Andrew Huberman· PhD
So, ballistic stretching can also provide some pretty impressive limb range of motion improvements. However, they tended to be in the range of, here they point out, 11.65% increase
Loading…
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
So, ballistic stretching can also provide some pretty impressive limb range of motion improvements. However, they tended to be in the range of, here they point out, 11.65% increase
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, you'll find that as we move along, there are specific adjustments that you can make at both the macro level, meaning how much movement to insert into your stretching, right? Is it going to be a static, or a dynamic, or even a ballistic stretch?
First of all, they describe in their discussion that there were improvements in range of motion independent of whether or not people did static stretching, active stretching, passive stretching, ballistic stretching, or PNF stretching.
However, the static protocols showed significant gains with a p-value less than .05, which means a probability that cannot be explained by chance alone, When compared to ballistic or PNF protocols.