Content uploaded by Leandro Santos
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Leandro Santos on Oct 18, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Isokinetics and Exercise Science 25 (2017) 149–155 149
DOI 10.3233/IES-170658
IOS Press
Effect of resistance training on flexibility in
young adult men and women
Alex S. Ribeiroa,b,∗, Marçal G.A. Campos-Filhob,AdemarAvelar
c, Leandro dos Santosb,
Abdallah Achour Júniorb, Andreo F. Aguiara, Steven J. Fleckd, Hélio Serassuelo Júniorband
Edilson S. Cyrinob
aCenter for Research in Health Sciences, University of Northern Parana, Londrina, Brazil
bStudy and Research Group in Metabolism, Nutrition and Exercise, Londrina State University, Londrina, Brazil
cMaringa State University, Maringa, Brazil
dAndrews Research and Education Foundation, Gulf Breeze, FL, USA
Received 1 July 2016
Accepted 27 December 2016
Abstract.
BACKGROUND: Flexibility is an important component of physical fitness. However, to date, there is no comparative study
between men and women concerning the influence of resistance training (RT) on flexibility.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effect of RT on flexibility in young adult men and women.
METHODS: Twenty-eight men and 30 women underwent progressive RT for 16 weeks, 3 times per week. Anthropometric
and flexibility measurements were performed at pre-training, mid-training, and post-training. The flexibility measurements were
obtained using a fleximeter.
RESULTS: There was no significant sex by time interaction (P>0.05) for any outcomes. Both sexes increased flexibility
similarly from baseline to mid-training in shoulder extension (10.4–11.1%) and lateral trunk inclination (2.4–3.4%). Shoulder
flexion increased at same magnitude in men and women from baseline to post-training (1.3–2.8%). Hip flexion and trunk flexion
scores increased from baseline to mid-training (hip flexion =3.7–3.9%, trunk flexion =2.7%), however, a decrease was observed
from mid- to post-training (hip flexion =−2.4 −−2.6%, trunk flexion =−1.4%) with values returning to baseline with no
difference between men and women.
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that regardless of sex, RT improves or at least preserves the flexibility of different joint
movements in young adult men and women.
Keywords: Strength training, physical fitness, range of motion, muscle mass
1. Introduction
Flexibility is important for postural stability and bal-
ance with low levels of flexibility possibly increase the
risk of osteoarticular injury, back pain, and difficult
performing activities of daily life [1]. Stretching exer-
cises are recommended for the maintenance and/or de-
∗Corresponding author: Alex Silva Ribeiro, Carmela Dutra Street
862, Jataizinho, 86210-000, Brazil. Tel.: +55 4332593860; E-mail:
alex-silvaribeiro@hotmail.com.
velopment of flexibility [1]. However, resistance train-
ing (RT), in addition to muscular strength and body
composition benefits [2], has been shown as a viable
alternative for increasing flexibility in various popula-
tions [3–14]. Changes induced by RT on muscle archi-
tecture, density of myofilaments, and structure of con-
nective tissue, may improve flexibility by a reduction
in passive tension and stiffness of the tissues surround-
ing a joint. Thus RT may be a time saving strategy to
increase flexibility and so may aid adherence to an in-
tervention program among some populations. In fact,
ISSN 0959-3020/17/$35.00 c
2017 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
150 A.S. Ribeiro et al. / Flexibility and resistance training
there is evidence that regular RT serves as an active
form of flexibility training and can improve range of
motion to a similar extent as typical static stretching
protocols [8].
Despite the growth in the number of studies in-
vestigating the influence of RT on flexibility, the ma-
jority of previous investigations have evaluated short
to medium length training durations, between 4 to
12 weeks [6,8–10,13,15,16]. Thus the chronic effects
of RT on flexibility are largely unknown. Moreover,
men and women present different levels of flexibil-
ity [17], and therefore the chronic adaptations of flexi-
bility due to RT may be different between the sexes.
