223565 Bullies, 4075 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 71 to 80 of 92
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 910 LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. ChenPengFi is online now
    ChenPengFi's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Hawai'i
    Posts
    3,226

    Posted On:
    3/14/2014 5:17pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: Hung Gar, Choy Lay Fut

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by fitnesRtscholar View Post
    Do you have a source for that statement? I've read that static stretches before a workout increase the chance of injury, but nothing similar to any stretches being associated with decreased strength(why/how would they?).

    It was 8 posts before yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by crappler View Post
    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...les_N.htm?csp=

    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/0...ype=blogs&_r=0

    The numbers, especially for competitive athletes, are sobering. According to their calculations, static stretching reduces strength in the stretched muscles by almost 5.5 percent, with the impact increasing in people who hold individual stretches for 90 seconds or more. While the effect is reduced somewhat when people’s stretches last less than 45 seconds, stretched muscles are, in general, substantially less strong.
  2. goodlun is online now
    goodlun's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ramona
    Posts
    5,014

    Posted On:
    3/14/2014 5:22pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: BJJ

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by fitnesRtscholar View Post
    Do you have a source for that statement? I've read that static stretches before a workout increase the chance of injury, but nothing similar to any stretches being associated with decreased strength(why/how would they?).
    Its also included in this link I put in earlier
    http://www.exrx.net/ExInfo/Stretching.html
    at the bottom of the page
    Greater flexibility may impair performance in sports that that do not require a high degree of flexibility such as running. Runners with less flexibility are actually more efficient at running (Jones 2002). Intense static stretching may also reduce maximum force production. The loss of voluntary strength and muscular power may last up to one hour after the static stretch (Evetovich 2003, Young 2003). People who participate in activities that require more than average flexibility (eg: gymnasts, dancers, figure skaters) may still find stretching beneficial to their performance.
  3. fitnesRtscholar is offline

    Featherweight

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    11

    Posted On:
    3/14/2014 5:26pm

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: Boxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    Google will give you all of the studies you need. The earliest one I found was from 1998.

    You know this makes your handle funny right?
    First one I find is:
    Abstract: Morais de Oliveira, AL, Coelho Greco, C, Molina, R, and Denadai, BS. The rate of force development obtained at early contraction phase is not influenced by active static stretching. J Strength Cond Res 26(8): 2174–2179, 2012—The objective of this study was to investigate the influence of active static stretching on the maximal isometric muscle strength (maximal voluntary contraction [MVC]) and rate of force development (RFD) determined within time intervals of 30, 50, 100, and 200 milliseconds relative to the onset of muscle contraction. Fifteen men (aged 21.3 2.4 years) were submitted on different days to the following tests: (a) familiarization session to the isokinetic dynamometer; (b) 2 maximal isometric contractions for knee extensors in the isokinetic dynamometer to determine MVC and RFD (control); and (c) 2 active static stretching exercises for the dominant leg extensors (10 30 seconds for each exercise with a 20-second rest interval between bouts). After stretching, the isokinetic test was repeated (poststretching). Conditions 2 and 3 were performed in random order. The RFD was considered as the mean slope of the moment-time curve at time intervals of 0–30, 0–50, 0–100; 0–150; and 0200 milliseconds relative to the onset of muscle contraction. The MVC was reduced after stretching (285 59 vs. 271 56 Nm, p < 0.01). The RFD at intervals of 0–30, 0–50, and 0–100 milliseconds was unchanged after stretching (p > 0.05). However, the RFD measured at intervals of 0–150 and 0–200 milliseconds was significantly lower after stretching (p < 0.01). It can be concluded that explosive muscular actions of a very short duration (<100 milliseconds) seem less affected by active static stretching when compared with actions using maximal muscle strength.
    Correct me if I'm wrong(I'm not being snide, I really want to know) This says that the tests were performed just after stretching, right? If that's the case, I think it has more to do with the fact that static stretches tell your muscles to relax than a loss of strength. Am I wrong?
  4. fitnesRtscholar is offline

