Static Stretching Is Wasted Time for Endurance Athletes. Build Muscle Instead.
Ironman Series #2: Why I Skipped Stretching Routines for Two Years and Stayed Injury-Free
Part of the Ironman series on endurance physiology and systems-level training. Series #1 examined why polarized training distribution builds endurance capacity more effectively than threshold-focused protocols. This article confronts the mobility obsession in endurance culture and argues that strength training delivers what foam rolling promises but never provides.
The endurance community has a static stretching problem.
Not because athletes lack flexibility. Because they believe static flexibility prevents injury.
Yoga classes. Foam rolling. Static stretching routines. Mobility drills. Hip flexor releases. Thoracic spine openers. Most endurance athletes spend 3 to 5 hours per week on range-of-motion work under the assumption that tight muscles cause injuries.
The research does not support static stretching as a blanket injury prevention tool.
Stretching does not reliably reduce injury rates in runners. Strength training does.
Here is what two years of Ironman training without static stretching routines taught me: Range of motion beyond what your sport functionally requires often provides diminishing returns. Force production capacity does not.
I trained for and completed two Ironman races. I ran four marathons. I logged over 1,000 hours of endurance training across swimming, cycling, and running. I did not foam roll. I did not follow static stretching protocols. I did not do yoga.
I lifted heavy three times per week. Hypertrophy focus. 8 to 12 reps. Compound movements. Progressive overload.
Result: Two years injury-free. No IT band syndrome. No plantar fasciitis. No Achilles tendinopathy. No hip flexor strain.
This is one case (n=1), not population-level proof. But the mechanism aligns with what the literature suggests.
The difference was not static flexibility. It was structural capacity to absorb repetitive load.
This article explains the mechanism. And why spending hours per week on static stretching routines is often a misallocation of training time that endurance athletes cannot afford.
The Mobility Myth: Why Static Stretching Doesn’t Prevent Injuries (But ROM Deficits Matter)
The intuitive argument for stretching is simple: tight muscles pull on joints, create imbalances, and cause injury. Stretching restores optimal length-tension relationships and prevents dysfunction.
This sounds mechanistically plausible. The evidence does not confirm it for static stretching as a blanket intervention.
A systematic review and meta-analysis examining stretching interventions and injury prevention in athletic populations found that stretching before or after exercise does not significantly reduce injury risk. The pooled data across multiple studies showed no meaningful reduction in injury incidence for athletes who stretched compared to those who did not (Thacker et al., 2004, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, DOI: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000117134.83018.F7).
A large randomized controlled trial involving over 2,700 runners found no difference in injury rates between a stretching group and a non-stretching control group over a 12-week period. Static stretching neither increased nor decreased injury incidence (Pereles et al., 2011, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181f3b1e3).
More recent systematic reviews confirm this finding. A 2016 review on acute effects of stretching found that while stretching can temporarily increase range of motion, these changes do not translate to reduced injury incidence in active populations (Behm et al., 2016, Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, DOI: 10.1139/apnm-2015-0235).
This does not mean all mobility work is useless. It means static stretching as a general injury prevention tool is weak.
Research shows that stretching does increase acute range of motion and can reduce passive muscle stiffness temporarily. But these changes do not translate to reduced injury risk in athletic populations, and may temporarily reduce maximal force production and power output if performed immediately before high-intensity efforts (Blazevich et al., 2018, Sports Medicine, DOI: 10.1007/s40279-017-0797-9; Behm et al., 2016, Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, DOI: 10.1139/apnm-2015-0235).
Dynamic movement-based warm-ups differ fundamentally from prolonged static stretching routines. Dynamic warm-ups (controlled movement through full range of motion, progressive intensity increases, sport-specific patterns) improve acute readiness and may reduce injury risk when part of a structured preparation protocol. Static stretching (passive holding of stretched positions) does not provide the same benefit.
The mechanism matters. Injuries in endurance athletes are not caused by muscles being too stiff. They are caused by tissues lacking the structural capacity to tolerate cumulative mechanical load.
