Stretching has been part of exercise culture for so long that most of us don’t question its utility or benefits. It shows up before workouts, after workouts and in just about every kind of group exercise class. It is often presented as a simple good: good for flexibility, good for recovery, good for injury prevention, good for posture. But if you’ve followed the research over the past several years, you know the real story is more complicated.

Helpfully, a new international consensus statement offers a more useful way forward. Published in the Journal of Sport and Health Science, these recommendations were developed by a panel of 20 experts from 12 countries using a Delphi process, which is a structured approach that uses repeated rounds of expert feedback to build consensus on what the evidence actually supports. The group reviewed existing systematic reviews, agreed on clearer definitions for key stretching methods and developed practical recommendations across eight major areas: range of motion, strength performance, muscle hypertrophy, stiffness, injury prevention, post-exercise recovery, posture and muscular imbalance, and cardiovascular health.

This practical focus is what makes the paper especially valuable for health and exercise professionals. As the authors note, stretching has wide appeal, but there is often a mismatch between what people claim it does and what the evidence shows. Despite solid research on stretching, its use in practice is still often based on belief or hearsay rather than facts.

This was not a single intervention study comparing one stretch routine against another. Rather, it was a consensus effort aimed at answering the question many health and exercise professionals actually face: When does stretching make sense, and when are its benefits being overpromised?

That is a meaningful distinction. In the real world, you’re not debating stretching in the abstract. You are deciding what belongs in a warm-up, whether cool-down stretching is worth class time and how to talk to clients about mobility, soreness, posture and performance. “What’s missing,” explains study co-author Jan Wilke, PhD, "are clear recommendations for practical use.” That is exactly the gap this paper is trying to fill.

The consensus panel also tackled a long-standing terminology problem. The paper offers standardized definitions for static, dynamic and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation, or PNF, stretching. This may sound like a small detail, but it matters. When researchers and practitioners use the same words to mean different things, the literature gets harder to interpret and practical recommendations get muddy. By clarifying those definitions, the panel gives professionals a more reliable framework for understanding both the research and their own programming choices.

Where Stretching Offers the Most Benefits

The strongest support for stretching is for improving range of motion. Acutely, the panel recommends at least two bouts of five to 30 seconds of stretching when the goal is short-term increases in range of motion, and it does not favor one stretching technique over another for that purpose. For longer-term flexibility gains, the panel advises static or PNF stretching over dynamic stretching, with two to three daily sets of 30 to 120 seconds per muscle or soft tissue.

That is a useful takeaway because it confirms something you may have seen in practice: Stretching can work well when flexibility is the goal. At the same time, the authors are careful not to oversell it. The paper notes that other methods, including foam rolling, jogging, cycling, heat, vibration and full-range resistance training, can also improve range of motion. Stretching is a viable tool, but not the only one, and not always the best one for every person or setting.

The panel also found support for stretching as a way to reduce passive muscle-tendon stiffness. Acutely, that effect appears to require more than four minutes of static stretching per muscle. Chronically, the recommendation is supervised, intensive static stretching of at least four minutes per muscle, five days per week, for at least three weeks. But this is one of the study’s important points: Less stiffness is not automatically a win. In some cases, reducing stiffness may come with trade-offs, especially in activities that depend on efficient energy storage and release. In other words, the value of reducing stiffness depends on the client’s goals and the specific demands of the activity.

There is also emerging evidence that static stretching may support vascular health, though the researchers are appropriately cautious here. The panel recommends at least one seven-minute bout of static stretching per muscle for acute circulatory effects, and 15 minutes per muscle, five days per week for at least four weeks, for longer-term effects such as reducing arterial stiffness and improving endothelial function. Still, the authors make it clear that the evidence base is limited and that these findings should not be interpreted as medical advice or a clinical prescription.

Where Stretching May Fall Short

If the paper is strong on what stretching can do, it is just as helpful on what stretching probably should not be asked to do.

One of the clearest practical takeaways is about pre-exercise stretching. The panel does not recommend prolonged static stretching of more than 60 seconds per muscle before maximal or explosive efforts in isolated muscle groups. That is because longer-duration static stretching can acutely reduce force production. The researchers note that shorter-duration static stretching within a dynamic warm-up, along with dynamic stretching itself, does not seem to produce the same impairment. That is an important distinction for anyone still relying on long static holds before classes or workouts built around speed, power or heavy effort.

