Budini Francesco, Rafolt Dietmar, Christova Monica, Gallasch Eugen, Tilp Markus
Institute for Sport Science, Graz University, Graz, Austria.
Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Front Physiol. 2020 Aug 4;11:905. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2020.00905. eCollection 2020.
It is often suggested that stretching-related changes in performance can be partially attributed to stretching-induced neural alterations. Recent evidence though shows that neither spinal nor cortico-spinal excitability are susceptible of a long-lasting effect and only the amplitude of stretch or tap reflex (TR) is reduced up to several minutes. Since afferents from muscle spindles contribute to voluntary muscle contractions, muscle stretching could be detrimental to muscle performance. However, the inhibition of muscle spindle sensitivity should be reversed as soon as the stretched muscle contracts again, due to α-γ co-activation. The present work evaluated which type of muscle contraction (static or dynamic) promotes the best recovery from the inhibition in spindle sensitivity following static stretching. Fifteen students were tested for TR at baseline and after 30 s maximal individual static stretching of the ankle plantar flexors followed by one of three randomized interventions (isometric plantar flexor MVC, three counter movement jumps, and no contraction/control). Ten TRs before and 20 after the procedures were induced with intervals of 30 s up to 10 min after static stretching. The size of the evoked TRs (peak to peak amplitude of the EMG signal) following stretching without a subsequent contraction (control) was on average reduced by 20% throughout the 10 min following the intervention and did not show a recovery trend. Significant decrease in relation to baseline were observed at 9 of the 20 time points measured. After MVC of plantar flexors, TR recovered immediately showing no differences with baseline at none of the investigated time points. Following three counter movement jumps it was observed a significant 34.4% group average inhibition ( < 0.0001) at the first time point. This effect persisted for most of the participants for the next measurement (60 s after intervention) with an average reduction of 23.4% ( = 0.008). At the third measurement, 90 s after the procedure, the reflexes were on average still 21.4% smaller than baseline, although significant level was not reached ( = 0.053). From 120 s following the intervention, the reflex was fully recovered. This study suggests that not every type of muscle contraction promotes a prompt recovery of a stretch-induced inhibition of muscle spindle sensitivity.
人们常认为,与拉伸相关的运动表现变化可部分归因于拉伸引起的神经改变。然而,最近的证据表明,脊髓兴奋性和皮质脊髓兴奋性都不会受到长期影响,只有拉伸或轻叩反射(TR)的幅度会在几分钟内降低。由于肌梭传入神经有助于随意肌肉收缩,肌肉拉伸可能对肌肉表现有害。然而,由于α-γ共同激活,一旦被拉伸的肌肉再次收缩,肌梭敏感性的抑制就应立即逆转。本研究评估了哪种类型的肌肉收缩(静态或动态)能在静态拉伸后使肌梭敏感性抑制得到最佳恢复。对15名学生在基线时以及在对踝跖屈肌进行30秒最大个体静态拉伸后进行TR测试,然后进行三种随机干预之一(等长跖屈肌最大自主收缩、三次反向跳跃,以及无收缩/对照)。在静态拉伸后,每隔30秒诱导10次TR,直至10分钟,共诱导20次。在无后续收缩(对照)的拉伸后,诱发的TR(肌电图信号的峰峰值幅度)在干预后的10分钟内平均降低了20%,且未显示出恢复趋势。在测量的20个时间点中的9个时间点观察到与基线相比有显著下降。在跖屈肌进行最大自主收缩后,TR立即恢复,在所有研究时间点与基线均无差异。在进行三次反向跳跃后,在第一个时间点观察到显著的34.4%的组平均抑制(<0.0001)。这种效应在大多数参与者的下一次测量(干预后60秒)中持续存在,平均降低23.4%(=0.008)。在程序后90秒的第三次测量中,反射平均仍比基线小21.4%,尽管未达到显著水平(=0.053)。从干预后120秒起,反射完全恢复。这项研究表明,并非每种类型的肌肉收缩都能促使拉伸引起的肌梭敏感性抑制迅速恢复。