Given the above background and considering that, to
our knowledge, there is no comparative study between
men and women concerning the influence of RT on
flexibility, it seems relevant to investigate the chronic
effects of RT on flexibility between sexes.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
Participants were recruited from a university popu-
lation and though local advertisement. All volunteers
(47 women and 42 men) completed a detailed health
history questionnaire. Inclusion criteria were the fol-
lowing: no signs or symptoms of any disease or ortho-
pedic injuries, inactive (defined as performing physical
activity less than twice a week), and no participation
in any RT for at least six months before the beginning
of the study. Twenty-eight men and 30 women finished
the study and therefore were included in the final anal-
ysis. The reasons for subject dropout included insuf-
ficient attendance of training sessions (<85% of the
total sessions) and voluntary abandonment for various
personnel reasons.
Written informed consent was obtained from all sub-
jects after a detailed description of the study proce-
dures was provided. This investigation was conducted
according to the Declaration of Helsinki, and was ap-
proved by the local University Ethics Committee.
2.2. Anthropometry and skeletal muscle mass
Body mass was measured to the nearest 0.1 kg us-
ing a calibrated electronic scale (Balmak, Laboratory
Equipment Labstore, Curitiba, PR, Brazil), with the
participants wearing light workout clothing and no
shoes. Height was measured to the nearest 0.1 cm with
a stadiometer attached to the scale with participants
standing without shoes. Body mass index was calcu-
lated as body mass in kilograms divided by the square
of height in meters.
Skeletal muscle mass was estimated using the pre-
diction equation of Lee et al. [18], validated by Gobbo
et al. [19]:
SMM (kg)= 0.244 ×BW +7.8×H+6.6×S
−0.098 ×A+R−3.3
where BW =body weight (kg), H =height (m), S =
sex (male =1, female =0), A =age (years), R =race
(−1.2 for Asians, 1.4 for African-Americans and 0 for
Caucasians).
2.3. Flexibility measurements
Nine joint movements were evaluated in the follow-
ing order: right shoulder extension, left shoulder ex-
tension, right shoulder flexion, left shoulder flexion,
right hip flexion, left hip flexion, frontal trunk flexion,
right trunk inclination, and left trunk inclination. All
measurements were obtained using a fleximeter (Code,
American do Brazil Ltda, São Paulo, Brazil) with a
degree scale. All measurements were performed ac-
cording to procedures and recommendations described
elsewhere [20].
Briefly, for shoulder extension, shoulder flexion, and
hip flexion measurements, the participants were lying
on a stretching table in a supine position with the upper
limbs parallel to the body line, elbow extended and the
palm of the hand facing the stretching table with the
fleximeter positioned in the medial portion of the par-
ticipants’ arm. For shoulder extension, the upper limb
was lowered below the edge of the stretching table,
while for shoulder flexion the upper limb was moved
above the edge of the stretching table. For hip flexion,
the fleximeter was positioned on the lateral mid-point
of the thigh, the hip was flexed as far as possible with-
out the back elevating off of the stretching table, the
knee remained extended during this movement.
Trunk flexion was measured in a standing position,
the fleximeter was positioned next to the hip just above
the iliac crest, shoulders vertically flexed, elbows ex-
tended, fingers intertwined, and legs together, the sub-
ject then performed forward hip flexion as far as pos-
sible while keeping the knees extended. Lateral trunk
inclination was measured in the standing position with
legs together and the knees extended, the fleximeter
was placed on the medial surface of the thoracic spine,
arms crossed over the trunk and hands on the contralat-
eral shoulder. Participants then performed lateral hip
A.S. Ribeiro et al. / Flexibility and resistance training 151
inclination as far as possible with the heels remaining
in contact with the floor.
For all movements, after attaching the fleximeter
with Velcro straps and setting the zero point of the
fleximeter, the participants executed the movement as
far as possible or until the feeling of tightness or dis-
comfort at the end of the range of motion. At the end
of the range of motion the evaluator recorded the mea-
surement. Subjects remained in the final position until
the measurement was completed. Three measurements
were obtained for each joint movement without any
warm-up. The highest score obtained from the three
measurements in each joint motion was used in the sta-
tistical analysis.
