Sports Med 2006; 36 (11): 929-939

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929 1. Descriptions of Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation (PNF) Stretching Techniques . . . . . . . . . . 931 2. Proposed Mechanisms Underlying the PNF Stretching Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931 2.1 Autogenic Inhibition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931 2.2 Reciprocal Inhibition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 932 2.3 The Passive Properties of the Musculotendinous Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933 2.4 Other Proposed Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934 3. Evidence-Based Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935 3.1 Repetitions, Frequency and Duration of Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935 3.2 PNF and Plasticity (Long-Term Range of Motion Changes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935 3.3 Static Contraction Duration of the Target Muscle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935 3.4 Static Contraction Intensity of the Target Muscle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 936 3.5 Opposing Muscle Shortening Contraction Intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 936 3.6 Overall Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 936 4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 936 Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching techniques are Abstract commonly used in the athletic and clinical environments to enhance both active and passive range of motion (ROM) with a view to optimising motor performance and rehabilitation. PNF stretching is positioned in the literature as the most effective stretching technique when the aim is to increase ROM, particularly in respect to short-term changes in ROM. With due consideration of the heterogeneity across the applied PNF stretching research, a summary of the findings suggests that an ‘active’ PNF stretching technique achieves the greatest gains in ROM, e.g. utilising a shortening contraction of the opposing muscle to place the target muscle on stretch, followed by a static contraction of the target muscle. The inclusion of a shortening contraction of the opposing muscle appears to have the