International  Journal  of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Article
The Eﬀect of Static and Dynamic Stretching Exercises
on Sprint Ability of Recreational Male
Volleyball Players
Foteini Alipasali 1, Sophia D. Papadopoulou 2
, Ioannis Gissis 1, Georgios Komsis 1,
Stergios Komsis 1, Angelos Kyranoudis 3, Beat Knechtle 4,*
and Pantelis T. Nikolaidis 5
1
Department of Physical Education & Sport Science, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 62100 Serres, Greece
2
Laboratory of Evaluation of Human Biological Performance, Department of Physical Education & Sport
Science, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 57001 Thessaloniki, Greece
3
Department of Physical Education & Sport Science, Democritus University of Thrace, 69100 Komotini, Greece
4
Institute of Primary Care, University of Zurich, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland
5
Exercise Physiology Laboratory, 18450 Nikaia, Greece
*
Correspondence: beat.knechtle@hispeed.ch; Tel.: +41-(0)71-226-9300
Received: 29 June 2019; Accepted: 4 August 2019; Published: 8 August 2019


Abstract: The aim of the present trial was to investigate the eﬀect of two stretching programs,
a dynamic and a static one, on the sprint ability of recreational volleyball players. The sample
consisted of 27 male recreational volleyball players (age 21.6 ± 2.1 years, mean ± standard deviation,
body mass 80.3 ± 8.9 kg, height 1.82 ± 0.06 m, body mass index 24.3 ± 2.5 kg.m−2, volleyball experience
7.7 ± 2.9 years). Participants were randomly divided into three groups: (a) the ﬁrst performing
dynamic stretching exercises three times per week, (b) the second following a static stretching protocol
on the same frequency, and (c) the third being the control group, abstaining from any stretching
protocol. The duration of the stretching exercise intervention period was 6 weeks, with all groups
performing baseline and ﬁnal ﬁeld sprinting tests at 4.5 and 9 m. The post-test sprint times were faster
in both the 4.5 (p = 0.027, η2 = 0.188) and 9 m tests (p < 0.001, η2 = 0.605) compared to the pre-test
values. A large time × group interaction was shown in both the 4.5 (p = 0.007, η2 = 0.341) and 9 m
tests (p = 0.004, η2 = 0.363) with the static and dynamic stretching groups being faster in the post-test
than in the pre-test, whereas no change was found in the control group. The percentage change in
the 4.5 m sprint time correlated with volleyball experience (r = −0.38, p = 0.050), i.e., the longer the
volleyball experience, the larger the improvement in the 4.5 m sprint. Thus, it is concluded that both
stretching techniques have a positive eﬀect on the velocity of recreational male volleyball players,
when performed at a frequency of three times per week for 6 weeks under the same conditions as
deﬁned in the study protocol.
Keywords: dynamic stretching; static stretching; velocity; volleyball; warm-up
1. Introduction
Today, the main goal of athletic training and sports participation is to ameliorate performance.
Performance however, is multifactorial, depending on several parameters, including warm-up practices.
The purpose of warming up is to prepare the athlete for the upcoming sports event in a physiological
view point, making the transition from the resting state to the state of preparedness needed for sports
competition [1,2]. It is common for stretching exercises to be performed between the general and
specialized parts of the warm-up session, with dynamic stretching being more preferred lately as
opposed to static stretching. Stretching exercises are considered a pivotal eﬀector of joint ﬂexibility [2–4],
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2835; doi:10.3390/ijerph16162835
www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2835
2 of 10
adding biomechanical precision to an athlete’s movement while oﬀering the opportunity to perform at
maximum force throughout the range of motion [5,6].
Although the literature provides ample evidence on the acute eﬀects of static and dynamic
stretching exercises on performance [1,2,7,8], the number of studies on the chronic eﬀects of both
static [9–11] and dynamic stretching are limited and appear inconclusive [12–15]. Passive stretching is
associated with an eccentric elongation of the muscle [16], while on the other hand, energetic stretching
induces concentric elongation with parallel increments in the muscle perimeter. It is hypothesized
that new sarcomeres are formed in line during passive stretching [17,18], whereas when adhering to
a dynamic stretching protocol new muscle ﬁbers are produced, with a parallel sarcomere formation.
It should be noted, however, that ﬂexibility improvements associated with muscle elongation have an
additional eﬀect on muscle performance [19].
Volleyball is one of the sports where stretching is usually incorporated in the warming up
procedure. During a volleyball match, the high vertical jump and the explosive movements performed
to cover court space are considered of utmost importance, and are highly intercorrelated [20]. During the
match, a volleyball player tends to cover distances ranging between 4.5 and 9 m [21], and due to
these small distances as compared to other sports, sprint and acceleration are pivotal acquisitions of a
successful volleyball player. Additionally, only few seconds or milliseconds are required when moving
towards the ball, and this is why accurate sprint measurements are performed, using photocells with a
precision of milliseconds [22].
