More Than Half of All ACL Reconstructions Could Be Avoided, Five-Year Follow-Up Study Shows

Another Human-Based Study, and I’ve Been Proving This in Canine Cases For Over 10 Years-

From RehabDeb: This report is from human medical research, however Colorado State University has since conducted some animal studies. I would love to conduct studies with advanced exercise physiology protocol that I have been using for over 20 years even with my own pets before doing “official” vet med work. I look forward to when I have resources to do those studies.

When I began independent practice in 2007, I used my accumulated research studies, experience, and knowledge begun decades before my work in veterinary medicine in order to create some simple functional exercise and drill protocol. These programs benefited hundreds of my pet patients whose people opted to not pursue surgery. I have used these programs for both cats and dogs.

In every case where people follow my protocol (and where there are no extenuating circumstances), the pets have stabilized the knee or other joint with muscle growth and strength and with proper scar tissue (sometimes we want some scar tissue).

These pets have also functioned very well after rehabilitation. You may do all this work in the home environment with no dependence on specialized equipment in a clinic. There is no need for specialized equipment when we are drawing from centuries of known exercise physiology.

My programs for conservative (no surgery) treatment are clinically and anecdotally successful. This means that clients and veterinarians do the work and get good results. You can too, if you want to do the work 🙂

Jan. 30, 2013 — In the summer of 2010, researchers from Lund University in Sweden reported that 60 per cent of all anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions could be avoided in favour of rehabilitation. The results made waves around the world, and were met with concerns that the results would not hold up in the long term. Now the researchers have published a follow-up study that confirms the results from 2010 and also show that the risk of osteoarthritis and meniscal surgery is no higher for those treated with physiotherapy alone.

“We have continued with our study and for the first time are able to present a five-year follow-up on the need for and results of ACL surgery as compared with physiotherapy. The British Medical Journal published the findings and they are basically unchanged from 2010.

This will no doubt surprise many people, as we have not seen any difference in the incidence of osteoarthritis,” says Richard Frobell, one of the researchers behind the study, who is an associate professor at Lund University and a clinician at the orthopaedic department, Helsingborg Hospital.

Richard Frobell explains that the research group’s results from 2010, which were published in the New England Journal of Medicine, caused a stir and questions were raised as to whether it was possible to say that an operation would not be needed in the long term.

Half of the patients who were randomly assigned not to undergo reconstructive surgery have had an operation in the five years since, after they experienced symptoms of instability.

“In this study, there was no increased risk of osteoarthritis or meniscal surgery for ACL injury treated with physiotherapy alone compared to treated with surgery. Neither was there any difference in patients’ experiences of function, activity level, quality of life, pain, symptoms or general health,” says Richard Frobell.

“The new report shows that there was no difference in any outcome between those who had operations straight away, those who had operations later, and those who did not have an operation at all.

“The message to the medical experts who are treating young, active patients with ACL injuries is that it may be better to start by considering rehabilitation rather than operating straight away.

In Sweden, over 5000 people every year suffer an anterior cruciate ligament injury, mainly young people involved in sport. There are different schools of treatment and Sweden stands out with treatment that is in line with the results of the study.

“On an international front, almost all of those with ACL injuries have operations. In Sweden, just over half have surgery, but in southern Sweden we have been working for many years to use advanced rehabilitation training as the first method of treatment. Our research so far has confirmed that we are right in not choosing to operate on these injuries immediately. Longer-term follow-up is important to look more closely at the development of osteoarthritis in particular,” says Richard Frobell.

KANON, Knee ACL NON-operative versus operative treatment is the name of the research group. They are now moving on to the next stage. This year, the third part of the study will begin, following up the patients ten years after acl injury.

Richard Frobell has also entered into a collaboration with researchers at the School of Economics and Management at Lund University. He is evaluating the health economics aspects of different treatment methods for ACL injury.

