Yesterday for the lats I held the fully stretched position of a DB pullover, felt that in my lats pretty good.
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
PF_88 wrote:
Yesterday for the lats I held the fully stretched position of a DB pullover, felt that in my lats pretty good.
That’s pretty cool, thanks! I’ll try it next time.
Any more suggestions from people?
BBB[/quote]
What the hell man!?!? You can’t go and turn a troll thread into a useful discussion! not cool man, NOT cool. hahaha!
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
PF_88 wrote:
Yesterday for the lats I held the fully stretched position of a DB pullover, felt that in my lats pretty good.
That’s pretty cool, thanks! I’ll try it next time.
Any more suggestions from people?
BBB[/quote]
Here is an article with (I believe) Parillo’s original fascial stretches:
http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/magazine/fascialstretching.htm
I like the “incline biceps stretch”, and somtimes will do the behind the back shrug stretch. I also do a variation of the DB shoulder stretch, but use a high cable (thanks Kubo), it’s a great medial delt stretch. I also do a variation of the triceps stretch using an ez-curl bar, but I sit up straight (with my back supported) instead of laying on a flat bench as I feel I can focus on my triceps better that way.
It is also possible to do fascial stretching for your hamstrings and quads. The above picture is one of the possible fascial hamstring stretches.
Here is a pic of a myofascial quad stretch. You can also do the stretch with more body angle.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Dante Trudel[/quote]
Fixed that for you… I had to lol.
First, did you even read the study? All this study tells me is that the individuals conducting the study have no idea about real world training.
Who the hell would perform a dynamic warmup then static stretch immediately before an high intensity exercise?
You would perform static stretching prior to a dynamic warmup for muscles that are facilitated and creating reciprical inhibition in its antagonist.
All the studies that I have seen to show that you should not static stretch prior to exercise have been so poorly designed that it is obvious that they want a particular outcome rather than finding what is best.
You should use a combination of flexibility methods to match the individual requirements. I have had Olympic athletes static stretch only to find an increase in performance.
Many of these individuals conducting these studies have no real world experience therefore have no idea what really works.
On a side note. Do you guys know what PNF is. It is not contract relax stretching - the fitness industry has messed this up for so long that PNF is taught as CR stretching at certification courses.
“Join me, join me in my opinion.” This is what I hear and read on this site and on others. It’s pathetic. The guy thinks is works, let him do it. Why are so many so hell bent on changing the minds of others in the matter of personal opinion?
How’s this? Calf stretching has helped me in biceps brachii training. I am absolutely convinced it helps, I have measured an increase in both size and strength since I started it, and will continue to do it regardless of what anyone says. Discuss
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Serious question: Why would you want to stretch out after lifting?
You’ve just torn the hell out of your muscles, causing all sorts of microtrauma. If you did the job properly, you should be in considerable pain.
And now…you’re going to stretch out those miniature tears and cause even more pain? What the hell is that? And how on earth is it supposed to increase your flexibility?
Correct static stretching involves taking a muscle to it’s normal range or motion (when the “stretch reflex” gets tripped) and then wait in that position until the nervous system eventually stops triggering the stretch reflex and the muscle relaxes.
You then increase the stretch more, until again the stretch reflex is triggered, wait until it relaxes and continue this process until you actually feel pain, numbness, or spasms.
At this point you want to terminate the stretch, as you’re not going to be able to go any further into the stretch safely.
Other forms of stretching (like PNF) involve contracting the desired muscle isometrically and then using the contrast in tension/fatigue of the muscle to be stretched, to allow you to reach a greater ROM.
Both PNF and static stretching have more to do with overriding the nervous system than they do with actually elongating the muscle itself.
Extreme/weighted stretching is designed to stretch the fascia/connective tissues surrounding the muscles, which is the same concept behind soft tissue work (foam rolling, deep tissue massage, ART).
Whenever the body is in pain, the stretch reflex fires and the muscles will not relax. That’s why static stretching after lifting is a PISS POOR idea, in all honesty.
No, it’s not. And no the stretch reflex fires when the golgi tendon organs sense that there is too much tension in the muscle. This is a protective mechanism to protect the body from injuring itself.
Stretching after your workout means that your muscles will be less able to resist the stretch, not to mention that the muscles are already plenty warmed-up which makes it easier to move them through a full ROM.
I bring this up because it was mentioned on another board and it’s one of the widely held tenets of lifting that I’ve never been able to understand.
As far as “force generation” is concerned: We all know the body is a kinetic chain. We’ve all read articles about poor posture and poor mobility leading to reduced power output.
So, if stretching contributes to pain free ROM, thereby increasing mobility, then how could this possibly NOT translate to increased power output?
It can be beneficial to perform static stretches prior to working out in certain contexts. For instance, it would be okay to stretch out the chest/shoulders prior to squatting if it made it easier to position yourself under the bar.
But, stretching the muscle(s) you are about to train is a bad idea. It doesn’t translate to increased power output because static stretching is basically telling the nervous system to relax and basically decreases the nervous system’s ability to stimulate the muscles to contract.
You’re telling me that you can produce more power when you’re stiff as a brick and can barely move? Bullshit, I don’t buy it. Power and flexibility go hand in hand. Look at any sprinter.
No one is saying not to do mobility work priot to training. But there are other methods of improving mobility that don’t hinder force production. Such as active flexibility drills, and performing a proper movement specific warm-up (basically “ramping” your sets, starting out with a very light weight and working through the full ROM, then gradually adding weight until you reach your “working” weight).
It’s not a matter of static stretching or nothing, or that static stretching is the only method of improving mobility.
Question the dogma that says you shouldn’t static stretch before lifting. If the explanation for a claim doesn’t make sense, and you’re familiar with the topic, then the claim is usually bullshit.
Question it all you want, heck do static stretching before you lift if you truly believe it helps you. But if you understand the physiology behind static stretching, or have actually ever properly performed static stretching, then you’ll know that there are better ways of improving mobility prior to working out.[/quote]
Perfect. As always, you have covered everything i wanted to say.
NP - you are an informed poster in many cases, but sometimes you simply do not make sense. Why make a long rambling post questioning things that are well known, proven and accepted? A bit of research and education would have told you that your new “enlightenment” was incorrect.
I might like to add to sento’s post - static stretching is used in sports injury rehab.
When a muscle is strained and either a low grade, or healed to a low grade, it is often stretched after deep manipulation. The manipulations are to break down the healing process, the collagen fibres which - if left to do as they do - will arrange haphazardly restricting ROM and leaving scar tissue. The strethcing immediately after this technique (deep frictions etc) helps to align the fibres longitudinally as is the pattern with muscles (from insertion points at least, if the stretch is along the natural pull of the muscle). This makes repair much more effective and stable in the years to come. It also increases fluid transport, reducing oedema and allowing the healing process to proceed.
This is another reason that static stretching may be beneficial post workout.
Brook
[quote]honkie wrote:
First, did you even read the study? All this study tells me is that the individuals conducting the study have no idea about real world training.
Who the hell would perform a dynamic warmup then static stretch immediately before an high intensity exercise?
You would perform static stretching prior to a dynamic warmup for muscles that are facilitated and creating reciprical inhibition in its antagonist.
All the studies that I have seen to show that you should not static stretch prior to exercise have been so poorly designed that it is obvious that they want a particular outcome rather than finding what is best.
You should use a combination of flexibility methods to match the individual requirements. I have had Olympic athletes static stretch only to find an increase in performance.
Many of these individuals conducting these studies have no real world experience therefore have no idea what really works.
On a side note. Do you guys know what PNF is. It is not contract relax stretching - the fitness industry has messed this up for so long that PNF is taught as CR stretching at certification courses. [/quote]
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
jp_dubya wrote:
How’s this? Calf stretching has helped me in biceps brachii training. I am absolutely convinced it helps, I have measured an increase in both size and strength since I started it, and will continue to do it regardless of what anyone says. Discuss
Now if you had said “calf stretching helps my triceps”, I would agreed with you wholeheartedly, seeing as how the proper name for the calf muscles is triceps surae.
BBB[/quote]
surae they are, surae.
Honkie, if I’m understanding what you’re saying correctly, you’d have athletes perform static stretching on specific muscles (antagonist to those preferred for the training session) in order to inhibit them and the associated co-contraction, correct?
I take no issue with this, and I don’t think the authors of any of those articles did either. None of those experiments were intended to test a real-world training protocol–they were intended to see what the acute effects of static stretching on an agonist muscle were. No good peer-reviewed exercise science study is going to examine the effects of static stretching on something like sprint performance–you can’t control the variables with any degree of certainty.
The OP implied that ALL static stretching was good stretching pre-workout, which is what I took issue with.
[quote] Brook wrote:
Perfect. As always, you have covered everything i wanted to say.
