Isometric and Long Term Adaptation

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/329881153
Isometric training and long-term adaptations: Effects of muscle length,

intensity, and intent: A systematic review
Article in Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports · April 2019

DOI: 10.1111/sms.13375
CITATIONS READS
13 9,433
4 authors:
Dustin J Oranchuk Adam Storey

Auckland University of Technology Auckland University of Technology
33 PUBLICATIONS 51 CITATIONS 27 PUBLICATIONS 338 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Andre Nelson John Cronin

Victoria University Melbourne Auckland University of Technology
22 PUBLICATIONS 178 CITATIONS 363 PUBLICATIONS 11,639 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Eccentric Strength training and application to sport performance View project
Comparing RPE and percentage 1RM based loading in trained lifters following a DUP program View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Dustin J Oranchuk on 23 December 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports - PROOF
Isometric training and long-term adaptations; effects of

muscle length, intensity and intent: A systematic review
Journal: Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports
Manuscript ID SJMSS-R-637-18.R2
Manuscript Type: Review Article
Date Submitted by the

24-Nov-2018
Author:
Complete List of Authors: Oranchuk, Dustin; Auckland University of Technology, Sports

Performance Research Institute New Zealand
Storey, Adam; AUT University, Sports Performance Research Institute
New Zealand
PR
Nelson, André; Victoria University College of Sport and Exercise Science,

Institute for Health and Sport
Cronin, John Barry; Auckland University of Technology, Sports
Performance Research Institute New Zealand; Edith Cowan University,
OO
School of Health and Medical Science
Eccentric, fascicle, force, mechanical loading, muscle, tendon, stiffness,

Keywords:
strength
F

Page 1 of 51 Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports - PROOF
Adaptations to isometric training

1
2
3
4
1 Isometric training and long-term adaptations; effects of muscle length, intensity
5 2 and intent: A systematic review
6
7 3
8
9 4 Authors: Dustin J. Oranchuk1, Adam G. Storey1, André R. Nelson2, John B. Cronin1,3
10
11 5 1 Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand, Auckland University of
12
13 6 Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
14
15 7 2 Institute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia
16
17
18 8 3 School of Health and Medical Science, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia
19
20 9
21
22 10 Corresponding author: Dustin J. Oranchuk
23
24 11 +64 027 800 8555
25
26 12 AUT-Millennium, 17 Antares Place, Mairangi Bay
27
PR
28 13 Auckland, New Zealand

29
30
14 dustinoranchuk@gmail.com
OO
31
15
32
33
16 Funding information: Dustin J. Oranchuk is supported by the Auckland University of
34
35
F
36 17 Technology’s Vice Chancellors Doctoral Scholarship.

37
38
39 18
40
41 19 Conflict of interest: None
42
43 20
44
45 21
46
47 22
48
49 23
50
51 24
52
53
25
54
55
56
26
57
58 27
59
60 28
1
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports - PROOF Page 2 of 51

1
2
3 1 ABSTRACT
4
5 2 Isometric training is used in the rehabilitation and physical preparation of athletes, special
6
7
8
3 populations and the general public. However, little consensus exists regarding training
9
10 4 guidelines for a variety of desired outcomes. Understanding the adaptive response to specific
11
12 5 loading parameters would be of benefit to practitioners. The objective of this systematic
13
14
6 review, therefore, was to detail the medium to long-term adaptations of different types of
15
16
17 7 isometric training on morphological, neurological and performance variables. Exploration of
18
19 8 the relevant subject matter was performed through MEDLINE, PubMed, SPORTDiscus and
20
21 9 CINAHL databases. English, full-text, peer-reviewed journal articles and unpublished
22
23
24 10 doctoral dissertations investigating medium to long-term (≥3 weeks) adaptations to isometric
25
26 11 training in humans were identified. These studies were evaluated further for methodological
27
PR
28 12 quality. Twenty-three research outputs were reviewed. Isometric training at longer muscle
29
30
13 lengths (0.86-1.69%/week, ES = 0.03-0.09/week) produced greater muscular hypertrophy
OO
31
32
33 14 when compared to equal volumes of shorter muscle length training (0.08-0.83%/week, ES = -
34
35 15 0.003-0.07/week). Ballistic intent resulted in greater neuromuscular activation (1.04-
F
36
37
16 10.5%/week, ES = 0.02-0.31/week vs. 1.64-5.53%/week, ES = 0.03-0.20/week) and rapid
38
39
40 17 force production (1.2-13.4%/week, ES = 0.05-0.61/week vs. 1.01-8.13%/week, ES = 0.06-
41
42 18 0.22/week). Substantial improvements in muscular hypertrophy and maximal force
43
44 19 production were reported regardless of training intensity. High-intensity (≥ 70%) contractions
45
46
47 20 are required for improving tendon structure and function. Additionally, long muscle length
48
49 21 training results in greater transference to dynamic performance. Despite relatively few studies
50
51 22 meeting the inclusion criteria, this review provides practitioners with insight into which
52
53
54
23 isometric training variables (e.g. joint angle, intensity, intent) to manipulate to achieve
55
56 24 desired morphological and neuromuscular adaptations.
57
58
59 25 Keywords: Eccentric, fascicle, force, mechanical loading, muscle, tendon, stiffness, strength
60
2

1
2
3 1 1. INTRODUCTION
4
5 2 Resistance training is widely utilized as a component of physical preparation for
6
7
8
3 populations ranging from elite strength and power athletes to injured members of the general
9
10 4 public.1 Commonly documented resistance training adaptations include increased muscle
11
12 5 mass,2 tendon quality,3-5 strength, power, and range of motion,6 delaying muscular fatigue,7,8
13
14
6 and improving voluntary activation.9 Dynamic movements incorporating the stretch-
15
16
17 7 shortening cycle (SSC) comprise the overwhelming majority of resistance training
18
19 8 programs.10 However, isolated concentric, eccentric and isometric contractions have specific
20
21 9 advantages when improving musculoskeletal properties and neuromuscular function,11-13 and
22
23
24 10 are increasing in popularity.14 Isometric contractions (where the muscle-tendon unit remains
25
26 11 at a constant length) and their role as a training option provide the focus of this paper.
27
PR
28
29 12
30
OO
31
32 13 Training with isometric contractions has been purported to have several advantages.
33
34 14 First, isometric training allows for a tightly controlled application of force within pain-free
35
F
36
37
15 joint angles in rehabilitative settings.15,16 Second, isometric training provides a means to
38
39 16 induce force overload as maximal isometric force is greater than that of concentric
40
41 17 contractions.17 Third, a practitioner who understands the physical demands of a sport may be
42
43 18 able to utilize isometric training to focus on specific weak points in a range of motion that
44
45
46 19 can positively transfer to performance18 and injury prevention.19 Isometric contractions can
47
48 20 also be used to provide an acute analgesic effect and allow for pain-free dynamic loading20,21
49
50 21 by altering excitatory and inhibitory functions in the corticomotor pathways.22 Additionally,
51
52
53 22 isometric contractions are a highly reliable means of assessing and tracking changes in force
54
55 23 production.23-25 However, the ability of isometric assessments to predict dynamic
56
57 24 performance is questionable,23-25 despite multi-joint appraisals showing promise.26-29
58
59
60 25
3

1
2
3 1 Isometric training can elicit changes in physiological qualities including muscle
4
5
6 2 architecture,30 tendon stiffness and health,21,31 joint angle-specific torque,31-33 and metabolic
7
8 3 functions.34 As with any mode of resistance training, several variables can be manipulated to
9
10 4 alter the stimulus. The most common isometric training variations include altering joint
11
12
13
5 angles30-33,35-40 and contraction intensity or duration.34,39,41-47 Less frequently researched
14
15 6 variations include contraction intent (eg. ramp vs. ballistic)43,47,48 and incorporating special
16
17 7 methods such as blood flow restriction,49,50 vibration,51,52 and electrical stimulation.53
18
19
8 Additionally, emerging research has demonstrated unique neuromuscular characteristics
20
21
22 9 between “pushing” (i.e. exerting force against an immovable object) and “holding” (i.e.
23
24 10 maintaining a joint position while resisting an external force) isometric contractions.54-60
25
26 11 Understanding the loading parameters that achieve a desired adaptive response in muscle and
27
PR
28
29 12 tendon would be of benefit to practitioners’. Therefore, the purpose of this review was to
30
13 systematically evaluate research directly comparing the outcomes of isometric training
OO
31
32
33 14 variations and to provide training guidelines for a variety of desired outcomes.
34
35
F
36 15
37
38
39 16 2. METHODS
40
41 17 The systematic review conformed to the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
42
43 18 Reviews and Meta-Analyses” (PRISMA) guidelines.61 Therefore, no Institutional Review
44
45
46 19 Board approval was necessary.
47
48 20
49
50
51 21 2.1. Literature search methodology
52
53 22 An electronic search was conducted utilizing MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, PubMed
54
55 23 and CINAHL databases from inception to March 2018. Key terms were searched for within
56
57
24 the article title, abstract, and keywords using conjunctions ‘OR’ and ‘AND’ with truncation
58
59
60 25 ‘*.’ Combinations of the following Boolean phrases comprised the search terms: (Isometric
4

1
2
3 1 train*) AND (strength* OR stiff*); (Isometric train*) AND (muscle* OR tendon*);
4
5
6 2 (Isometric train*) AND (session* OR week*).
7
8 3
9
10 4 2.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
11
12
13
5 Studies were included in the review based on the following criteria: 1) full text
14
15 6 available in English; 2) peer-reviewed journal publications or doctoral dissertations; and, 3)
16
17 7 the study compared two or more variations of isometric training. Studies were excluded if
18
19
8 they; 1) were conference papers/posters/presentations; 2) focused on small joints or muscles
20
21
22 9 such as fingers or toes; 3) primary dependent variables were related to cardiovascular health;
23
24 10 4) non-human subjects; 5) in-vitro; 6) the intervention period was less than three weeks in
25
26 11 duration, 7) included variables such as blood restriction, vibration or electrical stimulation.
27
PR
28
29 12 Search strategy and inclusion/exclusion results are summarized in Figure 1.
30
OO
31
32 13
33
34
35 14 (Figure 1. About here)
F
36
37 15
38
39 16 2.3. Quality assessment
40
41 17 Studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed to determine their quality based
42
43 18 on established scales utilized in the fields of sport and exercise science, kinesiology, health
44
45
46 19 care and rehabilitation. Adapted from a systematic review by Brughelli et al.62, the scale
47
48 20 developed for the current review is illustrated in Supplementary file 1. Ten items were scored
49
50 21 as zero (clearly no), one (maybe), or two (clearly yes) based on this scoring rubric.62
51
52
53 22 Therefore, each study received a quality score ranging from zero to 20. Two researchers
54
55 23 completed the quality assessments of each paper with a third researcher settling any
56
57 24 discrepancies in scoring.
58
59
60 25
5

