Comparison of resistance training vs static stretching on flexibility and maximal strength in healthy physically active adults, a randomized controlled trial.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
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":null,"pages":null},"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.

一项随机对照试验:阻力训练与静态拉伸对健康体力活动成年人的柔韧性和最大力量的影响比较。
背景:本研究的目的是比较通过髋关节和腰背伸肌的全方位运动和静态拉伸(SS)进行阻力训练对健康、身体活跃的成年人的柔韧性和力量的影响:将 18 名参与者(年龄:24.2 ± 3.0 岁,体重:71.3 ± 8.9 千克,身高:172.8 ± 7.5 厘米)随机分配到阻力训练组(RT,n = 6)、静态拉伸组(SS,n = 6)或对照组(CON,n = 6)。在干预前和干预后分别测试了坐立和伸展(S&R)柔韧性测试以及在 95% 和 50% 运动幅度(ROM)下的最大等长直腿举重(ISLDL),结果以 p 为显著性:与 CON 组相比,RT 组和 SS 组在 S&R 测试中取得了很大程度的显著提高(p 结论:与 CON 组相比,RT 组和 SS 组在 S&R 测试中取得了很大程度的显著提高:在提高 S&R 灵活性方面,全 ROM 阻力训练与 SS 同样有效,但在提高髋关节和下背部伸肌力量方面,SS 和 CON 的效果更好。作者建议使用大 ROM 阻力训练来改善髋关节和腰背伸肌的灵活性和肌肉力量:试验注册:ISRCTN88839251,注册日期:2024 年 4 月 24 日。2024年4月,追溯注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Sports Science Medicine and Rehabilitation
BMC Sports Science Medicine and Rehabilitation Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
196
审稿时长
26 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信