See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/356788973

Partial range of motion and muscle hypertrophy: not all ROMs lead to Rome

Article in Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports · February 2022

DOI: 10.1111/sms.14121

CITATIONS READS
3 7,363

6 authors, including:

Witalo Kassiano Daniella Costa

Universidade Estadual de Londrina Universidade Estadual de Londrina
58 PUBLICATIONS 303 CITATIONS 46 PUBLICATIONS 351 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

João Pedro Nunes Alex Silva Ribeiro

Edith Cowan University University of Coimbra
87 PUBLICATIONS 1,232 CITATIONS 148 PUBLICATIONS 2,426 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by João Pedro Nunes on 05 December 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1 LETTER TO THE EDITOR

2 Partial range of motion and muscle hypertrophy: not all ROMs lead to Rome

3 Authors:

4 Witalo Kassiano1, Bruna Costa1, João Pedro Nunes1, Alex S. Ribeiro2, Brad J. Schoenfeld3, Edilson Ser-

5 peloni Cyrino1

6 Affiliations:

7 1
Metabolism, Nutrition and Exercise Laboratory, Physical Education and Sport Center, Londrina State

8 University, Londrina, Brazil.

9 2
University Pitágoras UNOPAR. Londrina, PR, Brazil.

10 3
Health Sciences Department. CUNY Lehman College, Bronx. New York, USA.

11

12 *Correspondence author: Witalo Kassiano. E-mail: [email protected] | ORCID number: 0000-

13 0002-0868-8634. Metabolism, Nutrition, and Exercise Laboratory. Physical Education and Sport Center,

14 Londrina State University, Rodovia Celso Garcia, km 380, 86057-970, Londrina, Brazil.
15 LETTER TO THE EDITOR

16 Partial range of motion and muscle hypertrophy: not all ROMs lead to Rome

17

18 Dear Editor,

19 We read with interest the meta-analytic review of Pallarés et al.1, which assessed the effects of full vs.

20 partial range of motion (fROM vs. pROM) resistance training interventions on neuromuscular, func-

21 tional, and structural adaptations. We congratulate the authors on a comprehensive review of current data

22 on a topic that has important practical relevance to the field. However, we believe some of the conclu-

23 sions do not necessarily reflect the totality of evidence and thus require clarification.

24 Based on the analysis of morphological data, the authors concluded that, "…fROM resistance

25 training is more effective than pROM to maximize [...] lower-limb muscle hypertrophy". While this

26 statement is consistent with the results presented, it fails to take into account the nuances of the topic.

27 When considering the evidence as a whole, fROM shows hypertrophic superiority only when the pROM

28 training is performed at a joint angle that places the working muscle in a shortened position. That is, not

29 all pROMs are inferior to fROM from a hypertrophy standpoint; rather, this only is true when the pROM

30 is carried out at a shortened muscle length. In the four studies included for meta-analysis,2-5 muscles were

31 trained at shortened length during the pROM condition. However, a study included in the systematic

32 review,6 but not in the meta-analysis, as well as a more recently published study,7 indicate that pROM

33 elicits similar or superior hypertrophy to fROM when the pROM was performed at longer muscle lengths.

34 The distinction between pROM at short vs. long muscle lengths was not discussed by the authors, and

35 we feel it warrants deeper discussion to provide a nuanced understanding of the topic.

36 A 2018 meta-analysis showed isometric training at longer muscle lengths produced superior in-

37 creases in muscle size compared to volume-equated training at short muscle lengths.8 Several studies

38 published subsequent to that paper have shown greater hypertrophy at longer- versus shorter muscle

39 lengths in dynamic training of the hamstrings9 and biceps brachii.10 Most recently, Pedrosa et al.7 found
40 that pROM knee extension training at a long muscle length was at least as effective, and in some cases

41 superior, in eliciting increases in quadriceps CSA compared to fROM training.

42 Of the four studies included in the meta-analysis by Pallarés et al.1, three compared lower-limb

43 hypertrophy between fROM and pROM with the quadriceps at a very shortened muscle length (ie., a

44 knee flexion ROM from 0º to < 60º), and showed superiority in the fROM condition2,4,5. The other study

45 by Kubo et al.3 compared the parallel squat (knee flexion: 0 to 90º) versus full squat (knee flexion: 0 to

46 120º) and observed similar quadriceps hypertrophy between fROM and pROM. We hypothesize that

47 results in Kubo et al. 3 may be attributed to the fact that squat depth in the pROM (approximately 90º

48 knee flexion) excursed a longer muscle length compared to the other pROM studies evaluated.11,12 There-

49 fore, we speculate that the differential hypertrophic results reported between pROM and fROM across

50 studies was not due to the full range of motion per se, but rather the lack of training in the stretched length

51 portion of the movement in the parallel group. This view is reinforced by the Werkhausen et al.6 study

52 (included in the systematic review but not hypertrophy meta-analysis) that compared the effect of per-

53 forming the leg press with fROM (0–90º of knee flexion) versus pROM with the quadriceps at a longer

54 muscle length (81–90º); results showed similar increases in muscle thickness of the vastus lateralis be-

55 tween conditions.

