Resistance Training Vs Static Stretching Effects.22
Resistance Training Vs Static Stretching Effects.22
DENNIS J. CAINE
Department of Physical Education, Exercise Science, and Wellness (PXW), University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota
ABSTRACT
Morton, SK, Whitehead, JR, Brinkert, RH, and Caine, DJ. Resistance training vs. static stretching: Effects on exibility and strength. J Strength Cond Res 25(12): 33913398, 2011The purpose of this study was to determine how fullrange resistance training (RT) affected exibility and strength compared to static stretching (SS) of the same musclejoint complexes in untrained adults. Volunteers (n = 25) were randomized to an RT or SS training group. A group of inactive volunteers (n = 12) served as a convenience control group (CON). After pretesting hamstring extension, hip exion and extension, shoulder extension exibility, and peak torque of quadriceps and hamstring muscles, subjects completed 5-week SS or RT treatments in which the aim was to stretch or to strength train the same musclejoint complexes over similar movements and ranges. Posttests of exibility and strength were then conducted. There was no difference in hamstring exibility, hip exion, and hip extension improvement between RT and SS, but both were superior to CON values. There were no differences between groups on shoulder extension exibility. The RT group was superior to the CON in knee extension peak torque, but there were no differences between groups on knee exion peak torque. The results of this preliminary study suggest that carefully constructed full-range RT regimens can improve exibility as well as the typical SS regimens employed in conditioning programs. Because of the potential practical signicance of these results to strength and conditioning programs, further studies using true experimental designs, larger sample sizes, and longer training durations should be conducted with the aim of conrming or disproving these results.
INTRODUCTION
Address correspondence to James R. Whitehead, james.whitehead@ email.und.edu. 25(12)/33913398 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2011 National Strength and Conditioning Association
chieving and maintaining adequate range of movement (ROM) in musclejoint complexes is of importance to athletes and nonathletes alike of all ages. The health and performance implications of inadequate exibility are well known. However, recent research has questioned the beliefs often promoted by exercise leaders (e.g., that pre-exercise statistic stretching improves power performance and reduces injury risk), and it is likely that there is still much to be learned. One area that has been sparsely researched is the effects of resistance training (RT) on exibility. A half-century ago, it was still widely believed that muscle hypertrophy was associated with becoming muscle bound, and some studies were undertaken to investigate the belief. For example, Massey and Chaudet (12) examined the effect of heavy resistance exercise on exibility in young men, but because of design issues, their conclusions were ambiguous. Leighton (11) took a different approach and compared the exibility of a body-building champion and an Olympic weightlifting champion to an untrained man before and after 5 weeks of RT. Most exibility scores improved, none decreased, and the champions were more exible than the novice was. Little further research appears to have ensued for some time after that. Two decades later, Raab et al. (13) noted that the use of arm weights limited ROM during exercise in elderly women, resulting in less improvement in shoulder abduction ROM than through stretching alone. A few years later, Girouard and Hurley (8) concluded that a combination of strength training and exibility training was inferior to exibility training alone for older men. In that study, it was stated that the RT was full range, but because most of the exercises were reportedly done on a variable resistance machine, it is possible that the ROM achieved may have been different from the ROM that would have been achieved using free weights. Support for that possibility is suggested by the results of Swank et al. (16) who found that adding weights to stretching exercise increased the passive ROM of stretches thus increasing the effectiveness of exibility exercises in the healthy elderly. Around the same time period, Faigenbaum et al. (7) were researching strength training for children, and they reported that exibility tests improved after 8 weeks of RTbut because stretching was done as part of warm-up and
VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 12 | DECEMBER 2011 |
3391
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
cool-down, they concluded that This observation supports the contention that strength training will not result in a loss of exibility as long as stretching exercises are incorporated into the training regimen. (p. 345). The contention in that case was referenced to an early statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The current AAP (1) position stand recommends that strength programs for children .should address all major muscle groups and exercise through the full range of motion. (p. 1471). This statement
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This study measured the chronic changes in exibility and strength between 3 separate groups: an RT group, an SS group, and a control group (CON). The CON was
TABLE 1. Descriptive statistics of study variables (mean 6 SD).* All subjects (n = 36) Age (y) Height (in) Weight (lb) 21.92 6 3.64 69.39 6 3.54 174.42 6 34.01 RT (n = 12) 22.00 6 5.53 71.17 6 3.74 185.7 6 42.78 SS (n = 12) 21.25 6 2.26 69.25 6 3.47 170.1 632.48 Control (n = 12) 22.5 6 2.36 67.75 6 2.73 167.50 6 24.2
3392
the
TM
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the
TM
| www.nsca-jscr.org
a convenience control of inactive volunteers. The RT and SS groups were randomly assigned (balanced by sex) after pretesting. The groups were pretested for exibility and strength. Then, the groups concurrently began their respective 5-week interventions. Posttesting session was done 1 week after the intervention end date (Figure 1).
