Comparison on the recovery ability of static, dynamic, pnf and foam roller stretching after high intensity training Lee So-Yeong1, Go Hye-Mi2, Lee Dong-Yeop2, Hong Ji-Heon2, Kim Jin-Seop2, Yu Jae-Ho2,* 1Student, Department of Physical Therapy, Sunmoon University, Asan-SI, Chungnam, Korea 2Department of Physical Therapy, Sunmoon University, Asan-SI, Chungnam, Korea *Corresponding Author: Jae-Ho Yu Professor, Department of Physical Therapy, Sunmoon University, Asan-si, Chungnam, Korea Email: naresa@sunmoon.ac.kr
Online published on 16 October, 2018. Abstract Background/Objectives The purpose of this study is to compare the muscle recovery effect of static, dynamic, PNF, and foam roller stretching after high intensity training, assessed by ultrasonography diagnostic device and electromyogram.. Method/Statistical Analysis Participants were randomly assigned to static, dynamic, PNF, and foam roller stretching groups. Their muscle thickness and activity were assessed before training and after stretching, both by intragroup and intergroup analysis.. Findings As a result, there were significant differences of muscle thickness and activity for every muscle in each group. In intergroup analysis, dynamic stretching group showed significant difference, while the other three groups did not.. Improvements/Applications Dynamic stretching has insignificant effect on muscle thickness and activity; static, PNF, and foam roller stretching are suggested for post-exercise, while foam roller stretching is the most recommended. Top Keywords Foam roller stretching, Muscle activity, Recovery ability, Ultrasonography, PNF. Top |