Running head: CRITICAL ARTICLE REVIEW ON STATIC STRETCHING 1
CRITICAL ARTICLE REVIEW ON STATIC STRETCHING
Student name:
Institution affiliation:
Date:
CRITICAL ARTICLE REVIEW ON STATIC STRETCHING 2
Critical Article Review on Static Stretching
Speed and agility are very important for both amateur and elite athletes. Sports like
football, basketball, baseball, hockey, rugby, etc., require lots of body movements and position
changes that a player requires to have balance, speed, coordination, endurance, strength, etc., to
succeed in the games. The article focuses on the static stretching effect on repeated sprints and
change of direction for athletes. Static stretching is an important and usual exercise for athletes
during training because it is believed to charge the muscles, reduce soreness, increase athletic
performance, and decrease injury risks. The article seeks to address an integral part of training,
and it is important to find out if static stretching does help athletes increase their performance.
James Beckett, Knut Schneiker, Brian Dawson, Karen Wallman, and Kym Guelfi wrote
this article in February 2009, and it was uploaded on the Medicine and science in sports and
exercise journal. The research was experimental. Twelve uninjured males from across the
Australian football, soccer, rugby, and hockey sports were randomly selected and used for the
experiment (Beckett et al., 2009). The mean age of the participants was 23 plus a SD of plus/minus
four years. Their mean height was 178.7 cm plus a SD of plus/minus 5.8cm. Their mean body
mass was 72.8 plus a SD of plus/minus 5.9 kg (Beckett et al., 2009).
The research design involved all the twelve participants starting with a standardized warm-
up for all of them. Then, they proceeded to perform the Repeated Sprint Ability (RSA) test or the
Change of Direction Speed (CODS). They performed these experiments on two different
occasions. On both tests, there were three different sets involved with a four-minute interval
between them for recovery (Sim et al., 2009). In essence, the player could do their warm-up, take
four minutes to recover, then continue to the next set. The control experiment involved participants
taking a passive rest instead of static stretching after the warm-ups, while the other tests took static
CRITICAL ARTICLE REVIEW ON STATIC STRETCHING 3
stretching. The trials for the experiment were RSA-CON, RSA-SS, CODS-CON, and CODS-SS,
administered randomly.
The research study design employed by the researchers in this particular experiment has
strengths and weaknesses. One of the strengths of the experimental research design is the use of a
comparison group for control. The researchers' control stipulated that the participants stand and
rest after RSA or CODS. This was to produce contrasting results with participants doing static
sprinting within the intervals instead of standing and resting within the period. A control helps
reduce systematic bias and erroneous conclusions, and the researchers in this article eliminated
bias through that. The design used is important as it allows the application of standardized
statistical tests in data analysis, and this guarantees an excellent interpretation of results and,
therefore, reliable conclusions.
One primary weakness to the design chosen for this research is the possibility that
participants in the research may change their behavior because they know they are under
observation by the researchers. The twelve participants visited the test laboratory to familiarize
themselves with the CODS and RSA tests that would be used in the experiment (Beckett et al.,
2009). It means that they were aware they would be tested, and one can't be sure if they changed
their behavior during testing. Change of behavior is dangerous because it distorts results.
Conclusions to the changes shown could be attributed to the cause while it was only because of
the change of behavior.
Another weakness shown in the design is in the physical nature of the participants. The
mean height was 178.7 cm with a standard deviation of plus/minus 5.5 cm. It means that the
shortest participant was 173.2 cm. While big men and women dominate these kinds of sports, it
doesn't take away the fact that there are smaller players than the smallest in this experiment in
CRITICAL ARTICLE REVIEW ON STATIC STRETCHING 4
these types of sports, especially in soccer and football. It means that the research design was set
up to exclude a significant portion of athletes, and therefore, the results won't be fully conclusive.
Again, twelve is a small number to represent a whole sport. The results would be more conclusive
if the researchers used more participants, for instance, 100. The twelve they used are not fully
representative.
The results registered by the researchers in the experiment show the effect static stretching
has on athletes' performance. For instance, the mean sprinting time increased in the second set
compared to the first one after athletes did the RSA-SS trial. In the third set, the mean sprinting
time was considerably more than that in set 1 for RSA-SS trials and RSA-CON, showing that the
static stretching in between the sets made the athletes slower in their sprints (Beckett et al., 2009).
The total sprint time was also affected after static stretching, as seen with athletes becoming slower
in set 2 than set 1 after RSA-SS.
The mean and total sprint times were not as affected by static stretching in the change of
direction speed experiments as they were with the repeated sprint ability. The difference in MST
and TST between the treatments was too small to be significant to this research. While the
participants became a little bit slower in set 3 as compared to set 2 of the experiments in CODS-
SS compared with CODS-CON, no qualitative or statistical analysis supported it, showing that
static stretching affects Repeated Sprint Ability more than it does Change of Direction Speed
(Winchester et al., 2008).
