Introduction: Kinematic feedback during resistance training (RT) can improve performance, but most research has focused on males. Since conscientiousness levels related to feedback may differ between genders, this study examined how auditory and visual kinematic feedback affects squat performance in resistance-trained females. Methods: Seventeen resistance-trained females (21.2 ± 2.4 years; 3.8 ± 2.3 years training experience) performed three sets of 10 repetitions barbell back squats at 75% of 3RM under three randomized conditions: no feedback (CON), auditory feedback (AUD), and visual feedback (VIS). Average (AV) and peak (PV) concentric barbell velocity were measured using a PUSH band, and enjoyment was assessed using the Exercise Enjoyment Scale. Results: Feedback x rep interaction were found for both AV (p = .004, ηp² = .02) and PV (p < .001, ηp² = .03). Simple-slope comparisons showed AUD produced a less negative decline than CON for both AV (p = .002, d = 0.82) and PV (p < .001, d = 0.94). Main effect for percentage velocity loss (from rep 1–10) were found in feedback for AV (p = .015, ηp² = .23) and PV (p = .021, ηp² = .21). AUD had significantly less reduction in AV (9.5%) and PV (6.9%) vs CON (AV 23.1%, PV 19.0%). No significant differences were found between the other conditions in either slope or velocity loss comparisons (p = .068-449). Furthermore, both VIS (p < 0.05, r = 0.65) and AUD (p < 0.05, r = 0.69) feedback were rated more enjoyable than CON, with no difference between AUD and VIS (p = 0.57, r = 0.14). When asked about preferences, 70% of the participants favored AUD. Conclusion: Feedback helps preserve barbell velocity, reducing velocity loss across repetitions in resistance-trained females. Auditory feedback emerged as particularly effective for maintaining barbell velocity compared to no feedback and was the preferred feedback condition.

ABSTRACT:Andersen, V, Petushek, EJ, Saeterbakken, AH, Paulsen, G, and Krosshaug, T. Squat performance in elite powerlifters: biomechanical analyses of maximal and near maximal lifts. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2026-The aim of this study was to investigate lifting technique and joint loading near maximal and maximal loads in elite powerlifters and to investigate their strategies to maximize performance. Eight elite national powerlifters volunteered to participate in the study. The subjects lifted single repetitions at 3 different loads (90, 95, and 100% of 1-RM). The ascending movement was divided into presticking, sticking, and poststicking regions and analyzed for hip torque, knee torque, and hip/knee torque ratio in addition to barbell displacement, barbell velocity, lifting time, and joint angles. The results indicated a significantly higher hip torque than knee torque across all phases, particularly during the sticking region, where a hip-to-knee torque ratio exceeding 3:1 was observed. This ratio indicates a much larger contribution from the hip extensors in powerlifters than what has previously been reported in recreational lifters. Based on ANOVA and equivalence testing (equivalence bounds: d = ±0.51), the increased barbell loading increased the knee joint torque in the presticking region (8% between 90 and 95% of 1-RM), increased the forward lean toward the end of the sticking region and reduced lifting velocity in the sticking and poststicking region. In conclusion, top-level powerlifters were able to maintain their load distribution across the knee and hip when increasing the loading in the barbell back squat, while increasing the initial thrust from the bottom position with higher knee torques during the heaviest lifts. The high proportion of the load distributed to the hip joint indicates that a powerlifting squat requires substantial hip extensor strength.

IntroductionThe aim of the present pilot study was to compare the effects of low load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) with high load resistance training (HL) in advanced level climbers.MethodsTwenty-two climbers were randomly allocated to LL-BFR or HL performing training twice per week for five weeks. Before and after the intervention the participants were tested in isometric pull-up (peak- and average force), maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) in a finger flexor exercise, finger endurance, forearm circumference, and climbing performance. ResultsThere were no group differences in any of the tests (p=0.346-0.891), however, both groups increased their average force in the pull-up (LL-BFR; 52 N, p=0.012, HL; 56 N, p=0.024), MVC (LL-BFR; 15 kg, p=0.008, HL; 17 kg, p=0.002), forearm circumference (LL-BFR; 0.8 cm, p=0.012, HL; 0.6, p=0.038) and climbing performance (LL-BFR; 13.5 moves, p=0.012, HL; 10 moves, p=0.003). No pre-post differences were observed for the peak force in the pull-up (p=0.132-0.376) or the endurance test (p=0.752-1.000). DiscussionIn conclusion, resistance training of the finger flexors with HL or LL-BFR resulted in no between-group differences, with both interventions improving maximal strength, hypertrophy, and climbing performance, but not endurance.

