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