Journal References

  • R. B. Frobell, H. P. Roos, E. M. Roos, F. W. Roemer, J. Ranstam, L. S. Lohmander. Treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tear: five year outcome of randomised trial. BMJ, 2013; 346 (jan24 1): f232 DOI:10.1136/bmj.f232
  • Richard B. Frobell, Ewa M. Roos, Harald P. Roos, Jonas Ranstam, L. Stefan Lohmander. A Randomized Trial of Treatment for Acute Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tears.New England Journal of Medicine, 2010; 363 (4): 331 DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa0907797

From ScienceDaily

Dietary Thiols in Exercise: Oxidative Stress Defence, Exercise Performance, and Adaptation

Biomed Central

Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition201714:12

DOI: 10.1186/s12970-017-0168-9

Received: 3 September 2016

Accepted: 14 April 2017

Published: 27 April 2017

Abstract

Endurance athletes are susceptible to cellular damage initiated by excessive levels of aerobic exercise-produced reactive oxygen species (ROS). Whilst ROS can contribute to the onset of fatigue, there is increasing evidence that they play a crucial role in exercise adaptations. The use of antioxidant supplements such as vitamin C and E in athletes is common; however, their ability to enhance performance and facilitate recovery is controversial, with many studies suggesting a blunting of training adaptations with supplementation. The up-regulation of endogenous antioxidant systems brought about by exercise training allows for greater tolerance to subsequent ROS, thus, athletes may benefit from increasing these systems through dietary thiol donors. Recent work has shown supplementation with a cysteine donor (N-acetylcysteine; NAC) improves antioxidant capacity by augmenting glutathione levels and reducing markers of oxidative stress, as well as ergogenic potential through association with delayed fatigue in numerous experimental models. However, the use of this, and other thiol donors may have adverse physiological effects. A recent discovery for the use of a thiol donor food source, keratin, to potentially enhance endogenous antioxidants may have important implications for endurance athletes hoping to enhance performance and recovery without blunting training adaptations.

Read more…

Low Back Pain—Is Motor Control Exercise Superior to General Exercise?

Research from the human side…relevant regardless 🙂 Rehabdeb, 3/2017

Low Back Pain—Is Motor Control Exercise Superior to General Exercise? A Review of the Research
by NSCA Personal Training Quarterly (PTQ)
and Nick Tumminello

PTQ-3.3-3 Low Back Pain—Is Motor Control Exercise Superior to General Exercise? A Review of the Research

This article provides an overview of the scientific evidence comparing specific motor control exercise intervention to using a more general exercise approach, and concludes by discussing the practical implications for strength and conditioning professionals from an exercise programming perspective.

 

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the major concerns of current healthcare. Motor control exercises, which are often referred to as “spinal stabilization” or “core stability” exercises, are often used by healthcare professionals worldwide as a common treatment for LBP.

Motor control exercises are designed for the individual to learn how to preferentially contract the local stabilizing muscles of the spine (e.g., multifidus, transversus abdominis, internal oblique) independently from the superficial trunk muscles (e.g., erector spinae rectus abdominis). Motor control exercises involve low-load activation of the local stabilizing muscles of the spine isometrically and in minimally loaded positions (e.g., four-point kneeling, supine lying, sitting, standing, etc.). A common example of a motor control exercise is the transversus abdominis draw-in. This exercise is often performed either lying supine or in four-point kneeling position and requires the individual to perform a slight drawing-in maneuver of the lower part of the anterior abdominal wall below the umbilical level (18).

Since research has shown altered recruitment patterns of deep trunk muscles, such as the transverse abdominis and lumbar multifidus in patients with LBP, these motor control exercises are often used in attempt to reestablish coordination of the deep trunk muscles in order to improve control of the spine (1,2,8,16,17).

Consequently, motor control exercises have also drawn tremendous attention from strength and conditioning professionals. Many strength and conditioning professionals often prescribe motor control exercises to their clients with current or previous LBP issues. The motor control exercises prescribed usually focus on activating the deep trunk muscles to restore control and coordination of these muscles. Many strength and conditioning professionals will often dedicate a great deal of their programming time, especially in the early stages of training, to using motor control exercises in order to first address what they believe to be the individual’s “underlying dysfunctions.” This is because a key feature of the motor control exercise approach is the training of the deep trunk muscles in isolation before progressing to demanding tasks that train coordination of the deep and the superficial trunk muscles (18). Then they will often focus the training program on the use of more general trunk training exercises, such as plank and side plank variations, which are often selected on the basis of maximizing the contraction benefit/spinal loading ratio, according to recommendations provided from recent experimental studies (15). These general trunk muscle specific-exercises will often be included into a comprehensive total-body strength and conditioning program, which often involves a variety of conventional resistance exercises such as loaded squat and deadlift variations that integrate the activation of deep and global trunk muscles along with other muscle groups (14).

