from here: http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=2006/letters09-21

Stretching revisited
I took a look at David Fleckenstein's PDF on stretching and saw that the recommended time for the hamstring stretch was 6 minutes for each leg. I then read an article on stretching the next day that said it does no good (and possibly some harm) to hold a stretch more than 30 seconds. I've read that you should stretch no more than every other day and I've read that you should stretch twice a day.

I do not understand why there seems to be so many different opinions on this subject. How hard can it be to take a mixed population and put them on different stretching programs and measure the results? Why so much contradiction and confusion over a seemingly simple activity?

Kevin Burnett

Dave Fleckenstein replies:

This is an outstanding question and is a frequent source of conversation and argument. I could send you a very large body of research on effects of stretching on various tissues - a lot of it contradictory. I completed a thesis in graduate school regarding effects of different stretching techniques on various tissues. If you would like to see the bibliography I would be happy to send it to you.

The main question here is what is the most effective way to lengthen collagen, the primary building block of connective tissue? I like to think of collagen as an unusual type of spring. With stretching we are trying to lengthen, or deform the spring. While force is the most effective way to deform a regular spring (how hard we pull it apart), time is the most effective way to deform the spring of collagen. Healthy, mobile tissue generally looks like nicely combed hair under the microscope - all the fibres are aligned in parallel, allowing the 'spring' of collagen to be mobile in certain directions and resistant in others. Restricted tissue tends to look like fibres of a furnace filter - randomly aligned (which is actually the cross-linking of collagen tissue) and generally resistant to any motion.

My overall thoughts regarding stretching are as follows, based on research and my clinical experience:

1) Low load, long duration (LLPD) stretches are the most effective ways to permanently lengthen tissues - in simple terms, time is a more effective way to lengthen tissues than force.

An interesting observation is that there are certain tissues that we want to stretch and certain ones that we don't. The same way that time is an effective way to lengthen the hamstrings, prolonged slumping (either sitting in a chair or sitting on a bike) can also lengthen the collagen fibres of the disc and supportive ligaments of the spine. This results in a loss of integrity of the disc and premature breakdown. If you notice in the stretch sheet, the spine is always in a neutral alignment in my pictures to protect it.

2) 30 second stretches, contract/relax stretches, AIS stretching, etc., does not permanently lengthen tissue, but can result in transient improvements in flexibility.

My clinic is full of patients who have performed this type of stretching for years, notice a short term benefit, but no cumulative improvement. Why? Because I don't think collagen is affected with these stretches, the nervous system is. The nervous system plays an important role in regulating how tissue moves. These types of stretches affect mechanisms that regulate the tone of muscle tissue - how much contraction is going through tissue at one time. These can be effective ways to reduce spasm or provide short term increases in mobility.

A couple of stretches that I listed in the PDF are 30 second stretches because these are structures that are also highly intertwined with specific nerves and most people aggravate themselves with LLPD stretches of these structures if left to themselves. Clinically, I can progress these individuals to LLPD stretches under guidance with excellent results.

3) There is an optimum amount of flexibility. If there is not some resistance present in the connective tissues, we don't transmit forces well - it is dispersed within the tissue. Indeed, some professional athletes that I have seen demonstrate marked tightness, but they are able to prevent those forces from transmitting to structures that are not designed to disperse stress. I think that these are the athletes who picked their parents well and have a physical gift. I certainly have patients that are too flexible as well, but it is generally not their hamstrings, hip musculature, and hip flexors that are too mobile. It is usually the musculature and structures surrounding the spine, and this is not good.

4) Flexibility is not something that should just occur when we are "warmed up," it should be present permanently. This enables us to move correctly throughout our day, through all motions. My general rule is that I want local spine stability (to protect and maintain optimum alignment of these highly reactive structures) and lumbopelvic musculature flexibility, so that our pelvis can move correctly and provide a well-aligned base for the spine. I will be writing more this fall [or this spring in the southern hemisphere - ed.] on stability issues.

So, what seems simple is not so simple, after all. In many of the studies that found negative results of stretching, tissues that should not have been stretched were lengthened, creating problems. I often see athletes selecting very poor stretching techniques, such as bending forward to touch their toes thinking that they are stretching their hamstrings when they are actually placing huge forces and stretch on the disc and ligaments of the spine.

The PDF is a very generic start to a very complex issue. Ideally, we would all have a very individualized system of stretching and stability based on our specific needs, but the stretches given are ones that I feel 'do no harm' and lengthen the most commonly shortened structures that I feel promote pathology.

Many thanks for a great question and I look forward to discussing this more!

All I know is my Yoga teachers are the some of the most flexible people on the planet, and they hold their stretches for a long time. It’s working for me too.

from here: http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=2006/letters09-21

Stretching revisited
I took a look at David Fleckenstein's PDF on stretching and saw that the recommended time for the hamstring stretch was 6 minutes for each leg. I then read an article on stretching the next day that said it does no good (and possibly some harm) to hold a stretch more than 30 seconds. I've read that you should stretch no more than every other day and I've read that you should stretch twice a day.

I do not understand why there seems to be so many different opinions on this subject. How hard can it be to take a mixed population and put them on different stretching programs and measure the results? Why so much contradiction and confusion over a seemingly simple activity?

Kevin Burnett

Dave Fleckenstein replies:

This is an outstanding question and is a frequent source of conversation and argument. I could send you a very large body of research on effects of stretching on various tissues - a lot of it contradictory. I completed a thesis in graduate school regarding effects of different stretching techniques on various tissues. If you would like to see the bibliography I would be happy to send it to you.

The main question here is what is the most effective way to lengthen collagen, the primary building block of connective tissue? I like to think of collagen as an unusual type of spring. With stretching we are trying to lengthen, or deform the spring. While force is the most effective way to deform a regular spring (how hard we pull it apart), time is the most effective way to deform the spring of collagen. Healthy, mobile tissue generally looks like nicely combed hair under the microscope - all the fibres are aligned in parallel, allowing the 'spring' of collagen to be mobile in certain directions and resistant in others. Restricted tissue tends to look like fibres of a furnace filter - randomly aligned (which is actually the cross-linking of collagen tissue) and generally resistant to any motion.

My overall thoughts regarding stretching are as follows, based on research and my clinical experience:

1) Low load, long duration (LLPD) stretches are the most effective ways to permanently lengthen tissues - in simple terms, time is a more effective way to lengthen tissues than force.

An interesting observation is that there are certain tissues that we want to stretch and certain ones that we don't. The same way that time is an effective way to lengthen the hamstrings, prolonged slumping (either sitting in a chair or sitting on a bike) can also lengthen the collagen fibres of the disc and supportive ligaments of the spine. This results in a loss of integrity of the disc and premature breakdown. If you notice in the stretch sheet, the spine is always in a neutral alignment in my pictures to protect it.

2) 30 second stretches, contract/relax stretches, AIS stretching, etc., does not permanently lengthen tissue, but can result in transient improvements in flexibility.

My clinic is full of patients who have performed this type of stretching for years, notice a short term benefit, but no cumulative improvement. Why? Because I don't think collagen is affected with these stretches, the nervous system is. The nervous system plays an important role in regulating how tissue moves. These types of stretches affect mechanisms that regulate the tone of muscle tissue - how much contraction is going through tissue at one time. These can be effective ways to reduce spasm or provide short term increases in mobility.

A couple of stretches that I listed in the PDF are 30 second stretches because these are structures that are also highly intertwined with specific nerves and most people aggravate themselves with LLPD stretches of these structures if left to themselves. Clinically, I can progress these individuals to LLPD stretches under guidance with excellent results.

3) There is an optimum amount of flexibility. If there is not some resistance present in the connective tissues, we don't transmit forces well - it is dispersed within the tissue. Indeed, some professional athletes that I have seen demonstrate marked tightness, but they are able to prevent those forces from transmitting to structures that are not designed to disperse stress. I think that these are the athletes who picked their parents well and have a physical gift. I certainly have patients that are too flexible as well, but it is generally not their hamstrings, hip musculature, and hip flexors that are too mobile. It is usually the musculature and structures surrounding the spine, and this is not good.

4) Flexibility is not something that should just occur when we are "warmed up," it should be present permanently. This enables us to move correctly throughout our day, through all motions. My general rule is that I want local spine stability (to protect and maintain optimum alignment of these highly reactive structures) and lumbopelvic musculature flexibility, so that our pelvis can move correctly and provide a well-aligned base for the spine. I will be writing more this fall [or this spring in the southern hemisphere - ed.] on stability issues.

So, what seems simple is not so simple, after all. In many of the studies that found negative results of stretching, tissues that should not have been stretched were lengthened, creating problems. I often see athletes selecting very poor stretching techniques, such as bending forward to touch their toes thinking that they are stretching their hamstrings when they are actually placing huge forces and stretch on the disc and ligaments of the spine.

The PDF is a very generic start to a very complex issue. Ideally, we would all have a very individualized system of stretching and stability based on our specific needs, but the stretches given are ones that I feel 'do no harm' and lengthen the most commonly shortened structures that I feel promote pathology.

Many thanks for a great question and I look forward to discussing this more!
I don't have the time for a go-round like the last one, but not a thing this guy says suggests that there is any benefit to stretching. That stretching will increase your flexibility -- I get it. Whether increasing my flexibility beyond what flexibility I get from doing what I am training to do has anything to do with anything I care about goes unproved. He assumes a benefit from "aligning the collagen" or whatever the hell he is saying, but he doesn't even have a very good theory as to why this would be so, let alone a proved theory.
Yeah, yeah, I'm a sh*thead lawyer and he is . . . whatever he is. But they all spout the same stuff, different day, and none of it adds up.

I don't have the time for a go-round like the last one, but not a thing this guy says suggests that there is any benefit to stretching. That stretching will increase your flexibility -- I get it. Whether increasing my flexibility beyond what flexibility I get from doing what I am training to do has anything to do with anything I care about goes unproved. He assumes a benefit from "aligning the collagen" or whatever the hell he is saying, but he doesn't even have a very good theory as to why this would be so, let alone a proved theory.
Yeah, yeah, I'm a sh*thead lawyer and he is . . . whatever he is. But they all spout the same stuff, different day, and none of it adds up.

I won't get into a needless argument about the value of being flexible beyond what is functionally required for your chosen activity, but it is a proven fact that cycling reduces you flexibility. So if you don't stretch then you will slowly become less flexible and your form on the bike will have to change to compensate. Putting aside any of the other functional considerations, you would at least have to agree that this would affect you ability to get a good time trial position and long term you comfort. Hence there is some benefit to regular stretching.

With regards to what actually happens when you stretch, as I understand it, it is still unknown. There are many theories, but little is actually known. Interestingly we are in the same boat with regards to why resistance training builds bigger muscles.

...but it is a proven fact that cycling reduces you flexibility. So if you don't stretch then you will slowly become less flexible and your form on the bike will have to change to compensate.

You made an unsupported leap there. First, you would need to cite where it is accepted & proven that stretching reduces flexibility. Then you need to put it in context. Reduce flexibility in regards to what? Yoga? Pilates? Tai chi? Secondly - which is where your leap is unsupported - you would then need to positively correlate this loss of flexibility as it pertains to the activity in question, in this case cycling.

I'm with Bill. Not going to get into the debate again.

edit: previous details here (http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=67633) (http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=67633)

I love all the message board arguments that come down to "Yes it is, no it isn't."

Regardless, I'm trying to remember where I found this recently -- I think it was a print book. It discussed the benefits and detriments of stretching, with benefits like "reduced chance of injury from tearing muscles" and detriments like "increased chance of injury from reduced joint support."

As for me, I had some knee and hamstring pain issues that I became convinced were related to not stretching enough. For 6 weeks I diligently stretched after every ride, etc etc.

Then I studied my position more carefully and bought a 25mm setback post instead of the straight thompson I was running. BOOM. Problem solved.

Apart from getting into the deep weeds about stretching technique, I think the important issue is the a sound stretching and strengthening program is essential for cycling, especially for those of us in the above-40 category. All too often we want to solve a problem with a new part or a custom bike fit (all of which are good!) without paying adequate attention to the fact that sometimes we may need to work on our bodies to solve a specific problem. As an example, a winter of consistent yoga helped me to lower my bars, raise my seat and get much more comfortable over long distance. Take a holistic approach; it's a package deal.

I'm 47, racing age 48. My saddle is comfortably a full 1.5 cm above where I was fit five years ago. I maintain about 8 or 9 cm drop from saddle to bars.
and I never stretch.

There is no support that either stretching or weight training helps your cycling performance. Cycling helps cycling performance.

A holistic approach is great of your aims are more in line with holistic goals. If you want to be more limber, stronger, and a good cyclist, then stretch, lift, and bike. If all you care about is biking, then get on it.

Seems to me that there is a lot of support for including other modalities in your conditioning, specifically to improve cycling performance. Pros seem to really like their post-race massage, for example. Lance, as I recall, had lots of chiropractic care. And then there's the fact that cycling-oriented fitness experts like Chirs Carmichael, Joe Friel and Arnie Baker all incorporate stretching and strength work as key elements of their programs. One of those OLN Road to the Tour shows even had a scene where a bunch of Disco riders were in the weight room together.

If you ride as well as you want and don't ever get injured in any way, that's great. No need to waste your time on other stuff. But for every one who complains about knee pain or has IT band problems or who can't stay in the drops for more than a minute at a time, etc. some well designed off-the-bike work can make a real difference in the quality of their cycling.

I'm 47, racing age 48. My saddle is comfortably a full 1.5 cm above where I was fit five years ago. I maintain about 8 or 9 cm drop from saddle to bars. and I never stretch.
I assume it’s years of riding that has got your body use to that position, but let’s say you’re a guy who gets sore with a zero drop and a 80mm stem - who want's to get to a 10cm drop and a 120mm stem in as short amount of time as possible. Would you then agree that stretching is useful?

I started riding seriously maybe four years ago. I haven't changed my position very much since then, although as I have tweaked things and lost a little weight and changed saddles built up different bikes, my position has changed a little, I suppose.
Look, some people are happy with themselves only it they maintain a certain level of flexibility. Go for it. Rock the stretching. But it doesn't help you cycle. Riding helps you to ride. Why stretch into that position, which may or may not ever work for you, when you can ride into it gradually, as your muscles develop, etc.?
I get a little exercised over this because (a) I used to stretch and never understood why, and it typically would make me feel worse instead of better, (b) I'm tired of guys telling me how better my life would be if I stretched, and (c) I'm really tired of guys telling me how I need to stretch to stay limber "when I get older." I've been told the last by guys a fraction of my age.
There is no science supporting stretching as aiding performance. None. Nada. I wouldn't care so much if maybe it was just that we didn't understand why stretching helps, if that it helps is proved. But there is none saying it helps, and you are being lied to by all of these guys that say it does. That drives me nuts, all of the conventional wisdoms that get spouted in this sport.

Oh what the heck, I've stretching all my life and it hasn't hurt me none. I stretch dang near everyday and its feel good!

So, for me, it doesn't matter if stretching does any good for my cycling. I'd stretch anyhoo, because it makes me feel good and it helps me with other physical endeavors

Peace