Where range of motion deficits actually matter:
Sport-specific ROM limitations: If your sport demands a range of motion you lack, that deficit predicts injury. Limited ankle dorsiflexion in runners correlates with Achilles tendinopathy risk. Restricted shoulder internal rotation in swimmers predicts shoulder pain. In these cases, targeted mobility work addresses a mechanical deficit.
Movement compensation patterns: When ROM is restricted in one joint, the body compensates by overloading adjacent joints. Limited hip extension forces lumbar hyperextension during running. This increases lower back injury risk. Restoring functional ROM at the hip reduces compensatory loading.
Dynamic vs static stretching: Dynamic mobility (controlled movement through full ROM) improves acute movement quality and may reduce injury risk when part of a structured warm-up. Static stretching (passive holding) does not provide the same benefit and may temporarily reduce force output if performed immediately before exercise.
The problem is not mobility work itself. The problem is spending hours per week on static stretching routines that do not address functional deficits or build structural capacity.
Why doesn’t static stretching prevent injuries in endurance athletes?
Endurance injuries are often caused by insufficient strength to tolerate repetitive loading, not insufficient static flexibility. Running requires approximately 90 degrees of hip flexion. Cycling requires even less. Swimming demands shoulder mobility, but this is sport-specific and addressed through stroke mechanics and targeted shoulder work, not generalized flexibility training across all joints.
If your sport does not demand the range of motion, training it provides diminishing returns.
The real injury risk in endurance sports comes from mechanical overload. Repetitive ground-reaction forces. Eccentric muscle contractions during downhill running. Force absorption during foot strike. Structural fatigue accumulation over thousands of loading cycles.
Static stretching does not build load tolerance. Strength training does.
What Actually Prevents Endurance Injuries: Eccentric Strength and Structural Capacity
The research on injury prevention in endurance athletes is clear. Strength training reduces injury rates. Stretching does not.
A systematic review examining interventions to prevent running-related injuries found that strength training programs targeting lower-limb musculature reduced injury incidence. Stretching programs did not (Lauersen et al., 2014, British Journal of Sports Medicine, DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-092538).
Why does strength training prevent injuries?
Because injuries in endurance athletes are often mechanical failures under repetitive load. The tissue lacks the structural capacity to tolerate cumulative stress. Strength training increases tendon stiffness, improves bone mineral density, enhances muscle force output, and builds eccentric strength capacity (Bohm et al., 2015, Sports Medicine, DOI: 10.1007/s40279-014-0266-6).
Eccentric strength is particularly important. This is the capacity of a muscle to produce force while lengthening. Running downhill. Lowering into a squat. Controlling foot strike. All eccentric contractions.
Eccentric training increases tendon stiffness and improves the muscle-tendon unit’s ability to absorb and dissipate force without damage. This is why strength training reduces Achilles tendinopathy, patellar tendinopathy, and hamstring strain risk more effectively than stretching (Malliaras et al., 2013, British Journal of Sports Medicine, DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-092329).
Stretching increases compliance. Strength training increases capacity.
You need capacity. Not compliance.
The Time Trade-Off: 3 Hours of Mobility vs. 3 Hours of Strength
Here is the structural problem with mobility work for time-constrained professionals.
Endurance training already demands 8 to 12 hours per week for someone training for an Ironman or marathon. Add strength training (essential for injury prevention and performance), and total training time reaches 10 to 15 hours per week.
If you add 3 to 5 hours per week of mobility work on top of this, total training commitment exceeds 15 to 18 hours per week.
That is not sustainable for a professional with work and life responsibilities. Something gets cut. Usually strength training.
This is backward.
Mobility work feels productive. It feels like recovery. It reduces acute muscle soreness. But it does not build the structural capacity that prevents injury or improves performance.
Strength training feels hard. It creates fatigue. It competes for recovery resources. But it is the intervention with the strongest evidence for injury prevention and performance improvement in endurance athletes.
The trade-off is clear:
3 hours per week mobility work → Temporary soreness reduction, no measurable injury prevention benefit, no performance improvement
3 hours per week strength training → Increased structural capacity, reduced injury risk, improved running economy, better force output
For a professional training 10 to 12 hours per week for endurance and trying to fit strength training into the remaining time, mobility work is a luxury you cannot afford.
Every hour spent stretching is an hour not spent building capacity.
What I Actually Did: Three Sessions Per Week, Hypertrophy Focus, Zero Mobility Work
I trained for my Ironman finish (October 2025, Cascais, 11 hours 8 minutes) using a bodybuilding-style strength protocol integrated with endurance training.
Frequency: Three sessions per week
Split:
Session A: Chest, shoulders, triceps, abs
Session B: Back, biceps, legs
Rep range: 8 to 12 repetitions per set (hypertrophy focus)
Exercise selection: Compound movements with some isolation work
Squats, Romanian deadlifts, Bulgarian split squats, leg press
Bench press, overhead press, dips
Rows, pull-ups, lat pulldowns
Bicep curls, tricep extensions, lateral raises
Progressive overload: Increased weight or reps every 2 to 3 weeks when form remained consistent
Integration with endurance training: Leg sessions timed to avoid heavy running or cycling days. Swims scheduled after leg sessions (no lower-body interference). Upper-body sessions placed anywhere in the week.
Mobility work: None. No foam rolling. No stretching. No yoga.
Outcome:
Muscle mass: Gained approximately 2 kg during the 12-week Ironman build. Not massive hypertrophy (caloric deficit from endurance volume limited gains), but measurable strength improvement.
Performance impact: Minimal. Slightly heavier but force output per stride increased. Running economy stable across the build.
Injury status: Zero injuries across two years of Ironman training and racing. No IT band issues. No Achilles tendinopathy. No plantar fasciitis. No hip flexor strain.
The mechanism is straightforward: Strength training built the structural capacity to absorb repetitive loading. Heavier squats and split squats increased tendon stiffness and eccentric strength in the legs. Progressive overload ensured tissues adapted to handle increasing mechanical stress.
Stretching would not have achieved this. You cannot stretch your way into load tolerance.
Why Hypertrophy-Focused Training Is Underused (And Often Superior to Functional Training)
The standard strength recommendation for endurance athletes is functional training. Light weights. Unstable surfaces. High-rep circuits. “Core stability” work.
This is ineffective for building the structural capacity endurance athletes need.
Hypertrophy-focused training (8 to 12 reps, progressive overload, muscle-building emphasis) is highly effective and systematically underused by endurance athletes.
This is not an argument against heavy strength work (3 to 6 reps) or plyometric training. Both have roles. Heavy strength training builds maximal force output. Plyometrics improve rate of force development and reactive strength. Elite endurance programs often include both.
But for time-constrained professionals training 10 to 15 hours per week, hypertrophy-focused training delivers the highest return per hour invested.
Here is why:
1. Muscle Mass Provides Metabolic Reserve and Lactate Buffering Capacity
Muscle mass matters for endurance performance through three mechanisms most athletes miss.
Glycogen storage capacity: The average trained individual stores approximately 300 to 500g of glycogen in skeletal muscle. Muscle glycogen concentration averages 80 to 150 mmol/kg wet weight in trained athletes. Increasing muscle mass by 2 to 3 kg can meaningfully increase total glycogen storage capacity, potentially adding tens of grams of additional stored fuel available during prolonged efforts (Bergström et al., 1967, Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-1716.1967.tb03720.x).
For Ironman racing, where glycogen depletion often determines when pace collapses, this is not trivial. More glycogen storage means delayed fatigue onset and sustained power output in the final hours of racing.
Lactate buffering through fast-twitch recruitment: Here is the mechanism endurance athletes often overlook. Fast-twitch (Type IIa) muscle fibers are not just for sprinting. During prolonged endurance efforts, slow-twitch fibers fatigue and fast-twitch fibers are progressively recruited to maintain power output. Fast-twitch fibers have higher lactate buffering capacity and can clear lactate more efficiently than slow-twitch fibers when properly trained (Juel, 2008, Acta Physiologica, DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-1716.2008.01862.x).
