Cargando…

The Recovery of Muscle Spindle Sensitivity Following Stretching Is Promoted by Isometric but Not by Dynamic Muscle Contractions

It is often suggested that stretching-related changes in performance can be partially attributed to stretching-induced neural alterations. Recent evidence though shows that neither spinal nor cortico-spinal excitability are susceptible of a long-lasting effect and only the amplitude of stretch or ta...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Budini, Francesco, Rafolt, Dietmar, Christova, Monica, Gallasch, Eugen, Tilp, Markus
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7418680/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32848855
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2020.00905
_version_ 1783569737496657920
author Budini, Francesco
Rafolt, Dietmar
Christova, Monica
Gallasch, Eugen
Tilp, Markus
author_facet Budini, Francesco
Rafolt, Dietmar
Christova, Monica
Gallasch, Eugen
Tilp, Markus
author_sort Budini, Francesco
collection PubMed
description It is often suggested that stretching-related changes in performance can be partially attributed to stretching-induced neural alterations. Recent evidence though shows that neither spinal nor cortico-spinal excitability are susceptible of a long-lasting effect and only the amplitude of stretch or tap reflex (TR) is reduced up to several minutes. Since afferents from muscle spindles contribute to voluntary muscle contractions, muscle stretching could be detrimental to muscle performance. However, the inhibition of muscle spindle sensitivity should be reversed as soon as the stretched muscle contracts again, due to α-γ co-activation. The present work evaluated which type of muscle contraction (static or dynamic) promotes the best recovery from the inhibition in spindle sensitivity following static stretching. Fifteen students were tested for TR at baseline and after 30 s maximal individual static stretching of the ankle plantar flexors followed by one of three randomized interventions (isometric plantar flexor MVC, three counter movement jumps, and no contraction/control). Ten TRs before and 20 after the procedures were induced with intervals of 30 s up to 10 min after static stretching. The size of the evoked TRs (peak to peak amplitude of the EMG signal) following stretching without a subsequent contraction (control) was on average reduced by 20% throughout the 10 min following the intervention and did not show a recovery trend. Significant decrease in relation to baseline were observed at 9 of the 20 time points measured. After MVC of plantar flexors, TR recovered immediately showing no differences with baseline at none of the investigated time points. Following three counter movement jumps it was observed a significant 34.4% group average inhibition (p < 0.0001) at the first time point. This effect persisted for most of the participants for the next measurement (60 s after intervention) with an average reduction of 23.4% (p = 0.008). At the third measurement, 90 s after the procedure, the reflexes were on average still 21.4% smaller than baseline, although significant level was not reached (p = 0.053). From 120 s following the intervention, the reflex was fully recovered. This study suggests that not every type of muscle contraction promotes a prompt recovery of a stretch-induced inhibition of muscle spindle sensitivity.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7418680
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74186802020-08-25 The Recovery of Muscle Spindle Sensitivity Following Stretching Is Promoted by Isometric but Not by Dynamic Muscle Contractions Budini, Francesco Rafolt, Dietmar Christova, Monica Gallasch, Eugen Tilp, Markus Front Physiol Physiology It is often suggested that stretching-related changes in performance can be partially attributed to stretching-induced neural alterations. Recent evidence though shows that neither spinal nor cortico-spinal excitability are susceptible of a long-lasting effect and only the amplitude of stretch or tap reflex (TR) is reduced up to several minutes. Since afferents from muscle spindles contribute to voluntary muscle contractions, muscle stretching could be detrimental to muscle performance. However, the inhibition of muscle spindle sensitivity should be reversed as soon as the stretched muscle contracts again, due to α-γ co-activation. The present work evaluated which type of muscle contraction (static or dynamic) promotes