Ingram Lewis A, Tomkinson Grant R, d'Unienville Noah M A, Gower Bethany, Gleadhill Sam, Boyle Terry, Bennett Hunter
Alliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity (ARENA), Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia.
Australian Centre for Precision Health, Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Sports Med. 2025 Mar;55(3):597-617. doi: 10.1007/s40279-024-02143-9. Epub 2024 Nov 30.
Static stretching is widely used to increase flexibility. However, there is no consensus regarding the optimal dosage parameters for increasing flexibility.
We aimed to determine the optimal frequency, intensity and volume to maximise flexibility through static stretching, and to investigate whether this is moderated by muscle group, age, sex, training status and baseline level of flexibility.
Seven databases (CINAHL Complete, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, Emcare, MEDLINE, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus) were systematically searched up to June 2024. Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials investigating the effects of a single session (acute) or multiple sessions (chronic) of static stretching on one or more flexibility outcomes (compared to non-stretching passive controls) among adults (aged ≥ 18 years) were included. A multi-level meta-analysis examined the effect of acute and chronic static stretching on flexibility outcomes, while multivariate meta-regression was used to determine the volume at which increases in flexibility were maximised.
Data from 189 studies representing 6654 adults (61% male; mean [standard deviation] age = 26.8 ± 11.4 years) were included. We found a moderate positive effect of acute static stretching on flexibility (summary Hedges' g = 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.52-0.75, p < 0.001) and a large positive effect of chronic static stretching on flexibility (summary Hedges' g = 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.84-1.09, p < 0.001). Neither effect was moderated by stretching intensity, age, sex or training status, or weekly session frequency and intervention length (chronic static stretching only) [p > 0.05]. However, larger improvements were found for adults with poor baseline flexibility compared with adults with average baseline flexibility (p = 0.01). Furthermore, larger improvements in flexibility were found in the hamstrings compared with the spine following acute static stretching (p = 0.04). Improvements in flexibility were maximised by a cumulative stretching volume of 4 min per session (acute) and 10 min per week (chronic).
Static stretching improves flexibility in adults, with no additional benefit observed beyond 4 min per session or 10 min per week. Although intensity, frequency, age, sex and training status do not influence improvements in flexibility, lower flexibility levels are associated with greater improvement following both acute and chronic static stretching. These guidelines for static stretching can be used by coaches and therapists to improve flexibility.
PROSPERO CRD42023420168.
静态拉伸被广泛用于增加柔韧性。然而，关于增加柔韧性的最佳剂量参数尚无共识。
我们旨在确定通过静态拉伸使柔韧性最大化的最佳频率、强度和量，并研究这是否受肌肉群、年龄、性别、训练状态和柔韧性基线水平的影响。
截至2024年6月，系统检索了七个数据库（CINAHL Complete、Cochrane CENTRAL、Embase、Emcare、MEDLINE、Scopus和SPORTDiscus）。纳入了调查单次（急性）或多次（慢性）静态拉伸对18岁及以上成年人一项或多项柔韧性指标影响（与非拉伸被动对照组相比）的随机和非随机对照试验。采用多层次荟萃分析检验急性和慢性静态拉伸对柔韧性指标的影响，同时使用多变量荟萃回归确定使柔韧性增加最大化的量。
纳入了来自189项研究的数据（共6654名成年人，61%为男性；平均[标准差]年龄 = 26.8 ± 11.4岁）。我们发现急性静态拉伸对柔韧性有中度正向影响（汇总Hedges' g = 0.63，95%置信区间0.52 - 0.75，p < 0.001），慢性静态拉伸对柔韧性有较大正向影响（汇总Hedges' g = 0.96，95%置信区间0.84 - 1.09，p < 0.001）。两种影响均不受拉伸强度、年龄、性别或训练状态，以及每周训练次数和干预时长（仅慢性静态拉伸）的影响[p > 0.05]。然而，与基线柔韧性一般的成年人相比，基线柔韧性较差的成年人改善更大（p = 0.01）。此外，急性静态拉伸后，与脊柱相比，腘绳肌的柔韧性改善更大（p = 0.04）。每次训练累积拉伸量为4分钟（急性）和每周10分钟（慢性）时，柔韧性改善最大化。
静态拉伸可改善成年人的柔韧性，每次训练超过4分钟或每周超过10分钟未观察到额外益处。尽管强度、频率、年龄、性别和训练状态不影响柔韧性的改善，但在急性和慢性静态拉伸后，较低的柔韧性水平与更大的改善相关。教练和治疗师可使用这些静态拉伸指南来提高柔韧性。
PROSPERO CRD42023420168。
