Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Stretching and massage don't help muscles
Replies
-
Asher_Ethan wrote: »Great discussion.
I teach ballet for a living and I've been implementing dynamic stretching in the beginning of class and static stretching at the end of class for years because of these studies.
But when I substitute teach for other teachers and do dynamic stretching in the beginning of class I ALWAYS get backlash from the students and teachers about how we need to start with static stretching because, "that's just how it's always been done."
I've tried talking to the other teachers about it but it's hard to change other people's minds (even though I'm 34 and the most flexible teacher).
Should I stick to my ways and tell them not to use me as a sub if they don't like it? Or should I give in and start with static stretching?
Tell 'em this is the way it's being done today because you are teaching, and are merely going on more recent research which tells you that you morally can't request harmful things when you know - and they can try something new for however many days you are leading the class.2 -
Asher_Ethan wrote: »Great discussion.
I teach ballet for a living and I've been implementing dynamic stretching in the beginning of class and static stretching at the end of class for years because of these studies.
But when I substitute teach for other teachers and do dynamic stretching in the beginning of class I ALWAYS get backlash from the students and teachers about how we need to start with static stretching because, "that's just how it's always been done."
I've tried talking to the other teachers about it but it's hard to change other people's minds (even though I'm 34 and the most flexible teacher).
Should I stick to my ways and tell them not to use me as a sub if they don't like it? Or should I give in and start with static stretching?
i wouldn't change. if they don't like it, they don't need to use you0 -
Asher_Ethan wrote: »Great discussion.
I teach ballet for a living and I've been implementing dynamic stretching in the beginning of class and static stretching at the end of class for years because of these studies.
But when I substitute teach for other teachers and do dynamic stretching in the beginning of class I ALWAYS get backlash from the students and teachers about how we need to start with static stretching because, "that's just how it's always been done."
I've tried talking to the other teachers about it but it's hard to change other people's minds (even though I'm 34 and the most flexible teacher).
Should I stick to my ways and tell them not to use me as a sub if they don't like it? Or should I give in and start with static stretching?
I wouldn't change, with the possible exception of mentioning the benefits of dynamic stretching at the beginning of the class.
I'm a certified yoga teacher, and we were taught to do do dynamic warmups before static stretching. I cringed when I went to other teacher's classes who hadn't gotten that memo and started with static stretching.0 -
SeattleBebop1 wrote: »monkeefan1974 wrote: »Question: is foam rolling considered a massage or stretching, or is it it’s own special thing? Because I’ve found stretching to be useless to me, massage is nice but yea doesn’t really help muscles... but foam rolling does the trick and I was super skeptical when I tried it but it works for me, no one can seem to concretely explain why though.
Foam rolling was recommended by the P.T. who I saw for a *bad* IT band injury. My right band can get super-tight but I have a high pain tolerance, hence I really screwed it up by continuing to hike through the pain. Foam rolling was encouraged to "break" up the tension. :shrugs: It worked, along with the other floor exercises. Even now, when my thighs get tension, the foam rolling provides instant relief.
I hurt my hamstrings whenever I do extensive gardening. Foam rolling always provides relief.1 -
Ultimately, massage is an essential part of a treatment that is healing my muscles, though. Don’t split the hairs so finely that you lose the actual point in the detail.
I mean, if you really want to be picky, very few treatments actually heal anything. Bandages don’t heal, they just protect the wound and provide a good environment for the body to rebuild tissues. Antibiotics don’t heal, they kill bacteria. Surgery definitely doesn’t heal, it just cuts things apart and reassembles them in an improved position, from which the body then heals itself. Do you ensure that people understand that they’re not actually healing the wound when they put on antiseptic and a band-aid?
You don't say, "I'm putting a bandaid on to heal my headache".
I'd like to just remind everyone that you said:I am currently using massage (foam rollering) to treat a hip problem.
The massage isn't to heal your muscles, the problem is with your hip.
The whole point is that massage doesn't heal muscles, and everything you've said proved my point.3 -
"Hip problem" refers to bones and joints in everyday language.
If you'd explain what type of hip problem it is, we might not feel so much in opposition.
4 -
I stretch after I run. If I don't, I feel stiff like an old woman... and because it feels good so meh 🤪2
-
Ultimately, massage is an essential part of a treatment that is healing my muscles, though. Don’t split the hairs so finely that you lose the actual point in the detail.
I mean, if you really want to be picky, very few treatments actually heal anything. Bandages don’t heal, they just protect the wound and provide a good environment for the body to rebuild tissues. Antibiotics don’t heal, they kill bacteria. Surgery definitely doesn’t heal, it just cuts things apart and reassembles them in an improved position, from which the body then heals itself. Do you ensure that people understand that they’re not actually healing the wound when they put on antiseptic and a band-aid?
You don't say, "I'm putting a bandaid on to heal my headache".
I'd like to just remind everyone that you said:I am currently using massage (foam rollering) to treat a hip problem.
The massage isn't to heal your muscles, the problem is with your hip.
The whole point is that massage doesn't heal muscles, and everything you've said proved my point.
The massage is an essential part of treating an issue with the muscles and ligaments of my hips. It is improving the mechanical function. Without it, the muscles and ligaments wouldn’t be getting better. By the same standards we apply to the rest of medicine, it’s helping!
Or do you feel the need to carefully explain to people that antibiotics, surgery and many medications don’t technically heal anything?5 -
Feels good, does no harm, gonna stretch when I feel like it.2
-
Well now that this has been bumped...
I'm noticing there is a thread of people saying massage works because of anecdote. I think even well intentioned and aware people forget the power of the placebo effect, or worse, think knowing of its existence somehow is a prophylactic from it - it isn't.
To truly know if massage helps beyond the attention, there would need to be a control to compare it to. It could range from having massage done while a person is not awake and aware (hard to do), compared to control subjects having nothing done. Or a simpler set up would be to have someone do touching like massage with no experience, insight, or technique designed to help, but the subject receiving not know this.
The difficulty in establishing placebo controls has haunted a lot of pain medicine with how deeply subjective pain is an issue. That last decade or so has seen a lot of actual surgical interventions even called into question as sham surgeries have shown some surgeries for pain and mobility issues actually do nothing.
To say the least, some of the mechanisms purported behind massage just aren't there. For example, claims of manual adjustment and myofascial release don't tend to stand up to the scrutiny of actual anatomy and physiology - many of the claimed "structures" "adjusted" would require strength beyond what a human can generate to actually alter them.0 -
I haven't seen the full study but figured this would add to the conversation. Ultimately, if you feel it helps your recovery, it doesn't really matter what the science says. Why? Because there is a huge amount of data on power of placebo. So try it. If it helps, continue, if it doesn't, don't. Anecdotally, while I don't do it often, when i stretch and foam roll, i feel better and less tight. I just don't prioritize it as part of my routine.3 -
There's actual ethical questions about recommending treatments for a placebo effect. That gets magnified if it something like massage from another person that has an actual cost attached to it.
I haven't seen the full study but figured this would add to the conversation. Ultimately, if you feel it helps your recovery, it doesn't really matter what the science says. Why? Because there is a huge amount of data on power of placebo. So try it. If it helps, continue, if it doesn't, don't. Anecdotally, while I don't do it often, when i stretch and foam roll, i feel better and less tight. I just don't prioritize it as part of my routine.
There's even more issues with something like the image you attached. Cryotherapy and compression indeed do help recovery. That doesn't mean using them can simply be advised - for example, the cost of cryotherapy is that the improvement in recovery comes at the cost of losing adaption. Using cryotherapy after working out will increase recovery but can actually stop hypertrophy. That's great if you just want to be able to lift weights frequently for the sake of lifting weights, but not so great if you want to get stronger long term, or more muscular.
Which would tend to go against
If you ultimately have a purpose to working out beyond working out, it kind of does matter what the science says.Ultimately, if you feel it helps your recovery, it doesn't really matter what the science says.1 -
So the infographic talks message and foam rolling and its an ethical issue? I am talking post workout foam rolling or stretching. There is zero ethical issue with it. And it is a great low cost option. Like i said, i have done it... It has helped with issues. Just like post workout stretching has improved things like squat depth. What else has helped with pre-workout warmups.
And the science isn't going to cover every situation. It looks at the mean response. Look at any study and you will see a wide response. And if you follow any of the good scientist and trainers like Eric Helms, they all say the same thing.. while it's important to understand the evidence available, you also have to consider the individual response when working to clientele.
ETA: not everything is going to be binary. A lot of these studies are difficult to design and test. So you can certainly promote based on the available limited evidence, or you can draw on what you know and try things based on experience and response.2 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
There's actual ethical questions about recommending treatments for a placebo effect. That gets magnified if it something like massage from another person that has an actual cost attached to it.
I haven't seen the full study but figured this would add to the conversation. Ultimately, if you feel it helps your recovery, it doesn't really matter what the science says. Why? Because there is a huge amount of data on power of placebo. So try it. If it helps, continue, if it doesn't, don't. Anecdotally, while I don't do it often, when i stretch and foam roll, i feel better and less tight. I just don't prioritize it as part of my routine.
There's even more issues with something like the image you attached. Cryotherapy and compression indeed do help recovery. That doesn't mean using them can simply be advised - for example, the cost of cryotherapy is that the improvement in recovery comes at the cost of losing adaption. Using cryotherapy after working out will increase recovery but can actually stop hypertrophy. That's great if you just want to be able to lift weights frequently for the sake of lifting weights, but not so great if you want to get stronger long term, or more muscular.
Which would tend to go against
If you ultimately have a purpose to working out beyond working out, it kind of does matter what the science says.Ultimately, if you feel it helps your recovery, it doesn't really matter what the science says.
I can't give you a cite (read it in a book, but don't remember which), but I read about some results suggesting that placebos can work even among people who know that they're placebos. If that's true (noting I can't prove it
), that would erase the ethical question, wouldn't it?
Certainly, I think what I believe Psu is also saying: If I try it, and it helps me, and I'm aware that the effect could be pure placebo, I can't think why I'd care. I don't limit myself to enjoying or benefitting from only things I can explain with hard science. (Obviously, the question of how an MT sells him/herself is ethically different from that.)
Personally, I'm a massage fan. I don't have an opinion about whether it helps me with DOMS, but it does seem to help me manage/avoid certain kinds of physical problems.
My subjective impression (<= not science!), is that when I have pain or dysfunction, I tend in compensation to tense muscle groups that aren't directly involved, which increases discomfort. Massage seems to draw my attention to those areas, and help to reduce that compensatory tension, thus reduce discomfort. I've also learned methods from MTs (stretches, changes in habitual movement patterns, etc.), that were beneficial.
I understand that this has nothing to do with DOMS, but in one case, a physical therapist used massage modalities in a way that made a very substantial difference in my day-to-day comfort. This was work on an area where I had/have scar tissue from surgery and radiation therapy. The scar tissue is mainly chest/underarm, but the effect was constant shoulder tension and jaw-clenching: I had had shoulder discomfort and headaches for literally years. Whatever the heck happened physically from the massage resulted in observable differences in the chest/underarm tissue (my oncologist commented on the change, in fact), as well as very material reduction in discomfort/headaches.
Regularly, I see a very science-geek MT, who doesn't believe in the the things you say you don't believe (like myofascial release). While he does believe that massage can benefit people, I think he has a bit of professional-existential angst about not really being certain of all the theoretical reasons. (I'm not saying he presents as having no idea how anything he does actually accomplishes positive effects, BTW, but simply that he has some science-oriented questions about the range of underlying mechanisms, and extreme skepticism about the common explanations.) I do appreciate not having to deal with the "auras & crystals in the room-corners" kind of thinking. (And yes, I've had MTs in the past who had a more . . . mystical? . . . understanding of their practice. It didn't necessarily make what they were doing ineffective for me, but it was mildly annoying nonetheless.)
Personally, like Psu, as a practical matter, I don't care about the theory, except as an intellectual exercise. I wouldn't oversell massage to someone on a theoretical basis, but finding it beneficial personally, I might suggest someone give it a try if they can afford it.
ETA: It's nice to see you back, Magnus, after what seemed like a period of non-participation here (though maybe I just wasn't looking in the right places).3 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
There's actual ethical questions about recommending treatments for a placebo effect. That gets magnified if it something like massage from another person that has an actual cost attached to it.
I haven't seen the full study but figured this would add to the conversation. Ultimately, if you feel it helps your recovery, it doesn't really matter what the science says. Why? Because there is a huge amount of data on power of placebo. So try it. If it helps, continue, if it doesn't, don't. Anecdotally, while I don't do it often, when i stretch and foam roll, i feel better and less tight. I just don't prioritize it as part of my routine.
There's even more issues with something like the image you attached. Cryotherapy and compression indeed do help recovery. That doesn't mean using them can simply be advised - for example, the cost of cryotherapy is that the improvement in recovery comes at the cost of losing adaption. Using cryotherapy after working out will increase recovery but can actually stop hypertrophy. That's great if you just want to be able to lift weights frequently for the sake of lifting weights, but not so great if you want to get stronger long term, or more muscular.
Which would tend to go against
If you ultimately have a purpose to working out beyond working out, it kind of does matter what the science says.Ultimately, if you feel it helps your recovery, it doesn't really matter what the science says.
I can't give you a cite (read it in a book, but don't remember which), but I read about some results suggesting that placebos can work even among people who know that they're placebos. If that's true (noting I can't prove it ), that would erase the ethical question, wouldn't it?
