Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Muscle Hypertrophy Response To Range of Motion 2022
Muscle Hypertrophy Response To Range of Motion 2022
net/publication/362864671
CITATIONS READS
3 3,606
6 authors, including:
All content following this page was uploaded by Charlie Ottinger on 17 May 2023.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Muscle Hypertrophy Response
inherent kinesthetic traits largely dictate muscle length (25,68), this tool is rarely groups adapt uniquely to different ranges
the overall range of motion performed at used in strength and conditioning set- of motion which warrants further theo-
each joint involved in an exercise (9). In tings. One important distinction is that retical investigation to explain this phe-
addition, training experience in both the specific joint degrees used in various nomenon. Therefore, the purposes of
stretching and resistance training can ranges of motion are not interchange- this article were to (a) review the process
improve joint flexibility (41,65) which able. Indeed, moving from 0 to 508 of of muscle hypertrophy and how muscle
leads to an improved ability to withstand elbow flexion involves the same absolute length can affect hypertrophic adapta-
a greater range of motion in strength range of motion as 50–1008 elbow flex- tions, (b) analyze previous findings
training exercises. Finally, the intrinsic ion; however, the 0–508 range would related to range of motion and muscle
or trained flexibility of a given muscle certainly be considered a longer length hypertrophy, and (c) introduce a novel
can also influence its optimal length for than the 50–1008 range. Regardless, in theory for explaining these occasionally
force production, thus adjusting the many applied strength and conditioning contrary findings.
length-tension curve of the muscle (75). studies, the terms “range of motion” and
In applied settings, this affects exercise “muscle length” are almost used inter- MUSCLE HYPERTROPHY
selection and/or modification as well changeably in which greater ranges of Because muscle hypertrophy is a pri-
as the ranges of motion used. motion refer to greater muscle lengths mary outcome in many range of
Researchers can measure strength and vice versa. motion studies, a brief review of this
training range of motion through a With this application in mind, Bloomquist phenomenon is necessary. Muscle
small variety of tools. The primary mea- et al. (5) and McMahon et al. (38) found hypertrophy is the procedure through
surement method has centered on assess- that greater ranges of motion at the knee which a muscle fiber undergoes a re-
ing the degrees of rotation performed at a were more effective at inducing muscle modeling process which, in turn,
specific joint (5,19,32,38,55,68). In addi- hypertrophy in the quadriceps muscle results in a larger muscle fiber. Muscle
tion, resistance implement displacement group; however, Pinto et al. (55) discov- hypertrophy can occur through at
has also been used in research (26) albeit ered that partial range of motion elbow least 3 unique morphological pro-
to a lesser extent. Ultimately, joint range flexion training was just as effective at pro- cesses, including sarcoplasmic hyper-
of motion is likely the most common moting muscle hypertrophy in the biceps trophy, myofibrillar hypertrophy, and
method of measurement because this cal- as full range of motion training. It is gen- longitudinal hypertrophy.
culation is more relevant to the training erally accepted that full range of motion Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is typically
stimulus a given muscle may receive in an training is likely optimal for muscular referred to as an increase in cellular sar-
exercise. This is due to the relationship development, but this paradigm has been coplasm or sarcoplasmic components
between the range of motion performed met with contrary findings from Pinto which results in the expansion of the
at a joint and the concomitant length et al. (55) and both Goto et al. (19) and overall volume of the muscle fiber
change of each muscle that interacts with Stasinaki et al. (68) who found similar lev- (22,58). Previously, it was believed that
the joint (51). els of triceps hypertrophy after training endurance or interval training had a
Indeed, previous studies have consis- with full or partial elbow extension ranges greater association with sarcoplasmic
tently used greater ranges of motion or of motion. Furthering the confusion, hypertrophy because of an increase in
deeper positions of joint flexion to assess recent research from Maeo et al. (37) muscle glycogen storage; however,
muscles at “long” lengths, whereas short- uncovered that seated knee flexion train- recent research from Haun et al. (21)
er ranges of motion or more shallow ing produced greater hypertrophic adap- uncovered that resistance training can
joint angles represent “short” muscle tations in the hamstrings compared with also induce sarcoplasmic hypertrophy,
lengths (19,37,38,47,55,57,59). Certainly, prone knee flexion training. Because the even to a disproportionate rate with myo-
the change in joint angle does not per- hamstrings are a biarticulate muscle group fibrillar hypertrophy which is more often
fectly correlate with a change in muscle that crosses both hip and knee joint, the associated with resistance training.
length because this relationship can be seated knee flexion variation lengthens the Although the exact mechanism that pref-
affected by muscle activation (48,64), hamstrings to a greater degree (36), thus erentially induces sarcoplasmic hypertro-
contraction/movement velocity (43), imposing a greater range of motion for the phy over myofibrillar hypertrophy is
and muscle pennation angle and resul- hamstrings. unclear, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy plays
tant architectural gear ratios (64). How- Although the aforementioned research at least a minor role in hypertrophic
ever, the pursuit of ecological validity into the range of motion used during adaptations to resistance training (58).
reigns supreme in the field of applied resistance training exercises has pro- Myofibrillar hypertrophy is the most
strength and conditioning, and joint duced unclear results, the mechanism common type of muscle hypertrophy
range of motion remains the primary through which these adaptations take associated with resistance training.
