Advanced Search

Home > Journals > Medicina dello Sport > Past Issues > Medicina dello Sport 2015 September;68(3) > Medicina dello Sport 2015 September;68(3):389-99

ISSUES AND ARTICLES   MOST READ   eTOC

CURRENT ISSUEMEDICINA DELLO SPORT

A Journal on Sports Medicine

Official Journal of the Italian Sports Medicine Federation
Indexed/Abstracted in: BIOSIS Previews, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 0,163

Frequency: Quarterly

ISSN 0025-7826

Online ISSN 1827-1863

 

Medicina dello Sport 2015 September;68(3):389-99

    PHYSIOLOGICAL AREA

The acute effects of stretching method and exercise order on the maximal number of repetitions in a strength training session

Novaes J. S. 1, Sá M. A. 1, Rodrigues Neto G. 1, Araujo C. 1, Costa E Silva G. 1, 2, Gomes T. M. 1, 3

1 Physical Education Post Graduation Program, Rio de Janeiro Federal University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;
2 Laboratory of Physiology and Human Performance, Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro, Seropédica, Brazil;
3 Estácio de Sá University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

AIM: The present study aimed to verify the acute effects of two different stretching methods and exercise order on the maximal number of repetitions (RM) performance in a lower limb strength training session.
METHODS: Nine (N.=9) male volunteers (24.33±3.04 years; weight 88.8±11.29 Kg; height 189.0±9.16 cm), who were non-athletes but had previous experience in resistance training, volunteered for this study. Participants were assigned to 6 randomly ordered experimental conditions, in which all subjects performed the strength training session preceded by static stretching (GSS), PNF stretching (GPNF) or no stretching (GNS). The strength sessions consisted of three sets with a load adjusted for 12 RM on the following exercises: Sequence A (SEQA), traditional order – leg press (LP), leg extension (LE), leg curl (LC) and plantar flexion (PF); Sequence B (SEQB), inverse order – PF, LC, LE and LP.
RESULTS: For the sum of the RM numbers in the three sets of LP exercises, the results showed significant differences between GNSSEQA (the sum of the RM numbers for the three sets of LP exercises in Sequence A) and GNSSEQB (the sum of the RM numbers for the three sets of LP exercises in Sequence B) (P=0.000). For LE, the results showed significant differences between GNSSEQA and GNSSEQB (P=0.045), GPNFSEQA and GNSSEQA (P=0.039), GSSSEQB and GNSSEQB (P=0.004) and GPNFSEQA and GPNFSEQB (P=0.050). For LC, the results showed significant differences between GSSSEQA and GSSSEQB (P=0.040), GSSSEQA and GNSSEQA (P=0.024), GPNFSEQA and GNSSEQA (P=0.018), GNSSEQB and GSSSEQB (P=0.034) and GPNFSEQB and GSSSEQB (P=0.009). For PF, the results showed differences only between GPNFSEQB and GSSSEQB (P=0.004).
CONCLUSION: Therefore, the performance of the maximum number of repetitions can be influenced both by the completion of pre-exercise stretching and by manipulating the order of the exercises. Strength training sessions should not be preceded by stretching. The sessions should begin with exercises that require a greater emphasis.

language: English, Italian


FULL TEXT  REPRINTS

top of page