Full-Body Mobility Flow
Flowing dynamic movements through each major joint: one way to carry out what the sources on the concept entry studied, dynamic stretching alongside static stretching for flexibility. Their conclusions are not yet recorded in this library, so this entry states no effect.
Move within controlled range; do not force cold joints.
- Sharp or radiating pain during stretching, stop and consult a clinician.
- Sudden loss of range of motion or joint instability, seek a physical therapist.
- Numbness, tingling, or a recent injury, get medical clearance first.
How to do it
These are 2 ways to carry this out. Adding it places the ones you choose, each as its own session.
What the evidence says
This practice is one way to carry out what the sources on the concept entry (phys.flexibility.ballistic-stretching) studied: dynamic stretching alongside static stretching, with flexibility and range of motion as the outcomes, in single sessions and over training periods. Those sources are a meta-analysis of dynamic and ballistic stretching (Matsuo 2025), eight randomised trials and one non-randomised trial. Their conclusions are not yet recorded in this library, so this entry states no effect of a mobility flow on flexibility, acute or lasting, and no comparison with static stretching. The full account, source by source, is on the concept entry this practice links to (phys.flexibility.ballistic-stretching).
- Mobility and flexibility are identical, mobility adds control.
- A mobility flow protects against injury.
- It replaces strength training.
- One short flow equals a full mobility program.
- 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.