Immediate Effects of Short- Versus
Long-Duration Dynamic Stretching on Shot Put Performance: A Pilot Experimental
Study Among Collegiate Athletes
Abhilash P V1, Mayur Rai2
and Mohitha Parla3*
1
Associate Professor, Laxmi Memorial College of Physiotherapy, Mangalore,
Karnataka, India.
2 Professor, Department of Orthopaedics,
A. J. Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Mangalore,
Karnataka, India.
3
Postgraduate Student, Laxmi Memorial College of Physiotherapy, Mangalore,
Karnataka, India.
mohithaparla03@gmail.com
Abstract : Dynamic
stretching is commonly incorporated into warm-up routines to enhance athletic
performance; however, the optimal duration of dynamic stretching for shot put
performance remains unclear. This pilot study aimed to compare how
short-duration and long-duration dynamic stretching immediately affect shot put
performance in collegiate athletes. Ten collegiate shot put athletes aged 1825
years were allocated into two groups: short-duration dynamic stretching (n = 5)
and long-duration dynamic stretching (n = 5). Shot put performance was measured
immediately before and after the stretching intervention. Data were analyzed
using descriptive statistics, The Shapiro-Wilk test, independent sample
t-tests, paired sample t-tests, and descriptive statistics were used to examine
the data. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in shot put
performance. The short-duration group showed a mean improvement of 0.84 m (p
< 0.001), whereas the long-duration group improved by 0.46 m (p = 0.006). The
groups showed a significant difference (p = 0.006), favouring the
short-duration protocol. These findings suggest that dynamic stretching
enhances immediate shot put performance, with shorter-duration protocols
producing greater improvements than longer-duration protocols. To validate
these results, more research with bigger sample numbers is advised.
Keywords:
Dynamic stretching, Shot put, Warm-up, Athletic performance, Explosive power.
INTRODUCTION
Shot
put is a power-based track and field event that requires rapid force
production, explosive strength, and efficient neuromuscular coordination to
achieve optimal throwing performance [1]. Athletes must be able to produce
large amounts of force quickly while retaining efficient movement mechanics
along the kinetic chain in order to succeed at shot put [2].
Warm-up
strategies are routinely performed before training and competition to improve
physiological readiness and athletic performance. An effective warm-up
increases muscle temperature, enhances nerve conduction velocity, improves
metabolic activity, and prepares the neuromuscular system for high-intensity
exercise [3]. Dynamic stretching has become an important component of modern
warm-up routines because it combines active movement with flexibility
enhancement while maintaining muscular activation [4].
Dynamic
stretching can enhance muscle power, sprint performance, agility, and movement
efficiency, according to earlier research [5]. Increased neuromuscular
activation, improved stretch-shortening cycle efficiency, elevated muscle
temperature, and improved motor unit recruitment are all responsible for these
performance gains [6]. Consequently, dynamic stretching is widely recommended
before activities requiring explosive movements.
The
duration of dynamic stretching may influence subsequent athletic performance.
Research suggests that different stretching durations produce varying effects
on flexibility, neuromuscular readiness, and force production [7].
Short-duration dynamic stretching may provide adequate physiological activation
without inducing fatigue, whereas prolonged stretching may alter
musculotendinous stiffness and reduce the magnitude of performance enhancement
[8].
Although
dynamic stretching has been extensively investigated in sprinting, jumping, and
agility performance, limited evidence exists regarding its influence on
throwing events such as shot put. Furthermore, recent studies continue to
explore the relationship between stretching duration and athletic performance
[9,10]. Thus, the purpose of this pilot study was to assess how collegiate
athletes' shot put performance was affected immediately by short-duration and
long-duration dynamic stretching.
RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
The
immediate effects of short-duration and long-duration dynamic stretching on
collegiate athletes' shot put performance were compared in a pilot experimental
study using a pre-test and post-test approach. After receiving ethical approval
from the Institutional Ethics Committee of the A. J. Institute of Medical
Sciences & Research Center (Reference No. AJEC/REV/209/2025), the study was
carried out among athletes recruited from several colleges and sports training
facilities in Mangaluru, Karnataka, India.
Convenience
sampling was used to choose ten collegiate shot put athletes who met the
inclusion and exclusion criteria and were between the ages of 18 and 25. Before
enrollment, written informed consent was obtained from each participant. Baseline
demographic characteristics, including age, height, weight, training
experience, and dominant hand, were recorded.
A
standardized warm-up of five to ten minutes of light aerobic exercise, such as
jogging or brisk walking, was completed by each participant. The best distance
from three legitimate throwing attempts was then recorded in order to evaluate
baseline shot put performance.
