- A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
- Learn more
Preview content only
Content available from Sports Medicine
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Vol.:(0123456789)
Sports Medicine (2020) 50:853–870
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01248-w
CURRENT OPINION
The Case forRetiring Flexibility asaMajor Component ofPhysical
Fitness
JamesL.Nuzzo1,2
Published online: 16 December 2019
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
Abstract
Flexibility refers to the intrinsic properties of body tissues that determine maximal joint range of motion without causing
injury. For many years, flexibility has been classified by the American College of Sports Medicine as a major component of
physical fitness. The notion flexibility is important for fitness has also led to the idea static stretching should be prescribed
to improve flexibility. The current paper proposes flexibility be retired as a major component of physical fitness, and conse-
quently, stretching be de-emphasized as a standard component of exercise prescriptions for most populations. First, I show
flexibility has little predictive or concurrent validity with health and performance outcomes (e.g., mortality, falls, occupa-
tional performance) in apparently healthy individuals, particularly when viewed in light of the other major components of
fitness (i.e., body composition, cardiovascular endurance, muscle endurance, muscle strength). Second, I explain that if
flexibility requires improvement, this does not necessitate a prescription of stretching in most populations. Flexibility can
be maintained or improved by exercise modalities that cause more robust health benefits than stretching (e.g., resistance
training). Retirement of flexibility as a major component of physical fitness will simplify fitness batteries; save time and
resources dedicated to flexibility instruction, measurement, and evaluation; and prevent erroneous conclusions about fitness
status when interpreting flexibility scores. De-emphasis of stretching in exercise prescriptions will ensure stretching does
not negatively impact other exercise and does not take away from time that could be allocated to training activities that have
more robust health and performance benefits.
* James L. Nuzzo
j.nuzzo@neura.edu.au
1 Neuroscience Research Australia, Barker Street, Randwick,
NSW, Australia2031
2 School ofMedical Sciences, University ofNew South Wales,
Sydney, NSW, Australia
1 Flexibility Dened
Flexibility refers to the intrinsic properties of body tissues
that determine maximal joint range of motion (ROM) with-
out causing injury [1, 2]. Static flexibility refers to joint
ROM usually in relaxed muscle [2, 3]. Static flexibility is
subjective, as the limit ROM is determined by the tester or
the patient and their stretch tolerance [2, 3]. Tools used to
assess static flexibility include rulers, goniometers, electro-
goniometers, inclinometers, fleximeters, photography, vis-
ual estimations, and three-dimensional kinematics [4–11].
Dynamic flexibility refers to stiffness of the muscle-tendon
unit within normal ROM [2, 3]. Dynamic flexibility is more
objective [2, 3] and is assessed with force sensors, isokinetic
dynamometers, and shear wave elastography.
The current paper is concerned with static flexibility and
the sit-and-reach test. The sit-and-reach requires participants
to sit on the floor or in a chair and reach toward their toes.
This test is used in school fitness batteries in the United
States [12, 13]. The American College of Sports Medi-
cine (ACSM) states the sit-and-reach should be included in
health-related physical testing due to the “relative importance
of hamstring flexibility to activities of daily living and sports
performance…” [14]. Numerous studies have examined the
validity and reliability of the sit-and-reach [4, 15–50]. The
test is reliable andprimarily measures hamstrings flexibility.
2 Brief History ofFlexibility intheUnited
States
Clinical tests have been used to measure static flexibil-
ity (hereafter termed “flexibility”) in intact humans since
the early 1900s [11, 51]. In 1941, Cureton summarized
research on flexibility [52]. He discussed ways flexibility
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.