Talk:Stretching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Human stretching photos

 It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

The article shows two animals stretching, although the text focuses entirely on human stretching. I think two things should be changed: 1) A photo of a human stretching should be added 2) The article should mention that some animals also do stretching 86.80.147.155 21:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.
This article has been tagged since February 2007.
The article also makes no mention of stretching in non-work-out related settings, such as the more involuntary stretching accompanied with being tired. -- MacAddct1984  05:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Body modification appropriateness

Is it appropriate to have body modification material in this article on stretching? This article is not intended as a multi purpose one, as far as I can tell. Glowimperial 12:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree that it shouldn't take up any large part, but having a disambig link would definately be useful since the term is used for many things besides the lengthening of muscles. Tyciol 07:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order and Benefits Dubiousness

Why should the stretching order be of any importance. Generally speaking, this article unfortunately lacks citations for scientific proof for its correctness. It is debated if stretching actually gives any benefit. --Abdull 22:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Many studies and actual application lack proof. What benefits are you at odds with regarding stretching? Increased range of motion is a given, you never increase your RoM without stretching to see how far it is. The rest are less mathematical, but could probably be found. The order is important due to the stretch reflex responses, how much a stretch strains a muscle, and the kind of blood flow or muscle needed to engage in them. Tyciol 07:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Tyciol, I debate your standpoint on results being less mathematical. Instead I support the notion that society today accepts certain types of stretching to fill a particular gap in excersize, rather than the optimal usage of stretching. How many people do you know that can honestly say they even know how to stretch properly? How many doctors? How many fitness counselors? A quick google search and I come across tons of conflicting information on the subject, and several pages of definitive guides. The problem is that the medical institution would rather focus on selling a drug that strecthes your body for you (diet pills) rather than putting up a verified and easy to follow guide. The one guide to rule them all so to speak.
An example of how bad the concept of strecthing is. Four groups of people were taken out to a golf course, and were payed to take a month off and do as instructed. One group did nothing. One group lifted weights. One group stretched. One group did both strecthing and lifted weights. The group that performed the best after the month was over was not the group doing both stretches and lifting weights, but the group who only lifted weights. Why? I have no clue...but who really does? We don't do enough "modern" testing on the potential and exact benefits of stretching from an observational standpoint. We still use predefined concepts from the 70s, 80s, and early 90s that could really use an overhaul...with or without math.Phil.andy.graves 19:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The group that lifted weights only performed best how? In strength? Were they spending the same amount of time lifting the exact same amounts of weights as the group lifting and stretching? Stretching isn't supposed to make you stronger, but might well reduce the impacts of exercise sligthly for increased flexibility, especially as one of it's points is to make it easier to exercise. In flexibility? I doubt stretching reduced flexibility. And in a combination, two unlike things are being equated, so the results are meaningless. You said enough to support your point, but not enough to determine the validity of that support. Superflyguy 21:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Current UKAtheltics guidelines recommends that ONLY dynamic stretching be performed prior to athletic exercise. This is because they claim that static stretching does not prepare the body through the full range of movement throughout which the athletic discipline is about to be performed. Unfortunately, all I have are paper versions of their info. Robruss24 10:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

