Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Stretching and Performance
- Rob Ryan (30 August 2002)
-
Stretching confusions
- Philip Rowland (31 August 2002)
-
corresponding to german results from the mid 1990s
- Andreas Ritter (1 September 2002)
-
Conclusions and recommendations
- Brian J Pangrle (4 September 2002)
-
Stretching debate
- Nick D Critchley (23 September 2002)
-
Conclusion is wrong
- James D. Glyer (9 October 2002)
-
Not merely by stretch of imagination
- Shishir Gokhale (15 December 2002)
-
Re: Not merely by stretch of imagination
- Ed Turner (3 January 2003)
-
Re: Re: Not merely by stretch of imagination
- Paul Fretter (12 January 2007)
-
Mis-reference
- Doug Dixon (1 February 2009)
|
|
|||
|
Rob Ryan, Youth Soccer Coach Ottawa
Send response to journal:
|
This article asserts that there are no studies worth mentioning of the relationship between stretching and performance. The author might want to check out the work of Gerard van der Poel as reported in the book "Conditioning for Soccer" by Dr. Raymond Verheijen, a soccer conditioning specialist in the Netherlands. Apparently van der Poel argues that there is evidence that static stretching negatively affects the performance of soccer players, but dynamic stretching is helpful. He further argues that static stretching will tell an athlete whether or not he or she has warmed up sufficiently and which muscles to work more. The issue from the point of view of soccer at least, is not muscles but joint flexibiliy. Soccer specialists currently argue that static stretching, as part of a cool down after a practice or game helps to dissipate lactic acid and thus has the effect of reducing muscle soreness and aiding the recovery process. This research has led to the modification of the stretching programmes of a number of high level soccer teams, not only in the Netherlands but also in North America. Rob Ryan
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Philip Rowland, Personal Trainer/Soccer Coach New York, NY10536, USA
Send response to journal:
|
Stretching is recommended for two completely different goals: to increase flexibility in general, and to prepare for an imminent increase in activity (a sporting or athletic endeavour). Many coaches and trainers do not make, or are not even aware of, this distinction. The riskiness of undertaking prolonged static stretches prior to participating in athletic or sporting events was pointed out by Laurence Moorehouse over 30 years ago: Dr Morehouse argued that the immediate effect of a prolonged stretch is to temporarily tighten the muscle - the opposite effect of that intended prior to explosive use of the muscle. He argued that the best preparation for any activity is to warm up by going through all the motions it involves at a slow, and then slowly increasing pace. Thus, warm up for sprints with a progression from jogs through strides, half sprints, etc; warm up for soccer with jogs, jumps, gentle changes in direction and pace, passing a ball around etc. This view seems to be more widely accepted in recent years. As these warm ups progress, they effectively become (relatively gentle)dynamic stretches. In a gym, dynamic stretches are seen as riskier than static stretches. Increasing flexibility for its own sake - an admirable goal for most people - is almost universally pursued through prolonged static stretching. The critical difference between the gym and the sports arena is that in the former the stretch is the end in itself: once fully stretched, the muscle is allowed to rest; in the arena, the warmed and gently stretched muscle is then put through a prolonged period of maximum effort. The higher risk of injury from dynamic stretching is outweighed by the reduced risk of injury after the appropriate warm up. Failure to distinguish between stretching types and objectives causes unnecessary injuries. And now we have the Whartons' Active Isolated Stretching, a series of repetitions of brief stretches that the Whartons propose instead of a conventional warm up. This is where I would like to see further research concentrated. There seems to be universal agreement that pre-exercise warm ups are essential. A comparison of benefits from a conventional warm up and those from a system of stretching that purports to replace it should prove enlightening. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Andreas Ritter
Send response to journal:
|
These results correspond to german scientific results of Wiemann, Wiemann/Kamphoefner, Wiemann/Klee, Klee. One of those is printed in the Deutsche Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin, No 9/1995, p. 411 ff. Further interesting article: Hennig/Podzielny: The effect of stretching and warm-up exercises on vertical jump performance. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin, No 6/1994, p. 253 ff Further articles of these and other authors on the use of stretching at the school's lessons in sports you can find at the journal (paper) "sportunterricht" or "sport praxis". |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Brian J Pangrle Spokane, Washington USA
Send response to journal:
|
While some activities do not rely on stretching and flexibility, others certainly do. Indeed, in my 10 years of gymnastics, I never attempted certain skills before stretching - for fear of life and limb (i.e., injury). Therefore, I am perplexed by the broad and sweeping conclusions stated by Herbert and Gabriel and the international press. I am sure future research will focus on stretching in combination with, for example, resistance or resistance training. Future research should also consider strength through range of motion, which is certainly beneficial in many activities (e.g., dance, gymnastics, martial arts, discus, golf, baseball, etc.). Further, I suggest that the authors enroll in a yoga class to understand better the difference between proper stretching and just bending over! Sincerely,