Sprints are important components of team sports, with the majority of research reporting reductions
in speed immediately after the performance of static stretching exercises [23–25]. Nevertheless,
research examining the sprinting ability of athletes after a long-term adherence to static stretching
protocols has been limited and has provided conﬂicting ﬁndings [9,12,26]. According to the research,
no diﬀerences were observed in the sprinting ability with agility changes after the implementation of
either a 4 week [12] or a 6 week [9] lower-limb static stretching protocol, whereas the 20 m sprint time
was signiﬁcantly improved after performing static stretching exercises for a total of 10 weeks [26].
On the other hand, as far as dynamic stretching is concerned, it is reported to acutely improve the
sprint time [23,27]. Research assessing sprinting ability post the implementation of dynamic stretching
protocols lasting for a few weeks is limited, providing controversial results [12,14]. For example,
when a 4 week lower-limb dynamic stretching program was followed, improvements in the sprinting
ability with agility changes have been reported by some [12], whereas others [14] failed to record
diﬀerences in the sprinting ability after an 8 week protocol. Given the controversial literature ﬁndings,
the aim of the present trial was to investigate the eﬀect of two stretching programs, a dynamic and a
static one, on the sprint ability of recreational volleyball players.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
A total of 50 male, apparently healthy physical education undergraduate students, all recreational
volleyball players, participated in the study. The participants were randomly assigned into three groups
(static, n = 17; dynamic, n = 17; control group, n = 16). The term “recreational” denotes that participants
were volleyball players of teams competing at the regional level. Two participants were excluded due
to injury during the course of the trial and six were excluded for not completing the trial, leaving a
total sample of 42 participants. Among them, complete data of demographic characteristics (age,
body mass, height, volleyball experience) and sprint ability (4.5 and 9 m sprint times) were available
for 27 participants (Table 1), who were included in the present analysis. Participants volunteered for
study participation during the volleyball module oﬀered by the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
Their volleyball experience was deﬁned as the years they had been practicing volleyball as members of
sport clubs that involved three to four training units during weekdays and an oﬃcial match during
the weekend. All participants were informed of the exact nature, procedures, and aim of the trial
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2835
3 of 10
before providing informed consent to participate. Ethical permission was granted from the Aristotle
University’s Ethics Committee and all procedures were in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki
for research on human subjects.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of participants in the experimental group.
Variable
Total (n = 27)
Static Group (n = 11)
Dynamic Group (n = 7)
Control Group (n = 9)
Age (years)
21.6 ± 2.1
21.4 ± 2.0
22.4 ± 2.1
21.3 ± 2.3
Weight (kg)
80.3 ± 8.9
76.5 ± 7.9
84.5 ± 10.4
81.7 ± 8.0
Height (m)
1.82 ± 0.06
1.79 ± 0.04
1.85 ± 0.07
1.83 ± 0.05
BMI (kg.m-2)
24.3 ± 2.5
24.0 ± 2.6
24.6 ± 1.9
24.6 ± 3.1
Volleyball
experience (years)
7.7 ± 2.9
7.5 ± 3.6
9.1 ± 2.3
6.8 ± 2.0
BMI = body mass index.
2.2. Design and Procedures
The study was conducted from the middle of February 2015 until the end of March 2015.
Both testing and stretching exercise sessions were performed in the indoor court of the School of
Physical Education and Sport Sciences of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. All stretching exercise
sessions of both the static and dynamic groups were supervised by the principal investigator of this
study (F.A.) and were administered individually, i.e., one-by-one. During the 6 week period of the
study, participants were strictly instructed to maintain their regular physical activity and nutritional
habits. Participants were randomized into three groups, each following a diﬀerent protocol, with every
protocol lasting for a total of 6 weeks as, according to the literature, this is the minimum time required
to produce eﬀective changes in the joint range of motion (ROM) [13]. The baseline characteristics
of participants were presented in Table 1. The ﬁrst group adhered to a static stretching protocol
performed three times per week, the second followed a dynamic stretching protocol performed in
the same frequency, and the last one abstained from any stretching exercises for the duration of the
trial, forming the control group. During the trial, all participants continued to follow their everyday
activities, but additionally incorporated the protocol of the group in which they were placed for the
duration of the trial. All three groups participated in baseline and post-protocol 4.5 and 9 m sprint tests.
The static stretching protocol included static stretching exercises of the lower limbs (posterior
tibial muscles, front and posterior crural muscles, topside and iliopsoas muscles), for a total duration
of 4 min. Each stretching exercise lasted for 10 s and was repeated twice (2 × 10 s), with a 10 s break
between exercises using both limbs simultaneously and without any break for exercises using one
limb at a time. All exercises were performed in the maximum joint ROM, while avoiding muscle pain
(Figure 1).
