Effects of Static Stretching on Repeated

Sprint and Change of Direction Performance

JAMES R. J. BECKETT, KNUT T. SCHNEIKER, KAREN E. WALLMAN, BRIAN T. DAWSON, and KYM J. GUELFI
School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth, AUSTRALIA

ABSTRACT
BECKETT, J. R., K. T. SCHNEIKER, K. E. WALLMAN, B. T. DAWSON, and K. J. GUELFI. Effects of Static Stretching on
Repeated Sprint and Change of Direction Performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 444–450, 2009. Purpose: To
examine the effects of static stretching during the recovery periods of field-based team sports on subsequent repeated sprint ability
(RSA) and change of direction speed (CODS) performance. Methods: On four separate occasions, 12 male team-sport players
performed a standardized warm-up, followed by a test of either RSA or CODS (on two occasions each) in a counterbalanced
design. Both tests involved three sets of six maximal sprint repetitions, with a 4-min recovery between sets. During the break
between sets, the participants either rested (control [CON]) or completed a static stretching protocol (static stretch [SS]). The RSA
test involved straight-line sprints, whereas the CODS test required a change of direction (100-) every 4 m (total of four). Mean,
total (sum of six sprints), first, and best sprint times (MST, TST, FST, and BST, respectively) were recorded for each set. Results:
There was a consistent tendency for RSA times to be slower after the static stretching intervention, which was supported by
statistical significance for three performance variables (MST 0–5 m set 2, MST 0–20 m set 2, and TST set 2; P G 0.05). This
tendency was also supported by moderate effect sizes and qualitative indications of ‘‘likely’’ harmful or detrimental effects associated
with RSA-SS. Further, sprint times again tended to be slower in the CODS-SS trial compared with the CODS-CON across all sprint
variables, with a significantly slower (P G 0.05) BST recorded for set 3 after static stretching. Conclusion: These results suggest that
an acute bout (4 min) of static stretching of the lower limbs during recovery periods between efforts may compromise RSA
performance but has less effect on CODS performance. Key Words: WARM-UP, REPEATED SPRINT ABILITY, AGILITY,
INTERMITTENT HIGH-INTENSITY EXERCISE

S
tatic stretching is generally considered an integral spersed with brief, mostly active, recovery periods in bet-
component of sport conditioning programs and ween efforts (5,22). In addition, team-sport performance
APPLIED SCIENCES

preexercise warm-up routines (13). This type of
stretching is often practiced in the belief that it assists
athletic performance, reduces the risk of injury, and de-
creases muscle soreness resulting from strenuous activity
(13,23). However, recent research has challenged some of
these beliefs regarding the benefits of static stretching. In
particular, studies have shown static stretching to induce
significant acute deficits in muscular power (14,24), torque
(6,14), force (19,26), and maximal strength (11) as well as
jump (4,7,25), sprint (8,17), and agility performance (15).
Of importance, these studies have typically involved only
a single sprint or power effort. Yet, field-based team sports
such as rugby, field hockey, soccer, and Australian football
require players to perform multiple maximal sprints inter-
Address for correspondence: Karen Elizabeth Wallman, Ph.D.,
School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health, University of Western
Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Perth, Australia;
E-mail: kwallman@cyllene.uwa.edu.au.
Submitted for publication March 2008.
Accepted for publication July 2008.
0195-9131/09/4102-0444/0
MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS & EXERCISEÒ
Copyright Ó 2009 by the American College of Sports Medicine
DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181867b95
requires many changes of direction while sprinting (5,10,22).
Although an investigation into the effect of static stretching
on this performance parameter has shown impaired perfor-
mance compared with a dynamic warm-up (15), others have
observed no effect of static stretching on agility when
incorporated into a warm-up routine (12). Furthermore, no
studies have examined the effect of conducting static stretc-
hing within the performance activity (i.e., during recovery
periods between efforts such as during interchange or breaks
in play). Therefore, it is still unknown whether static stretc-
hing at these times is detrimental to the performance of
repeated maximal efforts.
Other limitations of previous research include the use of
protocols that are not representative of typical warm-up
methods used by athletes in performance settings. For
example, the total stretch durations implemented in previous
studies range from 90 s (11) to 30 min per muscle group (9),
when in practice, mean stretch time is 10–20 s per muscle
group, repeated two to three times (1). Also, some studies
have applied static stretching in isolation of other warm-up
components that are normally performed such as aerobic
activity and dynamic drills (3).
The objective of this study was to determine the effect of
static stretching during recovery periods between efforts on
repeated sprint ability (RSA) and also repeated change of