1
2
3 1 2.4. Statistical analysis
4
5 2 Percent change and Cohen’s d effect sizes (ES) were calculated wherever possible to
6
7
8
3 indicate the magnitude of the practical effect. Effect sizes were averaged across the length of
9
10 4 an intervention where applicable. As recommended by Rhea,63 effect sizes were interpreted
11
12 5 as: trivial < 0.35, small = 0.35-0.80, medium = 0.80-1.50 and large > 1.5 for recreationally
13
14
6 active participants.63 Where possible, data was pooled and average ES change and % change
15
16
17 7 (pre-post) per week were calculated. All reported ES and percentage changes are pre-post
18
19 8 within–group, unless otherwise stated.
20
21
22 9
23
24
25 10 3. RESULTS
26
27 11 A total of 26 studies with a mean quality score of 14.3/20 (range = 10-18) met the
PR
28
29 12 inclusion criteria for the review (Supplementary file 2). A total of 713 participants (463 male,
30
OO
31
32
13 250 female) were recruited with an average sample size of 27.4 ± 28.1 (4-120). Of the
33
34 14 accepted investigations, the mean age of the reported participants was 24.3 ± 3.3 years (19.3-
35
F
36 15 31.8); seven studies failed to report participant mean age. Most studies (16/26) recruited
37
38
16 untrained participants, while the remainder (11/26) utilized “active” or “recreationally
39
40
41 17 trained” participants. None of the accepted studies examined competitive athletes or well-
42
43 18 trained participants. All 26 accepted investigations clearly stated independent and dependent
44
45 19 variables, and 10 included a non-exercise control group. The mean length of intervention was
46
47
48 20 8.4 ± 3.6 (range = 3-14) weeks, with an average of 3.5 ± 0.96 (range = 2-7) sessions per week
49
50 21 for an average of 28.6 ± 13.2 (range = 15-56) total training sessions. Interventions were
51
52 22 volume equated in 17/26 studies, while 10/26 studies included a non-exercise control group.
53
54
55
23 Closed chain movements were only utilized in two studies, whereas 23/26 utilized single joint
56
57 24 contractions.
58
59
60 25
6

1
2
3 1 Nine published journal articles and one unpublished doctoral dissertation examining
4
5
6 2 the chronic (5-12 weeks) effects of isometric training at varying joint angles fulfilled the
7
8 3 inclusion criteria (Table 1).30-33,35-38,40,64 Of the ten included studies, eight centred on the knee
9
10 4 extensors,30-33,35,38,40,64 with two utilizing the elbow flexors.36,37 Six published articles
11
12
13
5 examining the effect of contraction intensity (Table 2) fulfilled the inclusion criteria.41,42,44-
14
6 46,65 Of these studies, three examined plantar flexors,41,42,65 one examined knee extensors46
15
16
17 7 while single studies examined the elbow flexors45 and extensors, respectively44. Training
18
19
8 variations outside of joint position or contraction intensity were also included. These
20
21
22 9 variations include; 1) intent of contraction which included “progressive” vs “rapid”48,66 and
23
24 10 “explosive” vs “sustained”43,47,67 contractions (Table 3); 2) total volume;39 3) contraction
25
26 11 duration;13,34 4) rest period duration;68 and 5) periodization schemes69 (Table 4).
27
PR
28
29 12
30
OO
31
32 13 (Table 1. About here)
33
34
F
36
37
39
40
42
43
44 17
45
46
47 18 When synthesising statistically significant findings, measures of muscular size
48
49
19 increased in nine studies (5-19.7%, ES = 0.19-1.23) by 0.84%/week and 0.043 ES/week.13,30-
50
51
20 32,34,43,44,67,69 Maximal isometric force significantly increased in 14 studies (8-60.3%, ES =
52
53
54 21 0.34-3.26) by 4.34%/week and 0.20 ES/week.32,35,37,38,40,43,44,46-48,64-67 The comparison
55
56 22 between joint angle and hypertrophic adaptation (n = 3 studies) revealed that training with
57
58
59 23 joint angles ≤ 70º (46 ± 6.9º) improved muscle size by an average of 0.47 ± 0.48%/week and
60
7

1
2
3 1 0.032 ± 0.037 ES/week, compared to 1.16 ± 0.46%/week and 0.067 ± 0.032 ES/week when
4
5
6 2 training at > 70º of flexion (Figure 2).30-32 When comparing the nine studies that reported
7
8 3 training joint angle and hypertrophic adaptations, training with joint angles ≤ 70º (59.8 ±
9
10 4 11.1º) improved muscle size by an average of 0.61 ± 0.42%/week and 0.045 ± 0.034
11
12
13
5 ES/week, compared to 0.88 ± 0.8%/week and 0.046 ± 0.027 ES/week when training at > 70º
14
15 6 (88.6 ± 6º) of flexion (Supplementary file 3).13,30-32,34,43,44,67,69 The comparative effects of
16
17 7 training intensity on muscular hypertrophy were that intensities ≤ 70% (68.9 ± 3.3%) of
18
19
8 MVIC improved muscle size by 0.77 ± 0.26%/week and 0.13 ± 0.12 ES/week, compared to
20
21
22 9 0.70 ± 0.55%/week and 0.13 ± 0.21 ES/week when training at > 70% (85.3 ± 12%) of MVIC
23
24 10 (Figure 3).13,30-32,34,43,44,67,69 The comparisons of training intensity and improvements in
25
26 11 isometric force (n = 3 studies) found that training at ≤ 70% (41.3 ± 16.5%) of MVIC
27
PR
28
29 12 improved muscle size by 6.8 ± 3%/week and 0.32 ± 0.13 ES/week, compared to 8.9 ±
30
13 5.5%/week and 0.36 ± 0.11 ES/week when training at > 70% (100 ± 0%) of MVIC (Figure
OO
31
32
33 14 4).44,46,65 The joint angle-isometric force comparison (n=?) showed that training at ≤ 70º (42.8
34
35
F
36
15 ± 16.4º) resulted in MVIC improvements of 4 ± 2.1%/week and 0.15 ± 0.1 ES/week,
37
38 16 compared to 3.4 ± 4.2%/week and 0.15 ± 0.17 ES/week when training at > 70º (101.8 ±
39
40 17 24.2º) of flexion (Supplementary file 4).31,32,35,37,38,40,64
41
42
43 18
44
45
46 19 (Figure 2. About here)
47
48
49 20 Figure 3. About here)
50
51
52 21 Figure 4. About here)
53
54
55 22
56
57
58 23 4. DISCUSSION
59 24
60
8