The second protocol involved 6 weeks of dynamic stretching exercises, implemented in the same
frequency as the ﬁrst one (three times per week). It involved dynamic stretching exercises performed
in the exact same manner as the ﬁrst protocol (Figure 2). Finally, the third protocol (control protocol)
involved abstaining from stretching exercises for the total duration of the trial (6 weeks).
The sprint tests were performed inside the volleyball court, in line with the parallel end of the
court. Two maximal sprint tests were carried out at 4.5 m, and the one with the best result was kept for
each participant (Figure 3). Initially, participants warmed up by performing submaximal intensity
sprints towards diﬀerent directions, including side movements, for a total duration of 5 minutes
without any stretching exercises. Then, sprint tests were carried out on the side of the court (Figure 3).
Participants were asked to start the sprint in random order, with their body in standing position and
their knees slightly bent, with one leg (right or left) approximately 40 cm behind the starting line,
entering from the beam gate where the ﬁrst pair of photocells was placed. Then they ran towards the
ﬁnishing line where the second pair of photocells was placed. Instructions were provided on running
as fast as possible, without slowing down towards the ﬁnishing line. Each participant initiated the trial
alone, without receiving any signal from the examiners.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2835
4 of 10
 
The static stretching protocol included static stretching exercises of the lower limbs (posterior 
tibial muscles, front and posterior crural muscles, topside and iliopsoas muscles), for a total duration 
of 4 min. Each stretching exercise lasted for 10 s and was repeated twice (2 × 10 s), with a 10 s break 
between exercises using both limbs simultaneously and without any break for exercises using one 
limb at a time. All exercises were performed in the maximum joint ROM, while avoiding muscle 
pain (Figure 1). 
 
Figure 1. Static stretching protocol exercises of the (a) posterior tibial, (b) front crural, (c) posterior 
crural, (d) gluteus, (e) iliopsoas, and (f) topside muscles. 
a 
b 
c 
d 
e 
f 
Figure 1. Static stretching protocol exercises of the (a) posterior tibial, (b) front crural, (c) posterior
crural, (d) gluteus, (e) iliopsoas, and (f) topside muscles.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, x 
4 of 9 
The second protocol involved 6 weeks of dynamic stretching exercises, implemented in the same 
frequency as the first one (three times per week). It involved dynamic stretching exercises performed 
in the exact same manner as the first protocol (Figure 2). Finally, the third protocol (control protocol) 
involved abstaining from stretching exercises for the total duration of the trial (6 weeks).  
Figure 2. Dynamic stretching protocol exercises of the (a) posterior tibial, (b,c) topside, (d,e) iliopsoas, 
(f,g) front and (h,i) posterior crural, and (j,k) gluteal muscles. 
The sprint tests were performed inside the volleyball court, in line with the parallel end of the 
court. Two maximal sprint tests were carried out at 4.5 m, and the one with the best result was kept 
for each participant (Figure 3). Initially, participants warmed up by performing submaximal intensity 
sprints towards different directions, including side movements, for a total duration of 5 minutes 
without any stretching exercises. Then, sprint tests were carried out on the side of the court (Figure 
3). Participants were asked to start the sprint in random order, with their body in standing position 
and their knees slightly bent, with one leg (right or left) approximately 40 cm behind the starting line, 
entering from the beam gate where the first pair of photocells was placed. Then they ran towards the 
finishing line where the second pair of photocells was placed. Instructions were provided on running 
as fast as possible, without slowing down towards the finishing line. Each participant initiated the 
trial alone, without receiving any signal from the examiners. 
a 
b 
c 
d 
e 
f 
g 
h 
i 
j 
k 
Figure 2. Dynamic stretching protocol exercises of the (a) posterior tibial, (b,c) topside, (d,e) iliopsoas,
(f,g) front and (h,i) posterior crural, and (j,k) gluteal muscles.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, x 
4 of 9 
 
The second protocol involved 6 weeks of dynamic stretching exercises, implemented in the same 
frequency as the first one (three times per week). It involved dynamic stretching exercises performed 
in the exact same manner as the first protocol (Figure 2). Finally, the third protocol (control protocol) 
involved abstaining from stretching exercises for the total duration of the trial (6 weeks).  
Figure 2. Dynamic stretching protocol exercises of the (a) posterior tibial, (b,c) topside, (d,e) iliopsoas, 
(f,g) front and (h,i) posterior crural, and (j,k) gluteal muscles. 
The sprint tests were performed inside the volleyball court, in line with the parallel end of the 
court. Two maximal sprint tests were carried out at 4.5 m, and the one with the best result was kept 
for each participant (Figure 3). Initially, participants warmed up by performing submaximal intensity 
sprints towards different directions, including side movements, for a total duration of 5 minutes 
without any stretching exercises. Then, sprint tests were carried out on the side of the court (Figure 
3). Participants were asked to start the sprint in random order, with their body in standing position 
and their knees slightly bent, with one leg (right or left) approximately 40 cm behind the starting line, 
entering from the beam gate where the first pair of photocells was placed. Then they ran towards the 
finishing line where the second pair of photocells was placed. Instructions were provided on running 
as fast as possible, without slowing down towards the finishing line. Each participant initiated the 
trial alone, without receiving any signal from the examiners. 
