Minimalist Training: Is Lower Dosage or Intensity Resistance Training Effective to Improve Physical Fitness? A Narrative Review

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

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, ƞ2 = 0.313, muscle thickness: p < 0.001, ƞ2 = 0.157-0.264, flexibility: p < 0.001, ƞ2 = 0.316) and a time*group interaction (strength: p = 0.001, ƞ2 = 0.154, muscle thickness: p = 0.008-0.001, ƞ2 = 0.117-0.173, flexibility: p < 0.001, ƞ2 = 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.

Resistance Exercise Minimal Dose Strategies for Increasing Muscle Strength in the General Population: an Overview

Many individuals do not participate in resistance exercise, with perceived lack of time being a key barrier. Minimal dose strategies, which generally reduce weekly exercise volumes to less than recommended guidelines, might improve muscle strength with minimal time investment. However, minimal dose strategies and their effects on muscle strength are still unclear. Here our aims are to define and characterize minimal dose resistance exercise strategies and summarize their effects on muscle strength in individuals who are not currently engaged in resistance exercise. The minimal dose strategies overviewed were: "Weekend Warrior," single-set resistance exercise, resistance exercise "snacking," practicing the strength test, and eccentric minimal doses. "Weekend Warrior," which minimizes training frequency, is resistance exercise performed in one weekly session. Single-set resistance exercise, which minimizes set number and session duration, is one set of multiple exercises performed multiple times per week. "Snacks," which minimize exercise number and session duration, are brief bouts (few minutes) of resistance exercise performed once or more daily. Practicing the strength test, which minimizes repetition number and session duration, is one maximal repetition performed in one or more sets, multiple days per week. Eccentric minimal doses, which eliminate or minimize concentric phase muscle actions, are low weekly volumes of submaximal or maximal eccentric-only repetitions. All approaches increase muscle strength, and some approaches improve other outcomes of health and fitness. "Weekend Warrior" and single-set resistance exercise are the approaches most strongly supported by current research, while snacking and eccentric minimal doses are emerging concepts with promising results. Public health programs can promote small volumes of resistance exercise as being better for muscle strength than no resistance exercise at all.

Effects of Chronic Static Stretching on Maximal Strength and Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Meta-Regression

BACKGROUND

Increases in maximal strength and muscle volume represent central aims of training interventions. Recent research suggested that the chronic application of stretch may be effective in inducing hypertrophy. The present systematic review therefore aimed to syntheisize the evidence on changes of strength and muscle volume following chronic static stretching.

METHODS

Three data bases were sceened to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis. Studies using randomized, controlled trials with longitudinal (≥ 2 weeks) design, investigating strength and muscle volume following static stretching in humans, were included. Study quality was rated by two examiners using the PEDro scale.

RESULTS

A total of 42 studies with 1318 cumulative participants were identified. Meta-analyses using robust variance estimation showed small stretch-mediated maximal strength increases (d = 0.30 p < 0.001) with stretching duration and intervention time as significant moderators. Including all studies, stretching induced small magnitude, but significant hypertrophy effects (d = 0.20). Longer stretching durations and intervention periods as well as higher training frequencies revealed small (d = 0.26-0.28), but significant effects (p < 0.001-0.005), while lower dosage did not reach the level of significance (p = 0.13-0.39).

CONCLUSIONS

While of minor effectiveness, chronic static stretching represents a possible alternative to resistance training when aiming to improve strength and increase muscle size. As a dose-response relationship may exist, higher stretch durations and frequencies as well as long program durations should be further elaborated.

Comparison of Supervised versus Self-Administered Stretching on Bench Press Maximal Strength and Force Development

PURPOSE

While there is reported superior effectiveness with supervised training, it usually requires specialized exercise facilities and instructors. It is reported in the literature that high-volume stretching improves pectoralis muscles strength under supervised conditions while practical relevance is discussed. Therefore, the study objective was to compare the effects of volume equated, supervised- and self-administered home-based stretching on strength performance.

METHODS

Sixty-three recreational participants were equally assigned to either a supervised static stretching, home-based stretching, or control group. The effects of 15 min pectoralis stretching, 4 days per week for 8 weeks, were assessed on dynamic and isometric bench press strength and force development.

