All stretching is a waste of time.

agip wrote:

"generally unnecessary and likely counterproductive"

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/reasons-not-to-stretch/?_r=0

But the OP didn't say that stretching is generally a waste of time. He said that ALL stretching is a waste of time. So the OP is wrong.

I feel better when I do some limited stretching and warming up.

I dont care about "studies" I just have to go by what's worked for me.

"all stretching is a waste of time."

So, 99.999% of professional/olympic athletes in ALL SPORTS and their coaches/trainers are idiots?

Ooooookay.... whatever you say.

"A modified 6-week eccentric heel-drop training regimen as the only treatment for chronic Achilles tendinopathy resulted in a high degree of patient satisfaction, reduced pain and a successful return to pre-morbid activity levels. These results were best for mid-substance rather than insertional tendinopathy."Wow! This is great. Thanks.

agip wrote:

now hit me with some pro-stretching anecdotes.

With the OP's all-inclusive "All stretching is a waste of time", only one example is needed to disprove this:

[/quote]

Ex Phys also shows that high mileage is a waste of time.

how the hell do you know this is due to not stretching??? why couldn't it be due to a muscle imbalance/weakness? THINK people.

kharp wrote:

Just wait until you get older. I rarely stretched through my twenties, thirties, and early forties. Now I'm in my mid forties and man, do i feel tight. It's actually painful in my hamstrings my first half-mile or so. Also starting to have low-back issues.

coach d wrote:

It's only been 13 years since the British Journal of Medicine published the groundbreaking study showing that stretching was worse than useless for preventing injuries, and these morons haven't figured it out yet.

Yeah, I remember when this came out and all the buzz around it. I was young and stupid so I totally gave up what had been a very successful pre and post exercise stretch routine. Even after a few weeks, when I could feel my body tightening up, I didn't stretch because "the science" said it was useless. However, soon the injuries began to pile up.

Don't get taken in by dumb studies and the even dumber reporting of the conclusions of these studies.

Remember the 80's when we were told that you didnt need all those "junk" miles?

Sometimes science and labs dont quite get what's going on in the real world of results. This is especially true when they come out with some counter intuitive advice that goes against the current "wisdom."

Exercise Physiology Truth wrote:

Active, passive, whatever; it's all superstition within no demonstrable benefit.

That statement is quite a stretch!

dartmoth graduate wrote:

All running at less than 100% effort is likewise a waist of time.

I disagree. I read somewhere that it is best to always run at 80% of total perceived effort.

Exercise Physiology Truth wrote:

Active, passive, whatever; it's all superstition within no demonstrable benefit.

This stretching debate has come up several times and the basis for not stretching is always some outliers who for whatever reason doesn’t stretch and never needed to. (The vast majority of runners stretch.) Runners are some of the smartest and most meticulous people you will ever meet and if they thought there was a part of their training routine that was of no benefit, stretching would have went by the wayside a long time ago. Some people have a lot of natural flexibility, most of us don't, therefore most of us stretch.

run doubles every day - 8am 5pm. never stretch. havent been injured for quite some time and last time it was only a day or two off. can touch my toes easily cold. sitting around sweaty stretching is a waste

ggilder wrote:

"A modified 6-week eccentric heel-drop training regimen as the only treatment for chronic Achilles tendinopathy resulted in a high degree of patient satisfaction, reduced pain and a successful return to pre-morbid activity levels. These results were best for mid-substance rather than insertional tendinopathy."

Wow! This is great. Thanks.

No, it's ridiculous. No control group and no placebo group. Measuring "patient satisfaction". Zero worth. Utter crap. Like most of these exercise "scientists'" work. No medical treatment ever would be accepted by such idiocy. But your average PT can always make some bucks out of it.

Exercise Physiology Truth wrote:

Active, passive, whatever; it's all superstition within no demonstrable benefit.

Tell this to yourself after years of 100 mile weeks.

You realize doctors also say running is bad for your health right?

an answer from your typical bl wrote:

dartmoth graduate wrote:

All running at less than 100% effort is likewise a waist of time.

I disagree. I read somewhere that it is best to always run at 80% of total perceived effort.

Yes, I was the one who said always run at 80% of perceived effort. As a matter of fact do EVERYTHING at 80% perceived effort, including stretching! You do things over 80% you will burn out, under 80% and you lose energy. 80% is the ONLY sustainable number! Always aim for that goal.

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

"all stretching is a waste of time."

So, 99.999% of professional/olympic athletes in ALL SPORTS and their coaches/trainers are idiots?

Indeed that is exactly the case.

Exercise Physiology Truth wrote:

Active, passive, whatever; it's all superstition within no demonstrable benefit.

I agree with this.

Tell that to my hamstring and hip

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

"all stretching is a waste of time."

So, 99.999% of professional/olympic athletes in ALL SPORTS and their coaches/trainers are idiots?

Ooooookay.... whatever you say.

You clearly know nothing about 99.999% of professional/Olympic athletes.