A DYNAMIC WARM-UP MODEL INCREASES
QUADRICEPS STRENGTH AND HAMSTRING
FLEXIBILITY
ALAIN J. AGUILAR,1 LINDSAY J. DISTEFANO,2 CATHLEEN N. BROWN,3 DANIEL C. HERMAN,4
KEVIN M. GUSKIEWICZ,1 AND DARIN A. PADUA1
1
Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina;
2
Department of Kinesiology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut; 3Department of Kinesiology, University of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia; and 4Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
ABSTRACT
Aguilar, AJ, DiStefano, L J, Brown, CN, Herman, DC,
Guskiewicz, KM, and Padua, DA. A dynamic warm-up model
increases quadriceps strength and hamstring flexibility.
J Strength Cond Res 26(4): 11301141, 2012Research
suggests that static stretching can negatively influence muscle
strength and power and may result in decreased functional
performance. The dynamic warm-up (DWU) is a common
alternative to static stretching before physical activity, but there
is limited research investigating the effects of a DWU. The
purpose of this study was to compare the acute effects of
a DWU and static stretching warm-up (SWU) on muscle
flexibility, strength, and vertical jump using a randomized
controlled trial design. Forty-five volunteers were randomly
assigned into a control (CON), SWU, or DWU group. All
participants rode a stationary bicycle for 5 minutes and
completed a 10-minute warm-up protocol. During this protocol,
the DWU group performed dynamic stretching and running, the
SWU group performed static stretching, and the CON group
rested. Dependent variables were measured immediately
before and after the warm-up protocol. A digital inclinometer
measured flexibility (degrees) for the hamstrings, quadriceps,
and hip flexor muscles. An isokinetic dynamometer measured
concentric and eccentric peak torque (N
m/kg) for the ham-
strings and quadriceps. A force plate was used to measure
vertical jump height (meters) and power (watts). In the DWU
group, there was a significant increase in hamstring flexibility
(pretest: 26.4 6 13.5, posttest: 16.9 6 9.4; p , .0001) and
eccentric quadriceps peak torque (pretest: 2.49 6 0.83 N
m/kg,
posttest: 2.78 6 0.69 N
m/kg; p = 0.04). The CON and SWU
Address correspondence to Lindsay J. DiStefano, lindsay.distefano@
uconn.edu.
26(4)/11301141
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
2012 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
1130 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
did not significantly affect any flexibility, strength, or vertical jump
measures (p . 0.05). The DWU significantly improved eccentric
quadriceps strength and hamstrings flexibility, whereas the
SWU did not facilitate any positive or negative changes in
muscle flexibility, strength, power, or vertical jump. Therefore, the
DWU may be a better preactivity warm-up choice than an SWU.
KEY WORDS static stretching, isokinetic dynamometer, vertical
jump
INTRODUCTION
T
he majority of the athletic population performs
a warm-up before activity to enhance performance
and reduce the risk of injury (2,40,44). Acutely
enhancing performance ability immediately before
activity may maximize early parts of training and compet-
itions. Also, acutely enhancing performance is essential for
competitions of short duration (i.e., shot put, 100-m dash).
Furthermore, a warm-up may mitigate injury risk factors
by acutely changing them immediately before activity.
Several modifiable risk factors for specific injury, sport, and
population are indicated in the literature. For example, 2 risk
factors for hamstring muscle strain injury are flexibility
deficits and a decreased hamstring to quadriceps (H:Q) ratio
(28,48), which may be influenced by a warm-up. Therefore,
warm-up methods should focus on causing acute daily
changes that will reduce an athletes injury risk during
a training session, eventually causing chronic changes that
will reduce an athletes injury risk over time and ideally
improve performance.
A common warm-up includes a brief period of a sub-
maximal aerobic warm-up activity and a bout of static
stretching. The submaximal aerobic warm-up activity may
elevate muscle and core temperature, causing decreased
stiffness of the musculoskeletal tissue and increased anaerobic
metabolism, circulation, and nerve conduction (7). As a result,
the submaximal aerobic warm-up activity has been shown to
improve several short-term performance measures (6). The

