paulflexes saidFirst, they didn't list a sample size to prove their statistics are anywhere near valid.
|| The study, one of the largest of its kind, involved almost 1,400 runners
, from age 13 to past 60, who were assigned randomly to two groups.
paulflexes saidSecond, they admitted that those who did not stretch got more injuries, but made an excuse for why.
|| About 16 percent
of the group that didn’t stretch were hobbled badly enough to miss training for at least three days (the researchers’ definition of a running injury), while about 16 percent
of the group that did stretch were laid up for the same amount of time. The percentages, in other words, were virtually identical.
What you are referring to is this:
|| One anomalous finding of the USA Track and Field study was that runners who were used to stretching and were assigned to the nonstretching group became injured at a disproportionately high rate. Almost 23 percent
of them wound up hurting themselves during the three months. But no experts associated with the study or who have read the results believe that this finding intimates that stretching had been keeping them uninjured in the past. More likely, Dr. McHugh said, they fell victim to a training error, which, he explained, “in reality can mean any abrupt change in training patterns. Your body adapts to its routine, and if that routine is monotonously habitual as with many runners, it doesn’t take much of a change to cause an injury.”
So if you presently stretch, don't go cold turkey and mess with your routine.
Wean yourself, gradually, off stretching.
paulflexes saidThird, three months is not long enough to determine long-term effects of stretching vs not stretching.
That study needs a few more years of work.
Here you may have a point.