Hypertrophy training increases fast-twitch fiber cross-sectional area. The physiological rationale suggests that larger fast-twitch fibers could provide greater lactate buffering capacity during the final stages of endurance events when these fibers are recruited to compensate for slow-twitch fatigue. While the direct link between hypertrophy training and improved endurance buffering capacity requires more research, the underlying mechanisms are plausible: larger muscle cross-sectional area provides more metabolic machinery for pH regulation.
Endurance athletes who avoid strength training often have underdeveloped fast-twitch fibers. When slow-twitch fibers fatigue late in a race, limited muscular reserve may contribute to performance decline alongside metabolic factors such as glycogen depletion and central fatigue.
Intramuscular substrate availability: Greater muscle mass also means increased intramuscular triglyceride stores and phosphocreatine reserves. During ultra-endurance efforts, intramuscular fat oxidation contributes significantly to energy production. More muscle mass means more substrate storage within the tissue itself, reducing reliance on systemic circulation (van Loon et al., 2003, Journal of Physiology, DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2003.044446).
2. Tendon Stiffness Improves Force Transmission and Reduces Energy Cost
Larger muscle cross-sectional area distributes force across more tissue, reducing strain per unit of muscle fiber. But the real performance mechanism is tendon stiffness adaptation.
Spring-mass model mechanics: During running, the muscle-tendon unit operates as a spring-mass system. Stiffer tendons store and return elastic energy more efficiently during the stretch-shortening cycle of each stride. Ground contact time decreases. Force transmission from muscle to bone improves. Energy cost per stride decreases (Albracht & Arampatzis, 2013, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01387.x).
The adaptation mechanism: Progressive resistance training increases tendon cross-sectional area and stiffness. Tendon stiffness increases by 10 to 20% after 12 to 14 weeks of heavy resistance training. Stiffer tendons reduce the compliance (stretch) of the tendon during muscle contraction, meaning more force is transmitted to the skeleton and less energy is lost to tendon elongation (Bohm et al., 2015, Sports Medicine, DOI: 10.1007/s40279-014-0266-6).
Why this improves running economy: Running economy is the oxygen cost of maintaining a given pace. When tendons are stiffer, less muscle activation is required to produce the same ground reaction force. Reduced muscle activation means reduced oxygen consumption at the same pace. This is measurable. Studies show 2 to 8% improvement in running economy after strength training interventions targeting tendon stiffness (Balsalobre-Fernández et al., 2016, Sports Medicine, DOI: 10.1007/s40279-016-0603-z).
For an Ironman athlete running a marathon in 3:30 to 4:00 hours, a 5% economy improvement translates to 10 to 12 minutes faster at the same metabolic cost. This is not negligible.
Eccentric loading drives tendon adaptation: The eccentric phase of resistance training (muscle lengthening under load) produces the highest tendon strain and drives the greatest adaptation. Heavy squats, Romanian deadlifts, and Nordic hamstring curls all produce high eccentric tendon loading. This is why bodybuilding-style hypertrophy protocols (which emphasize controlled eccentric phases) drive tendon adaptation more effectively than functional training with light weights and unstable surfaces (Malliaras et al., 2013, British Journal of Sports Medicine, DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-092329).
Functional training does not produce sufficient mechanical tension to drive meaningful hypertrophy or tendon adaptation. You need progressive overload. Not balance work.
3. Hypertrophy Improves Running Economy Through Neuromuscular Efficiency
Running economy improves when force output per stride increases without proportional increase in metabolic cost. This happens through two mechanisms.
Reduced motor unit recruitment per contraction: Stronger muscles produce more force with each contraction. When maximal strength increases, any submaximal effort (like running at race pace) requires a lower percentage of maximal voluntary contraction. Fewer motor units are recruited. Less muscle activation means reduced oxygen consumption at the same pace (Paavolainen et al., 1999, European Journal of Applied Physiology, DOI: 10.1007/s004210050616).
Improved neuromuscular coordination: Strength training improves the nervous system’s ability to coordinate muscle activation patterns. Agonist-antagonist co-contraction decreases. Firing rate synchronization improves. Rate of force development increases. The result is more efficient force production with less wasted energy (Aagaard et al., 2002, Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-201x.2002.00976.x).