purpose of static stretching is to improve flexibility, which
has been indicated as an injury risk factor for athletes with
specific muscle inflexibility (28,48). Although long-term
flexibility training is important to maintain health muscle
tissue length and reduce injury risk for specific individuals,
there is no evidence that static stretching, immediately before
activity, will significantly reduce muscle injury rates (38,45).
Furthermore, static stretching for the hamstrings has been
shown to reduce conventional and functional hamstring to
quadriceps ratio (H:Q) via decreased concentric and eccentric
hamstring peak torque (14). Although debated and not
validated, the H:Q ratio has been used as a screening tool to
help prevent lower extremity injury (13,18). A reduction in
the H:Q ratio as a result of static stretching could possibly
increase risk of lower extremity injury (13). Moreover, static
stretching has been shown to acutely impair the following
performance measures: strength (15); power (49); balance,
reaction, and movement time (4); vertical jump height (11);
and sprint performance (24). Therefore, because evidence
shows that static stretching before acitvity may not reduce
injury risk and may cause performane deficits, the use of static
stretching before activity has been questioned (33) and new
methods for preparticipation activities have been proposed.
An alternative to the traditional warm-up mentioned
above is called a dynamic warm-up (DWU). Although
the DWU often varies in protocol, it typically includes
dynamic stretching (49), agility and plyometric activities (37),
and specific motor pattern movements (1). In essence,
a combination of these techniques may prepare the body for
performance by improving core and muscle temperature(25),
enhancing nervous system function (i.e., postactivation
potentiation) (29,49) and using similar movements that
occur during subsequent exercise (47). Recently, dynamic
stretching has been shown to improve several performance
factors such as shuttle run time, medicine ball throw distance,
5-step jump distance (33), electromyography activity (29),
lower extremity power (49,50), and vertical jump (29).
Therefore, because a DWU may positively influence
performance and static stretching may negatively impair
performance, researchers have compared the acute effects of
the 2 types of warm-ups. These studies indicate that a DWU
can significantly improve power and agility (33), sprinting
performance (24), vertical jump
(22,23,46), and long jump (46)
when compared with static
stretching alone. Although these TABLE 1. Subject demographics, mean (SD).*
findings are promising, there are
limitations to these studies. For Group Sex
example, none of the above CON 7 men, 8 women
mentioned articles used a prein- SWU 8 men, 7 women
tervention assessment, which DWU 8 men, 7 women
limits the ability to understand
*CON, control; DWU, dynamic warm-up; SWU, static stretching warm-up.
any true acute improvements All values are means 6 SD.
observed. Also, the previous
DWU studies did not investigate
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
the inclusion of a short distance acceleration run, which may
assist in preparing the body for activity by further elevating
heart rate and body temperature. Moreover, the previous
studies did not compare static stretching warm-up (SWU) and
DWU on acute changes in variables that are related to both
muscle injury risk factors and performance measures, such as
flexibility and strength.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to use a random-
ized controlled study design to investigate the acute effects of
a control program (CON), SWU, and a DWU protocol with
a short distance acceleration run on acute changes in the
injury risk factors of proximal leg flexibility and hamstrings to
quadriceps peak torque ratio and acute performance changes
in quadriceps and hamstrings peak torque and vertical jump
performance. Based on the previous literature, we hypoth-
esize that the SWU will improve flexibility, reduce H:Q ratio,
and negatively affect peak torque and vertical jump, whereas
the DWU will cause acute increases in flexibility, H:Q ratio,
peak torque, and vertical jump.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This study was designed to observe how 2 warm-ups (SWU
and DWU) acutely affect specific muscle injury risk factors
and performance factors. We used a randomized controlled
trial study design to compare the acute effects of 2 warm-up
protocols (SWU or DWU) with a control group (CON).
All subjects were evaluated immediately before and after
a 15-minute warm-up intervention. We also included a control
(CON) group to specifically observe the difference between
the static stretching protocol and the DWU protocol. The
dependent variables included muscle injury risk factors
hamstrings, quadriceps, hip flexor, and rectus femoris
flexibility and conventional and functional H:Q ratio and
performance measures of hamstrings and quadriceps con-
centric and eccentric peak torque and predicted vertical jump
height and power.
Subjects
Forty-five healthy male (n = 23) and female (n = 22)
recreational soccer players from club and intramural teams
volunteered to participate. Subject demographics are
Age, y Height, cm Weight, kg
23 6 3 171.4 6 8.5 69.6 6 16.0
21 6 2 174.6 6 10.0 75.5 6 9.5
23 6 3 175.8 6 11.2 75.6 6 17.0
VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2012 | 1131
 Dynamic Warm-up Increases Quadriceps Strength

intervention period, and a posttest. Flexibility (hamstrings,

quadriceps, and hip flexor), peak torque (hamstrings and
TABLE 2. Reliability results. quadriceps concentric and eccentric), and vertical jump
Assessment ICC (2,k) SEM
height and power measurements were recorded during both
pretest and posttest assessments. The dominant limb, which
Hamstring flexibility 0.94 1.7 was defined as the limb used to kick a ball for maximal
Quadriceps flexibility 0.93 0.9 distance, was used for flexibility and peak torque measure-
Hip flexor flexibility 0.97 1.44
ments. Flexibility was the first measurement obtained during
Thomas test 0.97 1.08
Concentric quadriceps 0.97 6.06 the pretest and posttest to ensure that the other testing
Concentric hamstrings 0.97 5.97 procedures would not confound the flexibility results. After
Eccentric quadriceps 0.9 13.97 flexibility measurements, the order of testing peak torque and
Eccentric hamstrings 0.99 3.6 vertical jump was counterbalanced between subjects to
Vertical jump power 0.99 86.5
control for a potential order effect. During the pretest and
Vertical jump height 0.99 1
posttest, subjects rested for 2 minutes between each
ICC = Intraclass Correlation Coefficient. assessment and for 15 minutes before beginning their
warm-up intervention, so that a possible increase in body
temperature resulting from the pretest would not add to the
provided in Table 1. Soccer players were recruited because effects of the warm-up treatments (7). To establish reliability
the DWU protocol was designed specifically for that sport. of the individual measurements, 6 subjects were pilot tested
Subjects were included in the study if they exercised at least 3 using identical testing procedures between 2 different testing
days per week for 30 minutes and possessed an adequate level sessions separated by 15 minutes. The reliability results are
of previous soccer experience, which was defined as at least 1 presented for each dependent variable in Table 2.
year of varsity soccer in high school. Exclusion criteria
included any muscle strain injury sustained in the past 6 Warm-up Interventions. Each intervention (CON, SWU, and
months or any current lower extremity injury, head injury, or DWU) began with a 5-minute warm-up on a stationary
illness that would prevent them from playing soccer at the bicycle, and subjects were asked to adjust their effort so that
time of testing. Before testing, all subjects read and signed an they would score a light rate of perceived exertion (RPE)
informed consent form approved by the institutional review (32) by the end of the 5 minutes. After cycling, the CON
board and completed a healthy subject questionnaire. The group sat quietly for 10 minutes, whereas the SWU and
questionnaire contained general questions to ensure inclusion DWU groups performed the protocols outlined in Tables 3
and exclusion criteria. and 4, respectively.
Including the cycling, the SWU protocol lasted 15 minutes
Procedures and consisted of a 10-minute static stretching protocol for the
Before testing, the subjects were stratified for sex and lower extremity (Table 3). Each muscle group was stretched
randomly assigned without replacement into 1 of 3 groups: for 2 sets of 20 seconds to the point of discomfort. The
CON, SWU, or DWU (n = 15 per group) (Table 1). Subjects stretching sequence is listed in Table 3, and each muscle
reported to a research laboratory for a single testing session. group was stretched bilaterally, starting with the right side,
They were required to wear athletic clothing, including before moving to the next muscle group in the stretching
shorts, a T-shirt, and athletic shoes. The testing session lasted sequence. Subjects rested 25 seconds between each stretch.
approximately 90 minutes and involved a pretest, an The stretch duration is within the American College of

TABLE 3. Static warm-up protocol.

Exercise Description

Calf Place arms, with elbows extended against a wall and extend one leg backward with the heel on
the ground. Adjust distance of back heel to the wall to feel a stretch.
Adductor Stand with feet spread apart. Lean to one side and keep opposite leg straight, stretching the hip
adductor on that side.
Gluteus Lie supine and place outside of one ankle on opposite flexed knee. Pull knee to the chest to stretch
the opposite legs gluteus maximus.
Hip flexor Lunge with back knee on the ground and front hip and knee flexed. Flex back knee and hold ankle.
Slowly pull ankle to buttocks, while leaning forward until a stretch is felt.

the TM

1132 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

TABLE 4. Dynamic warm-up protocol.