The same evaluator performed all measurements
pre-, mid- and post-training. The evaluator was blinded
to previous scores in successive measurements (pre-,
mid- and post-training). The evaluator had over 2 years
experience in measuring flexibility, and based on test-
retest data, the technical error of measurement and
the intraclass correlation coefficient among the move-
ments was 2.26 degrees and 0.950, respectively.
The maximal technical error among the movements an-
alyzed was 1.19 degrees.
The flexibility measurements were performed in
a University controlled-temperature laboratory room
(22–24◦C). The experiment was conducted during the
spring and summer seasons.
2.4. Muscular strength
Maximal dynamic strength was evaluated using the
one repetition maximum (1RM) test in the free-weight
bench press (BP), squat on a smith machine (SQ), and
free-weight arm curl (AC), in that order, at baseline
and after 16 of the RT period. In BP the grip was such
that the thumbs were at shoulder width when the bar
was resting on the support standards. Complete range
of motion consisted of lowering the bar until it touched
the chest and pressing it upward until locking the el-
bows at the top of the press; the subjects were not al-
lowed to arch the back and bounce the bar of their
chest. For the SQ, the bar of the Smith machine was
placed at approximately the level of the upper trapez-
ius muscle and rubber padding cushioning the region.
The feet were parallel and placed shoulder width apart.
The complete range of motion consisted of lowering
the body, flexing the knees to a 90◦angle, then press-
ing forward and upward until the knees were locked.
For execution of AC, the participants stood with their
back against a wall to prevent any assistive motion,
and the knees were positioned with a slight flexion.
From a full arm-extended position, hands in supina-
tion, placed slightly wider than shoulder width and di-
rectly under the bar, AC was executed using the ante-
rior arm flexor muscles through approximately a 120-
deg range of motion or until the full flexion of the el-
bow.
The rest periods between exercises ranged from
three to five minutes. The test in each exercise was pre-
ceded by a warm-up set (6–10 repetitions) with 50%
of the estimated load used in the first attempt of the
1RM test. The testing procedure was initiated two min-
utes after warm-up. The subjects were oriented to try
to accomplish two repetitions with the imposed load in
three attempts in each exercise. If the subject was suc-
cessful in the first attempt, weight was added (3–10%
of the first attempt load), a 3–5 min rest was given, and
a second attempt was made. If this attempt was suc-
cessful, a third attempt was given with an increased
load (3–10% of the second attempt load), following a
3–5 min rest. If the subject was not successful in the
first or second attempt, weight was removed (3–10% of
the previous attempt load) and one other attempt was
given. The 1RM was recorded as the last resistance
lifted in which the subject was able to complete one
single full-range maximum execution.
Execution technique and form of each exercise were
standardized and continuously monitored to promote
reliability in the maximum strength assessment. All
the sessions were supervised by three experienced re-
searchers for greater safety and integrity of the subjects
during tests. Four 1RM sessions were performed sepa-
rated by 48 hours. The highest load among the three fi-
nal sessions was used for analysis in each exercise. The
intraclass correlation coefficients for 1RM in BP, SQ
and AC were 0.98, 0.91, and 0.96 respectively. Dur-
ing all sessions, subjects were allowed to drink water
whenever necessary and were encouraged to remain
hydrated throughout testing.
2.5. Resistance training program
A supervised progressive RT program designed to
induce muscular hypertrophy was performed in 2
phases of 8 weeks each, 3 times per week on noncon-
secutive days (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) [2].
