Fasen Jo M, O'Connor Annie M, Schwartz Susan L, Watson John O, Plastaras Chris T, Garvan Cynthia W, Bulcao Creso, Johnson Stephen C, Akuthota Venu
Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Mar;23(2):660-7. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318198fbd1.
This study compared the efficacy of 4 different hamstring-stretching techniques. Flexibility can be achieved by a variety of stretching techniques, yet little research has been performed on the most effective method. The 2 basic types include active stretching, in which range of motion is increased through voluntary contraction, and passive stretching, in which range of motion is increased through external assistance. The 2 types of active stretching include neuromobilization and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF). Our study aims to determine which type of stretching technique is most effective in improving hamstring length. One hundred subjects between the ages of 21 and 57 were enrolled in the study. Intrarater reliability of hamstring length measurement was performed using 10 subjects. All 100 subjects were included in a randomized controlled trial of 5 different groups comparing different hamstring-stretching techniques. Outcome measures, including hamstring length and perceived level of hamstring tightness, were recorded on all subjects initially, at 4 weeks, and at 8 weeks. After 4 weeks of stretching, there was a statistically significant improvement in hamstring length (p < 0.05) using active stretches as compared with passive stretches. From weeks 4 through 8, hamstring length for the active stretching groups decreased. After 8 weeks of stretching, the straight leg raise (SLR) passive stretch group had the greatest improvement in hamstring length. There was no correlation between hamstring flexibility and age, initial tightness, or frequency of exercise per week. Improvement in hamstring flexibility was greatest for the SLR passive stretch. Also, using PNF in the 90/90 active stretch provided better knee range-of-motion improvements than the 90/90 passive methods did.
本研究比较了4种不同的腘绳肌拉伸技术的疗效。多种拉伸技术均可实现灵活性，但对于最有效的方法却鲜有研究。两种基本类型包括主动拉伸，即通过自主收缩增加运动范围；以及被动拉伸，即通过外部辅助增加运动范围。两种主动拉伸类型包括神经松动术和本体感觉神经肌肉促进法（PNF）。我们的研究旨在确定哪种拉伸技术在改善腘绳肌长度方面最有效。100名年龄在21至57岁之间的受试者参与了该研究。使用10名受试者进行了腘绳肌长度测量的组内信度分析。所有100名受试者都纳入了一项随机对照试验，该试验分为5个不同组，比较不同的腘绳肌拉伸技术。在所有受试者最初、4周和8周时记录包括腘绳肌长度和腘绳肌紧绷感在内的结果指标。在进行4周的拉伸后，与被动拉伸相比，使用主动拉伸时腘绳肌长度有统计学上的显著改善（p < 0.05）。从第4周到第8周，主动拉伸组的腘绳肌长度下降。在进行8周的拉伸后，直腿抬高（SLR）被动拉伸组的腘绳肌长度改善最大。腘绳肌灵活性与年龄、初始紧绷程度或每周锻炼频率之间没有相关性。SLR被动拉伸在腘绳肌灵活性改善方面最为显著。此外，在90/90主动拉伸中使用PNF比90/90被动方法在改善膝关节活动范围方面效果更好。