 
Figure 3. Sprint tests procedure. 
a 
b 
c 
d 
e 
f 
g 
h 
i 
j 
k 
Figure 3. Sprint tests procedure.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2835
5 of 10
The same procedure was followed for the 9 m sprint test, which was also performed on the side of
the court. A break lasting for more than 3 min intervened between each sprint [28]. The running speed
was measured using the two pairs of photocell shutters and a digital chronometer [28]. The velocity
assessment was carried out with a dual-beam photocell system (Autonics Beam Sensor BL5M-MFR)
and a digital timer (Saint Wien Digital Timer Type H5K).
2.3. Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS software (IBM, New York, NY, United States of
America) and the level of signiﬁcance was set at α = 0.05. Between- and within-subjects analyses of
variance examined the main eﬀects of group (static, dynamic, and control), time (pre- and post-test),
and group × time interaction on sprint times of 4.5 and 9 m. A post hoc Bonferroni test examined
diﬀerences among the static, dynamic, and control groups. The percentage diﬀerence (∆%) in sprint
time from pre- to post-test was calculated using the formula ‘100 × (sprint time at post-test − sprint
time at pre-test)/sprint time at pre-test’. The relationship of ∆% in sprint time with demographic
characteristics was examined using Pearson correlation coeﬃcient r, whose magnitude was interpreted
as trivial (r < 0.10), small (0.10 ≤ r < 0.30), moderate (0.30 ≤ r < 0.50), large (0.50 ≤ r < 0.70), very large
(0.70 ≤ r < 0.90), nearly perfect (r ≥ 0.90), or perfect (r = 1.00) [29].
3. Results
In the 4.5 m sprint time, a large main eﬀect of time was observed (p = 0.027, η2 = 0.188),
where overall the post-test was faster than the pre-test sprint time (1.03 ± 0.11 s and 1.08 ± 0.07 s,
respectively; mean diﬀerence −0.05 s; 95% conﬁdence intervals, CI, −0.09, −0.01) (Figure 4). A large
time × group interaction was shown (p = 0.007, η2 = 0.341), with the static and dynamic stretching
groups being faster in the post-test than in the pre-test, whereas no change was found in the control
group. Overall, the static and dynamic stretching groups were faster than the control group by −0.07 s
(95% CI, −0.13, −0.01) and −0.09 s (95% CI, −0.16, −0.02), respectively.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, x 
5 of 9 
 
The same procedure was followed for the 9 m sprint test, which was also performed on the side 
of the court. A break lasting for more than 3 min intervened between each sprint [28]. The running 
speed was measured using the two pairs of photocell shutters and a digital chronometer [28]. Τhe 
velocity assessment was carried out with a dual-beam photocell system (Autonics Beam Sensor 
BL5M-MFR) and a digital timer (Saint Wien Digital Timer Type H5K). 
2.3. Statistical Analysis 
Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS software (IBM, New York, NY, United States of 
America) and the level of significance was set at α = 0.05. Between- and within-subjects analyses of 
variance examined the main effects of group (static, dynamic, and control), time (pre- and post-test), 
and group × time interaction on sprint times of 4.5 and 9 m. A post hoc Bonferroni test examined 
differences among the static, dynamic, and control groups. The percentage difference (Δ%) in sprint 
time from pre- to post-test was calculated using the formula ‘100 × (sprint time at post-test − sprint 
time at pre-test)/sprint time at pre-test’. The relationship of Δ% in sprint time with demographic 
characteristics was examined using Pearson correlation coefficient r, whose magnitude was 
interpreted as trivial (r < 0.10), small (0.10 ≤ r < 0.30), moderate (0.30 ≤ r < 0.50), large (0.50 ≤ r < 0.70), 
very large (0.70 ≤ r < 0.90), nearly perfect (r ≥ 0.90), or perfect (r = 1.00) [29]. 
3. Results 
In the 4.5 m sprint time, a large main effect of time was observed (p = 0.027, η2 = 0.188), where 
overall the post-test was faster than the pre-test sprint time (1.03 ± 0.11 s and 1.08 ± 0.07 s, respectively; 
mean difference −0.05 s; 95% confidence intervals, CI, −0.09, −0.01) (Figure 4). A large time × group 
interaction was shown (p = 0.007, η2 = 0.341), with the static and dynamic stretching groups being 
faster in the post-test than in the pre-test, whereas no change was found in the control group. Overall, 
the static and dynamic stretching groups were faster than the control group by −0.07 s (95% CI, −0.13, 
−0.01) and −0.09 s (95% CI, −0.16, −0.02), respectively. 
