Dynamic and Ballistic Stretching Compared with Static: What the Sources Studied
A meta-analysis and trials comparing dynamic and ballistic (bouncing) stretching with static stretching for flexibility and range of motion. The sources' conclusions are not yet recorded in this library, so this entry states no effect and no comparison.
Not for beginners, older adults, or anyone with recent injury; requires a thorough warm-up.
- Persistent joint pain or sudden loss of range of motion, refer to a physician or physical therapist.
What the evidence says
The sources on this entry studied dynamic and ballistic (rhythmic bouncing) stretching alongside static stretching, with flexibility and range of motion as the outcomes. Matsuo 2025 is a meta-analysis of dynamic and ballistic stretching. Nine are primary trials: Coons 2017, Darbar 2025, Mizuno 2017, Ikeda 2025, Shin 2023, Warneke 2024, Bandy 1998 and Aguilar 2012 are randomised trials, and Kaya 2022 is a non-randomised trial. The sources' conclusions are not yet recorded in this library, so this entry states no effect of dynamic or ballistic stretching and no comparison with static stretching.
- Ballistic stretching is harmless for anyone regardless of preparation.
- Agreement
- Direction recorded for 0 of 10 sources; not yet recorded for the rest.
- The claim's outcome
- Outcome not yet recorded
- Certainty
- No source states a certainty rating.
- Authors
- Sources share authors: Takamasa Mizuno (senior author of 2 sources).
What each source measured and concluded (10)
- How it was read
- read in full text
- How it was read
- read in full text
- How it was read
- read in full text
- How it was read
- read in full text
- How it was read
- read in full text
- How it was read
- read in full text
- How it was read
- read in full text
- How it was read
- read in full text
- How it was read
- read in full text
- How it was read
- read in full text
Each source below is shown with its study design and a link to the original study, or, where it is not a completed research paper, with what kind of record it is; those are not counted. This is the audit trail.
Why do some records show a record type instead of a study design?
A study design is shown for a completed, peer-reviewed paper. A registered protocol, a preprint, a conference abstract, a referee report or a book chapter has not been through peer review as a finished paper, so it is labelled for what it is, and it is counted in no source count. Where a record could not be confirmed as a completed paper at all, it says so rather than guessing. They all stay in the list, and their DOI still resolves, because the count of what was screened is part of the audit trail.
- Protocol / registration A registered plan for a review or trial, not its results.
- Preprint Posted by its authors before peer review.
- Conference abstract A conference summary rather than a peer-reviewed paper.
- Peer-review report A referee's report on a paper, not the paper itself.
- Guideline / position stand A recommendation derived from evidence, which is a step further from the data than the evidence itself.
- Book chapter A chapter in a scholarly book rather than a journal paper.
- Type not recorded Our record does not say what kind of publication this is, so it is counted in no source count. That is a gap in our data, not a judgement about the research.