Background: The incremental model of doping behavior (IMDB) posits that doping develops over time through the habit of using performance enhancers such as dietary supplements. We investigated the association between dietary supplement use and beliefs and doping attitudes among Norwegian sportspersons. Methods: A total of 1441 subjects (females: 44%; age 31.3 ± 11.6 years) responded to an online questionnaire including measures of dietary supplement use and beliefs, performance enhancement attitude (PEAS), and a doping likelihood vignette. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, correlations, and multiple regression analysis. Results: 58% used dietary supplements. Dietary supplement beliefs were positively correlated with doping attitudes (r = 0.27 (PEAS) and r = 0.16 (vignette), p < 0.001). Among non-competitive respondents, younger respondents were more likely to endorse supplement use (r = −0.08, p = 0.073 vs. r = −0.30, p < 0.001) and doping use (r = −0.17, p < 0.001 and r = −0.21, p < 0.001). Males endorsed supplement use (Welch’s t tests > 5.19, p < 0.001) and doping (Welch’s t tests > 4.08, p < 0.001) more than females. Norwegian sportspersons are generally ambivalent about dietary supplements but opposed to doping practices in sport. Results of multiple regression analysis indicated that younger, male, non-competitive, and supplement-endorsing participants were more likely to endorse doping likelihood. However, these differences were small, and participants were generally against doping. Conclusions: The associations between dietary supplement use and beliefs and doping attitudes are weak but compatible with the IMDB. The differences between groups are small; however, focusing on beliefs about dietary supplements in young, male, non-competitive persons may improve the effectiveness of anti-doping interventions.

Background: Both unilateral and asymmetric loading have been used to increase training specificity and create over-load in a target limb to reduce inter-limb asymmetries. The aim of the study was to compare the effects of conducting either unilateral- or asymmetric-loaded resistance training with traditional bilateral resistance training on maximal dynamic and isometric strength in untrained women. Methods: Thirty-four women not conducting regular resistance training were randomized into unilateral (UNI), bilateral (BIL) or asymmetric (ASY) upper-body resistance training (2–3·wk−1, 10 wk, 24 sessions in total). UNI conducted all exercises unilaterally (one arm at a time), BIL conducted all exercises bilaterally (both arms), and ASY added 10% of the total load to the non-dominant side. Maximal strength was tested in chest press, seated row (1-RM and MVC in both), and pallof press (only MVC). Results: At post-test, BIL demonstrated greater bilateral 1 RM strength than ASY (p = 0.017, d = 1.25) in chest press, while UNI demonstrated greater 1 RM strength in the dominant side than ASY (p = 0.006, d = 1.45). For the other strength tests, no differences were found between groups in chest press (p = 0.068–0.481), seated row (p = 0.091–0.591) or MVC peak force for both chest press and seated row (p > 0.05). All groups demonstrated pre–post improvements for all measurements in chest press (p < 0.05) and seated row (p < 0.05), but only ASY demonstrated improvements in pallof press on the non-dominant side. Conclusions: Compared to traditional bilateral training, unilateral resistance training did not result in similar effects on dynamic or isometric strength. Asymmetric resistance training demonstrated a lower change in chest press strength on the bilateral and dominant sides compared to the other groups.