 
Figure 4. Individual changes in the 4.5 m sprint time by experimental group and percentage change 
(Δ%). 
Figure 4. Individual changes in the 4.5 m sprint time by experimental group and percentage change (∆%).
In the 9 m sprint time, a large main eﬀect of time was observed (p < 0.001, η2 = 0.605), where overall
the post-test was faster than the pre-test sprint time (1.72 ± 0.12 s and 1.81 ± 0.08 s, respectively; mean
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2835
6 of 10
diﬀerence −0.08 s; 95% CI, −0.11, −0.06) (Figure 5). A large time × group interaction was shown
(p = 0.004, η2 = 0.363), with the static and dynamic stretching groups being faster in the post-test than
in the pre-test, whereas no change was found in the control group. Overall, the static and dynamic
stretching groups were faster than the control group by −0.09 s (95% CI, −0.18, 0) and −0.11 s (95% CI,
−0.21, −0.01), respectively.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, x 
6 of 9 
 
In the 9 m sprint time, a large main effect of time was observed (p < 0.001, η2 = 0.605), where 
overall the post-test was faster than the pre-test sprint time (1.72 ± 0.12 s and 1.81 ± 0.08 s, respectively; 
mean difference −0.08 s; 95% CI, −0.11, −0.06) (Figure 5). A large time × group interaction was shown 
(p = 0.004, η2 = 0.363), with the static and dynamic stretching groups being faster in the post-test than 
in the pre-test, whereas no change was found in the control group. Overall, the static and dynamic 
stretching groups were faster than the control group by −0.09 s (95% CI, −0.18, 0) and −0.11 s (95% CI, 
−0.21, −0.01), respectively. 
 
Figure 5. Individual changes in the 9 m sprint time by experimental group and percentage change 
(Δ%). 
With regard to the relationship of changes in the sprint ability from pre- to post-test with 
demographic characteristics of participants, a moderate negative correlation of percentage change in 
the 4.5 m sprint with volleyball experience was observed; i.e., the longer the volleyball experience, 
the larger the improvement in the 4.5 m sprint (Figure 6). The percentage change in the 4.5 m sprint 
correlated largely with the percentage change in the 9 m sprint. No relationship was observed in the 
relationship of age, weight, height, or body mass index with percentage changes in sprint ability (p > 
0.05). 
 
Figure 6. Relationship of percentage change (Δ%) from pre-test to post-test between sprint ability and 
volleyball experience. 
4. Discussion 
Figure 5. Individual changes in the 9 m sprint time by experimental group and percentage change (∆%).
With regard to the relationship of changes in the sprint ability from pre- to post-test with
demographic characteristics of participants, a moderate negative correlation of percentage change in
the 4.5 m sprint with volleyball experience was observed; i.e., the longer the volleyball experience,
the larger the improvement in the 4.5 m sprint (Figure 6). The percentage change in the 4.5 m sprint
correlated largely with the percentage change in the 9 m sprint. No relationship was observed in
the relationship of age, weight, height, or body mass index with percentage changes in sprint ability
(p > 0.05).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, x 
6 of 9 
 
In the 9 m sprint time, a large main effect of time was observed (p < 0.001, η2 = 0.605), where 
overall the post-test was faster than the pre-test sprint time (1.72 ± 0.12 s and 1.81 ± 0.08 s, respectively; 
mean difference −0.08 s; 95% CI, −0.11, −0.06) (Figure 5). A large time × group interaction was shown 
(p = 0.004, η2 = 0.363), with the static and dynamic stretching groups being faster in the post-test than 
in the pre-test, whereas no change was found in the control group. Overall, the static and dynamic 
stretching groups were faster than the control group by −0.09 s (95% CI, −0.18, 0) and −0.11 s (95% CI, 
−0.21, −0.01), respectively. 
 
Figure 5. Individual changes in the 9 m sprint time by experimental group and percentage change 
(Δ%). 
With regard to the relationship of changes in the sprint ability from pre- to post-test with 
demographic characteristics of participants, a moderate negative correlation of percentage change in 
the 4.5 m sprint with volleyball experience was observed; i.e., the longer the volleyball experience, 
the larger the improvement in the 4.5 m sprint (Figure 6). The percentage change in the 4.5 m sprint 
correlated largely with the percentage change in the 9 m sprint. No relationship was observed in the 
relationship of age, weight, height, or body mass index with percentage changes in sprint ability (p > 
0.05). 
 
Figure 6. Relationship of percentage change (Δ%) from pre-test to post-test between sprint ability and 
volleyball experience. 
4. Discussion 
Figure 6. Relationship of percentage change (∆%) from pre-test to post-test between sprint ability and
volleyball experience.
