did you look at any of the articles from peer reviewed journals that were embedded in the article?
Well I did.
The quick discussion: we are all individuals and need to be careful about accepting blanket assertions.
Longer discussion:
The main ref of the Outside article is an article in
Sports Medicine titled “The Case for Retiring Flexibility as a Major Component of Physical Fitness” by exercise scientist James Nuzzo. Strong credentials. Did his PhD at the UNSW in Australia which is a well regarded university, one of the best here. Now lives in Australia. So plenty of ticks there.
Unfortunately can't access Nozzo's article without outlay of money. The meaty bit of the abstract states:
First, I show flexibility has little predictive or concurrent validity with health and performance outcomes (e.g., mortality, falls, occupational performance) in apparently healthy individuals, particularly when viewed in light of the other major components of fitness (i.e., body composition, cardiovascular endurance, muscle endurance, muscle strength). Second, I explain that if flexibility requires improvement, this does not necessitate a prescription of stretching in most populations.
Ok, what else can we find out? The Outside article notes:
Let’s start with a definition: the paper focuses on static flexibility, as exemplified by the sit-and-reach test, in which you see how close you can come to touching your toes (or how far beyond them you can reach) while sitting on the floor with legs outstretched.
Hmmm... that's a bit of a narrower definition of flexibility than would be of interest to me.
Nuzzo's web site brings up this interview with the guy himself about his article.
Yep, there's a big focus on the sit and reach test. But as Nuzzo says (around the 55 minute mark) there's a good deal more nuance to the point he is making.
A couple of examples:
1. His concern on the over-focus on stretching is, say, the case of some-one who can only do 3 thirty minute exercise sessions per week. Spending 5 to 10 minutes of those sessions on stretching would be a less than optimal use of time.
2. Sit and reach may not be that indicative of usefulness of flexibility for a given sport (or in fact any sport).
3. He's not a clinician dealing with injured or movement compromised people.
There's quite a few other such points. Folk can watch if they have a spare hour.
Personally, improving sit and reach ability has little to do with the reason for finding stretching useful. Nor do I fit in the only 3x30 group.
In the ski season I spend 5-6 hours exercising in the outdoor white gym. This activity has consequences. The large amount of time spent in a flexed stance tends to tighten hip flexors and quads. Days in the bumps tends to compress spine - no doubt exacerbated by stance and movement pattern issues. Those need to be returned to some semblance of normal at day's end in order to co-exist comfortably with the body and at least start the next day's skiing in comfort. A few minutes stretching appropriately works. I'm certainly not going to go do some resistance training.
Off season there are issues with normal RoM. A a couple of minutes stretching certain muscles (that aren't about to be worked) can assist greatly in properly executing an exercise and therefore getting best benefit for the effort and time.
There may be merit in the point that flexibility (as measured by sit and reach) is not much benefit to skiers. Skiing does not necessarily require the ultimate in flexibility - although flexibility in hips and in legs would seem very useful in high performance carving and bumps respectively. A healthy individual with excellent technique and normal range of motion of all the moving parts may well finish the day tired but in no other way degraded. The same individual may well be able to use resistance training (for example) at other times to build strength/endurance through the full range of motion required by skiing. Good for them. Not in that group myself.
Delta variant. No skiing any time soon 
.
