Skip to main content
Sports Medicine - Open
Download PDF
  • Systematic Review
  • Open access
  • Published:

Effects of Stretching or Strengthening Exercise on Spinal and Lumbopelvic Posture: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Sports Medicine - Open volume 10, Article number: 65 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Abnormal posture (e.g. loss of lordosis) has been associated with the occurrence of musculoskeletal pain. Stretching tight muscles while strengthening the antagonists represents the most common method to treat the assumed muscle imbalance. However, despite its high popularity, there is no quantitative synthesis of the available evidence examining the effectiveness of the stretch-and-strengthen approach.

Methods

A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted, searching PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar. We included controlled clinical trials investigating the effects of stretching or strengthening on spinal and lumbopelvic posture (e.g., pelvic tilt, lumbar lordosis, thoracic kyphosis, head tilt) in healthy individuals. Effect sizes were pooled using robust variance estimation. To rate the certainty about the evidence, the GRADE approach was applied.

Results

A total of 23 studies with 969 participants were identified. Neither acute (d = 0.01, p = 0.97) nor chronic stretching (d=-0.19, p = 0.16) had an impact on posture. Chronic strengthening was associated with large improvements (d=-0.83, p = 0.01), but no study examined acute effects. Strengthening was superior (d = 0.81, p = 0.004) to stretching. Sub-analyses found strengthening to be effective in the thoracic and cervical spine (d=-1.04, p = 0.005) but not in the lumbar and lumbopelvic region (d=-0.23, p = 0.25). Stretching was ineffective in all locations (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Moderate-certainty evidence does not support the use of stretching as a treatment of muscle imbalance. In contrast, therapists should focus on strengthening programs targeting weakened muscles.

Key Points

• Stretching of tight muscles and strengthening of weak muscles is popular in treating muscular imbalance of the pelvis and spine. While combined interventions have previously been meta-analyzed and shown to be effective, the effectiveness of both used in isolation has not been investigated.

• This meta-analysis found no effects of stretching on posture while strengthening can improve imbalances/posture.

• Additional studies including higher stretching volumes and intensities are warranted.

Background

Spinal alignment and posture have been investigated for about 250 years [1, 2]. Evidence syntheses from recent decades suggest that deviations from the assumed physiological norm may be associated with the occurrence of musculoskeletal pain. Chun et al. [3] found a strong cross-sectional relationship of reduced lumbar lordosis and low back pain. In a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies, limited lordosis predicted the development of low back pain with an odds ratio of 1.27 [4]. With regard to the neck, patients with pain displayed a forward head posture (FHP) when compared to asymptomatic individuals. Interestingly, the magnitude of FHP correlated with neck pain intensity and subjective disability [5], which is frequently associated with, for instance, early fatigue, neck and shoulder pain, decreased respiratory capacity, as well as reduced aerobic endurance [6, 7]. Barrett et al. [5] focused on thoracic kyphosis. The authors found that persons with excessive spinal curvature exhibited reductions in shoulder range of motion. This is of relevance because restricted shoulder mobility has been shown to increase the risk for upper extremity pain and injury [8, 9].

Changes of lumbopelvic or spinal posture are commonly related to muscle imbalance [10]. Such imbalance is suggested to originate from extended periods of biomechanical, psychological and social stresses as well as repetitive activities [11, 12] While some muscles respond with tightness or shortening, their antagonists may become too weak to maintain the normal joint position [13,14,15,16,17,18]. As an example for muscle imbalance, Janda [13, 14] hypothesized that shortening of the pectoralis major, upper trapezius and levator scapulae muscles in conjunction with weakness of the deep neck flexors, lower trapezius and rhomboids causes excessive kyphosis and FHP.

Besides various other methods including mobilization [19, 20], yoga [21], Pilates [22, 23], manual therapy [24], or taping [25], stretching of tight muscles and strengthening of weak muscles has gained high popularity in the treatment of muscle imbalance. A survey by Perriman and colleagues from 2012 [26] revealed that 71% and 64% of the physiotherapists use stretching and strengthening, respectively, to treat excessive kyphosis, while in 2024, 60% of the physiotherapists and sport scientists attending an Austrian training convention assumed stretching to be effective in treating muscular imbalance [27]. Despite the frequent use of the stretch-and-strengthen approach, the effectiveness of corrective exercise routines on posture is questionable [15, 16]. A systematic review with meta-analysis by Gonzalez-Galvez et al. [18] reported a positive influence of exercise programs in general, mostly when combining stretch and strengthening exercise. Interestingly, they concluded that strengthening may be superior to stretching. Yet, this assumption was based on the analysis of only 10 studies and, more importantly, no investigation of the isolated effects of stretching and stretching was performed. Withers et al. [28] included different training approaches. Among these, they examined stretching as a stand-alone treatment for hyperkyphosis. Since only one isolated static stretching was found, further research seems necessary. In view of the lack of evidence on the individual components of the stretch-and-strengthen approach, the present systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to summarize the evidence on isolated stretch and strengthening treatments aiming to modify spinal or lumbopelvic posture.

Methods

A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed adhering to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We considered ethical publishing standards [29] and registered the study in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023412854).

Literature Search

Two authors (KW & LHL) conducted a systematic literature search using MEDLINE/PubMed and Web of Science (inception to April, 2023) and assessed all records independently. Disagreements at each screening level (title, abstract + full-text) were resolved by discussion (see Fig. 1). Database queries were supplemented by a hand search using Google Scholar as well as citation searching in eligible studies. The following criteria were applied for study inclusion: (1) randomized or non-randomized controlled intervention study design, (2) assessment of acute (post-testing immediately following the intervention) or chronic (intervention period of at least one week) effects, (3) comparison of stretching vs. strengthening, stretching vs. non-intervention control, or strengthening vs. non-intervention control, (4) measurement of pelvic tilt, lumbar lordosis, kyphosis, and/or forward head/forward shoulder posture using objective and quantifiable measurements (e.g., radiographs or camera systems), (5) inclusion of healthy adults. Patients with a history of musculoskeletal, neurologic, or cardiopulmonary disorders, joint replacements, osteoporosis, specific back pain or other pathologies were excluded from this analysis to improve homogeneity. Trials combining different interventions (i.e., stretching plus strengthening) were excluded as well.

Stretching interventions eligible for inclusion were static, dynamic and ballistic stretching and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation in accordance with Warneke & Lohmann [30] and Behm [31]. Static stretching was defined as muscle lengthening until onset of a stretch sensation or to the point of discomfort. By definition, this position is to be held and can be performed passively via partner, external weight or a tool, or actively via movement. Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation includes a (sub-) maximal voluntary contraction to a stretching bout with or without antagonist contraction. Dynamic stretching was defined as controlled back-and-forth movement in the end range of motion with ballistic stretching as a sub-category and less controlled, bouncing movements [32]. Strengthening interventions were considered eligible if the authors stated the application of dynamic or isometric muscle actions sufficient to increase strength capacity, while the control group was considered to be inactive if no structured intervention was performed within the study.

The search terms were created based on the requirements of each database (see Appendix S1). In addition to the database searches, the reference lists of all included studies were screened for further eligible articles [33].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow-chart of literature search for studies assessing the influence of stretching or strengthening on posture

Full size image

Methodological Study Quality and Risk of Bias

We used the PEDro scale for the assessment of methodological study quality [34, 35]. Scoring was performed by two independent investigators (KW & LHL). If both did not reach consensus, a third examiner provided the decisive vote (JW) [28]. To estimate the risk of publication bias, funnel plots, created using the modification of Fernandez-Castilla et al. [36] for multiple study outcomes, were visually inspected. In addition, we performed Egger’s regression test with the extension for dependent effect sizes [36].

To rate the certainty about the evidence, we applied the GRADE working group criteria [37]. Briefly, the quality of evidence of randomized, controlled trials was initially classified as high and adjusted afterwards, considering the GRADE framework. In detail, in case of limitations in study design or execution, inconsistency of results, indirectness of evidence, imprecision or publication bias, one point was subtracted for each weakness. On the contrary, large magnitude effects or a dose-response gradient led to improvements of the quality of evidence by one point each. This resulted in a final rating of the certainty about the evidence as very low, low, moderate, or high.

Data Processing and Statistics

The means (M) and standard deviations (SD) from pre- and post-tests were extracted for all parameters (e.g. lordotic angle). In case of missing data, the authors of the primary studies were contacted. KW and LHL extracted data from eligible studies cooperatively, meaning that one read the values aloud and checked the shared screen while the other entered the numbers in a Microsoft Excel sheet. Additionally, KW double-checked the entered values for accuracy at the end of the extraction process. Changes from pre- to post-test were calculated as M(posttest) – M(pretest) and standard deviations were pooled as

$$S{D_{pooled}} = \sqrt {\frac{{\left( {{n_1} - 1} \right)*SD_1^2 + \left( {{n_2} - 1} \right)*SD_2^2}}{{\left( {{n_1} - 1} \right) + ({n_2} - 1)}}} .$$

A meta-analysis with robust variance estimation, accounting for the dependency of effect sizes (e.g. in case of multiple outcomes in the same study), was performed to pool the standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) between the intervention (stretching or strengthening) and control groups [38]. The between-study variance component was estimated using τ2. Pooled effect sizes (ES) were interpreted as follows: 0 ≤ ES < 0.2 trivial, 0.2 ≤ ES < 0.5 small, 0.5 ≤ ES < 0.8 moderate and ES ≥ 0.8 large [39]. Besides the omnibus analyses on the effects of stretching and strengthening, we performed sub-analyses for different body regions (1: forward head posture/thoracic kyphosis, 2: pelvic angle/lordotic angle). All calculations were performed using R and the robumeta package [40].

Results

Search Results and Study Characteristics

Figure 1 shows the flow-chart of the literature search.