way of dictating training with “long” or place may not be as simple as previously This is seen in both acute studies in
“short” muscle lengths. Because ultraso- believed. The weight of the research has which myofibrillar protein synthesis
nography is necessary to truly measure begun to show that different muscle rates increase after resistance training
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
(13) and longitudinal studies in which fully understood, it is well accepted signaling molecules, but the end process
trained subjects exhibit higher levels of that mechanical tension is likely the of this signaling cascade results in protein
myofibrillar proteins than untrained primary driver of myofibrillar and lon- remodeling that ultimately leads to mus-
individuals (72). Myofibrillar hypertro- gitudinal hypertrophy (74). Mechani- cle hypertrophy (35). A second distinc-
phy occurs through an increase in cal tension is detected by tive factor of titin is that its resultant
myofilament packing density, or more mechanoreceptors within the muscle signaling cascade is likely greatest during
simply put, an increase in the abun- that, in essence, measure muscular muscle contractions performed in a
dance of contractile proteins within force production through deformation stretched or lengthened position (42).
the myofibril (58). Ultimately, this of their plasma membrane. After detec- This unique aspect of titin has been the-
structural adaptation increases the tion of sufficient force, mechanorecep- orized to be a determinant of the greater
overall diameter of the muscle fiber. tors create electrical and chemical hypertrophic adaptations occasionally
It is posited that myofibrillar hypertro- signals that begin the protein remodel- seen with longer range of motion train-
phy is mostly associated with resis- ing process that results in muscular ing (31) because these ranges will impose
tance training because it is highly hypertrophy (6,74). However, the greater length changes on the muscle.
related to the force producing ability route of mechanical tension detection However, this theory is highly related
of a muscle (69). Therefore, the most that stimulates longitudinal hypertro- to the next topic worthy of discussion:
prominent mechanism through which phy may be unique. the length-tension curve.
myofibrillar hypertrophy occurs is
In 1954, Huxley and Niedergerke (27) The length-tension curve visualizes the
likely resistance training.
published the first ever report that relationship between tension (or force)
Longitudinal hypertrophy is displayed detailed findings related to microscopic and sarcomere length (36) as shown in
through a lengthening of the myofibril. analysis of living muscle fibers. This Figure 1. Sarcomeres are the individual
Previously, researchers understood this article was shortly followed by a similar contractile units within a single myofi-
change in length to be a result of an article from Huxley and Hanson (28). bril; muscle lengthening or shortening
increase of sarcomeres in series, which The combination of these articles led is dictated by the collective change of
would effectively lengthen the muscle to the birth of the sliding filament the- length of the sarcomeres within a sin-
fiber (15). However, more recent ory, which suggested that muscles con- gle fiber. Practitioners often use this
research has highlighted that an tract using 2 proteins, actin and myosin, length-tension curve in tandem with
increase of sarcomeres in series is not “sliding” past one another. However, the working range of motion of the
necessary to elicit longitudinal hyper- this theory did not explain every aspect primary joint a muscle acts on (56).
trophy (54), so further research is cer- of muscular contraction; factors such as
tainly needed to further understand residual force enhancement and passive The length-tension curve contains 3
this form of muscle hypertrophy. force production were difficult to unique components: the ascending limb,
Regardless, this unique adaptation is explain through this model (34). More the plateau portion, and the descending
believed to be preferentially induced recent research has proposed an update limb. The plateau portion of the length-
during eccentric contractions or even to the sliding filament theory: the wind- tension curve is associated with sarco-
active and passive stretching in which a ing filament theory. The winding fila- mere lengths near the resting value.
muscle experiences tension at long ment theory builds on the sliding The ascending limb, then, represents
muscle lengths. Mechanistically, longi- filament theory but fills the gaps shorter sarcomere lengths, whereas the
tudinal hypertrophy may be a protec- through the inclusion of the giant pro- descending limb depicts longer sarco-
tive adaptation to better produce force tein, titin. As the theory’s name sug- mere lengths. As shown in Figure 1,
at long muscle lengths (16,40); how- gests, titin “winds” itself around the the ascending and descending limbs of
ever, further research is needed to ver- contractile protein, actin, during length- the length-tension curve are generally
ify this theory. Moreover, the visual ening contractions and then releases associated with increasing and decreas-
microscopic representation of longitu- stored energy like a spring during short- ing force production, respectively. How-
dinal hypertrophy can be difficult to ening contractions (16,45,46,66). ever, the plateau portion of the length-
quantify (29), thus increasing the need tension curve displays the optimal force
for further exploration into this topic. Intriguingly, titin in and of itself is a type
producing length for a muscle (36).
of mechanoreceptor that detects
mechanical tension. Owing to the Therefore, the astute practitioner would
LENGTH-TENSION CURVE AND spring-like action of titin, various aspects theoretically be correct in assuming that
RESISTANCE TRAINING of its winding and unfolding process training a muscle near its resting length
APPLICATIONS
sense mechanical loading much like would be optimal for muscle hypertro-
LENGTH-TENSION CURVE the aforementioned mechanoreceptor phy because of peak force production
Although the relationship between (31). Titin’s mechanosignaling process occurring near this position.
potential hypertrophic stimuli and differs from mechanoreceptors through However, the simple length-tension
observed muscle hypertrophy is not unique pathways and downstream curve does not account for passive
3
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Muscle Hypertrophy Response
QUADRICEPS
Kubo et al. (32) examined 17 young
men (20.7 6 0.4 years) performing deep
squat (0–1408 knee flexion) or half squat
(0–908 knee flexion) training for 10
weeks. Both groups trained 2x/week
during this period and followed a linear
program in which training intensity
increased each week. After the 10-week
training program, the authors used MRI
technology to assess the change in
Figure 2. Adjusted length-tension curve. From Herzog (24), with permission. quadriceps, adductor, hamstrings, and
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
5% vs. 10 6 2%; p , 0.05) and 75%
femur length (19 6 3% vs. 11 6 2; p
, 0.05), both of which favored the long
range of motion training group. Owing
to the quadriceps position on the de-
scending region of the length-tension
curve, these results are not surprising.
