Optimising the Dose of Static Stretching to Improve Flexibility: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis and Multivariate Meta-regression

IF 9.3 1区 医学 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES
Lewis A. Ingram, Grant R. Tomkinson, Noah M. A. d’Unienville, Bethany Gower, Sam Gleadhill, Terry Boyle, Hunter Bennett
{"title":"Optimising the Dose of Static Stretching to Improve Flexibility: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis and Multivariate Meta-regression","authors":"Lewis A. Ingram, Grant R. Tomkinson, Noah M. A. d’Unienville, Bethany Gower, Sam Gleadhill, Terry Boyle, Hunter Bennett","doi":"10.1007/s40279-024-02143-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background</h3><p>Static stretching is widely used to increase flexibility. However, there is no consensus regarding the optimal dosage parameters for increasing flexibility.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Objectives</h3><p>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.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>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.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>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’ <i>g</i> = 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.52–0.75, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and a large positive effect of chronic static stretching on flexibility (summary Hedges’ <i>g</i> = 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.84–1.09, <i>p</i> &lt; 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) [<i>p</i> &gt; 0.05]. However, larger improvements were found for adults with poor baseline flexibility compared with adults with average baseline flexibility (<i>p</i> = 0.01). Furthermore, larger improvements in flexibility were found in the hamstrings compared with the spine following acute static stretching (<i>p</i> = 0.04). Improvements in flexibility were maximised by a cumulative stretching volume of 4 min per session (acute) and 10 min per week (chronic).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>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.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Clinical Trial Registration</h3><p>PROSPERO CRD42023420168.</p>","PeriodicalId":21969,"journal":{"name":"Sports Medicine","volume":"64 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02143-9","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Static stretching is widely used to increase flexibility. However, there is no consensus regarding the optimal dosage parameters for increasing flexibility.

Objectives

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusions

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.

Clinical Trial Registration

PROSPERO CRD42023420168.

优化静态拉伸剂量以提高柔韧性:一项系统综述、荟萃分析和多元元回归
背景静态拉伸被广泛用于增加柔韧性。然而,对于增加柔韧性的最佳剂量参数尚无共识。我们的目的是确定最佳的频率,强度和体积,以最大限度地提高灵活性,通过静态拉伸,并调查是否这是由肌肉群,年龄,性别,训练状态和柔韧性基线水平调节。方法系统检索截至2024年6月的7个数据库(CINAHL Complete、Cochrane CENTRAL、Embase、Emcare、MEDLINE、Scopus和SPORTDiscus)。纳入了调查成人(年龄≥18岁)单次(急性)或多次(慢性)静态拉伸对一种或多种柔韧性结果(与非拉伸被动对照相比)影响的随机和非随机对照试验。一项多层次的荟萃分析检查了急性和慢性静态拉伸对灵活性结果的影响,而多变量荟萃回归用于确定最大限度地增加灵活性的体积。数据来自189项研究,涉及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等的正向影响(summary Hedges ' g = 0.63, 95%可信区间0.52-0.75,p < 0.001),慢性静态拉伸对柔韧性有较大的正向影响(summary Hedges ' g = 0.96, 95%可信区间0.84-1.09,p < 0.001)。这两种效应都不受拉伸强度、年龄、性别或训练状态、每周训练频率和干预时间(仅限慢性静态拉伸)的影响[p >; 0.05]。然而,基线柔韧性差的成年人与平均基线柔韧性的成年人相比,有更大的改善(p = 0.01)。此外,与急性静态拉伸后的脊柱相比,腘绳肌的柔韧性得到了更大的改善(p = 0.04)。通过每次4分钟(急性)和每周10分钟(慢性)的累计拉伸量,最大限度地提高了灵活性。静态拉伸可以提高成人的柔韧性,每次4分钟或每周10分钟以上没有额外的好处。虽然强度、频率、年龄、性别和训练状态对柔韧性的改善没有影响,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。这些静态拉伸的指导方针可以被教练和治疗师用来提高柔韧性。临床试验注册号prospero CRD42023420168。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Sports Medicine
Sports Medicine 医学-运动科学
CiteScore
18.40
自引率
5.10%
发文量
165
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Sports Medicine focuses on providing definitive and comprehensive review articles that interpret and evaluate current literature, aiming to offer insights into research findings in the sports medicine and exercise field. The journal covers major topics such as sports medicine and sports science, medical syndromes associated with sport and exercise, clinical medicine's role in injury prevention and treatment, exercise for rehabilitation and health, and the application of physiological and biomechanical principles to specific sports. Types of Articles: Review Articles: Definitive and comprehensive reviews that interpret and evaluate current literature to provide rationale for and application of research findings. Leading/Current Opinion Articles: Overviews of contentious or emerging issues in the field. Original Research Articles: High-quality research articles. Enhanced Features: Additional features like slide sets, videos, and animations aimed at increasing the visibility, readership, and educational value of the journal's content. Plain Language Summaries: Summaries accompanying articles to assist readers in understanding important medical advances. Peer Review Process: All manuscripts undergo peer review by international experts to ensure quality and rigor. The journal also welcomes Letters to the Editor, which will be considered for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信