Suppr超能文献

主动拉伸技术与静态拉伸技术对腘绳肌柔韧性的比较。

Comparison of active stretching technique and static stretching technique on hamstring flexibility.

机构信息

Department of Neurosciences and Biomedical Technologies, University of Milan Bicocca, Via Cadore 48, 20052 Monza, Milano, Italy.

出版信息

Clin J Sport Med. 2010 Jan;20(1):8-14. doi: 10.1097/JSM.0b013e3181c96722.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

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.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Institutional.

PARTICIPANTS

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.

INTERVENTION

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.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSIONS

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.

摘要

目的

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。

设计

随机对照试验。

设置

机构。

参与者

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。

干预

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。

主要观察指标

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。

结果

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)。

结论

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。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验