The RT sessions were conducted at a University facil-
ity. All subjects were individually supervised by expe-
rienced instructors during each training session in or-
der to reduce deviations from the study protocol and to
ensure subject safety. Subjects performed RT using a
combination of free weights and machines, and the ex-
152 A.S. Ribeiro et al. / Flexibility and resistance training
Tab le 1
General characteristics of the sample at baseline
Men (n=28 ) Women (n=30) P
Age (years) 22.1 ±4.3 22.4 ±4.0 0.79
Body mass (kg) 68.4 ±9.2 57.7 ±10.2 <0.001
Height (cm) 174.4 ±6.7 162.3 ±6.4 <0.001
Body mass index (kg.m−2)22.5 ±2.4 21.8 ±3.2 0.40
Note: Data are presented as mean and standard deviation.
Tab le 2
Flexibility of different articular movements and skeletal muscle mass at different moments
Men (n=28) Women (n=30) ANCOVA effects P
Skeletal muscle mass (kg)
Pre-training 31.6 ±2.8 21.4 ±3.2 Time 0.04
Mid-training 31.9 ±2.7∗21.7 ±3.2∗Interaction 0.84
Post-training 32.1 ±2.7∗† 21.9 ±3.3∗†
Right shoulder extension (degrees)
Pre-training 85.4 ±14.0 87.0 ±9.1 Time <0.001
Mid-training 93.3 ±13.3∗98.3 ±9.4∗Interaction 0.22
Post-training 93.4 ±13.1∗96.4 ±9.2∗
Left shoulder extension (degrees)
Pre-training 84.3 ±13.3 88.3 ±7.7 Time <0.001
Mid-training 92.6 ±12.5∗98.0 ±11.6∗Interaction 0.26
Post-training 94.0 ±13.1∗96.6 ±9.6∗
Right shoulder flexion (degrees)
Pre-training 185.6 ±13.1 185.8 ±23.4 Time <0.001
Mid-training 187.3 ±12.3 184.8 ±26.9 Interaction 0.35
Post-training 189.4 ±14.3∗† 192.3 ±10.1∗†
Left shoulder flexion (degrees)
Pre-training 186.3 ±16.3 190.5 ±11.7 Time <0.001
Mid-training 186.5 ±13.4 189.2 ±12.3 Interaction 0.53
Post-training 190.6 ±11.8∗† 191.1 ±10.7∗†
Right hip flexion (degrees)
Pre-training 94.1 ±13.5 102.8 ±15.9 Time <0.01
Mid-training 98.4 ±12.6∗106.2 ±15.5∗Interaction 0.81
Post-training 95.4 ±14.9†104.0 ±16.0†
Left hip flexion (degrees)
Pre-training 93.4 ±12.9 103.9 ±16.5 Time <0.001
Mid-training 97.1 ±12.3∗107.5 ±14.0∗Interaction 0.45
Post-training 95.6 ±12.5†104.0 ±14.4†
Frontal trunk flexion (degrees)
Pre-training 143.1 ±12.6 144.8 ±18.5 Time <0.001
Mid-training 146.6 ±10.1∗149.2 ±11.4∗Interaction 0.23
Post-training 143.8 ±11.3†147.9 ±11.0†
Right trunk inclination (degrees)
Pre-training 51.5 ±9.3 51.0 ±7.5 Time <0.001
Mid-training 53.8 ±9.1∗52.2 ±6.8∗Interaction 0.71
Post-training 53.9 ±8.6∗53.0 ±7.2∗
Left trunk inclination (degrees)
Pre-training 49.1 ±8.8 52.6 ±6.8 Time <0.01
Mid-training 51.1 ±8.3∗53.0 ±7.2∗Interaction 0.37
Post-training 51.9 ±8.7∗53.0 ±7.4∗
Note: Data are presented as mean and standard deviation. ∗p<0.05 vs pre-training. †p<0.05 vs Mid-training.
ercises included total body and body part exercises of
the upper limbs, trunk and lower limbs. The progres-
sive RT program in the first phase consisted of 9 exer-
cises selected to stress the major muscle groups. The
exercises were performedin the following order: bench
press, leg press 45◦, wide-grip behind-the-neck pull-
down, leg extension, side lateral raise, lying leg curl,
triceps pushdown, calf press on the leg press machine,
and arm curl.
