@mags1234 I agree, I didn’t cover all of the scientific literature. But if you enter “static stretching” in PubMed, for example, you get around 3’500 results, and I couldn’t have possibly covered all of them. And that doesn’t include other search terms.
It’s always difficult to decide which studies to look at and which to include, given that there are so many of them. That’s why I included a lot of review papers and meta-analyses, because they aggregate the data of tens or hundreds of studies in a single paper.
And I agree, sometimes there is conflicting data - science isn’t always as clear-cut as we would like it to be. But I did my best to include multiple different points of view and also present conflicting data, in an attempt to remove as much bias as possible.
If you could point out some of the studies I missed in your opinion, then I could have a look at them and see if I can include them in a revised post?