"Stretching Before Workouts Makes You Weak!" Mostly True, But Your Workout Volume Will Decline Even More. Plus: Stretching vs. Doms & Stretching for Couch Potatoes

Image 1:Avoid performing stretches before your workout; if you don't do them at all, things like this are out of reach and for the avg. 'no stretcher', 'all bencher', the hunched over look is just right around the corner.

Stretching is one of those topics most trainees are not really interested in. In that most of you are probably happy that most researchers agree that passive stretches, as they may have been prescribed 50 years ago, are counter-indicated before workouts. And though the experts still disagree on whether or not certain active stretching regimen may be useful, most trainees read the headline "Stretching Before Your Workout Reduces Your Strength" once and gave up the in their eyes bothersome, unnecessary ("I've never hurt myself, although I never stretch, bro!") and with the said headline "officially" detrimental pre-workout routine and spend the they otherwise have invested in a couple of stretches either guzzling a caffeine-laden pre-workout product (which is by the way to be consumed 30-45min before a workout) or doing another three to five sets of bench presses, biceps curls and crunches, before, during or after their workout. Even if we discard the fact that neither of those practices will be largely beneficial, this does still raise the question...

Is stretching actually detrimental? And if so, how detrimental is it?

When Renato Barosso and his colleagues from from the Laboratory of Neuromuscular Adaptations to Strength Training at the School of Physical Education and Sport of the University of Sao Paulo recruited the 12 young strength-trained men (20.4 years, 67.9, 173.3cm), they probably had a very similar question on their minds.

Figure 1: Graphical outline of the time-course of the 2 x 4 (1RM or maximal repetition) testing sessions (Barosso. 2012)

As you can see in figure 1 this was a trial in which all participants ,who had been familiarized with the respective protocols on 3 familiarization sessions on separate days, underwent every of the three stretching sessions which consisted of three sets of the supine knee flex, side quadriceps stretch, the sitting toe touch which were performed in the form of

• static stretches (SS) This is probably what you would call "the classic stretch", where you hold each stretch for 30s, make a 30s pause and continue
• proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching (PNF) You perform a passive stretch and hold the stretching position for approximately 5 seconds; then, you perform a 5s near-maximal isometric contraction (Sheard . 2010), relax and passively hold the stretching position for another 20s
• ballistic-stretching (BS) Same procedures as in the static stretch session, but instead of holding the stretching positions for 30 seconds, the subjects had to bob in 1:1-second cycles for 1 minute

and the non-stretched control workouts with subsequent 1RM or maximal number of repetition tests. With the 3 + 1 conditions and the two measuring outcomes being tested on different occasions, this sums up to a total of 8 testing sessions of either 1-RM max leg presses or 80%RM leg presses to failure.

Figure 2: Absolute changes in ROM during the "sit and reach test" (in cm) and rel. changes compared to no-stretching condition in 1-RM strength and maximal number of reps during 80%RM leg presses (data based on Barroso. 2012)

As you can see in figure 2 this is not one of the many SuppVersity posts that's going to bust a myth. Stretches, no matter how you perform them, will negatively effect your strength on the subsequent workout; only the PNF protocol with its short bursts of maximal contractions, however, lead to statistically significant, yet still relatively small (-5.4%) reductions in 1RM strength. What will suffer much more than your strength, though, is your ability to endure longer workouts, or I should say, longer sets: With reductions of

• -8.2 reps (-23%) after the "classic" static stretching routine
• -7.5 reps (-21%) subsequent to the PMF stretching routine, and
• -6.4 reps (-18%) in the maximal rep test after the ballistic stretch

it seems counter-indicated to perform any of these before your training session (the mean number of reps in the control condition was 36).

But doesn't stretching help against soreness? No! Neither pre- nor post-workout stretching offer a significant protection against muscle soreness, a Cochraine Review by Herbert et al. from July 2011 found "improvements" of 0.5 or 1pt, respectively, on a 1-100pts soreness scale after reviewing 12 relevant randomized controlled studies, of which one had more than 2,000 subjects (Herbert. 2011).

