Stretching for Athletes: What Works, What Doesn’t, and When Isometric or Eccentric Training May Be More Useful
Table of Contents
Introduction: Why Stretching for Athletes Deserves a Closer Look
Stretching is one of the most widely practiced routines in sport. Athletes stretch before training to prevent injury, after training to prevent soreness, and on recovery days to maintain flexibility. Coaches prescribe it. Physiotherapists recommend it. In many training environments, stretching is almost treated as synonymous with muscle care. It certainly has its place — but an important question remains: how effective is it in the short term, and what does it actually achieve over the long term?
This same pattern I see in clinical practice. Patients often intuitively turn to stretching when dealing with musculoskeletal pain — regardless of its origin, whether related to sport or to prolonged desk-based work. It is commonly used as a first step when muscles feel sore or tight. In many cases, however, muscle care does not go much beyond this. Some may also use massage occasionally, but beyond stretching and basic self-treatment, more targeted interventions are often not implemented.
In this article, I will focus on the most common musculoskeletal complaints I encounter in clinical practice, as well as the pain conditions most frequently seen more broadly in athletes. The aim is not only to explain how stretching fits into their management, but also to clarify when other approaches may be more appropriate.
This article covers stretching for athletes in detail — its biology, its legitimate uses, and the myths around it. But understanding stretching properly also means understanding its limits. For two pain problems that are particularly common in competitive athletes — chronic neck and shoulder tension associated with desk-based work, and tendinopathy — the underlying mechanisms point toward different interventions.
The available evidence supports more targeted approaches in these contexts: resistance-based exercise, including isometric loading, for desk-related neck and shoulder pain, and eccentric loading for tendinopathy. Knowing which tool to use — and why — is what separates an evidence-informed approach from habit.
The Biology of Stretching for Athletes: What Happens in the Tissue
Acute effects: viscoelasticity and stress relaxation
During a static stretch, key mechanical processes occur in the muscle–tendon unit. The connective tissue components — endomysium, perimysium, epimysium, and fascia — exhibit viscoelastic behavior: they resist rapid deformation more strongly than slow deformation and undergo stress relaxation under sustained load, progressively softening over time [10]. At the microscopic level, muscle fibers lengthen during stretch.
The acute range-of-motion gain from a single stretching session involves both mechanical changes in tissue stiffness and neural changes in stretch tolerance — the point at which the nervous system generates discomfort [2]. The cited systematic review reports that ROM changes typically last less than 30 minutes after stretching.
It is a very common practice for athletes to include stretching at the beginning of a training session, typically after an initial warm-up. In many cases, this is done based on the belief that the acute increase in flexibility reduces the risk of injury and makes muscles less prone to strains.
Long-term adaptation: sarcomere addition and stretch tolerance
One proposed long-term adaptation to consistent stretching is the addition of sarcomeres in series within muscle fibers (sarcomerogenesis), which could theoretically shift the muscle’s optimal operating range toward longer lengths. Evidence for this mechanism comes primarily from animal studies of chronic muscle lengthening and immobilization models [9]. Human research remains limited, and current evidence does not clearly establish the extent to which stretching alone produces meaningful structural changes in vivo [10]. Instead, the predominant adaptation observed in human studies appears to be increased stretch tolerance — a neural change that raises the threshold at which stretch is perceived as uncomfortable — rather than confirmed structural elongation of the muscle itself.
In athletic communities, there is a common belief that improvements in flexibility are driven by changes in the muscle’s fascia — for example, that the fascia “stretches out” or that additional connective tissue is formed over time, thereby increasing extensibility. At present, there is limited high-quality evidence in humans to support these claims as primary mechanisms underlying flexibility gains. Instead, improvements in range of motion appear to be more consistently explained by neural adaptations, particularly increased stretch tolerance, rather than clearly demonstrated structural changes in fascia or connective tissue.
For athletes in sports demanding extreme range — such as high kicks, gymnastics, or overhead movements — this distinction is less important in practical terms. Both increased stretch tolerance and any potential structural adaptations contribute to usable range of motion, and either may be sufficient to support performance at end range.
