Acute Effects of Stretching on Flexibility and Performance: A Narrative Review

Lima, Camila D.; Ruas, Cassio V.; Behm, David G.; Brown, Lee E.

doi:10.1007/s42978-019-0011-x

Cited by 20 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, in the last decade several critical reviews have disseminated the idea that numerous limitations in study design within the SS literature may have biased the research findings underlying the shift away from SS. A number of reviews (Behm et al 2016a;Behm and Chaouachi 2011;Chaabene et al 2019;Kay and Blazevich 2012;Lima 2019) highlighted that prolonged periods of acute SS (e.g. > 60 s per muscle group) generally induced significant and practically relevant deficits while shorter SS had trivial effects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanisms underlying performance impairments following prolonged static stretching without a comprehensive warm-up

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whereas a variety of pre-exercise activities have been incorporated as part of a "warm-up" prior to work, combat, and athletic activities for millennia, the inclusion of static stretching (SS) within a warm-up has lost favour in the last 25 years. Research emphasised the possibility of SSinduced impairments in subsequent performance following prolonged stretching without proper dynamic warm-up activities. Proposed mechanisms underlying stretch-induced deficits include both neural (i.e. decreased voluntary activation, persistent inward current effects on motoneurone excitability) and morphological (i.e. changes in the force-length relationship, decreased Ca 2+ sensitivity, alterations in parallel elastic component) factors. Psychological influences such as a mental energy deficit and nocebo effects could also adversely affect performance. However, significant practical limitations exist within published studies, e.g. long stretching durations, stretching exercises with little task specificity, lack of warm-up before/after stretching, testing performed immediately after stretch completion, and risk of investigator and participant bias.Recent research indicates that appropriate durations of static stretching performed within a full warm-up (i.e. aerobic activities before and task-specific dynamic stretching and intense physical activities after SS) have trivial effects on subsequent performance with some evidence of improved force output at longer muscle lengths. For conditions in which muscular force production is compromised by stretching, knowledge of the underlying mechanisms would aid development of mitigation strategies. However, these mechanisms are yet to be perfectly defined. More information is needed to better understand both the warm-up components and mechanisms that contribute to performance enhancements or impairments when SS is incorporated within a pre-activity warm-up.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanisms underlying performance impairments following prolonged static stretching without a comprehensive warm-up

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The main goals of stretching exercises applied during the cool-down phase (i.e., post-exercise stretching) are to enhance range of motion (ROM) and to reduce stiffness and delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) (Sands et al, 2013 ). There are different post-exercise stretching methods, such as passive static, active static, dynamic, proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF), among others (Lima et al, 2019 ). Despite its wide adoption in exercise protocols, its effectiveness is not well-understood (Van Hooren and Peake, 2018 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effectiveness of Post-exercise Stretching in Short-Term and Delayed Recovery of Strength, Range of Motion and Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Post-exercise (i.e., cool-down) stretching is commonly prescribed for improving recovery of strength and range of motion (ROM) and diminishing delayed onset muscular soreness (DOMS) after physical exertion. However, the question remains if post-exercise stretching is better for recovery than other post-exercise modalities.Objective: To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of supervised randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of post-exercise stretching on short-term (≤1 h after exercise) and delayed (e.g., ≥24 h) recovery makers (i.e., DOMS, strength, ROM) in comparison with passive recovery or alternative recovery methods (e.g., low-intensity cycling).Methods: This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO CRD42020222091). RCTs published in any language or date were eligible, according to P.I.C.O.S. criteria. Searches were performed in eight databases. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2. Meta-analyses used the inverse variance random-effects model. GRADE was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies.Results: From 17,050 records retrieved, 11 RCTs were included for qualitative analyses and 10 for meta-analysis (n = 229 participants; 17–38 years, mostly males). The exercise protocols varied between studies (e.g., cycling, strength training). Post-exercise stretching included static stretching, passive stretching, and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation. Passive recovery (i.e., rest) was used as comparator in eight studies, with additional recovery protocols including low intensity cycling or running, massage, and cold-water immersion. Risk of bias was high in ~70% of the studies. Between-group comparisons showed no effect of post-exercise stretching on strength recovery (ES = −0.08; 95% CI = −0.54–0.39; p = 0.750; I2 = 0.0%; Egger's test p = 0.531) when compared to passive recovery. In addition, no effect of post-exercise stretching on 24, 48, or 72-h post-exercise DOMS was noted when compared to passive recovery (ES = −0.09 to −0.24; 95% CI = −0.70–0.28; p = 0.187–629; I2 = 0.0%; Egger's test p = 0.165–0.880).Conclusion: There wasn't sufficient statistical evidence to reject the null hypothesis that stretching and passive recovery have equivalent influence on recovery. Data is scarce, heterogeneous, and confidence in cumulative evidence is very low. Future research should address the limitations highlighted in our review, to allow for more informed recommendations. For now, evidence-based recommendations on whether post-exercise stretching should be applied for the purposes of recovery should be avoided, as the (insufficient) data that is available does not support related claims.Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42020222091.

show abstract

“…Among others, increased compliance of the musculotendinous unit (MTU) that lowers MTU stiffness has been discussed (Avela et al, 1999; Rubini et al, 2007) together with lower motor unit activation (Hough et al, 2009; Trajano et al, 2013). However, the underlying physiological mechanisms following short-duration StS (≤60 s per muscle group) when performed as a single-mode treatment or when integrated into a full warm-up routine have hardly been discussed in the literature (Behm et al, 2016; Lima et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It seems that the contradictory and constantly changing reports with regard to StS research may cause confusion, particularly with coaches and practitioners. It is noteworthy that the acute effects of StS on ROM and physical fitness have recently been discussed (Lima et al, 2019), yet without providing insight into the underlying physiological mechanisms. Therefore, the aims of this review were (1) to provide an overview of previous and current findings on the acute effects of StS on muscle strength and power in physically active individuals and athletes; (2) to update readers’ knowledge related to previous caveats; and (3) to discuss the underlying physiological mechanisms of short-duration StS when performed as a single-mode treatment or when integrated into a full warm-up routine.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acute Effects of Static Stretching on Muscle Strength and Power: An Attempt to Clarify Previous Caveats

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of static stretching (StS) on subsequent strength and power activities has been one of the most debated topics in sport science literature over the past decades. The aim of this review is (1) to summarize previous and current findings on the acute effects of StS on muscle strength and power performances; (2) to update readers’ knowledge related to previous caveats; and (3) to discuss the underlying physiological mechanisms of short-duration StS when performed as single-mode treatment or when integrated into a full warm-up routine. Over the last two decades, StS has been considered harmful to subsequent strength and power performances. Accordingly, it has been recommended not to apply StS before strength- and power-related activities. More recent evidence suggests that when performed as a single-mode treatment or when integrated within a full warm-up routine including aerobic activity, dynamic-stretching, and sport-specific activities, short-duration StS (≤60 s per muscle group) trivially impairs subsequent strength and power activities (∆1–2%). Yet, longer StS durations (>60 s per muscle group) appear to induce substantial and practically relevant declines in strength and power performances (∆4.0–7.5%). Moreover, recent evidence suggests that when included in a full warm-up routine, short-duration StS may even contribute to lower the risk of sustaining musculotendinous injuries especially with high-intensity activities (e.g., sprint running and change of direction speed). It seems that during short-duration StS, neuromuscular activation and musculotendinous stiffness appear not to be affected compared with long-duration StS. Among other factors, this could be due to an elevated muscle temperature induced by a dynamic warm-up program. More specifically, elevated muscle temperature leads to increased muscle fiber conduction-velocity and improved binding of contractile proteins (actin, myosin). Therefore, our previous understanding of harmful StS effects on subsequent strength and power activities has to be updated. In fact, short-duration StS should be included as an important warm-up component before the uptake of recreational sports activities due to its potential positive effect on flexibility and musculotendinous injury prevention. However, in high-performance athletes, short-duration StS has to be applied with caution due to its negligible but still prevalent negative effects on subsequent strength and power performances, which could have an impact on performance during competition.

show abstract

Acute Effects of Stretching on Flexibility and Performance: A Narrative Review

Cited by 20 publications

References 66 publications

Mechanisms underlying performance impairments following prolonged static stretching without a comprehensive warm-up

Mechanisms underlying performance impairments following prolonged static stretching without a comprehensive warm-up

The Effectiveness of Post-exercise Stretching in Short-Term and Delayed Recovery of Strength, Range of Motion and Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Acute Effects of Static Stretching on Muscle Strength and Power: An Attempt to Clarify Previous Caveats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About