Does the combination of resistance training and stretching increase cardiac overload?

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of combinations of resistance training (RT) and static stretching (SS) on heart rate (HR), systolic pressure (SBP), diastolic pressure (DBP), rate pressure product (RPP), oxygen saturation (SpO2), rating of perceived effort (RPE), and heart rate variability (HRV) in men. METHODS: Twelve normotensive healthy men participated in four protocols: a) SS+RT, b) RT+SS, c) RT, and d) SS. Variables were measured before, immediately after, and 15, 30, and 45 min after the sessions. RESULTS: The combination of SS and RT increased (p<0.001) HR when compared to the effects of the noncombined protocols (from 2.38 to 11.02%), and this result indicated metabolic compensation. Regarding DBP, there were differences (p<0.001) between the RT and SS groups (53.93±8.59 vs. 67.00±7.01 mmHg). SS has been shown to be able to reduce (p<0.001) SpO2 (4.67%) due to the occlusion caused by a reduction in the caliber of the blood vessels during SS compared to during rest. The increase in RPP (6.88% between RT and SS+RT) along with the HR results indicated higher metabolic stress than that reflected by the RPE (combined protocols increased RPE from 21.63 to 43.25%). The HRV analysis confirmed these results, showing increases (p<0.01) in the LF index between the combined and noncombined protocols. Compared to the effect of RT, the combination of SS and RT promoted a vagal suppression root mean square of the successive differences (RMSSD) index (from 9.51 to 21.52%) between the RT and SS+RT groups (p<0.01) and between the RT and RT+SS groups (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Static stretching increases cardiac overload and RPE, reducing oxygen supply, especially when performed in combination with RT.

Acute effects of maximal isometric muscle action of the elbow extensors on contralateral dynamic task of the elbow flexors: a pilot study

Aim: the aim was to investigate the influence of a maximal isometric muscle action of the elbow extensors on the contralateral dynamic task of the elbow flexors. Methods Seventeen recreationally trained men (23.3 ± 4.9 yrs, BMI: 24.8 ± 2.2 Kg/m²) underwent two randomized different testing sessions separated by one week. In the control session (CON) all subjects performed a maximum number of repetitions test (RMs) at 75%1RM using the right elbow flexors. The experimental session (EXP) was similar to the CON; however, all subjects were instructed to perform RMs at 75%1RM by using the right elbow flexors and maintaining the maximal voluntary contraction of the left elbow extensors during the test. RMs, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and training volume (TV) were measured and compared between sessions. Results: The EXP showed a significant 10.4% increase on the RMs (13.8 vs. 12.5, p < lt; 0.001, d = 0.44) and 12.1% increase in TV (238.0 vs. 212.4 kg, p >lt; 0.001, d = 0.43) than CON. No differences were observed for RPE between sessions. Conclusion: The maximum voluntary contraction of the left elbow extensors increased the RMs of the contralateral elbow flexors, reflecting a higher TV, and no differences in the RPE. Our results suggest that the investigated method may be a viable and practical alternative to increase the acute strength performance of elbow flexors when using submaximal loads.(AU)