Subjects
Forty-two subjects initially volunteered for this study (men = 30, women = 12). All were students at a mediumsized Midwestern university. Research subjects were recruited from Exercise Science academic classes, and a group of physically inactive second year medical students volunteered
TABLE 2. Resistance training and static stretching protocol.* Day 1 Resistance exercise Back squat Pull-ups Bench press BB good mornings DB shoulder press DB walking lunge Split curl to press DB pullover to extension Sets 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Static stretch Piriformis stretch Standing quadriceps stretch Groin (adductors) stretch Knees to chest Standing hamstring stretch Standing crosslegged hamstring stretch right Standing crosslegged hamstring stretch left One-arm pectoralis stretch right One-arm pectoralis stretch left One-arm deltoid stretch right One-arm deltoid stretch left Triceps stretch right Triceps stretch left Same stretches as day 1 Sets 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 Held for (s) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 20 20
Front squat Neutral grip chin-ups DB incline bench press RDL Bradford press Split squat Bent over row Rock stars BW walking lunge Push-ups BW good mornings Chin-ups
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
*BB = barbell; DB = dumbell; BW = body weight; RDL = Romanian dead lift; Rock stars = standing weighted alternating landmine press; Bradford press = standing alternating front to back overhead press; RT = resistance training. The repetitions in the RT protocol changed slightly from week 1 to week 5. Rest between sets was about 2 minutes.
3393
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
TABLE 3. Knee, hip, and shoulder exibility prepost changes.* Group KEA (hamstring exibility) Prepost changes (degrees from 90) RT (n = 12) SS (n = 12) Con (n = 12) Total (n = 36) Hip exion prepost changes (degrees from zero) RT (n = 12) SS (n = 12) Con (n = 12) Total (n = 36) Hip extension prepost changes (degrees from zero) RT (n = 12) SS (n = 12) Con (n = 12) Total (n = 36) Shoulder extension RT (n = 12) Prepost exibility changes (in.) SS (n = 12) Con (n = 12) Total (n = 36)
*KEA = knee extension assessment. Different from control p , 0.01. Different from control p , 0.05.
Pretest 35.63 31.29 44.17 37.00 73.17 64.63 62.92 66.90 15.00 17.92 21.75 18.22 9.17 11.83 10.92 10.64
SD 13.39 7.89 17.59 14.30 9.78 12.52 8.99 11.16 5.89 4.91 6.55 6.58 3.96 4.64 3.32 4.05
Posttest 68.50 63.54 58.00 63.35 62.59 59.25 63.50 61.78 24.88 22.59 23.25 23.57 11.96 13.58 12.08 12.54
SD 10.78 12.76 17.90 14.55 6.17 12.60 5.83 8.79 6.60 7.26 4.42 6.15 4.00 4.54 2.51 3.75
Change 32.88 32.25 13.83 26.32 10.58 5.38 0.58 5.13 9.88 4.67 1.50 5.35 2.79 1.75 1.17 1.90
SD 18.50 13.21 11.14 16.78 7.26 7.18 7.86 8.58 4.29 6.89 8.10 7.32 2.16 2.04 1.59 2.0
to serve as a convenience CON. All participants were given a verbal description about the nature of this study and gave their informed consent in line with the current university Institutional Review Board regulations (Table 1).
