Preoperative Physical Fitness and Short-Term Postoperative Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Elective Cardiac Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Sports sciences should strive to clearly demarcate concepts that should not be confused or conflated. Not in the name of “terminological purity,” but to avoid conveying the wrong messages to a broader audience. Cases in point include the terms range of motion (ROM) versus flexibility and flexibility training versus stretching. By interchangeably using the terms ROM and flexibility, we are neglecting non-modifiable factors influencing ROM, potentially under- or over-doing flexibility training, or sometimes forcing the joints too far (e.g., in passive or assisted stretching). We may also risk neglecting the role played by other modifiable factors traditionally not associated with flexibility (e.g., balance and pain, as will be addressed in Sect. ). By equating flexibility training with stretching, we are conveying the (wrong) idea that primarily or only stretching is required to improve flexibility although alternatives exist. Simultaneously, we are potentially forgetting that stretching can have other applications (e.g., strength gains) that are not limited to improving flexibility (or not mediated by increased flexibility). But let’s start from the beginning. Our goal is to discuss ROM and flexibility as well as flexibility training and stretching, building the case that these pairs of concepts should not be equated or used interchangeably (i.e., ROM ≠ flexibility, flexibility training ≠ stretching) and that their differentiation has relevant implications for how practitioners interpret them and therefore how they affect daily practices. We will start from definitions provided by major world-renowned institutions, as these are likely to have greater impact than isolated scientific publications.