[…]
I might like to add to sento’s post -
[…]
The manipulations are to break down the healing process, the collagen fibres which - if left to do as they do - will arrange haphazardly restricting ROM and leaving scar tissue. The strethcing immediately after this technique (deep frictions etc) helps to align the fibres longitudinally as is the pattern with muscles (from insertion points at least, if the stretch is along the natural pull of the muscle). This makes repair much more effective and stable in the years to come. It also increases fluid transport, reducing oedema and allowing the healing process to proceed.
This is another reason that static stretching may be beneficial post workout.
Brook[/quote]
Now YOU have covered exactly what I wanted to say!
Various forms of stretching probably have all their pros and cons.
While after years of static stretching I became a fan of dynamic stretching I still had to admit that static stretches have a very recreational effect. Why is that, I asked myself.
After some research, this led me to the scientific conclusions you posted. I think this is why it can feel very relaxing and rewarding to include a (slow and deliberate) ss-sessions post workout.
Good thread, btw.
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Here is a pic of a myofascial quad stretch. You can also do the stretch with more body angle.
Sentoguy, thanks for the link to the article. I have yet to read it, but wanted to comment on the tow stretches you provide pictures for.
Personally, I would never do these as they place the lumbar spine in hyperflexion or hyperextension, meaning that the spinal tisses will get much more of a stretch than the larger, stiffer quads or hams IMO.
You are also end ranging the intervertebral joints, which is never good, since it leads to ligamentous laxity, which is a sure-fire route to early spinal degeneration.
BBB[/quote]
I assume you’re talking about the hamstrings stretch (and perhaps the quad stretch, but if you tried it you’d know there is little to no stress placed on the spine). Yeah, the way it’s demonstrated in the picture does have a fair bit of spinal flexion (it’s not hyperflexion).
When I actually do the stretch I make sure to keep my spine in a naturally curved position, or even slightly arch it. It’s sort of like performing a RDL, but stopping at the bottom ROM and letting the weight pull you down further into the stretch.
If you didn’t have the required lumbar strength to hold that position for 60+ seconds, you could always try other variations of hamstring stretches. Like I said, that’s just one variation.
The above pic is another “Extreme” stretch for the hamstrings.
[quote]Scott M wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Dante Trudel
Fixed that for you… I had to lol. [/quote]
LOL. Good catch Scott, thanks. 
This has always been my favourite stretch for the hamstrings
I feel that the most, although my leg is more straight then the picture. Hamstrings have always been my worst part, I blame that on lots of deadlifts with minimal stretching as I am one of the “has to pull a muscle to start stretching it a lot” It is definately something I need to start incorporating.
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
You start with an incorect premise (that muscles ‘hurt’ immediately following a workout). No they don’t. They are fatigued, sure, but DOMS sets in much later.[/quote]
It isn’t DOMs, it’s microtrauma. Do I need to post a FLEX picture of some pro screaming his lungs out on a set? Do you think they are faking it? That is how [bodybuilding] training is supposed to be feel. Training to failure hurts like hell.
The very last I want to do after painful drop sets is subject my muscles to even more damage from stretching. Not only is it completely ineffective for increasing flexibility, but it’s dangerous.
Get this through your head: There are no Pubmed studies on people who actually TRAIN HARD. i.e. non “elite female soccer players”.
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
Then you go on to display a poor understanding of neurophysiology. The myotactic reflex is a critical factor in power generation within a muscle. Static stretching performed, pre-training, blunts the myotactic reflex, resulting in less power generation.[/quote]
It’s not a “poor understanding”, it’s simple disagreement. I understand your science, I just happen to think it’s wrong. The purpose of static stretching, as I see it, isn’t to inhibit the stretch reflex. It’s to physically elongate tissues and perform “body work” on yourself. I wrote this before, so you ought to read better.
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
You then set up a strawman with your
“You’re telling me that you can produce more power when you’re stiff as a brick and can barely move?” argument. This is one extreme that I don’t think anyone is proposing. Of course extreme stiffness limits power, just as extreme anything will probably limit power.[/quote]
It isn’t a strawman because there are people who are legitimately stiff as a brick before stretching. I happen to be one of them. And yes, I still think that people to whom this does not apply are better off with static stretching before lifting.
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
I’m all in favour of questioning dogma, but you seem to forget that static stretching, pre-training was dogma decades ago, superceded by later and better research and thinking.[/quote]
Does “later” necessarily correlate to better? Don’t we get an article on this site every week from some old timer which advocates a decades old training system?
If I turned out to be right, it wouldn’t be the first time that old school wisdom trumped new age “science”. Just something for you to consider.
