PittBull! skrev:Mussetrussen skrev:PittBull! skrev:Er der nogle herinde, som kender til litteraturen omkring udstræk og dynamisk opvarmning/udstræk i forbindelse med præhabilitering? Ved man om det har et signifikant statistisk grundlag?
Altså tænker du ift. om udstrækning/opvarmning virker skadesforebyggende eller?
Jeg har skrevet lidt om både dynamisk og statisk udspænding her, men det er vist primært ift. præstationsforbedringer i den efterfølgende træning.
https://www.bodylab.dk/shop/opvarmning- ... 960c1.htmlEllers kan jeg se at jeg har et par artikler liggende omkring om man rent faktisk kan øge ROM gennem udspænding, og hvilken type udspænding der i så fald virker bedst, samt en artikel omkring om statisk udspænding kan reducere udbyttet af en efterfølgende styrketræning både ift. styrke og muskelvækst. Du må sige til hvis der er noget af det som er relevant.
Ja, helt sikkert ift. om det er skadesforebyggende
kender du noget til det?
Det er jo komplekst, for hvad ser man på? Følger man atleter over tid og ser hvor mange skader de som strækker ud får kontra de som ikke strækker ud; hvilken type udspænding laver man? Hvilke specifikke øvelser? Hvilken type sport dyrker man og hvilke typer skader får man? Hvor meget udspænding laver man? Hvor længe varer det? Osv. osv. Det er ikke let at komme til bunds i. Det jeg har set på området virker også uafklaret. Der er dog lidt konklusioner fra forskellige studier og oversigtsstudier, som kan give en indikation:
The literature presents contradicting information regarding whether a
stretching program reduces injury risk. Sport-specifi c
stretching programs that contained exercises specifi c to
the muscle groups at high risk for injury appear to be
the most effective way to reduce injury risk. A general
warm-up of the muscle prior to activity also gives the
impression of benefi ting the reduction of injury risk.
Non–sport-specifi c stretching appeared to have little or
no effect on the reduction of injury incidence. Increased
temperature of muscle, as a result of warm-up, appears
to have the greatest infl uence on the incidence of injury.
An inherent limitation in the research on injury prevention is that there has been inadequate consideration of the optimal intensity, frequency and duration of the stretching protocols employed. Despite these and other limitations there is some evidence that stretching does not reduce the risk of sustaining overuse injuries but does reduce the risk of sustaining muscle strain injuries.
Despite stretching commonly being performed before
exercise to enhance performance and reduce the risk
of injury, there is limited scientific data to support the
suggested benefits of stretching. Static and ballistic
stretching have been shown to have detrimental
effects on muscle strength and functional performances such as jumping, and to have inconclusive
effects on the incidence of injury, and no effects on
the severity of muscle damage. Even though research
has indicated that stretching is an effective treatment
to increase static flexibility (range of motion), the
effects on dynamic flexibility (muscle stiffness) are
inconclusive given the variation of the length of hold
and the number of repetitions used in studies. The
aim of stretching is to increase flexibility, but does
flexibility help to enhance performance? The ideal
flexibility for the performance of each sports activity
is different. Compliant muscle might be beneficial to
eccentric contraction while stiffer muscle might be
more suitable for concentric and isometric contractions. Does flexibility help to reduce the rate of
injury? The majority of research does not support this
statement. In fact, the majority of movement in sports
requires repetitive movements within the normal
range of motion. An increase in range of motion,
therefore, is not necessary. The aim to reduce resistance during repetitive movement might be more beneficial in terms of increasing quality of movement and
reducing the risk of overuse injury. Practically, the
optimal level of flexibility is required because the
increase in flexibility (more compliant muscle) might
not benefit performance but may help to reduce the
risk of injury. The compliant muscle–tendon unit
absorbs and requires more energy to shorten, and
consequently delays and reduces external force production. Nevertheless, the increase in ability to absorb
energy in the compliant muscle might help to reduce
the mechanical overload on muscle fibres, and consequently reduce the risk of muscle injury and the severity of muscle damage.