The statement, "The weight of evidence is in favour of decreased risk of injury.", is a statement of the findings of the study. It is not the conclusion. In good conscience I posted the conclusion: "There is insufficient evidence to endorse or discontinue routine warm-up prior to physical activity to prevent injury among sports participants."Tsnor wrote: ↑May 9th, 2024, 4:11 pmI looked it up. The rest of the sentence readsSlidewinder wrote: ↑May 9th, 2024, 7:36 am
"There is insufficient evidence to endorse or discontinue routine warm-up prior to physical activity to prevent injury among sports participants." (Title: Does warm-up prevent injury in sport? The evidence from randomised control trials. - Journal of Science and Medicine in Sports, June 2006)
Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to endorse or discontinue routine warm-up prior to physical activity to prevent injury among sports participants. However, the weight of evidence is in favour of a decreased risk of injury.
DUDE how could you post that in good conscience ?
In your April 14 post on this thread you include this quote, "Stretching before exercising does not reduce injury risk and does reduce performance." and you included a link to studies that show this.
All this must surprise you, as it did me. It goes against what we have been taught. In this thread I offer a possible Darwinian explanation: That since the ability to go from rest to full exertion offers a survival advantage to mammals then natural selection would favour that trait and over aeons it would become ubiquitous. This has been greeted here with anger, ridicule, and insults, but no one has refuted the argument. I asked gvormac to present a refutation of my evolutionary explanation for these research results. He didn't. I ask the same of you. Of course, if you think my explanation has merit, then it would be a simple courtesy for you to acknowledge that.