Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 Apr 7;9(4):427.
doi: 10.3390/healthcare9040427.

Strength Training versus Stretching for Improving Range of Motion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

José Afonso  1 , Rodrigo Ramirez-Campillo  2   3 , João Moscão  4 , Tiago Rocha  5 , Rodrigo Zacca  1   6   7 , Alexandre Martins  1 , André A Milheiro  1 , João Ferreira  8 , Hugo Sarmento  9 , Filipe Manuel Clemente  10   11
Affiliations
Review

Strength Training versus Stretching for Improving Range of Motion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

José Afonso et al. Healthcare (Basel). .

Abstract

(1) Background: Stretching is known to improve range of motion (ROM), and evidence has suggested that strength training (ST) is effective too. However, it is unclear whether its efficacy is comparable to stretching. The goal was to systematically review and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of ST and stretching on ROM (INPLASY 10.37766/inplasy2020.9.0098). (2) Methods: Cochrane Library, EBSCO, PubMed, Scielo, Scopus, and Web of Science were consulted in October 2020 and updated in March 2021, followed by search within reference lists and expert suggestions (no constraints on language or year). Eligibility criteria: (P) Humans of any condition; (I) ST interventions; (C) stretching (O) ROM; (S) supervised RCTs. (3) Results: Eleven articles (n = 452 participants) were included. Pooled data showed no differences between ST and stretching on ROM (ES = -0.22; 95% CI = -0.55 to 0.12; p = 0.206). Sub-group analyses based on risk of bias, active vs. passive ROM, and movement-per-joint analyses showed no between-protocol differences in ROM gains. (4) Conclusions: ST and stretching were not different in their effects on ROM, but the studies were highly heterogeneous in terms of design, protocols and populations, and so further research is warranted. However, the qualitative effects of all the studies were quite homogeneous.

Keywords: flexibility; joints; mobility; plyometrics; resistance training.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

J.M. owns a company focused on Personal Trainer’s education but made no attempt to bias the team in protocol design and search process, and had no role in study selection or in extracting data for meta-analyses. The multiple cross-checks described in the methods provided objectivity to data extraction and analysis. Additionally, J.M. had no financial involvement in this manuscript. The other authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart describing the study selection process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot of changes in ROM after participating in stretching-based compared to Scheme 95. confidence intervals (CI). The size of the plotted squares reflects the statistical weight of the study.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot of changes in ROM after participating in stretching-based compared to Scheme 95. confidence intervals (CI).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plot of changes in ROM after participating in stretching-based compared to Scheme 95. confidence intervals (CI).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plot of changes in ROM after participating in stretching-based compared to Scheme 95. confidence intervals (CI).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Forest plot of changes in hip flexion ROM after participating in stretching-based compared to strength-based training interventions. Values shown are effect sizes (Hedges’s g) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The size of the plotted squares reflects the statistical weight of the study.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Forest plot of changes in hip flexion ROM after participating in stretching-based compared to strength-based training interventions with high versus low RoB in randomization. Values shown are effect sizes (Hedges’s g) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Figure 8
Figure 8
Forest plot of changes in hip flexion ROM after participating in stretching-based compared to strength-based training interventions assessing active or passive ROM. Values shown are effect sizes (Hedges’s g) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Figure 9
Figure 9
Forest plot of changes in knee extension ROM after participating in stretching-based compared to strength-based training interventions (all assessed passive ROM). Values shown are effect sizes (Hedges’s g) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The size of the plotted squares reflects the statistical weight of the study.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kent M. The Oxford Dictionary of Sports Science & Medicine. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press; Oxford, UK: 2007.
    1. ACSM . In: ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. 10th ed. Bayles M.P., Swank A.M., editors. Wolters Kluwer; Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands: 2018.
    1. De Zoete R.M., Armfield N.R., McAuley J.H., Chen K., Sterling M. Comparative effectiveness of physical exercise interventions for chronic non-specific neck pain: A systematic review with network meta-analysis of 40 randomised controlled trials. Br. J. Sports Med. 2020 doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-102664. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Morris P.E., Berry M.J., Files D.C., Thompson J.C., Hauser J., Flores L., Dhar S., Chmelo E., Lovato J., Case L.D., et al. Standardized rehabilitation and hospital length of stay among patients with acute respiratory failure: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;315:2694–2702. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.7201. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gross A.M., Wolters P.L., Dombi E., Baldwin A., Whitcomb P., Fisher M.J., Weiss B., Kim A., Bornhorst M., Shah A.C., et al. Selumetinib in children with inoperable plexiform neurofibromas. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020;382:1430–1442. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1912735. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources