Department of Physical Therapy, School of Allied Health Sciences, University of Nevada Las Vegas, USA.
Phys Ther Sport. 2011 Aug;12(3):122-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2011.02.006. Epub 2011 Apr 15.
To compare the immediate effects of a hold-relax proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching (HR-PNF) versus static stretch (SS) on hamstring flexibility in healthy, asymptomatic subjects.
Thirty subjects (13 female; mean age 25.7 ± 3.0, range 22-37) without excessive hamstring muscle flexibility were randomly assigned to one of two stretch groups: HR-PNF or SS.
The left leg was treated as a control and did not receive any intervention. The right leg was measured for ROM pre- and post-stretch interventions, with subjects receiving randomly assigned interventions one week apart. Data were analyzed with a 3 (intervention: HR-PNF, SS, control) × 2 (time: pre and post) factorial ANOVA with repeated measures and appropriate post-hoc analyses.
A significant interaction was observed between intervention and time for hamstring extensibility, F(2,58) = 25.229, p < .0005. Main effect of intervention for the tested leg was not significant, p = .782 indicating that there was no difference between the two stretch conditions. However, main effect for time was significant (p < .0005), suggesting that hamstring extensibility (for both stretching conditions) after intervention was greater than before.
No significant differences were found when comparing the effectiveness of HR-PNF and SS techniques. Both stretching methods resulted in significant immediate increases in hamstring length.
比较主动肌牵伸神经肌肉促进技术（HR-PNF）与静态拉伸（SS）对健康、无症状受试者腘绳肌柔韧性的即刻影响。
30 名受试者（13 名女性；平均年龄 25.7±3.0，范围 22-37），无过度腘绳肌柔韧性，随机分为 HR-PNF 或 SS 两组。
左腿作为对照，不接受任何干预。右腿在拉伸干预前后测量 ROM，受试者每周接受一次随机分组干预。采用 3（干预：HR-PNF、SS、对照）×2（时间：预和后）重复测量方差分析和适当的事后分析对数据进行分析。
干预和时间对腘绳肌伸展性的交互作用有显著差异，F（2，58）=25.229，p<0.0005。受试腿的干预主效应不显著，p=0.782，表明两种拉伸条件之间没有差异。然而，时间的主效应是显著的（p<0.0005），表明干预后腘绳肌伸展性（两种拉伸条件）大于干预前。
比较 HR-PNF 和 SS 技术的有效性时，未发现显著差异。两种拉伸方法均能显著即刻增加腘绳肌长度。