In the second phase, the RT program was altered,
and 11 exercises were performed in the following
order: bench press, incline dumbbell fly, wide-grip
A.S. Ribeiro et al. / Flexibility and resistance training 153
Tab le 3
Muscular strength at pre-training and after 16 weeks of resistance training
Men (n=28) Women (n=30) ANCOVA effects P
Bench press (kg)
Pre-training 61.9 ±2.9 29.5 ±1.2 Time <0.001
Post-training 74.8 ±2.8∗38.1 ±1.3∗Interaction 0.07
Squat (kg)
Pre-training 118.7 ±3.9 75.6 ±2.8 Time <0.05
Post-training 133.8 ±3.8∗87.8 ±3.4∗Interaction 0.54
Arm curl (kg)
Pre-training 37.2 ±1.3 21.6 ±0.7 Time <0.001
Post-training 42.9 ±1.3∗26.1 ±0.8∗Interaction 0.27
Note: Data are presented as mean and standard deviation. ∗p<0.05 vs pre-training.
behind-the-neck pulldown, seated cable rows, seated
barbell military press, lying triceps press, arm curl,
leg extension, leg press 45◦, lying leg curl, and seated
calf raise. After the resistance exercises, the abdominal
crunch exercise was performed on the floor using the
subject’s bodyweight (3 sets of 50–100 repetitions in
both phases).
For both phases, all subjects performed 3 sets of 8–
12 repetitions at a 8–12 repetition maximum resistance
for each of the exercises except for the calf exercises
(3 sets of 15–20 maximum repetitions), and were in-
structed to perform repetitions with a concentric-to-
eccentric phase ratio of 1:2 seconds. The rest period
between sets was 60–90 s, with a 2–3 min rest inter-
val between each exercise. Subjects were encouraged
to perform all sets to voluntary concentric muscular
failure. The training load was consistent with the pre-
scribed number of repetitions for the 3 sets of each ex-
ercise. The load was adjusted weekly using the weight
test of maximum repetitions as described by Ribeiro et
al. [21]. The subjects were instructed not to perform
any other type of exercise during the study period.
2.6. Statistical analyses
For comparisons between sex, two-way analysis of
covariance (ANCOVA) for repeated measures were
used, with baseline scores used as a covariate. In vari-
ables where sphericity was violated as indicated by
Mauchly’s test, the analyses were adjusted using a
Greenhouse-Geisser correction. When an F-ratio was
significant, Fisher’s post hoc test was employed to
identify where significant mean differences existed.
For all statistical analyses, significance was accepted
at P<0.05. The data were stored and analyzed us-
ing STATISTICA software version 10.0 (Statsoft Inc.,
Tulsa, Ok , USA).
3. Results
Table 1 displays the general characteristics of the
participants at baseline. As expected, men had greater
mass and were taller compared to women (P<0.05).
Changes in skeletal muscle mass and flexibility at
the different time points of the study are presented in
Table 2. There was no group (sex) by time interaction
(P>0.05) for any of the outcomes analyzed. A sig-
nificant main effect of time (P<0.05) was observed
for skeletal muscle mass, shoulder extension, shoul-
der flexion, hip flexion, frontal hip flexion, and lateral
trunk inclination. Both sexes presented a similar mag-
nitude of increase in skeletal muscle mass from pre- to
mid-training (+1.2%) and from mid- to post-training
(+0.8%). Both sexes increased similarly in flexibil-
ity from baseline to mid-training in shoulder extension
(10.4–11.1%) and lateral trunk inclination (2.4–3.4%).
Hip flexion and trunk flexion also increased similarly
in men and women from baseline to mid-training (hip
flexion =3.7–3.9%, trunk flexion =2.7%), however,
a decrease toward baseline was observed from mid-
to post-training (hip flexion =−2.4 – −2.6%, trunk
flexion =−1.4%) without a difference between sexes.