What Stretching for Athletes Does — and Doesn’t Do: The Evidence
What stretching does well
The evidence supports stretching for athletes in the following contexts:
1. Increasing passive range of motion
Stretching can increase passive range of motion over training periods of several weeks, a finding consistently demonstrated across multiple study designs [2].
2. Supporting performance at long muscle lengths
In sports requiring extreme ranges of motion — such as kicking, gymnastics, or overhead movements — improved tolerance to end-range positions can support more effective execution of sport-specific movements [2].
3. Integrating into warm-up routines
As part of a comprehensive warm-up alongside dynamic components, short-duration static stretching (<60 seconds per muscle group) appears to have minimal negative effects on strength and power performance when followed by dynamic activity [2].
4. Providing short-term reductions in perceived pain and stiffness
Stretching may provide short-term reductions in the sensation of pain or discomfort, as well as stiffness. These effects are transient (typically <30 minutes) and appear to be driven primarily by changes in stretch tolerance and perception rather than a consistent reduction in underlying nociceptive input or tissue pathology [2].
Myth 1: Stretching for athletes before exercise prevents injury
This is the most pervasive myth in sport, and the one with the most direct evidence against it. A systematic review examining the efficacy of static stretching as part of a warm-up — including all four RCTs on this specific question — concluded that there is moderate to strong evidence that routine application of static stretching does not reduce overall injury rates [3]. The same review found preliminary evidence that static stretching may reduce musculotendinous injuries specifically — a narrower finding sometimes cited in favour of pre-exercise stretching in sprint and jump sports.
In athletic settings, it is commonly believed that stretching at the beginning of a training session helps prevent muscle strains. This was also what I was taught during my own early years in sports coaching — that improving flexibility before training would make muscles less prone to injury. However, current evidence does not support this assumption. Short-duration stretching does not appear to reduce overall injury or strain risk, although it may help athletes access the range of motion required for their sport.
Myth 2: Stretching for athletes after exercise prevents delayed-onset muscle soreness
Another common belief in athletic settings is that stretching reduces post-exercise muscle soreness. Current evidence does not support this. While stretching may provide a temporary sense of relief, it does not appear to meaningfully reduce delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS).
DOMS typically follows unaccustomed eccentric exercise and peaks between 24 and 72 hours. This timeline mirrors the elevation of creatine kinase — a commonly used marker of muscle damage — which is driven by the same eccentric loading that underlies DOMS.
A 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis by Afonso et al. in Frontiers in Physiology retrieved 17,050 records and included 11 RCTs for qualitative analysis, with 10 trials (n = 229 participants) pooled for meta-analysis. Between-group comparisons showed no effect of post-exercise stretching on DOMS at 24, 48, or 72 hours when compared to passive recovery (ES = −0.09 to −0.24; 95% CI = −0.70–0.28; p = 0.187–0.629; I² = 0.0%) [1].The authors noted that the confidence in cumulative evidence was very low, and that evidence-based recommendations on whether post-exercise stretching should be applied for recovery purposes should be avoided given the current data.
Myth 3: Long static stretching before training improves performance
Sustained static stretching immediately before performance may impair performance in strength and power activities. A systematic review by Behm, Blazevich, Kay, and McHugh (2016) reported that static stretching induced performance changes of −3.7% immediately after stretching, with a dose-response relationship: greater performance deficits with ≥60 s (−4.6%) than with <60 s (−1.1%) SS per muscle group [2]. The review also found that when post-stretch dynamic activity was included, no clear performance effect was observed. Static stretching of ≥60 seconds per muscle group is therefore best avoided immediately before power-dependent activity.
In my experience, this is becoming increasingly recognized in athletic and coaching environments, likely because it also aligns with intuitive experience. I have consistently noticed that after prolonged stretching at the start of a session, my muscles tend to feel less responsive or somewhat “sluggish.” This subjective effect is consistent with research showing that long-duration static stretching performed immediately before exercise can lead to small reductions in strength and power output.
