This is a free preview of a much longer article posted to the Flexibility Research Forum. You must become a member to read the full piece. Fresh content is uploaded weekly, including articles like this, research reviews, training guides, coaching tips, webinars, Q&As, and more. Click this link to find out more.
Introduction
Static passive stretching involves adopting a position where a specific muscle or group of muscles is deliberately elongated to its fullest length and then held in that state of tension for a period of time, typically around 30 seconds. This method usually aims to create a gentle and controlled lengthening of the muscle fibres, facilitating an increase in flexibility and a deepening of bodily awareness.
'Static' signifies the absence of movement during the stretch; 'passive' refers to the absence of voluntary muscular contractions. In practising static passive stretching, we are invited to observe the mind’s reactions to stillness and tension. It becomes a mirror reflecting our habitual patterns of resistance, impatience, and the often-unnoticed stress we carry within our psyches. This explains some positive psychological benefits reported with regular static passive stretching, such as improved mood states [1].
In health and physical medicine, few propositions are as uncontroversial as the beneficial impact of static passive stretching on flexibility. The body of empirical evidence supporting this claim is robust and convincing, making it a cornerstone of contemporary understanding in sports science and rehabilitative medicine [2-5]. Indeed, the observation that flexibility invariably improves following a regimen of static passive stretching is so well-documented and consistent that any absence of improvement would be considered a statistical aberration, prompting a re-evaluation of the methodologies employed or the subjects' adherence to the prescribed protocols.
Conversations surrounding static passive stretching, however, extend beyond the acknowledgement of its efficacy. The subtleties of this practice invite a more granular inquiry: To what extent does it enhance flexibility? How swiftly can one expect to observe tangible improvements? What specific conditions – encompassing repetitions, duration, intensity, and frequency – must be optimised to attain the most favourable outcomes? These questions are as practical as they are academic, guiding coaches in tailoring interventions that maximise benefits for individuals across varying baselines of physical condition and flexibility.
Furthermore, while the primary focus of static passive stretching often centres on its capacity to augment flexibility, a holistic perspective necessitates consideration of its broader implications on the human organism. Among these, the potential effects on the cardiovascular system merit particular attention [6]. Though less frequently broached in discussions, these considerations are equally significant, as they underscore the interconnectedness of bodily systems and the multifaceted nature of physical interventions.
However, despite static passive stretching’s obvious benefit to flexibility, there has been a debate surrounding its effects on muscle performance that has endured for decades. Researchers in the fields of physiology and athletic training have raised legitimate concerns, encapsulated in several studies, regarding the potentially deleterious impact static passive stretching might wield on an athlete’s physical capacities [7-10]. While academically sound and worthy of discussion, these concerns often orbit around the quantifiable metrics of force reduction or diminished power output.
We must recognise that the negative impact of static passive stretching on one’s overall health is rarely, if ever, a topic of discussion in research. The omission is not without reason: the evidence – or rather, the conspicuous lack thereof – paints a compelling narrative that static passive stretching, in its essence, is benign in the context of bodily harm. The assertion that such stretching modalities could induce injury is, to put it mildly, not supported by the empirical evidence at our disposal. The term ‘almost’ is employed here to acknowledge the limitless potential for human error in experimental design. Indeed, a team of researchers might one day conduct a study that harms its subjects. However, even under conditions that might be extreme by conventional standards – such as stretching at 80% of one’s maximum intensity for an hour daily over a six-week period – there have been no documented instances of injury [11]. This observation extends beyond the absence of harm; it encompasses a scenario where participants avoided injury and experienced enhancements in strength, muscle thickness, and flexibility.
Such findings prompt a re-evaluation of the narratives around the risks associated with static passive stretching that are becoming increasingly prevalent, especially on social media. If high-intensity, prolonged stretching fails to precipitate injury, the hypothesis that lesser intensities, reflective of standard gym routines, might induce harm seems biologically implausible. The situation underscores the importance of grounding our discussions in robust, evidence-based analyses lest we veer into the realm of conjecture and unsubstantiated claims.
Beyond the mild concern expressed by researchers outlined above, there exists a particular faction of trainers, coaches, and educators that exhibits a marked resistance to the incorporation of static passive stretching into fitness routines in any form. This resistance, it seems, is rooted perhaps in an insufficient knowledge of the existing body of research on the subject. These individuals frequently minimise the beneficial impacts of stretching, often under the mistaken belief that the evidence supporting these benefits is either nonexistent or inconsequential. In their narratives, the potential drawbacks of stretching - despite being minimal in magnitude, transient in nature, and largely avoidable when adhering to the recommended duration of no more than 60 seconds per muscle group - are exaggerated to a degree that borders on the absurd.
