Is There a "Window of Opportunity" for Flexibility Development in Youth? A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

Static Stretch Training versus Foam Rolling Training Effects on Range of Motion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Long-term static stretching as well as foam rolling training can increase a joint's range of motion (ROM). However, to date, it is not clear which method is the most effective for increasing ROM.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the effects of static stretching and foam rolling training on ROM.

METHODS

The literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to find the eligible studies. Eighty-five studies (72 on static stretching; and 13 on foam rolling) were found to be eligible with 204 effect sizes (ESs). For the main analyses, a random-effect meta-analysis was applied. To assess the difference between static stretching and foam rolling, subgroup analyses with a mixed-effect model were applied. Moderating variables were sex, total intervention duration, and weeks of intervention.

RESULTS

Static stretch (ES =  - 1.006; p < 0.001), as well as foam rolling training (ES =  - 0.729; p = 0.001), can increase joint ROM with a moderate magnitude compared with a control condition. However, we did not detect a significant difference between the two conditions in the subgroup analysis (p = 0.228). When the intervention duration was ≤ 4 weeks, however, a significant change in ROM was shown following static stretching (ES =  - 1.436; p < 0.001), but not following foam rolling (ES =  - 0.229; p = 0.248). Thus, a subgroup analysis indicated a significant favorable effect with static stretching for increasing ROM compared with foam rolling (p < 0.001) over a shorter term (≤ 4 weeks). Other moderator analyses showed no significant difference between static stretch and foam rolling training on ROM.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the results, both static stretching and foam rolling training can be similarly recommended to increase joint ROM, unless the training is scheduled for ≤ 4 weeks, in which case static stretching demonstrates a significant advantage. More studies are needed with a high-volume foam rolling training approach as well as foam rolling training in exclusively female participants.

What We Do Not Know About Stretching in Healthy Athletes: A Scoping Review with Evidence Gap Map from 300 Trials

BACKGROUND

Stretching has garnered significant attention in sports sciences, resulting in numerous studies. However, there is no comprehensive overview on investigation of stretching in healthy athletes.

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic scoping review with an evidence gap map of stretching studies in healthy athletes, identify current gaps in the literature, and provide stakeholders with priorities for future research.

METHODS

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 and PRISMA-ScR guidelines were followed. We included studies comprising healthy athletes exposed to acute and/or chronic stretching interventions. Six databases were searched (CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science) until 1 January 2023. The relevant data were narratively synthesized; quantitative data summaries were provided for key data items. An evidence gap map was developed to offer an overview of the existing research and relevant gaps.

RESULTS

Of ~ 220,000 screened records, we included 300 trials involving 7080 athletes [mostly males (~ 65% versus ~ 20% female, and ~ 15% unreported) under 36 years of age; tiers 2 and 3 of the Participant Classification Framework] across 43 sports. Sports requiring extreme range of motion (e.g., gymnastics) were underrepresented. Most trials assessed the acute effects of stretching, with chronic effects being scrutinized in less than 20% of trials. Chronic interventions averaged 7.4 ± 5.1 weeks and never exceeded 6 months. Most trials (~ 85%) implemented stretching within the warm-up, with other application timings (e.g., post-exercise) being under-researched. Most trials examined static active stretching (62.3%), followed by dynamic stretching (38.3%) and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching (12.0%), with scarce research on alternative methods (e.g., ballistic stretching). Comparators were mostly limited to passive controls, with ~ 25% of trials including active controls (e.g., strength training). The lower limbs were primarily targeted by interventions (~ 75%). Reporting of dose was heterogeneous in style (e.g., 10 repetitions versus 10 s for dynamic stretching) and completeness of information (i.e., with disparities in the comprehensiveness of the provided information). Most trials (~ 90%) reported performance-related outcomes (mainly strength/power and range of motion); sport-specific outcomes were collected in less than 15% of trials. Biomechanical, physiological, and neural/psychological outcomes were assessed sparsely and heterogeneously; only five trials investigated injury-related outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

There is room for improvement, with many areas of research on stretching being underexplored and others currently too heterogeneous for reliable comparisons between studies. There is limited representation of elite-level athletes (~ 5% tier 4 and no tier 5) and underpowered sample sizes (≤ 20 participants). Research was biased toward adult male athletes of sports not requiring extreme ranges of motion, and mostly assessed the acute effects of static active stretching and dynamic stretching during the warm-up. Dose-response relationships remain largely underexplored. Outcomes were mostly limited to general performance testing. Injury prevention and other effects of stretching remain poorly investigated. These relevant research gaps should be prioritized by funding policies.

REGISTRATION

OSF project ( https://osf.io/6auyj/ ) and registration ( https://osf.io/gu8ya ).

A Deep Learning Neural Network to Classify Obesity Risk in Portuguese Adolescents Based on Physical Fitness Levels and Body Mass Index Percentiles: Insights for National Health Policies

The increasing prevalence of overweight and obesity among adults is a risk factor for many chronic diseases and death. In addition, obesity among children and adolescents has reached unprecedented levels and studies show that obese children and adolescents are more likely to become obese adults. Therefore, both the prevention and treatment of obesity in adolescents are critical. This study aimed to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) neural network (NNET) model that identifies the risk of obesity in Portuguese adolescents based on their body mass index (BMI) percentiles and levels of physical fitness. Using datasets from the FITescola^® project, 654 adolescents aged between 10-19 years old, male: 334 (51%), female: n = 320 (49%), age 13.8 ± 2 years old, were selected to participate in a cross-sectional observational study. Physical fitness variables, age, and sex were used to identify the risk of obesity. The NNET had good accuracy (75%) and performance validation through the Receiver Operating Characteristic using the Area Under the Curve (ROC AUC = 64%) in identifying the risk of obesity in Portuguese adolescents based on the BMI percentiles. Correlations of moderate effect size were perceived for aerobic fitness (AF), upper limbs strength (ULS), and sprint time (ST), showing that some physical fitness variables contributed to the obesity risk of the adolescents. Our NNET presented a good accuracy (75%) and was validated with the K-Folds Cross-Validation (K-Folds CV) with good accuracy (71%) and ROC AUC (66%). According to the NNET, there was an increased risk of obesity linked to low physical fitness in Portuguese teenagers.