Contrary to common belief, the current body of scientific evidence demonstrates that there is nothing special about using motor control exercises as a means to prevent or reduce back pain. This article provides an overview of the scientific evidence comparing specific motor control exercise intervention to using a more general exercise approach, and concludes by discussing the practical implications for strength and conditioning professionals from an exercise programming perspective.

Overview of the Evidence
An early study randomized LBP patients into two groups: a conventional physiotherapy group consisting of only general activity exercises (aimed at improving the muscular strength of the lumbar and pelvic region and legs, such as the abdominals, erector spinae, gluteals, quadriceps, and hamstrings) and manual therapy, and a conventional physiotherapy plus specific spinal stabilization exercises group (3). This study found that patients with LBP showed improvements with both treatment packages to a similar degree. Therefore, the researchers concluded that “there was no additional benefit of adding specific spinal stabilization exercises to a conventional physiotherapy package for patients with recurrent LBP,” (3).

A randomized, controlled trial of patients with recurrent, nonspecific back pain (NSLBP), compared two groups: a general exercise treatment group and a combination of general exercise and spinal stabilization exercise group. This study reported that a general exercise program reduced disability immediately after treatment to a greater extent than a stabilization-enhanced exercise approach in patients with recurrent NSLBP. However, there were no between-group differences on self-reported disability at the three-month follow-up (9). Therefore, stabilization exercises do not appear to provide additional benefit to patients with subacute or chronic LBP who have no clinical signs suggesting the presence of spinal instability (9).

Another randomized, controlled trial compared the effects of general exercise, motor control exercise, and manipulative therapy on function and perceived effect of intervention in patients with chronic back pain (6). The researchers found that “motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy produce slightly better short-term function and perceptions of effect than general exercise, but not better medium or long-term effects, in patients with chronic non-specific back pain,” (6).

A recent systematic review found that “evidence of very low to moderate quality indicates that motor control exercise showed no benefit over spinal manipulative therapy, other forms of exercise, or medical treatment in decreasing pain and disability among patients with acute and subacute low back pain. Whether motor control exercise can prevent recurrences of low back pain remains uncertain,” (11).

Additionally, another systematic review, this one about chronic NSLBP, concluded that “there is very low to moderate quality evidence that motor control exercise has a clinically important effect compared with a minimal intervention for chronic low back pain. There is moderate to high quality evidence that motor control exercise provides similar outcomes to manual therapies and low to moderate quality evidence that it provides similar outcomes to other forms of exercises,” (21). The authors went on to say that motor control exercises are not necessarily superior to other forms of exercise, and that the choice of exercises for chronic LBP should depend on individual preferences, therapist training, costs, and/or safety concerns (21).

Evidence Using Subgroups
Many healthcare providers state that low back pain is a multidimensional, socioeconomic public health problem with almost 85% of patients being diagnosed with NSLBP (4,7,10,12,13,22,23). They will also likely readily admit that treating chronic LBP is complicated because neither specific diagnostic nor treatment-based approaches have been shown to be absolutely effective. Many practitioners often prescribe motor control exercises almost universally to people with LBP issues. One of the common concerns many health rehabilitation specialists and strength and conditioning professionals who promote the use of specific motor control exercise interventions have with the research discussed above is that those studies did not involve patient subgroups. These professionals believe that patients with a motor control impairment can be diagnosed as a LBP subgroup who would benefit from specific motor control exercises. Therefore, they encourage studies in such patient subgroups with a common diagnosis or prognosis to examine outcomes from specific motor control exercise interventions.

To meet this concern, a recent study used a tailored exercise program versus general exercise for a subgroup of patients with LBP and movement control impairment. This study assessed the short-term effect of a specific exercise program targeting movement control impairment versus general exercise treatment on disability in patients with LBP and motor control impairment.

At the conclusion of this study, “no significant difference was found following the treatment period. Disability in LBP patients was reduced considerably by both interventions,” (20).

Another randomized controlled trial study that also involved subacute or chronic low-back pain patient subgroups found that motor control exercise and general exercise appear equally effective at reducing LBP in the patient subgroup included in this study (19). The researchers concluded that “the contrast between both types of intervention did not bring additional value to the shared effects,” (19). Additionally, strength and conditioning professionals should pay special attention to the following statements from the researchers of this study: “it is possible that the type of exercise treatment is less important than previously presumed; that the patient is guided to a consistent long-term exercise lifestyle is of most importance. The results of our study support previous findings that exercise in general, regardless of the type, is beneficial for patients with NSLBP,” (19).

Conclusion and Practical Takeaway
The overall takeaway of these studies is that exercise is a moderately effective treatment for chronic LBP. Although moderate evidence suggests that special motor control exercise interventions may prevent recurrences of LBP, no good evidence has been found for a difference in effect between types of exercise. In other words, although special motor control exercise interventions have been shown to improve low back outcomes, these exercises do not appear to be any more beneficial than general exercises, which also offer a wide range of well-established health, fitness, and physique benefits. Therefore, when it comes to clients with LBP, the strength and conditioning professional should not be hesitant to focus their programming on the use of general exercises that fit with the individual’s ability, medical profile, and personal goals.

This article originally appeared in Personal Training Quarterly (PTQ)—a quarterly publication for NSCA Members designed specifically for the personal trainer. Discover easy-to-read, research-based articles that take your training knowledge further with Nutrition, Programming, and Personal Business Development columns in each quarterly, electronic issue. Read more articles from PTQ »

Related Reading
Systematic Review of Core Muscle Activity During Physical Fitness Exercises

References
1. Al-Eisa, E, Egan, D, Deluzio, K, and Wassersug, R. Effects of pelvic skeletal asymmetry on trunk movement three-dimensional analysis in healthy individuals versus patients with mechanical low back pain. Spine 31(3): E71-79, 2006.
2. Bogduk, N. Management of chronic low back pain. The Medical Journal of Australia. 180)(2): 79-83, 2004.
3. Cairns, MC, Foster, NE, and Wright, C. Randomized controlled trial of specific spinal stabilization exercises and conventional physiotherapy for recurrent low back pain. Spine 31(19): E670-681, 2006.
4. Champagne, A, Descarreaux, M, and Lafon, D. Comparison between elderly and young males’ lumbopelvic extensor muscle endurance assessed during a clinical isometric back extension test. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 32(7): 521526, 2009.
5. Choi, B, Verbeek, JH, Tam, WW, and Jiang, JY. Exercises for prevention of recurrences of low-back pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 20(1): 2010.
6. Ferreira, ML, Ferreira, PH, Latimer, J, Herbert, RD, Hodges, PW, Jennings, MD, et al. Comparison of general exercise, motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain: A randomized trial. Pain 131(1-2): 31-37, 2007.
7. Gondhalekar, GA, Kumar, SP, Eapen, C, Mahale, A. Reliability and validity of standing back extension test for detecting motor control impairment in subjects with low back pain. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 10(1): KC7-11, 2016.
8. Harris-Hayes, M, Van Dillen, LR, and Sahrmann, SA. Classification, treatment and outcomes of a patient with lumbar extension syndrome. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice 21(3): 181-96, 2005.
9. Koumantakis, GA, Watson, PJ, and Oldham, JA. Trunk muscle stabilization training plus general exercise versus general exercise only: Randomized controlled trial of patients with recurrent low back pain. Physical Therapy 85(3): 209-225, 2005.
10. Luomajoki, H, Kool, J, de Bruin, ED, and Airaksinen, O. Reliability of movement control tests in the lumbar spine. BioMed Central Musculoskeletal Disorders 8: 90, 2007.
11. Macedo, LG, Saragiotto, BT, Yamato, TP, Costa, LOP, Costa, LCM, Ostelo, RWJG, and Maher, CG. Motor control exercise for acute non-specific low back pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews CD012085, 2016.
12. Maher, CG, Latimer, J, Hodges, PJ, Refshauge, KM, Moseley, GL, Herbert, RD, et al. The effect of motor control exercise versus placebo in patients with chronic low back pain. BioMed Central Musculoskeletal Disorders 6: 54, 2005.
13. Manchikanti, L. Epidemiology of low back pain. Pain Physician. 3(2): 167-192, 2000.
14. Martuscello, JM, et al. Systematic review of core muscle activity during physical fitness exercises. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 27(6): 1684-1698, 2013.
15. McGill, SM. Low back exercises: evidence for improving exercise regimens. Physical Therapy 78(7): 754-765, 1998.
16. O’Sullivan, PB. Diagnosis and classification of chronic low back pain disorders: Maladaptive movement and motor control impairments as underlying mechanism. Manual Therapy 10(4): 242255, 2005.
17. O’Sullivan, PB. Lumbar segmental “instability:” Clinical presentation and specific stabilizing exercise management. Manual Therapy 5(1): 2-12, 2000.
18. Richardson, CA, Jull, GA, and Hodges, PW, et al. Therapeutic Exercise for Spinal Segmental Stabilization in Low Back Pain. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1999.
19. Saner, J, Kool, J, Sieben, JM, Luomajoki, H, Bastiaenen, CHG, and de Bie, RA. A tailored exercise program versus general exercise for a subgroup of patients with low back pain and movement control impairment: A randomised controlled trial with one-year follow-up. Manual Therapy 20(5): 672-279, 2015.
20. Saner, J, Sieben, JM, Kool, J, Luomajoki, H, Bastiaenen, CHG, and de Bie, RA. A tailored exercise program versus general exercise for a subgroup of patients with low back pain and movement control impairment: Short-term results of a randomised controlled trial. Journal of Bodywork Movement Therapies 20(1): 189-202, 2015.
21. Saragiotto, BT, Maher, CG, Yamato, TP, Costa, LOP, Costs, LCM, Ostelo, RWJG, and Macedo, LG. Motor control exercise for chronic non-specific low-back pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews CD012004, 2016.
22. Tétreau, C, Dubois, JD, Piché, M, and Descarreaux, M. Modulation of pain-induced neuromuscular trunk responses by pain expectations: A single group study. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 35(8): 636-644, 2012.
23. Tidstrand, J, and Horneji, E. Inter-rater reliability of three standardized functional tests in patients with low back pain. BioMed Central Musculoskeletal Disorders 10: 58, 2009.

Nick Tumminello
About the Author:
Nick Tumminello, NSCA-CPT
Nick Tumminello has become known as “the trainer of trainers.” He is the owner of Performance University, which provides fitness and personal trainer continuing education. Tumminello is a fitness expert for Reebok and the author of the book “Strength Training for Fat Loss.” He lives in Fort Lauderdale, FL, where he trains a select group of individuals and teaches mentorships. His DVDs, books, seminar schedule, and blog can be found at PerformanceU.net.

Intense Exercise, Muscle Soreness, Recovery, and Anti-inflammatories

Intense Exercise, Muscle Soreness, Recovery, and Anti-inflammatories

Rehab Deb’s Comments: One of the most important bits of this report is something I’ve been reading more and more research regarding, and that is that nsaids (non-steroidal anti-inflammatories) subdue, limit, delay the healing process. I have also read several reports regarding the same being true when ice is used.

Nsaids in animal medicine include Previcox, Peroxicam, Deramaxx, Rimadyl, Metacam, among others…and for humans include Advil, Ibuprofen, Motrin, Tylenol, Aspirin, Aleve (sodium naproxen), etc…Does this mean to cut them out altogether? No, but I do think it means to consider the necessity of application and what is hoped to be achieved…is it really necessary?? Pain is often very well controlled or minimized by combining smaller doses of several analgesics, pain relievers, depending on the issue, rather than higher doses of just one medication and/or continuous doses of nsaids that probably aren’t doing much to help the pain problem.

This is only one suggestion.

Ultimately this information should be discussed with the medical practitioner who prescribed the meds in the first place if/when you have questions. There are other reasons to minimize nsaids and use Tramadol and/or Gabapentin and/or other analgesics to alleviate pain for the short run while building muscle to support damaged joints. Many practitioners are aware of using these other drugs, and while they may not know about this more recent news regarding nsaids delaying healing and muscle growth, which came out of human sport science, veterinarians in my area seem to be interested in the information when it is presented to them.

Article from Dr. Gabe Mirkin’s Fitness and Health E-Zine
May 6, 2012

How to Recover from Muscle Soreness Caused by Intense Exercise

Muscle soreness should be part of every exercise program.  If you don’t exercise intensely enough on one day to have sore muscles on the next, you will not gain maximum fitness and you are also losing out on many of the health benefits of exercise. The benefits of exercise are much greater with intense exercise than with casual exercising.

You must damage your muscles to make them grow and become stronger.  When muscles heal, they are stronger than they were before you damaged them. All athletes train by “stressing and recovering”. On one day, they take a hard workout in which they feel their muscles burning.  Eight to 24 hours after they finish this intense exercise, their muscles start to feel sore. This is called Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness (DOMS). Then they take easy workouts until the soreness is gone, which means that their muscles have healed.
DOMS IS CAUSED BY MUSCLE DAMAGE. Muscles are made up of fibers. The fibers are made up of a series of protein blocks called sarcomeres that are lined in a long chain. When you stretch a muscle, you stretch apart the sarcomeres in the chain. When sarcomeres are stretched too far, they tear.  Your body treats these tears in the same way that it treats all injuries, by a process called inflammation.  Eight to 24 hours after an intense workout, you suffer swelling, stiffness and pain.

The most beneficial  intense exercise program  is:
* severe enough to cause muscle pain on the next day, and
* usually allows you to recover almost completely within 48 hours.

ACTIVE, NOT PASSIVE, RECOVERY:  When athletes feel soreness in their muscles, they rarely take days off.  Neither should you. Keeping sore muscles moving makes them more fibrous and tougher when they heal, so you can withstand greater forces and more intense workouts on your hard days.  Plan to go at low intensity for as many days as it takes for the soreness to go away. Most athletes try to work out just hard enough so that they recover and are ready for their next hard workout in 48 hours.

TIMING MEALS TO RECOVER FASTER:  You do not need to load extra food to recover faster. Taking in too much food fills your muscle cells with fat, and extra fat in cells blocks the cell’s ability to take in and use sugar. Sugar is the main source of energy for your muscles during intense exercise. Using sugar to drive your muscles helps them to move faster and with more strength. Timing of meals is more important than how much food you eat. Eating protein- and carbohydrate-containing foods helps you recover faster, and the best time to start eating is as soon as you finish a hard workout. At rest, muscles are inactive. Almost no sugar enters the resting muscle cell from the bloodstream (J. Clin. Invest. 1971;50: 2715-2725). Almost all cells in your body usually require insulin to drive sugar into their cells. However during exercise your muscles (and your brain) can take sugar into their cells without needing insulin.  Exercising muscles are also incredibly sensitive to insulin and take up sugar into their cells at a rapid rate.  This effect lasts maximally for up to an hour after you finish exercising and disappears almost completely in around 17 hours.  The best time to eat for recovery is when your cells are maximally responsive to insulin, and that is within a short  time after you finish exercising. Not only does insulin drive sugar into muscle cells, it also drives in protein building blocks, called amino acids.  The sugar replaces the fuel for muscle cells. The protein hastens repair of damaged muscle.  Waiting to eat for more than an hour after finishing an intense workout delays recovery.

WHAT TO EAT AFTER YOUR INTENSE WORKOUTS: Fatigue is caused by low levels of sugar, protein, water and salt.  You can replace all of these with ordinary foods and drinks. If you are a vegetarian, you can replace your protein with combinations of grains and beans. You can replace carbohydrates by eating virtually any fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans, seeds and nuts. A recovery meal for a vegetarian could include corn, beans, water, bread, and fruits, nuts and vegetables.  If you prefer animal tissue, you can get your protein from fish, poultry,or meat.   Special sports drinks and sports supplements are made from ordinary foods and therefore offer no advantage whatever over regular foods.

BODY MASSAGE:  Many older studies have shown that massage does not help you recover faster from DOMS. Recently, researchers at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario showed that deep massage after an intense workout causes muscles to enlarge and grow new mitochondria (Science Translational Medicine, published online Feb, 2012). This is amazing. Enlarging and adding mitochondria can help you run faster, lift heavier weights, and even prevent heart attacks and certain cancers.

NSAIDS DELAY DOMS RECOVERY:  Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), such as ibuprofen, may help relieve pain, but they also can block muscle repair and delay healing.

HOT BATHS:  Most research shows that a hot bath is not much better than doing nothing in helping muscles recover from exercise (European Journal of Applied Physiology, March 2006)

COLD OR ICE BATHS:  A recent review of 17 small trials, involving 366 participants, showed a minor decrease in DOMS with ice water baths.  They found “little quality research” on the subject and “no consistent method of cold water immersion” (Cochrane Library, published online February 15, 2012).  Cold water immersion can reduce swelling associated with injury, but has not been proven to speed the healing of DOMS.

Warm Up More Productive Than Stretching to Avoid Injuries

Warm up More Productive Than Stretching-

I’ve read studies on the topic of stretching for several decades and the consistent evidence is as Dr. Mirkin presents it (below).

Every opportunity I get to work with competitive dogs is an opportunity to reeducate the human clients about sport training and competition. People in the pet competition world often promote ball stretching as an acceptable form of pre-competition warm up or exercise.