444

Copyright @ 2009 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
direction speed (CODS) performance while closely emu-
lating typical stretching practices. It was hypothesized that
RSA and CODS performance would be significantly slower
after static stretching in comparison to passive rest. In ad-
dition, it was hypothesized that any deficit in RSA per-
formance would be most evident in the first 5 m of the
sprint given that muscular force production requirements
are greatest during the initial takeoff phase of a sprint (16).
METHODS
Participants. Twelve healthy, uninjured males (mean T
SD: age = 23 T 4 yr; height = 178.7 T 5.8 cm; body mass =
72.8 T 5.9 kg) were recruited as participants. All were regular
team-sport players (soccer, n = 6; Australian football, n = 4;
rugby, n = 2; and field hockey, n = 1) and were tested
toward the end of their respective competitive seasons.
Institutional ethics approval and individual written informed
consent were obtained before the commencement of testing.
Research design. Participants attended the outdoor
laboratory on five occasions, each separated by approximately
1 wk (7 T 1 d). The first visit involved familiarization with the
RSA and the CODS tests as well as the warm-up and stretch-
ing protocols to be used in the experimental trials. On the
remaining four occasions, participants were required to
perform a standardized warm-up followed by either the RSA
or the CODS performance test on two occasions each. Both
tests involved three sets (of six repetitions each) with a 4-min
recovery between sets. During the break between sets, one of
the following conditions was applied: control (CON) in which
participants were required to stand and rest or static stretch
(SS) in which participants were required to complete a
4-min static stretching protocol. The four experimental trials
(RSA-CON, RSA-SS, CODS-CON, and CODS-SS) were
administered randomly using a Latin square design. Each
participant was tested at the same time of day across all trials
to control for circadian variability. Participants were asked to
abstain from intense physical activity for 48 h before testing.
Warm-up. Each trial was commenced with a standardized
warm-up consisting of general aerobic activity, dynamic
activities, and run-throughs. The aerobic activity consisted of
5 min of submaximal jogging performed outdoors on a 40-m
marked grass track (20 laps maintaining a pace of 15 s per
lap or È9.6 kmIhj1). The dynamic activities involved sports-
specific movements, including 80 m each of buttock kicks,
high knee lifts, and straight leg skipping, followed by four
40-m laps of carioca, alternating direction each lap. Run-
throughs consisted of three repetitions of the applicable test
(RSA or CODS) conducted at progressively increasing
speeds (60%, 80%, and 100% of perceived maximum).
Participants then walked five laps of a 40-m track in 3 min
(È4 kmIhj1) followed by 1 min of passive rest.
Static stretching protocol. The static stretching
protocol implemented during the RSA-SS and the CODS-
SS trials consisted of a total of six static stretches, each
STATIC STRETCHING AND PERFORMANCE
Copyright @ 2009 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
targeting the prime movers of the lower extremities
(hamstrings, quadriceps, gastrocnemius, soleus, hip flexors,
and adductors, respectively). All stretches were held to the
point of slight discomfort (not pain) for a period of 20 s per
muscle group per limb (with the exception of the adductor
stretch which targeted both limbs simultaneously).
Repeated sprint ability (RSA) test. The RSA test
consisted of three sets of 6  20-m maximal sprints, going
every 25 s, with an active recovery between sprints (i.e., jog
back to start position). The test was performed on an outdoor
grass surface to replicate typical team-sport conditions. A
20-m sprint distance was chosen as it approximates the
mean sprint distance in common field-based team sports
(22). Participants were given strong verbal encouragement
throughout all trials to ensure maximal effort for each sprint.
Each set of the RSA test was separated by a 4-min recovery
period during which the experimental stretching or control
intervention was administered. Sprint times were recorded
using electronic timing gates (Fusion Sport Smart Speed,
Wales, UK) located at the start and finish lines. In addition,
5- and 10-m split times were recorded. For the six sprints
completed in each set, both mean sprint time (MST) and total
sprint time (TST; sum of six sprints) were subsequently
determined. Other performance measures included the first
(FST) and the best sprint time (BST) of each set. The typical
error and the coefficient of variance for one set of 6  20 m