Procedures
All exibility and strength tests were administered by the same tester pre and post. The strength testing took place in an athletic training room, and the exibility testing was done in an exercise physiology laboratory. The pre and posttesting procedures were identical and were carried out after subjects had warmed up on a stationary bicycle with minimal resistance. Knee Extension Flexibility. The rst measurement taken (Figure 2A) was the knee extension assessment (KEA) test
using the protocol described by Davis et al. (5). The subject was instructed to lie on his or her back with the hips and knees fully extended. A universal goniometer was used to measure degrees of extension. The axis was placed over the lateral epicondyle of the femur. The stationary arm was placed parallel to the longitudinal axis of the femur pointing toward the greater trochanter. The moveable arm was placed parallel to the longitudinal axis of the bula, pointing toward the lateral malleolus. The leg to be tested was then passively raised by the examiner to 90 of hip exion as recorded by another universal goniometer. The axis of this goniometer was placed on the greater trochanter of the femur, the stationary arm was placed parallel to the midaxillary line of the trunk, while the moveable arm was placed parallel to the longitudinal axis of the femur, pointing toward the lateral
3394
the
TM
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the
TM
| www.nsca-jscr.org
Clarkson (3). The subject was instructed to lie on his or her stomach, both hips and knees are in the neutral position and feet are over the end of the table. The pelvis is stabilized using a nylon strap. A universal goniometer is placed on the greater trochanter of the femur. The stationary arm is placed parallel to the midaxillary line of the trunk. The moveable arm is placed parallel to the longitudinal axis of the femur, pointing toward the lateral epicondyle. The knee is maintained in extension while the hip is extended to the limit of motion (3). Shoulder Flexibility. The fourth measurement was the Arm Lift Test (Figure 2D) using the protocol described by Corbin and Lindsay (4). The distance was measured with a measuring tape, between the subjects arm pits and then recorded for posttesting. The subject was instructed to lie face down while gripping a 1-in. diameter wooden dowel using the arm-pit measurement for spacing. Then, the subject was instructed to raise his or her arms as high as possible above the mat, with arms held straight and the chin kept in contact with the mat. The measurement was taken from the mat to the bottom of the dowel using a yard stick (4). Hamstring and Quadricep Strength Assessment. Using a Biodex B-2000 Dynamometer, peak torque for knee extension and exion was recorded from a 5-repetition test set at a speed of 180s21. Both pre-and posttests were conducted by the same athletic trainer who was experienced in conducting strength tests using the equipment. Resistance Training. The RT group followed a 5-week program designed and supervised by a Certied Strength and Conditioning Specialist (CSCS) (Table 2). The program was designed to be balanced and practical for a subject unaccustomed to weight training. Using weights that were carefully selected using established formulas (3), subjects were instructed in all RT movements with specic emphasis on the full ROM aspects of each lift. The CSCS professional was on hand for all weight training sessions. The sessions lasted from 45 minutes to an hour. A 5-minute warm-up on unloaded stationary
epicondyle. The subjects knee was then passively straightened to a point where the subject reported a strong but tolerable stretch in their hamstrings. The contralateral lower extremity was xed to the table in full knee extension using a nylon strap over the distal thigh. The angle of the knee (KEA) was then measured using the universal goniometer placed on the knee (5). Hip Flexion Flexibility. The second measurement was the Hip exion test (Figure 2B) using protocol described by Clarkson (3). The subject was instructed to lie on his or her back with the hips and knees fully extended. The trunk is stabilized with body positioning and the tester stabilizes the pelvis. A universal goniometer was placed on the greater trochanter of the femur. The stationary arm was placed parallel to the midaxillary line of the trunk. The moveable arm was placed parallel to the longitudinal axis of the femur, pointing toward the lateral epicondyle. The hip is then exed to the limit of motion while exing the knee (3). Hip Extension Flexibility. The third measurement was the Hip extension test (Figure 2C) using protocol described by
TABLE 4. Knee extension and exion peak torque prepost changes (180s21) Group Knee extension Prepost changes Knee exion Prepost changes RT (n = 12) SS (n = 12) Con (n = 12) Total (n = 36) RT (n = 12) SS (n = 12) Con (n = 12) Total (n = 36) Pretest 100.53 88.38 98.66 95.80 48.02 44.29 48.21 46.84 SD 21.58 23.30 24.51 23.14 11.03 12.17 10.89 11.21 Posttest 107.61 91.36 95.86 98.28 53.03 45.10 50.46 49.53 SD 23.91 25.21 25.38 25.16 13.27 11.06 13.01 12.59 Change 7.26 2.98 22.80 2.48 5.01 0.81 2.24 2.69 SD 10.75 8.66 8.31 9.95 6.31 6.89 9.89 7.69
3395
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
