Institute of Human Movement Science, Sport and Health, University of Graz, Graz 8010, Austria; Institute of Sport Science, Alpen-Adria University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt am Wörthersee 9020, Austria.
Institute of Human Movement and Exercise Physiology, University of Jena, Jena 07749, Germany.
J Sport Health Sci. 2024 Nov;13(6):805-819. doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2024.05.002. Epub 2024 May 10.
When recommending avoidance of static stretching prior to athletic performance, authors and practitioners commonly refer to available systematic reviews. However, effect sizes (ES) in previous reviews were extracted in major part from studies lacking control conditions and/or pre-post testing designs. Also, currently available reviews conducted calculations without accounting for multiple study outcomes, with ES: -0.03 to 0.10, which would commonly be classified as trivial.
Since new meta-analytical software and controlled research articles have appeared since 2013, we revisited the available literatures and performed a multilevel meta-analysis using robust variance estimation of controlled pre-post trials to provide updated evidence. Furthermore, previous research described reduced electromyography activity-also attributable to fatiguing training routines-as being responsible for decreased subsequent performance. The second part of this study opposed stretching and alternative interventions sufficient to induce general fatigue to examine whether static stretching induces higher performance losses compared to other exercise routines.
Including 83 studies with more than 400 ES from 2012 participants, our results indicate a significant, small ES for a static stretch-induced maximal strength loss (ES = -0.21, p = 0.003), with high magnitude ES (ES = -0.84, p = 0.004) for stretching durations ≥60 s per bout when compared to passive controls. When opposed to active controls, the maximal strength loss ranges between ES: -0.17 to -0.28, p < 0.001 and 0.040 with mostly no to small heterogeneity. However, stretching did not negatively influence athletic performance in general (when compared to both passive and active controls); in fact, a positive effect on subsequent jumping performance (ES = 0.15, p = 0.006) was found in adults.
Regarding strength testing of isolated muscles (e.g., leg extensions or calf raises), our results confirm previous findings. Nevertheless, since no (or even positive) effects could be found for athletic performance, our results do not support previous recommendations to exclude static stretching from warm-up routines prior to, for example, jumping or sprinting.
在推荐运动表现前避免静态伸展时，作者和从业者通常会参考现有的系统评价。然而，之前的综述中提取的效应量（ES）主要来自缺乏对照条件和/或前后测试设计的研究。此外，目前可用的综述在没有考虑多个研究结果的情况下进行了计算，ES 值为-0.03 至 0.10，通常被归类为微不足道。
由于 2013 年以来出现了新的荟萃分析软件和对照研究文章，我们重新查阅了现有文献，并使用对照前后试验的稳健方差估计进行了多层次荟萃分析，以提供最新的证据。此外，先前的研究表明，肌肉活动减少——也归因于疲劳训练程序——导致随后的表现下降。这项研究的第二部分反对拉伸和其他足以引起一般疲劳的干预措施，以检查静态拉伸是否比其他运动程序引起更高的性能损失。
包括 83 项研究，涉及 2012 名参与者的 400 多个 ES，我们的结果表明，静态拉伸引起的最大力量损失的 ES 显著较小（ES=-0.21，p=0.003），当每次拉伸持续时间≥60 秒时，与被动对照相比，ES 值较大（ES=-0.84，p=0.004）。当与主动对照相比时，最大力量损失范围在 ES：-0.17 到-0.28 之间，p<0.001，异质性为 0.040 到几乎没有。然而，拉伸并没有对一般的运动表现产生负面影响（与被动和主动对照相比）；事实上，在成年人中发现了对后续跳跃表现的积极影响（ES=0.15，p=0.006）。
关于孤立肌肉（如腿部伸展或小腿抬高）的力量测试，我们的结果证实了之前的发现。然而，由于在运动表现方面没有（甚至是积极的）效果，我们的结果不支持之前的建议，即在跳跃或短跑等运动前，将静态拉伸排除在热身程序之外。