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Nick D Critchley, Private Physiotherapist/Physiologist Core Stability Ltd, 80 Priory Park Road, London NW6 7UN
Send response to journal:
|
I have been following the currently debated topic of stretching and flexibility with interest and would like to suggest the following - I cannot see how there will ever be a controlled randomised trial that is robust enough to satisfy the clincial and academic authorities, of the benefits or not of stretching. Those of us who understand the complexities of muscle stiffness, neuromuscular recruitment characterisitics, muscle balance, biomechanics and flexibility know that there are so many variables that cannot be controlled that this study just will not happen. It does not surprise me therefore that there is no evidence to support the fact that stretching is beneficial in any way. - However, just because there is currently no evidence to suggest that stretching is not a valuable part of overall fitness and injury prevention, does not mean that it is not as long as it is implemented correctly and supported by an normal liifestyle - Flexibility, or a lack of it, clearly has a role to play in athletic performance, physical fitness and injury prevention - Far too many of those working in the world of musculoskeletal rehabilitation, pain and injury clearly lack the necessary clinical reasoning skills to determine firstly what constitutes normal neuromuscular physiology and having perhaps identified that something is not normal how to go about implementing some positive change to an individual's musculoskeletal profile. We need to move away from the commonly held rationale that if something is tight then we must stretch it in order for it to lengthen. This simply does not work. - An understanding of NORMAL neuromuscular physiology, muscle balance,anatomy, biomechancics, ergonomics as well as tissue pathology will give you some insite as to why something is tight in the first place. The underlying variables aluded to above are the things that need to be addressed in order to maintain and possibly lengthen a given neuromuscular system. - I would agree that at the moment the vast majority of stretching that one sees being done is largely a waste of time. Firstly we need to ask ourselves what it is we thing we are stretching. Is istretching changing sarcomere length? Is it returning a muscle to its 'normal' length by giving it normal tone? Is it lengthening the connective and facial tissue that is integral with the muscle itself? Is it temporarily inhibiting the neuromuscular pathways to the muscle itself? There is no clear evidence. Secondly is the technique of the stretch performed in a satisfactory manner? In the vast majority of cases I think not. How long is each stretch help for and how frequently are the stretches performed? FAR MORE IMPORTANTLY whilst an individual is not stretching what are they doing with that muscle? What is the resting posture of that muscle and does it therefore have a normal neural excitability for a muscle of its type and function? If one is to permanently lengthen a nerve/muscle/connective tissue complex are we really to believe that a stretch for 10 or 20 seconds done even 50 times a day is enough to lengthen a structure of this kind? even assuming that all the other factors have been taken into account and deemed normal. My experience is not. Not unless that individual has a normal posture and biomechanical profile, muscle balance and recruitment characteristics, level of fitness and a lifestyle that does not habitually put the very muscles that they are trying to lengthen in a shortened or overactive position in the first place. How many of us, living as we do in an automated sedentary society can boast this? These are the challenges that we should be trying to working at, not aimlessly stretching something that perhaps does not want to be stretched in the first place. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
James D. Glyer, economics consultant Madison, WI 53711
Send response to journal:
|
The conclusions state that "Stretching before or after exercising does not confer protection from muscle soreness." However, failure to reject the null hypothesis does not support the conclusion that stretching "does not confer protection," just that the authors did not measure a statistically significant benefit. In fact, they did record a benefit. In general, the commentary that no STATISTICALLY significant effect was observed should address the question of whether a FUNCTIONALLY significant difference was covered by the range of uncertainty of the estimate. --David Glyer |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Shishir Gokhale, Pathologist and Microbiologist Command Hospital, Lucknow, India 226002
Send response to journal:
|