Introduction:The aim of the present study was to investigate the acute effects of varying exercise complexity on trunk muscle activity in recreationally trained adults during seven trunk-specific body-weight (BW) exercises. Methods:Twenty-eight participants were recruited (15 women and 13 men, age: 32 ± 9 years, height: 173 ± 9 cm, body mass: 73 ± 10 kg, training experience: 15 ± 9 years). Participants performed seven trunk-specific BW exercises in a randomized, counter-balanced order. Each exercise was performed isometrically (15 s) at 3-4 complexity levels, induced by changing the base of support, altering lever arms (using body tilt or body position), and applying bilateral versus unilateral execution. Electromyographic activity was collected from the rectus abdominis, external oblique, and spinal erector muscles. After completing each complexity level, participants rated their perceived exertion (RPE). Results:Muscle activation was significantly higher at larger complexity levels (p < 0.05, η p 2 = 0.12-0.89), and this effect was most pronounced in the primary target muscles for each exercise. Higher levels of muscle activation were accompanied by higher levels of perceived exertion (p < 0.05, w = 0.19-0.90). Discussion:In conclusion, increasing instability, applying unilateral performance, and/or changing body position led to increased activation of trunk muscles and RPE during BW exercises in recreationally trained adults, with the highest activation observed in primary target muscles for each specific exercise.

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effects of training optimized to correct deficits in vertical force-velocity (FV) profiles compared to non-optimized training. Outcomes included changes in the FV profile, vertical jump height, and maximal power. Searches followed PRISMA guidelines and were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and Scopus. Study quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. As of March 2025, ten studies were identified; four were eligible for meta-analysis. Individually optimized FV-based training partially corrected a force deficit, fully corrected a velocity deficit, and had little effect on an already optimum FV profile. Effects on maximal power were small to trivial and often unclear when compared with non-optimized training. There were small-moderate improvements in jump height with optimized training, but these gains were comparable to non-optimized training. Heterogeneity was small to moderate, and methodological shortcomings were noted in all studies, including those excluded from the meta-analysis. Overall, it remains unclear if FV-profile-based training outperforms standard approaches. Labeling training "optimized" or "non-optimized" may induce placebo or nocebo effects, underscoring the need for blinded, randomized controlled trials.

Introduction:The concept of core strength refers to the ability of the core muscles to transfer, absorb and re-direct energy, and generate force/torque while providing proximal stability for distal mobility of the limbs. The aim of the present study was to examine the effects of an 8-week heavy-resistance core strength training (HR-CST) program on upper-body strength and power performance in young athletes. The secondary aim was to examine the role of sport-specific training background (kayak sprinters vs. swimmers) and sex (males vs. females). Methods:Eighteen national-level junior athletes (age: 17.1 ± 1.1 years, body height: 178 ± 7.8 cm, body mass: 70.2 ± 10.4 kg, 12 males, 6 females) competing in kayak sprint (n = 6) and swimming (n = 12) volunteered to participate. During the 8-week intervention period, half (i.e., 45 min) of the regular strength training program was replaced with HR-CST. Pre and post intervention, upper-body strength and power (i.e., maximal isokinetic stroke force [MIF] and power [MIP]) were tested by means of a maximal stroke test using a paddle ergometer. Additionally, peak (PP20) and average power (AP20) was determined in a 20-s all-out stroke test. Results:Paired sample t-tests indicated that PP20 and AP20 were significantly improved by 12.8% (p < 0.001, ES = 0.30) and 11.9% (p < 0.001, ES = 0.28), respectively, following HR-CST. No statistical changes were observed in MIF and MIP (p > 0.05, 0.19 ≤ ES ≤ 0.63). Conclusion:8 weeks of HR-CST appears to be an effective means to improve upper-body strength and power performance in national-level junior kayak sprinters and swimmers. Our results suggest that a dynamic high-intensity core strength-training is a viable option for improving their performance in a periodized pre-season program and should be considered.