were 0.060 s and 1.8%, respectively, whereas for best 20-m
time were 0.19 s and 1.1%, respectively.
Change of direction speed (CODS) perfor-
mance test. The CODS performance test consisted of three
sets of 6  20 m maximal sprints, going every 25 s with an
APPLIED SCIENCES
active jog back recovery between efforts. The test was
performed on an outdoor grass surface and included four
changes of direction, each 100-, with 4 m of straight-line
sprinting before and after each turn (Fig. 1). These relatively
tight turns were chosen to maximize participant reliance on
acceleration and deceleration while maintaining the angle of
the change in direction similar to that commonly observed
in the field (5,10). Participants were again given strong
verbal encouragement to ensure maximal effort, and all sets
were separated by a 4-min recovery period during which the
experimental stretching or control intervention was
administered. Similar to the RSA test, sprint times for the
CODS test were recorded using electronic timing gates
located at the start and finish lines. For the six sprints
completed in each set, both MST and TST were determined
as well as FST and BST. After completing all four
experimental trials, participants were asked to nominate
FIGURE 1—CODS performance test.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercised 445
 whether they preferred the stretch or the no-stretch protocol
during the recovery periods between sets.
Statistical analysis. Repeated-measures ANOVA was
used to compare RSA and CODS performance both within
(set 1 vs set 2 vs set 3) and between the two experimental
conditions (SS vs CON), with post hoc analyses (Fisher’s
least significant difference) used where appropriate. The
data from set 1 were excluded from the assessment of
between treatment effects because the intervention (SS or
CON) was not administered until after set 1 of the sprints.
These analyses were carried out using the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences for Windows (version 13;
SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL), and statistical significance was set
at P G 0.05. In addition, trends in performance were
interpreted using Cohen’s d effect sizes (pooled SD) and
thresholds (G0.4, small; 0.4–0.7, moderate; 90.7, strong).
Smallest worthwhile effects were also calculated for all
variables to determine the likelihood that the true effect was
substantially beneficial, trivial, or harmful (detrimental).
The threshold value for smallest worthwhile change in 20-m
sprint time was set at 0.8% (18), whereas CODS times were
set at 0.2 (Cohen’s units) (21). If both benefit and harm
were calculated to be 95%, the true effect was assessed as
unclear. Where clear interpretation could be made, chances
of benefit or harm (called detriment in this manuscript)
were assessed as follows: G1%, almost certainly not; 1–
5%, very unlikely; 5–25%, unlikely; 25–75%, possibly; 75–
95%, likely; 95–99%, very likely; and 999%, almost
certainly (2).
RESULTS
APPLIED SCIENCES
cantly slower than set 1 for both RSA-CON (P = 0.026) and
RSA-SS trials (P = 0.033). Between trials, MST for each set
was consistently slower in the RSA-SS trial after the
stretching protocol. Although this was not a statistically
significant main effect, post hoc analysis revealed that MST
was significantly slower in set 2 over the 0- to 5-m and the
0- to 20-m sprint splits in the RSA-SS trial compared with
the RSA-CON (P = 0.044 and 0.031, respectively). The
qualitative analysis supported this finding with a moderate
effect size (d = 0.40) and a ‘‘likely’’ (91%) detrimental
effect for RSA-SS compared with RSA-CON over the first
5 m of the sprints in set 2. Qualitative analysis also revealed
‘‘likely’’ detrimental effects associated with RSA-SS for
20-m sprint times (0–20 m) in set 2 (83%) and 0- to 5-m
split times in set 3 (80%) compared with RSA-CON.
Total sprint time (TST). Similar to MST, TST
increased (became slower) in set 2 compared with set 1 in
the RSA-SS trial, whereas set 3 was slower than set 1 for
both RSA-SS and RSA-CON (Table 1). Between trials,
TST for set 2 was found to be significantly slower in RSA-
SS compared with RSA-CON (P = 0.031). Further,
qualitative analysis supported this finding with a ‘‘likely’’
(83%) detrimental effect associated with RSA-SS compared
with RSA-CON. No other differences were noted between
trials for TST.
First and best sprint times (FST and BST). The
split times for FST and BST of the RSA test are presented
in Table 2. There was no significant within-trial effect for
either FST or BST. Likewise, there was no statistical
difference in these variables between treatments. However,
the qualitative analysis suggested that there was a tendency