So, aside from preventing shortening of the muscles and increasing flexibility is there another reason to stretch? Yes! One surprising finding is that if you are a total couch-potato and don't train at all,  40min of stretching performed 3x / week over the course of 10-weeks will not just increase your flexibility (18.1%), they will also bump your standing long jump (2.3%), vertical jump (6.7%), 20-m sprint (1.3%), knee flexion 1RM (15.3%), knee extension 1RM (32.4%), knee flexion endurance (30.4%) and knee extension endurance (28.5%) performance... what? You are no couch-potato? Great, but these results do still tell you that part of the detrimental effects of stretching on your training performance may well be mitigated by the "training effect" - it's a stressin mini "workout" for your muscles and you would not do 100 body weight squats before your 80% 1RM max-rep test, either - would you?

Despite the fact that the most-heard science based argument against stretching before a workout does in fact involve its well-established negative effects on maximal strength performance, Nelson et al., Franco et al. and Marques et al. reported similar results for knee flexor exercises performed with 40, 50 and 60% of the body weight (Nelson. 2005), 1-3 sets of 20 reps of bench presses (Franco; 2009) and rep-max tests at 40, 60 and 80% knee extensions and bench presses on non-trained individuals (Marques. 2011) as Barroso et al. in the study at hand. The real "news" is thus...

"[...] that not only SS and PNF but also BS impaired the number of repetitions and the total volume (i.e., number of repetitions x external load) performed after stretching when compared with NS [and] that in strength-trained individuals, only the PNF stretching mode impaired the maximal strength production." (Barroso. 2012)

In a more general context, the latter finding, i.e. the influence of the exercise status on the strength declines subsequent to static stretches before a workout, is probably of even greater significance than the notion that you will hamper your strength endurance (note: I stick to this term here, although I am aware that most of you won't think of training at a 80% RM as "strength endurance" training): the questionable significance of data that was generated in an experiment with strength training rookies for the average physical culturist.

In the case of the effects of classic static stretching and ballistic stretches before a workout on the performance during a subsequent 1-RM max strength test, it is now clear that the results from rookies, whose performance drops compared to the no stretch condition, regardless of the protocol, the rookie data is of little to no value for anyone with a coupe of months, let alone years of weight lifting experience.

Bottom line: Irrespective of the last-mentioned problems, the take home message from this and previous studies would be the same for all strength athletes who don't just walk into the gym, crank out a single max set and head home again - Refrain from performing any kind of quasi-static stretching protocol before your workout - and don't forget to look at the study population the next time you see one of the rare studies on resistance training ;-)

References:

• Franco BL, Signorelli GR, Trajano GS, de Oliveira CG. Acute effects of different stretching exercises on muscular endurance. J Strength Cond Res. 2008 Nov;22(6):1832-7. 
• Herbert RD, de Noronha M, Kamper SJ. Stretching to prevent or reduce muscle soreness after exercise. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jul 6;(7):CD004577.
• Marques MC, Costa PB, da Silva Novaes J. Acute effects of two different stretching methods on local muscular endurance performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2011 Mar;25(3):745-52. 
• Nelson AG, Kokkonen J, Arnall DA. Acute muscle stretching inhibits muscle strength endurance performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2005 May;19(2):338-43.
• Sheard PW, Paine TJ. Optimal contraction intensity during proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation for maximal increase of range of motion. J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Feb;24(2):416-21.

Shock Your Calves to Grow Stronger & Recover Faster: $650 Electromyostimulation Device Works, But Is It Worth It?

You will have heard about "calf shocker" routines, but would you have imagined that it takes electro shocks?

I don't know how often I've been writing about the truth and fallacy of the good old saying "no pain, no gain", here at the SuppVersity. And while it certainly has its merit for the faint-hearted, the notion that "pain" will entail "gain" is fallacious, also because it suggests that allowing for adequate recovery would be inferior to digging a deep black "hole of pain" (suggested read: "The SuppVersity Athlete's Triad Series").