but not in the ANOVA analyses. For ease of interpretation, the prepost difference data are presented in the tables and gures. It was hypothesized that (a) The RT and SS groups would gain exibility in the hamstrings, hip exion, hip extension, and shoulder signicantly when compared to the CON; (b) the strength levels of the RT group would increase signicantly when compared to the SS group and CON; (c) The RT group would gain exibility in the hamstrings, hip exion, hip extension, and shoulder at the same rate or higher than the SS. Knee Extension Flexibility. The KEA was used to assess hamstring exibility for all participants (using the averages of the scores from the right and left leg of each subject as the dependent variable). Both treatment groups improved exibility signicantly more than the CON did (RTp , 0.01, SS p , 0.05), but there was no signicant difference between the SS and RT conditions (Table 3 and Figure 3A). Hip Flexion Flexibility. The averages of the scores from the right and left legs of each subject were used as the dependent variable. Both treatment groups improved exibility signicantly more than control (RTp , 0.01, SS p , 0.05), but there was no signicant difference between the SS and RT conditions (Table 3 and Figure 3B). Hip Extension Flexibility. The averages of the scores from the right and left legs of each subject were used as the dependent variable. Both treatment groups improved exibility signicantly more than control did (RT p , 0.01, SS p , 0.05), but there was no signicant difference between the SS and RT conditions (Table 3 and Figure 3C). Shoulder Flexibility. There were no signicant differences between conditions. The data are given in Table 3 and Figure 4. Quadriceps Strength. The averages of the scores from the right and left legs of each subject were used as the dependent variable. There was a statistically signicant difference (p , 0.05) between
SPSS for Windows software was used for all statistical analyses. Data were analyzed using a 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using prepost exibility and strength difference scores as dependent variables. Because there were some concerns about small group differences in pretest scores, the data were also analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the pretest scores as the covariate in each analysis. Tukeys post hoc tests were used in both analyses. Statistical signicance was set at p # 0.05 for all tests.
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of SS and RTon exibility of several jointmuscle complexes. Specically, the study examined hamstring exibility (with a KEA), Hip exion and extension (Hip Flexion, Hip Extension tests), shoulder extension (Arm Lift test), and quadriceps and hamstring strength (using Peak Torque Knee Extension and Flexion on the Biodex B-2000 Isokinetic Dynamometer). The results from the ANOVA and ANCOVA analyses were essentially the same, except that 2 intervention groups (SS on hip exion and extension) were marginally signicantly different from control (p = 0.049) in the ANCOVA analyses
3396
the
TM
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the
TM
| www.nsca-jscr.org
DISCUSSION
It is appropriate to preface this discussion with an acknowledgment that this experiment should be seen as a preliminary study of the topic. It did not have a true experimental design (nonrandomized CON), its sample size was fairly small, and for a training study, the duration was probably too short to produce clear effects. However, the results were consistent, and would seem to have heuristic merit, and potentially important practical signicance. The main hypothesis in this study, intended to reect an attempt at a reasonable overview of the extant literature, was that SS would increase exibility compared to control, but those gains would not be superior to RT. Both parts of the hypothesis were supportedbecause full-range RT produced exibility improvements of equal magnitude to SS in 3 out of 4 comparisons (with no signicant differences between treatments and control in the fourth. Our second hypothesis, that RT would increase strength better than SS and control, was supported in one out of 2 comparisons (with no signicant differences between conditions on the other). Thus, these results strongly question the notion that RT reduces exibility (the old muscle bound notion), and they certainly question the implicit (if not explicit) view that those who do RT should stretch what they strengthen (a Google search in June 2010 on stretch what you strengthen elicited 1.1 million hits). Of course, a major limitation of this study is its short duration. Unfortunately, because of calendar and facility constraints, it was only possible to continuously run the interventions for a 5-week period. Thus, given the consensus in the extant research (2,6), it is likely that the RT results represent mostly early stage neural adaptationsand it is possible that different results could have occurred after the hypertrophy changes that would have been likely in longer duration training interventions. Whether the SS results would have been different over a longer intervention period is also a question that likely needs further studyespecially because in contrast to RT, research indicates that mechanical adaptations to SS precede neural adaptations (9). Further experimental research using direct RTSS contrasts over a longer intervention period is obviously required before any denitive conclusions can be made. Despite the issues arising from the limited duration of the training intervention in this study, a key question is whether the signicant effects that resulted are plausible from a neuroanatomical perspective? In answering that question, it