1
2
3 1 4.1. Morphological adaptations
4
5 2 Adaptations to the physical structure of tissues can be caused by several factors,
6
7
8
3 including mechanical, metabolic and hormonal factors, and often results in altered function.
9
10 4 The morphology of the musculoskeletal system is of relevance to this review and provides the
11
12 5 focus for subsequent discussion.
13
14
15 6
16
17 7
18 8 4.1.1. Muscle volume
19
20 9 While most methods of progressive resistance training can result in increased
21
22 10 muscular size, it is important to understand how to optimally alter variables including
23
24
25
11 intensity, frequency, and duration of each training method for maximal efficiency. Isometric
26
27 12 resistance training has been demonstrated to induce significant hypertrophy.13,30-32,34,39,43,44
PR
28
29
30 13
OO
31
32
33 14 When comparing adaptations in muscle volume between isometric training variations
34
35 15 several patterns emerged, conforming to accepted dynamic training principles. Of the studies
F
36
37 16 comparing isometric training at differing joint angles (Table 1), only three evaluated muscle
38
39
40 17 volume or thickness.30-32 All three studies found that isometric training at long muscle lengths
41
42 18 (LML) was superior to equal volumes of training at short muscle lengths (SML) for
43
44 19 increasing muscle size.30-32 These findings are not surprising as a large portion of the existing
45
46
47
20 literature has demonstrated that dynamic training through a large range of motion is
48
49 21 beneficial when hypertrophy is desired.70-72 Additionally, contractions at LML tend to
50
51 22 produce higher quantities of muscle damage, likely by altering the joint moment arm and
52
53
23 increasing mechanical tension when compared to a SML.73 Contractions at LML also result
54
55
56 24 in greater blood flow occlusion, rates of oxygen consumption, and metabolite build-up when
57
58 25 compared to SML contractions.49 These metabolic factors are well established to contribute
59
60 26 to muscular hypertrophy.74,75
9

1
2
3 1
4
5
6 2 While volume equated isometric training leads to greater improvements in
7
8 3 hypertrophy when performed at long muscle lengths (LML),30,32,33 the magnitude of
9
10 4 hypertrophy was not significantly different in any of the seven included studies
11
12
13
5 investigating/reporting training intensity.13,30-32,34,43,44 Interestingly, the pooled data of
14
15 6 included study outcomes suggests that training intensity has a small effect on hypertrophy,
16
17 7 and explains little of the variation in hypertrophic adaptation (Figure 3). For example, Kubo
18
19
8 et al.13 compared the effects of load equated isometric contractions held for short (~1 s) or
20
21
22 9 long (20 s) periods of time. While both long and short duration contractions led to small, but
23
24 10 significant increases muscle thickness, there was little difference (p > 0.05) between groups
25
26 11 (7.6%, ES = 0.38, p = 0.023 vs. 7.4%, ES = 0.36, p = 0.018).13 Similarly, Kanehisa et al.44
27
PR
28
29 12 employed ten-weeks of volume equated isometric training at either low (60%) or high
30
13 (100%) intensity. While both low and high-intensity training programs significantly increased
OO
31
32
33 14 triceps brachii hypertrophy, there was no statistical between-group difference (p = 0.061) in
34
35
F
36
15 anatomical cross-sectional area (low: 12.1%, ES = 1.72 vs. high: 17.1%, ES = 1.65).44
37
38 16 However, high intensity training had a greater effect on muscle volume than the lower
39
40 17 intensity (12.4%, ES = 0.28 versus 5.3%, ES = 0.26; p = 0.039) despite nearly identical effect
41
42
18 sizes.44 These findings are in close agreement with recent studies and meta-analyses that
43
44
45 19 concluded that hypertrophic adaptations are similar if total load is equated and training
46
47 20 intensity is greater than 20% of maximal voluntary contraction.76,77
48
49 21
50
51
52 22 When the training volume is not equated between groups, it seems higher volumes are
53
54
55 23 better for inducing muscular hypertrophy, regardless of contraction intensity. Meyers39
56
57 24 compared low (3 x 6-s MVIC) and high (20 x 6-s MVIC) volume isometric training of the
58
59 25 elbow flexors. Following the six-week intervention, the high-volume training program
60
10

1
2
3 1 resulted in significantly greater improvements in muscle girth compared to the low volume
4
5
6 2 group (p < 0.05). Similarly, Balshaw et al.43 and Massey et al.67 compared “maximal
7
8 3 strength” (40 x 3-s contractions, 75% of MVIC) and “explosive” (40 x 1-s contractions, 80%
9
10 4 of MVIC) isometric training. Following the 12-week interventions, the “maximal strength”
11
12
13
5 training groups experienced significant improvements in quadriceps muscle volume (8.1%,
14
15 6 ES = 0.50, p = 0.001) whereas the “explosive” training groups (2.6%, ES = 0.17-0.26, p =
16
17 7 0.195-0.247) did not.43 Furthermore, the difference between groups was statistically
18
19
8 significant (p < 0.05).43,67 Interestingly, Schott, McCully and Rutherford34 found that long
20
21
22 9 duration (4 x 30-second MVIC) contractions resulted in greater hypertrophic adaptations
23
24 10 when compared to short (4 sets x 10 x 3-second MVIC) duration contractions despite total
25
26 11 time-under-tension being equated between groups. Following 14-weeks, the long duration
27
PR
28
29 12 contraction group significantly (p = 0.022) improved vastus lateralis anatomical cross-
30
13 sectional area at the proximal (10.1%) and distal (11.1%) portion of the femur, whereas no
OO
31
32
33 14 significant hypertrophic adaptations were observed in the short duration group (p > 0.05).34
34
35
F
36
15 Schott, McCully and Rutherford’s34 findings are somewhat surprising as both groups
37
38 16 underwent the same time-under-tension. However, sustained contractions are known to
39
40 17 restrict blood flow, reduce muscle oxygen saturation and increase metabolite concentrations
41
42
18 in the muscle78,79 stimulating hypertrophy via multiple local and systemic mechanisms.74,75
43
44
45 19 Additionally, muscle contractions at LML consume more oxygen,49 which may in-part
46
47 20 explain the advantage of LML training when muscular hypertrophy is the primary goal.
48
49
50 21
51
52 22 4.1.2. Muscle architecture
53
54 23 Unlike muscle volume, which is highly dependent on total training volume, there are
55
56 24 demonstrable differences between contraction type and alteration in fascicle length and
57
58
25 pennation angle.80 To date, very few studies have compared the effect of isometric resistance
59
60
11

1
2
3 1 training variations on muscle architecture; of those that have, results are equivocal. Noorkoiv,
4
5
6 2 Nosaka and Blazevich32 compared isometric training at SML (38.1 ± 3.7° knee flexion) and
7
8 3 LML (87.5 ± 6° knee flexion). Interestingly, the vastus lateralis fascicle length at the mid-
9
10 4 portion of the femur significantly increased following SML (5.6%, ES = 0.63, p = 0.01), but
11
12
13
5 not LML (3.8%, ES = 0.34, p = 0.20) training.32 Conversely, LML (5.8%, ES = 0.33, p =
14
15 6 0.02) significantly (p = 0.01) outperformed SML training (-1.1%, ES = 0.04, p > 0.05) for
16
17 7 increasing distal fascicle length of the same muscle.32 Furthermore, LML training resulted in
18
19
8 greater (p < 0.01) physiological cross-sectional areas in three of the four quadriceps heads,
20
21
22 9 whereas the SML training, did not (p > 0.05).32 Only one other isometric training comparison
23
24 10 study reported meaningful shifts in muscle architecture; found that vastus lateralis pennation
25
26 11 angle increased following LML (10.6%, ES = 0.45, p = 0.038), but not SML training (6.5%,
27
PR
28
29 12 ES = 0.46, p = 0.076).30 However, Alegre et al.30 only measured the vastus lateralis pennation
30
13 angle at the midpoint of the femur and potentially missed out on possible adaptations at the
OO
31
32
33 14 distal portion of the muscle.
34
35
F
36 15
37
38
39 16 4.1.3. Tendon morphology
40
41 17 The primary function of the tendon is to transfer forces between bone and muscle,
42
43 18 facilitating joint motion.5 Although originally assumed to be inert, tendinous structures can
44
45
46 19 experience adaptations and are capable of significant architectural adaptations from habitual
47
48 20 loading and injury.3-5,81-83 Injured tendons tend to be less stiff, despite increased thickness84
49
50 21 due to a shift in viscoelastic properties.5 Additionally, tendinopathy negatively affects tendon
51
52
53 22 structure, leading to increased vascularization and overall thickness.5,84 Although long-term
54
55 23 alteration in tendon morphology is minimal in healthy, mature human tissue,5 tendons can
56
57 24 increase in stiffness to optimize the time and magnitude of force transmission between
58
59
60
25 muscle and bone.3,4,82 Conversely, healthy increases in tendon thickness and stiffness in
12

1
2
3 1 response to exercise, have been found to be region specific and may have rehabilitative, pre-
4
5
6 2 habilitative and performance benefits.3,4,20,81,82 For instance, heavy (resistance) training can
7
8 3 lead to an increase in maximal muscular force and rate of force development by increasing
9
10 4 tendon stiffness, thus reducing the electromechanical delay.5,83,85 Additionally, increased
11
12
13
5 tendon stiffness through chronic loading can be due to increased tendon CSA without
14
15 6 alterations in viscoelastic properties, potentially improving safety when performing ballistic
16
17 7 movements.5 While widely used in rehabilitation settings, there is a general lack of
18
19
8 information regarding what isometric training variables are important for triggering specific
20
21
22 9 tendonous adaptations.
23
24
25 10
26
27
PR
28 11 Of the studies included in this review, only six directly assessed tendon structure or
29
30 12 function. Two studies compared contraction intensity,41,42 with others examining the effects
OO
31
32 13 of contraction length,13 intent,67 rest periods,68 and joint angle.31 Arampatizis et al.41,42
33
34
35 14 compared 14-week training programs consisting of volume equated isometric plantar flexion
F
36
37 15 at low (~55%) or high (~90%) intensities. Both investigations found increased Achilles
38
39 16 tendon CSA and stiffness following high (17.1-36%, ES = 0.82-1.57, p < 0.05), but not low (-
40
41
42
17 5.2-7.9%, ES = 0.26-0.37, p > 0.05) intensity training.41,42 Furthermore, tendon elongation
43
44 18 under stress (an indication of elasticity) increased following low (14.0-16.1%, ES = 0.56-
45
46 19 0.84, p > 0.05), but not high (-1.4-3.9%, ES = 0.06-0.20, p > 0.05) intensity training.41,42
47
48 20 Additionally, the included studies only compared isometric training at ~55 and 90% of MVIC
49
50
51 21 which leaves a large range of potential intensities. However, previous interventions have
52
53 22 reported large increases (17.5-61.6%, ES = 0.57-4.9, p < 0.05) in tendon stiffness following
54
55 23 training between 70-100% of MVIC.11,13,85 Therefore, it might be that a minimum intensity of
56
57
58 24 ~70% MVIC is required to induce meaningful changes in tendon thickness and stiffness.
59
60
13