Moreover, these data may present fur-
ther evidence for longitudinal hypertro-
phy because both training groups
exhibited significant increases in muscle
fascicle length. However, the long range
of motion training group experienced
even greater changes in fascicle length
than the short range of motion group.
Another more current study per-
formed by Pedrosa et al. (53) sought
Figure 3. Length-tension relationship of the vastus lateralis. Adapted from Son et al. to examine the effects of multiple
(67) with permission. ranges of motion in the knee extension
exercise on quadriceps adaptations.
The authors used 45 untrained women
gluteus maximus cross-sectional area therefore, hypertrophy in the quadriceps; and split these subjects into 4 groups: a
(CSA). Intriguingly, increases in quadri- however, further investigation is certainly full ROM (100-308 knee flexion), an
ceps CSA were similar between groups warranted to confirm this theory. initial partial ROM (100-658), a final
(4.9 6 2.6% in full squats vs 4.6 6 3.1% McMahon et al. (38) used 26 untrained
partial ROM (65-308), and a varied
in half squats), whereas increases in ROM which alternated the initial and
and healthy subjects aged 19.0 6 3.4
adductor CSA were significantly greater final partial ROM conditions. Similar
years in an investigation seeking the
in the full squat group than the half to other investigations, rectus femoris
effects of full training programs involv-
squat group (6.2 6 2.6% vs. 2.7 6 (RF) and vastus lateralis (VL) muscle
ing either a long range of motion (0–
3.1%; p 5 0.026) as were changes in hypertrophy adaptations were mea-
908 knee flexion) or a short range of
gluteus CSA (6.7 6 3.5% vs 2.2 6 sured at 70, 60, 50, and 40% femur
motion (0–508 knee flexion) quadriceps
2.6%; p 5 0.008). length. Intriguingly, the initial ROM
exercises. Participants performed their
At a glance, (32) the findings of Kubo group exhibited the greatest RF and
respective training programs 3x$wk21
et al. regarding quadriceps hypertrophy VL hypertrophy at 70% femur length
for 8 weeks, and muscle CSA of the
in half squats seem at odds with the (32% & 19%, respectively, vs. 24% & 1
quadriceps was measured before and
results from Bloomquist et al. (5) in and 19% & 12% for final partial and full
after the training program at 25, 50, ROM, respectively) and presented with
which partial squats were shown to and 75% of femur length. The long
not induce hypertrophy in the quadri- greater hypertrophy at 60% (24% & 15
range of motion group exhibited sig- vs. 6% & 5.5 and 18% & 13%) and 50%
ceps. Both studies used untrained sub- nificantly greater increases in vastus
jects; however, Bloomquist et al. (5) (28% & 16 vs. 13% & 11 and 13% &
lateralis CSA at 75% femur length as 14%) of femur length relative to the
had participants squat to a knee flexion
opposed to the short range of motion final partial ROM and full ROM
angle of 608, whereas Kubo et al. (32)
group (59 6 15% vs 16 6 10%; p , groups. An even more interesting note
used a knee flexion angle of 908 in the
0.05) after the 8-week training pro- is that the final partial ROM group dis-
half squat group. In addition, the study
tocol. Intriguingly, both groups made played similar changes to a nontraining
by McMahon et al. (38), discussed in
similar (p . 0.05 between groups) control group about RF and VL hyper-
further detail below, used a knee angle
increases in vastus lateralis CSA at 25% trophy at 60% (6% & 5.5 vs. 2% & 2%)
of 508 in short range of motion training
and found that this range of motion was (33.83 vs. 19.04% long range vs. short and 70% (24% & 1 vs. 1% & 2%) femur
less effective for promoting quadriceps range, respectively) and 50% femur length. This study further emboldens
hypertrophy than using a knee angle of length (18.00% for both groups). the theory that the quadriceps muscle
908. Because the quadriceps is primarily In addition, muscle fascicle length was group responds more favorably to
active on the descending portion of the measured at 25, 50, and 75% of femur training at long muscle lengths when
length-tension curve (67), it would length. Significant differences between hypertrophy is the desired training out-
appear that 908 of knee flexion is suffi- groups were found for fascicle lengths come. Again, this theory is likely
cient for increasing total tension and, measured at 50% femur length (23 6 dependent on the length-tension curve
5
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Muscle Hypertrophy Response
Figure 4. Length-tension relationship of the biceps brachii. Adapted from Koo et al. (30), with permission.
of the quadriceps which favors (p , 0.05 between groups) which fascicle lengths from 44.2 6 5.9 to 51.3
increased tension at longer muscle could certainly have affected hypertro- 6 4.8 mm. Fascicle length was deter-
lengths. phic adaptations. However, these mined to be statistically different (p ,
components may not be the only 0.05) between groups which certainly
TRICEPS mechanisms influencing this outcome. aids in the theoretical applicability of
Investigations from Goto et al. (19) Stasinaki et al. (68) also examined this study’s findings.