While shoulder flexion increased similarly in men and
women from baseline to post-training (1.3–2.8%).
Changes in muscular strength are presented in Ta-
ble 3. Both sexes showed significant increases in 1RM
scores for BP (men =+20.8%; women =+29.2%),
SQ (men =+12.7%; women =+16.1%), and AC
(men =+15.3%; women =+20.8%) with no statisti-
cal significant difference between sexes.
4. Discussion
The main and novel finding of our study was that
the adaptations in flexibility induced by RT are joint
and time-dependent regardless of the individuals’ sex
154 A.S. Ribeiro et al. / Flexibility and resistance training
since men and women presented similar magnitudes of
change in flexibility. Increases in flexibility due to a
RT program, in some joints trained and not all joints
trained, have been previously reported in untrained
adult women [6,8,9,11,12,15], untrained adult men [8,
12,14,22], older women [3], older men [4,5], resistance
trained individuals [13], and judo athletes [10].
The exact mechanisms responsible for increased
flexibility induced by a RT program are not yet es-
tablished and the outcomes drawn from our study do
not provide mechanistic insight. Nevertheless, we can
speculate on possible causes. Joint movement is related
to morphological elements such as muscle, bone, and
connective tissue. In particular, muscle and fascia are
responsible for ∼41% of a joint’s resistance to move-
ment [23], suggesting that an RT-mediated reduction
in passive tension and stiffness of these tissues trans-
lates into a greater range of motion [24], however, this
hypothesis requires further study.
Our results indicate a joint-dependent adaptation.
For example, shoulder flexion flexibility increased sig-
nificantly after the second 8-weeks of RT, while the
others joints increased significantly after the first 8-
weeks of RT. A plausible explanation for this outcome
may be related to the characteristics of the movement
and exercise in which a joint was involved. For exam-
ple, in the second 8-week RT period more exercises
that included shoulder movement were performed the
exercise incline dumbbell fly was included in the RT
program, which is an exercise requiring a large range
of motion of shoulder which would potentially re-
sult in increased shoulder flexion flexibility. Our re-
sults concerning increased shoulder flexibility only af-
ter the second 8-weeks of RT agree with a previous
study [15] in which shoulder flexibility did not signifi-
cantly change due to 10 weeks of RT in sedentary adult
women (mean age =37 years). On the other hand,
Saraiva et al. [10] have reported increases in shoulder
flexion of male judo elite athletes after 12 weeks of
RT-period. Two other studies [4,5] observed increases
in shoulder flexibility of older men after 8, 12, and
24 weeks of RT. Collectively these studies indicate that
increases in shoulder flexion due to RT may be time
and/or age-dependent. Future investigations are war-
ranted to confirm this hypothesis.
Shoulder extension and lateral trunk inclination in-
creased in the first 8-week training period, but did not
increase further in the second 8-weeks of training. This
adaptation pattern followed the typical adaptation pat-
tern to RT of a large initial adaptation that is dependent
on an individual’s RT training experience [25,26], and
further adaptations after the initial training period be-
come progressively smaller as training experience in-
creases because the so-called “window of adaptation”
decreases during long-term RT [27]. This may explain
the initial significant increase in flexibility in the un-
trained subjects who participated in this study. The
adaptation pattern of initial large increases in flexibil-
ity followed by a plateau of further flexibility increases
may indicate the need for specific flexibility training
after the initial increase due to performing only RT.
After the initial increases in flexibility from baseline
to the end of the first 8-weeks of training, decreases
in flexibility after the first 8 weeks to the end of the
second 8-weeks of training occurred for trunk and hip
flexion. These decreases returned flexibility to baseline
values. The reason for these findingsare not readily ap-
parent and warrant replication in future studies. How-
ever, long-term RT does not decrease flexibility and in-
creases in hypertrophy do not result in decreased flexi-
bility. For example, competitive Olympic weightlifters
have average or above average flexibility [28].
