Loading ...
Stretching: Rethinking “Loosen what’s tight”
A number of comments by IDEA lecturers at last month’s conference, as well as tidbits hidden in articles here and there, lead us to question the general nature of what’s been considered a cornerstone of corrective exercise: Is “lengthen or loosen what’s tight” really the right way to go?
There’s new attention to older techniques, and with today’s knowledge, smart therapists are learning each stretching method works on different issues, and that some stretching can be effectively applied to specific muscle groups and not to others.
For example, Eric Cressey describes a segment of a recent Bill Hartman lecture wherein Bill distinguishes shortened muscles from stiff muscles. What he’s saying is stretching a muscle just because it’s tight may fix the problem, may do nothing, or may even make the condition worse. Expanding on that, he goes on to tell us even if stretching is called for, we still need to know what caused the problem in order to determine what type of stretching will serve us well—long duration static stretching, shorter static stretching or dynamic moving stretching, for example.
Then we get over to Paul Chek, who’s been writing about this for years, where we find his explanation of tonic (postural for enduring stability) vs phasic (power for movement) muscles. Each type of muscle contains a different percentage of fast- and slow-twitch fibers, and according to Paul, each will respond to a different method of stretching.
When you get to the end of Paul’s suggestions, you’ll discover his number one premise: “If it’s not tight, don’t stretch it!” Continuing the quote:
“If you complete the typical general stretching routine, you will simply be loose and out of balance, while not stretching an out-of-balance body and simply exercising just results in a progressively tighter, potentially brittle out-of-balance body. Neither is optimal for your health or performance!”
And over to Lenny Parracino, who suggests a range of stretching to include holding a stretch over a triggerpoint to neurodynamic and neuromuscular stretching in addition to our traditional stretches. He also points out the need to sort out the reason for the problem to determine the best technique. Quote:
“Why are there so many stretching techniques? Because they all work! All stretching techniques are based on neurophysiological and mechanical principals. Once understood, the assessment and stretching program can become individualized.”
Now Greg Roskopf, the guy behind Muscle Activation Techniques (MAT), is outspoken against automatically stretching to lengthen tight muscles. Quote:
“Muscle tightness can be a representation of the body protecting itself from instability. … The associated tightness is just a symptom for some other underlying cause (weakness). Thus, without fixing the problem (muscle weakness), the tight muscles cannot relax.”
He’s mostly talking about isometrics in tensed positions to rebuild central nervous system-to-muscle neural connections. I only saw a two-hour presentation of his at IDEA and didn’t get more than a general overview; interested trainers should look at one of his MAT Jumpstart programs, three two-day workshops that explain the theory and demonstrate how to find the weaknesses—the assessment portion—and which muscles to contract to strengthen the tight area, which will usually be the antagonists.
Here’s another opposing viewpoint: Hands-on Feldenkrais therapists never move into tightness. Instead, practitioners stay in the areas near the tightness where the body feels “safe” and in fact, much of their work begins on the opposite appendage in the case where, say, one shoulder rotates well and the other does not. The Feldenkrais worker will spend the initial time on the shoulder that functions well to remind the brain of the optimal range of motion. After work there, the restricted shoulder will be attended, but in the free-moving range and only slowing moving into the tightness over time.
In Total Motion Release, the creator, Tom Dalonzo-Baker, again follows some of the Feldenkrais-like principles by using properly working joint and muscle pairs to teach good movement to the poorly working, areas most of us would naturally stretch due to chronic pain or tightness.
Using my recent history as an example, when I started this rehab process in January, along with “strengthen what’s weak,” which still holds solid by the way, I took “loosen what’s tight” fully to heart.
A) There are several spots I’ve stretched and stretched and stretched, yet months later there’s been no change.
B) On the other hand, one single stretching session during which pretty much on a whim I waited out the lengthening process and tight chest muscles that had been pulling my shoulders forward for literally decades loosened up over the course of half an hour and has stayed that way during the months since. Once lengthened, this area seems to have remained in its longer, optimal state.
C) Finally, there were a couple of spots I overstretched — too long, too often — and lost some stability I had to work to regain. Too long equals weak; we need both mobility/flexibility and stability, and sometimes it’s a fine balance between them.
There’s a lot about stretching that we don’t know, or better yet, that hasn’t been put forward in a simple template for the casual trainer. But the sharp guys are getting close for us, and when that happens, look out because a large percentage of our recurring physical pains will be easily fixable.