WHY STATIC STRETCHING IS SO OVERRATED

I truly and sincerely hope that gets people up in arms because it should, but I'm definitely not lying. Why is it that I've been able to develop top-notch athletes for two decades without integrating more than 5 percent of the entire program coming from static stretching? The reasons are many, and I discuss all of this in my stretching book here. If you happen to like what you read here, then I would strongly suggest picking up a copy of my book, and then you'll never have a lingering question regarding stretching again. Here is the list of sub-topics that will be covered right now...

#1-Don't tell me to stretch after an 8-mile run

#2-FRC

#3-Limits of Flexibility

#4-The injury prevention myth

#5-What about gymnasts and weightlifters?

Don't tell me to stretch after an 8-mile run

I must admit that this article was motivated by an individual who proceeded to tell me after an initial greeting that I need not forget to stretch at the conclusion of my near half-marathon workout today. Mind you, this gentleman did not run a step and was overweight. But I digress. He is just passing on century-old dogma that simply won't go away. And this aforementioned notion is one that is long overdue for being put in the trash. The NASM, Joe Defranco, and logical common sense will quickly identify that static stretching before and after workouts does not carry the same merit as other methods (i.e. foam rolling, active and dynamic stretching, bodyweight movements, muscle activation techniques, cool-down/recovery positions, etc.).

FRC

Years ago, some brilliant and credible mind in the industry, whom I unfortunately cannot remember, enlightened all of us on a new method that applied what scientific research had to say on the static stretching matter all along. 1 The Functional Range Course is a system designed to enhance mobility (strength + joint control). Sounds complicated, perhaps, but it's not. What most people still fail to understand, and why I briefly told the guy who told me to stretch that "nah, it's overrated," is that you can stretch all you want. You'll see temporary relief of reflexes (i.e. lumbar spine) or muscle length increases, but if you aren't strong at that exact joint angle or position, it won't last, and getting strong in that position can ensure you build strength and the intended flexibility and mobility at the same time. It's a no-brainer, ladies and gentlemen. "Adaptive Shortening" occurs when you hold a position anywhere from a few seconds to several minutes, but research and real-world evidence clearly show there is usually a return to the original muscle length. As you'll witness in the FRC link above, they use what's called PAILS AND RAILS. There are several examples of these techniques, but we will use one right now to paint a picture. Imagine a single leg straight leg stretch while on your back. Once in the position, you can apply a band around the back of your leg, hold tight, and try to pull the leg towards you while still in a still/isometric position. This is a classic progressive or PAIL position where you're strengthening the stretched or long side of the joint. Conversely, all you have to do is have someone apply the band around the front, hold the position, and then strengthen the short or regressive RAIL position.

Limits of Flexibility

So, about two decades ago, one of my mentors and quite possibly the smartest athletic development and speed coach in the country did some pieces on a concept that is as good as it gets. Basically, when you go out and exercise in pretty much any environment or context, the tasks will not require you to even come close to your "Limits of Flexibility." This has to do with the Length-tension relationship, which I mentioned previously, and if you've ever just peeked in a kinesiology book or have even the slightest background in training science, you'll appreciate this concept. However, for some absurd reason, these "fundamental" movement science facts that don't require much expertise are very rarely considered and taken into account when prescribing training programs to clients. Not only does stretching have very little carryover to the actual encountered positions, but it's not specific, which violates other training laws (Law of specificity, SAID), and it's not going to make you more functional or productive in your training efforts. In closing, Dr. Bret Contreras and Chris Beardsley introduced a revolving concept termed "Angle of Peak Torque" years ago on their research site. Basically, this is the specific muscle length and degree of stretch where the movement and involved muscles are most powerful. Not surprisingly, small to moderate degrees of stretch were optimal. 1 This is why you see people naturally opt to squat more weight at around 45 degrees rather than going to full parallel depth unless taught otherwise.

The Injury Prevention Myth

It's mind-boggling that everyone just follows the herd and even embraces ideas and techniques that they know are, at the bare minimum, questionable. Ever since you first started exercising in grade school or competed in athletics, authorities have told you to make sure that you stretch so you don't get hurt. Unfortunately, this dogma has been blindly followed for decades and counting, without ever really being challenged. My book introduces several meta-analyses that contend the supposed truth, and the takeaway, along with upwards of 20 years of experience and over 60000 hours of training, is that the results, if any, are minimal, and there is far more that has to be considered in the injury prevention equation. For example, you've already seen that stretching is very often non-specific, which breaches training laws. Moreover, a majority of movement demands outside of rehabilitation, and special case environments (i.e. handicapped or elderly prescriptions) will ultimately require far more from the body than what stretching can provide, thus limiting its potential for positive impact. Yes, most injuries occur in eccentric (aka stretched or lengthened) muscle positions, but the issue is a lack of strength, reactivity, power, speed/RFD, and coordination types in those areas of weakness rather than flexibility or mobility itself. Furthermore, sleep quality, recovery capacity in all tissues and systems of the body, nutrition, stress, experience, training volume, conditioning levels, and many more area all mostly superior and combined factors that play into the injury prevention puzzle. It's about time we move the needle forward a centimeter and abandon disproven training notions from the 1960s.

What about gymnasts and bodybuilders?

No study is required when simply looking at the feats performed by these two types of athletes, although literature is available on the subject if you are interested. Now, is it safe to say that the objective outside of preventing injury with static stretching is to enhance mobility and flexibility? And who better demonstrates this quality than strong, powerful gymnasts? If you are being honest, you'd be very hard-pressed to find competition on this front, and although they do practice static stretching, much of their ability stems from ballistic and loaded stretching work routines, which satisfy the nature of the sport. Joe DeFranco, one of the best trainers on the planet, also shared research he dug up years ago that clearly showcased figure competitors and bodybuilders as having elite stretching ability. So, I guess having bulk isn't a problem after all huh? People seem to often forget that the nature of muscle tissue is highly elastic due to three microfilaments: titin, actin, and myosin. This is why ballistic stretching is very effective, as it takes advantage of the springlike features of the muscles and tendons, while simultaneously serving as a safeguard against exposing you or someone else to loaded and sometimes unfamiliar stretched positions for too long.

SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES:

#1-QUARTER SQUATS FOR FASTER SPRINTING SPEED