Editor - Sometimes it is better to observe the Mother NAture than perform illconceived experiments in the artificial environments and draw dubious inferences. The studies on stretching have neither proved nor disproved its benefits. The reasons for the injuries associated with exercises lie in poor footwear, rough ground, poor physique, faulty schedule, unaccoustomed sudden exercises etc. Obviously mere stretching the muscles before and after the exercises is no insurance against injuries. Where do we stand then? Observe any animal, specially the agile animals involved in rapid bursts of activities that could be equated with human exercises. One doesnot have to go to Africa for this. Your pet dog or cat are handy enough. Watch them get up from their beds. What one witnesses is a beautifully arched back, first in one and then in the other direction, supported by stretched forelegs and hindlegs. Spend a few more seconds and you can observe the stretching wave spread to all visible voluntary muscles. The animal then shakes itself vigorously, another form of stretching and relaxing. This stretching exercise lasts 30 - 60 seconds depending on the preceding duration of lethargy. Now the cat/dog is ready to play, jump,romp, chase the elusive squirrel or accompany the master for a jog. Mother Nature has taught these animals to stretch before they leap. Why not the cerebral Homo sapiens just watch and learn from them? On personal level, I have been using stretch exercises for 30 - 60 seconds before setting for the morning jog with my dogs. I have never felt any muscle soreness or injury due to this exercise in last 25 years. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ed Turner, Cardiothoracic Surgery Hospital Dipreca Santiago-Chile
Send response to journal:
|
One doesn't have to live in Africa to know that lions and cheetahs don't do a lot of stretching and elongation before deciding to go for a chase..... Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Paul Fretter, Martial artist Norwich, United Kingdom
Send response to journal:
|
Medically I am a layman, not an expert, but I feel I can offer humble and constructive comment. The paper does not give much detail on the method of stretching employed, merely the basic physical position. It is also very difficult to be definitive without an exhaustive trial of the various methods and the necessary neuromuscular skill retraining. The stretching method and level of skill/supervision is important, as is the timing of the exercise. Merely contorting the skeleton to force- stretch a muscle, like you would stretch an elsatic band, may provide short term gains but as we all know it can just as easily lead to an increased resistance to elongation, or even worse an injury. Many factors need to be considered such as balance/stability, relaxation of all other muscles, existing injuries, active visualisation, emotional state etc. Instead of trying to elongate the tissues, I would go further and suggest that a better aim of stretching might be to train the nervous system and various tissues (muscle, nerves, fasciae etc) to be able to extend to their inherent _natural_ maximum length, by removing accumulated 'blockages' which prevent this from happening. In this context, perhaps the word "stretching" is not an appropriate description and maybe "restoration" is more apt ? When the musculature is freed in this way, and the skill of movement is high with appropriate neuro-muscualr coordination, then movement will be more efficient (powerful) and fluid with minimal waste of energy on contrary or other wise unhelpful muscular activity. e.g. 'blockages' to normal extension and elasticity could be physical or psychological/neuromuscular: 1. A muscle that feels 'full' a day or so after heavy exercise will be bulky and the fullness of the bulk may limit extension. 2. Friction or adhesions between tissues, muscle sheaths, etc. 3. 'Knots', hard lumps, tears or other injuries. 4. Subconscious or habitual psychological/neuromuscular mechanisms causing the muscle to partially or wholly resist whilst being stretched. This could be a response to prevent (further) trauma, or may be historical from a past experience or injury. 5. Muscular activity or tension in other areas of the limb or body that are required to be relaxed in order for the target muscle to "stretch". For example, it is not easy to stretch the triceps if the biceps are held tight, as it causes the shoulder area to become locked. 6. Psychological tension, e.g. due to stress or emotional trauma. As far as protecting against DOMS, there is a possibility that stretching may provide a kind of massage to the muscle and thus help with fluid drainage. A good yoga practitioner has joints that move freely and muscles that elongate without internal resistance, coupled with excellent overall health. I am a martial artist of 22 years experience and I can say that 'stretching' practiced properly (to be defined!) appears to be highly beneficial. However, for me the aim should be one of repairing and opening the body tissues so they can work efficiently at their natural length whenever they are needed at a moment's notice. This paves the way for sport-specific training of the mind or neuro-muscular skills to improve timing and use only the approriate muscles and level of 'recruitment' required for the task. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Doug Dixon, Layman London
Send response to journal:
|
In the "Effect of stretching on risk of injury" section, you state that "the first study investigated effects of supervised stretching of calf muscles before exercising" and "the second study investigated effects of supervised stretching of six muscle groups in the lower limbs" with reference to reference 21 and 22. It's natural to think 21 was the first and 22 the second, but this doesn't match the study titles or the chronology. So it's unintentionally misleading. It would have been better to switch the numbering to avoid confusion. Competing interests: None declared |
|||