for FST to be slower in RSA-SS with moderate effect

Repeated Sprint Ability
Mean sprint time (MST). The MST for the RSA test
are presented in Table 1. Within trials, MST increased
(i.e., became slower) in set 2 compared with set 1 for the
RSA-SS trial (P = 0.006). In addition, set 3 was signifi-
sizes and ‘‘likely’’ detrimental effects for FST in set 2
(0–5 m; d = 0.49; 80%) and set 3 (5–10 m; d = 0.50; 93%).
The results for BST were less conclusive with qualitative
indications (moderate effect sizes and both ‘‘likely’’
detrimental and beneficial effects) for slower BST with

TABLE 1. Repeated sprint ability (RSA) average and TST for each set of the control (CON) and static stretch (SS) trials (mean T SD).
RSA-SS vs RSA-CON
Mean Change (%) T 90% % Chance Beneficial
RSA-CON RSA-SS Cohen’s d Confidence Interval* (Trivial/Detrimental)
MST (s)
Set 1 0–5 m 1.15 T 0.08 1.16 T 0.04 —
5–10 m 0.79 T 0.03 0.79 T 0.03 —
10–20 m 1.42 T 0.06 1.41 T 0.06 —
0–20 m 3.38 T 0.15 3.38 T 0.11 —
Set 2 0–5 m 1.15 T 0.07 1.18 T 0.08†‡ 0.40 2.4 T 1.9 1 (8/91)
5–10 m 0.79 T 0.04 0.80 T 0.03† 0.28 0.5 T 1.9 12 (50/39)
10–20 m 1.43 T 0.07 1.44 T 0.07† 0.14 0.8 T 1.3 2 (49/48)
0–20 m 3.38 T 0.15 3.42 T 0.15†‡ 0.27 1.4 T 1.0 1 (16/83)
Set 3 0–5 m 1.15 T 0.07‡ 1.18 T 0.06‡ 0.46 2.0 T 2.4 3 (17/80)
5–10 m 0.81 T 0.04‡ 0.81 T 0.04‡ 0.00 0.4 T 1.2 6 (67/27)
10–20 m 1.44 T 0.07‡ 1.44 T 0.08‡ 0.00 0.1 T 1.6 15 (61/24)
0–20 m 3.42 T 0.15‡ 3.44 T 0.17‡ 0.12 0.7 T 1.5 4 (49/47)
TST (s) Set 1 20.25 T 0.89 20.27 T 0.68 —
Set 2 20.27 T 0.91 20.54 T 0.88†‡ 0.30 1.4 T 1.0 1 (16/83)
Set 3 20.51 T 0.91‡ 20.67 T 1.00‡ 0.17 0.7 T 1.5 4 (49/47)
* Where a positive percent change equates to an increase in time in RSA-SS condition.
† Significant difference from RSA-CON trial (P G 0.05).
‡ Significant difference from set 1 (P G 0.05).

446 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine http://www.acsm-msse.org

