BRIEF REVIEW
PARTIAL COMPARED WITH FULL RANGE OF MOTION
RESISTANCE TRAINING FOR MUSCLE HYPERTROPHY: A
BRIEF REVIEW AND AN IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
MECHANISMS
DANIEL E. NEWMIRE1 AND DARRYN S. WILLOUGHBY2
1
Exercise Physiology and Biochemistry Lab, Department of Kinesiology, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, Corpus
Christi, Texas; and 2Exercise and Biochemical Nutrition Lab, Department of Health, Human Performance, and Recreation,
Baylor University, Waco, Texas
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKbH4TTImqenVKgR5BWYxyIrzBifDRV4rl4AjaSVRDz+dXegDUMRlyPp on 08/24/2018
ABSTRACT
Newmire, DE and Willoughby, DS. Partial compared to full
range of motion resistance training for muscle hypertrophy: A
brief review and an identification of potential mechanisms. J
Strength Cond Res 32(9): 2652–2664, 2018—Resistance
training promotes skeletal muscle hypertrophy; there are spe-
cific recommendations of intensity, volume, and duration that
appear to facilitate hypertrophy the greatest. However, cur-
rently, there is not a definitive consensus on optimal range of
motion. It appears that the partial range of motion (pROM)
mode of exercise may have some similar benefit on muscle
hypertrophy as the conventional full range of motion (fROM).
Because of the dynamic and multiplanar movement pattern of
a multijoint resistance exercise, there may be variation in human
force–length and strength-curve theories, which may influence
optimal muscle force production at differing portions of a fROM.
This suggests specific muscle groups may potentially be opti-
mally recruited during a specific portion of the exercise. The
majority of previous research has primarily focused on strength
outcomes opposed to muscle hypertrophy. The purpose of this
brief review is to highlight the limited and relative pROM liter-
ature on muscle hypertrophy and some potential pROM mech-
anisms that require investigation to assess any plausible
relationships. Some potential mechanisms and outcomes of
interest are muscle time under tension, muscle activation,
and nonuniform hypertrophy. This mode of resistance exercise
requires further evaluation on hypertrophic responses; if proven
efficacious, it may be employed to those in rehabilitative envi-
ronments and those that seek more specific regional, local
hypertrophic responses such as physique competitors.
Address correspondence to Dr. Daniel E. Newmire, daniel.newmire@
tamucc.edu.
32(9)/2652–2664
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
2652 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
KEY WORDS partial range of motion, training specificity
INTRODUCTION
S
keletal muscle hypertrophy is normally expressed
as an increase in cross-sectional area or a gain in
muscle protein mass as an adaptation to exercise
training stress such as resistance training (RT). The
increase in muscle protein mass is predominantly due to the
accretion of contractile (myosin, actin) and non-contractile
(titin, nebulin, etc.) proteins (25,52,59). Muscle hypertrophy
is often expressed in a practical form by an increase in ana-
tomical cross-sectional area or functional cross-sectional
area (fCSA) by way of an anabolic effect of protein
accretion of sarcomeres in a muscle group, which is aug-
mented by RT.
Resistance training protocols are directed to promote
muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, and endurance. It
has been well documented that there are specific RT
intensities and repetition schemes that primarily promote
these specific muscular adaptations with some relative
crossover (34). The SAID principle (specific adaptations to
imposed demands) states that the training effects are specific
to the muscle groups recruited during training bouts and the
type of training program implemented (24). However, the
range of motion (ROM) is not a factor that is normally
manipulated when participating in RT (22). The suggested
ROM for optimal muscular adaptations and performance
outcomes is proposed to be a full range of motion (fROM);
however, currently, there is not a definitive consensus on this
statement (22).
The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM)
suggests to optimize muscle hypertrophy, the training
protocol should be prescribed to an intensity between 70-
85% of a one-repetition max (1RM), 7–12 repetitions per
set, and 1–3 sets per resistance exercise (2). However, the
ACSM position stand does not identify a ROM as a func-
tional factor that may influence muscular adaptations.

Range of motion is defined as the amount of movement
about a joint, which is dependent upon the joint articula-
tion, classification, and the plane or axis the action takes
place. The ROM related to skeletal muscle has been
termed “functional excursion” which is defined as a muscle
from a position of a full stretch to a position of maximal
concentric contraction that is directly influenced by the
joint it crosses (14,32). For multijoint muscles, their range
goes beyond the limits of any one joint that may cross.
These muscle groups normally function in the midportion
of their functional excursion, where ideal length–tension
relations exist (32). In comparison, partial range of motion
(pROM) would be defined by as a specified ROM within
the fROM spectrum. Additionally, this specified ROM
may be a muscular movement about a joint that may
potentially be within the spectrum of the optimal length–
tension and strength relationship curve (35), which may
subjectively and or objectively recruit a particular muscle
group to optimize a specific muscular movement or action
during a multijoint resistance exercise.
The force–length (also referred to as length–tension)
curve was first observed by Blix in 1894 looking at iso-
metric forces of isolated frog skeletal muscles increased as
a function of muscle length, plateaued, and then decreased.
This was later supported by Gordon et al. (26), looking at
single muscle fibers showing similar results. These seminal
studies indicated that there is a length-dependent muscle–
force relationship, which is directly related to the extent of
overlap between the myosin and actin filaments in the
sarcomere. There is limited work investigating the force–
length relationship in individual human skeletal muscles
in vivo. Previous research has focused on moment-angles
related to differing joints and joint angle known as strength-
curves (35,39).
Figure 1. A simplistic representation of the physiological and mechanical factors that influence skeletal muscle function during a resistance exercise. Adapted
from Ref. 21.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
The strength-curve theory suggests that the maximum
force that can be produced may vary as a function of the
joint angle. However, this observation is also limited in that
the resistance exercise is (a) isolated to a single-joint exercise,
(b) the muscle of interest appears to be the primary mover,
and (c) the joint is limited to 18 of rotational freedom (35).
Additionally, the assumption that the strength-curves are an
accurate representation of force–length relationships may be
flawed in that net force outcome may be a component of
both synergistic and antagonistic muscle groups acting on
the joint and the dynamic muscle fiber and tendon lengths
about the joint angle during contraction (39). With the
understanding that numerous multijoint exercises, and
potentially single-joint exercises (pending the factors listed
above), may recruit individual muscle groups, with differing
optimal force—length curve, at differing portions of the joint
angle or ROM (Figure 1).
Partial range of motion is a training mode that is not entirely
novel and has been investigated in research showing some
positive outcomes and efficacy. However, overall, it has been
suggested by researchers, clinicians, and athletes that this mode
of training has little muscular benefit when compared to fROM.
Most research has investigated and compared strength out-
comes (Table 1) when assessing the ROM and more often than
not, fROM is the mode most often promoted over pROM, yet
both have shown to improve strength outcomes (7). The fROM
advocacy is most likely attributed to the potential for a greater
amount of mechanical stress placed equally about the whole
length of the muscle (8,16,29,41,44). Additionally, it has been
suggested that pROM may negatively influence joint flexibility
more so than using the traditional fROM (23,40). However,
there are some studies that have shown multiple benefits by
using pROM during resistance exercises for strength outcomes,
hypertrophy, and rehabilitative protocols (27,50,51). The
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2018 | 2653
 Partial Range of Motion Resistance Training and Muscle

