 100% MVIC, ea proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching group of 70% MVIC. * Significant difference from P100..


Longitudinal changes in AKE (°).

GroupBaselinePost6 min15 min
S130a21.5 ± 9.9–6.9 ± 6.55.7 ± 8.48.6 ± 9.1
S100b19.4 ± 11.6–4.4 ± 7.55.6 ± 6.99.8 ± 8.4
S70c21.9 ± 7.6–4.9 ± 5.45.5 ± 5.47.9 ± 5.8
P100d24.1 ± 11.8–13.3 ± 6.8–10.3 ± 9.9–10.9 ± 12.6
P70e23.8 ± 11.4–11.2 ± 7.4–11.1 ± 6.9–8.1 ± 6.5

Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation. AKE, active knee extension. a A static stretching group of 130% maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC), ba static stretching group of 100% MVIC, ca static stretching group of 70% MVIC, da proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching group of 100% MVIC, ea proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching group of 70% MVIC..


Comparison of ΔAKE between the groups.

GroupPost6 min15 min
S130a-p < 0.001*, p < 0.001p < 0.001*, p < 0.001
S100bp = 0.009*p < 0.001*, p < 0.001p < 0.001*, p < 0.001
S70cp = 0.027*p < 0.001*, p < 0.001p < 0.001*, p < 0.001
P100d---
P70e---

AKE, active knee extension; -, no significant difference. a A static stretching group of 130% maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC), ba static stretching group of 100% MVIC, ca static stretching group of 70% MVIC, da proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching group of 100% MVIC, ea proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching group of 70% MVIC. * Significant difference from P100, significant difference from P70..


Comparison of ΔAKE over time in each group.

GroupPost6 min15 min
S130a p = 0.010*, p < 0.001, p < 0.001-p = 0.020*
S100b p < 0.001, p < 0.001p = 0.004p = 0.001*
S70c p < 0.001, p < 0.001-p = 0.027*
P100d p < 0.001*p < 0.001*p < 0.001*
P70e p < 0.001* p < 0.001*, p = 0.044p = 0.005*c

AKE, active knee extension; -, no significant difference. a A static stretching group of 130% maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC), ba static stretching group of 100% MVIC, ca static stretching group of 70% MVIC, da proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching group of 100% MVIC, ea proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching group of 70% MVIC. * Significant difference from Baseline, significant difference from 6 minutes, significant difference from 15 minutes..