[quote]Sneaky weasel wrote:
Seriously, do you have no idea how empirical research works?
“I then ignore it in favor of my own conclusions”[/quote]
I ignore it because it contradicts my own empirical observations and time-validated principles which I believe to be true. Nobody has a monopoly on the attainment of new knowledge, alright? I’ll put my own research against yours any day. That’s the purpose of having a thread such as this.
If you’d like to get into a debate on epistemology, the philosophy of science and the origins of the empirical method, I’d be happy to oblige you.
[quote]Sneaky weasel wrote:
Your conclusions are shit then. Your sample, whether it’s one or two or 20 is insufficient to conclude ANYTHING. Hell, none of those studies are sufficient to conclude anything. But the totality of the evidence, if we were to conduct a meta-analysis, would strongly support the notion that static stretching inhibits strength and power expression.[/quote]
The conclusions of one well-performed study supercede those of ten poorly-conceived studies. If I think a study is worthless, I don’t attach “marginal” importance to its conclusions. I toss them out entirely.
[quote]Sneaky weasel wrote:
Like BBB said, I’m not bothered by questioning dogma. But you’re not asking us to question dogma. You want everyone to accept that you’re right, without demonstrating any corroborating information. Show me your evidence.[/quote]
I have posted a logical argument to back up my assertion that static stretching before lifting is superior. You can attempt to refute it but you can’t deny that it’s there.
[quote]Sneaky weasel wrote:
Better yet, post that picture of yourself that you showed on the cross training thread. I think that should end this argument nicely.[/quote]
What now, a simple strawman fallacy? What happened to that empirical credibility you were vaunting just moments ago?
[quote]Sneaky weasel wrote:
Honestly, I still think you’re a troll. No real human being could be at once this narcissistic and this stupid.[/quote]
Never doubt the capability of the human race.
[quote]honkie wrote:
First, did you even read the study? All this study tells me is that the individuals conducting the study have no idea about real world training.
Who the hell would perform a dynamic warmup then static stretch immediately before an high intensity exercise?
You would perform static stretching prior to a dynamic warmup for muscles that are facilitated and creating reciprical inhibition in its antagonist.
All the studies that I have seen to show that you should not static stretch prior to exercise have been so poorly designed that it is obvious that they want a particular outcome rather than finding what is best.
You should use a combination of flexibility methods to match the individual requirements. I have had Olympic athletes static stretch only to find an increase in performance.
Many of these individuals conducting these studies have no real world experience therefore have no idea what really works.[/quote]
Precisely.
What you “get” with the majority of these Pumed studies are perfectly controlled, perfectly conducted, perfectly measured experiments which are nevertheless worthless because they are designed by pencil-necked dorks who consistently pick the WRONG THINGS to study.
Any thinking person should be able to see that it is a joke. But people read some technical language and see “Journal of Applied Physiology” and they automatically fall into a stupor. Well, wake up!
Here is the deal:
In some areas of science (for instance, epidemiology), proper control of environmental variables is paramount to obtaining usable data from experimentation.
In other areas, control is practically irrelevant due to the absence of such variables or their insignificance.
Weight training often - though not always - falls into the latter category.
I do not need a double-blind study to accurately judge whether or not static stretching aids or hinders performance prior to lifting. The experiment is simple enough to conduct and there aren’t many variables that could potentially “screw up” the authenticity of the data.
There’s nothing special about applying “gold standard” research studies to areas such as weight training. Stop falling for the academic dogma of the research profession.
There is no such thing as a “perfectly controlled” study, and there never could be. Reason? The ultimate “environmental variable” is time. What most people fail to realize about “falsifiability” is that it requires time travel. Science has absolutely no way of “proving” that two events occuring at two different times are alike.
You couldn’t even BEGIN to “prove it” because the first experiment would be completely unreproducible, owing to the fact that we have no way to access the past from the present.
Yes, this is metaphysics and ontology. Bet you never thought you’d go this deep over shitty pubmed research, did you?
Read a layman’s guide to quantum physics sometime and recognize that every event in the universe is unique.
Once you understand this, you can stop letting others play scientist for you and start doing your own empirical research on a daily basis, as I have - right there in your own room, your own gym.
[quote]honkie wrote:
On a side note. Do you guys know what PNF is. It is not contract relax stretching - the fitness industry has messed this up for so long that PNF is taught as CR stretching at certification courses. [/quote]
I’ll refrain from cheating by looking it up. If memory serves me correctly it’s antagonist-inhibition, no?