Does Stretching Training Influence Muscular Strength? A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression

Chronic Effects of Static Stretching Exercises on Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy in Healthy Individuals: A Systematic Review and Multilevel Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The chronic effect of static stretching (SS) on muscle hypertrophy is still unclear. This study aimed to examine the chronic effects of SS exercises on skeletal muscle hypertrophy in healthy individuals.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and SPORTDiscus databases up to July 2023. Included studies examined chronic effects of SS exercise compared to an active/passive control group or the contralateral leg (i.e., utilizing between- or within-study designs, respectively) and assessed at least one outcome of skeletal muscle hypertrophy in healthy individuals with no age restriction.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, findings indicated an unclear effect of chronic SS exercises on skeletal muscle hypertrophy with a trivial point estimate (standardised mean difference [SMD] = 0.118 [95% prediction interval [95% PI] = - 0.233 to 0.469; p = 0.017]) and low heterogeneity (I2 = 24%). Subgroup analyses revealed that trained individuals (β = 0.424; 95% PI = 0.095 to 0.753) displayed larger effects compared to recreationally trained (β = 0.115; 95% PI = - 0.195 to 0.425) and sedentary individuals (β = - 0.081; 95% PI = - 0.399 to 0.236). Subanalysis suggested the potential for greater skeletal muscle hypertrophy in samples with higher percentages of females (β = 0.003, [95% confidence interval [95% CI] = - 0.000 to 0.005]). However, the practical significance of this finding is questionable. Furthermore, a greater variety of stretching exercises elicited larger increases in muscle hypertrophy (β = 0.069, [95% CI = 0.041 to 0.097]). Longer durations of single stretching exercises (β = 0.006, [95% CI = 0.002 to 0.010]), time under stretching per session (β = 0.006, [95% CI = 0.003 to 0.009]), per week (β = 0.001, [95% CI = 0.000 to 0.001]) and in total (β = 0.008, [95% CI = 0.003 to 0.013]) induced larger muscle hypertrophy. Regarding joint range of motion, there was a clear positive effect with a moderate point estimate (β = 0.698; 95% PI = 0.147 to 1.249; p < 0.001) and moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 43%). Moreover, findings indicated no significant association between the gains in joint range of motion and the increase in muscle hypertrophy (β = 0.036, [95% CI = - 0.123 to 0.196]; p = 0.638).

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed an overall unclear chronic effect of SS on skeletal muscle hypertrophy, although interpretation across the range of PI suggests a potential modest beneficial effect. Subgroup analysis indicated larger stretching-induced muscle gains in trained individuals, a more varied selection of SS exercises, longer mean duration of single stretching exercise, increased time under SS per session, week, and in total, and possibly in samples with a higher proportion of females. From a practical perspective, it appears that SS exercises may not be highly effective in promoting skeletal muscle hypertrophy unless a higher duration of training is utilized. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022331762.

Effects of Chronic Static Stretching on Maximal Strength and Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Meta-Regression

BACKGROUND

Increases in maximal strength and muscle volume represent central aims of training interventions. Recent research suggested that the chronic application of stretch may be effective in inducing hypertrophy. The present systematic review therefore aimed to syntheisize the evidence on changes of strength and muscle volume following chronic static stretching.

METHODS

Three data bases were sceened to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis. Studies using randomized, controlled trials with longitudinal (≥ 2 weeks) design, investigating strength and muscle volume following static stretching in humans, were included. Study quality was rated by two examiners using the PEDro scale.

RESULTS

A total of 42 studies with 1318 cumulative participants were identified. Meta-analyses using robust variance estimation showed small stretch-mediated maximal strength increases (d = 0.30 p < 0.001) with stretching duration and intervention time as significant moderators. Including all studies, stretching induced small magnitude, but significant hypertrophy effects (d = 0.20). Longer stretching durations and intervention periods as well as higher training frequencies revealed small (d = 0.26-0.28), but significant effects (p < 0.001-0.005), while lower dosage did not reach the level of significance (p = 0.13-0.39).

CONCLUSIONS

While of minor effectiveness, chronic static stretching represents a possible alternative to resistance training when aiming to improve strength and increase muscle size. As a dose-response relationship may exist, higher stretch durations and frequencies as well as long program durations should be further elaborated.

The knowledge of movement experts about stretching effects: Does the science reach practice?

OBJECTIVE

Stretching is performed with numerous purposes in multiple settings such as prevention, rehabilitation, fitness training and sports. Its patterns of use substantially depend on the education and beliefs of health care and exercise professionals as they represent the multiplicators recommending and prescribing interventions to clients, patients and athletes. This study investigated movement experts' knowledge about the scientific evidence on stretching effects.

DESIGN

Survey study.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 117 exercise and health professionals (physiotherapists, sports scientists, coaches) attending a training convention in Austria (male: n = 44, female: n = 73, 36±11 years) completed a digital survey. With its 22 items, the questionnaire addressed the movement experts' awareness of the evidence on stretching effects regarding a variety of related topics selected based on the findings of topical systematic reviews.

RESULTS

The majority of the individuals (57-88%) assumed positive effects of stretching on recovery, prevention of muscle injury, range of motion, muscular imbalance and artery elasticity. No or adverse effects were mostly claimed on bone injury prevention, maximal/explosive strength, and delayed-onset muscle soreness. In only 10 of 22 items, participants' classifications were in accord with the scientific evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The awareness of research findings on stretching effects among exercise and health professionals is alarmingly low. Future studies may hence be geared to improve implementation and science communication.