TABLE 1. Partial range of motion (pROM) resistance training and skeletal muscle adaptations.*

pROM RT Outcome
Study pROM angle Duration exercise measures Authors interpretations

Bazyler Full squat (F) 2 d$wk21, block Barbell back squat 1RM for full squat: 1RM squat and partial
et al. (7) periodized, 12 wk F: [5.1 6 4.5%, squat in both groups
FP: [8.2 6 2.1% with a 3.1 and 4.7%
greater improvement in
the F and FP groups
Full squat + partial 1RM for partial F group improved
(FP): 1008 of squat: F [10.2 6 isometric strength at 908
knee flexion 11.7%, FP [14.9 by 5.3%
6 11.8%
Isometric strength And the FP group
assessment: F At improved at 1208 by
908 [ by 5.3 6 8.9%
4.5%, FP at 1208
[ 8.9 6 8.6%
Bloomquist A) 458—shallow 3 d$wk21, 12 wk Barbell back squat 1RM for DS [ 20 6 Regardless of range of
et al. (8) squat (SS) 3% in both squat motion, resulted in [ in
ranges 1RM strength and
pennation angle
B) 908—deep squat SS [ 36 6 4% in DS group [ LBM of the
(DS) SS and 9 6 2% legs, isometric strength,
in DS and front thigh muscle
CSA at all measured
points
Max isometric knee The SS group elicited
torque: DS . SS front thigh muscle CSA
[ at the 2 most proximal
sites
Thigh muscle CSA:
DS increased at
all measured
sites 4–7%; SS
only 2 sites
proximal area
(MRI).
Muscle thickness:
no differences
Muscle
architecture:
pennation angle
[ in both SS and
DS
Clark et al. 100% (fROM), 75, 4 wk Smith machine Peak force (N): 25 Peak force levels . than
(13) 50, and 25% of bench press and 50% . 75 those that occur during
ROM, variable and 100% fROM training may be
ROM (VROM) produced throughout
a considerable segment
of the midrange of the
movement
Concentric work Resistance training (RT)
(N$M) 100% . throughout different
75% . 50% . phases of the ROM with
25% various loads, may
optimize performance by
enhancing the true
movement specificity of
training
Hypertrophy was
not assessed

the TM

2654 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

Graves A) 120–608 2–3 d$wk21, 10 wk Variable Post-training Group B (60–08) trained

et al. resistance knee isometric QC in contracted posi-
(27) extensions strength: A, B, tion showed to have the
AB . C: 35–808, greatest improvement in
1108; B, AB . C: weight after 10 wk of
98, 208; A, AB . training
C: 958; B, AB .
A: 208; B . A:
358, 508; A . B:
808; A, AB . B:
958.
B) 60–08 Hypertrophy was Some benefit observed
not assessed from limited ROM
resistance exercise.
However, fROM should
be attained when
conditions allow for
maximum strength
improvements
AB) 120–08
C) Control
Massey pROM vs. fROM vs. 2 d$wk21, 10 wk Traditional bench pROM and combination
Post-training: fROM
et al. mixed: 2–5 in press similar to pROM ranges of motion effects
(42) from full in [ 25 and on strength outcomes
extension of 24.33 lb were found to be similar
elbows as fROM
Combination style pROM is not found to be
16.5 lbs any more beneficial than
fROM. Advocate fROM
based on joint flexibility
and Y susceptibility to
injury
Hypertrophy was Advocate pROM as
not measured additive to fROM for
training plateaus
McMahon Isoenertial: A) (SR) 3 d$wk21 for 8 wk; Free weights, CSA at 25, 50, Muscle adaptations were
et al. ROM 0–508 knee 4-wk detraining machine, 75%: LR . SR at observed in both SR
(44) flexion. B) (LR) Sampson chair, 75% (8 wk) only; and LR training groups
ROM 0–908 knee and body weights Fascicle
flexion pennation angle
at 25, 50, 75%
for each group,
with no
significant effect
of group)
Muscle strength Significant main effect of
(MVC): there training: strength, VL
were no fascicle length, VL
differences aCSA [
between MVC in
SR and LR at
baseline or after
training
Major finding: [ in fascicle
length at all sites in the
LR group compared
with SR group, although
only significant at 50
and 75% of total femur
length
(continued on next page)

VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2018 | 2655

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Partial Range of Motion Resistance Training and Muscle

Massey pROM vs. fROM vs. 2 d$wk21, 10 wk Traditional bench Post-training: the Lifting fROM is superior;
et al. mixed: 2–5 in press fROM group also suggests that the
(41) from full mean [ 25.39 lbs pROM technique can
extension of whereas the have a positive effect on
elbows pROM 16.88 lbs overall ROM strength
and mixed 16.25 with female subjects
lbs groups
Hypertrophy was pROM technique may be
not measured applicable to an overall
training regimen as an
adjunct or change to
the regular course of
training. Training at the
top end of this
movement does [
strength within that
specific ROM
Paoli et al. 3 ROMs with elbow 2 sessions: A) 1RM Seated military DB EMG of all 8- The greater the ROM = [
(50) angles: (R1) 908; for all 3 elbow press selected muscles EMG measure of each
(R2) 1358; (R3) angles. B) 3 sets increased in muscle
1808 (0, 30, and 70% proportion with
of 1RM) of 10- the increase of
reps with elbow the load
angle R1, R2, R3.
The greater the Specific activation in
ROM the greater varying the ROM of the
the EMG trapezius and the deltoid
response were the most involved
muscles in this exercise
with each of the 3
ROMs
Hypertrophy was In strength development
not measured with heavy loads, the
choice of an
incomplete ROM
might reduce the
involvement of the
trapezius without Y the
deltoid
activity
Pinto, et al. FULL: 0–1308 2 d$wk21 for 10 wk Elbow flexion 1RM significantly Some musculature may
(51) PART: 50–1008 exercise [FULL 25.7% . produce their
CON: control PART 16.0% respective maximal
above baseline force, whereas other
musculature is not
optimal force
producing lengths at
a specific joint angle
Muscle thickness [ The force produced when
FULL 9.52%, RT at differing ROMs
PART 7.37% may vary according to
above baseline the angle
chosen

*1RM = 1-repetition max; [ = increased; LBM = lean body mass; CSA = cross-sectional area; fROM = full range of motion; VROM
= variable range of motion; ROM = range of motion; QC = quadriceps; Y = decrease; SR = short range; LR = long range; MVC =
maximal voluntary contraction; VL = vastus lateralis; aCSA = anatomical cross-sectional area; EMG = electromyography.

the TM

2656 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

ducted for all time periods up to

March 2017. Combinations of
the following keywords were
used as search terms: “pROM,”
“variable range of motion,”
“fROM,” “hypertrophy,” “RT,”
“electromyography (EMG),”
“fCSA,” and “muscle thickness.”
The articles retrieved in the
search were then screened for
any additional articles that had
relevance to the topic. Given
the small number of articles
related to this topic, a narrative
approach was chosen as the best
way to convey applicable infor-
mation, and inclusion criteria
was based on relevancy to the
particular area of discussion.