1
2
3 1
4
5
6 2 While only a single study has examined the effect of isometric training at different
7
8
9 3 muscle lengths on tendon adaptation,31 the results tend to support a paradigm of LML
10
11 4 training being superior to SML training. Kubo et al.31 trained the knee extensors at either 50°
12
13 5 or 90° of flexion and observed a significantly greater increases in tendon stiffness (p = 0.021)
14
15
16
6 following LML (50.9%, ES = 1.22, p = 0.014), when compared to SML training (6.7%, ES =
17
18 7 0.26, p = 0.181). Similarly, distal tendon and deep aponeurosis elongation decreased
19
20 8 following LML training (-14%, ES = 0.62, p = 0.034), whereas the SML group experiences a
21
22
9 trivial increase (3.9%, ES = 0.15, p > 0.05). When comparing isometric contraction duration
23
24
25 10 and tendon adaptations, only a single study exists.13 While both long (57.3%, ES = 1.38, p =
26
27 11 0.003) and short (17.5%, ES = 0.57, p = 0.217) contraction durations increased tendon
PR
28
29 12 stiffness, a significant between-group difference was reported (p = 0.045).13 Additionally, no
30
OO
31
32 13 significant differences in tendon elongation were present in either long (-2.2%, ES = 0.19, p >
33
34 14 0.05) or short (4.1%, ES = 0.29, p > 0.05) contraction duration groups. Similarly, calculated
35
F
36 15 elastic energy absorption increased in both long (12%, ES = 0.58, p = 0.007) and short
37
38
39
16 (25.7%, ES = 1.85, p = 0.002) duration groups with no significant difference between groups
40
41 17 (p = 0.056) despite large differences in percent change and effects sizes along with a
42
43 18 relatively low p-value. While the total time-under-tension was equalized between groups, the
44
45
19 one-second duration of the short contraction group meant that a larger relative proportion of
46
47
48 20 each effort would be spent building isometric force. Therefore the maximal-force time-under-
49
50 21 tension was not equalised.13 Similar to muscle tissue, tendon adaptations are responsive to
51
52 22 chronic changes in total mechanical load;3,86,87 therefore, the potentially greater load in the
53
54
55 23 long contraction group could explain the discrepancy in tendonous adaptations.
56
57
58 24
59
60
14

1
2
3 1 Massey et al.67 were the only researchers comparing contraction intent on
4
5
6 2 morphological tendon adaptations. Both “maximal strength training” and “explosive strength
7
8 3 training” produced significant improvements in vastus lateralis aponeurosis area (5.9%, ES =
9
10 4 0.34 vs. 4.4%, ES = 0.38), Young’s modulus (14.4%, ES = 0.60 vs. 21.1%, ES = 1.13) and
11
12
13
5 tendon stiffness (14.3%, ES = 0.79 vs. 19.9%, ES = 0.95).67 However, only the “explosive
14
15 6 strength training” group experienced significant increases in tendon-aponeurosis complex
16
17 7 elongation (16%, ES = 1.0 vs. -2.96, ES = 0.10) and decreased tendon CSA (-2.8%, ES =
18
19
8 0.31 vs. 0.41%, ES = 0.03), tendon elongation (-11%, ES = 0.75 vs. -4.95%, ES = 0.27) and
20
21
22 9 tendon strain (-11.8%, ES = 0.56 vs. -4.17, ES = 0.19).67 Therefore, intent and rate of
23
24 10 contraction appear to be an important training consideration. Lastly, Waugh et al.68 compared
25
26 11 load equated isometric plantar flexions with intra-contraction rest periods of three, or 10
27
PR
28
29 12 seconds. While there were differences (p > 0.05) in type-I and type-II collagen (factors in
30
13 fibre re-organization),88,89 there were no between-group discrepancies (p > 0.05) in any other
OO
31
32
33 14 dependent variables following the 14-week intervention.68 These data support a paradigm of a
34
35
F
36
15 threshold intensity for mechanical loading to achieve tendon adaptations.86,87
37
38
16
39
40
41
42
17 4.2. Neurological adaptations
43 18 Of the 23 studies included in this review, 12 directly measured neural function.13,30-
44
45 32,37,38,43,47,48,65,66,68
46 19 Of these 12 studies, it is notable that one did not report any neurological
47
48 20 data in their results,68 while two reported no significant changes following training, regardless
49
50 21 of the condition.13,65 When examining EMG amplitude assessed through electromyography
51
52
53 22 (EMG), a clear trend existed between the studies comparing isometric training at different
54
55 23 muscle lengths. Electromyographic amplitude tends to increase by larger magnitudes and
56
57 24 over a larger range of joint angles following LML training, compared to training at SML. For
58
59
60
25 example, Bandy and Hanten38 examined isometric knee extension training at SML (30°),
15

1
2
3 1 medium muscle length (MML; 60°) and LML (90°), assessing EMG amplitude at seven joint
4
5
6 2 angles from 15°-105° of flexion. Medium to large (ES = 0.74-2.28) improvements at six joint
7
8 3 angles were observed following LML training, whereas MML and SML training only
9
10 4 improved EMG activity at five (ES = 0.36-2.26), and four (ES = 0.87-1.65) of the assessed
11
12
13
5 joint angles, respectively.38 Similarly, Kubo et al.31 observed larger increases in EMG activity
14
15 6 at all measured angles following LML (7-8.8%, ES = 0.45-0.72) compared to SML (3.1-
16
17 7 7.5%, ES = 0.25-0.44) training. Conversely, Alegre et al.30 reported an increase in EMG
18
19
8 amplitude in favour of the SML training group, the only investigation to do so. Although the
20
21
22 9 magnitude of increases in EMG amplitude were medium-large, the changes were limited to
23
24 10 50-60° (ES = 0.77, p = 0.205) and 60-70° (ES = 1.0, p = 0.36) of knee flexion during
25
26 11 isokinetic knee extensions.30 These findings are consistent with the findings of other
27
PR
28
29 12 investigations in that alterations in EMG amplitude are most specific at shorter muscle
30
13 lengths.37,71,72
OO
31
32
33
34 14
35
F
36
37 15 All four studies comparing the effects of isometric training with different contraction
38
39 16 intents (ballistic vs. ramp) assessed neurological and neuromuscular adaptations via EMG
40
41
42
17 and peripheral nerve stimulation interpolated twitch.43,47,48,66 As expected, adaptations were
43
44 18 specific to the intent utilized in training. For example, Balshaw et al.43 examined the effects
45
46 19 of 12 weeks of “maximal strength training” (1-s build to ~75% of MVIC and maintain for 3-
47
48 20 s), with “explosive strength training” (rapid build to ≥ 90% of MVIC and maintain for 1-s).
49
50
51 21 The improvements in EMG amplitude at MVIC were larger (ES = 0.36, p = 0.370) following
52
53 22 “maximal strength training” (27.8%, ES = 0.67, p < 0.001) compared to “explosive strength
54
55 23 training” (19.1%, ES = 0.44, p = 0.099). Conversely, “explosive strength training” (31.3%,
56
57
58 24 ES = 0.67, p = 0.003) increased EMG activity to a greater (p < 0.001) degree during the 0-
59
60 25 100 ms and 0-150 ms period of muscle contraction compared to “maximal strength training”
16