Copyright @ 2009 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
TABLE 2. Repeated sprint ability (RSA) FST and BST for each set of the control (CON) and static stretch (SS) trials (mean T SD).
RSA-SS vs RSA-CON
Mean Change (%) T 90% % Chance Beneficial
RSA-CON RSA-SS Cohen’s d Confidence Intervala (Trivial/Detrimental)
FST (s) Set 1 0–5 m 1.15 T 0.09 1.15 T 0.06 —
5–10 m 0.76 T 0.04 0.77 T 0.04 —
10–20 m 1.37 T 0.06 1.35 T 0.06 —
0–20 m 3.29 T 0.16 3.28 T 0.10 —
Set 2 0–5 m 1.13 T 0.05 1.16 T 0.07 0.49 2.3 T 3.1 5 (15/80)
5–10 m 0.76 T 0.03 0.75 T 0.04 0.28 j1.4 T 1.7 72 (26/2)
10–20 m 1.35 T 0.06 1.37 T 0.05 0.36 1.4 T 2.2 5 (26/69)
0–20 m 3.26 T 0.10 3.29 T 0.13 0.26 1.1 T 1.4 2 (35/63)
Set 3 0–5 m 1.13 T 0.09 1.14 T 0.09 0.11 0.5 T 2.7 20 (37/43)
5–10 m 0.77 T 0.04 0.79 T 0.04 0.50 3.1 T 2.7 1 (6/93)
10–20 m 1.36 T 0.06 1.38 T 0.06 0.33 1.5 T 2.2 5 (25/70)
0–20 m 3.27 T 0.15 3.32 T 0.15 0.33 1.4 T 1.7 2 (24/74)
BST (s) Set 1 0–5 m 1.12 T 0.08 1.12 T 0.05 —
5–10 m 0.77 T 0.05 0.77 T 0.05 —
10–20 m 1.36 T 0.05 1.35 T 0.06 —
0–20 m 3.26 T 0.14 3.26 T 0.1 —
Set 2 0–5 m 1.12 T 0.06 1.15 T 0.07 0.46 2.5 T 3.2 4 (13/83)
5–10 m 0.77 T 0.03 0.75 T 0.04 0.57 j2.5 T 2.1 91 (8/1)
10–20 m 1.35 T 0.06 1.36 T 0.06 0.17 0.7 T 2.0 9 (43/48)
0–20 m 3.24 T 0.12 3.28 T 0.13 0.32 1.1 T 2.6 2 (34/64)
Set 3 0–5 m 1.11 T 0.06 1.12 T 0.04 0.20 0.5 T 2.2 16 (43/41)
5–10 m 0.78 T 0.05 0.79 T 0.05 0.20 1.8 T 2.8 6 (21/73)
10–20 m 1.37 T 0.08 1.38 T 0.07 0.13 1.2 T 1.5 2 (30/68)
0–20 m 3.26 T 0.16 3.30 T 0.13 0.27 1.3 T 1.6 2 (28/70)
a
Where a positive % change equates to an increase in time in RSA-SS condition.
* Significant difference from RSA-CON trial (P G 0.05).
† Significant difference from set 1 (P G 0.05).

RSA-SS over the first 5 m of the sprint in set 2 but faster with set 1 in CODS-SS (FST, P = 0.002 and 0.007, re-
BST over 5–10 m in the same set. spectively; BST, P = 0.026 and 0.015, respectively).
Between trials, FST was consistently slower for CODS-SS
Change of Direction Speed compared with CODS-CON in sets 2 and 3; however, this
was not supported by statistical or qualitative analysis. For
Mean and total sprint times (MST and TST). The
BST, CODS time for set 3 in the SS condition was sig-
results for CODS are presented in Table 3. There was no
nificantly slower in comparison to CON (P = 0.035), but no

significant difference in MST or TST within or between
treatments. Although there was a consistent pattern for
slower sprint times in sets 2 and 3 for CODS-SS compared
with CODS-CON, this was not supported by statistical or
qualitative analysis.
First and best sprint times (FST and BST). There
was no difference between sets 1, 2, and 3 for either FST
or BST during the CODS-CON trial. In contrast, both FST
and BST were significantly slower in sets 2 and 3 compared
APPLIED SCIENCES
qualitative analyses supported this result.
Stretching Preferences
Participant responses recorded after the final testing
session revealed that 50% of participants preferred to
stretch during recovery periods, whereas the remaining
50% preferred not to stretch. The effect of static stretching
on the performance (TST of sets 2 and 3 combined) of each

TABLE 3. Change of direction speed (CODS) sprint times (mean [MST], total [TST], first [FST], and best [BST]) for each set of the control (CON) and static stretch (SS) trials
(mean T SD).
CODS-SS vs CODS-CON
Mean % Change T 90% % Change Beneficial
CODS-CON CODS-SS Cohen’s d Confidence Interval* (Trivial/Detrimental)
MST (s) Set 1 6.83 T 0.32 6.80 T 0.43 —
Set 2 6.83 T 0.41 6.86 T 0.43 0.07 0.07 T 0.28 5 (73/22)
Set 3 6.89 T 0.44 6.99 T 0.50 0.21 0.22 T 0.18 1 (42/57)
TST (s) Set 1 40.97 T 1.90 40.77 T 2.55 —
Set 2 40.98 T 2.43 41.16 T 2.60 0.07 0.07 T 0.28 5 (73/22)
Set 3 41.37 T 2.65 41.95 T 3.02 0.20 0.22 T 0.18 1 (42/57)
FST (s) Set 1 6.69 T 0.38 6.62 T 0.42 —
Set 2 6.73 T 0.42 6.76 T 0.44† 0.07 0.06 T 0.36 11 (63/26)
Set 3 6.72 T 0.47 6.81 T 0.46† 0.19 0.19 T 0.23 1 (54/45)
BST (s) Set 1 6.61 T 0.29 6.61 T 0.43 —
Set 2 6.67 T 0.39 6.67 T 0.42† 0.00 0.01 T 0.26 9 (81/10)
Set 3 6.66 T 0.43 6.77 T 0.45‡† 0.25 0.25 T 0.19 0 (31/69)
a
Where a positive % change equates to an increase in time in RSA-SS condition.
* Significant difference from CODS-CON trial (P G 0.05).
‡ Significant difference from set 1 (P G 0.05).

