Stretching recommendations: International Delphi Consensus

Stretching has long been a topic of debate among athletes, coaches, and healthcare professionals regarding its benefits and optimal use. Conflicting scientific evidence on whether stretching improves performance, prevents injury, or aids recovery has led to widespread confusion. To address this issue, researchers from all over the world, including Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Spain, and the U.S.A. brought order to chaos and provided the first international Delphi Consensus Statement on stretching definitions and practical applications. Following a structured procedure, the researchers achieved a consensus of more than 80% for all discussed items and topics. Their findings are made available online on 11 June 2025, and published in Volume 14 of the Journal of Sport and Health Science on 1 December 2025.

Dr. Warneke, of the Institute of Sport Science of the Friedrich Schiller University Jena and the Institute of Sustainability Psychology (ISP) of the Leuphana University Lüneburg, Germany, led this work in which 20 experienced stretching researchers from around the world extensively discussed and agreed upon different stretching type definitions. Researchers and practitioners can now refer to clear definitions of static, dynamic, and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching, with the consensus defining static stretching as follows:

“Static stretching elongates soft tissue beyond slack length by holding a joint position where passive resistance, stretch sensation, or discomfort are experienced. It can be performed assisted, if the muscle is lengthened by an external force without voluntary muscle activation (e.g., stretch band or a partner), or unassisted (self-stretching).

Dynamic stretching is the cyclic application of unloaded motion elongating the soft tissue (no external resistance). Stretch sensation or tissue resistance are reached without a static phase. As a variation, ballistic stretching differs from other dynamic by using faster, less controlled bounce-like actions performed to or near end range of motion.

PNF stretching combines static stretching and submaximal-to-maximal muscle contractions. In contract-relax (CR) stretching, the target muscle is contracted isometrically and subsequently stretched in a relaxed non-contracted state. In antagonist-contract (AC) stretching, the target muscle is stretched with simultaneous antagonist contraction. In contract-relax-antagonist-contract (CRAC) stretching, the target muscle is contracted and then stretched uncontracted with simultaneous antagonist contraction.”

The expert panel also provided detailed guidelines for practical applications on how healthy participants should stretch to achieve a variety of health or performance goals. Eight popular topics were discussed. These included range of movement improvement, stiffness reduction, preparing for subsequent performance via stretching as a warm-up routine, to prevent injury, or as part of post-exercise recovery (e.g., cooldown) routines (e.g., to reduce delayed onset muscle soreness), performing stretching for improving strength and hypertrophy, adopting it for reducing muscular imbalances, and for improving vascular health.

The expert panel concluded that stretching is a viable option to improve range of motion, potentially via reductions in muscle stiffness in acute (immediate effects) and chronic (long term effects when performed regularly over weeks) settings. For warm-up and movement preparation routines, comparatively short duration static (60 seconds per muscle group) or dynamic stretching versions were recommended. Regularly performed stretch training sessions with the primary objective of chronically increasing range of motion should implement static or PNF stretches for at least three sets of 120s per muscle group per stretching session. However, resistance training is also a viable alternative for improving range of motion acutely and chronically. Longer stretching (>4 minutes) were recommended to reduce stiffness meaningfully, but it is questionable whether this is a desirable goal for all athletes.

In contrast, the purported injury protective effects of stretching or improved post-exercise recovery are not fully supported by the existing evidence. Also, potential benefits of stretching for the cardiovascular system were discussed, but more research is required before clinical recommendations can be issued. “Studies show that it takes an average of 17 years for research findings to become established and widely known in practice, our team’s work is especially important for bridging the gap between science and application. By combining evidence-based insights with expert opinion and practical experience, we hope to help transform stretching from a contentious issue into a valuable—but carefully targeted—training method,” says Professor Jan Wilke a co-author of this review from the University of Bayreuth in Germany.

Stretching enjoys high popularity in diverse health and performance settings but assumptions about stretching effects cannot be confirmed for all these beliefs. Moreover, there are more efficient alternatives for some applications. For instance, stretching can be applied to increase strength-related performance and muscle size, by using stretching durations of >15 minutes per muscle at least 5 days per week.

Although this might be an option for people lacking motivation for more active training or for immobilized patients, the practical relevance in healthy, active individuals is questionable, as resistance training elicits superior results in substantially less time. Regarding the use of stretching for the purposes of warming-up, the expert panel acknowledged that stretching might be used, but is not necessary, and more effective alternatives are available.

***

Reference
DOI: 10.1016/j.jshs.2025.101067