Does stretching work?

Stretching works. It also does not work, depending on what you are asking it to do and what kind of stretching you are talking about. That second half is the part the conversation has glossed over for decades, and the research has finally caught up enough to be specific about it.

In 2025, a panel of twenty international research experts published a Delphi consensus statement in the Journal of Sport and Health Science (1). Twenty researchers from twelve countries worked from existing systematic reviews and settled on what stretching reliably does, what it does not do, and at what dose. The answer is more useful than the usual fitness-blog hedge, and it is also worth reading carefully, because what the literature is testing and what most thoughtful coaches mean by mobility training are not the same thing.

What the consensus actually evaluated

The studies being reviewed almost all examined a specific intervention: passive static stretching. Hold a position that lengthens a muscle, sit there for some number of seconds, repeat for some number of weeks. That is what the evidence base is built on. Whenever you see a headline about what stretching does or does not do, you are reading about that intervention.

The consensus found that passive stretching reliably improves range of motion, both acutely and over time. It reliably reduces muscle stiffness, though the dose required is higher than most people think. The panel pointed at roughly four minutes per muscle, five days per week, for at least three weeks before stiffness changes show up consistently. There is also early evidence that consistent static stretching may benefit vascular health, but the panel was honest that this finding needs more work before it can be leaned on.

On the other side, the panel found consensus that passive stretching, as a standalone intervention, does not serve as a general injury prevention strategy and does not acutely speed up post-exercise recovery. They also concluded that, on its own, passive stretching does not contribute substantively to muscle growth or improve posture. The last two findings are correct for what was actually tested. They are easy to misread.

Where the literature ends and where training begins

What we do at Motive Training, and what most coaches doing real mobility work do, is not the intervention being tested in those studies.

When we train end-range positions with PAILs and RAILs, we are not asking someone to passively hold a stretch. We are loading the tissue isometrically inside a lengthened position, building strength inside that position, and asking the nervous system to develop control where there was none. That is a fundamentally different stimulus than a passive hold. A 2021 systematic review by Afonso and colleagues (2) found that strength training through a full range of motion produced flexibility gains equivalent to stretching while also building strength. Training muscle in lengthened positions under load is a known driver of hypertrophy. Calling that “stretching” and then saying stretching does not build muscle is the conversation getting confused with itself.

The same problem shows up in the posture claim. Generic stretching programs aimed at no particular tissue and no particular postural limitation will not change anyone’s posture. The consensus is right about that. But targeted work on the specific structures limiting upright organization, the thoracic spine that cannot extend, the hip flexors that have shortened from years of sitting, the scapula that cannot retract, can absolutely change the postural picture. That work uses some of the same tools the literature calls stretching, applied with intent and specificity that the studied protocols do not have.

The performance caveat is worth naming briefly. The consensus and an earlier 2013 meta-analysis (3) both flag prolonged static stretching of more than sixty seconds per muscle, performed immediately before maximal strength or power output, as something that can temporarily reduce force production. This is real. It is also not what anyone training mobility seriously is doing. Nobody is sitting in a passive sixty-second hamstring stretch as their warm-up for a squat session. The finding is useful as a reason not to do that specific thing, not as a general indictment of stretching before training.

Where the literature gets it right, and we should not retreat

Two of the consensus findings hold up even when you account for what we actually do.

Stretching, of any kind, is not the lever that prevents injury. The research on this has been pointing the same direction for over twenty years (4), and the consensus confirms it. What does prevent injury: appropriate load management, strength built through full ranges of motion, tissue capacity developed over time, coordination and end-range control. Mobility training can support all of that, but the claim that stretching itself protects you from injury is one the evidence does not back, no matter how the stretching is dressed up.

The recovery claim is similar. Stretching the night after a hard session can feel good and can offer real mobility benefits. It does not measurably speed up tissue repair or reduce next-day soreness in any acute, meaningful way. Treating the post-workout stretch as a recovery tool is a category mistake.

What this means for how to think about stretching

The shorthand most coaches and clients reach for, “is stretching good or bad,” is the wrong question. The useful questions are narrower.

Are you trying to expand passive range of motion in a specific joint? Stretching can do that, at a dose most people are not actually giving it.

Are you trying to reduce a stiff, restricted feeling in a tissue you sit on for nine hours a day? Stretching can help, and so can moving the joint regularly through its available range.

Are you trying to build strength and control inside that new range so the body can actually use it under load? You are no longer doing passive stretching. You are doing mobility training, which uses lengthened positions as one input inside a larger system that includes isometric loading, controlled articular rotations, and integration with strength work. That is the layer the consensus is not really evaluating, and it is the layer where the lasting change happens.

The single most useful idea to carry around is this: range you cannot control is range you do not own. The nervous system protects ranges where strength and motor control are absent. Stretching can raise the ceiling of what is theoretically available. It does not, by itself, give your brain a reason to let you use that range when load shows up. The work of closing that gap is what Functional Range Conditioning was built to do, and it is what separates mobility training as a discipline from stretching as a habit.

How we apply this at Motive Training

We do not throw stretching out. We use it where it earns its place and we are honest about what it is doing.

We pair lengthened positions with end-range isometric loading, so the body builds strength inside the new range instead of just visiting it. We measure joint motion and control through the Functional Range Assessment so we are training what is actually limiting someone, not what feels tight today. We integrate the work into KINSTRETCH classes in Austin and through KINSTRETCH Online so that the system runs consistently, with intent, instead of as a collection of stretches people remember to do sometimes.

Stretching is a real tool. It is also one tool, and the cultural conversation has been treating it like an entire toolbox. The 2025 consensus is a good chance to be more precise about what it does, where it helps, and where you need something else.

References

1. Practical recommendations on stretching exercise: A Delphi consensus statement of international research experts
2. Strength Training versus Stretching for Improving Range of Motion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
3. Does pre-exercise static stretching inhibit maximal muscular performance? A meta-analytical review
4. The impact of stretching on sports injury risk: a systematic review of the literature

---

Written by