Certainly, I think what I believe Psu is also saying: If I try it, and it helps me, and I'm aware that the effect could be pure placebo, I can't think why I'd care. I don't limit myself to enjoying or benefitting from only things I can explain with hard science. (Obviously, the question of how an MT sells him/herself is ethically different from that.)
Personally, I'm a massage fan. I don't have an opinion about whether it helps me with DOMS, but it does seem to help me manage/avoid certain kinds of physical problems.
My subjective impression (<= not science!), is that when I have pain or dysfunction, I tend in compensation to tense muscle groups that aren't directly involved, which increases discomfort. Massage seems to draw my attention to those areas, and help to reduce that compensatory tension, thus reduce discomfort. I've also learned methods from MTs (stretches, changes in habitual movement patterns, etc.), that were beneficial.
I understand that this has nothing to do with DOMS, but in one case, a physical therapist used massage modalities in a way that made a very substantial difference in my day-to-day comfort. This was work on an area where I had/have scar tissue from surgery and radiation therapy. The scar tissue is mainly chest/underarm, but the effect was constant shoulder tension and jaw-clenching: I had had shoulder discomfort and headaches for literally years. Whatever the heck happened physically from the massage resulted in observable differences in the chest/underarm tissue (my oncologist commented on the change, in fact), as well as very material reduction in discomfort/headaches.
Regularly, I see a very science-geek MT, who doesn't believe in the the things you say you don't believe (like myofascial release). While he does believe that massage can benefit people, I think he has a bit of professional-existential angst about not really being certain of all the theoretical reasons. (I'm not saying he presents as having no idea how anything he does actually accomplishes positive effects, BTW, but simply that he has some science-oriented questions about the range of underlying mechanisms, and extreme skepticism about the common explanations.) I do appreciate not having to deal with the "auras & crystals in the room-corners" kind of thinking. (And yes, I've had MTs in the past who had a more . . . mystical? . . . understanding of their practice. It didn't necessarily make what they were doing ineffective for me, but it was mildly annoying nonetheless.)
Personally, like Psu, as a practical matter, I don't care about the theory, except as an intellectual exercise. I wouldn't oversell massage to someone on a theoretical basis, but finding it beneficial personally, I might suggest someone give it a try if they can afford it.
ETA: It's nice to see you back, Magnus, after what seemed like a period of non-participation here (though maybe I just wasn't looking in the right places).
Well said. I will expand, too. I am not suggesting massage or foam rolling as some miracle cure. I am suggesting it has some level of evidence supporting its use and if the individual response to that treatment modality is favorable, then there is no reason to not incorporate it in their routine.
2 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
There's actual ethical questions about recommending treatments for a placebo effect. That gets magnified if it something like massage from another person that has an actual cost attached to it.
I haven't seen the full study but figured this would add to the conversation. Ultimately, if you feel it helps your recovery, it doesn't really matter what the science says. Why? Because there is a huge amount of data on power of placebo. So try it. If it helps, continue, if it doesn't, don't. Anecdotally, while I don't do it often, when i stretch and foam roll, i feel better and less tight. I just don't prioritize it as part of my routine.
There's even more issues with something like the image you attached. Cryotherapy and compression indeed do help recovery. That doesn't mean using them can simply be advised - for example, the cost of cryotherapy is that the improvement in recovery comes at the cost of losing adaption. Using cryotherapy after working out will increase recovery but can actually stop hypertrophy. That's great if you just want to be able to lift weights frequently for the sake of lifting weights, but not so great if you want to get stronger long term, or more muscular.
Which would tend to go against
If you ultimately have a purpose to working out beyond working out, it kind of does matter what the science says.Ultimately, if you feel it helps your recovery, it doesn't really matter what the science says.
I can't give you a cite (read it in a book, but don't remember which), but I read about some results suggesting that placebos can work even among people who know that they're placebos. If that's true (noting I can't prove it ), that would erase the ethical question, wouldn't it?
Certainly, I think what I believe Psu is also saying: If I try it, and it helps me, and I'm aware that the effect could be pure placebo, I can't think why I'd care. I don't limit myself to enjoying or benefitting from only things I can explain with hard science. (Obviously, the question of how an MT sells him/herself is ethically different from that.)
Personally, I'm a massage fan. I don't have an opinion about whether it helps me with DOMS, but it does seem to help me manage/avoid certain kinds of physical problems.
My subjective impression (<= not science!), is that when I have pain or dysfunction, I tend in compensation to tense muscle groups that aren't directly involved, which increases discomfort. Massage seems to draw my attention to those areas, and help to reduce that compensatory tension, thus reduce discomfort. I've also learned methods from MTs (stretches, changes in habitual movement patterns, etc.), that were beneficial.
I understand that this has nothing to do with DOMS, but in one case, a physical therapist used massage modalities in a way that made a very substantial difference in my day-to-day comfort. This was work on an area where I had/have scar tissue from surgery and radiation therapy. The scar tissue is mainly chest/underarm, but the effect was constant shoulder tension and jaw-clenching: I had had shoulder discomfort and headaches for literally years. Whatever the heck happened physically from the massage resulted in observable differences in the chest/underarm tissue (my oncologist commented on the change, in fact), as well as very material reduction in discomfort/headaches.
Regularly, I see a very science-geek MT, who doesn't believe in the the things you say you don't believe (like myofascial release). While he does believe that massage can benefit people, I think he has a bit of professional-existential angst about not really being certain of all the theoretical reasons. (I'm not saying he presents as having no idea how anything he does actually accomplishes positive effects, BTW, but simply that he has some science-oriented questions about the range of underlying mechanisms, and extreme skepticism about the common explanations.) I do appreciate not having to deal with the "auras & crystals in the room-corners" kind of thinking. (And yes, I've had MTs in the past who had a more . . . mystical? . . . understanding of their practice. It didn't necessarily make what they were doing ineffective for me, but it was mildly annoying nonetheless.)
Personally, like Psu, as a practical matter, I don't care about the theory, except as an intellectual exercise. I wouldn't oversell massage to someone on a theoretical basis, but finding it beneficial personally, I might suggest someone give it a try if they can afford it.
ETA: It's nice to see you back, Magnus, after what seemed like a period of non-participation here (though maybe I just wasn't looking in the right places).
Placebo absolutely works even if someone is aware of the effect being a thing. Just at the top of the page I put, "or worse, think knowing of its existence somehow is a prophylactic from it - it isn't."
That said, no. When I said it is an ethical question, I mean open in the field of medical ethics itself, where it is known it happens even if the person is aware. There are ways for doctors to write a scrip that will be a placebo. There are medical professionals opposed to that being an allowed practice. One of the more common concerns is that giving someone a placebo is a kind of writing off the patient instead of investigating their issue to give care - it is about doing what is convenient for the physician over what it is best practices.
As for the rest, I kind of hinted at the problems that can happen from using a treatment that feels good when only caring about the relief. Cryotherapy certainly aids in recovery and if all we had in terms of research was the perception of that relief, advising it would be problematic because it actually hinders muscle growth. I think it obvious the problem with doing intense workouts, icing one self up to relieve pain and perform better on the next workout, just to have all the muscle gains of the workout negating, right? A person could easily end up spinning their wheels based on using what they feel working without realizing side effects.
Massage is probably more benign in that regard. I'm not aware of research suggesting a change in adaption from using it.
Coincidentally enough, I had a massage in January for just the simple reason that I wanted to give my skin a going away gift - I had skin removal surgery - originally scheduled January, got ill the night before, and ended up doing the surgery February 25th, and that's a bit of why I've been absent from posting. This isn't exactly the ideal time to be someone recovering from surgery, but that's hindsight. Even under times when the rest of the world would have been more ideal for it, my recovery wasn't straight forward. I had 3 units of blood transfused because I kept losing a lot initially and couldn't even stand up without becoming dizzy in seconds. A hospital overnight turned into 3 nights. Drains are usually out in 1 or 2 weeks, I believe, but I still had 2 of the 4 drains in until just after 4 weeks.
So yeah, surgery, bleeding, recovering, pandemic, 2 sons with in person school cancelled that I'm trying to keep somewhat with on their online stuff, going back to work, then having my family that was helping return home as soon as I was off restrictions because they live in an area with less COVID cases, there's been a lot going on for me.
On the plus side, at the 8 weeks with lifting restrictions done, I had the small luck of having kept my squat rack and barbell setup from when I moved and joined a gym 2 years ago. So I've been kind of getting back to that while so many other people are waiting on gyms reopening.4 -
Seems a tautology. Having good reasons to use a treatment seems the definition of favorable. One of my points - with the cryotheraphy as an example - is that favorable could be deceptive. Feeling it is easing one's pain could appear favorable, but if hypothetically actually degeneratively weakens the muscle, it isn't actually favorable, is it?magnusthenerd wrote: »
There's actual ethical questions about recommending treatments for a placebo effect. That gets magnified if it something like massage from another person that has an actual cost attached to it.
I haven't seen the full study but figured this would add to the conversation. Ultimately, if you feel it helps your recovery, it doesn't really matter what the science says. Why? Because there is a huge amount of data on power of placebo. So try it. If it helps, continue, if it doesn't, don't. Anecdotally, while I don't do it often, when i stretch and foam roll, i feel better and less tight. I just don't prioritize it as part of my routine.
There's even more issues with something like the image you attached. Cryotherapy and compression indeed do help recovery. That doesn't mean using them can simply be advised - for example, the cost of cryotherapy is that the improvement in recovery comes at the cost of losing adaption. Using cryotherapy after working out will increase recovery but can actually stop hypertrophy. That's great if you just want to be able to lift weights frequently for the sake of lifting weights, but not so great if you want to get stronger long term, or more muscular.
Which would tend to go against
If you ultimately have a purpose to working out beyond working out, it kind of does matter what the science says.Ultimately, if you feel it helps your recovery, it doesn't really matter what the science says.
I can't give you a cite (read it in a book, but don't remember which), but I read about some results suggesting that placebos can work even among people who know that they're placebos. If that's true (noting I can't prove it ), that would erase the ethical question, wouldn't it?
Certainly, I think what I believe Psu is also saying: If I try it, and it helps me, and I'm aware that the effect could be pure placebo, I can't think why I'd care. I don't limit myself to enjoying or benefitting from only things I can explain with hard science. (Obviously, the question of how an MT sells him/herself is ethically different from that.)
Personally, I'm a massage fan. I don't have an opinion about whether it helps me with DOMS, but it does seem to help me manage/avoid certain kinds of physical problems.
My subjective impression (<= not science!), is that when I have pain or dysfunction, I tend in compensation to tense muscle groups that aren't directly involved, which increases discomfort. Massage seems to draw my attention to those areas, and help to reduce that compensatory tension, thus reduce discomfort. I've also learned methods from MTs (stretches, changes in habitual movement patterns, etc.), that were beneficial.
I understand that this has nothing to do with DOMS, but in one case, a physical therapist used massage modalities in a way that made a very substantial difference in my day-to-day comfort. This was work on an area where I had/have scar tissue from surgery and radiation therapy. The scar tissue is mainly chest/underarm, but the effect was constant shoulder tension and jaw-clenching: I had had shoulder discomfort and headaches for literally years. Whatever the heck happened physically from the massage resulted in observable differences in the chest/underarm tissue (my oncologist commented on the change, in fact), as well as very material reduction in discomfort/headaches.
Regularly, I see a very science-geek MT, who doesn't believe in the the things you say you don't believe (like myofascial release). While he does believe that massage can benefit people, I think he has a bit of professional-existential angst about not really being certain of all the theoretical reasons. (I'm not saying he presents as having no idea how anything he does actually accomplishes positive effects, BTW, but simply that he has some science-oriented questions about the range of underlying mechanisms, and extreme skepticism about the common explanations.) I do appreciate not having to deal with the "auras & crystals in the room-corners" kind of thinking. (And yes, I've had MTs in the past who had a more . . . mystical? . . . understanding of their practice. It didn't necessarily make what they were doing ineffective for me, but it was mildly annoying nonetheless.)
Personally, like Psu, as a practical matter, I don't care about the theory, except as an intellectual exercise. I wouldn't oversell massage to someone on a theoretical basis, but finding it beneficial personally, I might suggest someone give it a try if they can afford it.
ETA: It's nice to see you back, Magnus, after what seemed like a period of non-participation here (though maybe I just wasn't looking in the right places).
Well said. I will expand, too. I am not suggesting massage or foam rolling as some miracle cure. I am suggesting it has some level of evidence supporting its use and if the individual response to that treatment modality is favorable, then there is no reason to not incorporate it in their routine.
Like I said, there are ethical concerns to even placebos.0 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
There's actual ethical questions about recommending treatments for a placebo effect. That gets magnified if it something like massage from another person that has an actual cost attached to it.
I haven't seen the full study but figured this would add to the conversation. Ultimately, if you feel it helps your recovery, it doesn't really matter what the science says. Why? Because there is a huge amount of data on power of placebo. So try it. If it helps, continue, if it doesn't, don't. Anecdotally, while I don't do it often, when i stretch and foam roll, i feel better and less tight. I just don't prioritize it as part of my routine.
There's even more issues with something like the image you attached. Cryotherapy and compression indeed do help recovery. That doesn't mean using them can simply be advised - for example, the cost of cryotherapy is that the improvement in recovery comes at the cost of losing adaption. Using cryotherapy after working out will increase recovery but can actually stop hypertrophy. That's great if you just want to be able to lift weights frequently for the sake of lifting weights, but not so great if you want to get stronger long term, or more muscular.
Which would tend to go against
If you ultimately have a purpose to working out beyond working out, it kind of does matter what the science says.Ultimately, if you feel it helps your recovery, it doesn't really matter what the science says.
I can't give you a cite (read it in a book, but don't remember which), but I read about some results suggesting that placebos can work even among people who know that they're placebos. If that's true (noting I can't prove it ), that would erase the ethical question, wouldn't it?
Certainly, I think what I believe Psu is also saying: If I try it, and it helps me, and I'm aware that the effect could be pure placebo, I can't think why I'd care. I don't limit myself to enjoying or benefitting from only things I can explain with hard science. (Obviously, the question of how an MT sells him/herself is ethically different from that.)
Personally, I'm a massage fan. I don't have an opinion about whether it helps me with DOMS, but it does seem to help me manage/avoid certain kinds of physical problems.
My subjective impression (<= not science!), is that when I have pain or dysfunction, I tend in compensation to tense muscle groups that aren't directly involved, which increases discomfort. Massage seems to draw my attention to those areas, and help to reduce that compensatory tension, thus reduce discomfort. I've also learned methods from MTs (stretches, changes in habitual movement patterns, etc.), that were beneficial.
I understand that this has nothing to do with DOMS, but in one case, a physical therapist used massage modalities in a way that made a very substantial difference in my day-to-day comfort. This was work on an area where I had/have scar tissue from surgery and radiation therapy. The scar tissue is mainly chest/underarm, but the effect was constant shoulder tension and jaw-clenching: I had had shoulder discomfort and headaches for literally years. Whatever the heck happened physically from the massage resulted in observable differences in the chest/underarm tissue (my oncologist commented on the change, in fact), as well as very material reduction in discomfort/headaches.
Regularly, I see a very science-geek MT, who doesn't believe in the the things you say you don't believe (like myofascial release). While he does believe that massage can benefit people, I think he has a bit of professional-existential angst about not really being certain of all the theoretical reasons. (I'm not saying he presents as having no idea how anything he does actually accomplishes positive effects, BTW, but simply that he has some science-oriented questions about the range of underlying mechanisms, and extreme skepticism about the common explanations.) I do appreciate not having to deal with the "auras & crystals in the room-corners" kind of thinking. (And yes, I've had MTs in the past who had a more . . . mystical? . . . understanding of their practice. It didn't necessarily make what they were doing ineffective for me, but it was mildly annoying nonetheless.)
Personally, like Psu, as a practical matter, I don't care about the theory, except as an intellectual exercise. I wouldn't oversell massage to someone on a theoretical basis, but finding it beneficial personally, I might suggest someone give it a try if they can afford it.
ETA: It's nice to see you back, Magnus, after what seemed like a period of non-participation here (though maybe I just wasn't looking in the right places).
Placebo absolutely works even if someone is aware of the effect being a thing. Just at the top of the page I put, "or worse, think knowing of its existence somehow is a prophylactic from it - it isn't."
(snip)
I'm now wondering if I was unclear, but I'm possibly just misinterpreting the wording of your reply.
What I was saying was that I had read about cases (I think actual studies) where not only did the subject/patient know that placebo effect was generically a possibility, but actually knew that the "treatment" that they personally were being given had no known science-based effect, i.e., they knew that that very specific treatment was a placebo. They were fully informed. The appearance was that the true-belief aspect was not always essential.
I wish I remembered the source, and the more I try to explain, the more I'll just make up, I'm sure. IIRC, I think speculative explanations were around the psychological effect of "ritual" (for lack of a better term) or the social-psychological effect of interpersonal interaction with a caring practitioner. It's been a long time, but I don't think I took the time to read the underlying studies, so this is just chit-chat, not argumentation.
Sorry you've been going through so much! That drain story was a sympathy-cringe, for me. (One of my 3 mastectomy drains had to stay in extra-long like that, and the removal was . . . just a little bit less recreational? . . . as a consequence.)
I hope you're well on the road to real recovery now, and that the other challenges will begin to sort themselves out, too. Welcome back!1 -
Oh the point of saying it wasn't a prophylactic was just confirming that placebo effect is known to still happen even when a subject is aware they're being placebo-ed. Some of it is, as you suggested, just the effect of social affiliation that comes with a treatment - even animals get placebo effect without understanding they're getting a treatment, it probably works partially on that and sensing owner's expectations.magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
There's actual ethical questions about recommending treatments for a placebo effect. That gets magnified if it something like massage from another person that has an actual cost attached to it.
I haven't seen the full study but figured this would add to the conversation. Ultimately, if you feel it helps your recovery, it doesn't really matter what the science says. Why? Because there is a huge amount of data on power of placebo. So try it. If it helps, continue, if it doesn't, don't. Anecdotally, while I don't do it often, when i stretch and foam roll, i feel better and less tight. I just don't prioritize it as part of my routine.
There's even more issues with something like the image you attached. Cryotherapy and compression indeed do help recovery. That doesn't mean using them can simply be advised - for example, the cost of cryotherapy is that the improvement in recovery comes at the cost of losing adaption. Using cryotherapy after working out will increase recovery but can actually stop hypertrophy. That's great if you just want to be able to lift weights frequently for the sake of lifting weights, but not so great if you want to get stronger long term, or more muscular.
Which would tend to go against
If you ultimately have a purpose to working out beyond working out, it kind of does matter what the science says.Ultimately, if you feel it helps your recovery, it doesn't really matter what the science says.
I can't give you a cite (read it in a book, but don't remember which), but I read about some results suggesting that placebos can work even among people who know that they're placebos. If that's true (noting I can't prove it ), that would erase the ethical question, wouldn't it?
Certainly, I think what I believe Psu is also saying: If I try it, and it helps me, and I'm aware that the effect could be pure placebo, I can't think why I'd care. I don't limit myself to enjoying or benefitting from only things I can explain with hard science. (Obviously, the question of how an MT sells him/herself is ethically different from that.)
Personally, I'm a massage fan. I don't have an opinion about whether it helps me with DOMS, but it does seem to help me manage/avoid certain kinds of physical problems.
My subjective impression (<= not science!), is that when I have pain or dysfunction, I tend in compensation to tense muscle groups that aren't directly involved, which increases discomfort. Massage seems to draw my attention to those areas, and help to reduce that compensatory tension, thus reduce discomfort. I've also learned methods from MTs (stretches, changes in habitual movement patterns, etc.), that were beneficial.
I understand that this has nothing to do with DOMS, but in one case, a physical therapist used massage modalities in a way that made a very substantial difference in my day-to-day comfort. This was work on an area where I had/have scar tissue from surgery and radiation therapy. The scar tissue is mainly chest/underarm, but the effect was constant shoulder tension and jaw-clenching: I had had shoulder discomfort and headaches for literally years. Whatever the heck happened physically from the massage resulted in observable differences in the chest/underarm tissue (my oncologist commented on the change, in fact), as well as very material reduction in discomfort/headaches.
