In this post, we discuss why mobility exercises aren’t necessary if you’re training through a full, actively controlled range of motion. The evidence suggests it can replace dedicated stretching routines entirely.
The mobility industry is booming — foam rollers, spiky balls, dedicated stretch classes, and morning routines built around hip circles and thoracic rotations.
The implicit assumption behind all of this is that mobility work is a separate category of training — something you do in addition to your strength work.
That assumption deserves to be challenged. In fact the evidence suggests that if you’re training through a full, actively controlled range of motion, you may already be doing the most effective mobility work.
What mobility work is actually trying to achieve
Before discussing whether dedicated mobility exercises are necessary, it’s worth being clear on what they are trying to achieve. The goal is typically to increase the range of motion available at a joint — to allow the body to move further, more freely, and with fewer restrictions.
Stretching and mobility work achieve this primarily by influencing the nervous system’s tolerance to a position — what researchers refer to as stretch tolerance. The evidence does not support the idea that stretching meaningfully changes the structural length of a muscle; what changes is how comfortable the system is operating at or near end range.
This is an important distinction, because it means the question is not just ‘how do I get more range?’ but ‘how do I get more usable range?’ Range of motion that exists only in a passive stretch is of limited value. Range of motion that you can actively control and produce force through is what matters for both performance and injury prevention.
Full range of motion resistance training as mobility work
Here is where resistance training has a significant advantage over conventional mobility work — provided the training is performed through a range the muscular system can actively control.
When you train a movement through its full active range — a leg press or squat taken to the depth you can genuinely stabilise, a shoulder press exploring end range shoulder flexion — you are not just building strength. You are improving feedback at these end ranges of joint motion.
This is a fundamentally more demanding stimulus than a passive stretch. You are asking the body not to just tolerate a position, but to produce force in it.
Chasing depth or range beyond what the muscular system can genuinely stabilise does not confer the benefits described above. A squat that collapses at the bottom and relies on passive tension rather than muscular control at end range is closer to a loaded passive stretch than a strength exercise. The goal is to progressively extend the range that is actively owned, not to pursue range for its own sake.
What the research shows
No study that I’m aware of has directly compared a full range resistance training programme against a structured mobility exercise routine of the kind popular in fitness culture. However, the available evidence comparing resistance training to static stretching — the most researched flexibility intervention — is consistent.
A 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis by Afonso et al. pooling 55 studies found no significant differences between resistance training and stretch training for improving range of motion, while resistance training produced additional strength gains.
This 2024 randomised controlled trial by Rosenfeldt et al. found equivalent flexibility improvements from full range resistance training and static stretching when training volume was matched, with strength gains only in the resistance training group.
Lastly, this 2021 systematic review by Pallarés et al. found that full range of motion training produced significantly greater improvements in strength and lower-limb hypertrophy than partial range training, with functional performance also favoured by full range work.
The injury prevention argument
One of the most commonly cited justifications for dedicated mobility work is injury prevention. The logic is that restricted movement leads to compensations, compensations lead to overload, and overload leads to injury.
There is truth in this, but the conclusion drawn from it is often wrong. The solution to restricted range of motion is not necessarily stretching — it’s building strength and active control through that range.
A joint that is strong and stable through its full arc of motion is significantly more resilient than one that is merely flexible.
Where dedicated mobility work still has a place
There are contexts where mobility work remains appropriate. In the early stages of rehabilitation, when loading is not yet suitable, gentle range of motion work may serve a purpose.
In sports with very specific positional demands — gymnastics, or martial arts for example — the range required may genuinely exceed what resistance training alone can provide.
These should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, however, and I would argue the more active control that can be built into the system the better. Ballet companies that have eliminated stretching, for example, have found a reduction in injury rates.
For the great majority of people training for general health, performance, and injury prevention, a dedicated mobility session is redundant if the training itself is being done well.
What this means in practice
The practical implication is straightforward: prioritise active range of motion in your training rather than adding a separate mobility practice on top of it.
If a certain range is restricted and you cannot access it with active control, that is useful information. Try working towards that range progressively — carefully approaching it, rather than stretching to move past it.
Train the range you have available. Build strength and control through it. Mobility will follow — and it will be the kind that holds up when it matters.