This is why strength training improves running economy even in elite endurance athletes. A meta-analysis found 2 to 8% improvements in running economy after 8 to 14 weeks of resistance training (Balsalobre-Fernández et al., 2016, Sports Medicine, DOI: 10.1007/s40279-016-0603-z).
It is not about becoming a bodybuilder. It is about maximizing the force-producing capacity and neuromuscular efficiency of the muscle mass you carry.
Light weights and high-rep circuits do not build sufficient strength to drive these neuromuscular adaptations. Heavy compound lifts in hypertrophy rep ranges (8 to 12 reps) or maximal strength ranges (3 to 6 reps) do.
For time-constrained endurance athletes, hypertrophy training offers a practical middle ground: sufficient load to drive adaptation, sufficient volume to build tissue resilience, manageable fatigue that does not interfere with endurance sessions.
The Running Economy Argument: Why Strength Improves Endurance Performance
The most common objection to strength training for endurance athletes is that muscle mass slows you down. More weight to carry. Lower power-to-weight ratio. Slower pace.
The evidence contradicts this.
A meta-analysis examining the effects of strength training on endurance performance found that resistance training significantly improves running economy, time to exhaustion, and time-trial performance in endurance athletes. The improvements occurred without detrimental effects on VO2max or body composition (Beattie et al., 2014, Sports Medicine, DOI: 10.1007/s40279-014-0203-9).
Running economy is the oxygen cost of running at a given speed. Lower oxygen consumption at the same pace means better economy. Strength training improves economy by:
Increasing tendon stiffness (better elastic energy return during foot strike)
Improving neuromuscular coordination (more efficient motor unit recruitment)
Increasing maximal force output (reduced percentage of maximal strength required per stride)
The weight penalty from 2 to 3 kg of additional muscle is negligible compared to the performance gain from improved economy. Force output increases more than weight increases. Net result: better performance.
Functional training does not deliver this. You need heavy resistance. Progressive overload. Muscle-building protocols.
Why Mobility Culture Persists Despite Weak Evidence
If stretching does not prevent injuries and strength training does, why is mobility work so dominant in endurance culture?
Because it feels like recovery.
Stretching reduces acute muscle soreness temporarily. It activates the parasympathetic nervous system. It feels restorative. Athletes leave a yoga class feeling loose and relaxed.
This creates a psychological reinforcement loop. Stretching feels good, so it must be working.
But subjective relief is not the same as injury prevention or performance improvement. The mechanism matters.
Strength training feels hard. It creates fatigue. It requires recovery. It competes for autonomic resources. Athletes leave the gym feeling drained, not relaxed.
This creates the opposite psychological signal. If it feels hard, it must be interfering with endurance training.
But discomfort during training is not evidence of interference. Adaptation requires stress. Mobility work provides limited structural adaptation compared to strength training.
The other factor: mobility work is easier to sell. Yoga studios. Foam rollers. Stretching apps. Mobility coaches. There is an entire industry built around the idea that flexibility prevents injury.
Strength training requires equipment. Coaching. Progressive load tracking. It is less accessible and harder to market to endurance athletes who fear becoming “too muscular.”
The result: endurance athletes spend hours per week on interventions with weak evidence while skipping the intervention with the strongest evidence.
This is a structural misallocation of training time.
The Framework: When to Stretch (Rarely) and When to Lift (Always)
When stretching is justified:
Sport-specific range of motion requirements: If your sport demands a range of motion you do not currently have (e.g., overhead shoulder mobility for swimming), targeted stretching may be useful.
Acute pain relief: If stretching temporarily reduces discomfort and allows you to train, it is a symptom management tool, not an injury prevention intervention.
Psychological benefit: If stretching helps you relax and improves sleep quality, it may provide indirect recovery benefits through stress reduction.
When stretching is not justified:
As a primary injury prevention strategy
As a substitute for strength training
As a generalized “flexibility maintenance” protocol
As a daily routine consuming multiple hours per week
When strength training is non-negotiable:
Always. If you are training for endurance performance or long-term durability, strength training is not optional. It is the primary intervention that reduces injury risk and improves performance.
Minimum effective dose for endurance athletes:
2 to 3 sessions per week
45 to 60 minutes per session
Compound movements (squats, deadlifts, split squats, presses, rows, pull-ups)
8 to 12 reps per set (hypertrophy focus)
Progressive overload every 2 to 3 weeks
This is not cross-training. This is the missing load vector that endurance training cannot provide.
Why This Requires Accepting That Measurement Takes Discipline, Not Convenience
Building structural capacity through strength training requires tracking. Progressive overload requires knowing what weight you lifted last session and whether you can add load or reps this session.
This is less convenient than showing up to a yoga class and following along.
But convenience is not the decision criterion. Effectiveness is.
Most endurance athletes track every run, every bike ride, every swim. Distance. Pace. Heart rate. Power. Cadence. They measure endurance training obsessively.
Then they treat strength training as unstructured “maintenance work” with no tracking, no progression, no measurable adaptation.
This requires accepting that if strength training matters, it deserves the same tracking discipline as endurance training.
Log your lifts. Track your progressive overload. Measure whether you are getting stronger quarter over quarter.
If you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it. And if it is not managed, it is not delivering the adaptation you need.
FAQ
Q: Doesn’t stretching improve recovery by reducing muscle soreness?
A: Stretching may temporarily reduce the perception of soreness, but it does not accelerate physiological recovery. Muscle soreness (delayed onset muscle soreness, DOMS) is caused by eccentric muscle damage and inflammation. Stretching does not reduce this. Active recovery (low-intensity aerobic work) and adequate nutrition are more effective recovery interventions.
Q: What if I feel tight without stretching?
A: “Tightness” is often a sensation of muscle fatigue or neural tension, not true muscle shortness. Strength training through a full range of motion (deep squats, Romanian deadlifts, overhead presses) maintains functional mobility without requiring separate stretching work. If tightness persists, it may indicate inadequate recovery, not insufficient flexibility.
Q: Isn’t yoga good for stress reduction and mental health?
A: If yoga provides psychological benefit through stress reduction, breathing practice, or mindfulness, it may improve recovery indirectly. However, this is separate from the claim that yoga prevents injuries. Use yoga for mental health if it works for you, but do not substitute it for strength training as an injury prevention strategy.
Q: Won’t building muscle make me slower because I’m heavier?
A: The weight penalty from 2 to 3 kg of muscle is negligible compared to the performance gain from improved running economy, force output, and structural durability. Research shows strength training improves endurance performance without detrimental effects on body composition or VO2max. Power-to-weight ratio improves because force output increases more than weight increases.
Q: What about mobility for injury rehabilitation?
A: Stretching and mobility work can be useful in specific rehabilitation contexts where range of motion has been lost due to injury, surgery, or immobilization. This is a clinical intervention, not a general injury prevention strategy. Once functional range of motion is restored, strength training should be the primary focus for long-term injury prevention.
Q: How do I integrate strength training without interfering with endurance training?
A: Schedule strength sessions on days when key endurance workouts are not leg-intensive. For example, strength train legs on swim-heavy days or rest days. Upper-body sessions can be placed anywhere. Manage total training load by treating strength as part of your weekly stress budget, not an add-on.
Why Atlas Cove Builds Systems Where the Right Decisions Become Obvious
The mobility-versus-strength trade-off is not about moral superiority. It is about resource allocation under constraint.
You have finite training time. Finite recovery capacity. Finite autonomic budget. Every hour spent on one intervention is an hour not spent on another.
Stretching feels productive. It is familiar. It is low-risk. But low-risk also means low-reward when the evidence for injury prevention is weak.
Strength training feels hard. It requires discipline. It competes for recovery. But it is the intervention with the strongest evidence for both injury prevention and performance improvement.
This is why we are building Atlas Cove. Not as a protocol that tells you what to do. As a system where your training decisions align with your actual physiological state and performance goals.
