Detailed guides to painful problems, treatments & more

Muscle activation during proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching techniques

PainSci » bibliography » Osternig et al 1987
updated

Two pages on PainSci cite Osternig 1987: 1. Quite a Stretch2. Reciprocal inhibition invalidated (15 years ago)

PainSci commentary on Osternig 1987: ?This page is one of thousands in the PainScience.com bibliography. It is not a general article: it is focused on a single scientific paper, and it may provide only just enough context for the summary to make sense. Links to other papers and more general information are provided wherever possible.

This study is an example of an early test of the hypothesis of reciprocal inhibition, a key premise for proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation. This result was ultimately confirmed by Mitchell in 2009.

~ Paul Ingraham

original abstract Abstracts here may not perfectly match originals, for a variety of technical and practical reasons. Some abstacts are truncated for my purposes here, if they are particularly long-winded and unhelpful. I occasionally add clarifying notes. And I make some minor corrections.

Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) techniques are often used to induce muscle relaxation and increase joint range of motion (ROM). However, the relationship between muscle activation and ROM with PNF is not well understood. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of three common PNF stretching techniques on hamstring muscle activation and knee extension. Three PNF techniques: stretch-relax (SR), contract-relax (CR) and agonist contract-relax (ACR) were applied to ten male and female subjects aged 23-36 years who were stabilized to isolate knee extension measurements. Knee joint position and EMG activity from quadriceps and hamstring muscles were computer processed throughout technique application. The results revealed mean hamstring EMG activity increased 8-43% within a given trial of ACR and CR respectively, and did not diminish across trials. SR produced a 11% decrease in mean hamstring EMG activity. ACR produced 3-6% greater knee extension values than CR and SR respectively, in spite of 71-155% greater hamstring EMG activity during ACR. The data suggest that CR and ACR do not evoke sufficient relaxation in muscles opposing knee extension to overcome tension facilitation generated by stretch. Thus, increases in ROM are achieved while the hamstrings are under considerable tension. Such tension increases muscle vulnerability to soreness and strain if stretching continues. The degree of knee extension produced via SR, although 3-6% less than CR and ACR, was achieved during simultaneous reduction in hamstring activity and may be the safer stretching technique.

related content

This page is part of the PainScience BIBLIOGRAPHY, which contains plain language summaries of thousands of scientific papers & others sources. It’s like a highly specialized blog. A few highlights:

PainSci Member Login » Submit your email to unlock member content. If you can’t remember/access your registration email, please contact me. ~ Paul Ingraham, PainSci Publisher