And while I know that you know that this ain't the way to go, I am also honest enough to admit that I often catch myself pondering the incorporation of intensity techniques, additional exercises or some fat burning minutes of HIIT, but rarely thinks about the undeniable benefits of things like the hot baths for pre-regeneration and other means to speed up recovery (learn more) ...

Recovery, ceratinly not the #1 topic for gym-conversations

I am not sure, whether or not today's SuppVersity article on the surprising benefits of electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) during the recovery period is going to change that, but it certainly adds another interesting option to my toolbox. After all, the improvements in strength and the researchers from the Quincy College the University of Texas at San Antonio, the Hospital  of the University of Pennsylvania, the National Strength and Conditioning Association and the University of Florida present in their most recent paper in the April issue of Official Research Journal of the American Society of Exercise Physiologists would suggest that it will not just allow me to return to the gym earlier, but will also make me stronger.

The "Marc Pro(TM)" is not just the $650 device used in the study, it is also one of most frequently used words in the study at hand... what? No, there is no conflict of interest declared, but I believe the Journal of the American Society of Exercise Physiologists does not even require that.

The study of which I'd better tell you in advance that is has a slight smack of "product pimping", because it mentions the specific EMS device, the Marc Pro(TM) not just in the methods section, but also in the title (Westcott. 2013), involved two trials with comparably large groups (n=43 / n=62) of male and female subjects in their best years (mean age: 61.3 / 61.7 years).

10 weeks 2x per week full body + 4x per week EMS

Suggested read: "Fast Paced High-Resistant Explosive Circuit Training Burns More Fat and Builds More Muscle Than Classical Weight Training. Trainees Dropped 1.5% Body Fat and Gained 3 Pounds of Lean Mass in 8 Weeks." - Don't discard the value of a fast paced full body resistance training (read more).

During both 10-week trials all participants trained twice a week for 60 minutes. The training comprised a medium-paced circuit training on 13 Nautilus machines including leg extension, leg curl, leg press, hip abduction/adduction, chest press, seated row, shoulder press, lat pull down, low back extension, abdominal flexion, torso rotation, neck flexion/extension and calf press. Each exercise was performed only once and the weight was progressively increased by 1% whenever the subjects were able to perform more than the prescribed number of 8-12 reps at a well-controlled pace of 3s for both the concentric and eccentric portion of the exercise. In addition to the standard strength workout, the subjects performed ~20 min of recumbent cycling at 70 to 80% of predicted maximum heart rate) and ~5 min of major muscle group stretching exercises towards the end of each workout. 

While all subjects underwent the same supervised workout program, only 50% of them were assigned to the EMS group, and instructed to self-administer 1h of electrical muscle stimulation to the calf muscles of both legs four times a week. With the two obligatory exercise sessions, this allowed for two "recovery sessions" in-between workouts.

Figure 1: Changes (rel. to baseline) in the EMS and control groups after 10-weeks of training (Westcott. 2013)

As the data from the pre- and post strength 3-RM tests and the results of the fatigue questionnaire, a 9-point rating scale with anchors of 1 (never experience feelings of calf muscle fatigue) and 9 (always experience feelings of calf muscle fatigue) in figure 1 goes to show you this routine was surprisingly effective in both increasing the effective gains in calf muscle strength and decreasing the workout induced fatigue.

So what's the mechanism here?

It is not exactly likely that the medium intensity EMS targets the IGF-1 + muscle growth promoting PGC-1 a4 isoform (learn more)

The exact mechanism for the benefits, the researchers observed in both experiments, is not fully understood, they stand in line with previous research mostly by members of the same research group (Parker. 2003; Kemmler. 2010; Wescott. 2012; DiNubile. 2011; Girold. 2012) which suggests that the application of electical muscle stimulation "causes positive cellular responses such as nitric oxide (NO) production, fluid shifts, protein clearance, and angiogenesis" and allow for the hypothesis that additional, isokinetic contractive stimulus has the potential to induce mRNA transcriptional proteins such as PPAR gamma co-activator (PGC)-1 alpha (learn more) and the vascular endothelial growth factor VEGF.