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Active Dynamic exercises: dynamic stretch, Neural

warm-up agility, and plyometric activation

Exercise Description Repetitions

Stationary Heel toe walks Walk on heels with knees fully extended 5 per leg Jog 10 yd
bicycle to eccentrically contract the anterior over 10 yd
5 min tibialis muscle.
Walking calf Step forward with one leg and keep back 5 per leg Jog 10 yd
heel flat on the ground while knee is over 10 yd
flexed. Contract quadriceps and tibialis
anterior muscles to extend back knee.
At the same time, move forward to the
point of mild stretch on the back calf
muscle and then immediately release.
Forward run Run forward at a jogging pace. 10 yd Jog 10 yd
Backward run Backpedal at a jogging pace. 10 yd Jog 10 yd
Russian walk Lift one knee forward, while extending 5 per leg Accelerate
the lower leg, mildly stretching the over 10 yd 50% 10 yd
lifted limbs hamstring muscles.
Immediately lower the leg after a mild
stretch is felt, and then bounce 3 times
in between stretching the alternate
limb as if jogging in place.
Walking quad Flex knee to buttocks and assist the 5 per leg Accelerate
stretch stretch with both hands until the point over 10 yd 50% 10 yd
of mild stretch and then release the
ankle. Bounce 3 times in between
stretching the alternate limb as if
jogging in place.
Low amplitude Flex knee to quickly bring heel to buttocks 10 yd Accelerate
Butt Kicks and alternate legs without stopping. 50% 10 yd
Perform moving backward.
Walking hamstring Step one limb forward, while keeping the 5 per leg Accelerate
stretch knee extended and heel on the ground over 10 yd 50% 10 yd
with toes straight up in the air. Flex hips
while keeping spine in a neutral position.
Lean forward until mild stretch is felt,
then release. Keep arms crossed over
chest and bounce 3 times in between
stretching the alternate limb as if
jogging in place.
High knee pull Actively flex hip and knee to chest while 5 per leg Accelerate
balancing on the contralateral limb. over 10 yd 50% 10 yd
Grasp knee and stretch hip extensors
to the point of mild stretch, then release.
Bounce 3 times in between stretching
the alternate limb as if jogging in place.
Carioca with high Move laterally while crossing legs. Flex 10 yd Accelerate
knee drive trail leg hip and knee as close to the 50% 10 yd
chest as possible.
Walking lunge with Lunge forward on one limb with knee 5 per leg Accelerate
transverse reach flexed and body erect until a mild over 10 yd 50% 10 yd
stretch is felt in the trail limb hip flexor
muscle. Rotate arms and trunk toward
the side of forward knee. Bounce
3 times in between stretching the
alternate limb as if jogging in place.

VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2012 | 1133

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Dynamic Warm-up Increases Quadriceps Strength

Balanced gluteal Place one heel on opposite knee while 5 per leg Accelerate
stretch standing, then squat down with the over 10 yd 50% 10 yd
standing limb until a mild stretch is
felt in the contralateral gluteal area.
Release and alternate. Bounce 3 times
in between stretching the alternate
limb as if jogging in place.
Dynamic skip Leap forward and reach with one limb 3 per leg Accelerate
to mildly stretch the hamstring muscles, over 10 yd 75% 10 yd
while keeping the knee extended.
Alternate limbs.
High skip Leap off of one limb with the opposite 3 per leg Accelerate
knee and hip flexed. Upon landing, over 10 yd 75% 10 yd
immediately perform the same for the
opposite leg. Skip and jump as
high as possible.
Rear leg swing Balance on one leg, lean forward from 5 per leg Accelerate
waist and kick opposite limb backward over 10 yd 75% 10 yd
in the sagittal plane, while slightly flexing
knee. Control hip and swing limb
backward until the point of mild stretch
on hip flexor muscles and then release
the stretch. Bounce in between
stretching alternate limbs as if jumping
rope 3 times.
Backward run Backpedal as quickly as possible for the 10 yd Accelerate
first 10 yd. 90% 10 yd
Shuffle Lateral shuffle without crossing feet, lead 10 yd Accelerate
with dominant limb. 90% 10 yd
Run with 360 turn Run at 75% of maximum speed. Turn right 10 yd Accelerate
360 at the middle cone. 90% 10 yd
Run with opposite Run at 75% of maximum speed. Turn 10 yd Accelerate
360 turn left 360 at the middle cone. 90% 10 yd
Acceleration Run forward and accelerate speed to 10 yd Accelerate
achieve top speed at the middle cone. 100% 10 yd

Sports Medicines guidelines for static stretching and also
kept the SWU protocol duration equivalent to the DWU
protocol.
Including the cycling, the DWU (Table 4) lasted 15 minutes
and consisted of a 10-minute DWU. The DWU was divided
into 3 phases: dynamic exercises (dynamic stretching, agility,
and plyometric exercises), an acceleration run, and a short
recovery jog. Two consecutive 10 yd distances were marked
by cones in an area where subjects could run 20 yd and
decelerate safely. Subjects performed a dynamic exercise in
the first 10 yd distance, an acceleration run in the second
10 yd distance, and finished with a recovery jog back to the
starting cone for the next dynamic exercise in the sequence.
This process was repeated until all dynamic exercises in
the protocol were completed. The sequence was the same for
each participant and was only performed once. Within the
first 10 yd distance, all dynamic stretches were alternated 5
times bilaterally and subjects were asked to bring the limb to
the point of mild stretch and then quickly release, without
holding the stretch. Between stretching the alternate leg,
the TM
subjects were asked to bounce for 3 steps as if they were
jogging in place. In the second 10 yd distance, the subjects
transitioned to a 10 yd acceleration at a certain percentage
of their perceived maximum sprint effort (Table 4). The
intensity and difficulty of the dynamic exercises and the
acceleration run increased as the protocol progressed.
To ensure proper technique and efficiency during the
DWU, subjects reported to 2 familiarization sessions before
testing. All familiarization sessions lasted 20 minutes and were
conducted between 1 and 7 days of each other. During both
familiarization sessions, subjects watched a video of the DWU
protocol and then practiced the DWU protocol. The SWU
group did not perform familiarization sessions because the
static stretches in the protocol are commonly used in the
physically active population.
Assessments. Hamstrings, quadriceps, hip flexor, and rectus
femoris flexibility were assessed in a random order using
a digital inclinometer (Model # 670099; Saunders Group Inc,
Chaska MN, USA). The inclinometer was zeroed on a flat

1134 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

TABLE 5. Flexibility assessment.