Regularly, I see a very science-geek MT, who doesn't believe in the the things you say you don't believe (like myofascial release). While he does believe that massage can benefit people, I think he has a bit of professional-existential angst about not really being certain of all the theoretical reasons. (I'm not saying he presents as having no idea how anything he does actually accomplishes positive effects, BTW, but simply that he has some science-oriented questions about the range of underlying mechanisms, and extreme skepticism about the common explanations.) I do appreciate not having to deal with the "auras & crystals in the room-corners" kind of thinking. (And yes, I've had MTs in the past who had a more . . . mystical? . . . understanding of their practice. It didn't necessarily make what they were doing ineffective for me, but it was mildly annoying nonetheless.)
Personally, like Psu, as a practical matter, I don't care about the theory, except as an intellectual exercise. I wouldn't oversell massage to someone on a theoretical basis, but finding it beneficial personally, I might suggest someone give it a try if they can afford it.
ETA: It's nice to see you back, Magnus, after what seemed like a period of non-participation here (though maybe I just wasn't looking in the right places).
Placebo absolutely works even if someone is aware of the effect being a thing. Just at the top of the page I put, "or worse, think knowing of its existence somehow is a prophylactic from it - it isn't."
(snip)
I'm now wondering if I was unclear, but I'm possibly just misinterpreting the wording of your reply.
What I was saying was that I had read about cases (I think actual studies) where not only did the subject/patient know that placebo effect was generically a possibility, but actually knew that the "treatment" that they personally were being given had no known science-based effect, i.e., they knew that that very specific treatment was a placebo. They were fully informed. The appearance was that the true-belief aspect was not always essential.
I wish I remembered the source, and the more I try to explain, the more I'll just make up, I'm sure. IIRC, I think speculative explanations were around the psychological effect of "ritual" (for lack of a better term) or the social-psychological effect of interpersonal interaction with a caring practitioner. It's been a long time, but I don't think I took the time to read the underlying studies, so this is just chit-chat, not argumentation.
Sorry you've been going through so much! That drain story was a sympathy-cringe, for me. (One of my 3 mastectomy drains had to stay in extra-long like that, and the removal was . . . just a little bit less recreational? . . . as a consequence.)
I hope you're well on the road to real recovery now, and that the other challenges will begin to sort themselves out, too. Welcome back!
The ethics exists for even giving informed placebos. Like I said, at least one aspect is that in giving someone a placebo, you're kind of just doing placating for the convenience of the medical practitioner, rather than resolving the underlying issue for the patient. I sure there's someone with an obsession with whether placebos change how readily you switch tracks on a trolley - a medical ethicist - with a whole doctor's bag of other concerns the issue raises.
I've heard varying accounts of how painful drain removal is. I had some people advise me to take acetaminophen before the visit for the pain, but I didn't do that first time and didn't see a point in it for any of the other 3 drains. The last two were just a surreal experience. At that point that pandemic had closed down surgeon's office, so I had to go to the hospital, and while I had to have my dad drive me to the hospital because no driving with a drain, he was told he had to go back to the parking garage and wait in the car since he wasn't being seen. At that point it seemed a bit scary just to have someone crossing the other way in the hallways coming and going to the hospital, though it was also oddly very empty.2 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Seems a tautology. Having good reasons to use a treatment seems the definition of favorable. One of my points - with the cryotheraphy as an example - is that favorable could be deceptive. Feeling it is easing one's pain could appear favorable, but if hypothetically actually degeneratively weakens the muscle, it isn't actually favorable, is it?magnusthenerd wrote: »
There's actual ethical questions about recommending treatments for a placebo effect. That gets magnified if it something like massage from another person that has an actual cost attached to it.
I haven't seen the full study but figured this would add to the conversation. Ultimately, if you feel it helps your recovery, it doesn't really matter what the science says. Why? Because there is a huge amount of data on power of placebo. So try it. If it helps, continue, if it doesn't, don't. Anecdotally, while I don't do it often, when i stretch and foam roll, i feel better and less tight. I just don't prioritize it as part of my routine.
There's even more issues with something like the image you attached. Cryotherapy and compression indeed do help recovery. That doesn't mean using them can simply be advised - for example, the cost of cryotherapy is that the improvement in recovery comes at the cost of losing adaption. Using cryotherapy after working out will increase recovery but can actually stop hypertrophy. That's great if you just want to be able to lift weights frequently for the sake of lifting weights, but not so great if you want to get stronger long term, or more muscular.
Which would tend to go against
If you ultimately have a purpose to working out beyond working out, it kind of does matter what the science says.Ultimately, if you feel it helps your recovery, it doesn't really matter what the science says.
I can't give you a cite (read it in a book, but don't remember which), but I read about some results suggesting that placebos can work even among people who know that they're placebos. If that's true (noting I can't prove it ), that would erase the ethical question, wouldn't it?
Certainly, I think what I believe Psu is also saying: If I try it, and it helps me, and I'm aware that the effect could be pure placebo, I can't think why I'd care. I don't limit myself to enjoying or benefitting from only things I can explain with hard science. (Obviously, the question of how an MT sells him/herself is ethically different from that.)
Personally, I'm a massage fan. I don't have an opinion about whether it helps me with DOMS, but it does seem to help me manage/avoid certain kinds of physical problems.
My subjective impression (<= not science!), is that when I have pain or dysfunction, I tend in compensation to tense muscle groups that aren't directly involved, which increases discomfort. Massage seems to draw my attention to those areas, and help to reduce that compensatory tension, thus reduce discomfort. I've also learned methods from MTs (stretches, changes in habitual movement patterns, etc.), that were beneficial.
I understand that this has nothing to do with DOMS, but in one case, a physical therapist used massage modalities in a way that made a very substantial difference in my day-to-day comfort. This was work on an area where I had/have scar tissue from surgery and radiation therapy. The scar tissue is mainly chest/underarm, but the effect was constant shoulder tension and jaw-clenching: I had had shoulder discomfort and headaches for literally years. Whatever the heck happened physically from the massage resulted in observable differences in the chest/underarm tissue (my oncologist commented on the change, in fact), as well as very material reduction in discomfort/headaches.
Regularly, I see a very science-geek MT, who doesn't believe in the the things you say you don't believe (like myofascial release). While he does believe that massage can benefit people, I think he has a bit of professional-existential angst about not really being certain of all the theoretical reasons. (I'm not saying he presents as having no idea how anything he does actually accomplishes positive effects, BTW, but simply that he has some science-oriented questions about the range of underlying mechanisms, and extreme skepticism about the common explanations.) I do appreciate not having to deal with the "auras & crystals in the room-corners" kind of thinking. (And yes, I've had MTs in the past who had a more . . . mystical? . . . understanding of their practice. It didn't necessarily make what they were doing ineffective for me, but it was mildly annoying nonetheless.)