RANGE OF MOTION AND

Figure 2. An example of single-joint exercise using a specific ROM inside the fROM where subjectively or
objectively muscle specific recruitment may be optimal. pROM: 20–1208 opposed to fROM: 0 to ;1408.
fROM = full range of motion; pROM = partial range of motion; ROM, range of motion. Adapted from Ref. 53.
rationale for the usage of pROM as a possible training mode is
that during a multijoint resistance exercise, the strength-curve for
any given muscle group at any given point of the ROM may not
be at an optimal joint angle or muscle length for maximal myo-
sin and actin cross-bridge formation, and therefore optimal force
production and recruitment. An optimal ROM for any multi-
joint exercise has not been established and requires much more
research to more appropriately and accurately define (35). In
contrast, single-joint exercises have been more well defined using
“strength-curve” assessments. However, if the single-joint exer-
cise does not meet the criteria listed (single-joint muscle is the
primary mover, 18 of rotation), the optimal ROM may be open
to interpretation. Furthermore, only a handful of studies have
compared fROM to pROM (7,8,16,41,42,44,47,51) and even
fewer investigating hypertrophy (8,44,45,51). Our definition of
pROM is suggested to be an undefined ROM used during a resis-
tance exercise bout within the spectrum of a normal fROM
exercise (Figure 2).
The purpose of this review is to highlight the previous,
relative, and very limited research that has investigated pROM
on muscle hypertrophy and to highlight some potential
mechanisms during pROM that could be the factors that may
influence hypertrophy, thereby prompting future investigations
to assess the feasibility of promoting the use of pROM in RT. To
complete this review, English-language literature searches of the
PubMed, EBSCO, and Google Scholar databases were con-
MUSCLE HYPERTROPHY
Within the last few decades,
there have only been a handful
of research training studies as-
sessing muscular adaptations in
response to pROM versus the
traditional fROM. Recently, re-
searchers have begun to observe additional measurable factors
such as muscle hypertrophy concurrent with muscle activation
and strength outcomes.
Pinto et al. (2012) compared 2 RT groups, untrained, using
elbow flexion (seated machine bicep curls), for a 10-week
training period. The fROM group performed elbow flexion
with (0–1308 of elbow flexion, where 08 is full elbow extension),
whereas the pROM group performed elbow flexion (50–1008).
Both groups showed the same muscle thickness (MT) increase
over the training period. The fROM group showed an increase
of 9.7%, comparatively to pROM which had 7.8%; no signifi-
cant difference between groups was observed (p = 0.07).
Consistent with other literature (Table 1) observing strength
outcomes, fROM showed a greater 1RM increase (25.7%) than
did pROM (16.0%) when compared to baseline values. The use
of fROM during RT showed to be a better form of ROM for
strength changes, yet in regard to hypertrophy, the both modes
of ROM seem to be equal. Interestingly, Pinto et al. (2012)
made a unique suggestion in regard to pROM usage during
multijoint resistance exercises, stating that different muscles
contract at differing lengths throughout the full ROM, each of
these muscle groups may not be at optimal lengths for force
production. Hence, for any given joint angle, some musculature
may produce their maximal force, whereas others may be at
a less than optimal length to do so (51).
McMahon et al. (2014) investigated the differences
between pROM vs. fROM over 8 weeks of RT. They

VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2018 | 2657

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Partial Range of Motion Resistance Training and Muscle
compared muscle activation via surface electromyography
and MT (muscle width) changes using the B-mode ultra-
sound (US) at 25, 50, and 75% sites of femur length during
barbell back squat training. They assessed knee flexion
angles of 0–508 (shorter ROM) and 0–908 (longer ROM).
Interestingly, after the cessation of 8 weeks of training, all
ROM groups showed an increase of MT at all sites (p ,
0.001). Additionally, the 40–908 and 0–908 ROM groups
maintained MT gains at all 2 sites (50 and 75% of vastus
lateralis [VL]) for the duration of 4-week detraining period
(8–12-week) (p , 0.01). There were no differences (p . 0.05)
found in mean relative changes between ROM training
groups post-training or after detraining at 25 and 50% femur
length (0–508; 12 6 13%, 40–908; 11 6 7%, 0–908; 13 6
11%). The 0–508 and 0–908 ROM groups had a greater (p ,
0.05) relative increase in MT 2 weeks into detraining (week
10; 0–508; 26 6 13%, 0–908; 21 6 9%) compared with 0–508
(13 6 8%) at 75% femur length. This was also the case the
last week of detraining (week 12); however, at the 8-week
time point, the 0–908 ROM group showed a greater (p ,
0.05) MT than 0–508 ROM group at 75% femur length site.
In relation to muscle activation, changes were observed pre-
and post-training at a knee angle of 708. No differences were
found between any of the tested weeks nor between the
groups (45).
Bloomquist et al. (2013) investigated how the ROM of
a squat affected strength, lean body mass (LBM), and
hypertrophic outcomes using differing methodologies to
observe hypertrophy using US to measure MT and MRI to
assess CSA. They investigated 17 untrained males who trained
3 d$wk21 for 12 weeks using periodized and progressive loads
in conjunction with the barbell back squat exercise. The authors
did not express a prescribed intensity used during the training
study. However, the repetition range implemented was varied
daily and weekly from a traditional “3 3 10” hypertrophic
range (67–85% of 1RM) and a lower rep range of “3 3 6”
($85% of 1RM). The squat exercise groups consisted of
a fROM or a deep squat 0–1208 of knee flexion where partic-
ipant descends to ;1208 or parallel to the floor and the pROM
or shallow squat, which was 0–608 of knee flexion. Both groups
maintained a 2–4-second eccentric descent followed by a max-
imal concentric effort. To assess the pre- and post-CSA change
between groups, they used 9-slice MRI (9 being the most prox-
imal) of the front and back thigh, LBM was assessed with dual
X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and they used US to measure
MT and architectural differences. The MT measure was taken
midway (50%) between the greater trochanter and the lateral
condyle. They found some conflicting results between hyper-
trophic measures. Their MRI assessment showed a significant
difference between the 0–1208 and 0–608 group in CSA. The 0–
1208 had a much more pronounced effect on CSA on the
anterior thigh (sartorius, quadriceps [QC], and adductors in the
most proximal sections) in all slices except the most proximal
area, which was similar to 0–608. However, the US measures of
MT of the right VL showed no difference between training
the TM
2658 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
groups along with a similar pre-change and post-change in the
pennation angle (PA). DXA measures supported the use of 0–
1208 with an increase in leg (;1.7 kg) mass, whereas 0–608
showed no difference (8).
Magnetic resonance imaging is considered the most
accurate approach for in vivo quantification of body
composition (36); Bloomquist et al. (2013) observed a true
difference between these forms of RT on overall CSA meas-
ures. However, because of the similar group pre- and post-
MT measurement by US and the similar proximal area CSA
change (slice 9) by MRI between 0–1208 and 0–608, it could
be argued that there is some discrepancy among muscle
hypertrophy measures. Furthermore, the 0–608 of knee
flexion during squat exercise was chosen by these authors
based on previous work suggesting that angle placed the
greatest stress on patella tendon to promote patella tendon
hypertrophy. The angle chosen may not be an optimal ROM
for a pROM technique to promote recruitment of a particu-
lar regional muscle group during the bout assuming that the
forces of the patella tendon and the QC muscle forces are
similar (38). Nonetheless, there was evidence of a pROM
training effect on regional muscle adaptations seen in CSA
changes in the proximal portion of the front thigh, which
responded equally between groups per MRI assessed CSA
measures (8). Based on the positive proximal CSA changes
in the anterior thigh that would consist of the adductors, and
predominantly the VL and RF of the QC, it may be plausible
to suggest that pROM use during a squat exercise may be
beneficial for specific regional muscle adaptations for those
who desire regional or specific hypertrophy of the proximal
area or by those who may have limited passive ROM of the
knee or hip because of injury or conditions such as
osteoarthritis.
POTENTIAL MECHANISMS TO ISOLATE
ANDINVESTIGATE
Training volume is dictated by a prescribed goal, training
status, the intensity or load, rest time, and time under tension
(TUT) (54). Another factor of training volume is the work
performed via the mechanical work, which is configured by
multiplying the force required to move the load by the dis-
tance traveled. The assumption is that the force generated is
equal to the load being lifted and that all repetitions are
performed with the same ROM. The work may be better
quantified by multiplying the load by the number of sets and
repetitions, commonly referred to as “volume load” (5,31,56).
Moreover, another assumption is that the repetition rate and
distance also remain consistent, which would maintain equal
work during each repetition and therefore set. However,
during a dynamic concentric or eccentric action, there
may be a differing time from start to finish that may affect
the muscular TUT. To more accurately quantify volume, the
TUT during dynamic RT protocols, the load, repetitions, and
contraction velocities of the concentric and eccentric phases
(along with the duration of any isometric phase if used) of

