Effects of post-exercise stretching versus no stretching on lower limb muscle recovery and performance: a meta-analysis.

IF 3.2 3区医学 Q2 PHYSIOLOGY

Frontiers in Physiology Pub Date : 2025-10-01 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fphys.2025.1674871

Pei Zhang, Jiangzhou Chen, Taofeng Xing

{"title":"Effects of post-exercise stretching versus no stretching on lower limb muscle recovery and performance: a meta-analysis.","authors":"Pei Zhang, Jiangzhou Chen, Taofeng Xing","doi":"10.3389/fphys.2025.1674871","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Post-exercise stretching is widely employed in athletic and rehabilitation settings to promote recovery and performance. However, its physiological benefits remain controversial due to inconsistent findings across randomized controlled trials.Objective: To evaluate the effects of post-exercise stretching compared to no stretching on lower limb muscle recovery and performance indicators, including muscle soreness, strength, flexibility, performance, and pain threshold.Methods: A systematic search was conducted in eight databases up to 20 July 2025. Randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, and crossover trials comparing post-exercise stretching (static, dynamic, or PNF) with no stretching were included. Data were synthesized using random-effects models, and effect sizes were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMDs). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool.Results: Fifteen studies (n = 465 participants) were included. Post-exercise stretching showed and statistically non-significant effects on muscle soreness (SMD = -0.06, 95% CI: [-0.32, 0.19], p = 0.63), strength (SMD = 0.27, 95% CI: [-0.14, 0.68], p = 0.19), performance (SMD = 0.18, 95% CI: [-0.11, 0.46], p = 0.22), flexibility (SMD = -0.06, 95% CI: [-0.31, 0.20], p = 0.67), and pain threshold (SMD = -0.02, 95% CI: [-0.41, 0.37], p = 0.93). Sensitivity analysis and Egger's test indicated robust results and no publication bias.Conclusion: Post-exercise stretching, when used as a standalone recovery intervention, does not significantly improve soreness, strength, performance, flexibility, or pain threshold. While physiologically safe and practical, its effectiveness may be limited, warranting integration with multimodal recovery strategies in future applications.Systematic review registration: Identifier CRD420251113484.","PeriodicalId":12477,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Physiology","volume":"16 ","pages":"1674871"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12521117/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Physiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2025.1674871","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Post-exercise stretching is widely employed in athletic and rehabilitation settings to promote recovery and performance. However, its physiological benefits remain controversial due to inconsistent findings across randomized controlled trials.

Objective: To evaluate the effects of post-exercise stretching compared to no stretching on lower limb muscle recovery and performance indicators, including muscle soreness, strength, flexibility, performance, and pain threshold.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted in eight databases up to 20 July 2025. Randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, and crossover trials comparing post-exercise stretching (static, dynamic, or PNF) with no stretching were included. Data were synthesized using random-effects models, and effect sizes were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMDs). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool.

Results: Fifteen studies (n = 465 participants) were included. Post-exercise stretching showed and statistically non-significant effects on muscle soreness (SMD = -0.06, 95% CI: [-0.32, 0.19], p = 0.63), strength (SMD = 0.27, 95% CI: [-0.14, 0.68], p = 0.19), performance (SMD = 0.18, 95% CI: [-0.11, 0.46], p = 0.22), flexibility (SMD = -0.06, 95% CI: [-0.31, 0.20], p = 0.67), and pain threshold (SMD = -0.02, 95% CI: [-0.41, 0.37], p = 0.93). Sensitivity analysis and Egger's test indicated robust results and no publication bias.

Conclusion: Post-exercise stretching, when used as a standalone recovery intervention, does not significantly improve soreness, strength, performance, flexibility, or pain threshold. While physiologically safe and practical, its effectiveness may be limited, warranting integration with multimodal recovery strategies in future applications.

Systematic review registration: Identifier CRD420251113484.

查看原文本刊更多论文

运动后拉伸与不拉伸对下肢肌肉恢复和表现的影响：荟萃分析。

背景：运动后拉伸被广泛应用于运动和康复环境中，以促进恢复和表现。然而，由于随机对照试验的结果不一致，其生理益处仍然存在争议。目的：评价运动后拉伸与不拉伸对下肢肌肉恢复和性能指标的影响，包括肌肉酸痛、力量、柔韧性、性能和疼痛阈值。方法：系统检索截至2025年7月20日的8个数据库。包括随机对照试验、对照临床试验和比较运动后拉伸（静态、动态或PNF）与不拉伸的交叉试验。数据采用随机效应模型合成，效应大小用标准化平均差异（SMDs）表示。使用Cochrane RoB 2.0工具评估偏倚风险。结果：纳入15项研究（n = 465名受试者）。运动后拉伸对肌肉酸痛（SMD = -0.06, 95% CI: [-0.32, 0.19], p = 0.63）、力量（SMD = 0.27, 95% CI: [-0.14, 0.68], p = 0.19）、运动表现（SMD = 0.18, 95% CI: [-0.11, 0.46], p = 0.22）、柔韧性（SMD = -0.06, 95% CI: [-0.31, 0.20], p = 0.67）和疼痛阈值（SMD = -0.02, 95% CI: [-0.41, 0.37], p = 0.93）均有统计学上无显著影响。敏感性分析和Egger’s检验显示结果稳健，无发表偏倚。结论：运动后拉伸，作为单独的恢复干预，不能显著改善酸痛、力量、表现、柔韧性或疼痛阈值。虽然在生理上是安全和实用的，但其有效性可能有限，因此需要在未来的应用中与多模式恢复策略相结合。系统评价注册：标识符CRD420251113484。

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

Frontiers in Physiology PHYSIOLOGY-

CiteScore

6.50

自引率

5.00%

发文量

2608

审稿时长

14 weeks

期刊介绍： Frontiers in Physiology is a leading journal in its field, publishing rigorously peer-reviewed research on the physiology of living systems, from the subcellular and molecular domains to the intact organism, and its interaction with the environment. Field Chief Editor George E. Billman at the Ohio State University Columbus is supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international researchers. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide.