“Stretching has wide appeal, but there seems to exist some mismatch between its purported applications and what the evidence shows.”
The Snapshot: an international panel of 20 stretching experts reached consensus that stretching does not prevent injury overall, does not aid recovery, and can reduce performance when done wrong—but it does effectively improve range of motion when done consistently.
The Featured Resource
Practical Recommendations on Stretching Exercise: A Delphi Consensus Statement
Warneke, Thomas, Blazevich, Afonso, Behm, et al. | Journal of Sport and Health Science, 2025
This paper assembled 20 of the world’s most published stretching researchers from 12 countries and 4 continents. The panel included strength and conditioning coaches for Olympic gold medalists, physical therapists with decades of clinical experience, and authors of the very meta-analyses that define the field. They used a Delphi process (structured anonymous rounds requiring 80%+ agreement) to produce consensus recommendations across 12 application areas. (Warneke et al., 2025)
Key insight: The gap between what the evidence supports and what practitioners believe about stretching is wider than in almost any other fitness domain. This paper exists specifically to close that gap.
Supporting: ACSM Position Stand on Exercise Prescription
ACSM recommends flexibility exercises for each major muscle-tendon group (totaling 60 seconds per exercise) on ≥2 days per week. Stretches held 10–30 seconds each, repeated 2–4 times. Static, dynamic, and PNF methods all effective. (Garber et al., 2011)
Definitions you can actually use
Static stretching: Holding a position at end range of motion for a sustained period, without movement. (Warneke et al., 2025)
Dynamic stretching: Controlled movement through the range of motion without being held in an end position. (Warneke et al., 2025)
Range of motion (ROM): The full movement potential of a joint—the measurable outcome that stretching reliably improves. (Konrad et al., 2024)
The Research:
What the Evidence Actually Supports
Finding 1: The Optimal Stretching Dose Has Been Identified (Tier 1)
Ingram et al. (2025) conducted a systematic review, meta-analysis, and multivariate meta-regression of static stretching dose-response in Sports Medicine. They searched 7 databases up to June 2024. (Ingram et al., 2025)
Both acute and chronic static stretching significantly improve flexibility
Adults with poor baseline flexibility showed greater improvement than those with average flexibility
Neither high- nor low-intensity stretching was significantly different—you don’t need to stretch painfully to improve
Verdict: 60 seconds per muscle group, ≥2 days/week, moderate intensity. Consistency beats intensity.
Finding 2: Static Stretching Before Exercise Reduces Performance (Tier 1)
Kay & Blazevich (2012) reviewed 106 studies in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. Behm et al. (2016) expanded with 125 studies in Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism. (Kay & Blazevich, 2012; Behm et al., 2016)
Static stretching ≥60 seconds per muscle group: average 7.5% reduction in muscle strength
Static stretching <45 seconds: minimal negative effects
Dynamic stretching: +1.3% performance vs. static stretching: −3.7%
Verdict: If your goal is performance, warm up with dynamic movement. Save static stretching for after.
Finding 3: Why Consistency Matters More Than Intensity (Tier 1)
Konrad et al. (2024) meta-analyzed 77 studies (186 effect sizes, 3,870 participants) on chronic stretching effects in Journal of Sports and Health Science. (Konrad et al., 2024)
Stretch training ≥2 weeks significantly increases ROM (large effect size, p < 0.001)
Neither volume, intensity, nor frequency were significant moderators
ROM improvements were primarily driven by increased stretch tolerance—a neural adaptation—rather than structural tissue changes
The mechanism: Your nervous system learns to tolerate more stretch before triggering a protective contraction. This is why consistency matters more than intensity—you’re training your nervous system, not physically lengthening tissue. It’s also why gains come relatively quickly but reverse when you stop. (Konrad et al., 2024; Ingram et al., 2025)
Verdict: Stretching works. But the mechanism is neural, not structural—which means consistency is the only lever that matters.
