Aouadi Ridha, Ltifi Mohamed Amine, Ceylan Halil İbrahim, Jlid Mohamed Chedly, Bragazzi Nicola Luigi
Higher Institute of Sport and Physical Education of Ksar Saîd, Research Laboratory (LR23JS01) «Sport Performance, Health & Society», Manouba University, Manouba 2010, Tunisia.
Higher Institute of Sport and Physical Education of Gafsa, University of Gafsa, Gafsa 2112, Tunisia.
Sports (Basel). 2025 Aug 18;13(8):275. doi: 10.3390/sports13080275.
This study aimed to examine the effects of different stretching techniques on repeated sprint performance and to assess the influence of the sequence in which static and dynamic stretching are performed. Ten male Division II soccer players (age: 22.80 ± 1.13 years; height: 180.60 ± 3.59 cm; body mass: 70.60 ± 6.04 kg) completed a repeated sprint test consisting of 6 × 30 m sprints after five different warm-up protocols in a randomized, counterbalanced design: (1) general warm-up without stretching (NS), (2) static stretching (SS), (3) dynamic stretching (DS), (4) SS followed by DS (SS-DS), and (5) DS followed by SS (DS-SS). Stretching was performed during the recovery periods between sprints: ~6 min for SS and DS, and ~12 min for combined protocols. Sessions were spaced 72 h apart. Performance metrics included mean sprint time, best sprint time, and total sprint time. ANOVA and Cohen's d were used for statistical analysis. Repeated sprint test performance was significantly enhanced after DS compared to SS, DS-SS, and SS-DS ( = 0.042-0.002; ES = 0.31-2.26), but not significantly different from NS ( > 0.05). SS had a detrimental effect when compared to DS and NS ( < 0.05; ES = 1.86-2.26). Improvements were observed in mean sprint time and total sprint time across all six sprints ( = 0.042-0.006; ES = 0.31-2.26) and in best sprint time ( = 0.006-0.002; ES = 0.89-1.86). In conclusion, DS prior to repeated sprint test improves performance compared to SS and combined methods. NS also supports strong performance but shows a slight advantage over SS and combinations. Incorporating DS into warm-up routines is recommended to optimize sprint performance, reduce injury risk, and support athlete preparation.
本研究旨在探讨不同拉伸技术对重复冲刺跑成绩的影响，并评估静态拉伸和动态拉伸执行顺序的影响。10名二级男子足球运动员（年龄：22.80±1.13岁；身高：180.60±3.59厘米；体重：70.60±6.04千克）按照随机、平衡设计，在五种不同的热身方案后完成了一项由6次30米冲刺组成的重复冲刺跑测试：（1）无拉伸的一般热身（NS），（2）静态拉伸（SS），（3）动态拉伸（DS），（4）先静态拉伸后动态拉伸（SS-DS），以及（5）先动态拉伸后静态拉伸（DS-SS）。在冲刺之间的恢复期间进行拉伸：静态拉伸和动态拉伸约6分钟，联合方案约12分钟。各训练课间隔72小时。表现指标包括平均冲刺时间、最佳冲刺时间和总冲刺时间。采用方差分析和科恩d值进行统计分析。与静态拉伸、先静态拉伸后动态拉伸和先动态拉伸后静态拉伸相比，动态拉伸后重复冲刺跑测试成绩显著提高（P=0.042-0.002；效应量=0.31-2.26），但与无拉伸的一般热身相比无显著差异（P>0.05）。与动态拉伸和无拉伸的一般热身相比，静态拉伸有不利影响（P<0.05；效应量=1.86-2.26）。在所有六次冲刺中，平均冲刺时间和总冲刺时间均有改善（P=0.042-0.006；效应量=0.31-2.26），最佳冲刺时间也有改善（P=0.006-0.002；效应量=0.89-1.86）。总之，与静态拉伸和联合方法相比，在重复冲刺跑测试前进行动态拉伸可提高成绩。无拉伸的一般热身也能支持良好的表现，但比静态拉伸及其联合方法略有优势。建议在热身程序中加入动态拉伸，以优化冲刺跑成绩、降低受伤风险并帮助运动员做好准备。
