MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4211223047 · doi:10.1097/01.csmr.0000306215.95056.8a

Stretching Perspectives

2005· review· en· W4211223047 sur OpenAlexaff
Ian Shrier

Notice bibliographique

RevueCurrent Sports Medicine Reports · 2005
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSports injuries and prevention
Établissements canadiensJewish General Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicinePhysical therapyDashPhysical medicine and rehabilitationResistance trainingSports medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction Whether stretching is beneficial for performance or injury prevention remains an on-going debate. For those who believe in stretching, there is some good news. Theory, basic science, and clinical science all agree that regular stretching over weeks not immediately prior to exercise increases force and power by about 2% to 5%, and in one study, improved 50-yard dash time by approximately 0.05 seconds (nonsignificant) [1]. With respect to injury, there are only three clinical studies and all showed clinically relevant improvements, although two studies lacked statistical power (RR [95%CI] 0.82 [0.57, 1.14], 0.57 [0.37, 0.88], 0.77 [0.54, 1.08]) [2–4]. Although regular stretching not immediately prior to exercise appears beneficial, the acute effect of stretching when performed immediately before exercise consistently reduces force and power by approximately 2% to 5% [1]. Results with respect to running speed are inconsistent, which may be due to different methodologies or because stretch-induced viscoelastic changes may decrease resistance to motion in some subjects and allow for increased speed despite decreased force. Most of the controversy on stretching is focused on whether stretching immediately before exercise prevents injury; several recent reviews suggest it does not [5–7]. This article briefly discusses ideas where current evidence suggests recommendations are unlikely to change with future studies, and where future research should be prioritized. Recommendations Unlikely to Change Stretching was inappropriate in previous studies The only clinical method to determine if stretching is done correctly (including force, duration, and timing) is to determine if range of motion (ROM) is increased. Although impractical in an epidemiologic study on injuries where one must follow hundreds or thousands of individuals, this has been done for tests of performance. There was a decrease in force and power in every study but one [8], and a weaker muscle is more likely to become injured. Studies did not include warm-up Stretching after a warm-up is more effective at increasing ROM than stretching without a warm-up [9,10]. However, injury rates in those who warm up and stretch are similar to those who warm up without stretching [11,12]. Prevention of tendon and nonmuscle injuries In the Australian military, tendon injuries occurred in 20 of 735 (2.7%) subjects who stretched and 16 of 803 (2.0%) subjects who did not stretch [5]. Others have suggested that stretching one area reduces the risk of a different area (eg, stretch the hamstrings to reduce stress on the back), but have not put forth any supportive data. It is certainly possible that stretching decreases the risk for one specific type of injury. However, if true, stretching must be harmful for other types of injuries because overall injury rates among stretchers and nonstretchers are similar. Elite athletes Although there are no studies on internationally recognized elite athletes, stretching immediately prior to activity results in decreased force and power during tests of performance in University varsity athletes [1]. In addition, research from the basic sciences suggests that weaker muscles cannot absorb as much energy and are more likely to become injured. Because an acute bout of stretching weakens muscles in highly trained University varsity athletes, it is unlikely that findings in other elite athletes would yield different results. Future Research Priorities High-intensity sports One clinical study suggested that stretching does prevent ankle injuries in basketball players [13] (please note that there was a coding error in Tables 3 and 4 of this article and the “yes” should be coded as “0”) [McKay G; personal communication]. There are two reasons why one should be cautious in making conclusions. First, the potential confounders of ankle taping and position played were not adjusted for in the multiple regression analysis. Second, in animals, the energy absorbed after a decrease in stiffness due to fatigue was decreased at both low strain rates (ie, low-intensity sports) and high strain rates (ie, high-intensity sports) [14]. We do not know if stretching-induced decrease in stiffness would have the same effect. Given the conflict between basic and clinical evidence, and study limitations, we simply need more research in this area. Injured athletes and injury Healthy subjects increase ROM with stretching partly due to an analgesic effect and not just due to viscoelastic change [15–17]. Is this good or bad for an injured athlete? Stretch-induced analgesia would theoretically increase the risk of injury because it would lead to continued activity of an injured muscle/tendon and a more severe injury. However, stretching regularly might improve healing through stretch-induced hypertrophy. Of course, if the objective is to strengthen, why not use strength training? In the two studies comparing a stretch rehabilitation program to a strength rehabilitation program, the strength group was between 1.8 and six times more likely to achieve excellent results (crude RR of benefit [95% CI] = 5.8 [2.2, 14.8], 1.8 [0.94, 3.5]) [18,19]. Whether stretching with strengthening is superior to strengthening alone has never been studied. Injured athletes and performance All studies on performance were done using healthy subjects. Because pain can cause inhibition of muscle activity, the balance of stretching benefits (analgesia minimizing pain-induced muscular inhibition) must be weighed against the disadvantages (direct decrease in force and power). Timing of stretching Although regular stretching over weeks is beneficial, we do not know the best time to stretch. This might be immediately after exercise, or at times unrelated to exercise. Because most people would likely prefer to incorporate stretching into their regular exercise routine, a study showing that postexercise stretching is as (or more) effective than stretching at nonexercise times is extremely important. Evidence in Perspective Every clinical situation is unique and it will never be possible to study every permutation or combination of type of stretch, athlete level, competition type, specific injury, and test of performance. Current research suggests stretching regularly improves performance and prevents injury. However, stretching immediately prior to exercise is not recommended at this time, with the understanding that more research is needed in the areas of high-intensity sports and injured subjects.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,967
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,069
Tête enseignante GPT0,440
Écart entre enseignants0,370 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeAutre devis
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2005
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCurrent Sports Medicine ReportsMême sujetSports injuries and preventionTravaux en français237 207