Myth 4: More flexibility always means better performance for athletes
Passive flexibility and athletic performance appear to have a non-linear relationship. In endurance running, greater musculotendinous stiffness has been associated with improved elastic energy return and running economy [11]. In contrast, increased shoulder laxity in throwing athletes has been linked to an increased risk of anterior glenohumeral instability [12]. Overall, the optimal level of flexibility appears to be sport-specific rather than maximal — too little may limit range of motion, while too much can reduce force transmission and increase injury risk in certain movements.
So what Is Stretching Actually Good For?
At this point, a natural question arises — if stretching does not meaningfully reduce injury risk, does not alleviate muscle soreness, and does not accelerate recovery, what is it actually useful for?
When athletes and patients ask me this, the answer is straightforward: the primary benefit of stretching is improving range of motion. It allows the body to access positions that would otherwise be difficult or unavailable.
In sports that demand large ranges of motion — such as taekwondo, kickboxing, gymnastics, or overhead disciplines — this becomes essential. In my own experience, stretching was a necessary part of training, as many techniques simply cannot be performed effectively without sufficient mobility in the hips and lower limbs.
In addition, stretching can provide short-term reductions in the sensation of stiffness and perceived pain, which may make movement feel easier immediately after stretching. However, these effects are transient and appear to be driven primarily by changes in stretch tolerance and perception rather than meaningful changes in tissue structure or underlying nociceptive input.
From this perspective, stretching is best understood as a sport-specific tool. It is highly relevant when the demands of the activity require end-range movement, but it should not be expected to significantly improve recovery, reduce soreness, or meaningfully lower injury risk on its own.
When Stretching for Athletes Isn’t Enough
In clinical practice, I often see stretching recommended as a solution for a wide range of musculoskeletal complaints — including by physicians. In my own work, many patients also intuitively turn to stretching as a first-line approach when dealing with pain or tightness. However, there are two common situations where this approach tends to fall short despite how widely it is used.
The first involves chronic muscle pain related to sustained low-level muscle activation, such as desk-related neck and shoulder tension. The second is tendinopathy — a condition characterized by impaired tendon remodeling. In both cases, my experience is that stretching may provide temporary relief, but symptoms often return quickly. This aligns with current evidence suggesting that stretching is unlikely to provide meaningful long-term benefit, as it does not directly address the underlying mechanisms driving these conditions.
Isometric and Resistance Exercise for Desk-Related Pain
Many athletes spend long hours at desks, creating a mismatch between high neuromuscular demands in training and prolonged low-level static loading during work. This often leads to persistent neck, shoulder, and upper back tension that stretching alone does not adequately resolve.
One proposed explanation is the Cinderella hypothesis (Hägg, 1991) [13], which suggests that low-threshold motor units may remain continuously active during sustained postures, potentially contributing to local fatigue and pain. Stretching may temporarily reduce the sensation of tightness, but it is less likely to address these underlying neurophysiological mechanisms — which may help explain why any relief is often short-lived.
Isometric and resistance exercise may be more effective in this context. Two distinct mechanisms appear to explain their advantage over passive stretching:
First, they can improve motor unit rotation and recovery. According to the Cinderella hypothesis [13], low-threshold muscle fibres remain continuously active during prolonged static postures such as desk work. Resistance training helps by increasing periods of complete muscle relaxation (EMG gaps) during the workday, allowing these overloaded fibres essential recovery time. In one study, Lidegaard et al. (2013) showed that a 10-week workplace resistance training programme reduced neck and shoulder pain intensity by 40% and increased isometric strength in office workers [7], while also significantly improving motor unit relaxation patterns during daily work. Similarly, Khaledi and Minoonejad (2025) found that both isometric and isotonic training produced substantial pain reductions compared with no-exercise controls, with no statistically significant difference between the two exercise modalities [8].
Second, isometric exercise activates central pain inhibitory pathways (exercise-induced hypoalgesia). This involves both spinal gating mechanisms and descending inhibition from higher brain centres, which reduces the perception of pain and discomfort independently of local muscle changes. Wu et al. (2022) reported findings consistent with this mechanism, suggesting modulation of nociceptive signaling through both spinal and central pathways [4].
