Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2007, 21(3), 788–792

䉷 2007 National Strength & Conditioning Association

DURATION OF STATIC STRETCHING INFLUENCES

MUSCLE FORCE PRODUCTION IN HAMSTRING
MUSCLES
YUJI OGURA, YUTETSU MIYAHARA, HISASHI NAITO, SHIZUO KATAMOTO, AND JUNICHIRO AOKI
Department of Exercise Physiology, School of Health and Sports Science, Juntendo University, Chiba, Japan.

ABSTRACT. Ogura, Y., Y. Miyahara, H. Naito, S. Katamoto, and ranged from 120 seconds (8, 9) to 1 hour (4) for the target
J. Aoki. Duration of static stretching influences muscle force pro- muscle groups. Studies have shown that longer durations
duction in hamstring muscles. J. Strength Cond. Res. 21(3):788– of static stretching make the viscoelastic properties of the
792. 2007.—The purpose of the present study was to investigate musculotendinous units more compliant (17, 23). In this
whether duration of static stretching could affect the maximal
voluntary contraction (MVC).Volunteer male subjects (n ⫽ 10)
regard, it has been suggested that compliant musculoten-
underwent 2 different durations of static stretching of their dinous units result in a decline of muscular strength (25).
hamstring muscles in the dominant leg: 30 and 60 seconds. No From the view of maintaining muscular performance,
static stretching condition was used as a control condition. Be- therefore, it may be proposed that the static stretching of
fore and after each stretching trial, hamstring flexibility was shorter duration should be undertaken before muscle
measured by a sit and reach test. MVC was then measured using force production.
the maximal effort of knee flexion. The hamstring flexibility was As mentioned first, static stretching before an athletic
significantly increased by 30 and 60 seconds of static stretching event plays an important role in preventing musculo-
(control: 0.5 ⫾ 1.1 cm; 30 seconds: 2.1 ⫾ 1.8 cm; 60 seconds: 3.0 skeletal injury. Therefore, it is significant to investigate
⫾ 1.6 cm); however, there was no significant difference between
the effects of shorter static stretching on muscular per-
30 and 60 seconds of static stretching conditions. The MVC was
significantly lowered with 60 seconds of static stretching com- formance for rethinking the implications of static stretch-
pared to the control and 30 seconds of the stretching conditions ing as a warm-up regimen. The purpose of the present
(control: 287.6 ⫾ 24.0 N; 30 seconds: 281.8 ⫾ 24.2 N; 60 seconds: study was to investigate the effects of 30 and 60 seconds
262.4 ⫾ 36.2 N). However, there was no significant difference of static stretching on the MVC measured by isometric
between control and 30 seconds of static stretching conditions. strength of knee flexion and hamstring flexibility. It was
Therefore, it was concluded that the short duration (30 seconds) hypothesized that the MVC after 60 seconds of the
of static stretching did not have a negative effect on the muscle stretching was lowered to a greater degree than that after
force production. 30 seconds of the stretching.
KEY WORDS. flexibility, range of motion, warm-up, performance
METHODS
INTRODUCTION Experimental Approach to the Problem
tatic stretching has been widely used as a The experimental procedure is summarized in Figure 1.

