Practical recommendations on stretching exercise: a Delphi consensus statement of international experts
The verdict
What is stretching actually good for, and what is it not worth doing?
Stretching reliably improves range of motion and reduces muscle stiffness, but it does little for muscle growth, strength, posture, post-exercise recovery, or general injury prevention. For most goals other than flexibility, resistance training and other approaches work better.
Mixed pictureRead paper
ConsensusModerate evidence
Key points
- A panel of 20 international research experts reached consensus (at least 80% agreement) across 8 stretching topics using a Delphi process.
- Stretching improves range of motion and reduces muscle stiffness, though foam rolling, jogging, cycling, and full-range resistance training can achieve similar range-of-motion gains.
- Stretching is not recommended as a primary strategy for building muscle, increasing strength, improving posture, aiding recovery, or preventing injury in general.
- Chronic static stretching may benefit vascular health (arterial stiffness, endothelial function), but the panel stressed more research is needed.
- Prolonged static stretching (over 60 s per muscle) before maximal or explosive effort can impair performance and should be avoided.
How it was conducted
- Design
- Delphi consensus statement based on review of systematic reviews
- Panel
- 20 international stretching research experts
- Consensus threshold
- Minimum 80% agreement to adopt a recommendation
- Topics covered
- Acute and chronic effects on range of motion, strength, hypertrophy, stiffness, injury prevention, recovery, posture, and cardiovascular health
What they found
- Acute range of motion (95% consensus): a minimum of 2 bouts of 5 s to 30 s of stretching, typically 30 to 60 s per muscle, with no single technique superior.
- Chronic range of motion (95% consensus): static or PNF stretching preferred over dynamic, 2 to 3 sets daily held 30 to 120 s per muscle.
- Chronic strength (85% consensus): only small gains possible with high-dose static stretching of at least 15 min per session per muscle, at least 5 times per week, for at least 6 weeks.
- Hypertrophy (90% consensus): any muscle-mass effect requires daily static stretching over 15 min per day per muscle for at least 6 weeks, and is small relative to time invested.
- Acute stiffness reduction (90% consensus): static stretching over 4 min per muscle.
- Chronic stiffness reduction (90% consensus): supervised intensive static stretching of at least 4 min per muscle, 5 days per week, for at least 3 weeks.
- Post-exercise recovery (100% consensus) and posture (100% consensus): stretching not recommended for either purpose.
- Chronic vascular benefit (95% consensus): 15 min of static stretching per muscle, 5 days per week, for at least 4 weeks.
Limitations
- A consensus statement reflects expert interpretation of existing reviews rather than new primary data, so it inherits the gaps and biases of the underlying literature.
- The panel rated confidence in the recovery evidence as low, and several recommendations rest on initial or limited evidence.
- Many practical questions remain open, including fascial and tendon adaptations, dosing for highly flexible people, clinical and pathological populations, and long-term sustainability.
- Possible trade-offs are noted but not quantified, such as static stretching reducing muscle injuries while potentially increasing bone or joint injuries.
Why it matters
- For patients
- If your goal is flexibility or looser, less stiff muscles, stretching helps, but it will not build muscle, fix your posture, or speed recovery, so do not rely on it for those.
- For clinicians
- Recommend stretching mainly for range-of-motion and stiffness goals, and steer patients toward resistance training for strength, hypertrophy, posture, and injury prevention, while noting stretching can be an accessible option for those unable to do more demanding exercise.
- For readers
- Stretching is genuinely useful for flexibility and stiffness but is widely overcredited for strength, posture, recovery, and injury prevention, where the evidence does not support it as a primary tool.
Source
doi:10.1016/j.jshs.2025.101067
Read the original paperMore Exercise & Loading studies
- Competency and confidence in qualitative biomechanical assessment of exercise technique among exercise professionalsPrimary study
- Effect of adherence to exercise-based injury prevention programmes on the risk of sports injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTsMeta-analysis
- Are maximal power and maximal aerobic capacity in older and very old adults dependent on their physical activityPrimary study
- Hamstring muscle architecture and microstructure changes following Nordic hamstring exercise trainingPrimary study
- Resistance training in pregnancy: systematic review and meta-analysis of pregnancy, delivery and fetal outcomesMeta-analysis
- Expectations about the benefit of exercise, not surgery, are associated with future pain and functionPrimary study