INFLUENCE OF STRENGTH AND FLEXIBILITY TRAINING,

COMBINED OR ISOLATED, ON STRENGTH AND

FLEXIBILITY GAINS
THALITA LEITE,1 ARLINDO DE SOUZA TEIXEIRA,2 FRANCISCO SAAVEDRA,2 RICHARD D. LEITE,3
MATTHEW R. RHEA,4 AND ROBERTO SIMAO1,2
1

School of Physical Education and Sports, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; 2Research Center for
Sport, University of Tras-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal; 3Department of Physical Education, Federal
University of Maranhao, Sao Lus, Brazil; and 4Department of Kinesiology, A.T. Still University, Mesa, Arizona

ABSTRACT
Leite, T, de Souza Teixeira, A, Saavedra, F, Leite, RD, Rhea,
MR, and Simao, R. Influence of strength and flexibility training,
combined or isolated, on strength and flexibility gains.
J Strength Cond Res 29(4): 10831088, 2015The aim of
this study was to analyze the strength and flexibility gains after
12 weeks of strength and flexibility training (FLEX), isolated or
combined. Twenty-eight trained women (age = 46 6 6.52
years; body mass = 56.8 6 5.02 kg; height = 162 6 5.58 cm;
mean 6 SD) were randomly divided into 4 groups: strength
training (ST) (n = 7), FLEX (n = 7), combination of strength
and flexibility (ST + FLEX) (n = 7), and combination of
flexibility and strength (FLEX + ST) (n = 7). All groups were
assessed before and after training for the sit and reach test,
goniometry, and 10 repetition maximum in bench press (BP)
and leg press (LP) exercises. The training protocol for all
groups included training sessions on alternate days and was
composed of 8 exercises performed at periodized intensities.
The FLEX consisted of dynamic stretching performed for a total
duration of 60 minutes. The results demonstrated significant
strength gains in all groups in the LP exercise (FLEX: p =
0.0187; ST: p = 0.0001; FLEX + ST: p = 0.0034; ST + FLEX:
p = 0.0021). All groups except the FLEX improved in BP
strength (FLEX: p = 0.1757; ST: p = 0.0001; FLEX + ST:
p = 0.0017; ST + FLEX: p = 0.0035). Statistical analyses
did not show significant differences between groups; however,
effect sizes demonstrated slightly different treatment effects for
each group. Largest treatment effects were calculated for the
ST group (LP: 2.72; BP: 1.25) and the lowest effects in the
FLEX group (LP: 0.41; BP: 20.06). Both combination groups
demonstrated lower effect sizes for both LP and BP as

Address correspondence to Thalita Leite, thalita.leite@ufrj.br.

29(4)/10831088
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
2015 National Strength and Conditioning Association

compared with the ST group. No significant differences in flexibility were seen in any group, in any of the comparisons (p .
0.05). In conclusion, these findings suggest that combining
strength and FLEX is not detrimental to flexibility development;
however, combined training may slightly reduce strength development, with little influence of order in which these exercises
are performed.

KEY WORDS stretching, resistance training, performance

INTRODUCTION

esearch related to health and fitness has sought to

identify the benefits of exercise. According to the
American College of Sports Medicine (1), physical fitness is related to health through 5 basic
components: body composition, aerobic capacity, strength,
muscular endurance, and flexibility. Among these, strength
and flexibility are important physical fitness variables, and
appropriate levels are necessary not only for the promotion
and maintenance of health and functional autonomy but also
for the safe and effective participation in sports (1).
Several studies (3,7,11,17,18) have found that isolated
strength training (ST) promotes flexibility gains. Simao
et al. (17) examined different volumes of ST and their effects
on flexibility, where groups showed significant flexibility increases leading to the conclusion that ST performed without
Flexibility Training (FLEX) promotes flexibility gains,
regardless of the ST volume. Similar conclusions were found
by a study conducted by Monteiro et al. (11). They examined the effect of ST, in a circuit fashion, on flexibility in
sedentary adult women and found that ST increased flexibility. Simao et al. (18) examined the effects of ST and FLEX,
isolated and simultaneously for 16 weeks and found that ST
was able to generate gains in flexibility and strength, even
when isolated, whereas strength gains occurred only in
groups where there was specific ST. Fatouros et al. (7) verified the effects of different intensities of ST and its effects on
the flexibility in the elderly. After 6 months of training, data
suggested that ST (regardless of the intensity) generates
VOLUME 29 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2015 |

