Critical Analysis of Stretching Theory (2011)

Re:Critical Analysis of Stretching Theory (2011) by wyc on Saturday February 18, 2017 @01:49PM (#13676057)

Some hidden wisdom in here:

    Too much flexibility for a runner, on the other hand, may not be desirable. The
    ankle, knee and hip joints stay within the mid-range of motion during endurance
    running, so maximum static ROM will not have much effect. It has also been
    shown that stiffer leg muscles in endurance athletes may make them more
    economical in terms of oxygen consumption at sub max speeds (De Vries).
    Sprinting, martial arts, gymnastics involve movements of much larger ROM
    therefore depend on good flexibility. However, as already pointed out,
    development of flexibility must be specific to the sport. If a soccer player
    developed same type of flexibility as a gymnast, he would be of a greater risk
    of injury as extremely mobile joints may become unstable.

In your life or company, where you should be rigid or flexible really depends on what you're trying to accomplish.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Critical Analysis of Stretching Theory (2011) by griffinmmahon on Saturday February 18, 2017 @02:05PM (#13676115)

The rise in popularity of "functional fitness" and its accompanying ideas about mobility and flexibility have made it seem like everyone should be a contortionist, but if you're only an amateur athlete, the mobility you should focus on is just what's necessary for your sport.

Like the paragraph you cited says, extra flexibility is sometimes a bad thing. Weighted mobility, once you can achieve the positions you need to, is a better progression than trying to increase ROM.

[ Parent | on HN ]