Talk:Stretching/Archive 1

Archive 1

Dead External Link

The first External Link leads to a 404 Page: http://www.cmcrossroads.com/bradapp/docs/rec/stretching/ Maybe somebody is able to relocate the missing linked article? I haven't changed the article yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.206.196.101 (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Style violations

This revision added a lot of text on the scientific veracity of various types of stretches. Unfortunately, this left the article both biased and unclear: the editor used a lot of language like "Research suggests" etc., repeatedly violating WP:Weasel Words. Most of the additions were in the form of "A study was done .... Sources used were .... It found ...," often followed by the suggestion that more research is needed. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. In addition, editors since have jumbled the information provided to the point of being completely inaccessible in addition to be unencyclopedic.

What most concerned me was that the article seemed to be suggesting that stretching was not healthy, without giving many specifics as to why. For instance, every time "a study" was cited as showing that stretching was detrimental, it then went on to describe rather dubious parameters under which the "finding" was made. At one point, I swear the article suggested that ballistic stretching somehow wasn't bound to give you serious injuries. I've redacted the most offending sections and tried to clarify what I can, but the article still needs a lot of attention. The citations are all extremely weak, most can't be followed to any particular source, and ultimately they all need to be clarified or replaced.Greg Ravn (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What is Stretching???

I came here looking for a detailed explanation of what happens to a muscle during a stretch. Instead i got an unresolved argument about it's benefits. Disappointing.

1/10/12 - I think the term stretching needs further disambiguation. I came here looking for information on stretching (the reflexive action). There is some of that, but it is buried in a discussion on stretching (the athletic practice). Voluntary vs. involuntary, may have some commonalities but are quite different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.3.211 (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Euphoria from Back Stretching

It is often reported that when one stretches their full back and holds for a few seconds that a short, but intense euphoria is experienced. I cannot find any information on this. Does anyone have any citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.32.177 (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain the contradiction between "it is often reported" and "I cannot find any information on this"? They seem mutually exclusive. 152.15.53.143 (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

stretching isn't just about avoiding injury

People stretch mainly to increase flexibiltiy/performance, decreasing risk of injury is more an after thought than anything. This article seems to suggest avoiding injury is the main reason to stretch, such as in the section titled 'flexibility' which rather than discussing flexibility jumps straight into talking about avoiding risk to injury.

Hear hear. Flexibility for many, e.g. practitioners of yoga, is an art in its own right. This is one of the reasons I think the article violates WP:NPOV.Greg Ravn (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Human stretching photos

The article shows two animals stretching, although the text focuses entirely on human stretching. I think two things should be changed: 1) A photo of a human stretching should be added 2) The article should mention that some animals also do stretching 86.80.147.155 21:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The article also makes no mention of stretching in non-work-out related settings, such as the more involuntary stretching accompanied with being tired. -- MacAddct1984  05:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Body modification appropriateness

Is it appropriate to have body modification material in this article on stretching? This article is not intended as a multi purpose one, as far as I can tell. Glowimperial 12:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree that it shouldn't take up any large part, but having a disambig link would definately be useful since the term is used for many things besides the lengthening of muscles. Tyciol 07:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Order and Benefits Dubiousness

Why should the stretching order be of any importance. Generally speaking, this article unfortunately lacks citations for scientific proof for its correctness. It is debated if stretching actually gives any benefit. --Abdull 22:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Many studies and actual application lack proof. What benefits are you at odds with regarding stretching? Increased range of motion is a given, you never increase your RoM without stretching to see how far it is. The rest are less mathematical, but could probably be found. The order is important due to the stretch reflex responses, how much a stretch strains a muscle, and the kind of blood flow or muscle needed to engage in them. Tyciol 07:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Tyciol, I debate your standpoint on results being less mathematical. Instead I support the notion that society today accepts certain types of stretching to fill a particular gap in excersize, rather than the optimal usage of stretching. How many people do you know that can honestly say they even know how to stretch properly? How many doctors? How many fitness counselors? A quick google search and I come across tons of conflicting information on the subject, and several pages of definitive guides. The problem is that the medical institution would rather focus on selling a drug that strecthes your body for you (diet pills) rather than putting up a verified and easy to follow guide. The one guide to rule them all so to speak.

