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 Zeitschriften › Zeitschriftenaufsätze › Forschung › begutachtet
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, 19.01.2024.Publikation: Beiträge in Zeitschriften › Zeitschriftenaufsätze › Forschung › begutachtet
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
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: © 2024, The Author(s).
PY - 2024/1/19
Y1 - 2024/1/19
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
JO - European Journal of Applied Physiology
JF - European Journal of Applied Physiology
SN - 1439-6319
ER -