In the discussion, the authors remind the reader of what the tests were all about. The study's
purpose was to determine how static stretching between recovery periods in team sports would
affect RSA and CODS performances. This study hypothesized that static stretching impairs CODS
and RSA performances if it was done between the sets. The authors discuss the findings by passing
CRITICAL ARTICLE REVIEW ON STATIC STRETCHING 5
the hypothesis to be true, especially on static sprinting affecting RSA. The propensity for sprint
times to be more after athletes performed static stretching was consistent, pointing towards the
hypothesis's trueness.
The CODS-SS trial was not much different. In the discussion, the authors highlight that
there were slower sprint times in the CODS-SS trial in sets two and three than in the CODS-CON
one. It shows that static stretching affected athletes' sprinting ability since the control experiment
registered faster times according to the test results, showing that the effect was brought along by
stretching. Based on the results shown where athletes registered slower times after static stretching
in both RSA and CODS performances, the authors concluded that trainers and athletes would
rather avoid static stretching exercises during resting times to guarantee optimal performance for
athletes (Beckett et al., 2009).
Strengths, as well as weaknesses, characterize the authors' discussion section. One of the
discussion's strengths is that the authors have managed to show that their hypothesis was true.
Through the results shown in the results section, the authors proved in the discussion that, indeed,
static stretching during recovery periods affects athletes' RSA and CODS since they registered
slower times in sets two and three, which came after stretching (Ko, 2016). They demonstrated
that the control experiments registered faster times, showing that it is the static stretching that
brought upon an effect. They set up a hypothesis in the beginning which guided their experiment
and proved it at the end. It is important for the experiment that the authors can stick to their
hypothesis in their discussion.
Another strength is that the authors provided a gist of results in the discussion section to
enable the readers to have the discussion context. Besides, they highlighted the tables the results
can be found for a broader understanding of the reader. It becomes easier for readers to understand
CRITICAL ARTICLE REVIEW ON STATIC STRETCHING 6
the discussion when there are enough references to the results section where they can follow up
for a wider understanding. In the discussions, the authors use active voice with a blend of passive.
This is important because it shows command. Readers feel like they are analyzing the results
together with the authors and this is crucial to their understanding because it is more engaging
when the writing is in active voice. The directness and conciseness of presenting points help the
reader understand the points better.
One of the weaknesses that can be seen in the discussion is that the authors have not stated
their study's limitations. No study is perfect, and there are always limitations to it. Whether or not
they state them, weaknesses can be found, especially by expert reviewers. It is crucial to state the
limitations like the possible direction of potential bias or likely imprecisions. It is important that
authors also discuss what they did to minimize the errors. Also, they can discuss the impact the
limitations have on their research findings and probably, put up an argument as to why the results
can still be considered valid despite the limitations. The authors of this study didn't talk about any
limitations, and that can be considered to be dishonest.
In conclusion, Beckett and others wrote this article in 2009 to determine the effects of static
stretching during recovery on RSA and CODS performances. They used twelve participants from
Australian football, soccer, rugby, and hockey for the experiment. The findings show that when
athletes do static stretching exercises during the recovery period, they don't perform to their
maximum because they become slower. It shows that the exercises affect their performance to the
point they take longer to perform sprints they were faster on before stretching. Therefore, the
authors conclude that trainers and athletes would rather avoid such exercises during their usual
training sessions.
CRITICAL ARTICLE REVIEW ON STATIC STRETCHING 7
References
BECKETT, J., SCHNEIKER, K., WALLMAN, K., DAWSON, B., & GUELFI, K. (2009). Effects
of Static Stretching on Repeated Sprint and Change of Direction Performance. Medicine &
Science In Sports & Exercise, 41(2), 444-450.
https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0b013e3181867b95
Ko, L. (2016). Effects of Dynamic Activity after Static Stretching on Jump Ability and Sprint
Performance of College Students. Sports & Exercise Research, 18(2), 92-100.
https://doi.org/10.5297/ser.1802.002
Sim, A., Dawson, B., Guelfi, K., Wallman, K., & Young, W. (2009). Effects of Static Stretching
in Warm-Up on Repeated Sprint Performance. Journal Of Strength And Conditioning
Research, 23(7), 2155-2162. https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181b438f3
Winchester, J., Nelson, A., Landin, D., Young, M., & Schexnayder, I. (2008). Static Stretching
Impairs Sprint Performance in Collegiate Track and Field Athletes. Journal Of Strength
And Conditioning Research, 22(1), 13-19. https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0b013e31815ef202