The aim of this study was to compare the perceptive responses, physiological measures, training volume and training duration comparing a superset vs. a traditional resistance training session in untrained adults. Thirty adults (29 ± 7 years, 1.72 ± 0.1 m, 77 ± 16 kg) performed one superset resistance training session and one traditional resistance training session in a randomized-crossover design. Both sessions consisted of eight exercises with two sets and a load of ∼10-repetition maximum. The outcomes included number of repetitions, training duration, blood lactate and heart rate in addition to rate of perceived exertion (RPE), rate of perceived discomfort (RPD), session displeasure/pleasure (sPDF) and exercise enjoyment (EES) which were recorded in the middle and post-exercise. Forty-eight hours after the last session the participants reported which session they would prefer as their regular routine if they had to choose. The main findings were that the superset session led to greater RPE compared to the traditional session (p = 0.012–0.16, d = 0.53–0.54). Further, there was a trend towards greater RPD after the superset session, although not reaching statistical significance (p = 0.092, d = 0.41). There were no differences for sPDF (p = 0.404) or EES (p = 0.829). Furthermore, the superset session demonstrated higher levels of blood lactate levels (18.3%. p < 0.001, d = 0.81) and average heart rate (7.8%, p < 0.001, d = 1.53) compared to the traditional session. The traditional session took 60% longer time (p < 0.001, d = 6.62), and had 4.6% more repetitions (p = 0.006, d = 0.54) compared to the superset session. Two out of three participants reported the superset session as their preferred regular training routine. In conclusion, the superset session led to a higher perceived effort and discomfort, higher metabolic stress, took less time, had a lower training volume and was more preferred compared to the traditional session in untrained adults.

Objectives: The barbell back squat is one of the most frequently used exercises to improve lower-body strength and power. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of relative strength on the kinematics in the barbell back squat to a 90-degree angle. Methods: Forty-six recreationally trained men completed five familiarization sessions over three weeks to ensure proper lifting technique. The participants were tested in a ten-repetition maximum (10 RM), during which barbell velocity, acceleration, vertical displacement, and the time of the pre-sticking, sticking, and post-sticking regions were measured. The participants were then categorized into two groups: (1) the above-median group or (2) the below-median group, to examine whether kinematics were affected by relative strength (10 RM load/body weight). Results: The below-median group had a relative strength of 1.37, whereas the above-median group had a relative strength of 1.76. There was a 5.86% non-statistical difference (p = 0.052) in vertical barbell displacement between the groups. There were no significant differences between the groups in barbell velocity or lifting time for the whole movement nor differences between the groups for any of the kinematic variables in the pre-sticking, sticking, or post-sticking regions. When combining the data from the two groups, there was a significant weak negative correlation between relative strength and barbell displacement throughout the whole movement. Conclusions: These findings suggest that distinct levels of relative strength may not influence lifting kinematics in 90-degree back squats among recreationally trained participants.

Accurate and valid assessment of the maximal force production is essential for athlete monitoring and training prescription in sports science. This study investigated the impact of visual feedback on force output and measurement reliability in isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP). Twenty resistance-trained men completed three variations of the IMTP test (single, repeated, and 30 s all-out) across four sessions, with two sessions conducted with feedback and two without. Peak and mean force output was analyzed using peak and mean values. Data from the best testing day (i.e., highest force output in each variation) were used for comparisons between conditions, whereas test-retest reliability was assessed using data from the two sessions under the same condition. Visual feedback significantly enhanced most measures of peak and mean force outputs in all test variations (effect sizes ranging from 0.49 to 1.13 and p < 0.001-0.006). Reliability analyses of the single and repeated repetitions revealed that feedback reduced coefficients of variation (range: 2.57%-5.17% vs. 3.11%-6.92%) and yielded higher intraclass correlation coefficients (range: 0.961-0.983 vs. 0.898-0.987), indicating improved consistency both within sessions and between testing days. However, in the 30 s all-out test, feedback did not significantly improve reliability, possibly due to pacing strategies influenced by the real-time display. These findings demonstrate that real-time visual feedback enhances both performance and reliability in strength testing, with important implications for research and applied sports science.

Resistance training (RT) specificity has been confirmed for movement patterns (e.g., multi-joint or single joint), movement velocities, ranges of motion, and contraction types (e.g., dynamic vs isometric). However, a systematic analysis of the effects of dynamic mass-loaded (e.g., isoinertial) RT on dynamic versus isometric strength tests is lacking. We aimed to examine the specific effects of dynamic RT on dynamic (isoinertial) versus isometric muscle strength, including possible moderating factors (e.g., training length, single joint and multi-joint, upper body and lower body, RT status) and mechanisms (e.g., hypertrophy, muscle activation). A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE (EBSCO), Web of Science, and Scopus up to March 2024. The included interventions contained at least ten training sessions, both dynamic and isometric muscle strength assessments before and after the training period, and healthy participants aged 16–60 years (encompassing untrained and trained individuals). Advanced RT approaches, such as electrical stimulation, isokinetic training, velocity-based training, and blood flow restriction training, were excluded. Within-subject, weighted standardized mean differences (SMDs) of the pre-intervention to post-intervention tests were calculated for both dynamic and isometric muscle strength measures using a random-effects model. Univariate sub-group analyses of RT status, intervention length, complexity (i.e., single-joint or multi-joint exercises), and body segments (i.e., upper and lower body) were independently computed. Random-effects meta-regressions were computed to examine if dynamic RT effects on dynamic and isometric muscle strength are predicted by RT effects on muscle hypertrophy or muscle activity. Overall, 43 studies with 1660 participants across 72 different RT interventions were eligible for inclusion. The overall effect on dynamic strength was significant and moderate magnitude (SMD = 0.98, 95

This study evaluated the effects of a five-week period of practicing specific climbing movements using a system wall on motor skills and bouldering performance compared to self-regulated, conventional bouldering. Thirteen advanced female boulderers (age: 24.5 ± 3.6 years, height: 166.9 ± 3.4 cm, and body mass: 63.4 ± 8.0 kg) were divided into an experimental group (n = 7) and a control group (n = 6). Both groups continued their normal training routines during the intervention, but the experimental group dedicated 30 minutes of their climbing time twice per week to practicing specific motor skills on a system climbing wall. Before and after the intervention, the participants attempted two boulder problems on the same wall. The performance was registered as the number of attempts to complete the boulder problems and as the highest hold reached within four attempts. Video recordings of climbers' best attempts, capturing the highest hold reached from a perspective directly behind them, were analyzed by three independent experts. The analysis was conducted using a five-point scale across six categories of movement quality. Modest enhancements in certain motor skills and performance were evident in both groups, revealing no significant distinction between them. The results underscore the efficacy of incorporating system walls into the training routines of advanced female boulder climbers, but the absence of between-group differences highlights the significance of individual preferences when choosing between conventional and system wall bouldering.

Andersen, V, Paulsen, G, Stien, N, Baarholm, M, Seynnes, O, and Saeterbakken, AH. Resistance training with different velocity loss thresholds induce similar changes in strengh and hypertrophy. J Strength Cond Res 38(3): e135-e142, 2024-The aim of this study was to compare the effects of 2 velocity-based resistance training programs when performing resistance training with matched training volume. Ten resistance-trained adults volunteered (age, 23 +/- 4.3 years; body mass, 68 +/- 8.9 kg; and height, 171 +/- 8 cm) with a mean resistance training experience of 4.5 years. A within person, between leg design was used. For each subject, the legs were randomly assigned to either low velocity loss (LVL) threshold at 15% or high velocity loss (HVL) threshold at 30% velocity loss. Leg press and leg extension were trained unilaterally twice per week over a period of 9 weeks. Before and after the intervention, both legs were tested in 1 repetition maximum (RM) (kg), maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) (N), rate of force development (N center dot s-1), average velocity (m center dot s-1), and power output (W) at 30, 45, 60, and 75% of 1 RM (all in unilateral leg press). Furthermore, muscle thickness (mm) of the vastus lateralis and rectus femoris, pennation angle (degrees) of the vastus lateralis, and the fascicle length (mm) of the vastus lateralis were measured using ultrasound imaging. The data were analyzed using mixed-design analysis of variance. No differences between the legs in any of the variables were found; however, both low and HVL were effective for increasing 1 RM (ES = 1.25-1.82), MVC (effect size [ES] = 0.42-0.64), power output (ES = 0.31-0.86), and muscle thickness (ES = 0.24-0.51). In conclusion, performing velocity-based resistance training with low and HVL with equal training volume resulted in similar effects in maximal and explosive strength in addition to muscular adaptations.

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.

Purpose : Power output is dependent on the load used during exercise such as bench-press throw (BPT). Attentional focus (external [EXT] vs internal [INT]) during exercise significantly modulates power performance. The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of load and attentional focus on mechanical parameters during BPT. Methods : In a crossover study, 31 resistance-trained men (mean age 23.5 [3.0] y) performed BPT at 30% (light), 50% (moderate), and 70% (heavy) of 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) using an INT or EXT focus of attention in randomized order. A linear encoder was used to identify barbell vertical displacement, throw time, peak/average velocity, force, and power during the concentric lifting phase. Results : Statistical analysis revealed significant load × focus interaction effects for velocity and vertical displacement ( P ≤ .045; 0.66 ≤ d ≤ 0.89). Post hoc analyses indicated significantly larger velocities and displacements at 30% and 70% of 1-RM in favor of EXT ( P ≤ .038; 0.79 ≤ d ≤ 1.13) but similar values at 50% of 1-RM ( P > .05). Furthermore, significant main effects of load were found for throw time, force, and power ( P < .001; 4.20 ≤ d ≤ 14.0). While time and force gradually increased with higher loads ( P < .001; 1.45 ≤ d ≤ 14.0), power output was larger at 50% compared with 30% and 70% 1-RM ( P < .001; 3.09 ≤ d ≤ 7.07), irrespective of attentional focus. Conclusions : The present findings indicated that practitioners may use EXT over INT attentional focus to enhance velocity and vertical displacement during BPT at light and heavy loads (ie, 30% and 70% 1-RM). At moderate loads (ie, 50% 1-RM), mechanical bench-press parameters appear to be less affected by attentional focus.

AbstractThis study compared the effects of a weekly lower body resistance‐training program divided into low frequency (LOW, one long session) versus high frequency (HIGH, four shorter sessions) in resistance‐trained individuals. Twenty‐two adults with more than 6 months resistance training experience were randomized to either the LOW or HIGH intervention group. Both groups completed an 8‐week training program consisting of four multi‐joint exercises targeting the hip and knee extensors. The program progressed from 12‐repetition maximum (RM) to 6‐RM, with 4–5 sets per exercise performed throughout the intervention. The four exercises were conducted either in one session or four sessions (one exercise per session) per week. 1‐RM in the squat, muscle thickness of the vastus lateralis, muscle mass of the lower body (measured using bioelectrical impedance), and jump height were assessed pre‐ and post‐intervention. The HIGH group demonstrated a statistically significant increase in 1‐RM compared to the LOW group (7 kg, p = 0.01), while no statistically significant differences were found between the groups for the other outcomes (p = 0.26–0.63). Both interventions resulted in statistically significant increases in 1‐RM squat (8 and 15 kg), muscle thickness (2.3 and 2.8 mm), and jump height (1.5 and 1.9 cm) from pre‐to post‐test. There were no statistical changes in lower‐body muscle mass for either group (p = 0.16–0.86). In conclusion, a weekly training protocol of four multi‐joint lower‐limb exercises distributed over four sessions resulted in greater increases in maximal strength compared to one session in resistance‐trained adults. Both frequencies were similarly effective in improving muscle hypertrophy and jump height.

The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of resistance training through full range of motion and static stretching (SS) of the hip and lower back extensors on flexibility and strength in healthy, physically active, adults. Eighteen participants (age: 24.2 ± 3.0 years, body mass: 71.3 ± 8.9 kg, height: 172.8 ± 7.5 cm) were randomly assigned to either a Resistance Training (RT) (n = 6), SS (n = 6), or control (CON) group (n = 6). The sit reach (S R) flexibility test and maximum isometric straight legged deadlift (ISLDL) at 95