The present investigation has some limitations. The
results cannot be extrapolated to other populations
other than health young adult men and women or to
longer or shorter training durations. A strength of the
study is, to the authors’ knowledge, this study is the
first report comparing changes in flexibility between
the sexes due to performing the same resistance train-
ing program.
5. Conclusion
The results observed in this study suggest that RT
improves or at least preserves the flexibility of differ-
ent joint movements in young adult men and women.
In addition, these changes are dependent on the dura-
tion of the RT program and are not affected by the in-
dividuals’ sex.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
[1] Garber CE, Blissmer B, Deschenes MR, Franklin BA, Lam-
onte MJ, Lee IM, et al. American College of Sports Medicine
position stand. Quantity and quality of exercise for developing
and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neu-
romotor fitness in apparently healthy adults: guidance for pre-
scribing exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011; 43(7): 1334-
1359. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318213fefb.
A.S. Ribeiro et al. / Flexibility and resistance training 155
[2] American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Pro-
gression models in resistance training for healthy adults.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009; 41(3): 687-708. doi: 10.1249/
MSS.0b013e3181915670.
[3] Carneiro NH, Ribeiro AS, Nascimento MA, Gobbo LA,
Schoenfeld BJ, Achour Junior A, et al. Effects of differ-
ent resistance training frequencies on flexibility in older
women. Clin Interv Aging. 2015; 10: 531-538. doi: 10.2147/
CIA.S77433.
[4] Fatouros IG, Kambas A, Katrabasas I, Leontsini D,
Chatzinikolaou A, Jamurtas AZ, et al. Resistance training and
detraining effects on flexibility performance in the elderly are
intensity-dependent. J Strength Cond Res. 2006; 20(3): 634-
642. doi: 10.1519/r-17615.1.
[5] Fatouros IG, Taxildaris K, Tokmakidis SP, Kalapotharakos
V, Aggelousis N, Athanasopoulos S, et al. The effects of
strength training, cardiovascular training and their combina-
tion on flexibility of inactive older adults. Int J Sports Med.
2002; 23(2): 112-119. doi: 10.1055/s-2002-20130.
[6] Kim E, Dear A, Ferguson SL, Seo D, Bemben MG. Ef-
fects of 4 weeks of traditional resistance training vs. super-
slow strength training on early phase adaptations in strength,
flexibility, and aerobic capacity in college-aged women. J
Strength Cond Res. 2011; 25(11): 3006-3013. doi: 10.1519/
JSC.0b013e318212e3a2.
[7] Leite T, de Souza Teixeira A, Saavedra F, Leite RD, Rhea
MR, Simao R. Influence of strength and flexibility train-
ing, combined or isolated, on strength and flexibility gains.
J Strength Cond Res. 2015; 29(4): 1083-1088. doi: 10.1519/
jsc.0000000000000719.
[8] Morton SK, Whitehead JR, Brinkert RH, Caine DJ. Resis-
tance training vs. static stretching: effects on flexibility and
strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2011; 25(12): 3391-3398. doi:
10.1519/JSC.0b013e31821624aa.
[9] Santos E, Rhea MR, Simao R, Dias I, de Salles BF, Novaes J,
et al. Influence of moderately intense strength training on flex-
ibility in sedentary young women. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;
24(11): 3144-3149. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e38027.
[10] Saraiva AR, Reis VM, Costa PB, Bentes CM, Costa ESGV,
Novaes JS. Chronic effects of different resistance training ex-
ercise orders on flexibility in elite judo athletes. J Hum Kinet.
2014; 40: 129-137. doi: 10.2478/hukin-2014-0015.
[11] Simao R, Lemos A, Salles B, Leite T, Oliveira E, Rhea
M, et al. The influence of strength, flexibility, and simulta-
neous training on flexibility and strength gains. J Strength
Cond Res. 2011; 25(5): 1333-1338. doi: 10.1519/JSC.
0b013e3181da85bf.
