Department of Neurosciences and Biomedical Technologies, University of Milan Bicocca, Via Cadore 48, 20052 Monza, Milano, Italy.
Clin J Sport Med. 2010 Jan;20(1):8-14. doi: 10.1097/JSM.0b013e3181c96722.
To compare a passive and an active stretching technique to determine which one would produce and maintain the greatest gain in hamstring flexibility. To determine whether a passive or an active stretching technique results in a greater increase in hamstring flexibility and to compare whether the gains are maintained.
Randomized controlled trial.
Institutional.
Sixty-five volunteer healthy subjects completed the enrollment questionnaire, 33 completed the required 75% of the treatment after 6 weeks, and 22 were assessed 4 weeks after the training interruption.
A 6-week stretching program with subjects divided into 2 groups with group 1 performing active stretching exercises and group 2 performing passive stretching exercises.
Range of motion (ROM) was measured after 3 and 6 weeks of training and again 4 weeks after the cessation of training and compared with the initial measurement.
After 3 weeks of training, the mean gain in group 1 (active stretching) on performing the active knee extension range of motion (AKER) test was 5.7 degrees, whereas the mean gain in group 2 (passive stretching) was 3 degrees (P = .015). After 6 weeks of training, the mean gain in group 1 was 8.7 degrees , whereas the mean gain in group 2 was 5.3 degrees (P = .006). Twenty-two subjects were reassessed 4 weeks after the cessation of the training with the maintained gain of ROM in group 1 being 6.3 degrees , whereas the maintained gain in group 2 was 0.1 degrees (P = .003).
Active stretching produced the greater gain in the AKER test, and the gain was almost completely maintained 4 weeks after the end of the training, which was not seen with the passive stretching group. Active stretching was more time efficient compared with the static stretching and needed a lower compliance to produce effects on flexibility.
比较被动拉伸和主动拉伸技术，以确定哪种技术能产生并维持最大的腘绳肌柔韧性增益。确定主动拉伸或被动拉伸技术是否能使腘绳肌柔韧性有更大的提高，并比较这些提高是否能维持。
随机对照试验。
机构。
65 名志愿健康受试者完成了入组问卷，33 名受试者在 6 周后完成了 75%的规定治疗，22 名受试者在训练中断后 4 周进行了评估。
6 周的拉伸计划，将受试者分为两组，一组进行主动拉伸运动，一组进行被动拉伸运动。
运动范围（ROM）在训练 3 周和 6 周后进行测量，并在训练停止后 4 周再次进行测量，并与初始测量值进行比较。
在 3 周的训练后，组 1（主动拉伸）在进行主动膝关节伸展活动范围（AKER）测试时，平均增益为 5.7 度，而组 2（被动拉伸）的平均增益为 3 度（P =.015）。在 6 周的训练后，组 1 的平均增益为 8.7 度，而组 2 的平均增益为 5.3 度（P =.006）。22 名受试者在训练结束后 4 周再次进行评估，组 1 的 ROM 保持增益为 6.3 度，而组 2 的保持增益为 0.1 度（P =.003）。
主动拉伸在 AKER 测试中产生了更大的增益，并且在训练结束后 4 周几乎完全保持了增益，而被动拉伸组则没有看到这种情况。与静态拉伸相比，主动拉伸更节省时间，而且需要较低的依从性才能产生柔韧性的效果。
