Background Although it is known that resistance training can be as effective as stretch training to increase joint range of motion, to date no comprehensive meta-analysis has investigated the effects of resistance training on range of motion with all its potential affecting variables. Objective The objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of chronic resistance training on range of motion compared either to a control condition or stretch training or to a combination of resistance training and stretch training to stretch training, while assessing moderating variables. Design For the main analysis, a random-effect meta-analysis was used and for the subgroup analysis a mixed-effect model was implemented. Whilst subgroup analyses included sex and participants’ activity levels, meta-regression included age, frequency, and duration of resistance training. Data Sources Following the systematic search in four databases (PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science) and reference lists, 55 studies were found to be eligible. Eligibility Criteria Controlled or randomized controlled trials that separately compared the training effects of resistance training exercises with either a control group, stretching group, or combined stretch and resistance training group on range of motion in healthy participants. Results Resistance training increased range of motion (effect size [ES] = 0.73; p < 0.001) with the exception of no significant range of motion improvement with resistance training using only body mass. There were no significant differences between resistance training versus stretch training (ES = 0.08; p = 0.79) or between resistance training and stretch training versus stretch training alone (ES = − 0.001; p = 0.99). Although “trained or active people” increased range of motion (ES = 0.43; p < 0.001) “untrained and sedentary” individuals had significantly (p = 0.005) higher magnitude range of motion changes (ES = 1.042; p < 0.001). There were no detected differences between sex and contraction type. Meta-regression showed no effect of age, training duration, or frequency. Conclusions As resistance training with external loads can improve range of motion, stretching prior to or after resistance training may not be necessary to enhance flexibility.

No abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the activation of the core (trunk) musculature during quadriceps and hamstrings foam rolling (FR) vs. prone and supine/reverse static planks to determine if FR is a viable means of training the core musculature. Using a randomized allocation, nine recreationally trained, young adults (18–26 years) performed two sets each of quadriceps and hamstrings FR as well as supine/reverse and prone static planks for 30-s each with 1-min rest between sets and 5-min rest between exercises. Electromyographic (EMG) activity of the lower abdominals (LA), external obliques (EO), lumbosacral erector spinae (LSES), upper lumbar erector spinae (ULES) muscle groups were normalized to a maximum voluntary contraction and analyzed. Quadriceps FR exhibited a very large magnitude greater LA activity compared to reverse plank (p = 0.033, d = 4.42) and hamstrings FR (p = 0.020, d = 3.49), respectively. The prone plank demonstrated very large magnitude higher EO EMG activity compared to reverse plank (p = 0.001, d = 9.17), hamstrings FR (p = 0.002, d = 8.14), and quadriceps FR (p = 0.011, d = 5.97). Reverse plank (p = 0.003, d = 12.06), and quadriceps FR (p = 0.002, d = 7.84) induced greater ULES activity compared to the prone plank and hamstrings FR, respectively. Reverse plank also exhibited very large magnitude higher LSES activity compared to the prone plank (p &lt; 0.001, d = 7.68), hamstrings FR (p = 0.002, d = 4.11), and quadriceps FR (p = 0.005, d = 2.34), respectively. In conclusion, whereas reverse plank was the most effective activator of dorsal core muscles, quadriceps FR may also be a time efficient alternative exercise to activate back (ventral core) muscles. The prone plank is effective for ventral core muscles activation.