STATIC STRETCHING AND PERFORMANCE Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercised 447

Copyright @ 2009 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

FIGURE 2—The effect of static stretching on RSA (circles) and CODS
(squares) performance (combined total sprint time [TST] for sets 2 and
3) for each individual participant. Results are expressed as the
difference from CON when SS was performed (i.e., positive values
represent slower performance with SS, whereas negative results
indicate faster performance). Open symbols indicate individuals that
preferred to stretch during recovery periods between repeated bouts,
whereas filled symbols indicate individuals preferring not to stretch.
individual participant depending on their preference is
shown in Figure 2. Of the six participants preferring to
stretch during recovery periods, four performed better in the
RSA test (faster TST of sets 2 and 3) when they completed
the control (no-stretching) protocol. With respect to CODS
performance, of the six participants preferring to stretch,
three performed better in the stretching condition whereas
the other 3 individuals performed worse.
APPLIED SCIENCES
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of
static stretching during the recovery periods in field-based
team sports (i.e., during interchange or breaks in play) on
subsequent RSA and CODS performance, two fundamental
determinants of team-sport success. In doing so, ecological
validity was emphasized by using stretching and testing
protocols that reflect actual practice. It was hypothesized
that both RSA and CODS performance would be impaired
(particularly in the first 5-m acceleration phase for RSA)
when static stretching was conducted between testing sets.
This hypothesis was based on existing literature which sug-
gests that the performance of tasks that are highly reliant
on muscular force and power is attenuated after acute bouts
of static stretching (14,19,24,26).
With respect to RSA, there was a consistent tendency for
sprint times to be slower after the static stretching
intervention. Although this was not supported by statistical
significance across all measures (only MST for 0–5 m set 2;
MST for 0–20 m set 2; TST set 2 and BST set 3; and RSA-
SS significantly slower than RSA-CON), it is interesting to
note that in all the performance data collected, only the 5- to
10-m split times for FST and BST in set 2 were faster after
the static stretching intervention. In all other measures,
448 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine
Copyright @ 2009 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
static stretching resulted in either equal or, more commonly,
slower sprint times. This tendency for slower sprint times
after static stretching was also supported by moderate to
large effect sizes and qualitative analyses that indicated
‘‘likely’’ detrimental effects for several measures (see
Tables 1 and 2). Taken together, these results suggest that
it may be preferable to avoid static stretching during
recovery periods for optimal RSA performance.
Likewise, there was a consistent tendency for sprint times
to be slower in the CODS-SS trial compared with the
CODS-CON, with all performance measures being slower
in CODS-SS, except for BST set 2, which resulted in equal
times. Further, results for BST (set 3) were significantly
slower after static stretching. However, unlike the results for
RSA, there were no moderate or strong effect sizes or
‘‘likely’’ detrimental effects associated with CODS-SS.
The lack of statistically significant differences between
trials across all measures may have been limited by the
testing protocols used in the present study. In both tests
(RSA and CODS), participants were required to perform six
repeated maximal efforts going every 25 s with active (jog
back) recovery in between. Rosenbaum and Henning (20)
demonstrated that the addition of further dynamic activities,
poststatic stretching, may reduce any stretching-induced
impairment in performance. This premise is supported by
Little and Williams (12), who suggested that extra muscle
activity after stretching may reverse any decrease in muscle
compliance and neural drive associated with static stretch-
ing. Based on this, it is possible that the testing protocols
themselves may have been sufficient dynamic activity to
dampen any significant detrimental effect of stretching on
both RSA and CODS performance. In addition, it is
possible that as fatigue developed during the repeated-sprint
protocols used in this study (as shown by the significantly
slower sprint times in set 3 compared with set 1 within
trials), any effects of static stretching may have been at-
tenuated. This may assist in explaining the significantly
slower MST noted during the RSA-SS trial for set 2 but
not for set 3.