Personally, like Psu, as a practical matter, I don't care about the theory, except as an intellectual exercise. I wouldn't oversell massage to someone on a theoretical basis, but finding it beneficial personally, I might suggest someone give it a try if they can afford it.
ETA: It's nice to see you back, Magnus, after what seemed like a period of non-participation here (though maybe I just wasn't looking in the right places).
Well said. I will expand, too. I am not suggesting massage or foam rolling as some miracle cure. I am suggesting it has some level of evidence supporting its use and if the individual response to that treatment modality is favorable, then there is no reason to not incorporate it in their routine.
Like I said, there are ethical concerns to even placebos.
I think you are extrapolating too much. There are different uses for each method of recovery and would yield different results; no different than the variety of lifting styles. The evidence on cryotherapy and its potential impacts on hypertrophy is limited but I have seen some. There isn't the same evidence on ma wessage or foam rolling. So again, you keep referring to a single method instead of the focus of the link I provided. If anything, there could be caution against cryotherapy.
So given that there is evidence for and against foam rolling, and we recognize the difficulty of designing a well designed study, I would highly doubt any ethical issue comes into play. It would be unethical if I told people to consume a ton of ACV to burn fat because there isn't evidence supporting it (outside of some weight loss because people get nauseated). There isn't an ethical issue with recommending a person try foam rolling post workout if they experience DOMS.
You also would have to take into consideration other factors like diet and their activity level and then prioritize foam rolling based on that data.1 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Seems a tautology. Having good reasons to use a treatment seems the definition of favorable. One of my points - with the cryotheraphy as an example - is that favorable could be deceptive. Feeling it is easing one's pain could appear favorable, but if hypothetically actually degeneratively weakens the muscle, it isn't actually favorable, is it?magnusthenerd wrote: »
There's actual ethical questions about recommending treatments for a placebo effect. That gets magnified if it something like massage from another person that has an actual cost attached to it.
I haven't seen the full study but figured this would add to the conversation. Ultimately, if you feel it helps your recovery, it doesn't really matter what the science says. Why? Because there is a huge amount of data on power of placebo. So try it. If it helps, continue, if it doesn't, don't. Anecdotally, while I don't do it often, when i stretch and foam roll, i feel better and less tight. I just don't prioritize it as part of my routine.
There's even more issues with something like the image you attached. Cryotherapy and compression indeed do help recovery. That doesn't mean using them can simply be advised - for example, the cost of cryotherapy is that the improvement in recovery comes at the cost of losing adaption. Using cryotherapy after working out will increase recovery but can actually stop hypertrophy. That's great if you just want to be able to lift weights frequently for the sake of lifting weights, but not so great if you want to get stronger long term, or more muscular.
Which would tend to go against
If you ultimately have a purpose to working out beyond working out, it kind of does matter what the science says.Ultimately, if you feel it helps your recovery, it doesn't really matter what the science says.
I can't give you a cite (read it in a book, but don't remember which), but I read about some results suggesting that placebos can work even among people who know that they're placebos. If that's true (noting I can't prove it ), that would erase the ethical question, wouldn't it?
Certainly, I think what I believe Psu is also saying: If I try it, and it helps me, and I'm aware that the effect could be pure placebo, I can't think why I'd care. I don't limit myself to enjoying or benefitting from only things I can explain with hard science. (Obviously, the question of how an MT sells him/herself is ethically different from that.)
Personally, I'm a massage fan. I don't have an opinion about whether it helps me with DOMS, but it does seem to help me manage/avoid certain kinds of physical problems.
My subjective impression (<= not science!), is that when I have pain or dysfunction, I tend in compensation to tense muscle groups that aren't directly involved, which increases discomfort. Massage seems to draw my attention to those areas, and help to reduce that compensatory tension, thus reduce discomfort. I've also learned methods from MTs (stretches, changes in habitual movement patterns, etc.), that were beneficial.
I understand that this has nothing to do with DOMS, but in one case, a physical therapist used massage modalities in a way that made a very substantial difference in my day-to-day comfort. This was work on an area where I had/have scar tissue from surgery and radiation therapy. The scar tissue is mainly chest/underarm, but the effect was constant shoulder tension and jaw-clenching: I had had shoulder discomfort and headaches for literally years. Whatever the heck happened physically from the massage resulted in observable differences in the chest/underarm tissue (my oncologist commented on the change, in fact), as well as very material reduction in discomfort/headaches.
Regularly, I see a very science-geek MT, who doesn't believe in the the things you say you don't believe (like myofascial release). While he does believe that massage can benefit people, I think he has a bit of professional-existential angst about not really being certain of all the theoretical reasons. (I'm not saying he presents as having no idea how anything he does actually accomplishes positive effects, BTW, but simply that he has some science-oriented questions about the range of underlying mechanisms, and extreme skepticism about the common explanations.) I do appreciate not having to deal with the "auras & crystals in the room-corners" kind of thinking. (And yes, I've had MTs in the past who had a more . . . mystical? . . . understanding of their practice. It didn't necessarily make what they were doing ineffective for me, but it was mildly annoying nonetheless.)
Personally, like Psu, as a practical matter, I don't care about the theory, except as an intellectual exercise. I wouldn't oversell massage to someone on a theoretical basis, but finding it beneficial personally, I might suggest someone give it a try if they can afford it.
ETA: It's nice to see you back, Magnus, after what seemed like a period of non-participation here (though maybe I just wasn't looking in the right places).
Well said. I will expand, too. I am not suggesting massage or foam rolling as some miracle cure. I am suggesting it has some level of evidence supporting its use and if the individual response to that treatment modality is favorable, then there is no reason to not incorporate it in their routine.
Like I said, there are ethical concerns to even placebos.
I think you are extrapolating too much. There are different uses for each method of recovery and would yield different results; no different than the variety of lifting styles. The evidence on cryotherapy and its potential impacts on hypertrophy is limited but I have seen some. There isn't the same evidence on ma wessage or foam rolling. So again, you keep referring to a single method instead of the focus of the link I provided. If anything, there could be caution against cryotherapy.
So given that there is evidence for and against foam rolling, and we recognize the difficulty of designing a well designed study, I would highly doubt any ethical issue comes into play. It would be unethical if I told people to consume a ton of ACV to burn fat because there isn't evidence supporting it (outside of some weight loss because people get nauseated). There isn't an ethical issue with recommending a person try foam rolling post workout if they experience DOMS.
You also would have to take into consideration other factors like diet and their activity level and then prioritize foam rolling based on that data.
Agree.
And maybe I'm missing something, but wrt massage specifically (but probably applies beyond), I don't see the slightest ethical issue from the consumer side (i.e., I don't think I'm unethical for finding it helpful), or even of sharing personal, subjective experience/feelings expressed as such. If practitioners (or others) make unsubstantiated claims - which not all of them do, BTW - it's a whole different matter.
