I have been reading many of the threads on microstretching and came across one in which the individuals where discussing a article that seemed to be given rave reviews by the individuals who read it and/ or tried it. So I read it myself thought it had some good ideas and decided that I would seek the opinion of a professional.
I had given it to a well respected Sport Physician with graduate training in biomechanics and I thought I would post his comments.
The article is generally terribly written (the worst I have read in some time), and would receive a grade of, at best, C- or D+ if submitted in my class in Sport Medicine. It represents a spewing of truth claims unsupported by any evidence of significance, badly organized, with poor grammar and much abuse of medical terminology.
It contains many factual errors; for example, to say that tendons are inelastic is just plain wrong! Tendons are indeed stiffer than (non-activated) muscle, but they are elastic! The author clearly has little or no grasp of tissue biomechanics. He completely disregards any existing evidence, all of which tells us (so far anyway) that stretching has no long term effects on stiffness of tissues; rather, it effects their length.
The author clearly has no understanding of the role of flexibility in either performance or health, making wild BS statements about how flexibility generates “automatic”, “highly responsive” movements of “second nature”! What crap! Maybe they should read a Motor Learning textbook, so they know the difference between neural facilitation of repeated movement patterns, and increased range-of-motion, which is what flexibility produces.
The author makes many truth claims about the effects, either at a tissue level, or at a holistic organ level, about the differential effects of different regimens of stretching. This is a subject of great interest and relevance, about which we do not know enough. Who knows, some of what they claim may be true, but they provide no evidence in support of that possible truth, other than saying they believe it, they use it, it works for them, etc.
Some decent research comparing different regimens of stretching (frequency, duration, magnitude of forces) in a systematic way, with systematic and objective measures of outcome, would be useful and interesting. This author does not provide that.
I thought this would be of interest to some individuals
Who is this well respected sports physician? I know a few well respected sports physicians who support microstretching and a few elite atheltes who have had it as part of their daily routine for years.
What’s on trial here, the ‘microstretching’ or the ‘article’? The distinction is kind of important because both might be right in their own context. I’m also somewhat versed in the scientific discourse, albeit in the hermeneutic kind and philosophy of science at large, and I also feel frustration when something is inappropriately prepared. On the other hand, when it comes to athletics (not science), practical implications have the prerogative of claiming validity (as opposed to theoretical justification).
Sadly, a great deal of practical (or ordinary) knowledge is forced into scientific discourse in order to be taken seriously – often a misleading notion I think. And consequently, the scientific outcomes in these cases will show poor scientific standard, although maybe valid in “truth”. The ‘scientific’ prefix (according to scientific proof…, scientists have…, scientific evidence implies … etc.) for saying something is becoming compulsory, and empty at the same time. To me, the “scientific-prefix” is redundant. I have seen too much “scientific” bullshit in my time, although some really good stuff too. As scientists, we try our best and we must respect the methods as well as the routine, but we cannot hide behind the prefix itself.
Sadly, a great deal of practical (or ordinary) knowledge is forced into scientific discourse in order to be taken seriously – often a misleading notion I think. And consequently, the scientific outcomes in these cases will show poor scientific standard, although maybe valid in “truth”. The ‘scientific’ prefix (according to scientific proof…, scientists have…, scientific evidence implies … etc.) for saying something is becoming compulsory, and empty at the same time. To me, the “scientific-prefix” is redundant. I have seen too much “scientific” bullshit in my time, although some really good stuff too. As scientists, we try our best and we must respect the methods as well as the routine, but we cannot hide behind the prefix itself.
Okay, I’ll step in and provide some insight, having worked with the “Microstretching” guy. The comments from Stiver9’s post are valid. What we have here is a good concept (microstretching) that is not properly introduced to the public and the medical community - whether through articles or presentations. If you look at the guidelines provided for microstretching, you will find they are quite simple and easy to implement (long holds of 60 sec per stretch, 3x per muscle group, and low tension stretching). Nothing fancy. So that is how it should be presented.
However, the developer of microstretching, rather than presenting it as a simple way to get results, has shrouded the whole concept in mystery and medical pseudo-babble in an effort to make people go “ooh, ahhh.” The lay person may think that microstretching is the cat’s ass, but the medical people are pissed off because the developer tries to sound like he is coming from a clinical/medical point of view. It is a marketing ploy that I feel is flawed or, at the very least, very premature.
What I see from microstretching (or passive, static stretching) is as follows:
It reduces muscle tone, relaxing muscles. In this way, it is very effective for people/athletes who have overuse injuries and may have exceeded their capacity over a series of workouts (i.e. overstressed peripherally). It is also a good maintenance routine.
Like other therapies (accupuncture for example) it can elicit a parasympathetic response that relaxes the individual, reduces stress, speeds recovery and provides a means of reducing pain.
It teaches individuals to be aware of their bodies and the state of their musculature and connective tissue.
Does anything happen at the cellular level? Possibly. But I don’t think the developer of microstretching has the background or resources to determine if it actually does. But, unfortunately, he infers that it does, without really having proof. This pisses off the medical people and sports scientists.
So, it is basically up to the individual to determine how to use the technique. Don’t get caught up in the semantics. It is simply passive static stretching.
Sure I care! I don’t question the criticism of the article. But should I disregard microstretching due to a possibly poorly written article about microstretching? Surely not!
Stiver9 … it’s good that you presented the information here – good insight! – now the discussion can start, not end!
Having used very basic Microstretching routines with my swimmers in the last three years or so,I found N2’s first and third point to be deeply true and precious either for the athlete and the coach.
As for the second point: N2,how do you monitor the parasympathetic response elicited by MS (or other therapy approaches as you mention) ? Do you have any evidence of the phenomenon or it is just speculative?
Your experience on this might be very valuable to me.
I’ve done some crude experiments with recording R-R variations (HRV data) pre- and post-stretching and noticed some consistent increases in parasympathetic involvement post-stretching. Because I incorporate some basic breathing exercises as part of our routine, with an emphasis on slow, easy exhales (vagal response), perhaps this is involved too.
Now, I’ve discussed this with an ART/accupuncturist and he had similar results with using stim needles on an athlete. He said that he saw an immediate increase in parasympathetic response after inserting needles using an Omega Wave system.
Have you done any experiments of this nature to test different recovery and regeneration methods? I think it is an exciting area of research.
Thanks D, very interesting information right on target!
I’m planning to sart some monitoring experiments very soon with one of the swimmers’ physiotherapist…
I did notice some general positive effects in overall adaptation and muscle tone management in one athlete using Microstretching compared to another in the same program who disliked it and did not employ it to the same degree.
At that time I did not have enough experience to use and understand the OW data extensively, and I missed the opportunity.