Do we need to static stretch?
Do we need some static stretch to be able to get into this position without the ankles burning like they used to for me, to be able to sit in a deep squat, trying to man squat, touch the elbows to the floor in these positions.
Do we need to static stretch to get to these positions?
It's a really interesting and important question and it's something that's kind of controversial.
Should we stay stretched?
Should we not static stretch?
I think it's the wrong question.
Let's throw that out.
What is static stretching?
Static stretching is low-intensity strength training.
There's very low strength intensity and strength training work.
If I press this 10-kilo dumbbell, which I can press a bunch of times, what is the impact that it's going to have on my system versus if I press a 20-kilo dumbbell or if I press a 30-kilo dumbbell?
This is the question.
That's all the question is about.
The debate around static stretching is completely null and void.
It's simply, can you get results with high repetition strength training versus low repetition strength training?
That is all we're talking about.
If we threw out completely the concept of static stretching and just called it low-intensity isometrics then we'd be in a much better position.
You'll hear about Olympic weightlifters sitting in the bottom of a squat with 150 kilos on their back for five minutes, 60 seconds in the bottom, and then standing up with a heavy weight on the back.
It's isometric strength training.
That's really what we need, to change our terminology to and then for sure you know you can train biceps with a one-kilo dumbbell and get some gains or you can just train it with a more challenging weight and you're going to get a result a lot faster.
The reason why we’re putting so much emphasis on this is because the range of motion and being strong through a great range of motion is really important to performance but if we get wrapped up in the idea of flexibility training and end up spending a lot of time in positions, it's fine if you've got a lot of time to spend but most people don't have a lot of time to spend so then other areas of training will be neglected, skill development, even time with the family, strength training, etc. are going to suffer if you're spending a lot of time.
It becomes a question of load.
If I'm using this position with just body weight, is it just body weight?
Is this static stretching?
It's actually just strength training with less weight.
If I'm only using my upper body to weigh into this position, my head, and my arms are pulling down.
It's on a continuum with doing the same movement with the 10-kilo weight and then I can progress that up as my tissues become more tolerant to load.
If a tissue is injured then we should use less load.
If someone's very deep conditioned then static stretching can make a lot of sense because it's just very low-intensity strength training just like you wouldn't start your grandma with 10-kilogram curls you start with one-kilogram curls.
Static stretching, think of it in the same way.
The reason why it's so ineffective with strong people is because they already have a lot of ability to deal with force in the tissues and they have a lot of tissue there so it needs more load to be able to adapt.
Static stretching is really ineffective for rugby players, as example, having a background in rugby they're told to static stretch, so after training, they're sitting around and they're doing this.
They just need more weight, there's just not enough leverage into this.
Once they've worked on it for a while then they're gonna be able to do this but you never have to static stretch to be able to get your head to your knee, you just simply have to progress load.
If you have a lot of time to sit around a static stretch, cool.
If you want to train your biceps with sets of 50 or sets of 100 as your strength training method, that's great.
Is it the most efficient, effective way?
Is it going to prepare you for extremely high load end range position scenarios that happen in sport, no it's not.
It's not very time efficient and it's not going to take you to the position where you can handle a load in those positions.
If there's an injury there, if there's deep conditioning, then sure, it's just light training.
There's nothing to it.
I think if we abandon the terminology of static stretching, then we'll see a bigger increase in performance.
Just think of it as end-range or long-range strength training.
It's either light, moderately heavy, heavy, or very heavy.
In standing, if I'm going to lean forward what I've just demonstrated to you, I can use my arms with this stretch to provide load.
If I get my head bigger then I'll provide more load.
If I flex my abs then my abdominals can provide some of the loading.
It's all just applying weight.
If I just sit here and don't apply any weight then I'm not going to get any result.
The more weight I apply by shifting my head forward, by turning my abs on, then the more I'm going to get a training effect.
In conclusion, if we can abandon the concept of static stretching and just call it long-range isometrics, I think we're going to see a big improvement in strength and extreme range strength, we're going to see performance go to another level, injuries decrease.
There's nothing wrong with static stretching it's simply low-intensity end-range strength training.
Made with Bullet