Background: While static stretch (SS), proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) and oscillatory physiological mobilization techniques are documented to have positive effects on a range of motion, there are no reports on the effect of dynamic oscillatory stretching (DOS), a technique that combines these three techniques, on hamstring extensibility.
Purpose: To determine whether DOS improves hamstring extensibility and stretch tolerance to a greater degree than SS in asymptomatic young participants.
Study Design: Randomized Controlled Trial.
Methods: Sixty participants (47 females, 13 males, mean age 22 ± 1 years, height 166 ± 6 centimeters, body mass 67.6 ± 9.7 kg) completed a passive straight leg (SLR) to establish hamstring extensibility and stretch tolerance as perceived by participants using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Participants were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups (SS or DOS) or a placebo control (20 per group). Tests were repeated immediately following and one hour after each intervention. Data were assessed using a two-way repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s post hoc test.
Results: Immediately post-intervention, there was a significant improvement in the hamstring extensibility as measured by the SLR in both the SS and DOS groups, with the DOS group exhibiting a significantly greater increase than the SS group (Control 73 ± 12°, SS 86 ± 8°, DOS 94 ± 11°, p < 0.001). One hour post-intervention, hamstring extensibility in the DOS group remained elevated, while the SS group no longer differed from the control group (Control 73 ± 12°, SS 80 ± 8°, DOS 89 ± 12°, p = 0.001). Furthermore, the stretch tolerance remained significantly elevated for the SS group, but there was no difference between the control and DOS groups, (Control 4.6 ± 1.3, SS 5.9 ± 0.8, DOS 4.3 ± 1.0 AU, p < 0.001).
Conclusion: DOS was more effective than SS at achieving an immediate increase in hamstring extensibility, and DOS demonstrated an increased stretch tolerance one-hour post-intervention.
Level of evidence: 2C