We won’t sell you a protocol. We’ll build you a system where the right decisions become obvious, and shortcuts become impossible to justify.
That system starts with understanding what works. And what is theater.
By Tom Würden, Co-founder, Atlas Cove Health | 4 marathons, 2 Ironman finishes, 12+ years evidence-focused training
This is an educational and strategic perspective, not personal medical advice.
Sources
• Thacker, S. B., Gilchrist, J., Stroup, D. F., & Kimsey, C. D. (2004). The impact of stretching on sports injury risk: a systematic review of the literature. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(3), 371-378. DOI: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000117134.83018.F7
• Pereles, D., Roth, A., & Thompson, D. (2011). A large, randomized, prospective study of the impact of a pre-run stretch on the risk of injury in teenage and older runners. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181f3b1e3
• Behm, D. G., Blazevich, A. J., Kay, A. D., & McHugh, M. (2016). Acute effects of muscle stretching on physical performance, range of motion, and injury incidence in healthy active individuals: a systematic review. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 41(1), 1-11. DOI: 10.1139/apnm-2015-0235
• Blazevich, A. J., Gill, N. D., Kvorning, T., Kay, A. D., Goh, A. G., Hilton, B., ... & Behm, D. G. (2018). No effect of muscle stretching within a full, dynamic warm-up on athletic performance. Sports Medicine, 48(6), 1523-1535. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-017-0797-9
• Lauersen, J. B., Bertelsen, D. M., & Andersen, L. B. (2014). The effectiveness of exercise interventions to prevent sports injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 48(11), 871-877. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-092538
• Bohm, S., Mersmann, F., & Arampatzis, A. (2015). Human tendon adaptation in response to mechanical loading: a systematic review and meta-analysis of exercise intervention studies on healthy adults. Sports Medicine, 45(12), 1727-1738. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-014-0266-6
• Malliaras, P., Barton, C. J., Reeves, N. D., & Langberg, H. (2013). Achilles and patellar tendinopathy loading programmes: a systematic review comparing clinical outcomes and identifying potential mechanisms for effectiveness. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 47(11), 1025-1030. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-092329
• Beattie, K., Kenny, I. C., Lyons, M., & Carson, B. P. (2014). The effect of strength training on performance in endurance athletes. Sports Medicine, 44(6), 845-865. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-014-0203-9
• Bergström, J., Hermansen, L., Hultman, E., & Saltin, B. (1967). Diet, muscle glycogen and physical performance. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 71(2), 140-150. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-1716.1967.tb03720.x
• Juel, C. (2008). Regulation of pH in human skeletal muscle: adaptations to physical activity. Acta Physiologica, 193(1), 17-24. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-1716.2008.01862.x
• van Loon, L. J. C., Koopman, R., Stegen, J. H. C. H., Wagenmakers, A. J. M., Keizer, H. A., & Saris, W. H. M. (2003). Intramyocellular lipids form an important substrate source during moderate intensity exercise in endurance-trained males in a fasted state. Journal of Physiology, 553(2), 611-625. DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2003.044446
• Albracht, K., & Arampatzis, A. (2013). Exercise-induced changes in triceps surae tendon stiffness and muscle strength affect running economy in humans. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 23(6), 733-740. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01387.x
• Balsalobre-Fernández, C., Santos-Concejero, J., & Grivas, G. V. (2016). Effects of strength training on running economy in highly trained runners: a systematic review with meta-analysis of controlled trials. Sports Medicine, 46(4), 545-558. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-016-0603-z
• Paavolainen, L., Häkkinen, K., Hämäläinen, I., Nummela, A., & Rusko, H. (1999). Explosive-strength training improves 5-km running time by improving running economy and muscle power. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 86(6), 527-533. DOI: 10.1007/s004210050616
• Aagaard, P., Simonsen, E. B., Andersen, J. L., Magnusson, P., & Dyhre-Poulsen, P. (2002). Increased rate of force development and neural drive of human skeletal muscle following resistance training. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 174(3), 359-368. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-201x.2002.00976.x