56 In summary, while investigations often report greater hypertrophy of fROM training when com-

57 pared to pROM at short muscle lengths,2,4,5,7,13 this superiority disappears when the comparison is made

58 between pROM at longer muscle lengths versus fROM; in some cases, the pROM training at longer

59 muscle lengths is actually more effective than the fROM7. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the joint

60 angle in which the pROM is performed—i.e., at a shorter or longer muscle length—when comparing

61 changes in muscle size. Importantly, the hypertrophic effects of training throughout various ROM con-

62 figurations may vary based on the given exercise, muscle, and site of hypertrophy assessment; these

63 considerations warrant further investigation.

64
65 Disclosures: BJS serves on the scientific advisory board of Tonal Corporation, a manufacturer of fitness

66 equipment.
67 References

68 1. Pallarés JG, Hernández-Belmonte A, Martínez-Cava A, Vetrovsky T, Steffl M, Courel-Ibáñez J.

69 Effects of range of motion on resistance training adaptations: a systematic review and meta-
70 analysis. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2021;Epub ahead of print.
71 2. McMahon GE, Morse CI, Burden A, Winwood K, Onambélé GL. Impact of range of motion
72 during ecologically valid resistance training protocols on muscle size, subcutaneous fat, and
73 strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(1):245-255.
74 3. Kubo K, Ikebukuro T, Yata H. Effects of squat training with different depths on lower limb
75 muscle volumes. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2019;119(9):1933-1942.
76 4. Valamatos MJ, Tavares F, Santos RM, Veloso AP, Mil-Homens P. Influence of full range of
77 motion vs. equalized partial range of motion training on muscle architecture and mechanical
78 properties. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2018;118(9):1969-1983.
79 5. Bloomquist K, Langberg H, Karlsen S, Madsgaard S, Boesen M, Raastad T. Effect of range of
80 motion in heavy load squatting on muscle and tendon adaptations. Eur J Appl Physiol.
81 2013;113(8):2133-2142.
82 6. Werkhausen A, C ES, Paulsen G, Bojsen-Møller J, Seynnes OR. Adaptations to explosive
83 resistance training with partial range of motion are not inferior to full range of motion. Scand J
84 Med Sci Sports. 2021;31(5):1026-1035.
85 7. Pedrosa GF, Lima FV, Schoenfeld BJ, et al. Partial range of motion training elicits favorable
86 improvements in muscular adaptations when carried out at long muscle lengths. Eur J Sport Sci.
87 2021;Epub ahead of print.
88 8. Oranchuk DJ, Storey AG, Nelson AR, Cronin JB. Isometric training and long-term adaptations:
89 effects of muscle length, intensity, and intent: a systematic review. Scand J Med Sci Sports.
90 2019;29(4):484-503.
91 9. Maeo S, Meng H, Yuhang W, et al. Greater hamstrings muscle hypertrophy but similar damage
92 protection after training at long versus short muscle lengths. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
93 2020;53(4):825-837.
94 10. Sato S, Yoshida R, Ryosuke K, et al. Elbow joint angles in elbow flexor unilateral resistance
95 exercise training determine its effects on muscle strength and thickness of trained and non-trained
96 arms. Front Physiol. 2021;Epub ahead of print.
97 11. McMahon G, Morse CI, Burden A, Winwood K, Onambélé GL. Muscular adaptations and
98 insulin-like growth factor-1 responses to resistance training are stretch-mediated. Muscle Nerve.
99 2014;49(1):108-119.
100 12. Son J, Indresano A, Sheppard K, Ward SR, Lieber RL. Intraoperative and biomechanical studies
101 of human vastus lateralis and vastus medialis sarcomere length operating range. J Biomech.
102 2018;67:91-97.
103 13. Newmire DE, Willoughby DS. Partial compared with full range of motion resistance training for
104 muscle hypertrophy: a brief review and an identification of potential mechanisms. J Strength
105 Cond Res. 2018;32(9):2652-2664.
106

View publication stats