    Featherweight

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    11

    Posted On:
    3/14/2014 5:35pm

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: Boxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I'll have to look into Jones 2002, Evetovich 2003, and Young 2003. Understand that my skepticism come from myself being able to squat almost 2x bodyweight, run 40 yds in under 5 seconds, and (nearly) do a complete split. Also, there's nothing wrong with my handle. It says scholar, not guru. You know how many kinesiology papers come out in a year?
  5. ChenPengFi is online now
    ChenPengFi's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Hawai'i
    Posts
    3,226

    Posted On:
    3/14/2014 5:47pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: Hung Gar, Choy Lay Fut

    2
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by fitnesRtscholar View Post
    I'll have to look into Jones 2002, Evetovich 2003, and Young 2003. Understand that my skepticism come from myself being able to squat almost 2x bodyweight, run 40 yds in under 5 seconds, and (nearly) do a complete split. Also, there's nothing wrong with my handle. It says scholar, not guru. You know how many kinesiology papers come out in a year?

    You didn't even read thoroughly enough here and are reciting anecdotes now, so i'm laughing at "scholar".

    (You don't have a teacher by the name of Munchh by any chance, do you?)
  6. fitnesRtscholar is offline

    Featherweight

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    11

    Posted On:
    3/14/2014 6:02pm

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: Boxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I'm not reciting anecdotes for proof if that's what you think. Merely explaining my own point of view. To you it's anecdotal, because I haven't had the chance to show you yet, and that's exactly how it should be, but to me it's just numbers. Anyway, I tend to be pretty stoic, so laugh as much as you like. :)
  7. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    33,924

    Posted On:
    3/14/2014 6:19pm

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by fitnesRtscholar View Post
    I think it has more to do with the fact that static stretches tell your muscles to relax than a loss of strength. Am I wrong?
    You drew this conclusion after reading one report?

    Seriously?
  8. fitnesRtscholar is offline

    Featherweight

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    11

    Posted On:
    3/14/2014 6:25pm

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: Boxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Sure, why not? Anyway, like I said I'll read the ones that were referenced later. It's 7:30 on a Friday, I'm not in forum-debatenerd mode. I only read the fist post after mine when that was written, and didn't bother much with google because I was under the assumption that I was right. Maybe I was wrong, exrx is usually pretty sound. Don't expect an apology though.
  9. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    33,924

    Posted On:
    3/14/2014 6:37pm

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    2
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by fitnesRtscholar View Post
    . It says scholar, not guru.
    Hmmmmm......

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guru

    Synonyms
    ace, adept, artist, authority, cognoscente, connoisseur, crackerjack (also crackajack), dab [chiefly British], dab hand [chiefly British], fiend, geek, expert, hand, hotshot, maestro, master, maven (also mavin), meister, past master, proficient, scholar, shark, sharp, virtuoso, whiz, wizard
    Begin facepalm\

    Quote Originally Posted by fitnesRtscholar View Post
    Don't expect an apology though.
    After the above pretend arrogance coupled with this condescension:
    didn't bother much with google because I was under the assumption that I was right.
    No one would.
  10. ChenPengFi is online now
    ChenPengFi's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Hawai'i
    Posts
    3,226

    Posted On:
    3/14/2014 6:40pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: Hung Gar, Choy Lay Fut

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by fitnesRtscholar View Post
    Sure, why not? Anyway, like I said I'll read the ones that were referenced later. It's 7:30 on a Friday, I'm not in forum-debatenerd mode. I only read the fist post after mine when that was written, and didn't bother much with google because I was under the assumption that I was right. Maybe I was wrong, exrx is usually pretty sound. Don't expect an apology though.
    LOL, that is filled with so much stupidity i don't know where to begin.

    You should just stfu.
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 910 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.