The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
And according to this study at least, operating or performing stretching at an intensity that's quite low, that's very relaxing turns out to be more beneficial in increasing range of motion than is doing exercises aimed at increasing range of motion at a higher intensity.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
So, what is low-intensity static stretching? Well, they define this as the stretches were completed at an intensity of 30-40% where 100% equals the point of pain, right? So, 30-40% in these individuals, and again, I'm paraphrasing, induced a relaxed state within the individual and the specific muscle.
The idea and indeed the data that low-intensity, so 30-40% of what would one would consider painful appears to be more effective than 80% of that threshold.