and Stasinaki et al. (68) found differing unique triceps training methods, albeit Ultimately, the length-tension curve
results from Bloomquist et al. (5), in a group of 9 untrained women aged still seems to apply in both the Goto
McMahon et al. (38), Kubo et al. 19.3 6 0.4 years. Each participant et al. (19) and Stasinaki et al. (68) stud-
(31), and Pedrosa et al. (53) when as- trained one arm with a long muscle ies. Previous research has found that
sessing ranges of motion used in train- length range of motion (70–1508 the triceps is primarily active in the
ing the triceps brachii. Goto et al. (19) elbow flexion) and the other with a plateau region of the length-tension
split 44 resistance trained men aged short range of motion (10–908 elbow curve (44). Therefore, the triceps pro-
21.6 6 1.3 years into 2 groups, one of duces similar levels of force regardless
flexion). Participants performed the
which performed partial (45–908 elbow of muscle length and, thus, would the-
training protocol 2x/week for 6 weeks,
flexion) elbow extension training and oretically experience similar hypertro-
and both protocols involved perform-
the other performed full (0–1208 elbow phic adaptations in either short or long
ing 6 sets of 6 repetitions at 85% 1RM
flexion) elbow extension training. Each ranges of motion.
in the assigned range of motion. After
group trained their respective range of
the training period, both arms experi-
motion 3x/week for 8 weeks while
following a protocol of 3 sets of 8 at enced significant, but not different (p 5 GLUTEUS
their 8RM load. Curiously, triceps CSA 0.618), changes in muscle thickness in Recent research from Barbalho et al.
increased to a greater extent (p , 0.05) which the long length arm increased (3) sought to examine the hypertrophic
after partial range of motion training by 13.7 6 9.0% and the short length adaptations of the gluteus maximus
(48.7 6 14.5%) as opposed to full range arm increased by 10.7 6 15.3%. A key after either deep squat (0–1408 knee/
of motion training (28.2 6 10.9%). aspect of this particular study is that hip flexion) training or barbell hip
Goto et al. (19) theorized that the ultrasonography was also used to val- thrust training (90-08 hip flexion)
greater hypoxia experienced during idate the ranges of motion used with which inherently includes less hip and
partial range of motion training may be respect to muscle length of the long knee range of motion compared with
the mechanism at work because the head of the triceps. In the long muscle the deep squat. The authors split 22
authors reported a correlation of length condition, subjects performed trained women into 2 different training
r 5 0.70 between an increase in CSA overhead triceps extensions which groups that trained 2x$wk21 for 6
and time spent under the oxygen- produced a range of fascicle lengths weeks. After the training intervention,
hemoglobin dissociation curve. Intrigu- from 60.1 6 7.7 to 66.5 6 4.8 mm. average gluteus maximus muscle
ingly, muscle activation was also higher Conversely, the short range of motion thickness increased by 9.4% in the deep
in the partial range of motion condition training condition generated a range of squat group and 3.7% in the hip thrust
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
group (p 5 0.001 between groups), with the findings from Kubo et al. insufficiency in the biceps and impaired
thus suggesting that the gluteus max- (32) in which the gluteus maximus dis- hypertrophic adaptations, whereas the
imus responds well to training at longer played significantly greater hypertro- 50–1008 range used by Pinto et al. (55)
muscle lengths. As previously men- phic adaptations to training with may not. Certainly, more evidence is
tioned, the Kubo et al. (32) squat study longer muscle lengths. Future research needed to verify this theory.
found that deep squat training is warranted to truly uncover the
A related, but unique, study from
enhanced gluteus muscle volume by length-tension relationship of the glu-
Nunes et al. (49) examined the effect
6.7 6 3.5%, whereas half squat training teus maximus because these findings
of maximal load placement with
only increased gluteus volume by 2.2 6 are of great interest to sport athletes
respect to muscle length, rather than
2.6%. Moreover, Nakamura et al. (45) and physique athletes alike.
altering the range of motion in an exer-
investigated subjects performing fly-
cise. The authors examined 35 healthy
wheel squats to 90 degrees of knee
BICEPS adults aged 23.7 6 5.3 years perform-
flexion 2x/week for 5 weeks and found
A recent project from Sato et al. (59) ing either free weight preacher curl or
no significant changes (p . 0.05) in
slightly mirrored that of Pinto et al. cable preacher curl training. Both
gluteus maximus muscle thickness,
whereas Yasuda et al. (76) found that (55) in which elbow flexor muscle thick- groups performed full range of motion
full ROM leg press (90-08 knee flexion ness was assessed before and after 2 training; however, the free weight
and 125-708 hip flexion) training for 12 unique biceps training programs. Sato training group, because of the inherent
weeks resulted in a 4.4% increase in et al. (59) recruited 32 male and female biomechanics of the exercise, would
gluteus muscle thickness. university students and divided them achieve peak tension at longer muscle
into 3 groups: a control group, a long lengths, whereas the cable training
Although the length-tension relation- muscle length group (0–508 elbow flex- group would attain the highest tension
ship of the gluteus maximus is currently ion; full elbow extension was considered with the muscle in a shortened state.
unknown, the above findings from Bar- 08 flexion), and a short muscle length After 10 weeks of thrice weekly train-
balho et al. (3), Kubo et al. (32), Naka- group (80–1308 elbow flexion). Both ing, it was found that both groups
mura et al. (45), and Yasuda et al. (76) training groups performed preacher curls experienced similar increases in biceps
would suggest that the gluteus is likely for 3 sets of 10 repetitions in a pro- muscle thickness (7% for cable; 8% for
active on the descending portion of the gressive loading fashion specific to free weights; p 5 0.346), thus strength-
length-tension curve and that a greater maximal isometric strength at the joint ening the theory that the biceps need
hip flexion angle will likely induce position trained by each group. Training no emphasis on training at longer mus-
greater hypertrophic adaptations than sessions were performed twice per week cle lengths to maximize hypertrophy.
a shallow hip flexion angle. In addition, for 5 weeks and outcome measures
Contreras et al. (11) discovered that the Another curious study from de Vas-
consisted of eccentric, concentric, and concelos Costa et al. (14) compared 2
gluteus exhibits maximal activation in isometric torque as well as muscle
the top region of the barbell hip thrust groups of untrained men performing
thickness at 50, 60, and 70% of the either a nonvaried or a varied exercise
exercise which suggests that the gluteus humerus length between the lateral ep-
likely is not active on the ascending program 3x$wk21 for 9 weeks. The
icondyle and the acromion. researchers then investigated changes
portion of the curve. Muscles that are
active on the ascending portion of the Although Pinto et al. (55) found similar in MT at the proximal, medial, and dis-
curve often exhibit a trait known as muscle hypertrophy adaptations tal sites of the major muscle groups
“active insufficiency” in which they between ranges of motion for the biceps, trained throughout the intervention.
shorten to a degree in which little force Sato et al. (59) reported that the long A key difference between groups about
production is taking place (60). This is muscle length group made significantly biceps training was that the nonvaried
exhibited in studies in which the gas- greater average gains in muscle thickness group solely performed traditional bar-
trocnemius, a biarticulate muscle well- than the short muscle length group (8.9 bell curls, whereas the varied exercise
known to experience active insuffi- 6 3.9 vs. 3.4 6 2.7%; p , 0.01). At first, group performed barbell curls,
ciency, displays a reduction in muscle these results may seem at odds with the preacher curls, and incline dumbbell
activation during ankle plantar flexion findings of Pinto et al. (55). However, curls, which could certainly increase
with a flexed knee (23). subjects in the short muscle length group the trained muscle length of the biceps
designed by Sato et al. (59) performed because of slight shoulder extension
Worthy of mention, the results of the biceps curls from 80 to 1308 of elbow during the incline curl. Both groups
Barbalho et al. (3) study are currently flexion, whereas the subjects in the Pinto exhibited significant changes in biceps
under scrutiny in a white paper sub- et al. (55) study used an elbow flexion MT from pre to post for both the
mitted by Vigotsky et al. (73) to the range of 50–1008. Therefore, it is plau- medial (2.2 vs. 3.1%; nonvaried vs. var-
journal, SportRxiv. Although the article sible that training the biceps in the ied, respectively) and distal sites (3.5 vs.
by Barbalho et al. (3) faces potential shortened range seen in the study by 3.7%); however, only the varied exer-
retraction, its results do not disagree Sato et al. (59) may result in active cise group displayed a significant
7
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Muscle Hypertrophy Response
Figure 5. Length-tension relationship of the latissimus dorsi. Adapted from Gerling and Brown (18), with permission.
increase in proximal biceps MT (2.1 vs. 23.5 6 1.6 years. Participants performed (14 vs. 9%; p # 0.010). Intriguingly,
4.5%). Intriguingly, there were no sig- seated leg flexions on one leg and prone both groups exhibited a similar
nificant between groups differences for leg flexions on the other. Both exercises increase in the monoarticulate biceps
any of the sites measured, even the involved a knee range of motion from femoris short head muscle (10 vs. 9%;
proximal biceps (p 5 0.15). These 0 to 908; however, the seated leg curl p 5 0.190). Because 3 of the 4 heads of
results suggest that there may be sup- also included a position of 908 of hip the hamstrings are biarticulate (semite-
porting evidence for the inclusion of flexion, whereas the prone leg flexion ndinosus, semimembranosus, and
biceps exercises with greater shoulder condition involved 308 of hip flexion. biceps femoris long head), these mus-
extension angles; however, further
After the intervention, it was found cles are active on the plateau and de-
research is needed.
that the leg performing seated knee scending regions of the length-tension
HAMSTRINGS flexion training experienced a greater curve (37,75), and thus, they likely
Maeo et al. (37) investigated the effects increase in muscle volume in 3 of the respond greater to training at long
of 12 weeks of seated or prone knee 4 hamstrings muscles than the group muscle lengths. However, the biceps
flexion training on 20 healthy adults aged performing prone knee flexion training femoris short head is a monoarticulate
Figure 6. Length-tension relationship of the pectoralis. Adapted from Garner and Pandy (17), with permission.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
muscle because it only crosses the knee basis for application and provide optimal to train this muscle group at
joint. Therefore, although the biceps routes for future research. longer muscle lengths because the pecto-
femoris short head is also active on Previous research has uncovered that rals may experience active insufficiency at
the plateau and descending regions of the latissimus dorsi is active on both shorter muscle lengths; however, these
the length-tension curve (37,75), hip theories require further validation in
the plateau and descending regions of
flexion (as occurs in seated knee flexion research settings. The length-tension
the length-tension curve (18) which
training) would have little influence on relationship of the pectoralis is shown
would suggest that the latissimus dorsi
the length change in this muscle. in Figure 6.
is best trained at long muscle lengths;
however, further research is needed to It is known that the deltoid muscle
OTHER MUSCLE GROUPS group contains 3 unique muscle heads,
verify this theory. The length-tension
Although a small number of previous and intriguingly, the posterior head
relationship of the latissimus dorsi is
studies have endeavored to explore the displays a unique length-tension curve
shown in Figure 5.
unique adaptations to altering the compared with the other 2 heads of
range of motion used in strength train- Previous research from Garner and the deltoid. Indeed, research from Gar-
ing exercises, not every major muscle Pandy (17) indicates that the pectoralis ner and Pandy (17) suggests that all 3
group has been examined. Thus, this major is active on all portions of the heads of the deltoid muscle are active
section serves to create a theoretical length-tension curve. Thus, it is likely in the ascending and plateau region of
Figure 7. Length-tension relationship of the deltoid major. Adapted from Garner and Pandy (17), with permission.
9
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Muscle Hypertrophy Response
Figure 8. Length-tension relationship of the trapezius major. Adapted from Garner and Pandy (17), with permission.
the curve; however, only the anterior descending portion (17). Although Research from Chen and Delp (8) found
and lateral deltoid reach the descend- purely theoretical, it is certainly plausible that the soleus is only active on the pla-
ing portion of the curve. Therefore, it is that the trapezius group need not be teau and descending regions of the
likely that the posterior head of the trained at longer muscle lengths to length-tension curve. Conversely, previ-
deltoid need not be trained at longer achieve optimal hypertrophic adapta- ous studies have reported that the gas-
muscle lengths for optimal hypertro- tions, but this theory remains undis- trocnemius is only active on the
phy because its length-tension curve turbed in the research field. The
ascending and plateau portions of the
is similar to that of the biceps brachii length-tension relationship for the trape-
curve (25). The position of the gastroc-
(30). Similar to nearly every other mus- zius major is shown in Figure 8.
nemius on the length-tension curve likely
cle group, further research is needed to The final major muscle group that is of explains its active insufficiency during
verify this hypothesis. The length- interest to both fitness enthusiasts and combined knee flexion and ankle plantar
tension relationship of the deltoids is athletes alike is the triceps surae. The flexion movements (23). These data
shown in Figure 7. triceps surae consist of the biarticulate would suggest that the soleus muscle
Research has uncovered that all regions gastrocnemius and monoarticulate responds more favorably to using larger
of the trapezius muscle are active on the soleus muscles. Owing to their inherent ranges of motion, whereas the gastroc-
ascending and plateau regions of the differences in anatomy, each muscle dis- nemius should be primarily trained
length-tension curve but not the plays a unique length-tension curve. through heel raise variations without
Figure 9. Length-tension relationships of the soleus and gastrocnemius. Adapted from Chen and Delp (8) and Hoffman et al. (25),
respectively.
11
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Muscle Hypertrophy Response
Table 1
Summary of L-T relationship for major muscle groups
Muscle group Ascending Y/N Plateau Y/N Descending Y/N Applications References
Gastrocnemius Yes Yes No May not necessitate training at longer (23,25)
lengths. Experiences active insufficiency
at short lengths.
Soleus No Yes Yes Likely experiences greater hypertrophy at (8)
longer muscle lengths.
Quadriceps No Yes Yes Research has demonstrated greater (5,32,38,53,67)
hypertrophy at greater lengths. Cutoff
may be at 908 knee flexion.
Hamstrings No Yes Yes All hamstrings muscles likely experience (37,75)
greater hypertrophy at longer muscle
lengths.
Gluteus No* Yes* Yes* Research has demonstrated that the (3,32,45,76)
maximus gluteus maximus responds more
favorably to large ROM training. True
length-tension relationship unknown.
Latissimus No Yes Yes Likely experiences greater hypertrophy at (18)
dorsi longer muscle lengths.
Pectoralis Yes Yes Yes Likely experiences greater hypertrophy at (17)
major longer muscle lengths. May also
experience active insufficiency.
Deltoid group Yes Yes Yes/No All 3 heads likely experience greater (17)
hypertrophy at longer lengths but may
also experience active insufficiency.
Posterior deltoid is not active on
descending portion.
Trapezius Yes Yes No May not necessitate training at longer (17)
lengths. May experience active
insufficiency at short lengths.
Biceps Yes Yes No May not necessitate training at longer (14,30,49,55,69)
lengths. Likely experiences active
insufficiency at short lengths.
Triceps No Yes No Muscle length likely irrelevant for (19,44,68)
maximizing triceps hypertrophy.
undoubtedly preliminary and requires muddying the oft-accepted theory that length-tension relationship to the
further research. However, it provides greater range of motion will result in joint ranges of motion used in resis-
support for using a muscle’s known superior muscle hypertrophy relative to tance training programs may opti-
length-tension properties to design resis- smaller ranges of motion. Despite these mize hypertrophic adaptations. At
tance training programs for optimizing setbacks, research into the length-tension the very least, this strategy could
muscular hypertrophy. Unfortunately, relationship of nearly every major muscle improve exercise selection for a
group has been performed and Table 1 given muscle group and reduce time
minimal studies have been performed
summarizes these findings.
investigating the effects of range of spent on emphasizing ranges of
motion on muscle hypertrophy out- motion that may be inconsequential
comes. Moreover, these studies have been CONCLUSION to long-term outcomes. This senti-
performed on different muscle groups Although preliminary, it is conceiv- ment is underscored by research
with unique length-tension curves; thus, able that applying a given muscle’s from Baroni et al. (4) in which full
13
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Muscle Hypertrophy Response
REFERENCES 21. Haun C, Vann C, Osburn S, et al. Muscle fiber 41. Morton S, Whitehead J, Brinkert R, et al.
1. Abdel-Aziem A, Soliman E, Abdelraouf O. hypertrophy in response to 6 weeks of high- Resistance training vs. static stretching: Effects on
Isokinetic peak torque and flexibility changes of the volume resistance training in trained young men is flexibility and strength. J Strength Conditioning
hamstring muscles after eccentric training: Trained largely attributed to sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Res 25: 3391–3398, 2011.
versus untrained subjects. Acta Orthopaedica et PLoS One 14: e0215267, 2019. 42. Müller A, Kreiner M, Kötter S, et al. Acute exercise
Traumatologica Turcica 52: 308–314, 2018. 22. Haun C, Vann C, Roberts B, et al. A critical modifies titin phosphorylation and increases
2. Ahtiainen J, Pakarinen A, Alen M, et al. Muscle evaluation of the biological construct skeletal cardiac myofilament stiffness. Front Physiol 5:
hypertrophy, hormonal adaptations and strength muscle hypertrophy: Size matters but so does the 449–456, 2014.
development during strength training in strength- measurement. Front Physiol 10: 247–269, 2019. 43. Muraoka T, Kawakami Y, Tachi M, et al. Muscle
trained and untrained men. Eur J Appl Physiol 89: 23. Hébert-Losier K, Schneiders A, Garcı́a J, et al. fiber and tendon length changes in the human
555–563, 2003. Influence of knee flexion angle and age on triceps vastus lateralis during slow pedaling. J Appl
3. Barbalho M, Coswig V, Souza D, et al. Back squat vs. surae muscle activity during heel raises. J Strength Physiol 91: 2035–2040, 2001.
hip thrust resistance-training programs in well-trained Cond Res 26: 3124–3133, 2012. 44. Murray W, Buchanan T, Delp S. The isometric
women. Int J Sports Med 41: 306–310, 2020. 24. Herzog W. Why are muscles strong, and why do functional capacity of muscles that cross the
4. Baroni B, Pompermayer M, Cini A, et al. Full range they require little energy in eccentric action?. elbow. J Biomech 33: 943–952, 2000.
of motion induces greater muscle damage than J Sport Health Sci 7: 255–264, 2018. 45. Nakamura M, Ikezu H, Sato S, et al. Effects of
partial range of motion in elbow flexion exercise 25. Hoffman B, Lichtwark G, Carroll T, et al. A adding inter-set static stretching to flywheel
with free weights. J Strength Cond Res 31: 2223– comparison of two Hill-type skeletal muscle resistance training on flexibility, muscular strength,
2230, 2017. models on the construction of medial and regional hypertrophy in young men. Int J
5. Bloomquist K, Langberg H, Karlsen S, et al. Effect gastrocnemius length-tension curves in humans Environ Res Public Health 18: 3770, 2021.
of range of motion in heavy load squatting on in vivo. J Appl Physiol 113: 90–96, 2012. 46. Nishikawa K, Monroy J, Uyeno T, et al. Is titin a
muscle and tendon adaptations. Eur J Appl Physiol 26. Hornsby W, Gentles J, Comfort P, et al. “winding filament”? A new twist on muscle
113: 2133–2142, 2013. Resistance training volume load with and without contraction. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 279: 981–
6. Burkholder T. Mechanotransduction in skeletal exercise displacement. Sports 6: 137–146, 2018. 990, 2012.
muscle. Front Biosci A J Virtual Libr 12: 174–191, 27. Huxley A, Niedergerke R. Structural changes in 47. Noorkõiv M, Nosaka K, Blazevich A. Effects of
2007. muscle during contraction: Interference isometric quadriceps strength training at different
7. Camargo P, Neumann D. Kinesiologic microscopy of living muscle fibres. Nature 173: muscle lengths on dynamic torque production.
considerations for targeting activation of 971–973, 1954. J Sports Sci 33: 1952–1961, 2015.
scapulothoracic muscles–part 2: Trapezius. Braz J 28. Huxley H, Hanson J. Changes in the cross- 48. Nordez A, Foure A, Dombroski E, et al.
Phys Ther 23: 467–475, 2019. striations of muscle during contraction and stretch Improvements to Hoang et al.’s method for
8. Chen X, Delp S. Human soleus sarcomere lengths and their structural interpretation. Acta Physioligca measuring passive length–tension properties of
measured using in vivo microendoscopy at two Scand 6: 149–152, 1954. human gastrocnemius muscle in vivo. J Biomech
ankle flexion angles. J Biomech 49: 4164–4167, 29. Jorgenson K, Phillips S, Hornberger T. Identifying 43: 379–382, 2010.
2016. the structural adaptations that drive the 49. Nunes J, Jacinto J, Ribeiro A, et al. Placing greater
9. Cholewa J, Atalag O, Zinchenko A, et al. mechanical load-induced growth of skeletal torque at shorter or longer muscle lengths? Effects
Anthropometrical determinants of deadlift variant muscle: A scoping review. Cells 9: 1658–1689, of cable vs. barbell preacher curl training on
performance. J Sports Sci Med 18: 448–453, 2020. muscular strength and hypertrophy in young
2019. 30. Koo T, Mak A, Hung L. In vivo determination of adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17: 5859–
subject-specific musculotendon parameters: 5865, 2020.
10. Contreras B. Bodyweight Strength Training
Anatomy. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2013. Applications to the prime elbow flexors in normal 50. Oranchuk D, Storey A, Nelson A, et al. Isometric
and hemiparetic subjects. Clin Biomech 17: 390– training and long‐term adaptations: Effects of
11. Contreras B, Vigotsky A, Schoenfeld B, et al. A
399, 2002. muscle length, intensity, and intent: A systematic
comparison of gluteus maximus, biceps femoris,
31. Krüger M, Kötter S. Titin, a central mediator for review. Scand J Med Sci Sports 29: 484–503,
and vastus lateralis electromyographic activity in
hypertrophic signaling, exercise- induced 2019.
the back squat and barbell hip thrust exercises.
J Appl Biomech 31: 452–458, 2015. mechanosignaling and skeletal muscle 51. Pallarés J, Hernández‐Belmonte A, Martı́nez‐Cava
remodeling. Front Physiol 7: 76–83, 2016. A, et al. Effects of range of motion on resistance
12. Cools A, Johansson F, Borms D, et al. Prevention
of shoulder injuries in overhead athletes: A 32. Kubo K, Ikebukuro T, Yata H. Effects of squat training adaptations: A systematic review and
science-based approach. Braz J Phys Ther 19: training with different depths on lower limb muscle meta‐analysis. Scand J Med Sci Sports 31: 1–16,
331–339, 2015. volumes. Eur J Appl Physiol 119: 1933–1942, 2021.
2019. 52. Pareja‐Blanco F, Rodrı́guez‐Rosell D, Sánchez‐
13. Damas F, Phillips S, Libardi C, et al. Resistance
training‐induced changes in integrated myofibrillar 33. Langford A, McCurdy K, Ernest J, et al. Specificity Medina L, et al. Effects of velocity loss during
protein synthesis are related to hypertrophy only of machine, barbell, and water-filled log bench resistance training on athletic performance,
after attenuation of muscle damage. J Physiol 594: press resistance training on measures of strength. strength gains and muscle adaptations. Scand J
5209–5222, 2016. J Strength Cond Res 21: 1061–1066, 2007. Med Sci Sports 27: 724–735, 2017.
14. de Vasconcelos Costa B, Kassiano W, Nunes J, 34. Lee E, Joumaa V, Herzog W. New insights into the 53. Pedrosa G, Lima F, Schoenfeld B, et al. Partial
et al. Does performing different resistance passive force enhancement in skeletal muscles. range of motion training elicits favorable
exercises for the same muscle group induce non- J Biomech 40: 719–727, 2007. improvements in muscular adaptations when
homogeneous hypertrophy? Int J Sports Med 42: 35. Lehti T, Kalliokoski R, Komulainen J. Repeated carried out at long muscle lengths. Eur J Sport Sci
803–811, 2021. bout effect on the cytoskeletal proteins titin, 24: 1–11, 2021.
15. Franchi M, Atherton P, Maganaris C, et al. Fascicle desmin, and dystrophin in rat skeletal muscle. 54. Pincheira P, Boswell M, Franchi M, et al. Biceps
length does increase in response to longitudinal J Muscle Res Cel Motil 28: 39–47, 2007. femoris long head sarcomere and fascicle length
resistance training and in a contraction-mode 36. Lieber R, Roberts T, Blemker S, et al. Skeletal adaptations after three weeks of eccentric
specific manner. Springerplus 5: 1–3, 2016. muscle mechanics, energetics and plasticity. exercise training. bioRxiv11: 43–49, 2022.
16. Franchi M, Reeves N, Narici M. Skeletal muscle J Neuroengineering Rehabil 14: 1–16, 2017. 55. Pinto R, Gomes N, Radaelli R, et al. Effect of range of
remodeling in response to eccentric vs. concentric 37. Maeo S, Huang M, Wu Y, et al. Greater hamstrings motion on muscle strength and thickness. J Strength
loading: Morphological, molecular, and metabolic muscle hypertrophy but similar damage protection Conditioning Res 26: 2140–2145, 2012.
adaptations. Front Physiol 8: 447–462, 2017. after training at long versus short muscle lengths. 56. Ratamess N. ACSM’s Foundations of Strength
17. Garner B, Pandy M. Estimation of musculotendon Med Sci Sports Exerc 53: 825, 2021. Training and Conditioning, 2E. Philadelphia, PA:
properties in the human upper limb. Ann Biomed 38. McMahon G, Morse C, Burden A, et al. Impact of Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2021. pp. 58–61.
Eng 31: 207–220, 2003. range of motion during ecologically valid 57. Riley D, Van Dyke J. The effects of active and
18. Gerling M, Brown S. Architectural analysis and resistance training protocols on muscle size, passive stretching on muscle length. Phys Med
predicted functional capability of the human latissimus subcutaneous fat, and strength. J Strength Cond Rehabil Clin 23: 51–57, 2012.
dorsi muscle. J Anat 223: 112–122, 2013. Res 28: 245–255, 2014. 58. Roberts M, Haun C, Vann C, et al. Sarcoplasmic
19. Goto M, Maeda C, Hirayama T, et al. Partial range 39. Mitchell C, Churchward-Venne T, West D, et al. hypertrophy in skeletal muscle: A scientific
of motion exercise is effective for facilitating Resistance exercise load does not determine “unicorn” or resistance training adaptation? Front
muscle hypertrophy and function through training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young Physiol 11: 816–831, 2020.
sustained intramuscular hypoxia in young trained men. J Appl Physiol 113: 71–77, 2012. 59. Sato S, Yoshida R, Kiyono R, et al. Elbow joint
men. J Strength Cond Res 33: 1286–1294, 2019. 40. Morgan D, Talbot J. The addition of sarcomeres in angles in elbow flexor unilateral resistance
20. Haff G and Triplett N, eds. In: Essentials of series is the main protective mechanism following exercise training determine its effects on muscle
strength training and conditioning, 4E. eccentric exercise. J Mech Med Biol 2: 421–431, strength and thickness of trained and non-trained
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2015. 2002. arms. Front Physiol 12: 1–9, 2021.
15
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
View publication stats