1
2
3 1 (14.3%, ES = 0.36, p = 0.009).43 Additionally, only the rapid contraction group significantly
4
5
6 2 increased EMG amplitude in the first 100 ms of muscle contraction (12.5%, ES = 0.26, p =
7
8 3 0.048).43 Similarly, previous investigations examining contraction intent found greater
9
10 4 improvements in EMG amplitude during MVIC with MST (1.28-7%/week, ES = 0.06-
11
12
13
5 0.33/week) when compared to EST (0.68-1.31%/week, ES = 0.18-0.25/week).47,48,66
14
15 6 Furthermore, participants training with a ballistic intent (1.04-10.5%/week, ES = 0.26-
16
17 7 0.31/week) achieved greater improvement in EMG amplitude during the initial 150 ms of
18
19
8 maximal contraction when compared to MST (2.93-5.53%/week, ES = 0.03-
20
21
22 9 0.07/week).43,47,48,66 These findings support the principle of training specificity as only the
23
24 10 groups who intended to produce force quickly, improved in that regard.
25
26
27 11
PR
28
29 12 4.3. Performance enhancement
30
13 Isometric training is commonly prescribed in rehabilitation settings, or early in
OO
31
32
33 14 physical preparation plans as a means to increase neuromuscular, musculoskeletal and
34
35
F
36 15 proprioceptive function. It is thought that the aforementioned improvements will later transfer
37
38 16 to dynamic performance once specific movement patterns are integrated into the physical
39
40 17 preparation plan. Despite existing literature reporting benefits of isometric training on multi-
41
42
43
18 joint dynamic performance,11,85,90 none of the studies included in the current review included
44
45 19 dynamic multi-joint assessments.
46
47
48 20
49
50 21 4.3.1. Isometric peak force
51
52 22 Only four studies included in the present review directly compared MVIC production
53
54 23 between groups training at different intensities.44-46,65 Isometric peak force is considered a
55
56 24 highly reliable measure, with a growing body of research reporting the validity of isometric
57
58
59
25 assessments for assessing health and athletic performance.28,91 While training specificity is a
60
17

1
2
3 1 major factor in performance improvements, if MVIC force is the desired outcome there does
4
5
6 2 not appear to be a clear advantage to training at high or low intensities (Figure 4). Szeto et
7
8 3 al.46 was the only study that reported statistically significant improvements in MVIC force in
9
10 4 some, but not all training groups. Szeto et al.46 had subjects train their knee extensors at 25%,
11
12
13
5 50% or 100% of MVIC. Following 15 sessions over three weeks, the group training at 25%
14
15 6 did not experience statistically significant strength improvements despite medium effect sizes
16
17 7 (22.3%, ES = 0.61, p = 0.085).46 Conversely, large and statistically significant improvements
18
19
8 were observed when training at 50% (31.3%, ES = 1.14, p = 0.002) and 100% (45.7%, ES =
20
21
22 9 1.44, p = 0.013) of MVIC.46 However, time-under-tension, not total load, was equalized
23
24 10 between groups, meaning that the 50% training group produced twice as much total force as
25
26 11 the 25% group. While no data about fatigue is presented, it could be hypothesized that the
27
PR
28
29 12 group training with maximal effort underwent significantly greater loading than the other
30
13 groups.46 Additionally, the inclusion of a perceived effort or fatigue scale may have been
OO
31
32
33 14 valuable.
34
35
F
36
15
37
38 16 A clear pattern can be observed when comparing maximal force production following
39
40 17 training at different muscle lengths. Despite LML resulting in greater hypertrophic
41
42
18 adaptations, there is no difference in maximal force production at the trained joint angle
43
44
45 19 between SML and LML interventions when analyzing the seven studies that directly
46
47 20 compared joint angles (Supplementary file 4).31,32,35,37,38,40,64 However, transfer to non-trained
48
49 21 joint angles is much lower following SML training. For example, Bandy and Hanten,38
50
51
52 22 Bogdanis et al.64 Kubo et al.31 and Thepaut-Mathieu, van Hoecke and Maton37 all trained
53
54 23 participants at different muscle lengths and measured MVIC at numerous joint angles pre-
55
56 24 and post-training. Bandy and Hanten38 observed significant (p < 0.05) improvements at four,
57
58
59
25 five and seven of the tested joint angles following SML, MML and LML respectively.
60
18