An example of how bad the concept of strecthing is. Four groups of people were taken out to a golf course, and were payed to take a month off and do as instructed. One group did nothing. One group lifted weights. One group stretched. One group did both strecthing and lifted weights. The group that performed the best after the month was over was not the group doing both stretches and lifting weights, but the group who only lifted weights. Why? I have no clue...but who really does? We don't do enough "modern" testing on the potential and exact benefits of stretching from an observational standpoint. We still use predefined concepts from the 70s, 80s, and early 90s that could really use an overhaul...with or without math.Phil.andy.graves 19:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The group that lifted weights only performed best how? In strength? Were they spending the same amount of time lifting the exact same amounts of weights as the group lifting and stretching? Stretching isn't supposed to make you stronger, but might well reduce the impacts of exercise sligthly for increased flexibility, especially as one of it's points is to make it easier to exercise. In flexibility? I doubt stretching reduced flexibility. And in a combination, two unlike things are being equated, so the results are meaningless. You said enough to support your point, but not enough to determine the validity of that support. Superflyguy 21:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Current UKAtheltics guidelines recommends that ONLY dynamic stretching be performed prior to athletic exercise. This is because they claim that static stretching does not prepare the body through the full range of movement throughout which the athletic discipline is about to be performed. Unfortunately, all I have are paper versions of their info. Robruss24 10:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

One study isn't enough. More work needs to be done. I'm surprised the article emphasizes the novelty of one or two findings in this way. Phil states he doesn't know why the golf experiment produced the results it did. One reason might be randomness, which is why you need many examples before you can conclude one line of thinking is valid. What's more is that the article should describe what it means by "benefits" (right now this hasn't come up in the article itself--but just in case it does) in a more qualified (specific) way. The golf experiment, for example, assumes short-term golf performance (and this performance may well be measured in a biased way--I haven't seen the research to judge for myself yet) as the sole benefit. I think readers are also interseted in possible injury prevention and in delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS). Those are other kinds of potential benefits. The link between DOMS and lactic acid build-up has been put into doubt by recent research, but the relationship between stretching or not stretching after excercise probably needs to be explored more before you can say in a broader way that "stretching" has no benefits. I'm surprised that someone wrote that other research shows stretching doesn't help alleviate DOMS and yet fails to cite that research. I'll look for some research on that myself. If no one comes up with anything after a while, I'm thinking of deleting that sentence. It could be that this contributor is confusing the research about DOMS and lactic acid build-up with DOMS and stretching which are two separate issues. As for Robruss's paper versions, I think those are valid to cite. Just give author, date, source, etc. Also, UKAtheltics, may happen to have a website. But citing offline works is often done on Wikipedia, and I think gives an article more credibility. Plus online sources sometimes expire, whereas at least with many print, you can still find them at the library later on.

This might be the UKAthletics article that was mentioned above. Some points it makes are well taken. One is that people are too much influenced by what newspapers sensationalize ("like stretching has no benefits") and I think some Wikipedians get duped by the newspapers and get a little thrill out of being the first to post such "news" online here. They ought to excercise some restraint instead. People may come here and believe the sensationalized "news" and get injured or not receive whatever benefits (i.e., the long-term benefits of flexibility, and that's a benefit for some sports, i.e., tennis, but no so much for others, i.e., distance running or, perhaps, weight lifting) of stretching as a result of some over-eager Wikipedian wanting to get out the "news" that everyone ought to suddenly stop stretching right now. Secondly, the article points out how you have to be careful in interpretting the research. For example, the results of the experiment with young military recruits probably training in combat boots might not be applicable to elite athletes yet I believe that is the type of experiment some contributors are trying to use in the article to support their POV. I would suggest in order to avoid this, that contributors actually examine the details of any given research first, use good judgement, and also include some details in the article about the research you used. For example, rather than something vague, and that is almost a direct lie, in that it hints that their might be a consensus among researchers (plural), like "Recent research shows that ...", to begin with "one study which involved army recruits wearing combat boots..." I think that kind of disclosure lets the reader judge ("oh, that doesn't apply to me since I don't work out at my gym wearing army boots..." To do otherwise is to do a disservice to readers of Wikipedia. In other words, don't just exploit some sensationalistic newspaper headline or be duped by them.

more disambiguation

What about the kind of stiff stretching that people do when they're tired? It seems like that is more contracting of muscles to restore blood flow than stretching--but there is no information here to inform anyone of that fact, so the article fails.

