"In practice, dynamic stretching would mean that, instead of leaning over and touching your toes or pushing against a wall to stretch your calves before running, you might raise your leg before you in a marching motion, and then swing it back, in a well-controlled arc.."But, as a scientific study this still seems dubious (ok, I haven't gone through and read everything). How are they deciding that "injuries" are attributable to the stretching? When I read a paragraph like this:
"One anomalous finding of the USA Track and Field study was that runners who were used to stretching and were assigned to the nonstretching group became injured at a disproportionately high rate. Almost 23 percent of them wound up hurting themselves during the three months. But no experts associated with the study or who have read the results believe that this finding intimates that stretching had been keeping them uninjured in the past. More likely, Dr. McHugh said, they fell victim to a training error, which, he explained, “in reality can mean any abrupt change in training patterns. Your body adapts to its routine, and if that routine is monotonously habitual as with many runners, it doesn’t take much of a change to cause an injury.”"I keep wondering if purported anomalies or differences or injuries wouldn't be distributed in the same fashion if they wore a hat or went a different route or ate a different breakfast or changed running shoes or only ran on a track or whatever. I'm not saying I disagree with the conclusions necessarily, but I'm more persuaded by physiological/anatomical arguments than I am by a group study like this one.
« Older Eric Archer... | “If the male partner withdraws... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by dersins at 9:04 PM on September 2, 2010 [6 favorites]