4. Discussion
The present study examined the eﬀects of 6 week static and dynamic stretching exercise protocols
on the sprint speed of recreational volleyball players. The main ﬁnding of the study was that the time
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2835
7 of 10
to complete the 4.5 and 9 m sprint tests signiﬁcantly improved after the implementation of dynamic
and static stretching protocols. A secondary ﬁnding was that both 4.5 and 9 m sprint tests had similar
sensitivity to evaluate chronic adaptations to stretching exercise programs.
Similar ﬁndings have been reported among wrestlers performing dynamic stretching ﬁve times
per week for a total of 4 weeks [12]. Adherence to long-term dynamic stretching appears to improve
sprinting time as a result of dynamic muscle elongation and coordination improvement [30], reducing
energy cost [31] while paving the way for re-usage of the elastic strain energy [32]. Time to complete the
4.5 and 9 m sprint tests was also improved in the static stretching protocol team. Similar improvements
were reported by Kokkonen et al. [26] on men and women performing static stretching three times per
week for a total of 10 weeks. Bazett-Jones et al. [9], on the other hand, failed to record any improvements
in sprinting ability 6 weeks after a static stretching warm-up scheme, performed at a frequency of four
times per week. Their sample included female athletes of classic sports; however, it is well known that
women are less aﬀected by static stretching due to the already high ﬂexibility they attain as a result of
the inner gastrocnemius muscle tendon [33]. According to Earp et al. [34], muscle contraction speed
and the ability to perform power exercises are both improved in line with muscle ﬁber elongation.
Thus, the improvement in the sprinting tests herein could be attributed to an improvement in muscle
ﬁber length. On the other hand, the control group failed to demonstrate any improvements. This
was expected, given that participants of this group did not adhere to any exercise/warm-up protocol
aﬀecting muscle elongation during the 6 week trial.
In addition, it should be highlighted that both tests (4.5 and 9 m) indicated improvement
of sprint ability at 6 weeks of dynamic and static stretching protocols. This similarity between
these two sprint tests suggested their physiological aﬃnity. Previous research in soccer showed
that sprint tests—e.g., 10 versus 20 m—are related to similar anthropometric and physiological
characteristics [35,36]. For instance, both the 10 and 20 m sprints correlated positively with body mass
and height, and negatively with squat jump, countermovement jump, and peak power in the Wingate
anaerobic test [35]. With regard to the relationship of change in the 4.5 m sprint time from pre- to
post-test with volleyball experience, the larger improvements in sprint time observed in the more
experienced participants compared to their less experienced counterparts highlighted the relationship
between trainability and volleyball experience.
A limitation of the present study was that it used a speciﬁc set of either dynamic or static
stretching exercises; thus, the ﬁndings should be generalized with caution to stretching exercise
programs consisting of diﬀerent stretching exercises or exercise characteristics (e.g., exercise intensity,
volume, and frequency). Moreover, further research could examine—using larger sample sizes—the
relationship of longitudinal changes in sprinting ability and anthropometric characteristics, as well
as the role of nutrition, since it has been shown that physical performances in volleyball are related
to anthropometric characteristics [37]. On the other hand, the strength of the study was its novelty
considering the relatively small number of previous research works on the chronic adaptations of sprint
ability to dynamic and static stretching exercise. Since stretching exercises are a major component of
exercise programs, knowledge of their impact would be of great practical importance for professionals
(e.g., physicians, sport scientists) who prescribe exercise.
5. Conclusions
The present study shows that both static and dynamic stretching protocols have a positive eﬀect
on sprinting time when implemented for a total of 6 weeks, three times per week. Additionally,
the protocols used herein could be of use to trainers for systematic implementation among athletes of
diﬀerent sports, including volleyball, in an eﬀort to improve sprint ability.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2835
8 of 10
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, F.A., S.D.P., and I.G.; methodology, F.A., S.D.P., I.G., and S.K.; software,
F.A., S.D.P., G.K., and S.K.; validation, F.A., S.D.P., I.G., G.K., and A.K.; formal analysis, F.A., S.D.P., I.G., and G.K.;
investigation, F.A., S.D.P., I.G., and S.K.; resources, F.A., S.D.P., G.K., and A.K.; data curation, F.A., S.D.P., I.G.,
G.K., S.K., and A.K.; writing—original draft preparation, F.A., S.D.P., I.G., and G.K.; writing—review and editing,
F.A., S.D.P., I.G., G.K., S.K., P.T.N., B.K., and A.K.; visualization, F.A., I.G., G.K., and S.K.; supervision, P.T.N. and
B.K.; project administration, P.T.N. and B.K.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The voluntary participation of all athletes in the present study is gratefully acknowledged.
Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest.
References
1.
Zakas, A.; Galazoulas, C.; Grammatikopoulou, M.G.; Vergou, A. Eﬀects of stretching exercise during strength
training in prepubertal, pubertal and adolescent boys. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 2002, 6, 170–176. [CrossRef]
2.
