Comparison of resistance training vs static stretching on flexibility and maximal strength in healthy physically active adults, a randomized controlled trial.
Morten Rosenfeldt, Nicolay Stien, David G Behm, Atle Hole Saeterbakken, Vidar Andersen
{"title":"Comparison of resistance training vs static stretching on flexibility and maximal strength in healthy physically active adults, a randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Morten Rosenfeldt, Nicolay Stien, David G Behm, Atle Hole Saeterbakken, Vidar Andersen","doi":"10.1186/s13102-024-00934-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of resistance training through full range of motion and static stretching (SS) of the hip and lower back extensors on flexibility and strength in healthy, physically active, adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eighteen participants (age: 24.2 ± 3.0 years, body mass: 71.3 ± 8.9 kg, height: 172.8 ± 7.5 cm) were randomly assigned to either a Resistance Training (RT) (n = 6), SS (n = 6), or control (CON) group (n = 6). The sit & reach (S&R) flexibility test and maximum isometric straight legged deadlift (ISLDL) at 95% and 50% range of motion (ROM) were tested pre- and post-intervention with significance set at p < 0.05. Both groups conducted four to eight sets per session. Within each set, the RT group performed eight repetitions each lasting four seconds, while the SS group stretched continuously for 32 s. The rest periods between each set were 60-90 s. Consequently training volume and rest times were matched between the groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The RT and SS groups achieved significant, large magnitude improvements in the S&R test compared to the CON group (p < 0.01 g = 2.53 and p = 0.01, g = 2.44), but no differences were observed between the RT and SS groups (p = 1.00). Furthermore, the RT group demonstrated a larger improvement in 50% and 95% ROM ISLDL compared to SS (p < 0.01, g = 2.69-3.36) and CON (p < 0.01, g = 2.44-2.57).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Resistance training through a full ROM was equally effective as SS for improving S&R flexibility, but improved hip- and lower back extensor strength more than SS and the CON. The authors recommend using large ROM resistance training to improve hip and lower back extensor flexibility and muscle strength.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ISRCTN88839251, registered 24. April 2024, Retrospectively registered.</p>","PeriodicalId":48585,"journal":{"name":"BMC Sports Science Medicine and Rehabilitation","volume":"16 1","pages":"142"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11212372/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Sports Science Medicine and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-024-00934-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of resistance training through full range of motion and static stretching (SS) of the hip and lower back extensors on flexibility and strength in healthy, physically active, adults.
Methods: Eighteen participants (age: 24.2 ± 3.0 years, body mass: 71.3 ± 8.9 kg, height: 172.8 ± 7.5 cm) were randomly assigned to either a Resistance Training (RT) (n = 6), SS (n = 6), or control (CON) group (n = 6). The sit & reach (S&R) flexibility test and maximum isometric straight legged deadlift (ISLDL) at 95% and 50% range of motion (ROM) were tested pre- and post-intervention with significance set at p < 0.05. Both groups conducted four to eight sets per session. Within each set, the RT group performed eight repetitions each lasting four seconds, while the SS group stretched continuously for 32 s. The rest periods between each set were 60-90 s. Consequently training volume and rest times were matched between the groups.
Results: The RT and SS groups achieved significant, large magnitude improvements in the S&R test compared to the CON group (p < 0.01 g = 2.53 and p = 0.01, g = 2.44), but no differences were observed between the RT and SS groups (p = 1.00). Furthermore, the RT group demonstrated a larger improvement in 50% and 95% ROM ISLDL compared to SS (p < 0.01, g = 2.69-3.36) and CON (p < 0.01, g = 2.44-2.57).
Conclusion: Resistance training through a full ROM was equally effective as SS for improving S&R flexibility, but improved hip- and lower back extensor strength more than SS and the CON. The authors recommend using large ROM resistance training to improve hip and lower back extensor flexibility and muscle strength.
Trial registration: ISRCTN88839251, registered 24. April 2024, Retrospectively registered.
期刊介绍:
BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation is an open access, peer reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of sports medicine and the exercise sciences, including rehabilitation, traumatology, cardiology, physiology, and nutrition.