the repetitions should be controlled and remain consistent to
maintain equality of the work load. Lastly, the assumption
that the joint action during a resistance exercise repetition
has completed its full joint action or a full ROM muscle
action. If this does not take place, it may be deemed voli-
tional muscular failure, which could be categorized as an
incomplete ROM (12,19). Comparatively, the difference in
muscular work between pROM and fROM should
be minimal when controlling for the total value of work,
assuming the displacement is similar. However, when further
comparing the distance of the repetition, pROM should be
less than fROM being it displaces less distance, assuming
that precautions have been taken to control for repetition
rate and number. In theory, the total amount of mechanical
work (force 3 distance) done during a pROM should be
always less if all factors are controlled. If less distance is being
displaced and therefore less total mechanical work during
a pROM resistance exercise bout, how would less work aug-
ment muscular hypertrophy? If individual muscle groups
where recruited more so during a specific portion of
a ROM during a resistance exercise and assessed to show
a greater amount of contraction and therefore work than
accompanying synergists, this may potentially lead to
a greater stimulus relative to the working musculature, sug-
gesting that more volume and stimulus would ideally pro-
mote hypertrophy. This work over time has been
categorized as “TUT.”
Muscle Time Under Tension
Kulig et al. (35) proposed that a multi-joint exercise strength-
curve is difficult to assess due to the joint configuration
changes during the exercise and the muscle groups acting
upon the joints during the movement have relative associ-
ated strength-curves. Furthermore, multi-joint exercises
(bench, squat) operate in multiple degrees of freedom
(flexion/extension, adduction/abduction, internal/external
rotation), which further convolutes the ability to assess an
accurate strength-curve. The length-tension curve relation-
ship (1) suggests that an optimal muscle length will normally
evoke a greater force outcome through greater myosin and
actin interaction. Similar to the length-tension curve theory,
it may be feasible that, during a multi-joint exercise, differing
agonist muscle groups may have individual and relative opti-
mal lengths for force production during differing portions of
a given ROM (35).
A distinct muscle group that is under tension or is
contracted during a specified amount of time during
a resistance exercise bout is referred to as muscle TUT
(55). Tran et al. (55) controlled TUT as a possible factor that
influences the total volume and work done in a resistance
exercise bout. It was observed that when manipulating TUT
or volume load, it influenced acute markers of fatigue when
normalized for volume (either by the TUT or volume load
method). Increased concentric TUT resulted in significantly
greater neuromuscular fatigue. Greater decrements to twitch
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
force suggest that more significant training stresses are
placed on localized skeletal muscle recruited rather than
the central nervous system component with a longer TUT.
The authors concluded that an increase in TUT or volume
load resulted in greater localized muscular fatigue that seems
to be a result of impairments in muscle contractile proper-
ties. Furthermore, a greater TUT may lead to optimal stimuli
for hypertrophic adaptations as long as the training load is
maintained within ranges that have shown to support these
outcomes (56).
Burd et al. (10) investigated the impact of TUT on intra-
muscular protein metabolism they compared unilateral leg
extensions contracted for 6 seconds with a load of 30% of
1RM until failure. Their results showed that 6-second TUT
during resistance exercise did not stimulate an immediate
rise in myofibrillar protein synthesis (MPS) rate. However,
it did result in a delayed stimulation at 24–30 hours post-
exercise determined by a 2.3-fold increase in MPS above-
fasted rates (p , 0.001). Additionally, the longer TUT
increased the acute (0–6 hours) magnitude of sarcoplasmic
protein synthesis rates that were stimulated 1.8-fold above-
fasted levels (p = 0.001); however, it had no significant
impact on extending the time course of this response (10).
This further suggests that an increase in TUT may influence
a greater relative muscular adaptation. More simply stated,
the longer the TUT, the more overall work and volume the
muscle group has engaged in, which may lead to greater
adaptations. Potentially, if muscle fibers are recruited under
a longer TUT because of a reduced ROM, it may be plausi-
ble to suggest this as a possible factor to explain hypertro-
phic responses.
Muscle Activation
It has been suggested that depending on the electrodes used,
muscle observed, and quantification/qualification technique,
the EMG activity and muscle tension may have both a linear
and nonlinear relationship (33). Therefore, surface EMG
amplitude should be interpreted with much caution (15).
For the purpose of this article, the term “muscle activation”
will be used to describe muscle group recruitment during
resistance exercises that are commonly interpreted from
EMG amplitude (15,20). Furthermore, during a particular
resistance exercise, the recruitment of differing muscle
groups to initiate a joint movement during a multijoint exer-
cise may have differing EMG amplitude magnitudes and
possible differing muscle activation levels of specific muscle
groups during differing points of the ROM. For example,
during the ascent phase of multijoint exercise such as the
flat barbell bench press, the actions are shoulder protraction
prompted by the transverse contraction of the pectoralis
major that coincides with elbow extension. Interestingly,
with the use of EMG in some unpublished data by Duffey
(18), they observed differing muscle activation magnitudes of
these same muscle groups during differing portions of the
ROM with differing grip widths, possibly suggesting differing
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2018 | 2659
 Partial Range of Motion Resistance Training and Muscle