Zakas, A.; Grammatikopoulou, M.G.; Zakas, N.; Zahariadis, P.; Vamvakoudis, E. The eﬀect of active warm-up
and stretching on the ﬂexibility of adolescent soccer players. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2006, 46, 57–61.
3.
Chaouachi, A.; Padulo, J.; Kasmi, S.; Othmen, A.B.; Chatra, M.; Behm, D.G. Unilateral static and dynamic
hamstrings stretching increases contralateral hip ﬂexion range of motion. Clin. Physiol. Funct. Imaging 2017,
37, 23–29. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4.
Harvey, L.; Herbert, R.; Crosbie, J. Does stretching induce lasting increases in joint rom? A systematic review.
Physiother. Res. Int. J. Res. Clin. Phys. Ther. 2002, 7, 1–13. [CrossRef]
5.
Van Gyn, G.H. Contemporary stretching techniques: Theory and application. In The Dancer as Athlete;
Shell, C., Ed.; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 1986.
6.
Zakas, A.; Balaska, P.; Grammatikopoulou, M.G.; Zakas, N.; Vergou, A. Acute eﬀects of stretching duration
on the range of motion of elderly women. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 2005, 9, 270–276. [CrossRef]
7.
Kyranoudis, A.; Nikolaidis, V.; Ispirlidis, I.; Galazoulas, C.; Alipasali, F.; Famisis, K. Acute eﬀect of speciﬁc
warm-up exercises on sprint performance after static and dynamic stretching in amateur soccer players.
J. Phys. Educ. Sport 2018, 18, 825–830.
8.
Zakas, A.; Vergou, A.; Grammatikopoulou, M.G.; Zakas, N.; Sentelidis, T.; Vamvakoudis, S. The eﬀect of
stretching during warming-up on the ﬂexibility of junior handball players. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2003, 43,
145–149.
9.
Bazett-Jones, D.M.; Gibson, M.H.; McBride, J.M. Sprint and vertical jump performances are not aﬀected by
sixweeks of static hamstring stretching. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2008, 22, 25–31. [CrossRef]
10.
Yuktasir, B.; Kaya, F. Investigation into the long-term eﬀects of static and pnf stretching exercises on range of
motion and jump performance. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 2009, 13, 11–21. [CrossRef]
11.
Worrell, T.W.; Smith, T.L.; Winegardner, J. Eﬀect of hamstring stretching on hamstring muscle performance.
J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 1994, 20, 154–159. [CrossRef]
12.
Herman, S.L.; Smith, D.T. Four-week dynamic stretching warm-up intervention elicits longer-term
performance beneﬁts. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2008, 22, 1286–1297. [CrossRef]
13.
Laroche, D.P.; Lussier, M.V.; Roy, S.J. Chronic stretching and voluntary muscle force. J. Strength Cond. Res.
2008, 22, 589–596. [CrossRef]
14.
Turki-Belkhiria, L.; Chaouachi, A.; Turki, O.; Chtourou, H.; Chtara, M.; Chamari, K.; Amri, M.; Behm, D.G.
Eight weeks of dynamic stretching during warm-ups improves jump power but not repeated or single sprint
performance. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2014, 14, 19–27. [CrossRef]
15.
Woolstenhulme, M.T.; Griﬃths, C.M.; Woolstenhulme, E.M.; Parcell, A.C. Ballistic stretching increases
ﬂexibility and acute vertical jump height when combined with basketball activity. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2006,
20, 799–803.
16.
Taber, L.A. Biomechanics of growth, remodeling, and morphogenesis. Appl. Mech. Rev. 1995, 48, 487–545.
[CrossRef]
17.
Göktepe, S.; Abilez, O.J.; Parker, K.K.; Kuhl, E. A multiscale model for eccentric and concentric cardiac
growth through sarcomerogenesis. J. Theor. Biol. 2010, 265, 433–442. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2835
9 of 10
18.
Kerckhoﬀs, R.C.P.; Omens, J.H.; McCulloch, A.D. A single strain-based growth law predicts concentric
and eccentric cardiac growth during pressure and volume overload. Mech. Res. Commun. 2012, 42, 40–50.
[CrossRef]
19.
Medeiros, D.M.; Lima, C.S. Inﬂuence of chronic stretching on muscle performance: Systematic review.
Hum. Mov. Sci. 2017, 54, 220–229. [CrossRef]
20.
Barnes, J.L.; Schilling, B.K.; Falvo, M.J.; Weiss, L.W.; Creasy, A.K.; Fry, A.C. Relationship of jumping and
agility performance in female volleyball athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2007, 21, 1192–1196.
21.
Gabbett, T.; Georgieﬀ, B. Physiological and anthropometric characteristics of australian junior national, state,
and novice volleyball players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2007, 21, 902–908.
22.