seems appropriate to reemphasize that the few relevant extant studies do seem to suggest that a key point is that RTexercises should be full range to maintain, or improve exibility. Indeed, as Raab et al. noted (13), in some circumstances, the weights used in RT might cause exercisers to limit the ROM used. However, with that caveat kept in mind, we would postulate that our results are plausible simply on the basis that full-range RT is essentially, from a neuroanatomical perspective, a form of proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching (where a precontraction of a muscle is followed by a full ROM passive stretch). The PNF-passive stretching is generally accepted to be more effective than passive stretching alone (9), and moreover, in a recent study investigating optimal contraction intensities for PNF stretching, it was concluded that approximately 65% of maximum isometric contraction in the precontraction produced the largest increases in ROM during the subsequent stretch (14). This level of intensity is similar to the intensity used by the RT group subjects in this study and is fairly typical of the percentage of 1RM used by many athletes and tness exercisers in their RT sets. This conceptual comparison of full-range RT to PNF stretching is offered as a common sense rationale for the results of this study. Of course, further research is clearly required to conrm or refute this idea, but as Shrier (15) alluded, research on stretching needs some conceptual organization and clarication. Over the decade or so, research on stretching has challenged old beliefs and provided actual evidence to support new recommendations (e.g., avoid SS during the warm-up for dynamic performance activities). However, confusion or conation regarding the study or application of stretching as a tool for movement preparation, performance enhancement, injury prevention, or simply as a way to improve exibility in general conditioning is common. Moreover, terminology has become muddled with the addition of some concepts that are either unclear or simply misused. For example, dynamic warm-up and dynamic stretching have been used as synonyms in recent research (10) to describe a dynamic callisthenic routine used to warm-up athletes before activity. The range of dynamic technique used is wide. While some can be described as callisthenic, others could be seen as a type of ballistic stretch while most probably fall somewhere in the middle. Clearly, there needs to be clarication of both terminology and application specics in future research on stretching. In summary, this study attempted to address one such clarication by independently studying the effects of RT and SS on exibility and strength. Although the experiment was preliminary in nature, and practically oriented (as opposed to having laboratory-type control), its results indicate that fullrange RT may improve exibility as muchat least for the short duration of the interventions used (and had larger sample sizes yielded the same mean scores, it is likely that the RT changes would have been signicantly greater than SS). If these results can be replicated, the implications to coaches and exercise leaders are of obvious importance. Thus, future research is
VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 12 | DECEMBER 2011 |
3397
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Both RT and SS are commonplace in exercise and athletic settings. The results of this study suggest that RTso long as it is done over the appropriate full ROMwill have positive benets on exibility. As such, these results question the notion that RT will reduce exibility (the muscle bound notion), and they also suggest that the commonplace stretch what you strengthen lore is questionable. The signicance of this will obviously vary across different circumstancesfor example, a sprinter and a distance runner have very different ROM requirements as do football players vs. baseball players etc. For those exercisers and athletes who use RT to increase lean muscle mass and improve power and force development, this study has suggested that exibility can also improve. Because the athletes already participate in RT, there may be less need to incorporate additional stretching exercises than has previously been believed. However, further research is clearly necessary before this preliminary study can be used to justify major changes in practice, and future studies should aim at both experimental replication (with stronger methodology) and extension (focusing on different jointmuscle complexes and examining other RT and stretching protocols).
REFERENCES
1. American Academy of Pediatrics. Strength training by children and adolescents. Pediatrics 107: 14701472, 2001.
3398
the
TM
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.