Home > Uncategorized > Dynamic stretching trumps static stretching for kicking a soccer ball

Dynamic stretching trumps static stretching for kicking a soccer ball

March 4th, 2011

A pretty straightforward study from researchers in Malaysia, just posted in Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. They took 18 professional soccer players and analyzed their kick on three separate days, after a warm-up that incorporated static stretching, dynamic stretching, or no stretching. Their range of motion during the kick was 1.67 degrees worse after static stretching and 8.38 degrees better after dynamic stretching compared to the no-stretch condition, a difference that was significant with p<0.01. Since higher range of motion correlates with greater angular velocity in the kick, the researchers conclude that dynamic stretching is better than static stretching for soccer players.

Here’s how they describe the dynamic stretches used:

Subjects performed the dynamic stretches… for 30 seconds at a rate of approximately 1 stretch cycle per second… The dynamic stretches used involve the Quadriceps femoris (quadriceps); Lateral lunge (adductors); Hip extensors (gluteals); Hamstrings (hamstrings); and Plantar flexors (gastrocnemius) described in Yamaguchi and Ishii.

Err, thanks for that. Fortunately, Yamaguchi and Ishii actually have a pretty helpful description:

,

  1. Dan Becque
    March 5th, 2011 at 16:47 | #1

    This is an interesting study. The study shows that ROM is increased by dynamic stretching in comparison with static stretching. They summarize with this statement: “this study examined the acute effects of 2 different stretching methods during warm-up on the DROM of the hip joint during instep kicking in professional soccer players. Unique to this investigation, the warm-up protocols, which included dynamic stetching, enhanced the DROM to a greater degree than did static stretching alone.” They never measured angular velocity or performance. In the Practical Applications section they all of a sudden make the leap from their study on DROM to increased angular velocity. Oops!

  2. alex
    March 6th, 2011 at 00:25 | #2

    @Dan Becque
    Good point, Dan. Given the data they collected with video and markers, it does seem a little odd that they wouldn’t have simply measured angular velocity (or even ball velocity!) rather than blindly assuming that DROM enhances it. Still an interesting study, but not as interesting as it would have been if they’d pushed it one step farther.

  3. Ingrid
    April 2nd, 2012 at 23:05 | #3

    who is the author of the original article and whats the name of the study ? i need to reference it

  4. alex
    April 2nd, 2012 at 23:29 | #4

    Clink on the links in the text above for full bibliographic details of the two studies referred to in the blog post.

  1. April 17th, 2011 at 03:07 | #1