Muscle tested Positioning Instructions Notes

Hamstrings Supine, dominant hip flexed Keep your thigh perpendicular to Subjects were excused from
(active knee to 90 with T-bar used to the table, and then use the front the study if they reached
extension) assist subject of your thigh to straighten your leg full extension on the pretest
as far as possible without moving as it would eliminate the
your thigh from its perpendicular possibility to observe
position. improvement between
pretest and posttest.
Quadriceps Prone, neutral hip position Pull your heel to your butt as far as
(active knee you can, then hold it without
flexion) raising or moving your hip.
Hip flexors Prone, neutral hip position Keep your leg straight and lift your
(active hip heel up as far as possible without
extension) raising or moving your hip from
its position.
Rectus femoris Gluteal folds on edge of table, Completely relax your dominant leg, The wall was used on the
(Thomas test) supine with dominant leg pull your nondominant knee all the dominant side to prevent
against the wall, knees way to your chest, do not arch hip abduction and ensure
pulled to chest, and then your back. consistency between the
dominant leg dropped pretest and the posttest
toward the ground.

and level surface before pre- and posttesting. Inclinometer 90 and were secured using torso, pelvic, thigh, and shin
placement for the hamstrings, quadriceps, and rectus femoris stabilization straps. The axis of rotation of the dynamometer
assessment was on the medial tibial shaft distal to the tibial was aligned with the axis of rotation of the subjects knee. A
tuberosity. Inclinometer placement for the hip flexor shin pad was placed 12 cm proximal to the subjects lateral
assessment was on the posterior leg, along the medial malleolus. All testing began with the subjects knee at 90 of
hamstrings group and proximal to the popliteal crease. knee flexion. For the quadriceps test, the subjects concentri-
During pretest, marks around the inclinometer were made cally extended their knee to full extension (0), then
directly on the subjects body using a permanent marker so eccentrically resisted as the dynamometer moved the knee
that the placement was consistent during the posttest. Each back to 90 of flexion. For the hamstring test, the subject
muscle group was assessed 3 times, and the average was used eccentrically resisted the dynamometer as it moved the knee
for analysis. Between the 3 consecutive trials, the subjects to full extension (0) and then concentrically flexed the knee
were repositioned and the inclinometer was removed and back to 90. Subjects performed 1 set of 5 continuous
replaced. Specific positioning and instructions for each
flexibility assessment are presented in Table 5 (Figures
15). Only the dominant limb, which is defined as the one
used to kick a ball for maximum distance, was measured.
Quadriceps and hamstrings concentric and eccentric peak
torque were measured by an isokinetic dynamometer (Biodex
3 Isokinetic Dynamometer; Biodex Medical System, Inc.,
Shirley, NY, USA). Instructions and verbal encouragement
were similar for each participant. Only the dominant leg,
which was considered the leg they would use to kick a ball for
maximum distance, was measured. During pretesting, the
subjects were familiarized to the equipment by performing 3
submaximal attempts (50% capacity), followed by 1 minute of
rest and then 3 maximal attempts for both quadriceps and
hamstring testing (30).
Velocity for the isokinetic tests was set to 60 per second,
and motion was set from 0 (extension) to 90 (flexion). Figure 1. Inclinometer placement on posterior leg.
Subjects were positioned sitting upright with their hips flexed

VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2012 | 1135

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Dynamic Warm-up Increases Quadriceps Strength
Figure 2. Hamstring flexibility ending position measurement.
maximum effort repetitions for the quadriceps test and 1 set of
5 continuous maximum effort repetitions for the hamstring
test. Subjects rested for 2 minutes between the quadriceps and
hamstring tests.
To eliminate the possibility of an order effect, subjects
randomly selected the order of muscle testing by drawing
numbers. After each test, subjects rated their perceived effort
on a 19-point RPE scale (32). A successful trial was
considered a score of 17 or higher, which equated to a very
hard perceived exertion (20). If the subjects score was less
than 17, then they repeated the trial. If the subject reported
lower than 17 for 2 consecutive tests, then the subject was
excused from the study because fatigue may have con-
founded the data.
Predicted vertical jump height and power were evaluated
using a double leg countermovement vertical jump on a strain
gauge force plate (Bertec model number 4060-08A; Bertec
Corp., Columbus, OH, USA). An overhead goal in the form of
a suspended soccer ball was used to encourage maximal
performance (26). Subjects were instructed to keep their
hands on their hips, jump straight up and down (vertically),
Figure 3. Quadriceps flexibility ending position measurement.
the
1136 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Figure 4. Hip flexor flexibility ending position measurement.
and jump as high as they could to try to head the soccer
ball. During the pretest, subjects were allowed 3 maximal
jump practice trials. The overhead goal was placed slightly
higher than the subjects highest practice jump. Three trials
were performed with 30 seconds of rest between each trial.
Force plate calibration occurred before each trial.
Data Reduction. Peak torque data from the second, third, and
fourth repetitions of each isokinetic test were averaged to
determine the peak torque for each muscle group and the
hamstring to quadriceps ratio. The first repetition was
eliminated because of a possible learning effect, and the fifth
repetition was not considered because of the possible effects
of fatigue. The average peak torque for concentric and
eccentric hamstrings and quadriceps muscle actions were
then used to determine both the conventional H:Q ratio
(Hcon:Qcon) and the functional H:Q ratio (Hecc:Qcon). The
average peak torque values were divided by body mass.
A customized software program (MatLab v12; The Math
Works, Inc., Natick, RI, USA) was used to calculate the
impulse and predicted vertical jump height and power from
the countermovement vertical jump. The subjects impulse
Figure 5. Rectus femoris ending position measurement.
TM
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