There is an element of irony here that should not be overlooked. Those most vociferous in their condemnation of stretching often possess, at best, a mediocre level of flexibility. This observation invites us to ponder the psychological underpinnings of such vehement opposition. It appears to be a classic case of projection, where insecurities and personal biases are externalised, shaping their professional advice and influencing their stance on fitness practices. The anti-stretching zealots, as they might be termed, project their limitations and preferences onto the field at large, attempting to dictate norms and practices based on a surprisingly narrow and perhaps misinformed viewpoint.
Moreover, those who fervently oppose the practice of stretching often marshal theories to underpin their stance, yet it becomes increasingly clear from their arguments that they possess only a superficial grasp of the biomechanics, neurophysiology, and psychobiology of stretching. This, in itself, presents a striking irony. Many among these critics fashion themselves as experts in biomechanics, but they display a foundational misunderstanding of its principles.
Take Functional Patterns, for example. They wield terminology that resonates with the scientific tenor of biomechanics to lend credence to their assertions. However, a closer examination reveals that their arguments stand on precarious ground. See this article, for instance, in which they posit that flow yoga - a regimen comprising dynamic, active stretches - serves as a harbinger of poor posture, muscular imbalances, and joint pain.
However, a critical analysis of their claims reveals such significant methodological shortcomings and a disconcerting disconnection from the scientific literature that it's more accurate to refer to them as Fictional Patterns.
Firstly, the author uses the term "biomechanically unnatural position." This, however, is a misnomer, a piece of terminology that seems to emanate from the uniquely absurd lexicon of Fictional Patterns, serving more as a linguistic flourish designed to bewilder and captivate their audience than a term grounded in any empirical reality. The notion that there exists a position antithetical to our biomechanical nature is fundamentally flawed. When we speak of a posture or alignment not in harmony with our anatomy, we're essentially discussing an injury - a deviation that compromises the structural integrity of our body.
Moreover, the concept of "functional design" is a misapprehension that warrants clarification. We are products of evolution, not entities crafted with intent or design. Nonetheless, the functionality of our bodies is not a static attribute bestowed upon us; it is, rather, dynamically defined by an individual’s engagement with their environment. The axiom "form follows function" eloquently encapsulates this dynamic interplay. Our bodies are malleable, adapting to the demands we place upon them. The notion that our physical capabilities are predetermined is like saying we must first possess muscular strength before engaging in strength training; this is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of adaptive physiological responses. Our muscular development in response to weight lifting is a testament to this adaptability. Consequently, the spectrum of positions and movements we can acclimate is broad, determined not by some inherent predisposition but by our preparedness and the resulting strain - or lack thereof - on our bodies.
Secondly, consider the conspicuous absence of scientific references within the article. This gap is hardly surprising to me, given my past engagements with proponents of the Fictional Patterns methodology. Like many within that community, the author may have only superficially engaged with the pertinent scientific literature - if at all. This observation is not to deride their efforts but to highlight a critical shortfall in their approach to understanding. The debate surrounding the causal relationship between posture and pain remains, at best, speculative and lacks the robust empirical foundation one might expect. The entrenched belief among some circles, Fictional Patterns included, that a singular, optimal posture for pain avoidance exists is not substantiated by the breadth of research available to us [12]. Despite numerous studies, no definitive correlation has been established [13]. When a tentative link between specific postures and discomfort is acknowledged, the directionality of causation remains elusive [14]. To put it succinctly, while certain postures and pain manifestations may appear connected, the existing evidence does not clarify whether pain precipitates these postural changes or if the converse is true.
Thirdly, the claim suggesting flow yoga leads to poor posture rests on remarkably shaky ground. In fact, there's a conspicuous absence of compelling evidence to support such a stance. On the contrary, the data we have points in the opposite direction. Studies, including one particularly insightful piece of research involving blind participants, have consistently demonstrated that flow yoga can significantly enhance postural stability [15]. It's important to note here that yoga often finds itself in the crosshairs of critics, particularly from proponents of Functional Patterns. However, a closer examination of the empirical evidence reveals a recurring theme: yoga bolsters postural alignment and control and contributes to improvements in gait speed and pain reduction [16-19]. These findings are not isolated; they are part of a growing body of research underscoring the benefits of yoga on physical well-being.
The author claims: "Repeatedly practising Yoga will result in overly lengthened tissues that have a hard time supporting joints and bones, especially in a dynamic or athletic context." I will address the essence of this claim - that yoga, or more specifically, static passive stretching, causes excessive tissue length that leads to joint instability - in this article. Fictional Patterns aren't the focus of this article, but I will write further rebuttals against their claims in the future. If you'd like to view more of my work debunking their claims, I invite you to click here, here, and here.
The free preview of this article ends here. To read the full piece, you will need to log into the Flexibility Research Forum. However, if you're not a member, you must register and set up a subscription. You can do that by clicking here.