Johnson, T.M.; Brown, L.E.; Coburn, J.W.; Judelson, D.A.; Khamoui, A.V.; Tran, T.T.; Uribe, B.P. Eﬀect of
four diﬀerent starting stances on sprint time in collegiate volleyball players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2010, 24,
2641–2646. [CrossRef]
23.
Fletcher, I.M.; Jones, B. The eﬀect of diﬀerent warm-up stretch protocols on 20 meter sprint performance in
trained rugby union players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2004, 18, 885–888.
24.
Sayers, A.L.; Farley, R.S.; Fuller, D.K.; Jubenville, C.B.; Caputo, J.L. The eﬀect of static stretching on phases of
sprint performance in elite soccer players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2008, 22, 1416–1421. [CrossRef]
25.
Paradisis, G.P.; Pappas, P.T.; Theodorou, A.S.; Zacharogiannis, E.G.; Skordilis, E.K.; Smirniotou, A.S. Eﬀects
of static and dynamic stretching on sprint and jump performance in boys and girls. J. Strength Cond. Res.
2014, 28, 154–160. [CrossRef]
26.
Kokkonen, J.; Nelson, A.G.; Eldredge, C.; Winchester, J.B. Chronic static stretching improves exercise
performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2007, 39, 1825–1831.
27.
Turki, O.; Chaouachi, A.; Behm, D.G.; Chtara, H.; Chtara, M.; Bishop, D.; Chamari, K.; Amri, M. The eﬀect of
warm-ups incorporating diﬀerent volumes of dynamic stretching on 10- and 20-m sprint performance in
highly trained male athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2012, 26, 63–72. [CrossRef]
28.
Gissis, I.; Papadopoulos, C.; Kalapotharakos, V.; Sotiropoulos, A.; Komsis, G.; Manolopoulos, E. Strength
and speed characteristics of elite, subelite, and recreational young soccer players. Res. Sports Med. 2006, 14,
205–214. [CrossRef]
29.
Batterham, A.M.; Hopkins, W.G. Making meaningful inferences about magnitudes.
Int.
J. Sports
Physiol. Perform. 2006, 1, 50–57. [CrossRef]
30.
Behm, D.G.; Blazevich, A.J.; Kay, A.D.; McHugh, M. Acute eﬀects of muscle stretching on physical
performance, range of motion, and injury incidence in healthy active individuals: A systematic review.
Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2015, 41, 1–11. [CrossRef]
31.
Wilson, J.M.; Hornbuckle, L.M.; Kim, J.S.; Ugrinowitsch, C.; Lee, S.R.; Zourdos, M.C.; Sommer, B.; Panton, L.B.
Eﬀects of static stretching on energy cost and running endurance performance. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2010,
24, 2274–2279. [CrossRef]
32.
Wilson, G.; Elliott, B.C.; Wood, G.A. Stretch shorten cycle performance enhancement through ﬂexibility
training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1992, 24, 116–123. [CrossRef]
33.
Dalrymple, K.J.; Davis, S.E.; Dwyer, G.B.; Moir, G.L. Eﬀect of static and dynamic stretching on vertical jump
performance in collegiate women volleyball players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2010, 24, 149–155. [CrossRef]
34.
Earp, J.E.; Kraemer, W.J.; Newton, R.U.; Comstock, B.A.; Fragala, M.S.; Dunn-Lewis, C.; Solomon-Hill, G.;
Penwell, Z.R.; Powell, M.D.; Volek, J.S.; et al. Lower-body muscle structure and its role in jump performance
during squat, countermovement, and depth drop jumps. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2010, 24, 722–729. [CrossRef]
35.
Nikolaidis, P.T.; Ruano, M.A.G.; de Oliveira, N.C.; Portes, L.A.; Freiwald, J.; Leprêtre, P.M.; Knechtle, B.
Who runs the fastest? Anthropometric and physiological correlates of 20 m sprint performance in male
soccer players. Res. Sports Med. 2016, 24, 341–351. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2835
10 of 10
36.
Nikolaidis, P.T.; Dellal, A.; Torres-Luque, G.; Ingebrigtsen, J. Determinants of acceleration and maximum
speed phase of repeated sprint ability in soccer players: A cross-sectional study. Sci. Sports 2015, 30, e7–e16.
[CrossRef]
37.
Mielgo-Ayuso, J.; Calleja-Gonzalez, J.; Clemente-Suarez, V.J.; Zourdos, M.C. Inﬂuence of anthropometric
proﬁle on physical performance in elite female volleyballers in relation to playing position. Nutr. Hosp. 2014,
31, 849–857.
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

The Effect of Static and Dynamic Stretching Exercises on Sprint Ability of Recreational Male Volleyball Players.
Alipasali, Foteini,Papadopoulou, Sophia D,Gissis, Ioannis,Komsis, Georgios,Komsis, Stergios,Kyranoudis, Angelos,Knechtle, Beat,Nikolaidis, Pantelis T