The hypothesis that any deficits in RSA performance
would be more evident in the first 5 m of the sprints is
supported to some extent by the present results. MST for the
first 5 m in set 2 was significantly slower in RSA-SS com-
pared with RSA-CON, whereas no difference was noted for
the 5- to 10-m and the 10- to 20-m splits. Although no
statistical difference was noted over the first 5 m for set 3, the
qualitative analysis did reveal a moderate effect size and a
‘‘likely’’ detrimental effect associated with RSA-SS. Like-
wise, moderate effect sizes and ‘‘likely’’ detrimental effects
were found over the first 5 m for FST and BST in set 2 when
stretching was included during the recovery period. These
results support the contention that any detrimental effects of
static stretching on sprint ability may be largely due to an
impairment of the force producing capacity of the muscles of
the lower limb during the initial takeoff. However, the
reduction in TST as a result of reduced acceleration during
http://www.acsm-msse.org
the first 5 m may be insignificant when measuring sprint
times over distances of 20 m or more. This may be partly
responsible for the discrepancy between results from pre-
vious investigations that have examined the effect of static
stretching on performance tests involving brief, isolated
muscular efforts, such as vertical jumps, compared with
tests involving multiple efforts over a longer time span
such as a sprint.
This is the first study to examine the effects of static
stretching during recovery periods on subsequent sprint
performance. Previous research has focused on the effects
of static stretching as part of the warm-up rather than within
the performance. Also, previous research has predominantly
examined the effect of static stretching on a single sprint or
CODS movement rather than repeated sprint activities. For
instance, Fletcher and Jones (8) observed significantly
slower 20-m sprint times after passive stretching. Similarly,
Nelson et al. (17) reported significantly slower 20-m sprint
times after four sets of three passive stretches each lasting
30 s compared with a no-stretching condition. However,
such past studies have typically implemented longer stretch
durations than commonly prescribed (17), along with static
stretching performed in isolation of other warm-up activities
and performance tests being conducted immediately after
stretching (8).
In contrast to the abovementioned studies suggesting a
negative effect of static stretching on single sprint ability, the
same is not so for CODS (or agility). The lack of statistical
evidence to support an effect of static stretching on CODS
performance in the present study is in agreement with the
findings of Little and Williams (12), who observed similar
agility performance when a warm-up involving static
stretching was compared with warm-up excluding stretch-
ing. Likewise, Faigenbaum et al. (7) found no significant
difference in proagility run times after static stretching.
These authors suggested that change of direction perfor-
REFERENCES
1. American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM’s Resource Manual
for Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. 5th ed. Baltimore
(MD): Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2006. p. 363.
2. Batterham AM, Hopkins WG. Making meaningful inferences
about magnitudes. Sportscience. 2005;9:6–13.
3. Bishop D. Warm up II: performance changes following active
warm up and how to structure the warm up. Sports Med. 2003;33:
483–98.
4. Bradley PS, Olsen PD, Portas MD. The effect of static, ballistic,
and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching on ver-
tical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21:223–6.
5. Dawson B, Hopkinson R, Appleby B, Stewart G, Roberts C.
Player movement patterns and game activities in the Australian
Football League. J Sci Med Sport. 2004;7:278–91.
6. Evetovich TK, Nauman NJ, Conley DS, Todd JB. Effect of static
stretching of the biceps brachii on torque, electromyography, and
mechanomyography during concentric isokinetic muscle actions.
J Strength Cond Res. 2003;17:484–8.
7. Faigenbaum AD, Bellucci M, Bernieri A, Bakker B, Hoorens K.
STATIC STRETCHING AND PERFORMANCE
Copyright @ 2009 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
mance is less likely to be affected by the design of the
warm-up given the high involvement of complex motor-
performance skills. Therefore, it is possible that any effects
of static stretching on the CODS task in the present study
may have been overshadowed by the complexity of the
task.
Of interest, half of the participants preferred to stretch
during recovery periods between efforts, whereas the re-
maining half did not. It is possible that there is a psy-
chological influence on performance when individuals