biological function of stretching

The claims made about lactic acid are false or erronius. Lactic acid does not cause the "burn" experienced during and afte excersize, nor is it a waste product (For references the wikipedia article on lactic acid cites Robergs R, Ghiasvand F, Parker D (2004). "Biochemistry of exercise-induced metabolic acidosis.". Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 287 (3): R502-16. PMID 15308499, and many endurance sports physiology books also explain this). Stretching may help flush waste products from muscles after excersize due to increased blood flow, but i am not enough of a physiologist to explain this in detail. I would be thankful if someone with better understanding revises this section.

What does cause the burn sensation then? Lactic acids are indeed a by product of aerobic workout. an "expert needed" tag is already in place.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 19:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

See Delayed onset muscle soreness. -- Beland 17:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Research

Please, next time someone want to add research, please use real experimental peer-reviewed research and not someone's opinion of an article or review!

please elaborate. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 01:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say 50% of the information contained here is false. When people use references they are just using news sources and not actual scientific research. Stretching has not be proven to prevent injury, relieve DOMS, or clear lactate.

If you see a non cannon/news source you would lkike to challenge remove it and put a {fact} tag.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 22:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I Would like to see information on what happens at the cellular level during stretching -- why we are recommended to breathe during stretching (what affect the oxegen has on muscles). Stuart

If I transwiki this...

Will anyone work on the disputed parts for the wikibooks version? I'd rather not copy this to wikibooks if it's disputed. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 22:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about withuit links?? --Procrastinating@^talk2me 22:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question... This article is marked as a how-to, thus a candidate for importing to wikibooks. I'm a wikibooks administrator, so I can import, but I'm not sure if I should if there's serious dispute about the content (especially if it's in regards to safety concerns!) --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 11:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

okyie. it takes time to mature. the biological grounds for it is stil ldisputed in the scientific community.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 16:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So the how-to sections (when, what and how) are not disputed, just the "why"? --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 16:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Volkmt 06:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC) I believe I will be receiving criticism at some point for my entry so I would like to clarify what I have done. Due to the large amount of theories on stretching I included mostly peer-reviewed and scholarly studies. My aim was to educate all audiences because the natural accepted claim about study is its ability to help improve performance and prevent injuries. This entry may need some help to make it more articulate. In respect to the references I included I do not think there should be any reason to discredit peer-reviewed evidence unless I made a large mistake somewhere. Additional studies and peer-reviewed research would improve this article because my electronic database research was limited to sources such as EBSCO Host, MEDLINE, and CINAHL.

is article content unbalanced?

This article on stretching pretty much *only* talks about scientific issues of the benefits (or not) of it in different contexts. There is almost nothing about what kinds of stretching people do, discussions of muscle groups, links to articles on actually doing it, etc. This seems like the article needs rework towards that direction. Note that I can't as I don't know near enough .. the reason I went to wikipedia to look for an overview (hopefully with some good links). :) -- not logged in at the moment, but handle is R343L

Citations

Should these citations be formatted to link to the references at the bottom, or perhaps footnoted? lordspaz 20:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes please. Pdelongchamp 23:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Stretching and Dance

This discussion of stretching is fascinating. I had no idea that the scientific basis for the benefits of stretching is so dubious. However, as a dancer, I can tell you stretching is essential. When I started dancing, I was much less limber than my peers. I was simply unable to do the movements. After four years of almost daily stretching, I could doing most of the material easily. Also, I found that stretching before class is essential. On days when I got to class late (and couldn't stretch) my performance was always worst. If you want to know how stretching is best done, go ask dancersl; they are the experts. Also, on the relationship between power and flexibility, somehow greats like Baryishnikov find it possible to become highly flexible, and yet still retain the power to leap feet into the air. I don't know how he did it, but you might ask him.

chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.42.53 (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this whole article seems to go against common sense. However wikipedia is about citation, not truth! Disco (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no discordance. In dance a key factor is flexibility. Most of the studies quoted here look at the effect of stretching on muscle soreness and risk of injury - on the basis that it is widely advised that stretching reduces both of these. The evidence for these claims simply is not there. However, as a dancer what you want from stretching is increased range of movement and flexibility. For this, there IS evidence that stretching may benefit, as cited in the LaRoche and Connolly article cited in the text... Inbetweener (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Better citing of sources

This article cites a lot of sources, which is great. However, how an article cites sources is almost as important as the fact that it does cite them, as it can be difficult to go hunting through the text for plain-English references, and huge sections without a single footnote can look un-scientific. Case-in-point: The very first line of the first section states "In the literature described by Yessis,...", and you have to go half-way down the page to see "(Yessis 8-18)", which is meaningless, and then down to the references to find that there is an article by Yessis buried somewhere down there.