S warm-up before exercise training and compe-

tition by many athletes as it is thought that
static stretching increases range of motion,
which contributes to a decreased risk of mus-
culoskeletal injury (2, 3). However, numerous recent
Before this experiment, all subjects were familiarized
with the experimental protocol. When subjects reported
to the laboratory, they rested on a chair for 5 minutes,
then their hamstring flexibility was measured using a sit
and reach test. Next, they stretched the hamstring mus-
studies have suggested that static stretching for various cles of both legs. Then, we measured their hamstring flex-
muscle groups before utilizing maximal strength has a ibility again. After the second measure of hamstring flex-
negative effect on muscular performance (5, 7–11, 15, 16, ibility, MVC was determined by isometric strength of
19, 21, 27). For example, Kokkonen et al. (16) showed that knee flexion. The period from static stretching end to the
1 repetition maximum (1RM) of knee flexion and exten- MVC measurement was 2–3 minutes. Details of each test
sion was decreased by static stretching (15 seconds ⫻ 6 are described below. The room temperature and relative
sets) in some muscle groups of the lower limbs. Fowles et humidity of the laboratory were 24 ⫾ 1⬚C and 52 ⫾ 6%.
al. (11) found that maximal voluntary contraction (MVC)
Subjects
and neuromuscular activity of the triceps surae muscle
were impaired immediately after repeated static stretch- The present study was approved by The Juntendo Uni-
ing (135 seconds with 5 seconds of rest ⫻ 13 sets). In versity Human Ethics Committee, which follows The Hel-
addition, Cornwell et al. (7) reported that single joint sinki Declaration. Ten male subjects volunteered to par-
counter movement jump height was lowered by passive ticipate in the present study. Their physical characteris-
static stretching (180 seconds) of the soleus muscle. tics were: age, 20 ⫾ 0 years; height, 173 ⫾ 6 cm; weight,
Therefore, athletes may not have to use static stretching 64 ⫾ 4 kg. These subjects were fully informed of the ex-
before exercises requiring high muscular strength and perimental purpose, procedures, and possible risks of the
muscular power output. present study. Then, they signed informed consent doc-
In general, 15 to 30 seconds of static stretching du- uments prior to joining the present study. All subjects
ration is recommended for a warm-up (3). Nevertheless, were university soccer players and participated in regular
previous studies, which reported negative effects of static training (1.5 h·day⫺1, 6 days·week⫺1), but they were not
stretching on muscular performance, used durations that doing regular strength training.
788
 STATIC STRETCHING AND MUSCULAR STRENGTH 789

FIGURE 2. Experimental schematic of the measurement of

FIGURE 1. Summary of experimental design. the maximal voluntary contraction.

Sit and Reach Test They repeated this maximal effort 3 times. The strain de-
tected by the load cell was amplified by a carrier amplifier
The sit and reach test was measured as an index of the (AP-621G; Nihonkohden, Japan) and was recorded by a
hamstring flexibility based on the method of the Japan servo coder (SR-6312; Graphtec, Japan). The MVC was
Physical Fitness Test (20). This test has often been used expressed as the mean of the peak value of 3 measure-
as an index of the gross approximation of flexibility (13, ments. In this test, the intraclass correlation coefficient
16, 22) and correlates the hamstring flexibility (14, 18). R of the 3 serial measurements was 0.87 (95% CI; 0.62–
In brief, subjects sat on the floor with their legs extended. 0.96), and the test-retest correlation (Pearson’s r) of the
They were asked to straighten their backs, and to keep mean of the 3 peak values (i.e., MVC) was 0.92.
their backs against the wall. In addition, they rested their
hands on a measurement box while extending their arms. Statistical Analyses
They then tried to push the box forward as far as possible, All data were expressed as mean ⫾ SD. The differences
and this distance was recorded. The measurement was between pre- and post-sit and reach tests were analyzed
conducted twice, and the better result was used (20). This by paired Student’s t-test. The change of the sit and reach
test was performed before and after static stretching in- test of first and second, and absolute and relative change
tervention. of the MVC were tested by repeated measure of 1-way
Static Stretching for Hamstrings analysis of variance among 3 conditions. When a signifi-
cant F ratio was observed, Fisher’s PLSD test was used
The subjects stretched their hamstrings according to the as a post hoc test. Statistical significance was set at p ⱕ
method of Anderson and Burke (3): they sat on the floor 0.05.
and straightened the nondominant leg first. The sole of
the subject’s dominant leg was placed on the inside of the RESULTS
straightened leg. The subjects then stretched the ham-
Sit and Reach Test
strings of the straightened leg, and held this position for
the instructed period. The holding point of the stretch The distances of the sit and reach test were significantly
was set at the maximal possible length without feeling increased by 30 and 60 seconds of static stretching (p ⬍
pain or discomfort (5). The period of this static stretching 0.05, Figure 3). Changes in distance of the sit and reach
was 30 and 60 seconds. In 30 seconds, when the stretch- test after 30 and 60 seconds of static stretching were sig-
ing time finished, subjects relaxed the stretched leg for nificantly higher than the control (control: 0.5 ⫾ 1.1 cm;
30 seconds. Then, this procedure was repeated for the 30 seconds: 2.1 ⫾ 1.8 cm, p ⬍ 0.05; 60 seconds: 3.0 ⫾ 1.6
dominant leg. In the control (no stretching) condition, cm, p ⬍ 0.05). However, there was no significant differ-
subjects maintained both legs at rest for 2 minutes on the ence in the changes between 30 and 60 seconds of static
chair. All subjects performed the control, and 30 and 60 stretching conditions.
seconds of the stretching conditions with balanced order
Maximal Voluntary Contraction
to rule out an order effect.
The results of the MVC are shown in Figures 4 and 5.
Maximal Voluntary Contraction The MVC was significantly decreased by 60 seconds of
The MVC test was conducted immediately after the sec- static stretching compared to the control and 30 seconds
ond assessment of hamstring flexibility. This test was of static stretching (p ⬍ 0.05). However, there was no sig-
performed using the subject’s dominant leg, and all sub- nificant difference between 30 seconds of static stretching
jects used the right leg. The experimental schematic of and control condition. Similarly, the percent change of
the measurement of the isometric strength of knee flexion MVC with 60 seconds of static stretching was signifi-
is depicted in Figure 2. Subjects were restrained on the cantly lower than the control and 30 seconds of static
chair using nylon bands. The knee of the dominant leg stretching (p ⬍ 0.05), and there was no significant differ-
was connected to a load cell (RTB-100; Syowasokki, Ja- ence between 30 seconds of static stretching and control
pan) with a leg band and steel wire through a fixed pulley conditions.
to change the wire direction. Subjects crossed their arms
in front of their chest and the knee angle of the dominant DISCUSSION
leg was set at 90⬚. When the investigators signaled to It has been reported that static stretching has negative
start, subjects flexed the dominant leg with maximal ef- effects on muscle strength or muscle power output (5, 7–
fort for 4 seconds, followed by a 4-second rest interval. 11, 15, 16, 21, 27). However, the durations of static
790 OGURA, MIYAHARA, NAITO ET AL.

FIGURE 3. Pre- and post-measurements of the sit and reach FIGURE 5. Percent changes of the maximal voluntary con-
test in the control and 30 and 60 seconds of static stretching traction in the control and 30 and 60 seconds of static stretch-
conditions. Values are mean ⫾ SD (n ⫽ 10 for each condition). ing conditions. Values are mean ⫾ SD (n ⫽ 10 for each condi-
tion).

stretching used in these previous studies were too long

were in line with many previous studies using the same
(3), and they seem not to represent a practical duration
or different muscle groups (5, 7–11, 15, 16, 21, 27). On
for a warm-up regimen. Therefore, the effects of shorter
the other hand, the MVC was not lowered by 30 seconds
static stretching on MVC measured by isometric strength
of static stretching compared to the control, and similar
of knee flexion were examined in the present study. As
increase of hamstring flexibility was observed in 30 and
the stretching duration for the hamstring muscles, we
60 seconds of static stretching. The results of present
used 30 seconds as a recommendable duration of static
study, therefore, propose that 30 seconds of static stretch-
stretching (3) and 60 seconds, which is longer than 30
ing does not have negative effects on MVC, and 30 sec-
seconds and shorter than the durations used in previous
onds of static stretching is better than 60 seconds of static
studies (8, 9). As a result, the MVC was significantly low-
stretching as a warm-up before performing higher mus-
ered by 60 seconds of static stretching compared to the
cular strength.
control and 30 seconds of static stretching. These results
It has been suggested that the mechanisms of de-
creased muscular strength and muscular power output
after static stretching involve 2 primary factors; namely,
the decreased stiffness of musculotendinous units as a
mechanical factor and the inhibited excitability of alpha
motor neurons or central nervous system as a neural fac-
tor.
Regarding the mechanical factor, Wilson et al. (25, 26)
reported that stiffness of musculotendinous units was sig-
nificantly related to isometric and concentric perfor-
mance. They suggested that a stiffer musculotendinous
unit would be more effective during the initial transmis-
sion of force, thus increasing the rate of force develop-
ment. In the present study, the MVC was significantly
lowered in the 60 seconds of static stretching condition
compared to the 30 seconds of static stretching or the con-
trol condition. However, the results of the sit and reach
test (i.e., hamstring flexibility), which negatively corre-
late to the stiffness of musculotendinous units (26), in-
creased with both 30 and 60 seconds of static stretching,
and the degrees of increasing were similar between the
30- and 60-second conditions. Therefore, these facts imply
that the difference in results of MVC between both 30 and
60 seconds of static stretching conditions could not be ex-
FIGURE 4. The maximal voluntary contraction in the control plained by mechanical factors of the musculotendinous
and 30 and 60 seconds of static stretching conditions. Values unit.
are mean ⫾ SD (n ⫽ 10 for each condition). However, in the present study, we have to consider
 STATIC STRETCHING AND MUSCULAR STRENGTH 791

the possibility that the decreased MVC was attributed to of static stretching may be attributed to the impaired ex-
the change of viscoelasticity in the hamstring muscles citability of alpha motor neurons (4) and/or the inhibitory
since our index of hamstring flexibility was not a direct central nervous system (9), and that such potent factors
measure of viscoelastic properties of the musculotendi- may be greater after 60 seconds of static stretching com-
nous unit. In fact, Magnusson et al. (17) and Taylor et al. pared to 30 seconds of the stretching condition. It seems
(23) have shown that the viscoelasticity of the skeletal that an experimental confirmation that includes measur-
muscle rises as the total time of static stretching increas- ing neuromuscular activity would be required to identify
es. These studies have shown that the viscoelastic prop- these presumptions in future research.
erties of musculotendinous units were altered by the stat- Finally, the intervals between the end of static
ic stretching maneuver. In addition, Evetovich et al. (10) stretching and the beginning of the MVC measurement
have shown by using mechanomyographic analysis that (2–3 minutes) were not always constant for each subject.
a decline of torque in upper limb after static stretching Thus, we may have to be cautious about the time-related
was attributed to lesser muscle stiffness. To clarify this effects on the MVC deficit. In this regard, Fowles et al.
possibility, further investigation will be needed to deter- (11) have shown that the greatest decrease in MVC was
mine the causation between the static stretching–de- observed immediately after their repeated stretching, and
creased muscle force production and viscoelasticity of then the MVC towered to the value of prestretching (from
stretched muscles. post 5 minutes). This study has implied the possibility
It has also been suggested that neural factors might that the inconstant interval influenced the MVC after the
negatively affect static stretching–decreased muscular static stretching trials. However, the time course for the
strength because neuromuscular activations measured by decline of muscular performance during the 2–3 minutes
interpolated twitch technique during MVC were impaired after static stretching has not been investigated at pre-
(4, 5, 11) after static stretching. Avela et al. (4) investi- sent.
gated the effects of repeated and prolonged passive Limitation of our study was that only 1 muscle group
stretching of the triceps surae muscle on reflex sensitiv- underwent the static stretching trial, which is a rare sit-
ity. They observed that the Hoffman-reflex amplitude uation in the practical athletic field. Similarly, we may
was significantly decreased after 1 hour of static stretch- have to consider that our results were obtained from only
ing and suggested that the excitatory drive from Ia affer- hamstring muscles, which function as knee flexors. How-
ents to the alpha motor neuron pool was impaired, pos- ever, in the latter case, since the decreased MVC after 60
sibly due to decreased discharge of the muscle spindles seconds of stretching was similar to previous studies us-
caused by increased compliance of the muscle spindles. ing the same or different muscle groups (5, 7–11, 15, 16,
These results have suggested that the decreased MVC af- 21, 27), it is thought that the finding that MVC was not
ter static stretching might be attributed to the alteration decreased after 30 seconds of static stretching was due to
of neural activation. the short duration of static stretching rather than the dif-
As alternative neural factors, central drive inhibition ference of the examined muscle.
by Type III and Type IV afferent nerves and the auto- In conclusion, the present study showed that 30 sec-
genic inhibition of the Golgi tendon organ have been sug- onds of static stretching for hamstring muscles did not
gested (6, 8, 11). In the present study, however, subjects have a negative effect on the MVC measured by isometric
were asked to hold the static stretching without discom- strength of knee flexion, compared to the no-stretching
fort or pain. In this situation, Fowles et al. (11) and Behm condition. Most recently, it has been reported that pro-
et al. (5) have suggested that such afferent inhibition did prioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching (19) or
not occur. We used intensity conditions of static stretch- ballistic stretching (24) methods may not have a negative
ing similar to those of Behm et al. (5), and therefore, it is effect on muscular performance. Further research will be
thought that the inhibitory effects of the Type III or IV required to establish the (static) stretching protocol to
afferent nerve on the central drive leading to a decrease achieve the best muscular performance for the athletes.
in muscular performance did not occur. In addition, it
seems that the autogenic inhibition of the Golgi tendon PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
organ did not affect an alpha motor neuron excitability To date, the mechanisms of decreased muscular strength
after static stretching because such inhibition was in- and muscular power output after static stretching have
duced by the extremely intense stretching of ‘‘tendon not been completely determined. However, many studies,
units’’ due to the relatively high threshold of activation including the present study, have suggested the possibil-
(1), and our static stretching protocol did not mainly ity that static stretching as a warm-up has negative ef-
stretch the tendons. Furthermore, the Golgi tendon organ fects on the subsequent strength performance.
discharge rarely persists after stretching (1, 12). The significance of this study is to clarify the fact that
Regarding another neural factor, the supraspinal the duration of static stretching influenced the subse-
mechanism(s) for decreasing the muscular performance quent muscular performance. This means that coaches
have recently been proposed by Cramer et al. (9). They and athletes can reap the positive effects of static stretch-
showed that decrease in muscular strength (peak torque) ing (i.e., increasing flexibility), while preventing the neg-
and electromyographic amplitude were induced in both ative effects (i.e., lowered muscular force production), if
stretched and unstretched legs by static stretching. This they consider the duration of static stretching before ath-
fact suggests that decreased muscular strength was due letic events requiring maximal muscular strength or max-
to impaired muscular activation mediated by the inhib- imal power output. The results of the present study
ited central nervous system. Thus, in the present study, showed that stretching-induced decline of MVC was not
it seems likely that the inhibited central nervous system observed in 30 seconds of static stretching condition. Fur-
might be partly responsible for the decreased muscular thermore, the increasing of hamstring flexibility after 30
strength by static stretching. seconds of the stretching was similar to 60 seconds of that
Collectively, in the present study, it is presumed that which caused a decline of MVC, compared to control and
the factors of lowered muscular strength with 60 seconds 30 seconds of the stretching conditions. Therefore, the
792 OGURA, MIYAHARA, NAITO ET AL.

present study proposes that coaches and athletes should 13. HUBLEY-KOZEY, L. Testing flexibility. In: Physiological Testing of the
High-Performance Athlete. J.D. MacDougall, H.A. Wenger, and H.J.
use 30 seconds of static stretching, rather than a longer Green, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2000. pp. 309–360.
one, before athletic events. 14. JACKSON, A.W., AND A.A. BAKER. The relationship of the sit and reach
Lastly, we call the reader’s attention to one concern test to criterion measures of hamstring and back flexibility. Res. Q. Ex-
when applying our findings in the practical field. The erc. Sport 57:183–186. 1986.
15. KNUDSON, D., AND G. NOFFAL. Time course of stretch-induced isometric
short (ⱕ30 seconds) duration of stretching used here has
strength deficits. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 94:348–351. 2005.
no bad influence on static force production in a single 16. KOKKONEN, J., A.G. NELSON, AND A. CORNWELL. Acute muscle stretching
hamstring muscle group; however, athletic performances inhibits maximal strength performance. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 69:411–415.
are generally consequences of multiple muscle activities. 1998.
Therefore, when static stretching is applied to various 17. MAGNUSSON, S.P., E.B. SIMONSEN, P. AAGAARD, AND M. KJAER. Biome-
chanical responses to repeated stretches in human hamstring muscle in
synergistic muscles before an athletic event, stretching vivo. Am. J. Sports Med. 24:622–628. 1996.
might negatively influence performance accumulatively. 18. MINKLER, S., AND P. PATTERSON. The validity of the modified sit-and-
This is an issue to be resolved in the future. reach test in college-age students. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 65:189–192. 1994.
19. MIYAHARA, Y., Y. OGURA, H. NAITO, S. KATAMOTO, AND J. AOKI. Effect of
REFERENCES proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching and static stretch-
ing on maximal voluntary contraction. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 37:S441.
1. ALTER, M.J. Science of Flexibility. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1996. 2005.
2. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SPORTS MEDICINE. General principles of exercise 20. MONBUSYO. Shintairyoku Test. Tokyo: Gyousei, 2000.
prescription. In: ACSM’s Guideline for Exercise Testing and Prescription. 21. NELSON, A.G., A. CORNWELL, AND G.D. HEISE. Acute stretching exercise
B.A. Franklin, M.H. Whaley, and E.T. Howley, eds. Baltimore: Williams and vertical jump stored elastic energy. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 28:S156.
and Wilkins, 2000. pp. 137–164. 1996.
3. ANDERSON, B., AND E.R. BURKE. Scientific, medical, and practical aspects 22. POWER, K., D. BEHM, F. CAHILL, M. CARROLL, AND W. YOUNG. An acute
of stretching. Clin. Sports Med. 10:63–87. 1991. bout of static stretching: Effects on force and jumping performance. Med.
4. AVELA, J., H. KYROLAINEN, AND P.V. KOMI. Altered reflex sensitivity af- Sci. Sports Exerc. 36:1389–1396. 2004.
ter repeated and prolonged passive muscle stretching. J. Appl. Physiol. 23. TAYLOR, D.C., J.D. DALTON JR, A.V. SEABER, AND W.E. GARRETT JR. Vis-
86:1283–1291. 1999. coelastic properties of muscle-tendon units. The biomechanical effects of
5. BEHM, D.G., D.C. BUTTON, AND J.C. BUTT. Factors affecting force loss stretching. Am. J. Sports Med. 18:300–309. 1990.
with prolonged stretching. Can. J. Appl. Physiol. 26:261–272. 2001. 24. UNICK, J., H.S. KIEFFER, W. CHEESMAN, AND A. FEENEY. The acute ef-
6. BIGLAND-RITCHIE, B., F. FURBUSH, AND J.J. WOODS. Fatigue of intermit- fects of static and ballistic stretching on vertical jump performance in
tent submaximal voluntary contractions: Central and peripheral factors. trained women. J. Strength Cond. Res. 19:206–212. 2005.
J. Appl. Physiol. 61:421–429. 1986. 25. WILSON, G.J., A.J. MURPHY, AND J.F. PRYOR. Musculotendinous stiffness:
7. CORNWELL, A., A.G. NELSON, AND B. SIDAWAY. Acute effects of stretching Its relationship to eccentric, isometric, and concentric performance. J.
on the neuromechanical properties of the triceps surae muscle complex. Appl. Physiol. 76:2714–2719. 1994.
Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 86:428–434. 2002. 26. WILSON, G.J., G.A. WOOD, AND B.C. ELLIOTT. The relationship between
8. CRAMER, J.T., T.J. HOUSH, G.O. JOHNSON, J.M. MILLER, J.W. COBURN, stiffness of the musculature and static flexibility: An alternative expla-
AND T.W. BECK. Acute effects of static stretching on peak torque in wom-
nation for the occurrence of muscular injury. Int. J. Sports Med. 12:403–
en. J. Strength Cond. Res. 18:236–241. 2004. 407. 1991.
9. CRAMER, J.T., T.J. HOUSH, J.P. WEIR, G.O. JOHNSON, J.W. COBURN, AND 27. YOUNG, W., AND S. ELLIOTT. Acute effects of static stretching, proprio-
T.W. BECK. The acute effects of static stretching on peak torque, mean ceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching, and maximum voluntary
power output, electromyography, and mechanomyography. Eur. J. Appl. contractions on explosive force production and jumping performance.
Physiol. 93:530–539. 2005. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 72:273–279. 2001.
10. EVETOVICH, T.K., N.J. NAUMAN, D.S. CONLEY, AND J.B. TODD. Effect of
static stretching of the biceps brachii on torque, electromyography, and
mechanomyography during concentric isokinetic muscle actions. J.
Acknowledgments
Strength Cond. Res. 17:484–488. 2003. The present work was partly supported by a grant from Junten-
11. FOWLES, J.R., D.G. SALE, AND J.D. MACDOUGALL. Reduced strength after do University (HRC-17) and a Juntendo University president’s
passive stretch of the human plantarflexors. J. Appl. Physiol. 89:1179– grant for interfaculty joint research (K-534).
1188. 2000.
12. GUISSARD, N., J. DUCHATEAU, AND K. HAINAUT. Muscle stretching and
motoneuron excitability. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. Occup. Physiol. 58:47–52. Address correspondence to Dr. Yuji Ogura, yuji-ogura@
1988. sakura.juntendo.ac.jp.