muscle-specific TUT during the exercise. The anterior del-
toid (AD) EMG activity tended to be greatest at roughly the
midpoint in both the descent and ascent phase. The triceps
brachii (TB) maximal activity occurred late in the descent
phase and early in the ascent phase. Lastly, the major pri-
mary mover of this exercise is the pectoralis major, which
exhibited the highest relative EMG activity late in the
descent phase and the early portion of the ascent phase (18).
Paoli et al. (50) investigated muscle activation of skeletal
muscle groups involved in the seated dumbbell military press
at differing ROM. They assessed elbow extension at 90, 135,
and 1808. However, the authors did not state the joint angle
of the starting position of the exercise; however, from the
figure the authors used in the article, it shows dumbbells
near or resting on the deltoid (.908 elbow flexion). The
range of intensity used was 0, 30, and 70% of 1RM. They
investigated muscle activation at the clavicular head of pec-
toralis major (PMCH), AD, medial deltoid (MD), posterior
deltoid (PD), upper trapezius (UTr), middle trapezius (MTr),
long head of triceps (TBLH), and teres minor. As expected,
muscle activation increased with greater amounts of load (0
vs. 70%), and the authors concluded that at 70% of 1RM
they found no significant differences in all deltoid group
muscle activation assessments (AD, MD, PD) between 135
and 1808. However, UTr was more activated with 1808 than
with 1358. The authors stated that when using 1358 (pROM)
with 70% of 1RM, the deltoid recruitment was similar to
1808 during the movement while reducing the participation
or the activation of the UTr. Similarly, PMCH, PD, and
TBLH showed the highest activation for the 1808 portion
of the ROM (50). The outcomes of this article suggest that
during a dumbbell military press, using pROM with the
same intensity (70% of 1RM) as fROM, there seems to
a reduction of synergistic recruitment pattern and therefore
more efficient and more specific recruitment of the deltoid
muscle group.
Barnett et al. (6) observed differences in bench press posi-
tioning (incline, horizontal, and decline) and grip width on
EMG activity. They observed the manipulation of body
positioning and grip width effected the EMG activity.
Wide-hand grip horizontal bench press had the maximum
EMG activity on the sternocostal head of the pectoralis
major compared with other body positions and narrow grip
(6). Similarly, EMG activity was found to be different when
observing individual muscle activity of the vastus medialis
oblique, VL, and rectus femoris, which were significantly
more active during the squat exercise when compared to
the activity of the biceps femoris or semimembranosus
(28). However, it should be stated that EMG amplitude
parallels tension in a human muscle when contracting iso-
metrically, yet there is no quantitative relationship between
EMG and tension when a muscle is allowed to change its
length (30). Muscle appears to be without uniform EMG
activity during a specific joint action, which supports the
notion that there may be a regional or more specific
the TM
2660 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
response during a bout of resistance exercise. This supports
that EMG amplitude and muscle activation are relative to
body positioning and may be altered by kinematic changes,
thereby recruiting more specific musculature to perform
a certain joint action.
In respect to the relationship of muscle activation and
muscle TUT (33), it may be plausible to suggest that during
a multijoint resistance exercise that the relative TUT for
each muscle group may be distinct, concurrent with the
suggestion that the maximal activation of these muscle
groups may be dependent on differing time points during
a specific portion of a traditional fROM. Furthermore, if
the TUT and magnitude of muscle activation are different
during a certain portion of a ROM, this may influence
a greater muscle specific workload and possibly augmented
muscular adaptations compared with other muscle groups
involved in the same exercise.
Nonuniform Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy
It has been suggested that there may be differing strain
length dispersal in sarcomeres of differing lengths in differing
regions of muscle fibers (11). Additionally, there may also be
intermuscle fiber type variation within a muscle group
related to orientation. Lexell et al. (37) found a within-
subject range of 47–57% variation of type I muscle fiber
200 mm distal from the VL origin. Moreover, one single
muscle fiber can have differences in myosin heavy chain
isoform expression and diameter size (4). This variation
may be potentially explained by heterogenic muscle archi-
tecture that may regulate variability in intermuscular adap-
tations from certain resistance exercise (11,17). The
nonuniform hypertrophy theory suggests there may be
a local adaptation of muscle and muscle fibers augmented
by RT (4). Investigating this possible relationship, Narici
et al. (1996) examined the QC muscle activation and CSA
changes. They observed 7 healthy males during 6 months of
RT on alternate days with 6 series of 8 unilateral leg exten-
sions at 80% of 1RM. After the cessation of the training, the
CSA of the QC increased by 18.8 6 7.2% (p , 0.001) and
19.3 6 6.7% (p , 0.001) in the distal and proximal regions. In
comparison, there was an increase in 13.0 6 7.2% (p , 0.001)
in the central area of the muscle. The average increase in
muscle CSA of the QC segments was: (a) rectus femoris
27.9%, (b) VL 19.5%, (c) vastus medialis 18.7%, and (d) vastus
intermedius 17.4%. Overall, the authors suggested there ap-
peared to be nonuniform intermuscular hypertrophy of the
QC in response to the RT. The VL and rectus femoris were
observed to have the greatest hypertrophy in the distal
region, whereas the vastus intermedius and medialis muscles
exhibited the most significant hypertrophic response in the
proximal portion. It was reported that hypertrophy was sig-
nificantly different between and within the 4 segments of the
QC. However, no differences were seen in mean muscle fiber
CSA via muscle biopsy, and similarly, no differences were
found in time to maximum EMG (4,49).

