What static stretching costs before you train
Across 83 studies pooled in a multilevel meta-analysis of controlled pre-post trials, an acute bout of static stretching produced a small reduction in maximal strength (ES = -0.21) versus passive controls, rising to a high-magnitude reduction (ES = -0.84) for stretching durations of 60 s or more per bout; the authors' conclusion ties this confirmation of earlier findings to strength testing of isolated muscles such as leg extensions or calf raises. Against active controls the strength loss ranged from -0.17 to -0.28. Athletic performance in general was not negatively influenced versus either passive or active controls, and jumping performance in adults was slightly better after stretching than in controls (ES = 0.15).
Warneke K (2024) · Journal of sport and health science · PMID 38735533
It does NOT say static stretching is harmless across the board. The maximal-strength deficit is real and is high-magnitude (ES = -0.84) at stretching durations of 60 s or more per bout, so this cannot be turned into "the stretching thing was a myth". It does not say static stretching meaningfully improves jumping; ES = 0.15 is small and was found in adults only. It does not license stretching before a 1RM attempt, which is the isolated-strength case where the deficit held. It says nothing about injury risk. It quantifies jumping only, so no sprinting or agility number exists here, and the authors' mention of sprinting is a conclusion, not an effect size. It says nothing about how static stretching compares to a dynamic warm-up as a positive intervention, and nothing about whether stretching can replace a warm-up. It also does not establish that the pooled studies were randomised: the design is controlled pre-post trials, not RCTs. Finally, it reports duration per bout only, never total stretch volume or number of bouts, so it cannot support any claim about total stretching time in a session.
Every figure below is shown with the sentence it was taken from, so you can check it against the paper rather than trusting us.
- 83studies
Number of studies pooled in the meta-analysis
Including 83 studies with more than 400 ES from 2012 participants, our results indicate a significant, small ES for a static stretch-induced maximal strength loss (ES = -0.21, p = 0.003), with high magnitude ES (ES = -0.84, p = 0.004) for stretching durations ≥60 s per bout when compared to passive controls.
- more than 400effect sizes
Number of individual effect sizes extracted across the included studies, reported by the authors as an approximation rather than an exact count
Including 83 studies with more than 400 ES from 2012 participants, our results indicate a significant, small ES for a static stretch-induced maximal strength loss (ES = -0.21, p = 0.003), with high magnitude ES (ES = -0.84, p = 0.004) for stretching durations ≥60 s per bout when compared to passive controls.
- 2012participants
Total pooled participants across the included studies. Confirmed to be a participant count and not a publication year (the paper is 2024).
Including 83 studies with more than 400 ES from 2012 participants, our results indicate a significant, small ES for a static stretch-induced maximal strength loss (ES = -0.21, p = 0.003), with high magnitude ES (ES = -0.84, p = 0.004) for stretching durations ≥60 s per bout when compared to passive controls.
- -0.21effect size (ES)
Reduction in maximal strength after static stretching versus passive controls. The abstract's own label is "a significant, small ES". Hyphen is an ASCII hyphen-minus in the served text, not U+2212 (re-confirmed: no U+2212 anywhere in the abstract).
Including 83 studies with more than 400 ES from 2012 participants, our results indicate a significant, small ES for a static stretch-induced maximal strength loss (ES = -0.21, p = 0.003), with high magnitude ES (ES = -0.84, p = 0.004) for stretching durations ≥60 s per bout when compared to passive controls.
- 0.003p-value
p-value for the maximal strength loss versus passive controls
Including 83 studies with more than 400 ES from 2012 participants, our results indicate a significant, small ES for a static stretch-induced maximal strength loss (ES = -0.21, p = 0.003), with high magnitude ES (ES = -0.84, p = 0.004) for stretching durations ≥60 s per bout when compared to passive controls.
- -0.84effect size (ES)
Reduction in maximal strength for stretching durations of 60 s or more per bout versus passive controls. The abstract's own label is "high magnitude ES"; use that wording rather than substituting a Cohen label such as "large".
Including 83 studies with more than 400 ES from 2012 participants, our results indicate a significant, small ES for a static stretch-induced maximal strength loss (ES = -0.21, p = 0.003), with high magnitude ES (ES = -0.84, p = 0.004) for stretching durations ≥60 s per bout when compared to passive controls.
- 0.004p-value
p-value for the long-duration maximal strength loss versus passive controls
Including 83 studies with more than 400 ES from 2012 participants, our results indicate a significant, small ES for a static stretch-induced maximal strength loss (ES = -0.21, p = 0.003), with high magnitude ES (ES = -0.84, p = 0.004) for stretching durations ≥60 s per bout when compared to passive controls.
- ≥60 s per boutstretching duration per bout
The stretching duration at which the high-magnitude maximal-strength deficit appeared. "per bout" must never be dropped: the abstract states no total stretch volume or number of bouts. The ≥ is U+2265 with no space after it; the space in "60 s" is an ordinary U+0020 in the served text, so this value is byte-exact. It is a greater-than-or-equal threshold and must not be printed as "past 60 s" or "over 60 s", which would exclude exactly 60 s.
Including 83 studies with more than 400 ES from 2012 participants, our results indicate a significant, small ES for a static stretch-induced maximal strength loss (ES = -0.21, p = 0.003), with high magnitude ES (ES = -0.84, p = 0.004) for stretching durations ≥60 s per bout when compared to passive controls.
- -0.17 to -0.28effect size (ES) range
Range of maximal strength loss when static stretching was compared against active control conditions rather than passive rest. Stored without a paired p-token: the abstract gives "p < 0.001 and 0.040" without mapping either p-value to either endpoint, so no single p may be printed beside this range.
When opposed to active controls, the maximal strength loss ranges between ES: -0.17 to -0.28, p < 0.001 and 0.040 with mostly no to small heterogeneity.
- 0.15effect size (ES)
Positive effect of static stretching on subsequent jumping performance, found in adults. The "in adults" scope is in the same sentence and must travel with the number. This is the only performance effect size in the record, and it is jumping only — never print it beside a mention of sprinting.
However, stretching did not negatively influence athletic performance in general (when compared to both passive and active controls); in fact, a positive effect on subsequent jumping performance (ES = 0.15, p = 0.006) was found in adults.
- 0.006p-value
p-value for the positive jumping-performance effect in adults
However, stretching did not negatively influence athletic performance in general (when compared to both passive and active controls); in fact, a positive effect on subsequent jumping performance (ES = 0.15, p = 0.006) was found in adults.
2012 participants pooled across 83 studies. The jumping result is reported specifically for adults, and that scope must travel with the number. String-checked the fetched abstract: "trained", "untrained", "recreational", "sex", "male", "female", "children" and "adolescent" appear nowhere in it, so no claim can be made about training status, sex, or age range beyond the single word "adults".
Warneke K, et al. (2024)Revisiting the stretch-induced force deficit: A systematic review with multilevel meta-analysis of acute effects.
Journal of sport and health science · PMID 38735533
Meta-analysis · 83 studies with more than 400 effect sizes · 2012 participants
Who funded itAuthors declare no conflicts of interest.
Volume, rep ranges, rest, stretching, sleep — each with its numbers and its limits.
Every figure is machine-checked against the sentence it came from. Including what that does not guarantee.
Repstra handles the programming, check-ins and admin so the conversation you have with a client is the coaching one. Free for your first 5 clients, 0% commission on your own.
See how it works