1083

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Influence of Strength and Flexibility Training

gains in flexibility, and after 6 months of detraining, the higher training intensities were more efficient in maintaining the
gains in strength and flexibility; Barbosa et al. (3) investigated
the effects of 10 weeks of ST on flexibility behavior of sedentary elderly women, showing that the resistance training
used caused a significant increase in flexibility.
It has been reported in the literature that stretching before
strength testing may reduce acute strength performance (9)
and isotonic (19), isometric (maximal voluntary contractions), (4) and isokinetic (6) strength. The methodological
components of applied FLEX, such as the volume and intensity, seem to be very different from those applied in day-today practice of gyms, and this influence becomes more questionable when we consider the amount of FLEX previously
applied to a strength test (18). The possible interactions
between ST and FLEX, both acute and chronic, deserve
further attention.
Many factors can influence the flexibility and strength
gains, such as range of motion performed in training, the
degree of individuals physical condition, age, specific training, and methodological variables of prescription (exercises
order, number of exercises, sets, repetitions, rest intervals,
and training method) (11,17,18). Despite the many studies
cited, there are no studies in the literature that compared the
chronic responses of different combinations of these trainings using dynamic stretching. Furthermore, most studies
have a sedentary sample, in contrast to this study. Continuing to examine the influence of ST and FLEX is important to
fully understand the synergistic or counteractive effects of
concurrent strength and flexibility exercises among trained
populations and using dynamic stretching routines. Thus, the
aim of this study was to analyze the strength and flexibility
gains after 12 weeks of combined or isolated strength and
dynamic FLEX by experienced women.

Ten Repetition Maximum Test

All participants performed 2 familiarization sessions of the

10RM testing protocol, with 4872 hours between sessions.
The 10RM test protocol was described previously (10). The
10RM tests were performed on 2 nonconsecutive days in the
bench press (BP) and leg press (LP) (Rotech, Goias, Brazil)
using a counterbalanced order. On the first day, the first
10RM test was performed, and then, after 4872 hours, the
10RM test was repeated to determine the reproducibility of
the test. The highest load reached during test days was considered the 10RM load. No exercise was allowed in the 48
hours between the 10RM tests, so as not to interfere with the
reproducibility of the test results. To minimize errors during
the tests, the following strategies were adopted (10):
(a) standardized instructions on test procedures were provided to participants before testing, (b) participants received
instructions regarding the technique for each exercise, and
(c) all individuals received verbal encouragement during testing. The 10RM was determined by a maximum of 5 attempts
for each exercise, with an interval of 5 minutes between
them. After 12 weeks of training, the 10RM test was conducted to the pre-training to observe the possible strength
gains. All tests were conducted in the morning, between 8
and 10 AM
Flexibility Measurements

METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem

Before 12 weeks of training, 28 women experienced in ST

and FLEX were randomly divided into 4 groups: ST (n = 7),
FLEX (n = 7), combination of strength and flexibility (ST +
FLEX) (n = 7), and combination of flexibility and strength
(FLEX + ST) (n = 7). Before 10 repetition maximum
(10RM) testing, all groups performed 2 familiarization sessions with the 10RM testing procedures. The flexibility
measurements were performed 4872 hours after the last
10RM test. After flexibility measurements, the groups began
the 12 weeks of training under the supervision of experienced physical education professionals. After 12 weeks of
training, strength and flexibility were tested again by the
same procedures as the pre-tests.
Subjects

To be included in the study, the volunteers had to show the

following characteristics: (a) consistent participation in ST
and FLEX for at least 36 months immediately before the

1084

study, (b) agree not to participate in any type of regular

physical activity beyond the prescribed training, and (c) be
free from any condition that could influence their participation in training or the collection or interpretation of data.
Twenty-eight women were randomly divided into 4 different
groups. The study details were explained verbally and in
writing, and all participants signed an informed consent form
for participation in the study, according to the Declaration of
Helsinki. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the University.

the

Sit and Reach Test. Flexibility was assessed before and after 12
weeks through the sit and reach test (1). Flexibility measurement was performed 4872 hours after the last 10RM test.
The score used was the best of 3 trials with 10-second rest
periods between each trial (1). All flexibility tests were conducted at the same time of day (between 8 and 10 AM). The
data collected during the initial assessment were not available for the examiner to prevent information bias during the
posttraining measures. The same procedure was performed
after training.
The American College of Sports Medicine (1) recommends that when applying the sit and reach test, an adequate
warm-up should be performed. Therefore, before the test,
a 5-minute aerobic warm-up (walking on treadmill), at
mild-to-moderate intensity, was performed, according to
the Borg scale (5), and then, 4 stretching exercises were
performed for the muscle groups involved in the sit and
reach test (hamstrings, hip flexor, quadriceps, and calf ).
Two sets of 10 seconds of each stretching exercise were

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

the

TM

36.36 6 5.31
325.7 6 92.17

1.03 (moderate)
0.49 (small)

| www.nsca.com

*ES = effect size; FLEX + ST = flexibility + strength; ST + FLEX = strength + flexibility.

Significant difference before and after training.
zSignificant difference in relation to FLEX group after training.

30.40 6 5.76
278.6 6 95.64
35.36 6 4.74
337.1 6 37.29
Bench press
Leg press

31.07 6 5.28
285.7 6 39.52

ES
Post
Pre

FLEX + ST

0.81 (moderate)
1.3 (moderate)

ES
Pre

Post

ST + FLEX

38.50 6 5.40
374.3 6 32.07z
31.71 6 5.44
280.0 6 34.64
20.06
0.41 (small)
30.50 6 5.65
288.6 6 64.14
30.86 6 5.90
261.4 6 65.94

The training protocol for all groups included training

sessions on alternate days, totaling 48 sessions. The minimum
adherence for inclusion of data was participation in at least
44 sessions. Experienced physical education professionals
supervised all training sessions.
The ST consisted of 8 exercises performed in 3 sets per
exercise with periodized training intensities. In the first
month, 812 RM were used, in the second month, repetitions and load were then changed to 610 RM, and 1015
RM in the last training month. When individuals exceeded
the maximum number of prescribed repetitions, the loads
were adjusted. The exercise order for ST was as follows:
LP, leg extension, leg curl, BP, front lat pull-down, seated
shoulder press, biceps curl, and triceps pulley. Before each
training session, individuals performed a specific warm-up
involving 15 repetitions with 50% of the load in the first

TABLE 1. Load results (kg) (mean 6 SD).*

Training Protocol

Bench press
Leg press

Post
Pre

Flexibility

ES

Pre

Goniometry. Flexibility, through goniometry, was evaluated in

10 joint movements: shoulder flexion, extension, abduction
and horizontal adduction, elbow flexion, hip flexion and
extension, knee flexion, and trunk flexion and extension. The
shoulder flexion, abduction, horizontal adduction, elbow,
and hip flexion were performed in the supine position;
shoulder and hip extension and knee flexion were held in the
prone position; and trunk flexion and extension were held in
the upright position, avoiding the compensatory movement.
To examine flexibility, the examiner adjusted the individuals body to the point of mild discomfort or anatomical
limitation. Measurements were made using the goniometer
Lafayette (Sammons Preston Rolyan #7514, Lafayette, IN,
USA), following the procedures described by Norkin and
White (14). The collected data were not available for the
examiner during subsequent assessments. The flexibility
measurements (sit and reach test and goniometry) tests were
performed on 2 consecutive days to determine the reproducibility. The highest measurement obtained during test days
was considered the flexibility score.

Post

Strength

ES

performed with a 10-second rest period between the sets and

exercises. Immediately after performing the static stretches,
the sit and reach test was performed.
Below is a detailed description of the 4 stretching exercises
performed:
Hamstringsin a seated position with both legs straight,
bend the trunk forward, trying to hold both feet.
Hip flexorfeet in the anteroposterior direction, 1 knee
resting on the floor, and the front leg with foot on
the floor and knees bent. Push your hips forward while
maintaining the posture of the trunk.
Quadricepsstanding, holding 1 foot behind, and bringing
it into the buttocks.
Calffeet in anteroposterior direction, the front leg flexed
and the other extended, hands resting on the floor,
trying to put the back heel on the floor.

1.25 (moderate)
2.72 (large)

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

VOLUME 29 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2015 |

1085

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Influence of Strength and Flexibility Training

TABLE 2. Sit and reach test results (mean 6 SD).*

Flexibility

SRT

Strength

Pre

Post

ES

Pre

Post

ES

38.07 6 7.20

39.96 6 7.23

0.26 (trivial)

39.57 6 4.22

39.86 6 4.37

0.07 (trivial)

FLEX + ST

SRT

ST + FLEX

Pre

Post

ES

Pre

Post

ES

37.50 6 4.76

38.93 6 4.72

0.3 (trivial)

40.71 6 5.71

41.07 6 5.10

0.06 (trivial)

*ES = effect size; SRT = sit and reach test; FLEX + ST = flexibility + strength; ST + FLEX = strength + flexibility.

and second exercises of the sequence. The rest interval was

set at 1 minute between sets and exercises.
Flexibility training consisted of exercises involving upper
and lower limbs, shoulders, hips, and trunk. Dynamic
stretching was performed for a total duration of 60 minutes,
with 3 sets of each exercise, and 30 repetitions in each set.
All stretching exercises were performed until the point of
mild discomfort, and they were very similar to the goniometry test exercises. Between sets and exercises, no rest
interval was allowed; however, there were changes in muscle
group (e.g., upper body alternating to lower body).
The combined training involved the completion of FLEX
followed by ST, or in the opposite order. All tests and
training sessions were conducted in the morning (between 8
AM and 12 PM). To prevent bias, the researchers who randomized the groups and did the training orientation did not
participate in testing measures, and researchers involved in
strength and flexibility tests were not involved in the group
formation and orientation process.
Statistical Analyses

The Shapiro-Wilk normality test and homoscedasticity test

(Bartletts criterion) were performed to assess the distribution of data. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was
used to determine the test-retest reproducibility of the 10RM
tests and flexibility measurements. The ICC method was
used based on repeated measures of strength and flexibility.
The Students t-test was used to analyze the differences
between 10RM test and retest, before and after training.
The two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was
used to analyze the differences between groups in 10RM
load and measures of flexibility over time. Where appropriate, further analyses were conducted using the Tukeys post
hoc test. For all cases, the adopted statistical significance
level was p # 0.05. The software Statistica version 7.0 (Statsoft, Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA) was used for all statistical analyses. The calculation of the effect size (difference in scores
between pre-test and post-test divided by the SD pre-test)

1086

the

and the scale proposed by Rhea (15) were used to examine

the magnitude of any treatment effect.

RESULTS
The 10RM testing indicated favorable ICCs (r = 0.99) for all
exercises. All groups significantly improved strength in the LP
(FLEX: p = 0.0187; ST: p = 0.0001; FLEX + ST: p = 0.0034;
ST + FLEX: p = 0.0021). All groups except the FLEX group
significantly improved strength in the BP (FLEX: p = 0.1757;
ST: p = 0.0001; FLEX + ST: p = 0.0017; ST + FLEX: p =
0.0035). When comparisons across groups were conducted,
only the ST group differed significantly from the FLEX group
in strength changes on the LP (p = 0.0056) (Table 1).
The interaction between training modalities and time was
observed for BP (p = 0.00043) and LP (p = 0.00006). Training modality significantly influenced only LP (p = 0.0494).
Time significantly influenced both BP (p = 0.0001) and LP
(0.0001) results.
The effect size analysis showed moderate gains for the BP
exercise in all groups except in FLEX group where there was
loss of strength (effect size = 20.06). Small treatment effects
were calculated in the LP for FLEX and ST + FLEX groups,
with moderate gains for the FLEX + ST group and a large
effect for the ST group (Table 1).
The sit and reach test and goniometry ICCs were between
0.97 and 0.99. There was no interaction between training
modalities and time (p = 0.3959). For flexibility data, the sit
and reach test showed no significant results for any group in
any of the comparisons (p . 0.05), and to the effect size, all the
results for all groups were trivial (Table 2). Furthermore, the
analysis did not show significant results for any group in any of
the comparisons (p . 0.05) for goniometry variables, with all
groups demonstrating small treatment effects on flexibility.

DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to analyze the strength and
flexibility gains in different groups (isolated and combined)

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

after 12 weeks of training. Overall, the main findings of this
study were significant strength gains in all groups in the LP
exercise, and in the BP, improvements in all groups except
the flexibility group. Although there were nonsignificant
differences between groups, an examination of the effect
sizes for each treatment showed a difference in strength
treatment effects for all groups including ST with small
differences between groups. Flexibility training alone was
not shown to result in sizeable treatment effects in strength.
Each group showed a trivial treatment effect in flexibility
measures with nonsignificant differences between groups;
however, the FLEX and FLEX + ST groups had the highest
effect sizes of the 4 groups. Based on these data, ST does not
seem to have any negative impact on flexibility and may
result in similar improvements in flexibility as compared
with dynamic stretching alone. There may be a slight reduction in strength development with the addition of FLEX;
however, the statistical evaluation showed that these differences may lack sufficient reproducibility. Although small, the
reduction in treatment effects seen in those groups including
FLEX is notable and deserves further research attention.
The greatest points of distinction in this study were the
sample, composed of experienced women, different from all
other studies that used sedentary subjects and the use of
dynamic stretching rather than static stretching as used by
all other studies published on this topic. In the literature,
only 1 study compared the effects of ST and flexibility,
isolated and combined. Using a similar protocol to this
study, Simao et al. (18) examined the strength and flexibility
gains in sedentary women after 16 weeks of ST and FLEX,
isolated and combined. The combined training group consisted of FLEX preceding the ST, and the training frequency
for all groups was 3 weekly sessions. At the end of the
intervention, the results showed that all groups increased in
flexibility and only the groups that trained strength had strength
increases with no significant differences between groups.
Analyzing the methodological differences between studies, this study included trained women and lasted 12 weeks
but used a higher frequency of training. The ST protocol
adopted by Simao et al. (18) included a linear periodization,
differing only in some exercises used; whereas for FLEX
protocol, this study used the dynamic method, whereas
Simao et al. (18) used the static method. Nobrega et al. (13)
used ST before FLEX, finding that this order did not interfere with flexibility gains; however, in the study by Simao
et al. (18), which used the opposite order, that is, flexibility
preceding ST, there was a greater magnitude in the gains
found.
Our findings were the opposite, when compared with
other studies (3,6,8,11,1618), which found significant flexibility increases following both ST and FLEX. The treatment
effects in our study were trivial to flexibility enhancement;
however, ST did not result in decreased flexibility nor was
the flexibility intervention shown to be more effective than
the strength-only program.

| www.nsca.com

Regarding strength, all groups in this study showed some

gains in LP strength; however, the FLEX group showed the
lowest treatment effect. The FLEX group was the only
group that did not show a significant treatment effect in BP
strength. It is possible that the dynamic stretching routine
was sufficient to improve lower-body strength among this
population of women, but little gains can be expected in
strength following flexibility exercises alone. Adding FLEX
to the strength program did not decrease the treatment
effects compared with ST alone.
When comparing this study and others with the protocol
used by Nobrega et al. (13), the main methodological difference is in the method of flexibility evaluation, where Nobrega et al. (13) used the flexitest as assessment method, and
this test has the main feature being the most subjective test
of all because it consists of a comparative analysis between
the maximum range of motion obtained and the standardized assessment maps, rating it on a scale 04 (2), being
therefore more susceptible to variations in the results than
the other assessment methods that have measures.
In a recent study, Morton et al. (12) evaluated the ST
isolated compared with static stretching isolated and their
effects on flexibility and strength after 5 weeks of training.
In both training groups, exercises were programmed to use
the same muscle-joint complex, with similar range of
motion and movements. The results showed that ST, carefully constructed, including the main joint movements that
an individual perform during your daily activities, may
produce flexibility increases in the same magnitude of typical programs of static stretching (in most joint movements evaluated), concluding that a joint was able to
maintain or gain flexibility according to their use, regardless of the type of training performed. This study also used
a ST program including main joint movements combined
with dynamic stretching but did not see significant improvements in flexibility in any group. Morton et al. (12)
also found that strength levels increased significantly only
in the strength group vs. the flexibility group. Although
statistical improvements were measured in the FLEX
group in this study, they were only found in the LP, and
the treatment effect was small. These findings together
suggest that neither static nor dynamic flexibility exercises
can be expected to improve strength similarly to resistance
training.
In conclusion, it seems that the inclusion of dynamic
stretching exercises in a training program including resistance training can have no negative impact on strength
development. The order in which strength and flexibility
exercises are performed seems to have no effect on strength
or flexibility gains; however, the lack of improvements in
flexibility among subject only following a flexibility routine is
of concern regarding this study. Further research may need
to examine the effects of dynamic flexibility in combination
with ST to examine its impact on flexibility improvements in
different populations and different assessment methods.
VOLUME 29 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2015 |

1087

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Influence of Strength and Flexibility Training

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
It seems from our data that strength and flexibility exercises
can be performed concurrently, in any order, without
a significant negative influence on either strength or
flexibility development in this population evaluated. It does
not seem that FLEX can enhance strength development
compared with ST alone and may result in a slight decrease
in overall strength development. Although our study did not
show improvements in flexibility in any group, ST did not
result in a decrease in flexibility, providing further evidence
in the debate about strength and flexibility concurrent
training. For populations desiring maximum strength development, strategic use of FLEX should be considered to
secure the value but avoid the negative effect on strength
adaptations.

REFERENCES
1. American College of Sports Medicine. ACSMS Guidelines for
Exercise Testing and Prescription (6th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott:
Williams & Wilkins, 2000.
2. Araujo, CGS. Flexitest: An Innovative Flexibility Assessment Method.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2003.
3. Barbosa, AR, Santarem, JM, Filho, WJ, and Marucci, MF. Effects of
resistance training on the sit-and-reach test in elderly women.
J Strength Cond Res 16: 1418, 2002.
4. Behm, DG, Button, DC, and Butt, JC. Factors affecting force loss
with prolonged stretching. Can J Appl Physiol 26: 261272, 2001.
5. Borg, GA. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 14: 377381, 1982.
6. Craemer, JT. Acute effects of static stretching on peak torque in
women. J Strength Cond Res 18: 236241, 2004.
7. Fatouros, IG, Kambas, A, Katrabasas, I, Leontsini, D,
Chatzinikolaou, A, Jamurtas, AZ, Douroudos, I, Aggelousis, N, and
Taxildaris, K. Resistance training and resistance training and
detraining effects on flexibility performance in the elderly are
intensity-dependent. J Strength Cond Res 20: 634642, 2006.

1088

the

8. Kim, E, Dear, A, Ferguson, SL, Seo, D, and Bemben, MG. Effects of

4 weeks of traditional resistance training vs. superslow strength
training on early phase adaptations in strength, flexibility, and
aerobic capacity in college-aged women. J Strength Cond Res 25:
30063013, 2011.
9. Kokkonen, J, Nelson, AG, and Cornwell, A. Acute muscle stretching
inhibits maximal strength performance. Res Q Exerc Sport 69: 411
415, 1998.
10. Lemos, A, Simao, R, Polito, M, Salles, B, Rhea, MR, and
Alexander, J. The acute influence of two intensities of aerobic
exercise on strength training performance in elderly women.
J Strength Cond Res 23: 12521257, 2009.
11. Monteiro, WD, Simao, R, Polito, MD, Santana, CA, Chaves, RB,
Bezerra, E, and Fleck, SJ. Influence of strength training on adult
womens flexibility. J Strength Cond Res 22: 672677, 2008.
12. Morton, SK, Whitehead, JR, Brinkert, RH, and Caine, DJ. Resistance
training vs. Static stretching: Effects on flexibility and strength.
J Strength Cond Res 25: 33913398, 2011.
13. Nobrega, AC, Paula, KC, and Carvalho, AC. Interaction between
resistance training and flexibility training in healthy young adults.
J Strength Cond Res 19: 842846, 2005.
14. Norkin, CC and White, DJ. Measurement of Joint Motion: A Guide to
Goniometry. Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis Company, 1985.
15. Rhea, MR. Determining the magnitude of treatment effects in
strength training research through the use of the effect size.
J Strength Cond Res 18: 918920, 2004.
16. Santos, E, Rhea, MR, Simao, R, Dias, I, de Salles, BF, Novaes, J,
Leite, T, Blair, JC, and Bunker, DJ. Influence of moderately intense
strength training on flexibility in sedentary young women. J Strength
Cond Res 24: 31443149, 2010.
17. Simao, R, Leite, T, and Reis, VM. Influence of the number of sets at
a strength training in the flexibility gains. J Hum Kinetics 29: 4752,
2011.
18. Simao, R, Lemos, A, Salles, B, Leite, T, Oliveira, E, Rhea, M, and
Reis, VM. The influence of strength, flexibility, and simultaneous
training on flexibility and strength gains. J Strength Cond Res 25:
13331338, 2011.
19. Yamaguchi, T, Ishi, K, Yamanaka, M, and Yasuda, K. Acute effect of
static stretching on power output during concentric dynamic
constant external resistance leg extension. J Strength Cond Res 20:
804810, 2006.

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.