Lengthened partial repetitions elicit similar muscular adaptations as a full range of motion during resistance training in trained individuals


Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of lengthened partial repetitions versus full range of motion (ROM) resistance training (RT) on muscular adaptations. Methods: In this within-participant study, thirty healthy, resistance-trained participants had their upper extremities randomly assigned to either a lengthened partial or full ROM condition; all other training variables were equivalent between limbs. The RT intervention was a multi-exercise, multi-modality eight-week program targeting the upper-body musculature. Training consisted of two training sessions per week, with four exercises per session and four sets per exercise. Muscle hypertrophy of the elbow flexors and elbow extensors was evaluated using B-mode ultrasonography at 45 and 55% of humeral length. Muscle strength-endurance was assessed using a 10-repetition-maximum test on the lat pulldown exercise, both with a partial and full ROM. Data analysis employed a Bayesian framework with inferences made from posterior distributions and the strength of evidence for the existence of a difference through Bayes factors. Results: Both muscle thickness and 10-repetition-maximum improvements were similar between the two conditions. Results were consistent across outcomes with point estimates close to zero, and Bayes factors (0.16 to 0.3) generally providing “moderate” support for the null hypothesis of equal improvement across interventions. Conclusions: Based on present findings and other studies, trainees seeking to maximize muscle size should likely emphasize the stretched position, either by using a full ROM or lengthened partials during upper-body resistance training. For muscle strength-endurance, our findings suggest that lengthened partials and full ROM elicit similar adaptations irrespective of the excursed ROM.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at peer.review@peerj.com.