RESULTS

While there was a large magnitude maximal strength increase (p < 0.001-0.023, ƞ2 = 0.118-0.351), force development remained unaffected. Dynamic maximal strength in both groups demonstrated large magnitude increases compared to the control group (p < 0.001-0.001, d = 1.227-0.905). No differences between the intervention group for maximal strength (p = 0.518-0.821, d = 0.101-0.322) could be detected.

CONCLUSIONS

The results could potentially be attributed to stretch-induced tension (mechanical overload) with subsequent anabolic adaptations, and alternative explanatory approaches are discussed. Nevertheless, home-based stretching seems a practical alternative to supervised training with potential meaningful applications in different settings.

Effects of chronic static stretching interventions on jumping and sprinting performance-a systematic review with multilevel meta-analysis

When improving athletic performance in sports with high-speed strength demands such as soccer, basketball, or track and field, the most common training method might be resistance training and plyometrics. Since a link between strength capacity and speed strength exists and recently published literature suggested chronic stretching routines may enhance maximum strength and hypertrophy, this review was performed to explore potential benefits on athletic performance. Based on current literature, a beneficial effect of static stretching on jumping and sprinting performance was hypothesized. A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science and Google scholar. In general, 14 studies revealed 29 effect sizes (ES) (20 for jumping, nine for sprinting). Subgroup analyses for jump performance were conducted for short- long- and no stretch shortening cycle trials. Qualitative evaluation was supplemented by performing a multilevel meta-analysis via R (Package: metafor). Significant positive results were documented in six out of 20 jump tests and in six out of nine sprint tests, while two studies reported negative adaptations. Quantitative data analyses indicated a positive but trivial magnitude of change on jumping performance (ES:0.16, p = 0.04), while all subgroup analyses did not support a positive effect (p = 0.09-0.44). No significant influence of static stretching on sprint performance was obtained (p = 0.08). Stretching does not seem to induce a sufficient stimulus to meaningfully enhance jumping and sprinting performance, which could possibly attributed to small weekly training volumes or lack of intensity.

The Connection Between Resistance Training, Climbing Performance, and Injury Prevention

BACKGROUND

Climbing is an intricate sport composed of various disciplines, holds, styles, distances between holds, and levels of difficulty. In highly skilled climbers the potential for further strength-specific adaptations to increase performance may be marginal in elite climbers. With an eye on the upcoming 2024 Paris Olympics, more climbers are trying to maximize performance and improve training strategies. The relationships between muscular strength and climbing performance, as well as the role of strength in injury prevention, remain to be fully elucidated. This narrative review seeks to discuss the current literature regarding the effect of resistance training in improving maximal strength, muscle hypertrophy, muscular power, and local muscular endurance on climbing performance, and as a strategy to prevent injuries.

MAIN BODY

Since sport climbing requires exerting forces against gravity to maintain grip and move the body along the route, it is generally accepted that a climber`s absolute and relative muscular strength are important for climbing performance. Performance characteristics of forearm flexor muscles (hang-time on ledge, force output, rate of force development, and oxidative capacity) discriminate between climbing performance level, climbing styles, and between climbers and non-climbers. Strength of the hand and wrist flexors, shoulders and upper limbs has gained much attention in the scientific literature, and it has been suggested that both general and specific strength training should be part of a climber`s training program. Furthermore, the ability to generate sub-maximal force in different work-rest ratios has proved useful, in examining finger flexor endurance capacity while trying to mimic real-world climbing demands. Importantly, fingers and shoulders are the most frequent injury locations in climbing. Due to the high mechanical stress and load on the finger flexors, fingerboard and campus board training should be limited in lower-graded climbers. Coaches should address, acknowledge, and screen for amenorrhea and disordered eating in climbers.

CONCLUSION

Structured low-volume high-resistance training, twice per week hanging from small ledges or a fingerboard, is a feasible approach for climbers. The current injury prevention training aims to increase the level of performance through building tolerance to performance-relevant load exposure and promoting this approach in the climbing field.