Interset Stretching vs. Traditional Strength Training: Effects on Muscle Strength and Size in Untrained Individuals : The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research

Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Original Research

Interset Stretching vs. Traditional Strength Training: Effects on Muscle Strength and Size in Untrained Individuals

Evangelista, Alexandre L.1,2; De Souza, Eduardo O.3; Moreira, Daniella C.B.1; Alonso, Angélica Castilho4,2; Teixeira, Cauê Vasquez La Scala5,6; Wadhi, Tanuj3; Rauch, Jacob3; Bocalini, Danilo S.7; Pereira, Paulo Eduardo De Assis6,8; Greve, Julia Maria D'Andréa2

Author Information
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 33():p S159-S166, July 2019. | DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003036


Evangelista, AL, De Souza, EO, Moreira, DCB, Alonso, AC, Teixeira, CVLS, Wadhi, T, Rauch, J, Bocalini, DS, Pereira, PEDA, and Greve, JMDA. Interset stretching vs. traditional strength training: effects on muscle strength and size in untrained individuals. J Strength Cond Res 33(7S): S159–S166, 2019—This study compared the effects of 8 weeks of traditional strength training (TST) and interset stretching (ISS) combined with TST on muscular adaptations. Twenty-nine sedentary, healthy adults were randomly assigned to either the TST (n = 17; 28.0 ± 6.4 years) or ISS (n = 12; 26.8 ± 6.1 years) group. Both groups performed 6 strength exercises encompassing the whole body (bench press, elbow extension, seated rows, biceps curl, knee extension, and knee flexion) performing 4 sets of 8–12 repetition maximum (RM) with a 90-second rest between sets. However, the ISS group performed static passive stretching, at maximum amplitude, for 30 seconds between sets. Both groups performed training sessions twice a week on nonconsecutive days. Muscle strength (i.e., 1RM) and hypertrophy (i.e., muscle thickness [MT] by ultrasonography) were measured at pre-test and after 8 weeks of training. Both groups increased 1RM bench press (p ≤ 0.0001): ISS (23.4%, CIdiff: 4.3 kg–11.1 kg) and TST (22.2%, CIdiff: 5.2 kg–10.9 kg) and 1RM knee extension (p ≤ 0.0001): ISS (25.5%, CIdiff: 5.6 kg–15.0 kg) and TST (20.6%, CIdiff: 4.4 kg–12.3 kg). Both groups increased MT of biceps brachii (BIMT), triceps brachii (TRMT), and rectus femoris (RFMT) (p ≤ 0.0001). BIMT: ISS (7.2%, CIdiff: 1.14–3.5 mm) and TST (4.7%, CIdiff: 0.5–2.5 mm), TRMT: ISS (12.3%, CIdiff: 1.1–4.4 mm) and TST (7.1%, CIdiff: 0.3–3.1 mm), and RFMT: ISS (12.4%, CIdiff: 1.1–2.9 mm) and TST (9.1%, CIdiff: 0.7–2.2 mm). For vastus lateralis muscle thickness (VLMT) and sum of the 4 muscle thickness sites (ΣMT), there was a significant group by time interaction (p ≤ 0.02) in which ISS increased VLMT and ΣMT to a greater extent than TST. Vastus lateralis muscle thickness: ISS (17.0%, CIdiff: 1.5–3.1 mm) and TST (7.3%, CIdiff: 0.7–2.1 mm), and ΣMT: ISS (10.5%, CIdiff: 6.5–9.0 mm) and TST (6.7%, CIdiff: 3.9–8.3 mm). Although our findings might suggest a benefit of adding ISS into TST for optimizing muscle hypertrophy, our data are not sufficient enough to conclude that ISS is superior to TST for inducing muscle hypertrophic adaptations. More studies are warranted to elucidate the effects of ISS compared with TST protocols on skeletal muscle. However, our findings support that adding ISS to regular TST regimens does not compromise muscular adaptations during the early phase of training (<8 weeks) in untrained individuals.

© 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association

You can read the full text of this article if you:

Access through Ovid