The Training Rim

Here’s my response to the flexibility article noted last week:

If you didn’t see the article, it’s right here: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/phys-ed-how-necessary-is-stretching/

I’ll also post some of my clients’ and readers’ responses next week too – I received some good ones.

You have to bear with me: This may be the 700th time I’ve had this discussion, so I apologize if I seem curt. Here’s the short version of my take on stretching and flexibility 1st, then my thoughts on the article we saw last week…

1. Flexibility is a FAR more expansive and complex topic than people realize. The overwhelming majority of exercisers think “stretching = loose muscles. Loose muscles = good.” That is a VAST oversimplification. Flexibility is nowhere NEAR this cut and dried.

2. Stretching, as it performed 99.99999% of the time is performed incorrectly.

Because of the above, I don’t think STRETCHING should be performed very often.

FLEXIBILITY should be.

“Stretching” and “flexibility” ARE NOT SYNONYMS.

Confused? Sorry, gotta’ move on. (I told you it would be the short version – I’ll get the longer one out soon…again…)

Now on to the article…

I have a few problems with it:

1. Physiology and biomechanics are not the same thing. Physiology deals primarily with cardio-respiratory, pulmonary and oxygen uptake/output issues. Bio-mechanics deals primarily with muscles, joints, tissues, ligaments etc, and how they interact to produce movement. Why physiologists were performing a study regarding bio-mechanics was the 1st thing to wrinkle my eyebrows. This is like a heart doctor advising you on your shoulder pain. Not completely clueless, but probably not the best person for the job.

2. The “classic sit and reach test” is called a “well established measurement of hamstring flexibility”.

I’m sorry, by whom…a gym teacher in 1964?

Anyone with even a marginal sense of bio-mechanics can see it doesn’t test hamstring flexibility. Just look at the picture in the article: the runner reaches his feet because his back is in the shape of a letter “C”, meaning the motion came from his spine, not from his hamstrings. And, his knee is bent, i.e., his hamstring is NOT elongated. Stay with me folks, this isn’t rocket science here…

3. This is not “new research”. This debate has been going on FOREVER.

4. Distance runners are not athletes.

I know I’m going to get killed for this, but bring it on.

Are distance runners tough as nails? Absolutely. Do they have insane levels of commitment and perseverance? Definitely. Do I admire them? Yes.

Are they athletes?

Puh-leeeeze…

People that express zero speed, power, or reactive neuro-muscular control are not athletes.

Period.

A study that measures stretching as it relates to speed and athletic performance needs to be performed on athletes. Tight hamstrings on a distance runner are irrelevant. Distance runners’ strides are barely longer than a walking stride, negating any need to extend the leg.

However, show me a sprinter with tight hamstrings and I’ll show you a slow sprinter.

5. Treadmills contribute to restricted hamstrings.

Without getting into too long a discussion about it, the moving belt (ground) means the person almost never extends the knee when running, because the treadmill does it for you. This means the hamstring is never stretched when on the treadmill. This typically leads to tight hamstrings, which was not taken into consideration in the study.

Again, the discussion of flexibility is far too expansive to get into here. But with regards to the article, the research was absurd and the author wasn’t much better.

Send your hate mail to the trainingrim@gmail.com.

And again, as with most of the cool stuff I find, I got the article from strengthcoach.com.