A total of 23 studies [41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63] (n = 969 participants, 48 ES) were found eligible. Fourteen of the papers examined the effects of stretching [41, 43, 45, 46, 51,52,53,54,55, 57,58,59, 61, 62] while fifteen studies [42,43,44, 46,47,48,49,50,51,52, 56, 59, 60, 62, 63] investigated the effects of strengthening. The majority of the studies (n = 21) focused on chronic treatment effects while only 2 studies explored acute effects. These were quantified via the Cobb angle, kyphosis angle, lordosis angle, head tilt angle, neck flexion angle, hip extension angle, acromion process vertical distance and assessed with marker-based camera (three-dimensional) motion capture systems, radiography, the spinal mouse system, steel ruler, photographs, flexible rulers, inclinometers and goniometers. Most studies (n = 17) included participants without pain. While patients were generally excluded, six studies included participants with unspecific back (n = 2) [54, 59] or neck (n = 4) [51, 52, 60, 63] pain. Table 1 provides information about the studies’ characteristics.

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies
Full size table

Methodological Quality, Risk of Bias and Certainty About the Evidence

For stretching studies, the average risk of bias was rated as fair with a PEDro score of 4.1 ± 1.3 (range: 3 to 8 points). The same applied to strengthening studies, which averaged 4.3 ± 1.4 points (range: 2 to 7). Almost all studies used random group allocation, reported statistical between-group comparisons and provided both, point measures and measures of variability. In contrast, blinding of the participants was only reported in one study, and not at all for therapist blinding. Also, very few studies (n = 2) declared application of the intention-to-treat principle (see Table 2).

Table 2 Quality assessment using the PEDro scale
Full size table

Visual inspection of funnel plots suggested absence of a publication bias (Figures A-C in Supplemental material). These results were confirmed by Egger’s regression tests (t = 2.26, p = 0.16, 95% CI -0.32–0.99) for chronic stretching, (t=-0.88, p = 0.206, 95% CI -2.40–0.64), strengthening, and (t = 0.76, p = 0.532, 95% CI -2.06–2.84) chronic stretching vs. strengthening.

With regard to the stretching studies, the certainty about the evidence was downgraded by 1 level (high to moderate) due to (1) risk of bias classified as fair via the PEDro score. For the strengthening studies, due to (1) risk of bias and (2) heterogeneity, certainty was downgraded by 2 levels (high to low) but upgraded one level due to the large effect size. Therefore, in sum, for both stretching and strengthening, the certainty about the evidence was moderate.

Quantitative Synthesis

Stretching

Neither acute stretching (d = 0.013, -3.33, 3.36 95% CI, p = 0.97, τ²=0.01, 2 studies, 3 ES) nor chronic stretching (ES=-0.19, 95%CI -0.47 to 0.1, p = 0.16, τ²=0.0, 8 studies, 15 ES) had an effect on posture. Likewise, subgroup analyses showed no impact of stretching in any of the tested body regions (pelvis/lumbar spine: ES=-0.04, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.09, p = 0.43, τ²=0.0, 5 studies, 7 ES; thoracic/cervical spine: ES=-0.44, 95% CI -1.03 to 0.16, p = 0.101, τ²=0.02, 4 studies, 8 ES; see Table 3; Fig. 2). The certainty about the evidence was moderate.

Table 3 Meta-analytic results providing effect size, 95% CI, significance and heterogeneity
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot for chronic stretching interventions on posture. Negative values illustrate effects favoring stretching compared to control. The effect size includes the 95% confidence interval

Full size image

Chronic Strengthening

No study examined acute strengthening effects. Chronic strengthening had a large beneficial effect on posture (ES=-0.87, 95% CI -1.58 to -0.17, p = 0.02, τ²=0.4, 10 studies, 19 ES). According to the sub-analysis, no impact was identified in the pelvis and lumbar spine (ES=-0.23, 95% CI -1.45 to 0.98 p = 0.25, τ²=0.00, 2 studies, 5 ES), while a very large effect was found for the thoracic/cervical spine (ES=-1.04, 95% CI -1.69, -0.40, p = 0.005 τ²=0.19, 10 studies, 14 ES; Fig. 3). The certainty about the evidence was moderate.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot for chronic strengthening interventions on posture. Negative values illustrate effects favoring strengthening compared to control. The effect size includes the 95% confidence interval

Full size image

Stretching vs. Strengthening

No study comparing acute stretch and strengthening interventions was found. For chronic interventions, a large effect in favour of strengthening exercise (d = 0.81, 0.4, 1.22 95% CI, p = 0.004, τ²=0.02, 6 studies, 9 ES) was detected. Since all studies but one focused on the thoracic/cervical spine region, no sub-analysis of body locations was possible.

Discussion

Stretching of tight or shortened skeletal muscles represents one of the most popular strategies used to tackle muscle imbalance and postural impairments [26]. As early as 1997, Spring et al. [64] recommended it as the gold standard of posture treatment and twenty years later, the application of stretch was still described a viable method preventing hypertonia-induced muscular imbalance [65]. While recent reviews did not consider stretching as a stand-alone intervention [18, 66], Withers et al. [28] were only able to include one stretching study in their meta-analysis. Summarizing the effects of 12 chronic stretching studies, our systematic review is the first to extensively examine the foundation of this approach. Of note, in contrast to popular beliefs in practice, moderate-certainty evidence does not support the use of stretching when aiming to tackle imbalance-related posture deficits (e.g. hyperkyphosis or forward head posture). However, our analysis revealed a large effect of strengthening which also was superior in direct comparison to stretching. This finding confirms earlier speculations by Gonzalez-Galvez et al. [18] who reported combined stretching and strengthening to improve spinal posture, but suggested that only strengthening may be effective. As a consequence, exercise therapy for posture can be substantially economized by forgoing stretching tight muscles, and instead focusing on strengthening weakened muscles.

From a physiological point of view, it has been argued that chronic stretching of a tight or shortened muscle would lower its stiffness or tone. While stretching of two to eight minutes acutely reduced muscle stiffness [67,68,69,70,71], a rapid return to baseline occurred after a short recovery of only up to 20 min. This is highly plausible considering the mechanical role of the titin filament. The protein, which is attached to the myosin filament and the z-disk, has substantial elastic properties and after being lengthened (e.g., during a stretch), it helps to restore the original passive resting length. Acting as a molecular spring [72,73,74], it hence regulates the mechanical behavior of the muscle fiber [75]. Data collected in rabbits revealed that titin contributes up to 60% of the total passive stiffness of a skeletal muscle [76]. Experimentally disrupting the filament decreased passive tension by 50 to 100% [77]. Considering the elastic properties of titin and its role in passive muscle tension, the acute reductions in stiffness after stretching as well as the fast restoration of baseline values seem logical. Interestingly, the evidence of potential stiffness changes following chronic stretching treatments seems controversial. While in 2018, Freitas and colleagues [78] found stretch-mediated stiffness reduction in response to weekly volumes of up to 20 min over up to eight weeks unlikely, more recent literature found opposing results [79]. Yet, even if long-term stretching could reduce muscle stiffness, the causal relationship between decreasing stiffness of shortened muscles and improvements in posture remains speculative, calling for further exploration. While there is currently no evidence for positive chronic effects of stretching on posture, this might potentially be due to a lack of investigations that use sufficient stretching volumes meaning further research is necessary. Irrespective, it needs to be acknowledged that only two studies were available on acute stretch application. Additional research evaluating the immediate impact on posture is therefore warranted as well.

Besides reduced stiffness, another suggested effect of chronic stretching is an increase in muscle length. As such, one might expect the formation of new serial sarcomeres within the muscle-tendon-unit [80, 81]. Indeed, Williams and Goldspink et al. [82] observed a higher sarcomere number following long-term immobilization of animal limbs. However, on the one hand, immobilization cannot be readily compared to stretching and, on the other hand, the applicability of animal findings to humans is disputed [80]. Interestingly, titin does not only regulate the resting tension of the skeletal muscle but also appears to play an important role in structural adaptations. Van der Pjil et al. [83] described the importance of titin unfolding at high muscle lengths for sarcomerogenesis and with this, longitudinal (and parallel) hypertrophy. Even though viable, observations indicating a possible influence of chronic stretch training on structural properties were, to the best of our knowledge, exclusively made in animals [84, 85]. However, again, no transfer of longitudinal hypertrophy effects to humans was found [86]. Before 2020, stretch-induced chronic structural stretching adaptations were classified unlikely [78, 86], but within the past 5 years, evidence emerged that large stretching volumes (≥ 15 min per day, ≥6 weeks intervention period) have the potential to induce muscle hypertrophy, and with this, changes in tissue morphology [87, 88]. As, to date, no evidence could be found for longitudinal hypertrophy, it could be speculated that the studies matching the inclusion criteria of this systematic review did not perform stretching with the required stretching duration and/or intensity [87,88,89].

Contrarily to stretching, we found a large beneficial influence of strengthening on posture. However, the underlying mechanisms are a matter of debate. Surprisingly, there is a lack of conclusive research on resistance training-induced changes of the muscle’s passive mechanical properties [90]. In 1998, the hypothesis of increases in passive muscle stiffness as an adaptation to resistance training arose [91], leading to the recommendation to strengthen lengthened or weak muscle groups in muscle imbalance. The authors argued that hypertrophy would be associated with a larger number of parallel titin-myosin filaments, which, in agreement with the above-described evidence, would lead to a higher resting tension [91]. Indeed, in a ten-week strength training study, the authors reported a 30%-increase in passive tension without decreases in extensibility of the muscle. In another study, isometric resistance training led to an increase in core stiffness [92]. However, a recent systematic review found no stiffness changes in the long-term as a response to resistance training [93]. Of note, the review only included measurements with ultrasound elastography which allows assumptions on compressive tissue stiffness. Assuming specific resistance training adaptations occur following induction of tensile/shortening stress to the muscle, it seems necessary to distinguish between compressive and tensile or strain stiffness. Research on foam rolling effects revealed that decreases in compressive stiffness could be detected using elastography and indentometric methods, while this was not the case for tensile stiffness using passive resistive torque during stretch [94, 95]. As a consequence, it may be assumed that stiffness changes are specific to the applied stimulus (compression in foam rolling, but stretch-shortening in resistance exercise). Following this theory, it would still be possible that resistance training does only modify tensile stiffness, which would also align with the role of titin as a serial agent for passive tension regulation. In sum, more research is warranted in order to gain further insight into the mechanisms of strengthening-induced improvements of posture.

Implications

Our findings have implications for clinical practice. As indicated, stretching is highly popular among therapists aiming to treat muscle imbalance and frequently recommended in the scientific literature [26, 64, 65]. Yet, the available evidence speaks strongly against this approach. In line with earlier speculations of Gonzalez-Galvez et al. [18], beneficial exercise effects seem rather attributable to strengthening, while stretching programs are ineffective. Consequently, when aiming to counteract muscular imbalances and to improve spinal and lumbopelvic posture, no evidence-based recommendation for the implementation of stretching can be given. Interestingly, we found a beneficial influence of strengthening for the thoracic and cervical spine region, while no changes were detected in the lumbar and pelvic region. On the one hand, effect sizes were in fact trivial to small for the lumbar spine and pelvis. On the other hand, with a total of only 5 ES from two studies, this region is under-researched. Future investigations, besides aiming to better understand the physiological adaptions of stretching and strengthening with regard to passive tissue properties (muscle, tendons, fascia) [90] and neuromuscular aspects [10], should be geared to provide more data on exercise treatments in the lumbar spine region.

Conclusion

The common recommendation of stretching tight or shortened skeletal muscle to improve muscle imbalance and posture lacks scientific evidence (moderate certainty). In contrast, our review reinforces the role of strengthening weak antagonists which, however, was only effective in the thoracic and cervical but not in the lumbar spine (moderate certainty). Further well-designed RCTs, e.g. applying high stretch durations and experimental studies elaborating the underlying physiological mechanisms, are required to conclusively judge the role of treatments aiming to modify postural abnormalities.

Data Availability

Data can be provided on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

CI:

Confidence interval

ES:

Effect size

M:

Mean

SD:

Standard difference

SMD:

Standardized mean difference.

References

  1. Jones P. An Essay on Crookedness, or Distortions of the Spine. 1788.

  2. Sayre LA. Deformities of spine. Atlanta Med Surg J. 1875;13:405–10.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Chun S-W, Lim C-Y, Kim K, Hwang J, Chung SG. The relationships between low back pain and lumbar lordosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J. 2017;17:1180–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sadler SG, Spink MJ, Ho A, De Jonge XJ, Chuter VH. Restriction in lateral bending range of motion, lumbar lordosis, and hamstring flexibility predicts the development of low back pain: a systematic review of prospective cohort studies. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18:179.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Barrett E, O’Keeffe M, O’Sullivan K, Lewis J, McCreesh K. Is thoracic spine posture associated with shoulder pain, range of motion and function? A systematic review. Man Ther. 2016;26:38–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mahmoud NF, Hassan KA, Abdelmajeed SF, Moustafa IM, Silva AG. The relationship between Forward Head posture and Neck Pain: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2019;12:562–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Fatima A, Ashraf HS, Sohail M, Akram S, Khan M, Azam H. Prevalence of Upper Cross Syndrome and Associated Postural deviations in Computer operators; a qualitative study. J Allied Health Sci (AJAHS). 2022;7.

  8. Bullock GS, Faherty MS, Ledbetter L, Thigpen CA, Sell TC. Shoulder range of motion and baseball arm injuries: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. J Athl Train. 2018;53:1190–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Hill L, Collins M, Posthumus M. Risk factors for shoulder pain and injury in swimmers: a critical systematic review. Phys Sportsmed. 2015;43:412–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Morris CE, Bonnefin D, Darville C. The Torsional Upper crossed syndrome: a multi-planar update to Janda’s model, with a case series introduction of the mid-pectoral fascial lesion as an associated etiological factor. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2015;19:681–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Salsali M, Sheikhhoseini R, Sayyadi P, Hides JA, Dadfar M, Piri H. Association between physical activity and body posture: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2023;23:1670.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Lynch SS, Thigpen CA, Mihalik JP, Prentice WE, Padua D. The effects of an exercise intervention on forward head and rounded shoulder postures in elite swimmers. Br J Sports Med. 2010;44:376–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Janda V. Some aspects of extracranial causes of facial pain. J Prosthet Dent. 1986;56:484–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Janda V. On the Concept of Postural Muscles and posture in Man. Australian J Physiotherapy. 1983;29:83–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hrysomallis C. Effectiveness of strengthening and stretching exercises for the Postural correction of abducted scapulae: a review. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24:567–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hrysomallis C, Goodman C. A review of resistance exercise and posture realignment. J Strength Cond Res. 2001;15:385–90.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jang H-J, Hughes LC, Oh D-W, Kim S-Y. Effects of Corrective Exercise for thoracic hyperkyphosis on posture, Balance, and well-being in older women: a Double-Blind, Group-Matched Design. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2019;42:E17–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. González-Gálvez N, Gea-García GM, Marcos-Pardo PJ. Effects of exercise programs on kyphosis and lordosis angle: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0216180.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Osama M, Tassadaq N, Malik R. Effect of Muscle Energy Techniques and facet joint mobilization on spinal curvature in patients with mechanical neck pain: a pilot study. J Pak Med Assoc. 2019;1.

  20. Park SJ, Kim SH, Kim SH. Effects of thoracic mobilization and extension Exercise on thoracic alignment and shoulder function in patients with Subacromial Impingement Syndrome: a Randomized Controlled Pilot Study. Healthcare. 2020;8:316.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Brämberg EB, Bergström G, Jensen I, Hagberg J, Kwak L. Effects of yoga, strength training and advice on back pain: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18:132.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Ahmadi F, Safari Variani A, Saadatian A, Varmazyar S. The impact of 10 weeks of Pilates exercises on the thoracic and lumbar curvatures of female college students. Sport Sci Health. 2021;17:989–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lee S-M, Lee C-H, O’Sullivan D, Jung J-H, Park J-J. Clinical effectiveness of a pilates treatment for forward head posture. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016;28:2009–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Fathollahnejad K, Letafatkar A, Hadadnezhad M. The effect of manual therapy and stabilizing exercises on forward head and rounded shoulder postures: a six-week intervention with a one-month follow-up study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20:86.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Han J-T, Lee J-H, Yoon C-H. The mechanical effect of kinesiology tape on rounded shoulder posture in seated male workers: a single-blinded randomized controlled pilot study. Physiother Theory Pract. 2015;31:120–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Perriman DM, Scarvell JM, Hughes AR, Lueck CJ, Dear KBG, Smith PN. Thoracic hyperkyphosis: a survey of Australian physiotherapists. Physiotherapy Res Int. 2012;17:167–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Warneke K, Konrad A, Wilke J. The knowledge of movement experts about stretching effects: does the science reach practice? PLoS ONE. 2024;19:e0295571.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Withers RA, Plesh CR, Skelton DA. Does stretching of anterior structures alone, or in combination with strengthening of posterior structures, decrease hyperkyphosis and improve posture in adults? A systematic review and Meta-analysis. J Frailty Sarcopenia Falls. 2023;8:174–87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Wager E, Wiffen PJ. Ethical issues in preparing and publishing systematic reviews. J Evid Based Med. 2011;4:130–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Warneke K, Lohmann LH. Revisiting the stretch-induced force deficit - A systematic review with meta-analysis of acute effects. J Sport Health Sci. 2024.

  31. Behm DG. The Science and Physiology of Flexibility and stretching: implications and applications in Sport Performance and Health. London. UK: Routledge; 2018.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Behm DG, Chaouachi A. A review of the acute effects of static and dynamic stretching on performance. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011;111:2633–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Horsley T, Dingwall O, Sampson M. Checking reference lists to find additional studies for systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;2011.

  34. de Morton NA. The PEDro Scale is a valid measure of the Methodological Quality of clinical trials: a demographic study. Aust J Physiother. 2009;55:129–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Moseley AM, Elkins M. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther. 2003;83:713–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Fernández-Castilla B, Declercq L, Jamshidi L, Beretvas SN, Onghena P, van den Noortgate W. Visual representations of meta-analyses of multiple outcomes: extensions to forest plots, funnel plots, and caterpillar plots. Methodology. 2020;16:299–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328:1490.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Fu R, Gartlehner G, Grant M, Shamliyan T, Sedrakyan A, Wilt TJ, et al. Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1187–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Faraone SV. Interpreting estimates of treatment effects: implications for managed care. P T. 2008;33:700–3.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Fisher Z, Tipton E, Robumeta. An R-package for robust variance estimation in meta analysis. arXiv:1503.02220. 2015.

  41. Fani M, Ebrahimi S, Ghanbari A. Evaluation of scapular mobilization and comparison to pectoralis minor stretching in individuals with rounded shoulder posture: a randomized controlled trial. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2020;24:367–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Fukuda A, Tsushima E, Wada K, Ishibashi Y. Effects of back extensor strengthening exercises on postural alignment, physical function and performance, self-efficacy, and quality of life in Japanese community-dwelling older adults: a controlled clinical trial. Phys Ther Res. 2020;23:132–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Hajihosseini E, Norasteh A, Shamsi A, Daneshmandi H. The effects of strengthening, stretching and Comprehensive exercises on Forward Shoulder posture correction. Phys Treatments. 2014;4:123–32.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Hamidiyeh M, Naserpour H, Chogan M. Change in Erector Spinae muscle strength and Kyphosis Angle following an eight weeks TRX training in middle-age men. Int J Aging Health Mov. 2021;3:13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hammonds ALD, Laudner KG, McCaw S, McLoda TA. Acute lower extremity running Kinematics after a Hamstring Stretch. J Athl Train [Internet]. 2012;47:5–14. Available from: www.nata.orgljat.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hassan D, Irfan T, Butt S, Hashim M, Waseem A, Affiliation, ’. Exercise in forward head posture and rounded shoulder: stretching or strengthening? Ann Allied Health Sci [Internet]. 2022;8:3–8. Available from:. www.aahs.kmu.edu.pk.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Itoi E, Sinaki M. Effect of back-strengthening Exercise on posture in healthy women 49 to 65 years of age. Mayo Clin Proc. 1994;69:1054–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Katzman WB, Parimi N, Gladin A, Poltavskiy EA, Schafer AL, Long RK et al. Sex differences in response to targeted kyphosis specific exercise and posture training in community-dwelling older adults: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18.

  49. Katzman WB, Vittinghoff E, Lin F, Schafer A, Long RK, Wong S, et al. Targeted spine strengthening exercise and posture training program to reduce hyperkyphosis in older adults: results from the study of hyperkyphosis, exercise, and function (SHEAF) randomized controlled trial. Osteoporos Int. 2017;28:2831–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Kim S, Jung J, Kim N. The effects of McKenzie Exercise on Forward Head posture and respiratory function. J Korean Phys Therapy. 2019;31:351–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lee SH, Lee JH. Effects of strengthening and stretching exercises on the forward head posture. J Int Acad Phys Therapy Res. 2016;7:1046–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Lee M-H, Park S-J, Kim J-S. Effects of Neck Exercise on High-School Students’ Neck–Shoulder posture. J Phys Ther Sci. 2013;25:571–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Li Y, McClure PW, Pratt N. The Effect of Hamstring Muscle Stretching on Standing Posture and on Lumbar and Hip Motions During Forward Bending. Phys Ther [Internet]. 1996;76:836–45. https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/76/8/836/2633037.

  54. Malai S, Pichaiyongwongdee Msc S, Phd S. Immediate Effect of Hold-Relax Stretching of Iliopsoas Muscle on Transversus Abdominis Muscle Activation in Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain with Lumbar Hyperlordosis. Journal of medical association of Thailand [Internet]. 2015;98:S6–11. http://www.jmatonline.com.

  55. Muyor JM, López-Miñarro PA, Casimiro AJ. Effect of stretching program in an industrial workplace on hamstring flexibility and sagittal spinal posture of adult women workers: a randomized controlled trial. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2012;25:161–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Nitayarak H, Charntaraviroj P. Effects of scapular stabilization exercises on posture and muscle imbalances in women with upper crossed syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2021;34:1031–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Roddey TS, Olson SL, Grant SE. The Effect of Pectoralis muscle stretching on the resting position of the scapula in persons with varying degrees of Forward Head/ Rounded Shoulder posture. J Man Manip Ther. 2002.

  58. Rossa M, Meinar Sari G, Novembri Utomo D. The Effect of Static stretching hamstring on increasing hamstring muscle extensibility and pelvic Tilt Angle on Hamstring tightness. Int J Res Publications. 2021;86.

  59. Shamsi MB, Shahsavari S, Safari A, Mirzaei M. A randomized clinical trial for the effect of static stretching and strengthening exercise on pelvic tilt angle in LBP patients. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2020;24:15–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Sikka I, Chawla C, Seth S, Alghadir AH, Khan M. Effects of Deep Cervical Flexor Training on Forward Head Posture, Neck Pain, and Functional Status in Adolescents Using Computer Regularly. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020.

  61. Watt JR, Jackson K, Franz JR, Dicharry J, Evans J, Kerrigan DC. Effect of a supervised hip flexor stretching program on gait in elderly individuals. PM R. 2011;3:324–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Yoo W. Comparison of the effects of pectoralis muscles stretching exercise and scapular retraction strengthening exercise on forward shoulder. J Phys Ther Sci. 2018;30:584–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Im B, Kim Y, Chung Y, Hwang S. Effects of scapular stabilization exercise on neck posture and muscle activation in individuals with neck pain and forward head posture. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016;28:951–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Spring H, Schneider W, Tritschler T, Stretching. Orthopade. 1997;26:981–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Evans SH, Cameron MW, Burton J​Michael. Hypertonia Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care. 2017;47:161–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Sepehri S, Sheikhhoseini R, Piri H, Sayyadi P. The effect of various therapeutic exercises on forward head posture, rounded shoulder, and hyperkyphosis among people with upper crossed syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2024;25:105.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Bouvier T, Opplert J, Cometti C, Babault N. Acute effects of static stretching on muscle–tendon mechanics of quadriceps and plantar flexor muscles. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2017;117:1309–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Maeda N, Urabe Y, Tsutsumi S, Sakai S, Fujishita H, Kobayashi T, et al. The acute effects of static and cyclic stretching on muscle stiffness and hardness of medial gastrocnemius muscle. J Sports Sci Med. 2017;16:514–20.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Nakamura M, Ikezoe T, Takeno Y, Ichihashi N. Acute and prolonged effect of static stretching on the passive stiffness of the human gastrocnemius muscle tendon unit in vivo. J Orthop Res. 2011;29:1759–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Ryan ED, Beck TW, Herda TJ, Hull HR, Hartman MJ, Costa PB, et al. The Time Course of Musculotendinous stiffness responses following different durations of Passive stretching. J Orthop Sports Phys Therapy. 2008;38:632–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Fukaya T, Sato S, Yahata K, Yoshida R, Takeuchi K, Nakamura M. Effects of stretching intensity on range of motion and muscle stiffness: a narrative review. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2022;32:68–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Wang K, McCarter R, Wright J, Beverly J, Ramirez-Mitchell R. Viscoelasticity of the sarcomere matrix of skeletal muscles. The titin-myosin composite filament is a dual-stage molecular spring. Biophys J. 1993;64:1161–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Wang K, McCarter R, Wright J, Beverly J, Ramirez-Mitchell R. Regulation of skeletal muscle stiffness and elasticity by titin isoforms: a test of the segmental extension model of resting tension. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1991;88:7101–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Granzier H, Wu Y, Siegfried L, LeWinter M. Titin: physiological function and role in Cardiomyopathy and failure. Heart Fail Rev. 2005;10:211–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Linke WA. Stretching the story of titin and muscle function. J Biomech. 2023;152:111553.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Prado LG, Makarenko I, Andresen C, Krüger M, Opitz CA, Linke WA. Isoform Diversity of Giant Proteins in Relation to Passive and active Contractile properties of rabbit skeletal muscles. J Gen Physiol. 2005;126:461–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Nishikawa K. Titin: a tunable spring in active muscle. Physiology. 2020;35:209–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Freitas SR, Mendes B, Le Sant G, Andrade RJ, Nordez A, Milanovic Z. Can chronic stretching change the muscle-tendon mechanical properties? A review. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2018;28:794–806.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Takeuchi K, Nakamura M, Konrad A, Mizuno T. Long-term static stretching can decrease muscle stiffness: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2023;33:1294–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Zöllner AM, Abilez OJ, Böl M, Kuhl E. Stretching skeletal muscle: chronic muscle lengthening through Sarcomerogenesis. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e45661.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Kruse A, Rivares C, Weide G, Tilp M, Jaspers RT. Stimuli for adaptations in muscle length and the length range of active force Exertion—A narrative review. Front Physiol. 2021;12.

  82. Williams PE, Goldspink G. Changes in sarcomere length and physiological properties in immobilized muscle. J Anat. 1978;127:459–68.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. van der Pijl RJ, Hudson B, Granzier-Nakajima T, Li F, Knottnerus AM, Smith J et al. Deleting Titin’s C-Terminal PEVK exons increases Passive Stiffness, alters splicing, and induces cross-sectional and longitudinal hypertrophy in skeletal muscle. Front Physiol. 2020;11.

  84. Antonio J, Gonyea WJ. Progressive stretch overload of skeletal muscle results in hypertrophy before hyperplasia. J Appl Physiol. 1993;75:1263–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Alway SE. Contractile properties of aged avian muscle after stretch-overload. Mech Ageing Dev. 1994;73:97–112.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Nunes JP, Schoenfeld BJ, Nakamura M, Ribeiro AS, Cunha PM, Cyrino ES. Does stretch training induce muscle hypertrophy in humans? A review of the literature. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2020;40:148–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Warneke K, Lohmann LH, Behm DG, Wirth K, Keiner M, Schiemann S et al. Effects of Chronic Static Stretching on Maximal Strength and Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med Open. 2024;accepted.

  88. Panidi I, Donti O, Konrad A, Petros CD, Terzis G, Mouratidis A et al. Muscle architecture adaptations to static stretching training: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports Med Open. 2023;9.

  89. Apostolopoulos N, Metsios GS, Flouris AD, Koutedakis Y, Wyon MA. The relevance of stretch intensity and position—a systematic review. Front Psychol. 2015;6:1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Blazevich AJ. Adaptations in the passive mechanical properties of skeletal muscle to altered patterns of use. J Appl Physiol. 2019;126:1483–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Wiemann K, Klee A, Startmann M. Fibrillar sources of the muscle resting tension and the therapy of muscular imbalances. Muskelphysiologie. 1998;49:111–8.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Lee BCY, McGill SM. Effect of long-term isometric training on Core/Torso stiffness. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29:1515–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Dankel SJ, Razzano BM. The impact of acute and chronic resistance exercise on muscle stiffness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Ultrasound. 2020;23:473–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Schroeder J, Wilke J, Hollander K. Effects of Foam Rolling Duration on tissue stiffness and perfusion: a randomized cross-over trial. J Sports Sci Med. 2021;626–34.

  95. Wilke J, Niemeyer P, Niederer D, Schleip R, Banzer W. Influence of Foam Rolling velocity on knee range of motion and tissue stiffness: a Randomized, controlled crossover trial. J Sport Rehabil. 2019;28:711–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Not applicable.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Sport Science, Department of Movement Sciences, Alpen-Adrian-University Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria

    Konstantin Warneke & Jan Wilke

  2. Department of Human Movement Science and Exercise Physiology, Institute of Sport Science, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany

    Lars Hubertus Lohmann

Authors
  1. Konstantin Warneke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lars Hubertus Lohmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jan Wilke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

KW wrote the first draft, contributed in the screening of studies and performed the meta-analytic procedure. LHL contributed in study screening, quality assessment and assisted in the writing. JW supervised the project, included critical feedback and advised on statistical matters. All authors contributed to the manuscript, discussed and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lars Hubertus Lohmann.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Registration of the Study

The study was registered in the PROSPERO data base using the number CRD42023412854 and the title “Effects of stretching and strengthening exercise on spinal and lumbopelvic posture: a systematic review with meta-analysis”.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Warneke, K., Lohmann, L.H. & Wilke, J. Effects of Stretching or Strengthening Exercise on Spinal and Lumbopelvic Posture: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Sports Med - Open 10, 65 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-024-00733-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-024-00733-5

Keywords