TABLE 6. Flexibility results.*

Pretest Posttest Effect

Assessment Group (means 6 SD) Pretest 95% CI (means 6 SD) Posttest 95% CI size

Hamstring CON 19.5 6 10.8 13.4325.59 19.4 6 12.0 13.6725.18 0.01

SWU 21.5 6 10.5 15.3827.55 19.3 6 11.4 13.5425.04 0.19
DWU 26.4 6 13.5 20.3632.53 16.9 6 9.4 11.1422.64 0.71
Quadriceps CON 129.6 6 9.3 125.41133.75 127.8 6 8.3 123.88131.63 0.20
SWU 127.7 6 7.0 123.56131.91 127.9 6 7.4 124.06131.81 0.03
DWU 126.1 6 8.0 121.89130.24 125.4 6 6.5 121.57129.32 0.08
Hip flexor CON 26.4 6 4.6 62.0373.83 26.7 6 3.8 61.2271.58 0.08
SWU 25.7 6 8.2 65.5277.32 26.9 6 6.9 67.3577.71 0.15
DWU 28.1 6 7.8 63.0174.81 30.2 6 5.5 66.8477.20 0.27
Rectus femoris CON 67.9 6 10.1 22.7030.06 66.4 6 6.5 23.8529.62 0.15
SWU 71.4 6 11.5 23.0330.39 72.5 6 11.5 24.0529.82 0.10
DWU 68.9 6 12.2 24.3931.74 72.2 6 11.0 27.3233.08 0.25
*CI, confidence interval; CON, control; DWU, dynamic warm-up; SWU, static stretching warm-up.
All measurements are in degrees.
Significant difference from pretest to posttest (p , 0.05).
Significant difference from DWU pretest (p , 0.05).

from the takeoff portion of each jump was recorded at [V]2/[2*g]; gravity [g] = 9.81 m/s2) (3). Predicted vertical
a sampling rate of 1,000 Hz. Impulse was used to calculate jump height was then used to calculate predicted vertical jump
velocity (V = impulse created during takeoff/subject mass), power by using Harmans equation: power (W) = 61.9 3
and velocity was used to calculate height (height [m] = jump height (cm) + 36.0 3 mass (kg) 2 1822 (9).

TABLE 7. Isokinetic results.*

Pretest Pretest Posttest Posttest Effect

Isokinetic torque test Group (means 6 SD) 95% CI (means 6 SD) 95% CI size

Eccentric quadriceps CON 2.87 6 0.90 2.463.28 2.97 6 0.82 2.563.38 0.12
SWU 2.75 6 0.62 2.333.16 2.65 6 0.83 2.243.06 20.13
DWU 2.49 6 0.83 2.082.90 2.78 6 0.69 2.373.19 0.39
Concentric quadriceps CON 2.39 6 0.42 2.152.64 2.42 6 0.57 2.162.68 0.06
SWU 2.47 6 0.57 2.222.72 2.39 6 0.48 2.132.64 20.15
DWU 2.31 6 0.41 2.062.56 2.47 6 0.43 2.212.73 0.38
Eccentric hamstrings CON 2.14 6 0.44 1.922.36 2.18 6 0.47 1.942.41 0.09
SWU 2.26 6 0.45 2.042.48 2.25 6 0.50 2.022.48 20.02
DWU 2.19 6 0.37 1.972.41 2.26 6 0.35 2.032.49 0.19
Concentric hamstrings CON 1.25 6 0.27 1.111.39 1.29 6 0.24 1.151.44 0.16
SWU 1.38 6 0.29 1.231.52 1.35 6 0.35 1.211.50 20.09
DWU 1.25 6 0.26 1.111.40 1.34 6 0.25 1.201.49 0.36
Conventional H:Q ratio CON 0.52 6 0.07 0.480.57 0.55 6 0.09 0.500.60 0.38
Hcon:Qcon SWU 0.57 6 0.11 0.520.62 0.57 6 0.12 0.520.62 0.00
DWU 0.55 6 0.09 0.500.59 0.55 6 0.09 0.500.60 0.00
Functional H:Q ratio CON 0.90 6 0.15 0.811.00 0.93 6 0.23 0.851.02 0.16
Hecc:Qcon SWU 0.94 6 0.20 0.841.03 0.95 6 0.15 0.861.04 20.47
DWU 0.97 6 0.21 0.881.07 0.92 6 0.10 0.831.01 20.33
*CI, confidence interval; CON, control; DWU, dynamic warm-up; SWU, static stretching warm-up.
All measurements are in N m
kg21.
Significant difference from pretest to posttest (p , 0.05).

VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2012 | 1137

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Dynamic Warm-up Increases Quadriceps Strength

TABLE 8. Vertical jump results.*

Vertical jump Pretest Posttest Effect

measure Group (means 6 SD) Pretest 95% CI (means 6 SD) Posttest 95% CI size

Vertical jump CON 24.9 6 5.4 0.210.29 23.8 6 5.3 0.200.27 20.20
height SWU 24.8 6 9.0 0.210.29 25.0 6 7.9 0.210.29 0.02
DWU 25.8 6 7.4 0.220.30 26.5 6 6.9 0.230.30 0.10
Vertical jump CON 2,227.0 6 796.2 1,815.12,638.9 2,159.1 6 787.3 1,751.62,566.6 20.09
power SWU 2,250.4 6 791.5 1,838.52,662.4 2,261.0 6 726.4 1,853.52,668.4 0.01
DWU 2,495.0 6 810.3 2,083.12,966.9 2,541.4 6 829.0 2,134.02,948.9 0.06
*CI, confidence interval; CON, control; DWU, dynamic warm-up; SWU, static stretching warm-up.
All measurements are in centimeters. No significant differences were observed.

