Stretching IS Not Beneficial.

An epidemologist is considered the overriding authority on kinesiology?

 

I was reading something the other day where they were saying that the benefits of stretching have not been proved. Can't remember where, though.

 

I am a Certified Strength and Conditioning Coach, United States Olympic Weightlifting certified, and also a National D license Coach, soon to be C next month....I am a former four year Div III college soccer player, and was 1st team all conference in my senior year....I work as a professional sports conditioning specialist for a large athlete training center and work directly with numerous local universities and colleges athletes, I also hold a Bachelors of Science in Excercise and Sports Fitness with a concentration in Athletic Training....oh and I personal train on the side

I hope my credentials are satisfactory to you....

To keep it simple, whoever wrote this is nuts......no comment needed, anybody ever wants an explanation or help with soccer training feel free to PM me....

 

do u mean before a game or to become more flexible

 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to 1954 4-2-4 again.

 

Let's see those durability stats....(That means post them)

 

Tha Hell? Stretching is good for you just shouldn't bounce whil doing it! Hold it for at least 10 seconds then do a gentle jog.....Weight Lifting also isn't essential it is okay to improve muscular endurance , by finding your one rep max and repeating to fatigue and doing this activity maybe once a month? wot school did 1953 4-2-2 or woteva go to?

 

I differ with 1953 about weight lifting, but the evidence that stretching doesn't help prevent injuries is growing. I haven't seen the recent report yet, but I do know that there have been a nmber of studies both with animal models and humans in the past decade that have failed to show that stretching had any impact on injury. The more recent thinking that I've come across is that what matters is warming, rather than stretching, the muscle fiber. I believe there was a physiologist on NPR about a year ago talking about these studies. I also was a statistical reader a few years ago on a doctoral dissertation that demonstrated this experimentally in rabbits.

 

The article is poorly written, the title is misleading, and the points poorly made IMO. Of course if you're not in good shape, stretching isn't going to do you any good as far as preventing injuries.

as far as weightlifting, what top athlete *doesn't* do some sort of weightlifting?

 

(Some time in the near future would be nice, 1953.)

 

Yes, but if you read my post, you'd see that my whole point was that there are a number of other studies that show the same thing. Single studies are rarely, if ever conclusive. There was also a recent meta-analysis (an overview of all the available studies on a topic) published that also suggested there is likely no benefit to stretching when it comes to muscle injury.

<edit> OK, I read the cnn article. What's so poorly written about it? The CDC aren't exactly dunces.

 

The article was written by someone at the Associated Press, not by someone at the CDC. I thought that was fairly obvious.

 

Of course it was an AP article, but the facts of the report were generated by the CDC. I still don't see the poorly written part. I thought it was pretty clear. The title reflects precisely what the study found, and like any good reporter, the writer noted the case which might be exceptions. The study itself looks fairly comprehensive (I've now looked it up on medline), combining data from five fairly large studies. I guess the broader point is that just about everybody on this thread has been quick to dismiss the finding without any particularly good reason.

 

Okay, but keep in mind that the findings of this meta analysis does not mean that stretching does not reduce injury (and certainly, does not in ANY way indicate that stretching makes an athlete more prone to injury).

The findings mean that whoever conducted the study could not find statistically significant evidence that stretching reduced the chance of injury in athletes.

Interestingly, they did not discuss the findings of the original research because methodologically, it could be far more difficult to achieve statistically significant findings using five studies (versus one) unless the studies were based on the same theoretical foundation.

From a mathematical standpoint, the only thing you can say is "this study of five different studies did not show that stretching reduces injuries at a statistically significant level"

 

Actually, unless I missed it the article doesn't state who conducted the studies in question, so to say they are the "most valid of studies" that "do not have agendas" is remarkably premature. The studies could have been commissioned by Aspercreme and Ben-Gay for all we know.

 

I still fail to see why the Centers for Disease Control and an Epidemologist have any authority on this subject. That's like asking a cardiologist if brushing in a circular motion is more effective than up and down.

 

CDC research finds no evidence stretching prevents injuries

Actually, I'm gonna get arcane and picky on you here. But if the studies did show a lower chance for injury from stretching but the findings were significant at the .10 level (basically a 90% chance that the finiding were true and not the product of some random mathematical craziness) then by current standards (.05 or lower) the author would say that they could not infer that stretching reduced the likelihood of injury.

Now to me, if you say we're 90% certain that stretching does help but cannot say it is "fact" because we are not 95% certain...well I understand the statistical argument but that does not translate to "no evidence" in my opinion.

Of course, this is all speculation as I have not seen the published study nor any details regarding the analysis. And I would like to know the separate findings of the individual studies.

On the issue of dismissing it out of hand. Okay, I can accept that among athletes stretching may not help most athletes avoid injuries (after all, if you are an athlete in training most of your injuries are going to come from tramautic events) but if it makes you feel better and is not harmful in any way, why would we criticize it (and we can go with a whole "if you feel better you play better" argument)

The thing that trips me out about 1953 4-2-4's posts are that he seems so hellfire certain that there is only one way to do things

 

probably 'cause the CDC paid for the studies and an epidemiologist would have a lot more training in statistical analysis than a kinesiologist. Hopefully Kinesiologists would have beeninvolved in the development of the study, but do we want them crunching numbers?

But speaking as a social scientist with training in econometrics (statistical methods developed to deal with the mathematical vagaries of a non-laboratory environement)...the methodology of most medical studies I've seen really sucks. Doctors go to Med school for 8 years to learn medicine, what makes them think they can properly design a study?