[12] Distefano LJ, Distefano MJ, Frank BS, Clark MA, Padua
DA. Comparison of integrated and isolated training on per-
formance measures and neuromuscular control. J Strength
Cond Res. 2013; 27(4): 1083-1090. doi: 10.1519/JSC.
0b013e318280d40b.
[13] Junior RS, Leite T, Reis VM. Influence of the number of sets
at a strength training in the flexibility gains. J Hum Kinet.
2011; 29A: 47-52. doi: 10.2478/v10078-011-0058-1.
[14] Zavanela PM, Crewther BT, Lodo L, Florindo AA, Miyabara
EH, Aoki MS. Health and fitness benefits of a resis-
tance training intervention performed in the workplace. J
Strength Cond Res. 2012; 26(3): 811-817. doi: 10.1519/JSC.
0b013e318225ff4d.
[15] Monteiro WD, Simao R, Polito MD, Santana CA, Chaves
RB, Bezerra E, et al. Influence of strength training on adult
women’s flexibility. J Strength Cond Res. 2008; 22(3): 672-
677. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31816a5d45.
[16] Nobrega AC, Paula KC, Carvalho AC. Interaction between
resistance training and flexibility training in healthy young
adults. J Strength Cond Res. 2005; 19(4): 842-846.
[17] Hoge KM, Ryan ED, Costa PB, Herda TJ, Walter AA,
Stout JR, et al. Gender differences in musculotendinous stiff-
ness and range of motion after an acute bout of stretch-
ing. J Strength Cond Res. 2010; 24(10): 2618-2626. doi:
10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e73974.
[18] Lee RC, Wang Z, Heo M, Ross R, Janssen I, Heymsfield
SB. Total-body skeletal muscle mass: development and cross-
validation of anthropometric prediction models. Am J Clin
Nutr. 2000; 72(3): 796-803.
[19] Gobbo LA, Ritti-Dias RM, Avelar A, Silva AM, Coelho-e-
Silva MJ, Cyrino ES. Changes in skeletal muscle mass as-
sessed by anthropometric equations after resistance training.
Int J Sports Med. 2013; 34(1): 28-33. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-
1316312.
[20] Achour-Júnior A. Evaluating the flexibility: flexímeter. Lond-
rina: Midiograf; 1997.
[21] Ribeiro AS, Avelar A, Schoenfeld BJ, Fleck SJ, Souza
MF, Padilha CS, et al. Analysis of the training load dur-
ing a hypertrophy-type resistance training programme in men
and women. Eur J Sport Sci. 2015; 15(4): 256-264. doi:
10.1080/17461391.2014.940559.
[22] Cyrino ES, Oliveira AR, Leite JC, Porto DB, Dias RMR,
Segantin AQ, et al. Flexibility behavior after 10 weeks of re-
sistance training. Braz J Sports Med. 2004; 10(4): 233-237.
[23] Johns RJ, Wright V. Relative importance of various tissues in
joint stiffness. J Appl Physiol. 1962; 17: 824-828.
[24] Correia MA, Menêses AL, Lima AHRA, Cavalcanti BR,
Ritti-Dias RM. Effect of strength training on flexibility: a sys-
tematic review. Braz J of Phisical Act Health. 2014; 19(1):
3-11. doi: 10.12820/rbafs.v19n1p3.
[25] Deschenes MR, Kraemer WJ. Performance and physio-
logic adaptations to resistance training. Am J Phys Med
Rehabil. 2002; 81(11 Suppl): 3-16. doi: 10.1097/01.PHM.
0000029722.06777.E9.
[26] Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA. Fundamentals of resistance train-
ing: progression and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 2004; 36(4): 674-688.
[27] Newton RU, Kraemer WJ. Developing explosive muscular
power: implications for a mixed methods training strategy. J
Strength Cond. 1994; 16: 20-31.
[28] Beedle B, Jessee C, Stone MH. Flexibility characteristics
among athletes who weight train. J Appl Sport Sci Res. 1991;
5(3): 150-154.
