A Comparison of Prostretch® Versus Incline Board Stretching on Active Ankle Dorsiflexion Range of Motion

Stretching the gastrocnemius/soleus complex to increase ankle dorsiflexion range of motion is a common practice for almost all athletes. There is debatable evidence that increased flexibility can help prevent injuries, improve performance, and decrease muscle soreness. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether calf stretching using a Prostretch® device is more effective than the more traditional method of using an incline board at increasing active ankle dorsiflexion range of motion. METHODS: Forty-five college-aged men and women not participating in collegiate athletics were recruited to participate in this study. Subjects’ active dorsiflexion range of motion was measured bilaterally using a biplane goniometer. Three measurements were recorded on each ankle by an examiner. Fifteen subjects were then randomly assigned to each of three groups: Prostretch®, incline board, or control. Subjects in the Prostretch® and incline board groups completed a stretching protocol that involved three 30 second stretches per leg, four times per week for six weeks. Subjects in the control group performed no stretching for the entire six weeks. Upon completion of the study, the subjects’ active ankle dorsiflexion was remeasured using the same protocol as the pre-test. RESULTS: A three-way mixed model ANOVA test showed no significant (p ≥ .05) difference in pre and post active ankle dorsiflexion range of motion whether using a Prostretch® or an incline board. We also found no significant (p ≥ .05) difference in pre and post active ankle dorsiflexion range of motion between the subjects in the control group and subjects in either stretching group. CONCLUSIONS: Stretching the calf with either a Prostretch® or an incline board is no more effective at increasing active ankle dorsiflexion range of motion than not stretching at all. It appears that no matter what device is used to stretch the calf, it is no more effective at increasing ankle dorsiflexion range of motion. One reason for this could be that we measured the subjects’ active ankle dorsiflexion range of motion in a seated, non-weight bearing position while they stretched in a full weight bearing position. More testing is necessary to determine whether measuring range of motion in a functional position versus measuring range of motion in a nonfunctional position is a significant factor in altering the degree of range of motion an individual can achieve.