One study isn't enough. More work needs to be done. I'm surprised the article emphasizes the novelty of one or two findings in this way. Phil states he doesn't know why the golf experiment produced the results it did. One reason might be randomness, which is why you need many examples before you can conclude one line of thinking is valid. What's more is that the article should describe what it means by "benefits" (right now this hasn't come up in the article itself--but just in case it does) in a more qualified (specific) way. The golf experiment, for example, assumes short-term golf performance (and this performance may well be measured in a biased way--I haven't seen the research to judge for myself yet) as the sole benefit. I think readers are also interseted in possible injury prevention and in delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS). Those are other kinds of potential benefits. The link between DOMS and lactic acid build-up has been put into doubt by recent research, but the relationship between stretching or not stretching after excercise probably needs to be explored more before you can say in a broader way that "stretching" has no benefits. I'm surprised that someone wrote that other research shows stretching doesn't help alleviate DOMS and yet fails to cite that research. I'll look for some research on that myself. If no one comes up with anything after a while, I'm thinking of deleting that sentence. It could be that this contributor is confusing the research about DOMS and lactic acid build-up with DOMS and stretching which are two separate issues. As for Robruss's paper versions, I think those are valid to cite. Just give author, date, source, etc. Also, UKAtheltics, may happen to have a website. But citing offline works is often done on Wikipedia, and I think gives an article more credibility. Plus online sources sometimes expire, whereas at least with many print, you can still find them at the library later on.
This might be the UKAthletics article that was mentioned above. Some points it makes are well taken. One is that people are too much influenced by what newspapers sensationalize ("like stretching has no benefits") and I think some Wikipedians get duped by the newspapers and get a little thrill out of being the first to post such "news" online here. They ought to excercise some restraint instead. People may come here and believe the sensationalized "news" and get injured or not receive whatever benefits (i.e., the long-term benefits of flexibility, and that's a benefit for some sports, i.e., tennis, but no so much for others, i.e., distance running or, perhaps, weight lifting) of stretching as a result of some over-eager Wikipedian wanting to get out the "news" that everyone ought to suddenly stop stretching right now. Secondly, the article points out how you have to be careful in interpretting the research. For example, the results of the experiment with young military recruits probably training in combat boots might not be applicable to elite athletes yet I believe that is the type of experiment some contributors are trying to use in the article to support their POV. I would suggest in order to avoid this, that contributors actually examine the details of any given research first, use good judgement, and also include some details in the article about the research you used. For example, rather than something vague, and that is almost a direct lie, in that it hints that their might be a consensus among researchers (plural), like "Recent research shows that ...", to begin with "one study which involved army recruits wearing combat boots..." I think that kind of disclosure lets the reader judge ("oh, that doesn't apply to me since I don't work out at my gym wearing army boots..." To do otherwise is to do a disservice to readers of Wikipedia. In other words, don't just exploit some sensationalistic newspaper headline or be duped by them.

[edit] more disambiguation

What about the kind of stiff stretching that people do when they're tired? It seems like that is more contracting of muscles to restore blood flow than stretching--but there is no information here to inform anyone of that fact, so the article fails.

[edit] biological function of stretching

The claims made about lactic acid are false or erronius. Lactic acid does not cause the "burn" experienced during and afte excersize, nor is it a waste product (For references the wikipedia article on lactic acid cites Robergs R, Ghiasvand F, Parker D (2004). "Biochemistry of exercise-induced metabolic acidosis.". Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 287 (3): R502-16. PMID 15308499, and many endurance sports physiology books also explain this). Stretching may help flush waste products from muscles after excersize due to increased blood flow, but i am not enough of a physiologist to explain this in detail. I would be thankful if someone with better understanding revises this section.

What does cause the burn sensation then? Lactic acids are indeed a by product of aerobic workout. an "expert needed" tag is already in place.--Procrastinating@talk2me 19:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
See Delayed onset muscle soreness. -- Beland 17:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Research

Please, next time someone want to add research, please use real experimental peer-reviewed research and not someone's opinion of an article or review!

please elaborate. --Procrastinating@talk2me 01:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say 50% of the information contained here is false. When people use references they are just using news sources and not actual scientific research. Stretching has not be proven to prevent injury, relieve DOMS, or clear lactate.

If you see a non cannon/news source you would lkike to challenge remove it and put a {fact} tag.--Procrastinating@talk2me 22:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


I Would like to see information on what happens at the cellular level during stretching -- why we are recommended to breathe during stretching (what affect the oxegen has on muscles). Stuart

[edit] If I transwiki this...

Will anyone work on the disputed parts for the wikibooks version? I'd rather not copy this to wikibooks if it's disputed. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 22:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about withuit links?? --Procrastinating@talk2me 22:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the question... This article is marked as a how-to, thus a candidate for importing to wikibooks. I'm a wikibooks administrator, so I can import, but I'm not sure if I should if there's serious dispute about the content (especially if it's in regards to safety concerns!) --SB_Johnny|talk|books 11:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
okyie. it takes time to mature. the biological grounds for it is stil ldisputed in the scientific community.--Procrastinating@talk2me 16:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
So the how-to sections (when, what and how) are not disputed, just the "why"? --SB_Johnny|talk|books 16:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/r/Talk%7EStretching_52e0.html"