Statistical Analyses No significant differences were observed for vertical jump

We used a mixed model repeated measures design with one
between factor (3 levels: DWU, SWU, or CON group) and one
within factor (2 levels: pretest, posttest). Separate 2 3 3 mixed
model analyses of variance were used to investigate differences
between time and warm-up protocol for each dependent
variable. Post hoc testing was performed with a Tukeys
Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) analysis and an a priori
alpha level of #0.05 was set.
RESULTS
All 45 original subjects completed the study. No significant
differences in subjects height, weight, or age were observed
between groups (p . 0.05). Means and SDs for the flexibility
assessments are presented in Table 6. We observed a
significant group by time interaction for hamstring flexibility
(F2,42 = 12.004, p , 0.0001). The post hoc analysis revealed
that hamstring flexibility in the DWU group was significantly
greater at posttest than at pretest. We did not observe any
significant differences for quadriceps, hip flexor, and rectus
femoris flexibility (p . 0.05).
There was a significant group by time interaction for
eccentric quadriceps peak torque (F2,42 = 4.930, p = 0.012)
(Table 7). The post hoc analysis revealed a significant
increase in the DWU group from pretest to posttest.
Likewise, concentric quadriceps peak torque demonstrated
a significant group by time interaction (F2,42 = 3.671,
p = 0.034) (Table 7), and post hoc testing revealed that the
DWU was greater than the CON and SWU at posttesting.
The DWU appeared to cause an increase in torque from pre-
to posttest (12.2 N
m) with a moderate effect size, but the
difference was not statistically significant (critical difference =
13.3 N
m). No significant differences were observed for
concentric hamstring peak torque, eccentric hamstring
peak torque, concentric hamstring to concentric quadriceps
ratio, or eccentric hamstring to concentric quadriceps ratio
(p . 0.05) (Table 7).
the TM
height or vertical jump power (p . 0.05) (Table 8). Thus, it
appears that none of the warm-up groups significantly
changed vertical jump performance.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the study was to investigate the acute effects of
a control program (CON), SWU, and a DWU protocol with
a short distance acceleration run (DWU) on acute changes
in proximal leg flexibility and hamstring to quadriceps peak
torque ratio and acute performance changes in quadriceps
and hamstring peak torque and vertical jump performance.
This study found that that the DWU acutely improved
hamstring flexibility and eccentric quadriceps peak torque,
which may lead to reduced injury risk and improved
performance immediately after the warm-up activities.
Our hypothesis that the SWU would cause improvements
in flexibility and a decrease in H:Q ratio was not supported by
our findings. With regard to flexibility, we may not have seen
improvements because of a shortened stretch duration in the
SWU protocol. Other studies showed flexibility improve-
ments after a duration of 1.5 to 4.5 minutes (16,17,35), which is
much longer than the 40-second duration (2 sets of 20
seconds) used in this study. Another reason why the SWU
did not improve flexibility could be because of an absence of
flexibility deficit. For example, the subjects in this study
possessed greater hip flexor flexibility (27) than the national
normative values for the closest age group (22) (39).
Similarly, the subjects had a quadriceps flexibility value that
was within 6 of these normative values (39). Therefore,
because of a shortened stretch duration and lack of flexibility
deficits, acute increases in flexibility may not have been
possible. Likewise, no significant changes to conventional or
functional H:Q ratios were found in this study after the SWU.
The reason for this finding is also possibly because of the
short stretch duration. One study showed a significantly
decreased H:Q ratio after 6 minutes of static stretching (14),
but another study showed no significant decrease with a