These two mechanisms — one peripheral at the muscle level and one central in the nervous system — likely work together to provide more sustained relief than the transient viscoelastic and perceptual effects of stretching.
In clinical practice, patients presenting with these types of static, load-related pain are often initially managed with rest, anti-inflammatory medication, and advice to reduce or avoid the aggravating activity. In many cases, they are also referred to physiotherapy as part of first-line management.
In my experience, isometric exercise is by no means unfamiliar to physiotherapists. In fact, physiotherapists commonly prescribe isometric loading as a first-line intervention for these conditions, often in a way that aligns well with current evidence-based practice.
When Stretching Doesn’t Improve Outcomes: Eccentric Loading for Tendinopathy
Tendinopathy — such as Achilles, patellar, or rotator cuff pain — is a common overuse condition in athletes. Typical approaches such as rest, anti-inflammatories, and stretching do not address the underlying pathology.
Chronic tendinopathy is characterized by a failed healing response in tendon tissue, including disorganized collagen and altered tenocyte activity. Passive stretching applies only low-grade tensile load and is unlikely to stimulate the remodeling process required for recovery.
Instead, tendons respond to mechanical loading through mechanotransduction, where tenocytes convert load into biochemical signals that drive collagen synthesis and structural adaptation. Langberg et al. (2007) demonstrated that 12 weeks of eccentric training increased collagen synthesis in injured Achilles tendons, while no such change was observed in healthy tissue [5], supporting a targeted repair response.
Clinical outcomes align with this mechanism. In a prospective study, Alfredson et al. (1998) reported that all 15 patients with chronic Achilles tendinosis returned to pre-injury running levels after a 12-week eccentric loading protocol [6]. Although this was a small, uncontrolled study, it remains one of the most widely cited loading approaches for mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy.
Eccentric loading has also been applied to other tendinopathies, including lateral epicondylitis and rotator cuff conditions. While the underlying biological rationale is consistent, the strength of evidence varies by anatomical site.
In my clinical experience, tendinopathy is often one of the more challenging conditions to manage. These cases are frequently long-lasting, and there is rarely a quick solution. Many patients go through prolonged periods of physiotherapy, and in some cases I have had to prescribe extended sick leave, particularly when symptoms are closely linked to occupational load.
I also commonly see cases where underlying biomechanical factors play a role — for example, altered gait mechanics in Achilles tendinopathy. Regardless of the contributing factors, these patients are typically referred early to physiotherapy. In my experience, eccentric loading is commonly used as a first-line rehabilitation strategy, in a way that aligns well with current evidence-based practice.
Conclusion
Stretching remains a widely used and, in many ways, valuable tool in athletic training. It can improve range of motion, support movement quality in sports that demand flexibility, and provide a sense of relief in certain contexts. However, its role is often misunderstood and overextended.
Current evidence does not support stretching as an effective strategy for reducing injury risk, preventing delayed-onset muscle soreness, or meaningfully accelerating recovery. In my clinical experience, many athletes and patients rely on stretching as a default solution for a wide range of musculoskeletal complaints, often without addressing the underlying mechanisms driving their symptoms.
For common conditions such as desk-related neck and shoulder pain and tendinopathy, more targeted approaches are required. Resistance-based interventions — including isometric loading for static pain conditions and eccentric loading for tendinopathy — are better aligned with the biology of these problems and are supported more consistently by current evidence.
The key is not to abandon stretching, but to use it with intention. When applied appropriately, it remains a useful tool for developing range of motion and supporting sport-specific performance. But when used as a universal solution, it often falls short. In both clinical practice and athletic training, progress comes from matching the intervention to the mechanism — not from relying on habit.
References
[1] https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.677581
[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26642915/
[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18785063/
[4] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34468414/
[5] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16787448/
[6] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9617396/
[7] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24490152/
[8] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12297035/
[9] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3462200/
[10] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2372082/
[11] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12627298/
