Stretching Mythology

From Coach Mike Boyle - nicely addresses many of the questionable aspects of the conventional wisdom regardling stretching, flexibility, and fitness. An athlete gets all of the flexibility they need from full range of motion functional movements. If you can squat below parallel, complete a full range of motion pullup, and hold a bar directly overhead, how much more flexibility do you need? The sit reach in particular is a poor measure of meaningful flexibility, as it encourages athletes to gain flexibility in their lower backs. The lower back is designed to have limited ROM in order for it to provide a stable, weight bearing capacity. It is not desirable to significantly increase the flexibility of the low back unless you are a specialty athlete, like a contortionist, or you are in rehabilitation. Hamstring length is cultivated naturally with weightlifting exercises such as the deadlift, weighted back squat, and weighted front squat. If you desire to gain more hamstring flexibility faster, use Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation (PNF).
"A recent NY Times article once again questioned the value of stretching.
Here is the article - http://tinyurl.com/ygt4grv

A Facebook link posted by one of my friends brought the article to my attention.
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/"

Functional Strength Coach

105 South Street
Plainville, MA
02762
US

If you no longer wish to receive communication from us:
http://autocontactor.com/app/r.asp?ID=1077386030&ARID=0&D=
To update your contact information:
http://autocontactor.com/app/r.asp?c=1&ID=1077386030&D=