With some similarity and differences when compared to
the work done by to Narici et al. (49), Wakahara et al.
(58) investigated the CSA and muscle activation responses
during a supine dumbbell elbow extension. When observing
the figure in this article, the resistance exercise depiction
used by the authors resembled a unilateral dumbbell bench
press. They found the percentage of the activated area of the
TB acutely by transverse relaxation time (T2) weighted
MRI. The authors assessed 5 regions of the TB via 4, 10,
16, 22, and 28 cm from the elbow joint. They then investi-
gated the impact of RT (3 d$wk21 for 12 weeks) on muscle
activation and CSA (MRI) changes of the TB. They assessed
a portion of each head (long head, medial head, and lateral
head) of an area of (;1 cm2) opposed to the entire CSA of
the TB. The authors stated that the muscle activation was
significantly greater in the 10 and 16 cm positions (midpor-
tion) of the TB. The most significant activated muscle por-
tion was at a distance of 16 cm of the lateral and medial head
of the TB. Interestingly, the CSA was observed to have the
greatest relative increase was found in the middle portion of
the TB (10–22 cm). Essentially, this suggests that the areas of
greatest activation (10 and 16 cm) coincide with the central
regional areas of the greatest hypertrophic (CSA) response
(10–22 cm), whereas the least responsive area was found in
the proximal region. Based on the authors, MRI scans of the
proximal region were almost exclusively inhabited by the
long head of the TB, all 3 heads were included in the middle
area, and the medial head was found to be predominantly in
the distal region. Therefore, they concluded that greater rel-
ative increase in CSA in the middle area of the TB than that
in the proximal regions which indicates that the extent of
hypertrophy of the medial and lateral heads was greater than
the long head.
The authors propose that the greater hypertrophic effect
may be in part due to greater muscle activation and
recruitment in conjunction with a greater mechanical and
metabolic stress in the medial and lateral heads of the TB.
Moreover, muscle activation of the resistance exercise during
the training session may be dependent on the exercise
modality and the anatomical feature of each component of
the muscle group (57).
In contrast to the work by both Narici et al. (49) and
Wakahara et al. (58), Drummond et al. (17) assessed proxi-
mal, medial, and distal regions hypertrophic differences of
the biceps brachii with MRI during a 12-week training
period using the “Scott” preacher curl bench. They found
no difference between the CSA of the proximal, medial, and
distal regions of the biceps brachii (p = 0.45) assessed. How-
ever, the authors did not investigate muscle EMG to deter-
mine muscle activation differences which Drummond et al.
(17) conceded that might not be an equal comparison with
previous study designs.
Inherent muscle architecture may be another factor that
assists in explaining nonuniform muscle hypertrophy. Matta
et al. (42) investigated muscle thickness (MT) and the PA at
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
50, 60, and 70% of arm length of the biceps brachii and TB
after 12 weeks of strength training in 49 untrained males.
They found a regional difference between MT in biceps
brachii, with an increase of 12% in the proximal site and
a lesser increase at the distal site 5%. Comparatively, the
TB showed increases in both MT and PA at the 3 sites
assessed, yet no significant variation was seen among them.
The authors suggested that the outcome may be explained
by the variation of muscle architecture between the 2 distinct
muscle groups, being the biceps brachii is categorized as
a fusiform muscle, whereas the TB has a pennated-fiber
arrangement (43).
If differences have been found in muscular activation,
recruitment patterns, and contraction type, during traditional
fROM resistance exercises that influence differing muscular
adaptations, it may be plausible that differing ROM during
resistance exercise may also promote differing muscular
adaptations.
DISCUSSION
Muscular hypertrophy is a dynamic and multifaceted pro-
cess that may be additionally influenced by the ROM chosen
during a resistance exercise. There is recent data to show
that using pROM during a RT bout may have some similar
hypertrophic benefits when compared to a fROM exercise
(8,44,51). In this small area of research, these authors as-
sessed the effect on ROM during multijoint barbell squat
and single-joint elbow flexion training. Depending on the
method to analyze hypertrophy, there were some similar
measures when comparing fROM to pROM. However, the
majority of research that has investigated ROM during resis-
tance exercise has primarily focused on strength outcomes.
One of the prominent suggestions to explain how
a reduced ROM may potentially influence hypertrophy is
a difference in the optimal muscle force–length curve. This
theory suggests that when force is developed by a muscle, it
is dependent on the length at which the muscle is activated
(1,26,39). Additionally, it has been suggested that there may
be variation in human strength-curve theory during a multi-
joint resistance exercise, which may elude to differences in
optimal muscle group force production during a multijoint
resistance exercise at differing portions of a fROM. Because
of the dynamic and multiplanar movement pattern of a multi-
joint resistance exercise, it is feasible to suggest that differing
muscle groups may be more optimally recruited during a spe-
cific portion of the exercise which may not be in concert
with other agonists at the same point (35,51). Furthermore,
pROM may have an impact on force distribution and it may
be feasible that differing portions of the ROM may be more
optimal for the force–length curve relationship, possible
muscle activation, and desired muscle recruitment (11,35).
Additionally, another theory that may explain how pROM
may assist in muscular adaptations is through the process of
TUT. Tran et al. (56) defined TUT as a distinct muscle group
that is under tension or contraction of a specified amount of
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2018 | 2661