1138 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

6-minute protocol (13). These findings suggest that H:Q ratio
may be impaired with a prolonged stretch duration.
The short stretch duration included in the SWU may have
also prevented changes in peak torque and vertical jump
performance. Behm and Chaouachi (5) observed in a recent
static stretching literature review that when a static stretch is
held for longer than 90 seconds, there is strong evidence for
strength impairment. However, when a stretch is held for less
than 30 seconds, the findings of strength impairment are
more variable. In this literature review, Behm and Chaouachi
also reported that vertical jump was more likely affected with
a longer stretch duration (i.e., .90 seconds). However, even
in those studies, the effect sizes were small, so the clinical
implication of these findings is questionable. Because the
SWU static stretch duration was relatively short, it is possible
that there was not enough time to cause physiologic
viscoelastic property alterations and mechanical changes
(31) and alterations in neurological activity and processes
(27) to cause strength and performance impairments.
Our hypothesis that the DWU would improve flexibility
was supported for the hamstrings but not for the other muscle
groups. Another study showed a similar result for the
hamstrings; however, the flexibility increase was only evident
when dynamic stretching was preceded by a general aerobic
warm-up (35). Interestingly, in the same study, the authors
observed a decrease in flexibility when dynamic stretching
was not preceded by a general aerobic warm-up. Perhaps this
highlights the necessity of a general aerobic warm-up, similar
to the one included in the DWU, before dynamic stretching
to elevate muscle and body temperature, decrease muscle
stiffness, and improve flexibility.
Another possible explanation for the DWUs increase in
hamstring flexibility is that the group began with less
flexibility than the other groups. Therefore, it is difficult to
ascertain if the increase was because of the intervention or
because the group had more room for improvement.
However, all 3 groups demonstrated limited hamstring
flexibility, as defined as lacking 20 from full knee extension
(17), which suggests that each group had equal opportunity
to improve hamstring flexibility. The DWU may not have
improved flexibility in the quadriceps and hip flexor muscle
groups because there may not have been much room for
change, as all subjects had flexibility ranges that were within
normal values. Therefore, a 15-minute DWU consisting of
dynamic stretching, agility, plyometric, and acceleration runs
may cause improvements in hamstring flexibility without any
detriment to quadriceps and hip flexor flexibility.
In contrast to our hypotheses, the DWU only improved
quadriceps peak torque. The results showed a significant
increase in eccentric quadriceps peak torque and a statistically
nonsignificant increase in concentric quadriceps peak torque.
Although not statistically significant, the increase observed in
concentric peak torque may be clinically meaningful because
the magnitude of increase (7%) is similar to the increase seen
in another study after dynamic stretching (43) and similar to
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
the magnitude of decrease after static stretching (34). The
mechanisms that may have caused our concentric quadriceps
peak torque to improve are an increase in body temperature
(25,49,50), postactivation potentiation (29,47), which is
defined as an increase in muscle efficiency to produce force
after a conditioning contractile activity (41), and possibly an
increased rate of cross-bridge formation (49). These changes
may improve neurologic and metabolic function (6) of the
muscles and result in improved strength performance.
The mechanism responsible for improved eccentric quad-
riceps strength may include heightened muscle spindle
activation caused by the quick discontinuous dynamic
exercises of the DWU (43). Concentric peak torque of the
quadriceps is essential in performance as it controls the
forcefulness of knee extension, which is one of the primary
components in generating any movement involving triple
extension. Concentric force would be important for acceler-
ating the body from a stand still position or after making
a change of direction (12). Likewise, eccentric quadriceps
function is essential for athletic movements including direction
change, deceleration, and lower extremity body control (12).
Eccentric strength may also protect against quadriceps
injury because of its role in dissipating ground reaction forces
during jump landing (19) and deceleration, which is the main
mechanism for quadriceps muscle injury (36).
Despite observing improvements in quadriceps torque, we
did not observe a reduction in the H:Q ratio. To our
knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the effects of
a DWU on H:Q ratios. We believe the H:Q ratio may not have
decreased with the concurrent increase in quadriceps torque
because the hamstring peak torque did increase, although this
finding was not statistically significant.
The literature has conflicting evidence regarding the effect
of dynamic activities on vertical jump performance. Some
studies show a significant increase (29,46), whereas others
show no effect (8,42). One explanation to the difference
could be described in the previous studies dynamic protocol.
The dynamic protocols that improved vertical jump typically
used dynamic exercises that mimic functional exercises (i.e.,
side lunges) or a prolonged dynamic stretching protocol
(7 minutes). The dynamic protocols that did not change
vertical jump typically used a low volume of dynamic
stretches only. Although our study used dynamic stretching
and dynamic functional exercises, we may not have seen
improvements in vertical jump because the time frame where
dynamic activities cause improvements in vertical jump
(6 minutes) (21) may have elapsed by the time we measured
it during the posttest. Furthermore, it is possible that our
DWU protocol did not include enough specific jumping
activity to sufficiently cause improvements as other studies
have used (10).
Finally, it is interesting to note that the 2 variables that
significantly changed after the DWU had an antagonistic
muscle relationship. We observed improvements in both
quadriceps strength and hamstring flexibility. Perhaps the
VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2012 | 1139
 Dynamic Warm-up Increases Quadriceps Strength
DWU improved this muscle balance relationship where
a strength increase of the quadriceps allowed greater range of
motion for the hamstrings, resulting in a significant change.
Further research should examine this relationship.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Our findings suggest that a preactivity DWU that includes
dynamic stretching, agilities, plyometrics, and acceleration
running will improve hamstring flexibility and quadriceps
strength. Furthermore, using a static stretching protocol with
short durations (40 seconds per muscle group) will not
significantly reduce quadriceps and hamstring strength and
vertical jump performance. Static stretching is important in
health-related benefits; however, a prolonged duration is
necessary to achieve this goal. To ensure appropriate duration
for all major muscle groups, static stretching may be better
used in a setting other than a preactivity warm-up. A DWU
may be more appropriate for a preactivity warm-up because it
appears to acutely improve strength production of the
quadriceps and improve hamstring flexibility, which may
reduce injury risk.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors have no professional relationships with compa-
nies or manufacturers who will benefit from the results of the
study. The results of the study do not endorse any products
of the authors or the National Strength and Conditioning
Association.
REFERENCES
1. Abad, CC, Prado, ML, Ugrinowitsch, C, Tricoli, V, and Barroso, R.
Combination of general and specific warm-ups improves leg-press
one repetition maximum compared with specific warm-up in trained
individuals. J Strength Cond Res 25: 22422245, 2011.
2. Alter, M. Sports Stretch. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1997.
3. Aragon-Vargas, LF. Evaluation of four vertical jump tests: Meth-
odology, reliability, validity, and accuracy. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci
4: 215228, 2000.
4. Behm, DG, Bambury, A, Cahill, F, and Power, K. Effect of acute
static stretching on force, balance, reaction time, and movement
time. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 13971402, 2004.
5. Behm, DG and Chaouachi, A. A review of the acute effects of static
and dynamic stretching on performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 2011.
Epub ahead of print. March 4, 2011.
6. Bishop, D. Warm up I: Potential mechanisms and the effects
of passive warm up on exercise performance. Sports Med 33:
439454, 2003.
7. Bishop, D. Warm up II: Performance changes following active warm
up and how to structure the warm up. Sports Med 33: 483498, 2003.
8. Bradley, PS, Olsen, PD, and Portas, MD. The effect of static, ballistic,
and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching on vertical
jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 21: 223226, 2007.
9. Canavan, PK and Vescovi, JD. Evaluation of power prediction
equations: Peak vertical jumping power in women. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 36: 15891593, 2004.
10. Chattong, C, Brown, LE, Coburn, JW, and Noffal, GJ. Effect of
a dynamic loaded warm-up on vertical jump performance. J Strength
Cond Res 24: 17511754, 2010.
the TM
1140 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
11. Church, JB, Wiggins, MS, Moode, FM, and Crist, R. Effect of warm-
up and flexibility treatments on vertical jump performance. J Strength
Cond Res 15: 2001, 332336.
12. Clark, M and Russell, A. Optimum Performance Training for the
Performance Enhancement Specialist. Calabasas, CA: National
Academy of Sports Medicine, 2001.
13. Costa, P, Ryan, E, Herda, T, DeFreitas, J, Beck, T, and Cramer, J.
Effects of stretching on peak torque and the H:Q ratio. Int J Sports
Med 30: 6065, 2009.
14. Costa, PB, Ryan, ED, Herda, TJ, Walter, AA, Hoge, KM, and
Cramer, JT. Acute effects of static stretching on leg extension
and flexion peak torque and the hamstrings-to-quadriceps
conventional and functional ratios. J Strength Cond Res
2011;25(S1).
15. Cramer, JT, Housh, TJ, Weir, JP, Johnson, GO, Coburn, JW, and
Beck, TW. The acute effects of static stretching on peak torque,
mean power output, electromyography, and mechanomyography.
Eur J Appl Physiol 93: 530539, 2005.
16. de Weijer, V, Gorniak, G, and Shamus, E. The effect of static
stretch and warm-up exercise on hamstring length over the course of
24 hours. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 33: 727733, 2003.
17. Depino, GM, Webright, WG, and Arnold, BL. Duration of
maintained hamstring flexibility after cessation of an acute static
stretching protocol. J Athl Train 35: 5659, 2000.
18. Devan, M, Pescatello, L, Faghri, P, and Anderson, J. A prospective
study of overuse knee injuries among female athletes with
muscle imbalances and structural abnormalities. J Athl Train 39:
263267, 2004.
19. Devita, P and Skelly, WA. Effect of landing stiffness on joint kinetics
and energetics in the lower extremity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 24:
108115, 1992.
20. Egan, AD. Session rating of perceived exertion during high intensity
and low intensity bouts of resistance exercise. UW-L J Undergrad Res
6: 16, 2003.
21. Faigenbaum AD, McFarland JE, Buchanan E, Ratamess NA, Kang J,
and Hoffman JR. After-school fitness performance is not altered after
physical education lessons in adolescent athletes. J Strength Cond Res.
Mar 2010;24(3):765-770.
22. Faigenbaum AD, McFarland JE, Schwerdtman JA, Ratamess NA,
Kang J, and Hoffman JR. Dynamic warm-up protocols, with and
without a weighted vest, and fitness performance in high school
female athletes. J Athl Train. Oct-Dec 2006;41(4):357-363.
23. Faigenbaum, AD, Milliken, LA, Moulton, L, and Westcott, WL.
Early muscular fitness adaptations in children in response to
two different resistance training regimens. Pediatr Exerc Sci 17:
237248, 2005.
24. Fletcher, IM and Anness, R. The acute effects of combined
static and dynamic stretch protocols on fifty-meter sprint
performance in track-and-field athletes. J Strength Cond Res 21:
784787, 2007.
25. Fletcher, IM and Jones, B. The effect of different warm-up stretch
protocols on 20 meter sprint performance in trained rugby union
players. J Strength Cond Res 18: 885888, 2004.
26. Ford, KR, Myer, GD, Smith, RL, Byrnes, RN, Dopirak, SE, and
Hewett, TE. Use of an overhead goal alters vertical jump
performance and biomechanics. J Strength Cond Res 19:
394399, 2005.
27. Fowles, J, Sale, D, and MacDougall, J. Reduced strength after
passive stretch of the human plantarflexors. J Appl Physiol 89:
11791188, 2000.
28. Gabbe, BJ, Finch, CF, Bennell, KL, and Wajswelner, H. Risk factors
for hamstring injuries in community level Australian football. Br J
Sports Med 39: 106110, 2005.
29. Hough, P, Ross, E, and Howatson, G. Effects of dynamic and static
stretching on vertical jump performance and electromyographic
activity. J Strength Cond Res 23: 507512, 2009.