This article should conform to WP:CITE and should use in-lined hyperlinked footnotes, which would allow you to easily see the citation for every statement. Every statement should have a reference, unless it is entirely obvious that the statement is referencing the same source as the one before.

I started that by properly citing the Yessis statements, but it would be great if someone who has been editing this article would look at the rest. — John 12:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My stretching range doubled from a day to other, i cant touch my feet in the stretching exercises yesterday but today i can touch the feet with 50% of my hand, is that normal? 189.28.221.131 (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

USATF Stretch Study

There was a study released by the USATF suggesting that stretching before running may not reduce injury. 129.137.166.235 (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

recent revisions taking out science

It seems to me that this article has been ruined by a number of workers on this page have been busy taking out the scientific content. For example, on 23:52, 15 July 2010 the user "gravn" simply eliminated the discussion of peer reviewed research by Weerapong et al.. What is gravn justification? In the discussion section gravn writes: "...every time 'a study' was cited as showing that stretching was detrimental, it then went on to describe rather dubious parameters under which the "finding" was made."

I fail to see gravn's logic. The account of Weerrapongs paper was a fairly careful description of a careful scientific study. Gravn's concern seems to be that a study with strictly defined parameters doesn't apply to stretching in general. That is true, but that is also the nature of science. Any scientific study of stretching is going to involve strictly conditions, procedures, and measurements, and going to be very limited in scope. It isn't possible to do one global study that will apply to all stretching in general. Things have to be done in one small controlled step at a time and then over a period of years a somewhat complete picture might emerge. There is nothing dubious about this.

Then while the scientific content has been extracted from this article, some ridiculous psuedoscience has crept in. For example, the page now contains the statement "Stretching can strengthen muscles." which is attributed Pavel Tsatsouline. I looked this guy up. Apparently Rolling Stone magazine voted him a "hot trainer", but he has nothing to do with science.

I don't know. This article is basically beyond hope. Good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewtonsNoodle (talk • contribs) 23:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article is in a very poor state. So poor, it is probably beyond repair and needs to be rewritten from scratch. The biggest problem is that it is currently completely incoherent. In my view, it is nowhere near "C" class. More like a start class. - BorisG (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/10593217/reload=0 http://andrewvs.blogs.com/files/stretching-to-prevent-injury.pdf http://www.bmj.com/content/325/7362/468 http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/adis/smd/2004/00000034/00000007/art00003 http://www.tothemaxfit.com/articles/pdf/FlexibilityInjuryReview.pdf

i don't have time to go through all of this. is no one really able to do any research? i saw this entire article and was flabbergasted that there is zero ability to do scientific research. hit a google search. first five hits. all sourced. all old news. nothing supporting stretching as being good for you - all good info on stretching. goes on for six pages.

24.177.122.158 (talk) 05:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Involuntary Stretching

I saw nowhere in the article a note about a form of stretching that isn't deliberate. The illustration at the top of the article is the best example of the involuntary stretch. In no way does the cat stretch for the logical reasons which the entire article is devoted to. Why this involuntary stretch is important is that in the morning or after a long period of rest, the large muscles can elongate themselves out to the point where the muscle spasms; resulting in a corky or charley horse. Spasms can result in muscle damage that lasts many hours or even days. Can someone address this serious problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter clark (talk • contribs) 13:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I will be adding examples of different dynamic stretches. I will also be explaining dynamic stretching and why that dynamic stretching is ideal over static stretching.Tejaspav (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Broken link in reference #18

Reference #18 has a broken link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1BA8:101:36:186A:B2A6:76:B0BE (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tejaspav. Peer reviewers: Erikawicher98, Jonnybling.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Biomedical waste management

Heath hazards 2409:4052:893:CEA3:0:0:5C5:40AD (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)