Stretching or Foam Rolling: Which is Better?

“], “filter”: { “nextExceptions”: “img, blockquote, div”, “nextContainsExceptions”: “img, blockquote, a.btn, a.o-button”} }”>

Improved flexibility is something many endurance athletes are always striving for. This is particularly true for older athletes who often find that they become increasingly limited by joint stiffness especially in the morning. Stretching and foam rolling are two methods that have long been advocated for use to improve flexibility among other benefits but while it seems intuitive that these should be beneficial, research has not always backed up those assertions.

For example, static stretching was shown in one large meta-analysis to improve muscle power and flexibility but predominantly in sedentary individuals as opposed to those who were already active. For individuals who are already moderately active, static stretching was of minimal benefit.

Similarly, static stretching has never been shown to prevent injury across various kinds of sports, counter to long-held beliefs and to what is frequently advocated. Dynamic stretches (also known as “active stretches”) have repeatedly been found to be equivalent in this regard, and may in fact be preferable – although there is still no measurable reduction in the likelihood of injuries.

But what about flexibility? Runners know flexibility is essential in maintaining proper alignment and reducing injury. Do either static stretching or foam rolling have any evidence to support their use in improving range of motion, and is one better than the other? Let’s look at a new study that asked exactly that question.

The Study

The study, published in the journal Sports Medicine, gives some insight into the stretching vs. foam rolling debate, though it raises more questions as well. The meta-analysis compiled data from 85 studies on the subject and evaluated more than two hundred outcomes. (As a reminder: a meta-analysis is a study of other studies. Data is compiled from a variety of individual studies on a subject and then analyzed to find trends and patterns that might not be seen in one study alone.)

The authors of this paper reported that the summarized data did show that both static stretching and foam rolling were both beneficial for improving flexibility to a mild to moderate degree. Comparing the different modalities did not reveal one to be superior to the other. Both were helpful in about the same amount.

Interestingly, while foam rolling and static stretching yield similar results in the long term (>4 weeks) the time to get to that end point differed between the modalities. Static stretching tended to yield results much more quickly than did foam rolling though by 4 weeks, the benefits were equal.

Static stretching in this study seemed to be best when stretches were performed daily and when individual stretches were held for about thirty seconds each. Both static stretching and foam rolling were helpful when done for relatively short amounts of time, only five to fifteen minutes so long as they were done consistently.

Why static stretching produces results more quickly than foam rolling is not completely clear. One theory has to do with the fact that while static stretching targets the muscle itself, foam rolling is more aimed at the fascia-the connective tissue that surrounds the muscle, and it may be that it simply takes more time to limber up the fascia than the muscle.

More Questions on Stretching vs. Foam Rolling

Several potential questions could not be answered with this study, though, and are fertile ground for future research:

• Would a combination of static stretching and foam rolling be better than either option alone?
• Is static stretching or foam rolling beneficial for delayed onset muscle soreness?
• What role does proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) have in stretching routines? (PNF is a technique used to overcome the protective stretch reflex by contracting against a passive stretch and then relaxing to allow a greater stretch than otherwise might have been possible)

Regardless of the answers to these questions, the current state of the research seems clear. Both static stretching and foam rolling are beneficial in improving flexibility for athletes though that should not be taken as an indicator that either performance or the likelihood of injury will be affected. If an athlete is seeking more rapid improvements in flexibility for whatever reason, static stretching is preferred, as it will provide benefits more quickly though after about a month, both techniques will yield similar results.