Effects of chronic static stretching interventions on jumping and sprinting performance-a systematic review with multilevel meta-analysis.

When improving athletic performance in sports with high-speed strength demands such as soccer, basketball, or track and field, the most common training method might be resistance training and plyometrics. Since a link between strength capacity and speed strength exists and recently published literature suggested chronic stretching routines may enhance maximum strength and hypertrophy, this review was performed to explore potential benefits on athletic performance. Based on current literature, a beneficial effect of static stretching on jumping and sprinting performance was hypothesized. A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science and Google scholar. In general, 14 studies revealed 29 effect sizes (ES) (20 for jumping, nine for sprinting). Subgroup analyses for jump performance were conducted for short- long- and no stretch shortening cycle trials. Qualitative evaluation was supplemented by performing a multilevel meta-analysis via R (Package: metafor). Significant positive results were documented in six out of 20 jump tests and in six out of nine sprint tests, while two studies reported negative adaptations. Quantitative data analyses indicated a positive but trivial magnitude of change on jumping performance (ES:0.16, p = 0.04), while all subgroup analyses did not support a positive effect (p = 0.09-0.44). No significant influence of static stretching on sprint performance was obtained (p = 0.08). Stretching does not seem to induce a sufficient stimulus to meaningfully enhance jumping and sprinting performance, which could possibly attributed to small weekly training volumes or lack of intensity.

Foam rolling and stretching do not provide superior acute flexibility and stiffness improvements compared to any other warm-up intervention: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acute improvement in range of motion (ROM) is a widely reported effect of stretching and foam rolling, which is commonly explained by changes in pain threshold and/or musculotendinous stiffness. Interestingly, these effects were also reported in response to various other active and passive interventions that induce responses such as enhanced muscle temperature. Therefore, we hypothesized that acute ROM enhancements could be induced by a wide variety of interventions other than stretching or foam rolling that promote an increase in muscle temperature. METHODS: After a systematic search in PubMed, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus databases, 38 studies comparing the effects of stretching and foam rolling with several other interventions on ROM and passive properties were included. These studies had 1134 participants in total, and the data analysis resulted in 140 effect sizes (ESs). ES calculations were performed using robust variance estimation model with R-package. RESULTS: Study quality of the included studies was classified as fair (PEDro score = 4.58) with low to moderate certainty of evidence. Results showed no significant differences in ROM (ES = 0.01, p = 0.88), stiffness (ES = 0.09, p = 0.67), or passive peak torque (ES = -0.30, p = 0.14) between stretching or foam rolling and the other identified activities. Funnel plots revealed no publication bias. CONCLUSION: Based on current literature, our results challenge the established view on stretching and foam rolling as a recommended component of warm-up programs. The lack of significant difference between interventions suggests there is no need to emphasize stretching or foam rolling to induce acute ROM, passive peak torque increases, or stiffness reductions.