Participants
were divided into two groups at random. Group A engaged in a brief dynamic
stretching regimen consisting of less than 90 seconds of stretching per muscle
group, with a total intervention duration of approximately 68 minutes. The
protocol included anterior-posterior and medial-lateral leg swings, walking
lunges with trunk rotation, arm circles, torso rotations, high knees, butt
kicks, and dynamic overhead reaching exercises.
Group
B performed a long-duration dynamic stretching protocol consisting of more than
90 seconds but less than 300 seconds of stretching per muscle group, with a
total intervention duration of approximately 1015 minutes. The same dynamic
stretching exercises were performed with additional repetitions, sets, and shot
put-specific dynamic drills to achieve the prescribed duration.
Within
five minutes of completing the assigned stretching protocol, participants
performed three additional valid shot put throws, and the longest throwing
distance was recorded as the post-intervention score. Shot put performance was
measured in metres from the inside edge of the toe board to the first point of
ground contact of the shot, in accordance with World Athletics competition
rules, using a standardized measuring tape. The best distance achieved from
three attempts during both the pre-intervention and post-intervention
assessments was considered for statistical analysis.
Calculations
were made for descriptive statistics, such as mean, standard deviation, median,
minimum, maximum, skewness, and kurtosis. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to
evaluate the data's normality. Pre-intervention and post-intervention scores
within each group were compared using paired sample t-tests, while improvement
scores between the two groups were compared using independent sample t-tests.
Levene's test was used to assess the homogeneity of variance. All statistical
analyses were carried out using Jamovi software (Version 2.4), and the
threshold for statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
Descriptive
Statistics
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of
Pre-Test and Post-Test Shot Put Performance Following Short- and Long-Duration
Dynamic Stretching
|
Test |
Group |
Mean |
Median |
SD |
Min |
Max |
Skewness |
Kurtosis |
|
Pre-Test |
Long-Duration
Dynamic Stretching |
8.44 |
8.5 |
0.422 |
7.8 |
8.9 |
-0.831 |
0.581 |
|
Pre-Test |
Short-Duration
Dynamic Stretching |
8.8 |
9.0 |
0.339 |
8.3 |
9.1 |
-0.962 |
-0.873 |
|
Post-Test |
Long-Duration
Dynamic Stretching |
8.9 |
8.9 |
0.453 |
8.4 |
9.4 |
0.000 |
-2.759 |
|
Post-Test |
Short-Duration
Dynamic Stretching |
9.64 |
9.8 |
0.329 |
9.2 |
10 |
-0.518 |
-1.687 |
The
descriptive statistics indicated improvements in shot put performance following
both stretching interventions. The short-duration dynamic stretching group
demonstrated greater improvement in post-test performance compared to the
long-duration group. The standard deviation values indicated relatively
consistent performance among participants.
Normality
Test
Table 2: Test of Normality Using
ShapiroWilk Test
|
Test |
Group |
W |
p |
|
Pre-test |
Long-Duration
Dynamic Stretching |
0.962 |
0.822 |
|
Pre-test |
Short-Duration
Dynamic Stretching |
0.858 |
0.221 |
|
Post-test |
Long-Duration
Dynamic Stretching |
0.897 |
0.395 |
|
Pre-test |
Short-Duration
Dynamic Stretching |
0.914 |
0.490 |
The
distribution of the collected data was examined using the ShapiroWilk test.
Since all variables demonstrated p-values greater than 0.05, the assumption of
normality was satisfied, indicating that parametric statistical methods were
appropriate for subsequent analyses.
Paired
Sample t-Test Short Duration Group
Table 3: Paired sample t-test for
the short-duration dynamic stretching group.
|
Variables |
T |
df |
p-value |
Mean Difference |
95% CI Lower |
95% CI Upper |
Effect Size (Cohens d) |
|
Pre-Test vs Post-Test |
-16.5 |
4 |
< 0.001 |
-0.84 |
-0.982 |
-0.698 |
7.37 |
The
paired sample t-test revealed a statistically significant improvement in shot
put performance following short-duration dynamic stretching, t (4) = -16.5, p
< 0.001. The findings demonstrated a substantial practical effect with a
very large effect size.
Paired
Sample t-Test Long Duration Group
Table 4: Paired Sample t-Test for
Long-Duration Dynamic Stretching
|
Variables |
T |
Df |
p-value |
Mean Difference |
95% CI Lower |
95% CI Upper |
Effect Size (Cohens d) |
|
Pre-Test vs Post-Test |
-5.28 |
4 |
0.006 |
-0.46 |
-0.702 |
-0.218 |
2.36 |
The
paired sample t-test demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in
shot put performance following long-duration dynamic stretching, t(4) = -5.28,
p = 0.006. Although performance improved significantly, the magnitude of
improvement was lower than that observed in the short-duration group.
Independent
Sample t-Test
Table 5: Homogeneity of Variance Test
|
Variable |
F |
df1 |
df2 |
p-value |
|
Improvement Score |
1.65 |
1 |
8 |
0.235 |
Levenes
test confirmed that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was satisfied.
Table 6: Independent Sample t-Test
Comparing Improvement Scores
|
Variable |
T |
df |
p-value |
Mean Difference |
SE Difference |
Effect Size (Cohens d) |
|
Improvement Score |
-3.76 |
8 |
0.006 |
-0.38 |
0.101 |
2.38 |
Table 7: Group Descriptive Statistics
|
Group |
N |
Mean |
Median |
SD |
SE |
|
Long-Duration
Dynamic Stretching |
5 |
0.46 |
0.40 |
0.195 |
0.0872 |
|
Short-Duration
Dynamic Stretching |
5 |
0.84 |
0.80 |
0.114 |
0.051 |
The
independent sample t-test demonstrated a statistically significant difference
between the two groups, indicating that short-duration dynamic stretching
resulted in greater improvement in shot put performance compared to
long-duration dynamic stretching.
DISCUSSION
The current pilot study
examined how collegiate athletes' shot-put performance was affected immediately
by short-duration and long-duration dynamic stretching. The findings
demonstrated that both stretching protocols significantly improved throwing
performance. However, athletes who performed short-duration dynamic stretching
showed significantly greater improvement than those who completed the
long-duration protocol.
The observed improvements
following dynamic stretching are consistent with previous investigations
reporting enhanced explosive performance after dynamic warm-up activities.
Yamaguchi and Ishii [5] demonstrated that dynamic stretching improves muscular
power and force production compared with static-stretching. Similarly,
McMillian et al. [6] reported improvements in power output and agility
following dynamic stretching, supporting its effectiveness as a pre-performance
warm-up strategy. These findings are consistent with the present study, where
both intervention groups demonstrated significant improvements in shot put
performance.
The superior performance
observed in the short-duration dynamic stretching group may be explained by
several physiological mechanisms. Dynamic stretching increases muscle
temperature, enhances nerve conduction velocity, improves motor unit
recruitment, and facilitates neuromuscular activation, thereby preparing the
muscles for explosive movements [3,9]. Short-duration stretching may provide
sufficient physiological stimulation while preserving musculotendinous
stiffness required for maximal force production during the throwing action.
In contrast, prolonged dynamic
stretching may increase metabolic demand and reduce musculotendinous stiffness,
potentially decreasing the efficiency of force transmission during explosive
movements. Although long-duration stretching significantly improved
performance, the magnitude of improvement was lower than that observed
following short-duration stretching. These findings suggest that extending the
duration of dynamic stretching does not necessarily produce additional
performance benefits in explosive athletic activities.
The significance of stretching
length in maximizing athletic performance is also supported by recent research.
Matsuo et al. [10] and Tanaka et al. [11] reported that stretching volume
influences flexibility, muscle function, and subsequent athletic performance.
The findings of the present pilot study further support these observations by
demonstrating that shorter-duration dynamic stretching may be more effective
for enhancing immediate shot put performance.
From a clinical and practical
perspective, the findings of this study are relevant for sports
physiotherapists, strength and conditioning coaches, and athletics coaches. Pre-competition
warm-up exercises that include short-duration dynamic stretching may enhance
explosive throwing performance while reducing tiredness. Such evidence-based
warm-up strategies may contribute to enhanced athletic performance during both
training and competition.
The present study has
significant limitations. Because this was intended to be a pilot study, the
sample size was rather limited, which could limit how far the results can be
applied. Furthermore, only the immediate effects of dynamic stretching were
investigated, and physiological variables such as muscle activation, muscle
temperature, or biomechanical parameters were not measured. It is suggested
that future research should involve bigger groups, various types of athletes,
and biomechanical studies to verify these results and better explain the
reasons behind the noted enhancements in performance.
CONCLUSION
This pilot study compared the immediate effects of short-duration and long-duration dynamic stretching on shot put performance among collegiate athletes. Both stretching protocols significantly improved shot put performance, indicating that dynamic stretching is an effective warm-up strategy for explosive throwing events. However, the short-duration dynamic stretching protocol resulted in significantly greater improvement than the long-duration protocol, suggesting that shorter durations may be more effective in enhancing immediate athletic performance.
