Skip to main content
Log in

Acute effects of contract–relax (CR) stretch versus a modified CR technique

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Applied Physiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Contract–relax (CR) stretching increases range of motion (ROM) substantively, however its use in athletic environments is limited as the contractions performed in a highly stretched position require partner assistance, are often painful, and may induce muscle damage. Therefore, the acute effects of performing the contractions ‘off stretch’ in the anatomical position [stretch–return–contract (SRC)] were compared with traditional CR stretching in 14 healthy human volunteers.

Methods

Passive ankle joint moment and dorsiflexion ROM were recorded on an isokinetic dynamometer with electromyographic monitoring of the triceps surae, whilst simultaneous real-time motion analysis and ultrasound imaging recorded gastrocnemius medialis muscle and Achilles tendon elongation. The subjects then performed CR or SRC stretches (4 × 10-s stretches and 5-s contractions) randomly on separate days before reassessment.

Results

Significant increases in dorsiflexion ROM (4.1°–4.0°; P < 0.01) and peak passive moment (10.9–15.1 %; P < 0.05) and decreases in the slope of the passive moment curve (19.1–13.3 %; P < 0.05), muscle stiffness (21.7–21.3 %; P < 0.01) and tendon stiffness (20.4–15.7 %; P < 0.01) were observed in CR and SRC, respectively. No between-condition differences were found in any measure (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Similar mechanical and neurological changes were observed between conditions, indicating that identical mechanisms underpin the ROM improvements. These data have important practical implications for the use of this stretching mode in athletic environments as performing the contractions ‘off stretch’ eliminates the pain response, reduces the risk of inducing muscle damage, and removes the need for partner assistance. Thus, it represents an equally effective, simpler, and yet potentially safer, stretching paradigm.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CI:

Confidence intervals

CR:

Contract–relax

EMG:

Electromyography

GL:

Gastrocnemius lateralis

GM:

Gastrocnemius medialis

ICC:

Intraclass correlation coefficient

MTC:

Muscle–tendon complex

MTJ:

Muscle–tendon junction

MVC:

Maximal voluntary contraction

PNF:

Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation

ROM:

Range of motion

Sol:

Soleus

SE:

Standard error

SRC:

Stretch–return–contract

TA:

Tibialis anterior

TTL:

Transistor–transistor logic

References

Download references

Acknowledgments

No funding was received for this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony D. Kay.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Communicated by Olivier Seynnes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kay, A.D., Dods, S. & Blazevich, A.J. Acute effects of contract–relax (CR) stretch versus a modified CR technique. Eur J Appl Physiol 116, 611–621 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-015-3320-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-015-3320-8

Keywords

Navigation