Skip to content

Effect of Flexibility Training Versus Static Stretching on Hamstring Muscle Length and Patterns of Lumbar Flexion

Effect of Dynamic Flexibility Training Versus Prolonged Static Stretching on Length of the Hamstrings Muscles and Patterns of Lumbar Flexion in Healthy Adults -a Randomized Controlled Trial

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02702219
Enrollment
52
Registered
2016-03-08
Start date
2016-03-31
Completion date
2016-09-30
Last updated
2022-09-19

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Dynamic Stretching, Low Back, Muscle, Static Stretching

Brief summary

Mobility training in the form of stretching and flexibility training of our skeletal muscle is a common exercise. However, the evidence are scare and there are only a few studies comparing the effect of prolonged static stretching (\> 90 sec) and dynamic flexibility training as to which of these methods has the best length-enhancing effect over time. Further, in clinical practice concerning low back pain, the possibility of a thigh hamstrings muscles to affect movement control of the spine is often mentioned, a link not fully explored in a controlled condition. The purpose of this study is to compare the effect of eight weeks of dynamic flexibility training versus prolonged static stretching on mobility in the hamstring muscles in adults with reduced mobility in the muscles at the back of the thigh. The aim is also to compare the sustained effect of flexibility training between the two groups, eight weeks after completion of the intervention. Furthermore, the aim is to explore how different forms of flexibility training affects movement patterns of the lumbar spine in adult persons with reduced mobility in the hamstrings.

Interventions

BEHAVIORALMobility of the hamstrings muscles

Sponsors

Luleå Tekniska Universitet
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 50 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Restricted hip flexion \< 80 degress due to thight hamstrings muscles

Exclusion criteria

* discomfort or illness from musculoskeletal system which significantly affects the person in his/her everyday life * previous injury (within 12 weeks) in the hamstring muscle prior to study entry * known RA diagnosis * known neurological disease * medication affecting the musculskeletal system

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change of Range of motion of hip flexionChange from Baseline to after intervention (8 weeks), Change from Baseline to follow-up at 16 weeksHip flexion is performed in a standardised procedure and is measured in degrees.
Change of Fingertip to floor distanceChange from Baseline to after intervention (8 weeks), Change from Baseline to follow-up at 16 weeksDistance from fingertip to floor test is performed in a standardised manner and is measured in centimeters

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change in Waiters bowChange from Baseline to after intervention (8 weeks), Change from Baseline to follow-up at 16 weeksWaiters bow is a test of movement controll of the lumbar spine and is measured a if movement is performed correctly or not.
Change in Sitting bilateral knee extensionChange from Baseline to after intervention (8 weeks), Change from Baseline to follow-up at 16 weeksSitting bilateral knee extension is a test of movement controll of the lumbar spine and is measured a if movement is performed correctly or not.

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026