the best recovery from the inhibition in spindle sensitivity following static stretching. Fifteen students were tested for TR at baseline and after 30 s maximal individual static stretching of the ankle plantar flexors followed by one of three randomized interventions (isometric plantar flexor MVC, three counter movement jumps, and no contraction/control). Ten TRs before and 20 after the procedures were induced with intervals of 30 s up to 10 min after static stretching. The size of the evoked TRs (peak to peak amplitude of the EMG signal) following stretching without a subsequent contraction (control) was on average reduced by 20% throughout the 10 min following the intervention and did not show a recovery trend. Significant decrease in relation to baseline were observed at 9 of the 20 time points measured. After MVC of plantar flexors, TR recovered immediately showing no differences with baseline at none of the investigated time points. Following three counter movement jumps it was observed a significant 34.4% group average inhibition (p < 0.0001) at the first time point. This effect persisted for most of the participants for the next measurement (60 s after intervention) with an average reduction of 23.4% (p = 0.008). At the third measurement, 90 s after the procedure, the reflexes were on average still 21.4% smaller than baseline, although significant level was not reached (p = 0.053). From 120 s following the intervention, the reflex was fully recovered. This study suggests that not every type of muscle contraction promotes a prompt recovery of a stretch-induced inhibition of muscle spindle sensitivity. Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-08-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7418680/ /pubmed/32848855 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2020.00905 Text en Copyright © 2020 Budini, Rafolt, Christova, Gallasch and Tilp. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Physiology
Budini, Francesco
Rafolt, Dietmar
Christova, Monica
Gallasch, Eugen
Tilp, Markus
The Recovery of Muscle Spindle Sensitivity Following Stretching Is Promoted by Isometric but Not by Dynamic Muscle Contractions
title The Recovery of Muscle Spindle Sensitivity Following Stretching Is Promoted by Isometric but Not by Dynamic Muscle Contractions
title_full The Recovery of Muscle Spindle Sensitivity Following Stretching Is Promoted by Isometric but Not by Dynamic Muscle Contractions
title_fullStr The Recovery of Muscle Spindle Sensitivity Following Stretching Is Promoted by Isometric but Not by Dynamic Muscle Contractions
title_full_unstemmed The Recovery of Muscle Spindle Sensitivity Following Stretching Is Promoted by Isometric but Not by Dynamic Muscle Contractions
title_short The Recovery of Muscle Spindle Sensitivity Following Stretching Is Promoted by Isometric but Not by Dynamic Muscle Contractions
title_sort recovery of muscle spindle sensitivity following stretching is promoted by isometric but not by dynamic muscle contractions
topic Physiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7418680/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32848855
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2020.00905
work_keys_str_mv AT budinifrancesco therecoveryofmusclespindlesensitivityfollowingstretchingispromotedbyisometricbutnotbydynamicmusclecontractions
AT rafoltdietmar therecoveryofmusclespindlesensitivityfollowingstretchingispromotedbyisometricbutnotbydynamicmusclecontractions
AT christovamonica therecoveryofmusclespindlesensitivityfollowingstretchingispromotedbyisometricbutnotbydynamicmusclecontractions
AT gallascheugen therecoveryofmusclespindlesensitivityfollowingstretchingispromotedbyisometricbutnotbydynamicmusclecontractions
AT tilpmarkus therecoveryofmusclespindlesensitivityfollowingstretchingispromotedbyisometricbutnotbydynamicmusclecontractions
AT budinifrancesco recoveryofmusclespindlesensitivityfollowingstretchingispromotedbyisometricbutnotbydynamicmusclecontractions
AT rafoltdietmar recoveryofmusclespindlesensitivityfollowingstretchingispromotedbyisometricbutnotbydynamicmusclecontractions
AT christovamonica recoveryofmusclespindlesensitivityfollowingstretchingispromotedbyisometricbutnotbydynamicmusclecontractions
AT gallascheugen recoveryofmusclespindlesensitivityfollowingstretchingispromotedbyisometricbutnotbydynamicmusclecontractions
AT tilpmarkus recoveryofmusclespindlesensitivityfollowingstretchingispromotedbyisometricbutnotbydynamicmusclecontractions