Many runners perform an intricate ritual of stretching, warm-up, and cool-down activities before and after running training and events. These rituals may be done in attempts to enhance performance, prevent injuries, or to decrease potential post-exercise muscle soreness. But what does available research literature show? Do these activities actually improve performance, decrease injuries, and improve exercise-induced muscle soreness?

Stretching

Stretching is the activity of lengthening muscles and/or soft tissues to increase flexibility. This can be done as a static hold, or through dynamic movements. Static stretching has long been used as part of the pre-activity warm-up, but recent research has suggested that static stretching may result in immediate decrease in activity performance.(1,2) Dynamic stretching activities on the other hand, have been shown to potentially result in slight performance enhancements and mitigate performance deficits caused by static stretching.(1)

When looking at stretching specifically to running, available literature suggests that there is no significant advantage. Stretching immediately before running can potentially decrease running economy and performance, and continued stretching over the long-term does not provide any additional benefits. Stretching has not been shown to decrease the risk of running-related overuse injuries, and literature consistently reports that post-exercise stretching has no effect on exercise-related muscle soreness.(3)

Therefore, as stated by Baxter et al, “it can be concluded that stretching is an ineffective way of altering performance or injury risk and endurance athletes are advised to direct their efforts to other strategies”.(3)

Warm-up

A warm-up is performed prior to many sporting activities in order to “prepare the body for high-level performance and to prevent injuries”.(4) Studies have shown running athletes tend to warm-up before competitions for 10-15 minutes.(5) Generally, there are suggestions that warm-up duration should be anywhere from 5 minutes for short-term performance gains, up to 10-20 minutes for more intermediate-term performance gains.(4) A 2016 study in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research found that there was no difference in intermediate-term performance when comparing a long 10 minute warm-up versus a shorter warm-up.(4)

Another study from The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research in 2017 looked at whether or not including a warm-up, and if warm-up intensity effected running performance during 3,000-5,000 meter running events. They tested athletes’ time to exhaustion during running at 90% effort after different warm-up protocols or no warm-up at all. They found no significant difference in the time to exhaustion or distance the athletes ran with or without warm-up.(5) This may lead to the suggestion that warm-up may not be necessary prior to running distances of 3,000-5,000 meters at or near 90% intensities, and can be based on the personal preferences of the running athlete.

Cool-down

The post-exercise cool-down is a form of recovery. This can include activities performed with the goal of returning the cardiovascular system back to its resting or pre-exercise state, as well as activities with the goal of reducing effects of muscular fatigue to minimize post-exercise physical performance deficits.(6) Numerous research articles in the available literature explore recovery strategies, particularly comparing passive versus active recovery methods.

Active recovery has been defined as “aerobic-type whole-body activities (eg, running, biking, or swimming), performed at loads between 30% and 60% of the individual maximal oxygen consumption and lasting for at least 15 minutes”.(7) Studies exploring active recovery have demonstrated its benefits in recovery of performance compared to passive rest.(8,9) It is suggested that active recovery should involve the muscle groups used during the fatiguing exercise (cool-down walking/jogging), and should be performed at an intensity of about 30-60% of the individual’s maximal oxygen consumption. Although active recovery can produce acute recovery benefits, it has been shown to not produce long-term recovery benefits and should not replace other appropriate methods of recovery such as rest days.(10)

Delayed-Onset Muscle Soreness (DOMS)

As mentioned earlier, stretching after exercises has been shown to not be effective in preventing or decreasing exercise-induced muscle soreness. Foam rolling immediately after exercise, 24 hours after exercise, and 48 hours after exercise has been shown to decrease in DOMS.(11) Foam rolling should be performed for 30-60 seconds to each muscle group used during exercise. A couple of passive methods such as electrical-stimulation and vasopneumatic compression have also been shown to have some effect on decreases muscle soreness.(12,13)

A previous blog series, Post Training Recovery: Parts 1-7, has plenty more information on post-exercise recovery and alleviation of exercise-induced muscle soreness.

The final piece to this series, Part 4, will address training load monitoring for running, and how mileage alone may not be the best guiding factor.

References

1.       Behm, D.G., et al., Acute effects of muscle stretching on physical performance, range of motion, and injury incidence in healthy active individuals: a systematic review. Appl. Physio. Nutr. Metab., 2016; 41: 1-11.

2.       McMillian, D.J., et al., Dynamic vs. Static-Stretching Warm Up: The Effect on Power and Agility Performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2006; 20(3): 492-499.

3.       Baxter C, Mc Naughton LR, Sparks A, Norton L, Bentley D. Impact of stretching on the performance and injury risk of long-distance runners. Res Sports Med. 2017;25(1):78–90. doi:10.1080/15438627.2016.1258640

4.       van den Tillaar R, Vatten T, von Heimburg E. Effects of Short or Long Warm-up on Intermediate Running Performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(1):37–44. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001489

5.       Takizawa K, Yamaguchi T, Shibata K. Warm-Up Exercises May Not Be So Important for Enhancing Submaximal Running Performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(5):1383–1390. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001970

6.       Borges, N., et al., Age-Related Changes in Performance and Recovery Kinetics in Masters Athletes: A Narrative Review. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 2016; 24: 149-157. doi: 10.1123/japa.2015-0021

7.       Wiewelhove, T., et al., Effect of Repeated Active Recovery During a High-Intensity Interval-Training Shock Microcycle on Markers of Fatigue. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2016; 11: 1060-1066.

8.       Mika, A., et al., Comparison of Two Different Modes of Active Recovery on Muscles Performance after Fatiguing Exercise in Mountain Canoeist and Football Players. PLOS ONE, 2016; 1-14. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164216

9.       Nalbandian, H.M., et al., Active Recovery between Interval Bouts Reduces Blood Lactate While Improving Subsequent Exercise Performance in Trained Men. Sports, 2017; 5(40). doi:10.3390/sports5020040

10.   Wiewelhove, T., et al., Effect of Repeated Active Recovery During a High-Intensity Interval-Training Shock Microcycle on Markers of Fatigue. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2016; 11: 1060-1066.

11.   Pearcey, G.E., et al., Foam Rolling for Delayed-Onset Muscle Soreness and Recovery of Dynamic Performance Measures. Journal of Athletic Training, 2015; 50(1): 5-13. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-50.1.01

12.   Babault, N., et al., Does electrical stimulation enhance post-exercise performance recovery?. Eur J Appl Physiol, 2011; 111: 2501-2507. doi: 10.1007/s00421-011-2117-7

13.   Winke, M. and Shelby, W., Comparison of a Pneumatic Compression Device to a Compression Garment During Recovery from DOMS. International Journal of Exercise Science, 2018; 11(3): 375-383.