The differential effects of PNF versus passive stretch conditioning on neuromuscular performance

Claire Minshull*, Roger Eston, Andrea Bailey, David Rees, Nigel Gleeson

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

The effects of flexibility conditioning on neuromuscular and sensorimotor performance were assessed near to full knee extension (25 degrees). Eighteen males who were randomly assigned into two groups underwent eight weeks (three-times per week) of flexibility conditioning (hip region/knee flexor musculature; dominant limb) involving either proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) (n=9) or passive stretching (PASS) (n=9). Both modes of flexibility conditioning are popular within contemporary exercise and clinical settings and have demonstrated efficacy in improving range of motion. The contralateral limb and a prior no exercise' condition were used as controls. The PNF and PASS modes of conditioning improved passive hip flexibility to a similar extent (mean 19.3% vs. baseline, intervention limb, p

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)233-241
Number of pages9
JournalEuropean journal of sport science
Volume14
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 3 Apr 2014

Keywords

  • Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation
  • proprioception
  • range of motion
  • electromechanical delay
  • magnetic stimulation
  • INDUCED MUSCLE DAMAGE
  • ELECTROMECHANICAL DELAY
  • IN-VIVO
  • STIFFNESS
  • FATIGUE
  • REHABILITATION
  • SYMPTOMS
  • HUMANS
  • WOMEN
  • TIME

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The differential effects of PNF versus passive stretch conditioning on neuromuscular performance'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this