Against that background, the scientists assumption that [...]the enhanced muscle recovery associated with [...] electrical stimulation may be due to increased microcirculation, muscle loading, and angiogenesis." (my emphasis in Westcott. 2013) appears reasonable and would warrant their conclusion that EMS which is hitherto used mainly by professional athletes (esp. football players) "may also be beneficial for less fit individuals who experience  prolonged periods of recovery or uncomfortable levels of muscle fatigue after exercising." (Westcott. 2013)

---

I openly admit: Hot baths are still not a part or my "pre-recovery" routine, but I like some cheap and effective walking on an incline on the day after a leg workout.

Bottom line: Depite the overall promosing results of the study at hand, I'd still have a few questions as far as (a) the usefulness, (b) the alternatives and (c) the superiority of EMS therapy as a means to accelerate recovery and adaptation actually is. A handful of studies, a shiny website and the argument that it does works in recreational, or as the scientists write "less fit" trainees, as well as in pro-athletes won't make me pay approx. $650 for an "electro shocker".  This is all the more true in view of the fact that regular aerobic exercise and HIIT (learn how to set up a routine) will also promote PGC1-alpha and VEGF and could - appropriately dosed - probably elicit similar effects.

Apropos "effects" you should not forget that the parameters the scientists measured are actually both performance parameters. Regardless of the fact that the latter is called "fatigue", the fatigue after a standardized workout is mainly determined by your central and peripheral conditioning. It is thus obvious that you should be able to reduce the post-workout fatigue by any means of additional exercise that does not overtax the system - this may also involve enhanced recovery, but the enhancement is a function of physiological adaptations and not externally applied electrical stimuli.

Against that background, the only advantage of EMS over "conscious", i.e. brain-controlled contractions such as a 3x3min (x2 for each leg) session of single-legged body-weight calf-raises or even a simple walk in the park with a deliberate emphasis on calf-involvement would produce, appears to be that it would ease the burden on the central nervous system. Whether that's essentially necessary for the average trainee is however questionable; and though I would probably be slightly irritated, if you called me "an average trainee", I for my part will stick to some recuperative walking on an incline to promote calf-recovery.

References:

• DiNubile N, Westcott W, Reinl G, et al. The Marc  Pro TM device is a novel paradigm shift in muscle conditioning, recovery and performance:  Induction of nitric oxide (NO) dependent enhanced microcirculation coupled with angiogenesis mechanisms. JEPonline. 2011;14(5): 10-19.
• Girold S, Jalab C, Bernard O, et al. Dry-land strength training vs. electrical stimulation in sprint swimming performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(2):497-505.
• Kemmler W, Schliffka R, Mayhew JL, von Stengel S.  Effects of whole-body electromyostimulation on resting metabolic rate, body composition, and maximum strength in postmenopausal women:  The training and electrostimulation  trial. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(7):1880-1887.
• Parker MG, Bennett MJ, Hieb MA, et al. Strength response in human femoris muscle during 2 neuromuscular electrical stimulation programs.  J Orthop Sports PhysTher. 2003:33(12): 719-726.
• Westcott WL, Chen T, Neric FB, et al.  The Marc Pro TM device improves muscle performance and recovery from concentric and eccentric exercise in duced muscle fatigue in humans: A pilot study.  JEPonline. 2011;14(2):55-67. 
• Westcott W, Han D, DiNubile N, Neric F, Loud RLR, Whitehead S, Blum K. Effects of Electrical Stimulation Using the Marc Pro(TM) Device during the Recovery Period on Calf Muscle Strength and Fatigue in Adult Fitness Participants. JEPOnline. April 2013; 16(2): 40-49.