 Partial Range of Motion Resistance Training and Muscle
time during a resistance exercise. Taking into consideration
the aforementioned force–length curve definition (1) and the
suggestion of the strength-curve theory relative to differing
muscle groups within a multijoint exercise (35), it may be
plausible to suggest that TUT may be increased by way of
altering the ROM to place greater TUT on a specific muscle
group. Greater TUT may equate to more individual muscle
work or volume and potentially greater stimulus resulting in
greater hypertrophic potential (56).
Muscle tension is related muscle activation (amplitude),
which is defined as a transformation from the neural signal
to a measure of muscle activation (9). It has been suggested
that there is a difference in muscle EMG amplitude at dif-
fering portions of a resistance exercise ROM (18) and there
is an association with the area of muscle activated and the
area of CSA increase (57,58). It may be feasible that during
a pROM resistance exercise bout that if a greater TUT is
being placed on a particular muscle group, a greater muscle
activation may equate to a more specific recruitment of that
particular muscle group during that time.
Lastly, a muscular adaptation to RT that has been
observed by some and refuted (17) by others is nonuniform
hypertrophy. Based on the architecture, the anatomical dif-
ference of the muscle group, resistance exercise, and exercise
chosen, hypertrophy may not be heterogeneous throughout
each muscle group that is recruited during the training bout
(4,43,45,49,57). Intramuscular factors that may explain this
regional form of hypertrophy may be related to differences
in fiber size and fiber composition. Related to both the rel-
ative muscular activation and recruitment patterns of
a regional area, evidence has shown differences in hypertro-
phic responses.
These mechanisms warrant further investigation to iden-
tify if they may be a factor in explaining some of the similar
hypertrophic responses seen when pROM is used as a mode
of resistance exercise. With the common understanding and
respect to the limitations of these selected studies, the
individualized interpretations, and these selected author’s
perceptions; there may be a portion of a ROM during a resis-
tance exercise that may recruit or isolate a favorable muscle
group during a specified portion of a fROM resistance exer-
cise. In summation, these studies should lead to further in-
vestigations in both trained and untrained populations
assessing how a specific ROM about a joint during a multi-
joint resistance exercise may potentially isolate and recruit
a specific muscle group for the purpose of regional or more
specific muscle adaptations.
Skeletal muscle hypertrophy is a multifactorial response
augmented by RT. Although not a novel mode of resistance
exercise, pROM research offers very little data in which to
fully substantiate its effect on hypertrophy and is largely
deemed incomparable to fROM. Recently, new research has
shown some similar responses in cross-sectional area and
muscle thickness when pROM is compared with traditional
RT using a fROM. The use of pROM may recruit and
the TM
2662 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
activate specific musculature during a multijoint exercise,
which may specifically stimulate muscle adaptations unique
to the muscle group recruited. Some potential mechanisms
of interest related to pROM RT may be muscle activation,
TUT, and nonuniform hypertrophy. Understandably, further
research is needed to observe and elaborate any possible
mechanisms and potential benefits of pROM on skeletal
muscle hypertrophy by way of differing single and multijoint
exercises, their respective optimal ranges, the magnitude of
regional muscle activation at differing ranges of motion, and
lastly compared with traditional fROM. If shown to be
similar or beneficial, this may be a novel technique to be
employed by populations who have more specific and
regional muscle hypertrophic goals or perhaps in an
orthopedic rehabilitation setting.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Recent research has shown that pROM training method
may have similar muscular hypertrophic adaptations as
traditional fROM RT. This technique requires further
exploration to investigate any potential mechanisms that
may isolate and explain these similar outcomes. This training
regimen may be a useful training technique in some RT
populations and be may be used by persons with joint pain
or in conjunction with rehabilitative exercise. A reduced
ROM is used during rehabilitation to promote greater joint
mobility via pain and muscle tension reduction (3). Addi-
tionally, this mode of resistance exercise may be beneficial
for those who compete in cosmetically judged physique
competitions, who are visually judged by their relative mus-
cular size, aesthetic, and symmetrical structure (48).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
REFERENCES
1. Abbott, B and Wilkie, D. The relation between velocity of
shortening and the tension-length curve of skeletal muscle. J Physiol
120: 214, 1953.
2. American College of Sports Medicine. American College of Sports
Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training
for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41: 687–708, 2009.
3. Andrews, JR, Harrelson, GL, and Wilk, KE. Range of motion and
flexibility. In: Physical Rehabilitation of the Injured Athlete e-book.
Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Health Sciences, 2011.
4. Antonio, J. Nonuniform response of skeletal muscle to heavy
resistance training: Can bodybuilders induce regional muscle
hypertrophy? J Strength Cond Res 14: 102–113, 2000.
5. Baechle, TR, Earle, RW, and Wathan, D. Resistance training. In:
Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. Baechle TR and Earle
RW, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008.
6. Barnett, C, Kippers, V, and Turner, P. Effects of variations of the
bench press exercise on the EMG activity of five shoulder muscles.
J Strength Cond Res 9: 222–227, 1995.
7. Bazyler, CD, Sato, K, Wassinger, CA, Lamont, HS, and Stone, MH.
The efficacy of incorporating partial squats in maximal strength
training. J Strength Cond Res 28: 3024–3032, 2014.