The findings on strength and hypertrophy are also more restrained than many headlines might suggest. Yes, chronic static stretching may produce small improvements in strength and muscle size under certain conditions. But the panel does not recommend stretching as a primary strategy for either goal. The required dosage is high, the payoff is modest and resistance training remains far more efficient. For strength, the recommendation involves at least 15 minutes per muscle per session, at least five times per week, over at least six weeks. For hypertrophy, it is daily static stretching of more than 15 minutes per muscle for at least six weeks. Those are demanding protocols, and the researchers repeatedly frame stretching here as a secondary option when resistance exercise is not feasible or desired.

The study is similarly cautious on injury prevention. The panel does not recommend stretching for injury prevention in general. It acknowledges that some early evidence suggested static stretching may reduce muscle injuries, but that effect is limited and may come with trade-offs, including a possible increase in bone or joint injuries in some settings. That is a long way from the broad “stretch to prevent injury” message many exercisers have heard for years.

Two other popular assumptions are also given a reality check. First, the panel does not recommend stretching as a post-exercise recovery strategy. Based on the available reviews, stretching does not meaningfully improve delayed onset muscle soreness, range of motion recovery or strength recovery compared with passive recovery. Second, the panel does not recommend stretching to create meaningful postural change. For health and exercise professionals who work with clients every day, these are important corrections. Some practices may remain familiar or enjoyable, but that is not the same as saying they are evidence-based solutions for recovery or posture.

What This Means for Health and Exercise Professionals

The most useful message in this paper is not that stretching is good or bad. It is that stretching should be used with a clear purpose.

If the goal is to improve range of motion, stretching remains a legitimate option. If the goal is to prepare for explosive movement, dynamic preparation makes more sense than prolonged static holds. If the goal is to build strength or muscle, stretching is not the most efficient route. If the goal is recovery, posture correction or broad injury prevention, the evidence is either weak, mixed or unsupportive. That is not a reason to eliminate stretching altogether. It is a reason to be more accurate about what it is doing in a program.

It also means being more careful with language. Clients often appreciate certainty, but professionals are better served by precision. Stretching may improve flexibility. It may reduce stiffness. It may be useful for some individuals because it is accessible, familiar and easy to perform. But saying it will fix posture, prevent injuries or speed recovery overstates the evidence. As Dr. Wilke explains, the goal is to make stretching practice “simpler and more targeted.”

How Group Fitness Instructors Can Use This Information

For group fitness instructors, this consensus statement is especially helpful because class design often reflects tradition more than current evidence. Many formats still begin with long static stretches and end with cool-down stretches framed as essential for recovery. This paper suggests a more thoughtful approach.

If you teach formats built around power, high-intensity intervals, athletic conditioning or strength endurance, prolonged static stretching at the start of class may not be the best use of time. The evidence supports dynamic warm-ups and suggests avoiding long static holds before maximal or explosive effort. A better front end to class might include rehearsal of movement patterns, progressive mobility and dynamic range-of-motion work that prepares participants for what is coming next.

If you teach formats with a flexibility or mobility emphasis, the findings are more affirming. Stretching still has a place when the goal is improved range of motion. The paper gives useful parameters for both acute and chronic flexibility work, and it reinforces the idea that consistency matters more than theatrics. You do not need to turn stretching into a cure-all to justify using it well.

Cool-downs may also deserve a reset. Instructors can still use slower movement, breath work and gentle mobility to help participants transition out of class. That may support the class experience and feel worthwhile to participants. But it is more accurate to frame post-class stretching as an option some people enjoy rather than as a proven recovery tool that will prevent soreness the next day.

Stretching Guidelines At-a-Glance

To help translate these findings into practice, the two tables below summarize the consensus statement’s most useful takeaways. Table 1 provides a quick-reference overview of where stretching appears to be most effective, where its benefits are limited and where common claims are not well supported by the evidence. Table 2 narrows that lens for group fitness professionals, showing how these recommendations can inform class design, cueing and programming decisions in real-world settings. If you're an ACE Certified Professional, we've created printable versions of these two tables to make it easy to refer to them when you need them. You can access these tables using the bar at the top of this page.

Table 1. Stretching Recommendations at a Glance

Note: PNF = Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation

Table 2. Group Fitness Recommendations at a Glance

Note: HIIT = High-intensity interval training

The Bottom Line

This consensus statement does not argue that stretching is useless, and it does not elevate stretching into a magic solution. What it does offer is something more valuable: a clearer, more practical map. Stretching appears useful for flexibility and some specific applications. It appears less useful, or not useful at all, for several claims that have long circulated in fitness spaces. For health and exercise professionals, especially those leading groups, that clarity can help turn an old habit into a more intentional tool.