Guest guest Posted December 29, 2006 Report Share Posted December 29, 2006 The sit and reach test is worthless for several reasons. Differences in bodily proportions, specifically leg, trunk and arm length, can affect results. For example, I am not extraordinarily flexible, but I routinely outperformed everyone in my class on the sit and reach including a girl who was extraordinarily flexible, simply because I have shorter legs, and a longer torso and longer arms. Hip and trunk flexor strength, upper body mass (affecting torque in the direction of hip and trunk flexion during the test), and abdominal fat (impeding hip and trunk flexion) can all affect sit and reach performance. There are way too many factors involved for it to be a reliable test. Drew Baye Winter Park, FL _____ From: Supertraining [mailto:Supertraining ] On Behalf Of CoachJ1@... Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 1:58 PM To: Supertraining Subject: Sit-and-reach test (Was Fact or Myth? Abnormal Posture) ((Question to Forbes: My oldest daughter, who was a high school sprinter and pole vaulter, was never able to get a Presidents Council Physical Fitness award because of her poor performance on the sit-and-reach. She was a three sport athlete who was fortunate to experience no hamstring/back injuries throughout her prep career. What is your opinion of the sit-and-reach as a valid test for either hamstring or back flexibility? Since you are still doing this test, you're probably satisfied with this instrument. The sit-and-reach probably does identify individuals who may be at higher risk of muscle injuries. However, some research ( et al. '98) noted that the sit-and-reach is not correlated with low back flexibility. Is the Schoeber test (tape measurements of spine length) a better method for evaluating lumbar flexibility? Ken Jakalski Lisle HS Lisle, IL)) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2006 Report Share Posted December 29, 2006 Ken, I use the sit & reach as part of series of testing. I feel it shows some valid results for not only lower back and hamstring flexibility, but complete spinal flexibility. I have seen from my training of athletes it shows some of the largest improvement when the posture of the athlete is improved. I am also refering to not only the lower back posture, but also the thoracic and cervical spine as well, which most people dont realize effects the results of the sit and reach test as well. I would say it has validity of course, but their are numerous other tests when are also excellent as well. It is one I prefer to use to demonstrate global spine flexibility. Forbes Director of Player Development Athletic Spinal Fitness Institute Ridgefield, Wa In Supertraining , CoachJ1@... wrote: > > Question to Forbes: > > My oldest daughter, who was a high school sprinter and pole vaulter, was > never able to get a Presidents Council Physical Fitness award because of her > poor performance on the sit-and-reach. She was a three sport athlete who was > fortunate to experience no hamstring/back injuries throughout her prep career. > > What is your opinion of the sit-and-reach as a valid test for either > hamstring or back flexibility? Since you are still doing this test, you're probably > satisfied with this instrument. > > The sit-and-reach probably does identify individuals who may be at higher > risk of muscle injuries. However, some research ( et al. '98) noted that > the sit-and-reach is not correlated with low back flexibility. Is the > Schoeber test (tape measurements of spine length) a better method for evaluating > lumbar flexibility? > > Ken Jakalski > Lisle HS > Lisle, IL > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 Every body type has its advantages. The short armed guys (especially if barrel chested) can crank out pushups like nothing, while tall, long limbed ectomorphs who on each stroke move twice as far find doing as many full range push-ups as possible in one minute very difficult. Let them run a mile though or throw a ball far and the long levers become an advantage. May be they should factor " work " into the equation (weight x distance moved " ? This would level the playing field to some extent. Ed White Sandwich, MA USA Drew Baye wrote: <<<The sit and reach test is worthless for several reasons. Differences in bodily proportions, specifically leg, trunk and arm length, can affect results. For example, I am not extraordinarily flexible, but I routinely outperformed everyone in my class on the sit and reach including a girl who was extraordinarily flexible, simply because I have shorter legs, and a longer torso and longer arms. Hip and trunk flexor strength, upper body mass (affecting torque in the direction of hip and trunk flexion during the test), and abdominal fat (impeding hip and trunk flexion) can all affect sit and reach performance. There are way too many factors involved for it to be a reliable test.>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 The sit-and-reach test (SART) may have a place as a component of an overall fitness evaluation in defining hamstring flexibility in particular. However, perhaps too much emphasis is placed on performance standards in this test, eg, 'fair', 'poor' etc, particularly when used to grade athletes for performance or injury potential -- as Ken Jakalski has noted in another post. Other factors need consideration with this test. In at least one study, SART performance is highly negatively related to running economy in elite endurance trained runners: Int J Sports Med. 2002 Jan;23(1):40-3. Running economy is negatively related to sit-and-reach test performance in international-standard distance runners. AM. " Conclusion: These results suggest that the least flexible runners are also the most economical. It is possible that stiffer musculotendinous structures reduce the aerobic demand of submaximal running by facilitating a greater elastic energy return during the shortening phase of the stretch-shortening cycle. " This should be evaluated in concert with recent data on the utility of stretching (particularly pre-event) for performance and injury prevention in athletes (particularly runners) and other studies that suggest a potential for negative performance outcome in runners for the reasons mentioned above. Effect of stretching on sport injury risk: a review. Hart L. Clin J Sport Med. 2005 Mar;15(2):113. Stretching for performance enhancement. McNeal JR, Sands WA. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2006 May;5(3):141-6. Review. So, as many recent posts have suggested, comparative fitness testing outcomes -- posture, flexibility etc -- need to be evaluated with some circumspection, particulary in relation to various sport-specific requirements. For example, stretching may indeed enhance performance and prevent injury in gymnasts and even basketballers where the stretch-shortening cycle is substantially different to that in many running sports, particularly distance running. In addition, it seems that comparative leg and arm length are relevant when using SART for evaluation purposes. I don't think I have to explain the advantages of short legs and long arms in the SART! This may also apply to abdominal length as well. Overall, this test has limited scientific validity and utility in my view. Fitnesse Health and Fitness Gympie, Australia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.