8. Bloomquist, K, Langberg, H, Karlsen, S, Madsgaard, S, Boesen, M,
and Raastad, T. Effect of range of motion in heavy load squatting on
muscle and tendon adaptations. Eur J Appl Physiol 113: 2133–2142,
2013.
9. Buchanan, TS, Lloyd, DG, Manal, K, and Besier, TF.
Neuromusculoskeletal modeling: Estimation of muscle forces and
joint moments and movements from measurements of neural
command. J Appl Biomech 20: 367–395, 2004.
10. Burd, NA, Andrews, RJ, West, DW, Little, JP, Cochran, AJ, Hector,
AJ, et al. Muscle time under tension during resistance exercise
stimulates differential muscle protein sub-fractional synthetic
responses in men. J Physiol 590: 351–362, 2012.
11. Carr, JA, Ellerby, DJ, and Marsh, RL. Differential segmental strain
during active lengthening in a large biarticular thigh muscle during
running. J Exp Biol 214: 3386–3395, 2011.
12. Cheng, AJ and Rice, CL. Factors contributing to the fatigue-related
reduction in active dorsiflexion joint range of motion. Appl Physiol
Nutr Metab 38: 490–497, 2013.
13. Clark, RA, Bryant, AL, and Humphries, B. An examination of
strength and concentric work ratios during variable range of motion
training. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1716–1719, 2008.
14. Clarkson, HM. Introduction. In: Musculoskeletal Assessment: Joint
Range of Motion and Manual Muscle Strength. Philadelphia, PA:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2000.
15. De Luca, CJ. The use of surface electromyography in biomechanics.
J Appl Biomech 13: 135–163, 1997.
16. Drinkwater, EJ, Moore, NR, and Bird, SP. Effects of changing from
full range of motion to partial range of motion on squat kinetics.
J Strength Cond Res 26: 890–896, 2012.
17. Drummond, MD, Szmuchrowski, LA, Goulart, KN, and Couto, BP.
Effect of strength training on regional hypertrophy of the elbow
flexor muscles. Muscle Nerve 54: 750–755, 2016.
18. Duffey, MJ. Muscle activation. In: A Biomechanical Analysis of the
Bench Press. University Park, PA: ProQuest, 2008.
19. Edwards, RH. Human muscle function and fatigue. Ciba Found Symp
82: 1–18, 1981.
20. Enoka, RM and Duchateau, J. Inappropriate interpretation of
surface EMG signals and muscle fiber characteristics impedes
understanding of the control of neuromuscular function. J Appl
Physiol 119: 1516–1518, 2015.
21. Eston, R and Reilly, T. Skeletal muscle function. In:
Kinanthropometry and Exercise Physiology Laboratory Manual: Tests,
Procedures and Data: Volume Two: Physiology. New York, NY:
Routledge, 2013.
22. Fisher, J, Steele, J, and Smith, D. Evidence-based resistance training
recommendations for muscular hypertrophy. Med Sport 17: 217–235,
2013.
23. Fleck, SJ and Kraemer, WJ. Resistance training: Basic principles
(part 1 of 4). Phys Sportsmed 16: 160–171, 1988.
24. Fox, E. Specificity of training: Metabolic and circulatory responses.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 7: 83, 1975.
25. Glass, DJ. Skeletal muscle hypertrophy and atrophy signaling
pathways. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 37: 1974–1984, 2005.
26. Gordon, A, Huxley, AF, and Julian, F. The variation in isometric
tension with sarcomere length in vertebrate muscle fibres. J Physiol
184: 170–192, 1966.
27. Graves, JE, Pollock, ML, Jones, AE, Colvin, AB, and Leggett, SH.
Specificity of limited range of motion variable resistance training.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 21: 84–89, 1989.
28. Gryzlo, SM, Patek, RM, Pink, M, and Perry, J. Electromyographic
analysis of knee rehabilitation exercises. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 20:
36–43, 1994.
29. Helms, ER, Fitschen, PJ, Aragon, AA, Cronin, J, and Schoenfeld, BJ.
Recommendations for natural bodybuilding contest preparation:
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
Resistance and cardiovascular training. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 55:
164–178, 2015.
30. Inman, VT, Ralston, H, Saunders, JdC, Feinstein, MB, and Wright,
EW. Relation of human electromyogram to muscular tension.
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 4: 187–194, 1952.
31. Jeremy, MS and Travis, NT. Program Design for Resistance
Training. In: Haff GG and Triplett NT, eds. Essentials of Strength
Training and Conditioning (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,
2015. pp. 466-468.
32. Kisner, C, Colby, LA, and Borstad, J. Introduction. In: Therapeutic
Exercise: Foundations and Techniques. Philadelphia, PA: F.A Davis, 2017.
33. Komi, P. Relationship between muscle tension, EMG and velocity of
contraction under concentric and eccentric work. In: New Concepts
of the Motor Unit, Neuromuscular Disorders, Electromyographic
Kinesiology: Karger Publishers, 1973. pp. 596–606.
34. Kraemer, WJ and Ratamess, NA. Fundamentals of resistance
training: Progression and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc
36: 674–688, 2004.
35. Kulig, K, Andrews, JG, and Hay, JG. Human strength curves. Exerc
Sport Sci Rev 12: 417–466, 1984.
36. Lee, SY. Assessment methods in human body composition. Curr
Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 11: 566–572, 2008.
37. Lexell, J, Henriksson-Larsén, K, and Sjöström, M. Distribution of
different fibre types in human skeletal muscles 2. A study of cross-
sections of whole m. vastus lateralis. Acta Physiol 117: 115–122, 1983.
38. Li, G, Kawamura, K, Barrance, P, Chao, EY, and Kaufman, K.
Prediction of muscle recruitment and its effect on joint reaction
forces during knee exercises. Ann Biom Eng 26: 725–733, 1998.
39. Maganaris, CN. Force–length characteristics of in vivo human
skeletal muscle. Acta Physiol 172: 279–285, 2001.
40. Massey, BH and Chaudet, NL. Effects of systematic, heavy resistive
exercise on range of joint movement in young male adults. Res Q Am
Assoc Health Phys Educ Recreat 27: 41–51, 1956.
41. Massey, CD, Vincent, J, Maneval, M, and Johnson, J. Influence of
range of motion in resistance training in women: Early phase
adaptations. J Strength Cond Res 19: 409–411, 2005.
42. Massey, CD, Vincent, J, Maneval, M, Moore, M, and Johnson, J. An
analysis of full range of motion vs. partial range of motion training in
the development of strength in untrained men. J Strength Cond Res
18: 518–521, 2004.
43. Matta, T, Simão, R, de Salles, BF, Spineti, J, and Oliveira, LF. Strength
training’s chronic effects on muscle architecture parameters of different
arm sites. J Strength Cond Res 25: 1711–1717, 2011.
44. McMahon, GE, Morse, CI, Burden, A, Winwood, K, and Onambele,
GL. Impact of range of motion during ecologically valid resistance
training protocols on muscle size, subcutaneous fat, and strength.
J Strength Cond Res 28: 245–255, 2014.
45. McMahon, GE, Onambélé-Pearson, GL, Morse, CI, Burden, AM,
and Winwood, K. How deep should you squat to maximise
a holistic training response? Electromyographic, energetic,
cardiovascular, hypertrophic and mechanical evidence. In:
Electrodiagnosis in New Frontiers of Clinical Research. InTech, 2013.
46. Miyamoto, N, Wakahara, T, Ema, R, and Kawakami, Y. Non-
uniform muscle oxygenation despite uniform neuromuscular activity
within the vastus lateralis during fatiguing heavy resistance exercise.
Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 33: 463–469, 2013.
47. Mookerjee, S and Ratamess, N. Comparison of strength differences
and joint action durations between full and partial range-of-motion
bench press exercise. J Strength Cond Res 13: 76–81, 1999.
48. Mosley, PE. Bigorexia: Bodybuilding and muscle dysmorphia. Eur
Eat Disord Rev 17: 191–198, 2009.
49. Narici, MV, Hoppeler, H, Kayser, B, Landoni, L, Claassen, H,
Gavardi, C, et al. Human quadriceps cross-sectional area, torque and
neural activation during 6 months strength training. Acta Physiol
Scand 157: 175–186, 1996.
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2018 | 2663
 Partial Range of Motion Resistance Training and Muscle
50. Paoli, A, Marcolin, G, and Petrone, N. Influence of different ranges
of motion on selective recruitment of shoulder muscles in the sitting
military press: An electromyographic study. J Strength Cond Res 24:
1578–1583, 2010.
51. Pinto, RS, Gomes, N, Radaelli, R, Botton, CE, Brown, LE, and
Bottaro, M. Effect of range of motion on muscle strength and
thickness. J Strength Cond Res 26: 2140–2145, 2012.
52. Russell, B, Motlagh, D, and Ashley, WW. Form follows function: How
muscle shape is regulated by work. J Appl Physiol 88: 1127–1132, 2000.
53. Scheff, H, Sprague, M, and McGreevy-Nichols, S. Surveying your
instrument: body at work. In: Experiencing dance: from student to
dance artist. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2005.
54. Toigo, M and Boutellier, U. New fundamental resistance exercise
determinants of molecular and cellular muscle adaptations. Eur J
Appl Physiol 97: 643–663, 2006.
the TM
2664 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
55. Tran, QT and Docherty, D. Dynamic training volume: A construct
of both time under tension and volume load. J Sports Sci Med 5: 707–
713, 2006.
56. Tran, QT, Docherty, D, and Behm, D. The effects of varying time
under tension and volume load on acute neuromuscular responses.
Eur J Appl Physiol 98: 402–410, 2006.
57. Wakahara, T, Fukutani, A, Kawakami, Y, and Yanai, T. Nonuniform
muscle hypertrophy: Its relation to muscle activation in training
session. Med Sci Sports Exerc 45: 2158–2165, 2013.
58. Wakahara, T, Miyamoto, N, Sugisaki, N, Murata, K, Kanehisa, H,
Kawakami, Y, et al. Association between regional differences in muscle
activation in one session of resistance exercise and in muscle hypertrophy
after resistance training. Eur J Appl Physiol 112: 1569–1576, 2012.
59. Yin, H, Price, F, and Rudnicki, MA. Satellite cells and the muscle
stem cell niche. Physiol Rev 93: 23–67, 2013.