Maybe there are some, but I don't see any reasonable contraindications to normal, mainstream massage, or to foam rolling. I wouldn't recommend the cold-tub/cryo stuff to anyone, but mostly because I'm too hedonic for that *baby feline* (some of my more elite-y rowing buddies, tough puppies, did it when it was a coaching fad a few years back and hated it with an appropriately icy passion
).
If there's a tradeoff between recovery and adaptation, it seems like the right thing would be to make that clear, and let people choose which is their priority at the time. (I get that pros or elite amateurs don't get to make those choices, because orders . . . but being at that level, where coachly orders drive your life, is itself a choice . . . in fortunate countries, at least.)
But then, I'm one of those annoying situational ethics kind of people. I don't have a big problem if someone here posts "ACV curbed my appetite, so helped me lose weight" (though I'll probably offer a personal counter-experience ). That's different from "ACV blunts appetite" as if it were a universal, let alone "It's been proven that . . . ".
There's a difference between "X helps me, experientially, as a practical matter" and "X works" (period) or "X works via mechanism Y".
I thought the OP (all those many pages ago ) was useful and interesting. 0 -
Maybe foam rolling doesn’t actually “help” my muscles, but it sure does give a much welcome pain relief when I have DOms!! Especially for my quads.3
-
Yeah, totally anecdotal. I have very tight muscles, always had. I tried to get more flexible and started various stretching routines, after a good warmup of course - and ended up even more tight and hurting and stiff muscles in the morning. Took a break, and started massaging/rolling/balling my tight muscles and only minor stretching. I'm much more flexible now without pain or morning stiffness. But no, in my experience stretching and massaging doesn't help against doms.1
-
I'm torn on this. (btw I have a Masters in KNES and have coached track & field from high school level to elite college level). I've read the OP's studies suggesting that static state stretching, flexibility, and massage have nothing to do with running performance and don't help DOMS, possibly even hindering. Those were big back in my undergrad days. Saying to do dynamic warmups instead. I subscribed to that for a while, built my training protocols around the dynamic/ballistic warmups, encouraged light stretching after a hard workout. "Don't overdo it gang, too much stretching and flexibility will slow ya down!" Did it in my own training as well. And I still do dynamic warm-ups. And certainly the science is there to show the very important stretch-shortening cycle is negatively impacted by deep stretching before sprinting!
But as time goes on, I'm just don't understand removing the flexibility work post workout or on cross training days. Keeping everything else equal but introducing some steady-state flexibility work into off-day workouts and post-run routines has ABSOLUTELY seen DOMS and injury reduced. Both in my own training and that of my athletes. Not having done studies on it, I have no research/data to present this. Other than the anecdotal evidence of saying it works well for me and about 120 of my athletes (track & field, sprinting focus).
Also there's some conflicting info in the OP studies. "Stretching does not prevent sports injuries (Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine, March 2005)". But then below that in the graphic, #4 admits that static state stretching after a workout improves joint flexibility. Joint flexibility and injury prevention go together.
Plus when it comes to sports massage... myself and athletes will have it happen first-hand where we do flexibility tests on hamstrings (90/90 PLSF test). We'll go into the clinic with a low angle, then after a 15 minutes sports massage from trainer, that number will go way up! Regaining full range of motion from a massage would be considered injury prevention in my book!
When it comes to Usain Bolt and Michael Norman running their 100m and 200m dashes at the Olympics, I can understand trying to walk that fine line between maintaining fast twitch muscle, stretch-shortening cycle response, and injury prevention. Try to keep static state ANYTHING as sparse as possible, and being explosive! But I must acknowledge the difference between genetic monsters like Olympians, vs. collegiate sprinters, vs. people who are just trying to get fit and lose weight. The benefits of flexibility training seem to add to the athlete's longevity and injury prevention, at the cost of a fraction of a percent of training efficiency. For most body types, ages, abilities.
I think the shift to dynamic warmups is good and sound training. But to de-emphasize or severely limit the flexibility training... I'm just not seeing it. Being able to move at our most full extensions and postures seems to have positive impacts in the athletic arena, even when it comes to injury prevention.5 -
Well if you actually look how injuries happen (non being intentional), it's usually forceful trauma on joint or muscle. Many runners pull hamstrings all the time even with great flexibilty due to it not being as strong as the quads. When you sprain an ankle many times, it has nothing to do with training, but putting the ankle under stress you weren't prepared for.LukesGreenMilk wrote: »
Also there's some conflicting info in the OP studies. "Stretching does not prevent sports injuries (Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine, March 2005)". But then below that in the graphic, #4 admits that static state stretching after a workout improves joint flexibility. Joint flexibility and injury prevention go together.
I don't think the point is to de-emphasize it. If you're an athlete, then you likely want to keep the regimen. But if you're just an everyday person who doesn't engage in a lot of physically demanding sports or endeavors that rely on a lot of flexibility, then would there really be a reason to try to have enough flexibility to say do the splits? Now I DO BELIEVE that you have to have good hamstring flexibility because it directly affects the lower back. And many that have bad hamstring flexibility suffer from lower back issues.I think the shift to dynamic warmups is good and sound training. But to de-emphasize or severely limit the flexibility training... I'm just not seeing it. Being able to move at our most full extensions and postures seems to have positive impacts in the athletic arena, even when it comes to injury prevention.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
3 -
Massage always works well for me.0
-
I think stretching before training is important. It is designed to warm up your muscles, thereby preventing injury or damage to muscle tissue. Massage is also essential. It stimulates muscles and relieves tension.
Massage is the only thing that helps me after hard training. I have pain in all the muscles on my body, and massage perfectly relieves tension, fatigue, and cramps. After each workout, I visit a massage parlor 강남안마 and get my excellent massage.
Before each workout, I'm used to stretching, and otherwise, I can't get a full workout.-3 -
Untrue. It's NOT designed to warm up your muscles and stretching cold can actually damage them more. Think of a rubberband and start to stretch it out if the band was cold. Stretch it out far enough and it could snap. Now add warmth to that rubberband. It becomes more pliable and will stretch further than if cold. So stretching is much more effect AFTER you've worked out. Now there are dynamic stretching exercises that WILL warm up the muscles intended to be used, but this is much different than the stretching that most people do which is to sit on the floor and start stretching thinking it's necessary before exercise. And stretching DOESN'T prevent injury. Injuries usually happen because of trauma to muscle or joints. High impact, compound and really heavy lifts increase risk versus their opposite. You can stretch all you want and still strain a muscle.hissncolli541 wrote: »I think stretching before training is important. It is designed to warm up your muscles, thereby preventing injury or damage to muscle tissue.
Before each workout, I'm used to stretching, and otherwise, I can't get a full workout.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions