What's the difference?
The important part is that static stretching before workouts has been linked to increased risk of injury, and lower performance. Stretching post workout and on non-workout days is fine.
FWIW, I don't do any pre-exercise stretching. On the other hand, I practically always do at least one kind of stretching after every run - simple ankle rotations in both directions with one leg across the other knee while seated. I really notice the difference later in the day and/or next time I run. If particular muscles feel sore, I'll throw in one or two other kinds of stretches. That minimal approach has kept me out of trouble despite running more even than most other runners - consistently five or six days a week in every kind of weather. Just an anecdote, not data, but seemed worth sharing anyway.
Meh. I ran thirteen times a week for years, quit for years, started again overweight more than once to slim down again and have done many 5 hour + mountain runs on the wrong side of 30. I've generally done static stretching both before and after running when I have time. After tens of thousands of miles, I'm still at zero injuries of note.
IMO the biggest thing is to not do the same thing every day. Take easy days and easy weeks between the more intense ones. Also, try not to go too fast except on speed days or tempo runs. You'll actually be healthier and faster if you let your body recover (whatever it takes at your fitness level to do that).
> I ran thirteen times a week for years
> Take easy days and easy weeks
>"Also, as impressed as you might be with yourself for running some unspecified distance more often than someone else while you were in your twenties, it doesn't change the fact that most runners go out every other day at most."
It's pretty common to run twice a day on university cross country teams. As far as I know, most competitive 10k runners do. I wasn't an outlier by any means. In fact, at that time I wasn't quite good enough to make the cut. I am not "impressed" with myself for having done >200km on hard weeks.
I do think that having done that and also having done a lot of running at different sizes and shapes in my 30s without injury is at least a decent data point that static stretching isn't absolutely horrible. It might be sub-optimal but it can be done regularly for years without leading to an injury.
> It's pretty common to run twice a day on university cross country teams
> it can be done regularly for years without leading to an injury.
[1] http://www.runnersworld.com/stretching/does-stretching-preve...
Honestly, I find your personal attacks and comments about how you believe I perceive myself to be the only nasty behavior on this thread.
> If you don't care for my anecdote, fine. Your own's even less relevant to most people.
I disagree. Maybe this analogy can make where I'm coming from clearer:
There are certain postures that are easier on the back than others when digging with a shovel. Imagine you have a single data point from someone who grew some vegetables in their backyard and did a bit of shoveling every weekend and a single data point from someone who worked as a tree planter in Ontario for three consecutive summers and spent long hours every day digging and planting.
I believe that neither would be scientific or conclusive, but that if all else were equal, then knowing how the posture/technique that worked for the tree planter would be more useful. I would go with that until encountering problems or taking on something more demanding than what the tree planter did.
You're an outlier. You should be proud of that, and clearly are, but you want to have your cake too. You want to believe, contrary to the evidence I've cited, that your outlier's experience is relevant for people who have never had the benefit of working with professional coaches and trainers, for whom any likelihood of that is decades behind them, who might have struggled with all sorts of mid-life health issues before they took up running. That's the typical beginning runner who needs to know this stuff. They're ill served by your willingness to hold forth without benefit of relevant experience or familiarity with the actual science of the matter. Was there ever any rational expectation that your anecdote - which is the only thing you offered, in contrast to what you were supposedly answering - would help anyone else avoid injury? If not, then why did you feel the need to speak up?
>"They're ill served by your willingness to hold forth without benefit of relevant experience or familiarity with the actual science of the matter."
This is really rude and makes more uncharitable assumptions.
The fact is I have helped a lot of friends and family members of various ages and sizes get into running without injury, and to go through marathon programs in some cases. While I've read more books and journals on running than most people ever will, I don't think trading links to them with angry people on the internet is productive. Have a good day.
tldr; Take easy days. Take easy weeks. Listen to your body.