An Examination of Preactivity and Postactivity Stretching Practices of NCAA Division I, NCAA Division II, and NCAA Division III Track and Field Throws Programs
Authors:
- Lawrence W. JudgeLawrence W. Judge
- David M. BellarDBDavid M. Bellar
- Erin L. GilreathEGErin L. Gilreath
- Jeffrey C. PetersenJPJeffrey C. Petersen
- Bruce W. CraigBCBruce W. Craig
- Jennifer K. PoppJPJennifer K. Popp
- Omar S. HindawiOHOmar S. Hindawi
- Laura S. SimonLSLaura S. Simon
- 1 October 2013
- journal article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
- Vol. 27 (10) , 2691-2699
Abstract
Judge, LW, Bellar, DM, Gilreath, EL, Petersen JC, Craig, BW, Popp, JK, Hindawi, OS, and Simon, LS. An examination of preactivity and postactivity stretching practices of NCAA Division I, NCAA Division II, and NCAA Division III track and field throws programs. J Strength Cond Res 27(10): 2691–2699, 2013—The purpose of this study is to determine the pre- and postactivity stretching practices of Division I, II, and III track and field throws programs. A 33-item survey instrument was developed to collect data regarding the warm-up and flexibility practices at the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I (n = 320), Division II (n = 175), and Division III (n = 275) universities. A total of 135 surveys were completed for a 17.5% return rate, and although the response rate was generally low, it did mirror the distribution percentages of the 3 divisions. Significant differences were found for the level of United States Track and Field (USATF) certification and the use of static stretching (SS) between throws (χ2 = 6.333, p = 0.048). Significance was also found for the USATF certification level and athletic trainer (AT) assistance in performing SS (χ2 = 13.598, p = 0.01). Significant differences were also found for the NCAA division levels and the use of soft tissue mobilization (χ2 = 5.913, p = 0.026). Although research supports dynamic warm-up/stretching over other forms of preactivity protocols, it seems that some track-and-field throws coaches are reluctant to completely discontinue preactivity SS. The results of this study suggest that it is necessary for track and field throws coaches to reevaluate their own practices, perhaps better aligning them with current research findings.Keywords
This publication has 20 references indexed in Scilit:
- An Examination of Preactivity and Postactivity Flexibility Practices of National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Tennis CoachesJournal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 2012
- An Examination of Pre-Activity and Post-Activity Stretching Practices of NCAA Division I and NCAA Divison III Basketball ProgramsJournal of Coaching Education, 2011
- Designing an Effective Preactivity Warm-up Routine for the 1 Repetition Maximum Back SquatStrength & Conditioning Journal, 2011
- Efficacy of Potentiation of Performance Through Overweight Implement Throws on Male and Female High-School Weight ThrowersJournal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 2010
- An Examination of the Stretching Practices of Division I and Division III College Football Programs in the Midwestern United StatesJournal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 2009
- Acute Enhancement of Lower-Extremity Dynamic Strength and Flexibility with Whole-Body VibrationJournal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 2009
- Effects of Stretching on Maximal Anaerobic Power: The Roles of Active and Passive Warm-UpsJournal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 2008
- Guidelines for Implementing a Dynamic Warm-up for Physical EducationJournal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 2007
- THE EFFECT OF STATIC,BALLISTIC, AND PROPRIOCEPTIVE NEUROMUSCULAR FACILITATION STRETCHING ON VERTICAL JUMP PERFORMANCEJournal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 2007
- Warm Up ISports Medicine, 2003