The greater improvement observed following short-duration dynamic stretching may be attributed to enhanced neuromuscular activation, increased muscle temperature, and improved movement readiness without inducing excessive fatigue. In contrast, although long-duration dynamic stretching also improved performance, the magnitude of improvement was comparatively lower. These findings indicate that stretching duration is an important factor when designing warm-up programmes for athletes participating in explosive power events such as shot put.
From a practical perspective, coaches, sports physiotherapists, and strength and conditioning professionals may consider incorporating short-duration dynamic stretching into pre-training and pre-competition warm-up routines to optimise throwing performance. As this was a pilot study involving a small sample, further research with larger participant groups and different athletic populations is recommended to confirm these findings and establish evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal duration of dynamic stretching.
DECLARATIONS
Study Limitations
The current research included a
small group of participants, which might limit how broadly the results can be
applied. Only the immediate effects of the interventions were examined, and the
lasting impact of dynamic stretching on athletic performance was not analyzed.
Furthermore, factors like biomechanical variables, electromyographic activity,
muscle temperature, and force development rate were not measured. Future
research should consider these aspects and involve more participants to enhance
the support for the findings.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors express their sincere
gratitude to all athletes who voluntarily participated in this research. They also recognize the assistance
from Laxmi Memorial College of Physiotherapy, Mangaluru, along
with the colleges and sports training centers involved for
their help during the gathering of information.
Funding Source
The researchers did not obtain
any financial aid from any funding body, business
entity, or charitable organization to carry out this research.
Competing Interests
The researchers state that
there are no conflicts of interest associated
with this research.
Ethical Approval
Ethical approval was obtained from
the Institutional Ethics Committee, A. J. Institute of Medical Sciences &
Research Centre, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India, under Reference Number
AJEC/REV/209/2025, dated 27 June 2025. The research was carried out in accordance
with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki.
Informed Consent
1.
Stone MH, Sanborn K, O'Bryant HS, Hartman M, Stone ME,
Proulx C, et al. Maximum strength-power-performance relationships in collegiate
throwers. J Strength Cond Res. 2003;17(4):739745.
2.
Terzis G, Karampatsos G, Georgiadis G. Neuromuscular
characteristics of elite shot put athletes. J Strength Cond Res.
2007;21(4):10331037.
3.
Bishop D. Warm up I: Potential mechanisms and the effects of
passive warm-up on exercise performance. Sports Med. 2003;33(6):439454.
4.
Opplert J, Babault N. Acute effects of dynamic stretching on
muscle flexibility and performance: An analysis of the current literature.
Sports Med. 2018;48(2):299325.
5.
Yamaguchi T, Ishii K. Effects of static stretching and
dynamic stretching on leg extension power. J Strength Cond Res.
2006;20(4):804810.
6.
McMillian DJ, Moore JH, Hatler BS, Taylor DC. Dynamic versus
static stretching warm-up: Effect on power and agility performance. J Strength
Cond Res. 2006;20(3):492499.
7.
Fletcher IM, Jones B. The effect of different warm-up
stretch protocols on 20-m sprint performance. J Strength Cond Res.
2004;18(4):885888.
8.
Turki O, Chaouachi A, Behm DG, Chtara
M, Chtara H, Chamari K, et al. The effect of warm-ups incorporating different volumes of
dynamic stretching on sprint performance in highly trained male athletes. J
Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(1):147152.
9.
Tillin NA, Bishop D. Factors modulating post-activation
potentiation and its effect on performance of subsequent explosive activities.
Sports Med. 2009;39(2):147166.
10.
Matsuo S, Iwata M, Miyazaki M, Fukaya T, Tsuchida W, Asai Y,
et al. Acute and prolonged effects of static, dynamic, and combined stretching
on flexibility and muscle force. J Sports Sci Med. 2023;22(4):626636.
11.
Tanaka M, Koshino Y, Oba K, Takahashi M, Fujimoto H, et al.
Effects of different amounts of dynamic stretching on musculotendinous
extensibility and muscle strength. Appl Sci. 2024;14(15):6745.
12.
Gurses KC, Otag A, Gurses OA. Acute effects of dynamic
stretching exercises on vertical jump performance and flexibility. Sport Sci
Health. 2024;21:137143.
13.
Samson M, Button DC, Chaouachi A, Behm DG. Effects of
dynamic and static stretching within general and activity-specific warm-up
protocols. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(1):2734.
14.
Dallas G, Theodorou A, Paradisis G. Effect of different
durations of dynamic stretching on sprint and agility performance. J Phys Educ
Sport. 2019;19(1):268272.
15.
Woods K, Bishop P, Jones E. Warm-up and stretching in the
prevention of muscular injury. Sports Med. 2007;37(12):10891099.