King Grub
2015-05-03, 17:15
OBJECTIVE:
To determine if there is any benefit to static stretching after performing a dynamic warm-up in the prevention of injury in high school soccer athletes.
DESIGN:
Prospective cluster randomized non-blinded study Setting: Twelve high schools with varsity and junior varsity boys soccer teams (twenty-four soccer teams) across the state of Michigan Participants: 499 student-athletes were enrolled and 465 student-athletes completed the study. One high school dropped out of the study in the first week leaving a total of twenty-two teams Interventions: Dynamic stretching protocol vs. Dynamic + Static stretching protocol.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
Lower extremity, core, or lower back injuries/team.
RESULTS:
Twelve teams performed the dynamic stretching protocol and ten teams performed the dynamic + static stretching protocol. There were 17 injuries (1.42 injuries/team SD 1.49) among the teams that performed the dynamic stretching protocol and 20 injuries (2.0 injuries/team SD 1.24) among the teams that performed the dynamic +stretching protocol. There was no statistically significant difference in injuries between the two groups (p=0.33).
CONCLUSIONS:
There is no difference between dynamic stretching and dynamic + static stretching in the prevention of lower extremity, core and back injuries in high school male soccer athletes. Static stretching does not provide any added benefit to dynamic stretching in the prevention of injury in this population prior to exercise.
J Sport Rehabil. 2015 May 1. The Effects of Static and Dynamic Stretching on Injury Prevention in High School Soccer Athletes. A Randomized Trial.
To determine if there is any benefit to static stretching after performing a dynamic warm-up in the prevention of injury in high school soccer athletes.
DESIGN:
Prospective cluster randomized non-blinded study Setting: Twelve high schools with varsity and junior varsity boys soccer teams (twenty-four soccer teams) across the state of Michigan Participants: 499 student-athletes were enrolled and 465 student-athletes completed the study. One high school dropped out of the study in the first week leaving a total of twenty-two teams Interventions: Dynamic stretching protocol vs. Dynamic + Static stretching protocol.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
Lower extremity, core, or lower back injuries/team.
RESULTS:
Twelve teams performed the dynamic stretching protocol and ten teams performed the dynamic + static stretching protocol. There were 17 injuries (1.42 injuries/team SD 1.49) among the teams that performed the dynamic stretching protocol and 20 injuries (2.0 injuries/team SD 1.24) among the teams that performed the dynamic +stretching protocol. There was no statistically significant difference in injuries between the two groups (p=0.33).
CONCLUSIONS:
There is no difference between dynamic stretching and dynamic + static stretching in the prevention of lower extremity, core and back injuries in high school male soccer athletes. Static stretching does not provide any added benefit to dynamic stretching in the prevention of injury in this population prior to exercise.
J Sport Rehabil. 2015 May 1. The Effects of Static and Dynamic Stretching on Injury Prevention in High School Soccer Athletes. A Randomized Trial.