30. Kaminski, TW, Buckley, BD, Powers, ME, Hubbard, TJ, and
Ortiz, C. Effect of strength and proprioception training on
eversion to inversion strength ratios in subjects with unilateral
functional ankle instability. Br J Sports Med 37: 410415, 2003;
discussion 415.
31. Kokkonen, J, Nelson, AG, and Cornwell, A. Acute muscle stretching
inhibits maximal strength performance. Res Q Exerc Sport 69:
411415, 1998.
32. McArdle, WD and Katch, FI. Exercise Physiology. Baltimore, MD:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2001.
33. McMillian, DJ, Moore, JH, Hatler, BS, and Taylor, DC. Dynamic vs.
static-stretching warm up: The effect on power and agility
performance. J Strength Cond Res 20: 492499, 2006.
34. Nelson, AG, Allen, JD, Cornwell, A, and Kokkonen, J. Inhibition
of maximal voluntary isometric torque production by acute
stretching is joint-angle specific. Res Q Exerc Sport 72:
6870, 2001.
35. OSullivan, K, Murray, E, and Sainsbury, D. The effect of warm-up,
static stretching and dynamic stretching on hamstring flexibility
in previously injured subjects. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 10:
37, 2009.
36. Orchard, J. Biomechanics of muscle strain injury: The Dr. Matt
Marshal Lecture. N Z J Sports Med 30: 9096, 2002.
37. Perrier, ET, Pavol, MJ, and Hoffman, MA. The acute effects of
a warm-up including static or dynamic stretching on counter-
movement jump height, reaction time, and flexibility. J Strength Cond
Res. 25: 19251931, 2011.
38. Pope, RP, Herbert, RD, Kirwan, JD, and Graham, BJ. A randomized
trial of preexercise stretching for prevention of lower-limb injury.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 32: 271277, 2000.
39. Roach, K and Miles, T. Normal hip and knee active range of motion:
The relationship to age. Phys Ther 71: 656665, 1991.
40. Safran, MR, Seaber, AV, and Garrett WE Jr. Warm-up and muscular
injury prevention. An update. Sports Med 8: 239249, 1989.
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
41. Sale, DG. Postactivation potentiation: Role in human performance.
Exerc Sport Sci Rev 30: 138143, 2002.
42. Samuel, MN, Holcomb, WR, Guadagnoli, MA, Rubley, MD, and
Wallmann, H. Acute effects of static and ballistic stretching
on measures of strength and power. J Strength Cond Res 22:
14221428, 2008.
43. Sekir, U, Arabaci, R, Akova, B, and Kadagan, S. Acute effects of
static and dynamic stretching on leg flexor and extensor
isokinetic strength in elite women athletes. Scand J Med Sci Sports
20: 268281, 2010.
44. Shellock, FG and Prentice, WE. Warming-up and stretching for
improved physical performance and prevention of sports-related
injuries. Sports Med 2: 267278, 1985.
45. Thacker, SB, Gilchrist, J, Stroup, DF, and Kimsey, CD Jr. The impact
of stretching on sports injury risk: A systematic review of the
literature. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 371378, 2004.
46. Thompsen, AG, Kackley, T, Palumbo, MA, and Faigenbaum, AD.
Acute effects of different warm-up protocols with and without
a weighted vest on jumping performance in athletic women.
J Strength Cond Res 21: 5256, 2007.
47. Torres, EM, Kraemer, WJ, Vingren, JL, Volek, JS, Hatfield, DL,
Spiering, BA, Ho, JY, Fragala, MS, Thomas, GA, Anderson, JM,
Hakkinen, K, and Maresh, CM. Effects of stretching on upper-body
muscular performance. J Strength Cond Res 22: 12791285, 2008.
48. Witvrouw, E, Danneels, L, Asselman, P, DHave, T, and Cambier, D.
Muscle flexibility as a risk factor for developing muscle injuries in
male professional soccer players. A prospective study. Am J Sports
Med 31: 4146, 2003.
49. Yamaguchi, T and Ishii, K. Effects of static stretching for 30 seconds
and dynamic stretching on leg extension power. J Strength Cond Res
19: 677683, 2005.
50. Yamaguchi, T, Ishii, K, Yamanaka, M, and Yasuda, K. Acute effects of
dynamic stretching exercise on power output during concentric
dynamic constant external resistance leg extension. J Strength Cond
Res 21: 12381244, 2007.
VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2012 | 1141