Resistance training vs. static stretching: effects on flexibility and strength.
ABSTRACT Morton, SK, Whitehead, JR, Brinkert, RH, and Caine, DJ. Resistance training vs. static stretching: Effects on flexibility and strength. J Strength Cond Res 25(12): 3391-3398, 2011-The purpose of this study was to determine how full-range resistance training (RT) affected flexibility and strength compared to static stretching (SS) of the same muscle-joint complexes in untrained adults. Volunteers (n = 25) were randomized to an RT or SS training group. A group of inactive volunteers (n = 12) served as a convenience control group (CON). After pretesting hamstring extension, hip flexion and extension, shoulder extension flexibility, and peak torque of quadriceps and hamstring muscles, subjects completed 5-week SS or RT treatments in which the aim was to stretch or to strength train the same muscle-joint complexes over similar movements and ranges. Posttests of flexibility and strength were then conducted. There was no difference in hamstring flexibility, hip flexion, and hip extension improvement between RT and SS, but both were superior to CON values. There were no differences between groups on shoulder extension flexibility. The RT group was superior to the CON in knee extension peak torque, but there were no differences between groups on knee flexion peak torque. The results of this preliminary study suggest that carefully constructed full-range RT regimens can improve flexibility as well as the typical SS regimens employed in conditioning programs. Because of the potential practical significance of these results to strength and conditioning programs, further studies using true experimental designs, larger sample sizes, and longer training durations should be conducted with the aim of confirming or disproving these results.
- SourceAvailable from: Jefferson Novaes[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to examine the effects of twelve weeks of resistance training with different exercise orders (upper limbs and lower limbs vs. lower limbs and upper limbs) on flexibility levels in elite judo athletes. Thirty-nine male athletes were randomly divided into 3 groups as follows: G1 (n = 13), G2 (n = 13), and CG (n = 13). The flexibility was assessed on 8 joint movements: shoulder flexion and shoulder extension, shoulder abduction and shoulder adduction, trunk flexion and trunk extension, and hip flexion and hip extension. Two-way repeated measures ANOVAs (time [pre-experimental vs. post-experimental] × group [G1 vs. G2 vs. CG]) were used to compare the differences between pre- and post-test situations and the differences among groups. The results from the within-group (pre vs. post) comparisons demonstrated significant increases (p < 0.05) in the range of motion of 3.93 and 5.96% for G1 and G2 training groups, respectively, in all joints. No significant changes (p > 0.05) were observed for the CG. The results from the between-group comparisons demonstrated no significant differences (p > 0.05) in the range of motion between G1post vs. G2post (1.15%). Although both exercise orders (from upper to lower limbs and from lower to upper limbs) increased flexibility, no significant variations were observed between the different exercise orders. Nevertheless, these findings demonstrate that flexibility gains could be obtained with a resistance training program, and thus, more time can be devoted to sports-specific judo training.Journal of Human Kinetics 03/2014; 40:129-37. DOI:10.2478/hukin-2014-0015 · 0.70 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the effect of training with variable resistance machines is similar to whole body vibration training in relation to physical fitness, in order to meet physical activity recommendations. Vibration training requires less training time, less perceived effort, and less risk of injury. 70 active women were divided into two groups (M = 68.3 years old, SD = 6.46). The first group (n = 36) trained with variable resistance machines and the second group (n = 34) was assigned to whole body vibration training. Before and after the period of training (12 weeks), the women were evaluated according to the Senior Fitness Test. This test assesses physical fitness: resistance of arms and legs, flexibility, endurance, agility and dynamic balance. The data suggest that vibration training had similar results in relation to physical fitness, which might be adequate to meet physical activity recommendations.Revista de Psicologia del Deporte 01/2012; 21(2):373-378. · 0.90 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The main purpose of the investigation reported here was to analyze the effect of resistance training (RT) performed at different weekly frequencies on flexibility in older women. Fifty-three older women (≥60 years old) were randomly assigned to perform RT either two (n=28; group "G2x"), or three (n=25; group "G3x") times per week. The RT program comprised eight exercises in which the participants performed one set of 10-15 repetitions maximum for a period of 12 weeks. Anthropometric, body-composition, and flexibility measurements were made at baseline and post-study. The flexibility measurements were obtained by a fleximeter. A significant group-by-time interaction (P<0.01) was observed for frontal hip flexion, in which G3x showed a higher increase than G2x (+12.8% and +3.0%, respectively). Both groups increased flexibility in cervical extension (G2x=+19.1%, G3x=+20.0%), right hip flexion (G2x=+14.6%, G3x=+15.9%), and left hip flexion (G2x=+25.7%, G3x=+19.2%), with no statistical difference between groups. No statistically significant differences were noted for the increase in skeletal muscle mass between training three versus two times a week (+7.4% vs +4.4%, respectively). Twelve weeks of RT improves the flexibility of different joint movements in older women, and the higher frequency induces greater increases for frontal hip flexion.Clinical Interventions in Aging 03/2015; 2015(10):531-538. DOI:10.2147/CIA.S77433 · 1.82 Impact Factor