Background:Stretching has wide appeal,but there seems to exist some mismatch between its purported applications and what the evidence shows.There is compelling evidence for some stretching applications,but for others,...Background:Stretching has wide appeal,but there seems to exist some mismatch between its purported applications and what the evidence shows.There is compelling evidence for some stretching applications,but for others,the evidence seems heterogeneous or unsupportive.The discrepancies even affect some systematic reviews,possibly due to heterogeneous eligibility criteria and search strategies.This consensus paper seeks to unify the divergent findings on stretching and its implications for both athletic performance and clinical practices by delivering evidence-based recommendations.Methods:A panel of 20 experts with a blend of practical experience and scholarly knowledge was assembled.The panel meticulously reviewed existing systematic reviews,defined key terminologies(e.g.,consensus definitions for different stretching modes),and crafted guidelines using a Delphi consensus approach(minimum required agreement:80%).The analysis focused on 8 topics,including stretching's acute and chronic(long-term)effects on range of motion,strength performance,muscle hypertrophy,stiffness,injury prevention,muscle recovery,posture correction,and cardiovascular health.Results:There was consensus that chronic and acute stretching(a)improves range of motion(although alternatives exist)and(b)reduces muscle stiffness(which may not always be desirable);the panel also agreed that chronic stretching(c)may promote vascular health,but more research is warranted.In contrast,consensus was found that stretch training does not(a)contribute substantively to muscle growth,(b)serve as an allencompassing injury prevention strategy,(c)improve posture,or(d)acutely enhance post-exercise recovery.Conclusion:These recommendations provide guidance for athletes and practitioners,highlighting research gaps that should be addressed to more comprehensively understand the full scope of stretching effects.展开更多
Background:It is well known that stretch training can induce prolonged increases in joint range of motion(ROM).However,to date more information is needed regarding which training variables might have greater influence...Background:It is well known that stretch training can induce prolonged increases in joint range of motion(ROM).However,to date more information is needed regarding which training variables might have greater influence on improvements in flexibility.Thus,the purpose of this metaanalysis was to investigate the effects of stretch training on ROM in healthy participants by considering potential moderating variables,such as stretching technique,intensity,duration,frequency,and muscles stretched,as well as sex-specific,age-specific,and/or trained state-specific adaptations to stretch training.Methods:We searched through PubMed,Scopus,Web of Science,and SportDiscus to find eligible studies and,finally,assessed the results from 77 studies and 186 effect sizes by applying a random-effect meta-analysis.Moreover,by applying a mixed-effect model,we performed the respective subgroup analyses.To find potential relationships between stretch duration or age and effect sizes,we performed a meta-regression.Results:We found a significant overall effect,indicating that stretch training can increase ROM with a moderate effect compared to the controls(effect size=-1.002;Z=-12.074;95%confidence interval:-1.165 to-0.840;p<0.001;I^(2)=74.97).Subgroup analysis showed a significant difference between the stretching techniques(p=0.01)indicating that proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation and static stretching produced greater ROM than did ballistic/dynamic stretching.Moreover,there was a significant effect between the sexes(p=0.04),indicating that females showed higher gains in ROM compared to males.However,further moderating analysis showed no significant relation or difference.Conclusion:When the goal is to maximize ROM in the long term,proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation or static stretching,rather than ballistic/dynamic stretching,should be applied.Something to consider in future research as well as sports practice is that neither volume,intensity,nor frequency of stretching were found to play a significant role in ROM yields.展开更多
Background:Acute improvement in range of motion(ROM)is a widely reported effect of stretching and foam rolling,which is commonly explained by changes in pain threshold and/or musculotendinous stiffness.Interestingly,t...Background:Acute improvement in range of motion(ROM)is a widely reported effect of stretching and foam rolling,which is commonly explained by changes in pain threshold and/or musculotendinous stiffness.Interestingly,these effects were also reported in response to various other active and passive interventions that induce responses such as enhanced muscle temperature.Therefore,we hypothesized that acute ROM enhancements could be induced by a wide variety of interventions other than stretching or foam rolling that promote an increase in muscle temperature.Methods:After a systematic search in PubMed,Web of Science,and SPORTDiscus databases,38 studies comparing the effects of stretching and foam rolling with several other interventions on ROM and passive properties were included.These studies had 1134 participants in total,and the data analysis resulted in 140 effect sizes(ESs).ES calculations were performed using robust variance estimation model with R-package.Results:Study quality of the included studies was classified as fair(PEDro score=4.58)with low to moderate certainty of evidence.Results showed no significant differences in ROM(ES=0.01,p=0.88),stiffness(ES=0.09,p=0.67),or passive peak torque(ES=-0.30,p=0.14)between stretching or foam rolling and the other identified activities.Funnel plots revealed no publication bias.Conclusion:Based on current literature,our results challenge the established view on stretching and foam rolling as a recommended component of warm-up programs.The lack of significant difference between interventions suggests there is no need to emphasize stretching or foam rolling to induce acute ROM,passive peak torque increases,or stiffness reductions.展开更多
Passive and active stretching techniques have been shown to increase both chronic and acute range of motion(ROM).Acute ROM improvements can be countered by decreases in muscle performance,primarily after prolonged sta...Passive and active stretching techniques have been shown to increase both chronic and acute range of motion(ROM).Acute ROM improvements can be countered by decreases in muscle performance,primarily after prolonged static stretching(SS)and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation(PNF)techniques when not incorporated into a full warm up procedure.In contrast,ballistic stretching and dynamic stretching techniques typically induce either an increase or no change in muscular force and power.This review explores studies that have investigated stretching responses on ROM,muscle functionality and performance.Collectively,the literature demonstrates that prolonged acute SS and PNF stretching can elicit the greatest changes in flexibility,but without additional dynamic activities(i.e.full warm up)can induce neuromuscular force and power output impairments,while increasing ROM and some sports specific performance.Muscle response to stretching may be determined by the manipulation of confounding variables such as duration,population,volume,test specificity and frequency.An increased dosage of some of these variables during stretching in isolation,augments ROM increases while attenuating muscle force output,except for stretching intensity which may lead to similar responses.Populations with high flexibility may have positive effects from stretching when tested on their sport specific performance,while general population may suffer greater negative effects.Not control-ling these variables during stretching protocols may lead to misleading information regarding its effects on muscle performance.展开更多
文摘Background:Stretching has wide appeal,but there seems to exist some mismatch between its purported applications and what the evidence shows.There is compelling evidence for some stretching applications,but for others,the evidence seems heterogeneous or unsupportive.The discrepancies even affect some systematic reviews,possibly due to heterogeneous eligibility criteria and search strategies.This consensus paper seeks to unify the divergent findings on stretching and its implications for both athletic performance and clinical practices by delivering evidence-based recommendations.Methods:A panel of 20 experts with a blend of practical experience and scholarly knowledge was assembled.The panel meticulously reviewed existing systematic reviews,defined key terminologies(e.g.,consensus definitions for different stretching modes),and crafted guidelines using a Delphi consensus approach(minimum required agreement:80%).The analysis focused on 8 topics,including stretching's acute and chronic(long-term)effects on range of motion,strength performance,muscle hypertrophy,stiffness,injury prevention,muscle recovery,posture correction,and cardiovascular health.Results:There was consensus that chronic and acute stretching(a)improves range of motion(although alternatives exist)and(b)reduces muscle stiffness(which may not always be desirable);the panel also agreed that chronic stretching(c)may promote vascular health,but more research is warranted.In contrast,consensus was found that stretch training does not(a)contribute substantively to muscle growth,(b)serve as an allencompassing injury prevention strategy,(c)improve posture,or(d)acutely enhance post-exercise recovery.Conclusion:These recommendations provide guidance for athletes and practitioners,highlighting research gaps that should be addressed to more comprehensively understand the full scope of stretching effects.
基金supported by a grant(Project J 4484)from the Austrian Science Fund(AK)the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada:RGPIN-2023-05861(DGB)。
文摘Background:It is well known that stretch training can induce prolonged increases in joint range of motion(ROM).However,to date more information is needed regarding which training variables might have greater influence on improvements in flexibility.Thus,the purpose of this metaanalysis was to investigate the effects of stretch training on ROM in healthy participants by considering potential moderating variables,such as stretching technique,intensity,duration,frequency,and muscles stretched,as well as sex-specific,age-specific,and/or trained state-specific adaptations to stretch training.Methods:We searched through PubMed,Scopus,Web of Science,and SportDiscus to find eligible studies and,finally,assessed the results from 77 studies and 186 effect sizes by applying a random-effect meta-analysis.Moreover,by applying a mixed-effect model,we performed the respective subgroup analyses.To find potential relationships between stretch duration or age and effect sizes,we performed a meta-regression.Results:We found a significant overall effect,indicating that stretch training can increase ROM with a moderate effect compared to the controls(effect size=-1.002;Z=-12.074;95%confidence interval:-1.165 to-0.840;p<0.001;I^(2)=74.97).Subgroup analysis showed a significant difference between the stretching techniques(p=0.01)indicating that proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation and static stretching produced greater ROM than did ballistic/dynamic stretching.Moreover,there was a significant effect between the sexes(p=0.04),indicating that females showed higher gains in ROM compared to males.However,further moderating analysis showed no significant relation or difference.Conclusion:When the goal is to maximize ROM in the long term,proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation or static stretching,rather than ballistic/dynamic stretching,should be applied.Something to consider in future research as well as sports practice is that neither volume,intensity,nor frequency of stretching were found to play a significant role in ROM yields.
文摘Background:Acute improvement in range of motion(ROM)is a widely reported effect of stretching and foam rolling,which is commonly explained by changes in pain threshold and/or musculotendinous stiffness.Interestingly,these effects were also reported in response to various other active and passive interventions that induce responses such as enhanced muscle temperature.Therefore,we hypothesized that acute ROM enhancements could be induced by a wide variety of interventions other than stretching or foam rolling that promote an increase in muscle temperature.Methods:After a systematic search in PubMed,Web of Science,and SPORTDiscus databases,38 studies comparing the effects of stretching and foam rolling with several other interventions on ROM and passive properties were included.These studies had 1134 participants in total,and the data analysis resulted in 140 effect sizes(ESs).ES calculations were performed using robust variance estimation model with R-package.Results:Study quality of the included studies was classified as fair(PEDro score=4.58)with low to moderate certainty of evidence.Results showed no significant differences in ROM(ES=0.01,p=0.88),stiffness(ES=0.09,p=0.67),or passive peak torque(ES=-0.30,p=0.14)between stretching or foam rolling and the other identified activities.Funnel plots revealed no publication bias.Conclusion:Based on current literature,our results challenge the established view on stretching and foam rolling as a recommended component of warm-up programs.The lack of significant difference between interventions suggests there is no need to emphasize stretching or foam rolling to induce acute ROM,passive peak torque increases,or stiffness reductions.
文摘Passive and active stretching techniques have been shown to increase both chronic and acute range of motion(ROM).Acute ROM improvements can be countered by decreases in muscle performance,primarily after prolonged static stretching(SS)and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation(PNF)techniques when not incorporated into a full warm up procedure.In contrast,ballistic stretching and dynamic stretching techniques typically induce either an increase or no change in muscular force and power.This review explores studies that have investigated stretching responses on ROM,muscle functionality and performance.Collectively,the literature demonstrates that prolonged acute SS and PNF stretching can elicit the greatest changes in flexibility,but without additional dynamic activities(i.e.full warm up)can induce neuromuscular force and power output impairments,while increasing ROM and some sports specific performance.Muscle response to stretching may be determined by the manipulation of confounding variables such as duration,population,volume,test specificity and frequency.An increased dosage of some of these variables during stretching in isolation,augments ROM increases while attenuating muscle force output,except for stretching intensity which may lead to similar responses.Populations with high flexibility may have positive effects from stretching when tested on their sport specific performance,while general population may suffer greater negative effects.Not control-ling these variables during stretching protocols may lead to misleading information regarding its effects on muscle performance.