Common flexibility claims, evidence-weighted
Claim | Evidence Tier | Verdict | What to do |
|---|---|---|---|
“Stretch to prevent injury” | Tier 1 (consensus) | Not supported overall. (Warneke et al., 2025) | Warm up with dynamic movement instead. |
“Stretch to recover faster” | Tier 1 (consensus) | Not supported. (Warneke et al., 2025) | Stretch post-exercise for ROM—not recovery. |
“You need to stretch harder” | Tier 1 (meta-regression) | Not supported. High intensity no more effective. (Ingram et al., 2025) | Stretch to tightness, not pain. |
“Flexibility is mostly genetic” | Tier 1 (meta-analysis) | Overstated. ROM improves regardless of baseline. (Konrad et al., 2024) | Consistency matters more than starting point. |
The Red Flags
How to spot flexibility BS
These patterns signal low-quality stretching claims:
“Stretch to prevent injury” without specifying type or context. The Delphi consensus found no overall injury prevention benefit. Some claims even acknowledge muscle injury reduction but ignore the trade-off with increased joint/bone injury risk. (Warneke et al., 2025)
“You need to stretch more intensely.” Meta-regression shows high-intensity stretching is not more effective than moderate. Pain is not a signal of progress. (Ingram et al., 2025)
“This mobility routine replaces your warm-up.” Prolonged static stretching before power work reduces performance by up to 7.5%. Dynamic warm-ups are evidence-supported. (Kay & Blazevich, 2012; Behm et al., 2016)
The Framework:
The “Flexibility Fundamentals” Plan
The simplest implementation of the strongest levers. (Warneke et al., 2025; Garber et al., 2011; Kay & Blazevich, 2012)
Step 1 Pick a schedule | Step 2 Match type to timing | Step 3 Hit the dose | Step 4 Track ROM, not pain |
|---|---|---|---|
≥2 days/week. Daily is better for chronic gains. Consistency is the strongest moderator. (Konrad et al., 2024) | Pre-exercise: dynamic. Post-exercise/standalone: static or PNF. Avoid >60s static before strength work. (Kay & Blazevich, 2012) | 60s total per muscle group (e.g., 2×30s). Moderate intensity—to tightness, not pain. (Ingram et al., 2025; Garber et al., 2011) | ROM is the evidence-supported outcome. Don’t chase soreness reduction or injury prevention. (Warneke et al., 2025) |
If flexibility is significantly limited: what’s actually evidence-based?
If you have joint pain, recent injuries, or ROM limitations affecting daily function, get assessed by a physical therapist. The sit-and-rise test (de Brito et al., 2014) integrates flexibility, strength, balance, and coordination—and low scores predict mortality risk independently of age and BMI.
Verdict: If you can’t get on and off the floor comfortably, don’t start with a social media “mobility routine.” Get assessed. (de Brito et al., 2014)
The Contested Question: Does Stretching Type Actually Matter?
The short answer: it depends on the goal.
For chronic ROM gains, Konrad et al. (2024) found static stretching and PNF produced significantly greater improvements than dynamic or ballistic stretching. But for pre-exercise preparation, the performance data is clear: dynamic stretching produces small improvements (+1.3%) while static stretching produces small decrements (−3.7%). (Behm et al., 2016)
The Delphi panel added a further nuance: for populations with very limited flexibility, any consistent stretching type improves ROM. The debate about optimal type is most relevant for trained individuals seeking additional gains. For most people, the type you’ll actually do consistently is the best type. (Warneke et al., 2025; Konrad et al., 2024)
Goal | Best Type | Evidence | Source |
Long-term ROM | Static or PNF | Greater chronic gains | Konrad et al., 2024 |
Pre-exercise | Dynamic | +1.3% performance | Behm et al., 2016 |
General population | Any consistent type | All types improve ROM | Warneke et al., 2025 |
Pain-free improvement | Moderate intensity | High intensity no better | Ingram et al., 2025 |
Verify This
Warneke et al., 2025: DOI: 10.1016/j.jshs.2025.101067
Ingram et al., 2025: DOI: 10.1007/s40279-024-02143-9
Kay & Blazevich, 2012: DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318225cb27
Behm et al., 2016: DOI: 10.1139/apnm-2015-0235
Konrad et al., 2024: DOI: 10.1016/j.jshs.2023.06.002
Garber et al., 2011: DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318213fefb
de Brito et al., 2014: DOI: 10.1177/2047487312471759
Coming Next Week
Week 8: Neuromotor
Balance, coordination, and agility—the fitness components ACSM added as a separate exercise category because they predict falls better than anything else.
Editor's Note
My hips have been tight for years—running, desk work, lifting. What helped was pigeon pose, a few minutes a day…and the realization that wellness from yoga is so much more than stretching (we’ll get to that in a future week).
For now, the lesson is simpler: you don’t need a full practice to address a specific limitation. Identify what’s tight, spend 10 minutes on it, and the research confirms the rest—consistency beats intensity.
—Brian
About the author: Brian S. Dye, Ed.D., is the founder of Applied Wellness, an evidence-based wellness education platform focused on helping people cut through wellness noise and apply credible guidance in real life. Learn more →
References
Behm, D. G., Blazevich, A. J., Kay, A. D., & McHugh, M. (2016). Acute effects of muscle stretching on physical performance, range of motion, and injury incidence in healthy active individuals: A systematic review. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 41(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2015-0235
de Brito, L. B. B., et al. (2014). Ability to sit and rise from the floor as a predictor of all-cause mortality. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 21(7), 892–898. https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487312471759
Garber, C. E., et al. (2011). ACSM position stand: Quantity and quality of exercise. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 43(7), 1334–1359. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e318213fefb
Ingram, L. A., et al. (2025). Optimising the dose of static stretching to improve flexibility. Sports Medicine, 55(3), 597–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02143-9
Kay, A. D., & Blazevich, A. J. (2012). Effect of acute static stretch on maximal muscle performance: A systematic review. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 44(1), 154–164. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e318225cb27
Konrad, A., et al. (2024). Chronic effects of stretching on range of motion: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Journal of Sports and Health Science, 13(2), 186–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2023.06.002
Warneke, K., et al. (2025). Practical recommendations on stretching exercise: A Delphi consensus statement. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 14, 101067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2025.101067