are forced to act in opposition to their preference. For
instance, those that prefer to stretch may tend to perform
worse when they are forced to omit stretching from their
normal routine. To explore this issue, each individual par-
ticipant’s TST (sum of sets 2 and 3) was plotted along
with their preference; however, no obvious patterns were
evident. That is, whether participants preferred to stretch or
not did not seem to impact their individual performance.
In conclusion, after a precompetition warm-up similar to
that used in field-based team sports, an acute bout (4 min)
of static stretching of the lower limbs during recovery
periods between efforts may compromise RSA performance
but may have less effect on CODS performance. Given the
consistent tendency for slower sprint times for both RSA
and CODS after static stretching during recovery periods, it
may be preferable to avoid static stretching during recovery
periods for optimal performance in these aspects of a team
game. However, it is important to note that team sports
involve several complex tasks and other athletic abilities,
and consequently static stretching is unlikely to have a sig-
nificant negative impact on the final outcome of a game.
APPLIED SCIENCES
The results of this study do not constitute endorsement by
ACSM.
Acute effects of different warm-up protocols on fitness perform-
ance in children. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19:376–81.
8. 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;18:885–8.
9. Fowles JR, Sale DG, MacDougall JD. Reduced strength after
passive stretch of the human plantar flexors. J Appl Physiol. 2000;
89:1179–88.
10. Keogh JW, Weber CL, Dalton CT. Evaluation of anthropom-
etric, physiological, and skill-related tests for talent identifica-
tion in female field hockey. Can J Appl Physiol. 2003;28:
397–409.
11. Kokkonen J, Nelson AG, Cornwell A. Acute muscle stretching in-
hibits maximal strength performance. Res Q Exerc Sport.
1998;69:411–5.
12. 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;20:203–7.
13. Magnusson SP, Renstrom P. The European college of sports
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercised 449
 science position statement: the role of stretching in sports. Eur J
Sports Sci. 2006;6:87–91.
14. Marek SM, Cramer JT, Fincher AL, et al. Acute effects of static
and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching on
muscle strength and power output. J Athl Train. 2005;40:94–103.
15. McMillian DJ, Moore JH, Hatler BS, Taylor DC. Dynamic vs.
static-stretching warm up: the effect on power and agility
performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2006;20:492–9.
16. Mero A, Komi PV, Gregor RJ. Biomechanics of sprint running. A
review. Sports Med. 1992;13:376–92.
17. Nelson AG, Driscoll NM, Landin DK, Young MA, Schexnayder
IC. Acute effects of passive muscle stretching on sprint perfor-
mance. J Sports Sci. 2005;23:449–54.
18. Paton CD, Hopkins WG, Vollebregt L. Little effect of caffeine
ingestion on repeated sprints in team-sport athletes. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 2001;33(5):822–5.
19. Power K, Behm D, Cahill F, Carroll M, Young W. An acute bout
of static stretching: effects on force and jumping performance.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(8):1389–96.
20. Rosenbaum D, Hennig EM. The influence of stretching and
warm-up exercises on Achilles tendon reflex activity. J Sports Sci.
1995;13:481–90.
APPLIED SCIENCES
450 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine
Copyright @ 2009 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
21. Snowling NJ, Hopkins WG. Effects of different modes of exercise
training on glucose control and risk factors for complications in
type 2 diabetic patients: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Care. 2006;29:
2518–27.
22. Spencer M, Lawrence S, Rechichi C, Bishop D, Dawson B,
Goodman C. Time-motion analysis of elite field hockey, with
special reference to repeated-sprint activity. J Sports Sci. 2004;22:
843–50.
23. Witvrouw E, Mahieu N, Danneels L, McNair P. Stretching and
injury prevention: an obscure relationship. Sports Med. 2004;34:
443–9.
24. Yamaguchi T, Ishii K, Yamanaka M, Yasuda K. Acute effect of
static stretching on power output during concentric dynamic
constant external resistance leg extension. J Strength Cond Res.
2006;20:804–10.
25. Young W, Elliott S. Acute effects of static stretching, proprio-
ceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching, and maximum
voluntary contractions on explosive force production and jumping
performance. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2001;72:273–9.
26. Young WB, Behm DG. Effects of running, static stretching and
practice jumps on explosive force production and jumping
performance. J Sports Med Phys Fit. 2003;43:21–7.
http://www.acsm-msse.org