Influence of 8-weeks of supervised static stretching or resistance training of pectoral major muscles on maximal strength, muscle thickness and range of motion

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Standard

Influence of 8-weeks of supervised static stretching or resistance training of pectoral major muscles on maximal strength, muscle thickness and range of motion. / Wohlann, Tim; Warneke, Konstantin; Kalder, Vincent et al.
in: European Journal of Applied Physiology, Jahrgang 124, Nr. 6, 06.2024, S. 1885-1893.

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{9c2a82ff90c34d2d842c0ba6061c7a20,
title = "Influence of 8-weeks of supervised static stretching or resistance training of pectoral major muscles on maximal strength, muscle thickness and range of motion",
abstract = "Objectives: Current research suggests static stretch-induced maximal strength increases and muscle hypertrophy with potential to substitute resistance-training routines. However, most studies investigated the plantar flexors. This study explored the effects of a static stretching program on maximal strength, hypertrophy and flexibility of the pectoralis major and compared the effects with those of traditional resistance training. Methods: Eighty-one (81) active participants were allocated to either a static stretching, strength-training or control group. Pectoralis stretching was applied 15 min/day, 4 days per week for 8 weeks, while resistance training trained 3 days per week, 5 × 12 repetitions. Results: There was an increase in all parameters (strength: p < 0.001, ƞ 2 = 0.313, muscle thickness: p < 0.001, ƞ 2 = 0.157–0.264, flexibility: p < 0.001, ƞ 2 = 0.316) and a time*group interaction (strength: p = 0.001, ƞ 2 = 0.154, muscle thickness: p = 0.008–0.001, ƞ 2 = 0.117–0.173, flexibility: p < 0.001, ƞ 2 = 0.267). Post-hoc testing showed no difference between both intervention groups regarding maximal strength and muscle thickness (p = 0.905–0.983, d = 0.036–0.087), while flexibility increased in the stretching group (p = 0.001, d = 0.789). Conclusion: Stretching showed increases in maximal strength and hypertrophy, which were comparable with commonly used resistance training. Based on current literature, the influence of mechanical tension as the underlying mechanism is discussed. Furthermore, as equipment and comparatively long stretching durations are requested to induce meaningful strength increases in recreationally active participants, practical application seems limited to special circumstances.",
keywords = "Flexibility, Resistance training, Stretching, Tension, Physical education and sports",
author = "Tim Wohlann and Konstantin Warneke and Vincent Kalder and Behm, {David G.} and Tobias Schmidt and Stephan Schiemann",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} The Author(s) 2024.",
year = "2024",
month = jun,
doi = "10.1007/s00421-023-05413-y",
language = "English",
volume = "124",
pages = "1885--1893",
journal = "European Journal of Applied Physiology",
issn = "1439-6319",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Influence of 8-weeks of supervised static stretching or resistance training of pectoral major muscles on maximal strength, muscle thickness and range of motion

AU - Wohlann, Tim

AU - Warneke, Konstantin

AU - Kalder, Vincent

AU - Behm, David G.

AU - Schmidt, Tobias

AU - Schiemann, Stephan

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2024.

PY - 2024/6

Y1 - 2024/6

N2 - Objectives: Current research suggests static stretch-induced maximal strength increases and muscle hypertrophy with potential to substitute resistance-training routines. However, most studies investigated the plantar flexors. This study explored the effects of a static stretching program on maximal strength, hypertrophy and flexibility of the pectoralis major and compared the effects with those of traditional resistance training. Methods: Eighty-one (81) active participants were allocated to either a static stretching, strength-training or control group. Pectoralis stretching was applied 15 min/day, 4 days per week for 8 weeks, while resistance training trained 3 days per week, 5 × 12 repetitions. Results: There was an increase in all parameters (strength: p < 0.001, ƞ 2 = 0.313, muscle thickness: p < 0.001, ƞ 2 = 0.157–0.264, flexibility: p < 0.001, ƞ 2 = 0.316) and a time*group interaction (strength: p = 0.001, ƞ 2 = 0.154, muscle thickness: p = 0.008–0.001, ƞ 2 = 0.117–0.173, flexibility: p < 0.001, ƞ 2 = 0.267). Post-hoc testing showed no difference between both intervention groups regarding maximal strength and muscle thickness (p = 0.905–0.983, d = 0.036–0.087), while flexibility increased in the stretching group (p = 0.001, d = 0.789). Conclusion: Stretching showed increases in maximal strength and hypertrophy, which were comparable with commonly used resistance training. Based on current literature, the influence of mechanical tension as the underlying mechanism is discussed. Furthermore, as equipment and comparatively long stretching durations are requested to induce meaningful strength increases in recreationally active participants, practical application seems limited to special circumstances.

AB - Objectives: Current research suggests static stretch-induced maximal strength increases and muscle hypertrophy with potential to substitute resistance-training routines. However, most studies investigated the plantar flexors. This study explored the effects of a static stretching program on maximal strength, hypertrophy and flexibility of the pectoralis major and compared the effects with those of traditional resistance training. Methods: Eighty-one (81) active participants were allocated to either a static stretching, strength-training or control group. Pectoralis stretching was applied 15 min/day, 4 days per week for 8 weeks, while resistance training trained 3 days per week, 5 × 12 repetitions. Results: There was an increase in all parameters (strength: p < 0.001, ƞ 2 = 0.313, muscle thickness: p < 0.001, ƞ 2 = 0.157–0.264, flexibility: p < 0.001, ƞ 2 = 0.316) and a time*group interaction (strength: p = 0.001, ƞ 2 = 0.154, muscle thickness: p = 0.008–0.001, ƞ 2 = 0.117–0.173, flexibility: p < 0.001, ƞ 2 = 0.267). Post-hoc testing showed no difference between both intervention groups regarding maximal strength and muscle thickness (p = 0.905–0.983, d = 0.036–0.087), while flexibility increased in the stretching group (p = 0.001, d = 0.789). Conclusion: Stretching showed increases in maximal strength and hypertrophy, which were comparable with commonly used resistance training. Based on current literature, the influence of mechanical tension as the underlying mechanism is discussed. Furthermore, as equipment and comparatively long stretching durations are requested to induce meaningful strength increases in recreationally active participants, practical application seems limited to special circumstances.

KW - Flexibility

KW - Resistance training

KW - Stretching

KW - Tension

KW - Physical education and sports

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85182645976&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/97ba2251-496f-3d89-b61e-732803985532/

U2 - 10.1007/s00421-023-05413-y

DO - 10.1007/s00421-023-05413-y

M3 - Journal articles

C2 - 38240811

AN - SCOPUS:85182645976

VL - 124

SP - 1885

EP - 1893

JO - European Journal of Applied Physiology

JF - European Journal of Applied Physiology

SN - 1439-6319

IS - 6

ER -

DOI