PONE-D-25-06600Passive vs. active warm-up combined with stretching on hamstring flexibility and maximal voluntary contractionsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Babault,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 25 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Masatoshi Nakamura, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.  Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Région Bourgogne Franche-Comté (2020Y-22065 and 2022Y-13186)

National Council for Scientific and Technological Development–CNPq (200391/2022-4)”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“The authors would like to thank the financial support from the Centre d’Expertise de la Performance from the Université de Bourgogne, the Région Bourgogne Franche-Comté (2020Y-22065 and 2022Y-13186), and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development–CNPq (200391/2022-4). We thank all participants for their contribution and dedication to the study.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“Région Bourgogne Franche-Comté (2020Y-22065 and 2022Y-13186)

National Council for Scientific and Technological Development–CNPq (200391/2022-4)”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. In the online submission form, you indicated that “All the data generated and analysed as part of this study are not accessible to the public but are available on request.”

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The English writing is good but there are a number of minor grammatical problems that should be fixed. I do not have time to identify all grammatical problems. If accepted hopefully the copy editors will help with that.

Abstract

Line 41: “consisted of” not “consisted in”

Introduction

Line 69-70: The phrase “multiple neural alterations” is quite obtuse. Please be more specific.

Line 79-80: Static stretching in general does not have detrimental effects on force production. It has been reported in a number of reviews that it is “prolonged” static stretching (typically more than 60-seconds per muscle group) that can induce performance impairments. (Behm and Chaouachi 2011, Kay and Blazevich 2012, Behm, Blazevich et al. 2016, Chaabene, Behm et al. 2019, Behm, Kay et al. 2021)

Methods

Participants

Obviously, males and females are generally dichotomous in their anthropometric characteristics so providing the reader with one mean value will describe some hybrid male / female subject. You need to provide separate descriptions for each sex.

Line 123, 131, 201: Stand and reach test would provide an index of lower back and hamstrings flexibility but it would not be global. How does this test measure shoulder, neck flexibility for example? That type of test would be global. Please remove this term from the manuscript.

Discussion

Line 345: Authors suggest this is a common result in the literature which is correct. Would it not be stronger to then cite reviews rather than two single original research papers. The review references provided at the end of this critique would be stronger evidence.

Line 351: It seems the only difference between your static stretching and neurodynamic stretching procedures was to flex and extend the neck while also performing dorsiflexion. I would agree that this action would have a greater emphasis on nerve stretching but the supine position with hip flexion and an extended knee would still provide tension on the musculotendinous structures. So I feel it is false to say it primarily affects nerve stiffness. It affects both!

Suggested references

Behm, D. G., A. J. Blazevich, A. D. Kay and M. McHugh (2016). "Acute effects of muscle stretching on physical performance, range of motion, and injury incidence in healthy active individuals: a systematic review." Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 41(1): 1-11.

Behm, D. G. and A. Chaouachi (2011). "A review of the acute effects of static and dynamic stretching on performance." Eur J Appl Physiol 111(11): 2633-2651.

Behm, D. G., A. D. Kay, G. S. Trajano and A. J. Blazevich (2021). "Mechanisms underlying performance impairments following prolonged static stretching without a comprehensive warm-up." Eur J Appl Physiol 121(1): 67-94.

Chaabene, H., D. G. Behm, Y. Negra and U. Granacher (2019). "Acute Effects of Static Stretching on Muscle Strength and Power: An Attempt to Clarify Previous Caveats." Front Physiol 10: 1468.

Kay, A. D. and A. J. Blazevich (2012). "Effect of acute static stretch on maximal muscle performance: a systematic review." Med Sci Sports Exerc 44(1): 154-164.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The authors examined the combined effects of passive warm-up and stretching. There is a lack of discussion on stretching. Also, sit and reach were used as a measure of flexibility, but comparing them to changes in the stiffness of the hamstrings is questionable.

Abstract

Line 46-47: When was EMG measured? During the flexibility measurement?

Line 47: What does “flexibility” indicate (maybe range of motion)? Authors should state specifically throughout the manuscript. Did the authors use the term "Range of motion" and "Flexibility" interchangeably?

Line 53: If stiffness is measured, please describe it in the abstract method.

Introduction

Neurodynamic stretching is not a common type of stretching. Please explain in the introduction.

Materials and Methods

Line 115: Why did you choose the effect size of 0.35? Please explain the rationale.

Line 120: Please explain the specific blinding procedure.

Why was the stand-and-reach test used? This test includes the flexibility of the muscles other than the hamstrings (e.g., the trunk muscle). But, stretching was performed only on the hamstrings.

The room temperature of 45 degrees is high. Did the authors regulate water intake of participants?

Line 144: This study used six sets of 30 seconds of stretching. Previous studies have shown that more than 30 seconds lowers performance (Behm et al., 2011). Why did the authors use this stretching?

Results

Line 243: Please explain the reason for the discrepancy between the main effect for time and the post hoc analysis.

Discussion

Line 278-294 This study examined the combined effects of passive warm-up and stretching on range of motion and stiffness. The author describes the possibility that the changes in sit and reach may be related to tolerance, but I have a question about that because sit and reach includes not only the hamstring but also the trunk flexibility.

Line 327 Reference 37 study did not use static stretching.

Previous studies have shown that static stretching for more than 3 minutes decreases stiffness (Matsuo et al., JSCR 2013; Takeuchi et al., JSSM, 2023). Muscle strength is also decreased by stretching for more than 30 seconds after warm-up (Behm 2011). Why did muscle strength not decrease despite a decrease in RMS? Of course, the results of this study are not necessarily the same as in previous studies, but the reasons why the results differ from many previous studies should be discussed in more detail.

Please describe the limitations of this study.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: Yes:  David G Behm

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Passive vs. active warm-up combined with stretching on hamstring flexibility and maximal voluntary contractions

PONE-D-25-06600R1

Dear Dr. Babault,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Masatoshi Nakamura, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Only two minor comments

1. p.6: body mass 2were 0.8 ± 1.7 years,: Delete "2"

2. As you know there are three muscles in the hamstrings group. Hence just like you would use the term quadriceps (plural: 4 muscles, almost nobody would ever say quadricep), the term should be hamstrings (plural: three muscles) or hamstring muscles (the term muscle is plural).

Other than that the authors have adequately addressed my concerns.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: Yes:  David G. Behm

Reviewer #2: No

**********