Ball stretching before an event is more destructive than helpful. Coming out of a crate and trotting around just a short bit is not enough of a warm up prior to competition. Dogs should do better in events with at least a quarter-mile slow jog warm up and then a few sprints. This would also be beneficial prior to training drills as well. Just the basics…

The article below comes from Dr. Gabe Mirkin’s Fitness and Health e-Zine
April 7, 2013

Stretching Before Exercising Provides Only Flexibility

Whenever I see someone stretching before running, cycling, tennis, swimming, or any other sport, I worry that the person doesn’t know much about training.

Exercise First and Then Stretch

Stretching Before Exercise Only Weakens Muscles:

Two recent studies show that stretching before competition and training weakens muscles. Stretching prevents you from lifting your heaviest weights or running your fastest miles. It limits how high you can jump, and how fast you can run (The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. April, 2013; The Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, April, 2013).

Stretching weakens muscles by almost 5.5 percent. The longer you hold the stretch, the more strength you lose. Holding a stretch for more than 90 seconds markedly reduces strength in that muscle. Stretching reduces power: how hard you can hit a baseball or tennis ball, how fast you can swim, run or pedal, Stretching also does not prevent next-day muscle soreness, and it does not prevent injuries. On the other hand, warming up helps to prevent injuries and helps you to run faster and lift heavier.

Rudi Stretching Naturally After Exercise
Rudi the Brittany Spaniel in Rehab After Hip Surgery, FHO, Femoral Head Osteotomy. He’s Doing Natural Stretching AFTER exercise, and NOT Doing Forced Range of Motion Work by His Mom Owner

 

How Muscles Move Your Body:

Every muscle in your body is made up of thousands of individual fibers. Each fiber is composed of sarcomeres, repeated similar blocks, lined end-to-end to form the rope-like fibers. Each sarcomere touches the sarcomere next to it at the Z line. Muscles move your body by contracting, a shortening of each muscle fiber. Muscles do not shorten (contract) equally throughout their lengths. Muscles contract only at each of thousands of Z lines. It is the cumulative shortening of thousands of Z lines that shorten fibers to make muscles contract and move your body.

How Stretching Saps Strength:

When you stretch a muscle, you pull on the muscle fibers and stretch apart each fiber at the thousands of Z lines. This damage occurs only at the Z lines throughout the length of the muscle fiber, to weaken the entire muscle.

Prolonged Stretching Limits the Ability of Muscles to Store Energy:

Muscles are like rubber bands. They stretch and contract with each muscle movement. This constant stretching and contracting stores energy. For example, when you run, you land on your foot and the muscle stops contracting suddenly.

The force of your foot striking the ground is stored in your muscles and tendons and this energy is released immediately to drive you forward. Your foot hits the ground with a force equal to three times your body weight when you run at a pace of six minutes per mile. Up to 70 percent of the force of your foot strike is stored in your Achilles and other tendons. This energy is released by your muscles and tendons to drive you forward for your next step.

Stretching decreases the amount of energy you can store in muscles and tendons and therefore weakens you and you have less stored energy to drive you forward, so you have to slow down.

Stretching Saps Speed and Endurance:

Elite college sprinters were timed in 20 meter sprints, with and without prior multiple 30-second stretches of their leg muscles. Both active and passive stretching slowed them down (Journal of Sports Science, May 2005).

Stretching Does Not Prevent Next Day Muscle Soreness:

A review of 12 studies published over the last 25 years shows that stretching does not prevent muscle soreness that occurs 8 to 24 hours after you exercise vigorously (The British Journal of Sports Medicine, December 2011; 45:15 1249-1250). Researchers in Australia reviewed five studies, involving 77 subjects, to show that stretching does not prevent next-day muscle soreness. (British Medical Journal. December 2007; 325:468-70 and 451-2).

Stretching Does Not Prevent Injuries:

A review of the scientific literature shows that there is no good evidence that stretching prevents sports injuries (Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine. March 2005). Muscles and tendons tear when the force applied to them is greater than their inherent strength, so anything that makes a muscle stronger helps to prevent injuries. Strengthening muscles helps prevent muscle and tendon tears, but stretching does not make muscles stronger. This review showed that stretching does not prevent shin splints, bone stress fractures, sprains, strains or other arm and leg injuries.

 

Original Post August 3, 2014. Updated February 19, 2018