Negative Effects
According to many studies stretching is detrimental to one's ability to exert force through an object such as a 45 pound plate.
The following is some conclusive clinical evidence that supports the unpopular theory not stretching.
The Proof
In a study done in 2003, the Human Performance Laboratory, Wayne State College took ten men and eight women between the ages of 19 and 25 and weight between 134 and 209 pounds. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of an acute static stretching bout of the biceps brachii on torque, electromyography (EMG), and mechanomyography (MMG) during concentric isokinetic muscle actions.
Maximal Isokinetic forearm flexion strength was tested on two separate occasions. During this, EMG and MMG were recorded. Subjects were randomly assigned to stretching (STR) or nonstretching (NSTR) before strength testing. Two-way ANOVAs with repeated measures revealed significantly greater torque for the nonstretching group.
The experts at Wayne State College concluded that these results indicate that a greater ability to produce torque without prior stretching is related to the musculotendinous stiffness of the muscle rather than the number of motor units activated. This suggests that performing activities that reduce muscle stiffness (such as stretching), may be detrimental to performance.
A similarly based study was conducted at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The purpose of their study was somewhat different then the formers in that the University of Nebraska-Lincoln's study's purpose was to examine the effects of static stretching on concentric, isokinetic leg extension peak torque (PT) at 60 and 240 degrees, in stretched and unstretched limbs.
The findings suggest, in conjunction with previous studies, indicated that static stretching impairs maximal force production. They said that strength and conditioning professionals should consider this before incorporating static stretching in pre-performance activities.
Now let's take a look at the argument that it prevents injuries. This prospective study was designed to evaluate whether static stretching can prevent training-related injuries in Japanese military recruits.
A total of 901 recruits between 1996 and 1998 were divided into two groups. Of which, 518 recruits were assigned to the stretching group and practiced static stretching before and after each physical training session. The control group (383 recruits in the nonstretching group) did not stretch statically prior to exercise. The static stretching consisted of 18 exercises. Injury data from medical records were collected and they assessed the incidence and the location of injury. The total injury rate was almost the same between two groups. Static stretching did not prevent bone or joint injuries.
According to many studies stretching is detrimental to one's ability to exert force through an object such as a 45 pound plate.
The following is some conclusive clinical evidence that supports the unpopular theory not stretching.
The Proof
In a study done in 2003, the Human Performance Laboratory, Wayne State College took ten men and eight women between the ages of 19 and 25 and weight between 134 and 209 pounds. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of an acute static stretching bout of the biceps brachii on torque, electromyography (EMG), and mechanomyography (MMG) during concentric isokinetic muscle actions.
Maximal Isokinetic forearm flexion strength was tested on two separate occasions. During this, EMG and MMG were recorded. Subjects were randomly assigned to stretching (STR) or nonstretching (NSTR) before strength testing. Two-way ANOVAs with repeated measures revealed significantly greater torque for the nonstretching group.
The experts at Wayne State College concluded that these results indicate that a greater ability to produce torque without prior stretching is related to the musculotendinous stiffness of the muscle rather than the number of motor units activated. This suggests that performing activities that reduce muscle stiffness (such as stretching), may be detrimental to performance.
A similarly based study was conducted at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The purpose of their study was somewhat different then the formers in that the University of Nebraska-Lincoln's study's purpose was to examine the effects of static stretching on concentric, isokinetic leg extension peak torque (PT) at 60 and 240 degrees, in stretched and unstretched limbs.
The findings suggest, in conjunction with previous studies, indicated that static stretching impairs maximal force production. They said that strength and conditioning professionals should consider this before incorporating static stretching in pre-performance activities.
Now let's take a look at the argument that it prevents injuries. This prospective study was designed to evaluate whether static stretching can prevent training-related injuries in Japanese military recruits.
A total of 901 recruits between 1996 and 1998 were divided into two groups. Of which, 518 recruits were assigned to the stretching group and practiced static stretching before and after each physical training session. The control group (383 recruits in the nonstretching group) did not stretch statically prior to exercise. The static stretching consisted of 18 exercises. Injury data from medical records were collected and they assessed the incidence and the location of injury. The total injury rate was almost the same between two groups. Static stretching did not prevent bone or joint injuries.
