Perception-Based Methods and Beyond: A Current Opinion on How to Assess Static Stretching Intensity

Research output: Journal contributionsComments / Debate / ReportsResearch

Standard

Perception-Based Methods and Beyond: A Current Opinion on How to Assess Static Stretching Intensity. / Warneke, Konstantin; Blazevich, Anthony J.; Jochum, Daniel et al.
In: Sports Medicine, 11.09.2025.

Research output: Journal contributionsComments / Debate / ReportsResearch

Harvard

APA

Warneke, K., Blazevich, A. J., Jochum, D., Behm, D. G., Thomas, E., Nakamura, M., & Afonso, J. (2025). Perception-Based Methods and Beyond: A Current Opinion on How to Assess Static Stretching Intensity. Sports Medicine. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-025-02307-1

Vancouver

Warneke K, Blazevich AJ, Jochum D, Behm DG, Thomas E, Nakamura M et al. Perception-Based Methods and Beyond: A Current Opinion on How to Assess Static Stretching Intensity. Sports Medicine. 2025 Sept 11. Epub 2025 Sept 11. doi: 10.1007/s40279-025-02307-1

Bibtex

@article{8dd9fc7fcd2f4f0391507f91890eeb63,
title = "Perception-Based Methods and Beyond: A Current Opinion on How to Assess Static Stretching Intensity",
abstract = "Muscle stretching is widely used in clinical, athletic, and otherwise healthy populations, yet a consensual definition of stretch intensity—a key component of stretch load—does not exist. This is important because the effects of stretch intensity on range of motion and strength are controversial but suggested to affect clinical practice and scientific research. Most commonly, stretch intensity is defined in relation to an individual{\textquoteright}s perceived level of discomfort or pain; however, these definitions are problematic for several reasons, including that consensual and objective quantifiable definitions of {\textquoteleft}pain{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteleft}discomfort{\textquoteright} do not exist, perceptions vary widely (and may not be sensed in some populations), and their ordinal (interval) nature is problematic from a statistical (research) point of view. The maximal range of motion or stretch distance may instead be useful; however, it can be difficult to define the {\textquoteleft}start of stretch{\textquoteright} and tissue stress varies non-linearly with range of motion or distance, meaning tissue load (stress) varies markedly with small changes in joint angle or distance near the stretch limit but varies less when stretches are performed further from it. Alternatively, setting joint angles or stretch distances as a percentage of the peak passive torque or resistive force can circumvent these issues, removing the need to define the {\textquoteleft}start of stretch{\textquoteright} and ensuring that intensity changes largely reflect changes in tissue load; however, torque/force measurement can sometimes be difficult or impossible to assess. A concerted research effort is thus required to produce an accepted definition of stretch intensity, and then to clarify how this can be quantified in scientific and practical settings.",
keywords = "Health sciences, Physical education and sports",
author = "Konstantin Warneke and Blazevich, {Anthony J.} and Daniel Jochum and Behm, {David G.} and Ewan Thomas and Masatoshi Nakamura and Jos{\'e} Afonso",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} The Author(s) 2025.",
year = "2025",
month = sep,
day = "11",
doi = "10.1007/s40279-025-02307-1",
language = "English",
journal = "Sports Medicine",
issn = "0112-1642",
publisher = "Springer International Publishing",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Perception-Based Methods and Beyond

T2 - A Current Opinion on How to Assess Static Stretching Intensity

AU - Warneke, Konstantin

AU - Blazevich, Anthony J.

AU - Jochum, Daniel

AU - Behm, David G.

AU - Thomas, Ewan

AU - Nakamura, Masatoshi

AU - Afonso, José

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2025.

PY - 2025/9/11

Y1 - 2025/9/11

N2 - Muscle stretching is widely used in clinical, athletic, and otherwise healthy populations, yet a consensual definition of stretch intensity—a key component of stretch load—does not exist. This is important because the effects of stretch intensity on range of motion and strength are controversial but suggested to affect clinical practice and scientific research. Most commonly, stretch intensity is defined in relation to an individual’s perceived level of discomfort or pain; however, these definitions are problematic for several reasons, including that consensual and objective quantifiable definitions of ‘pain’ and ‘discomfort’ do not exist, perceptions vary widely (and may not be sensed in some populations), and their ordinal (interval) nature is problematic from a statistical (research) point of view. The maximal range of motion or stretch distance may instead be useful; however, it can be difficult to define the ‘start of stretch’ and tissue stress varies non-linearly with range of motion or distance, meaning tissue load (stress) varies markedly with small changes in joint angle or distance near the stretch limit but varies less when stretches are performed further from it. Alternatively, setting joint angles or stretch distances as a percentage of the peak passive torque or resistive force can circumvent these issues, removing the need to define the ‘start of stretch’ and ensuring that intensity changes largely reflect changes in tissue load; however, torque/force measurement can sometimes be difficult or impossible to assess. A concerted research effort is thus required to produce an accepted definition of stretch intensity, and then to clarify how this can be quantified in scientific and practical settings.

AB - Muscle stretching is widely used in clinical, athletic, and otherwise healthy populations, yet a consensual definition of stretch intensity—a key component of stretch load—does not exist. This is important because the effects of stretch intensity on range of motion and strength are controversial but suggested to affect clinical practice and scientific research. Most commonly, stretch intensity is defined in relation to an individual’s perceived level of discomfort or pain; however, these definitions are problematic for several reasons, including that consensual and objective quantifiable definitions of ‘pain’ and ‘discomfort’ do not exist, perceptions vary widely (and may not be sensed in some populations), and their ordinal (interval) nature is problematic from a statistical (research) point of view. The maximal range of motion or stretch distance may instead be useful; however, it can be difficult to define the ‘start of stretch’ and tissue stress varies non-linearly with range of motion or distance, meaning tissue load (stress) varies markedly with small changes in joint angle or distance near the stretch limit but varies less when stretches are performed further from it. Alternatively, setting joint angles or stretch distances as a percentage of the peak passive torque or resistive force can circumvent these issues, removing the need to define the ‘start of stretch’ and ensuring that intensity changes largely reflect changes in tissue load; however, torque/force measurement can sometimes be difficult or impossible to assess. A concerted research effort is thus required to produce an accepted definition of stretch intensity, and then to clarify how this can be quantified in scientific and practical settings.

KW - Health sciences

KW - Physical education and sports

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=105016237248&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s40279-025-02307-1

DO - 10.1007/s40279-025-02307-1

M3 - Comments / Debate / Reports

AN - SCOPUS:105016237248

JO - Sports Medicine

JF - Sports Medicine

SN - 0112-1642

ER -