Is Stretching Unnecessary?

Recently, it was reported in the Wall Street Journal that a Nebraska-Wesleyan study led researchers to not only question the idea of stretching, but suggest that the practice is unnecessary. Here's the link to the article, but be sure to come back to read my response! http://tinyurl.com/ygt4grv

Researchers or not, it seems to me that to say that we 'only need enough flexibility to avoid injury' and that we are 'born stretchy or not' are both grossly inaccurate. Flexibility and mobility go hand in hand; both are crucial for optimal motor function and coordination. Years of research support that statement.

While the relative flexibility of infants is not tested, it is pretty easy to see that, developmentally, babies are pretty similar in their flexibility. Aside from those suffering physical maladies, all babies pretty much press up, crawl, squat, and stand the same way. The timetables for these developmental steps vary, of course, but 99% of us all did it.

The researchers, or, perhaps more accurately, the author(s) are taking quite a leap from the data - that runners who are less flexible have greater running economy - to the conclusion that flexibility training is unwarranted. Dr. Knudson seems to be suggesting that, since the physiological effects of stretching last for only a short while, the practice is unnecessary. However, this is like saying that, since the positive physiological effects of one workout only last a short time after the workout itself, we should re-evaluate this whole 'exercise is good for you' idea.

The researchers correctly surmise that the runners with better economy are tighter because those tighter structures allow for more potential energy to be stored in the more elastic fibers. The body will settle into the motion patterns that allow it to perform optimally; collegiate 400-meter athletes have typically been competing in that event or similar ones for years. This is a good thing in this specific application, but, as we discussed, the same level of hip and hamstring tightness would not benefit other athletes (or normal folks) who move in multiple planes and directions.

I can comfortably say that it is highly unlikely that none of these runners are also elite soccer, hockey, or basketball players - the lack of ability to move in all directions would lead to injury in short order. Likewise, a sprinter who tries to lift something heavy from the ground to waist level, rotating during the lift, is likely to suffer a low back injury.

The most troublesome things for me regarding Dr. Knudson are his recommendations to use the sit and reach test to assess flexibility, and his suggestion to find stretching exercises on YouTube. The sit and reach test is still a standard in the medical community, but it really doesn't identify where any potential inflexibility lies. Could be the low back, the glutes, the hamstrings - all the results tell you is how far you can push a lever. As for suggesting that stretching exercises can be found on YouTube... that's just irresponsible.

P.S. - as an addendum to this post, let me add Mike Boyle's recent comments regarding the same post:

"To be honest, I am amazed that writers can make the jumps in reasoning that
they make with so little knowledge. In my opinion the author makes three
huge mistakes in the first two paragraphs.

1- The author studied distance runners. These are at best an interesting sub-group but have no real relationship to most team sport athletes.

2- The study used the sit and reach test as the indicator of flexibility. Any strength coach or fitness professional knows that this is a poor test as the test actually looks at movement across multiple segments. To call the sit and reach a hamstring test is really a display of ignorance. The truth is it as test of relative flexibility, which is often a problem, not an attribute.

3- Last but certainly not least the author states that the test measures elasticity. Flexibility, even if their measurements were valid and reliable, and elasticity are not nearly synonymous.

The end of the article gets slightly better but, not much. What the author fails to grasp is that the key is not the gains in flexibility but, the losses of flexibility over time.

Bottom line, neither the article or the study is very good."

Mike Boyle
http://www.FunctionalStrengthCoach3.com

The 'Perfect Pushup:' Pump-Up or Letdown?

So by now, we've all seen the product called the 'Perfect Pushup;' you know, the swiveling handles designed by a Navy Seal? (Should I disappear after this post, please contact the State Department) Will these plastic platforms get you pumped? Read on!

The premise of the Perfect Pushup is sound; the dual functions of the pectoralis major are horizontal adduction and internal rotation of the humerus, so the creation of an apparatus that allows for internal rotation during a pushup would seem to make sense.

The combination of a handle and a rotating base make the Perfect Pushup ideal for anyone with wrist extension problems. The handles also allow free rotation at the shoulder; for many, the ability to rotate feels more comfortable at the shoulder. The question is, however, are these benefits going to help you develop chiseled pecs?

In a word, no.

In order to effectively challenge a muscle, load is necessary. The body provides the load during the lifting and lowering phases of a traditional pushup - thank you, gravity. However, using the Perfect Pushup, the act of internal rotation is not loaded, so the newly available motion provides little if any benefit to the pushup.

In addition, I have to say that I have some issues with the "Power 10" workout being prescribed by the marketer. (I've posted the link to the video below) When watching the video, pay close attention to three things: hand position, pushup depth, and spinal position.

The hand position always changes from a neutral position to a pronated position; this change of position is being initiated solely by the forearm, and is not affecting the pecs in any way. More problematic is the possibility that novice users will not simply turn to neutral from the forearm, but will instead externally rotate the shoulder, operating opposite pec function.

Also of concern for the novice is the extreme depth of the pushups demonstrated by the model. This is well beyond what I consider a safe range of motion for a pushup. The further the humeral attachment moves from the sternal origin, the more stress across the shoulder joint. Most folks can't do a military, chest-to-floor pushup; I find it irresponsible to encourage such an extreme range.

Last, the spinal position of the model should not be emulated. By the time the model reaches the end of the 5 minute workout, his spine is extended enough to put undue pressure on the lumbar disks, and his chest is lifted enough to have created a near-decline pushup position - considered contraindicated by many joint experts.
(how the drill instructor believes that 'both sets of pec muscles' will be worked in this manner is beyond me, as some form of incline pressing is required to involve pec minor)

To conclude, the Perfect Pushup is a well-conceived product that may allow exercisers with wrist / shoulder limitations to more comfortably perform pushups, but the product does not take full advantage of the two motions performed by pec major, and is unlikely to deliver the amazing results 'as seen on TV.'

Here's the link to the Perfect Pushup Power 10 Workout:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRXs_VBaTCg