1
2
3 1 Bogdanis et al.64 reported increased MVIC at two of the assessed joint angles following SML
4
5
6 2 training (22-57.4%, ES = 0.88-2.41), while the LML group improved in all six angles
7
8 3 (~12.3%). Similarly, the SML group in Kubo et al.’s31 investigation significantly (p < 0.05)
9
10 4 improved MVIC at five angles while the LML group experienced significantly improved
11
12
13
5 force production at eight of the tested angles. Interestingly, Thepaut-Mathieu, Van Hoecke
14
15 6 and Maton37 found that their LML group significantly (p < 0.05) improved at four angles,
16
17 7 compared to two and five angles in the SML and MML group respectively. These data
18
19
8 suggest that LML and MML isometric resistance training is superior to SMLs when the aim
20
21
22 9 is to improve force throughout a range of motion.
23
24
25 10
26
27 11 4.3.2. Length-tension
PR
28
29 12 The length-tension relationship, typically assessed by isometric or isokinetic
30
13 contractions, is defined as the muscle length or joint angle at which peak force/torque is
OO
31
32
33 14 produced.92 Many studies have demonstrated acute optimal angle/length shifts towards longer
34
35
F
36 15 muscle lengths following concentric, isometric and eccentric exercise.73,93-98 Additionally,

37
38 16 eccentric resistance training and training over a larger range of motion are well established
39
40 17 for increasing the optimal angle long-term.70,95 It is plausible that the same relationship exists
41
42
43
18 between muscle length and a shift in the optimal angle following isometric contractions.
44
45 19 However, only a single study included in this review reported the angle of peak isokinetic
46
47 20 torque,30 while another examined optimal angle through an isometric leg-press.64 Alegre et
48
49
21 al.30 observed a shift of 11° (14.6%, ES = 1.1, p = 0.002) towards longer muscle lengths
50
51
52 22 following eight weeks of training at LML, whereas the SML group experienced a shift of 5.3°
53
54 23 (7.3%, ES = 0.91, p = 0.039) in the opposite direction. Likewise, Bogdanis et al.64 reported a
55
56 24 decrease in optimal angle following SML training (-9.7%, ES = 1.77) while the optimal angle
57
58
59 25 was maintained in the LML group. While length-tension curve shifted toward the angle of
60
19

1
2
3 1 training in several other studies, none were significant or altered the angle at which maximal
4
5
6 2 isometric force was produced.30 While a very limited sample, the report of Alegre et al.30 is
7
8 3 unsurprising given that isometric exercise at LMLs is preferable to SMLs for acutely altering
9
10 4 the length-tension relationship.99 Finally, it should be noted that no included study reported
11
12
13
5 any significant differences in isometric or isokinetic length-tension curves between groups
14
15 6 training with different intensities, contraction intents or any other independent variable.
16
17 7
18
19
8 4.3.3. The rate of force development
20
21 9 The rate of force development (RFD) is an important measurement in sports
22
23
24 10 performance, as force application in many activities occurs over short time periods.14,100-102
25
26 11 Therefore, while peak force is a valid and highly reliable means of broadly monitoring
27
PR
28 12 neuromuscular function, rapid force production characteristics are equally valuable and more
29
30
13 specific to the execution of explosive tasks.2,100-103 Unfortunately, only three training studies
OO
31
32
33 14 examining different contraction intents reported RFD variables.43,47,48 Regardless, all three
34
35 15 studies reported that isometric training with an “explosive” or “ballistic” intent was superior
F
36
37
16 to ramping contractions for improving rapid force production.43,47,66 These findings align with
38
39
40 17 the previously discussed alterations in EMG amplitude between contraction intents. For
41
42 18 example, Williams66 compared the adaptations following ballistic or ramp isometric training.
43
44 19 While the ramp group experienced larger, improvements in MVIC (ramp, 17.8-20%, ES =
45
46
47 20 1.56-1.95, p = 0.0008 vs. ballistic, 15.7-18.9%, ES = 0.75-0.88, p = 0.0036), only the ballistic
48
49 21 training group significantly improved voluntary activation (31.6%, ES = 1.84, p = 0.0096)
50
51 22 and force at 150 ms (48.8%, ES = 1.29, p = 0.0074).66 Similar findings are reported by
52
53
54
23 Balshaw et al.43 and Tillin and Folland47 where only the ballistic training groups significantly
55
56 24 (p < 0.05) improved force at 50 ms and 100 ms (Table 3). These findings are not surprising,
57
58 25 as several researchers have reported increased rapid force and power production, driven
59
60
20

1
2
3 1 heavily by neurological alterations.104-106 Additionally, there is evidence to suggest that the
4
5
6 2 intent of movement may be of similar value to actual external contraction velocity when
7
8 3 improving RFD characteristics.107
9
10 4
11
12 5 4.3.4. Dynamic performance
13
14 6 The transferability of isometric resistance training to dynamic performance is
15
16 7 questionable, despite specific isometric assessments closely relating to sports performance.91
17
18
19 8 Likewise, the degree of transference of isokinetic contraction to real-world movements has
20
21 9 yet to be elucidated fully.24,26,27 Regardless, isokinetic testing provides a valuable means of
22
23 10 assessing dynamic performance. Five studies utilized isokinetic assessments with three
24
25
26 11 comparing various trained joint angles,30,40,48 and two studies comparing contraction intent48
27
PR
28 12 or length of contraction respectively.34 Maffiuletti and Martin48 reported similar

29
30 13 improvements in eccentric torque at 60°·s-1 and concentric torque at slow (60°·s-1) and faster
OO
31
32
33 14 (120°·s-1) angular velocities regardless of contraction intent. When comparing isometric
34
35 15 training at different muscle lengths, Alegre et al.30 and Noorkoiv et al.33 observed significant
F
36
37 16 (p < 0.05) improvements after training at LML, but not SML in concentric torque at 60°·s-1
38
39
40 17 and 30°·s-1, 60°·s-1, 90°·s-1 and 120°·s-1 respectively, despite no significant differences in
41
42 18 MVIC improvements between groups. Conversely, Lindh40 reported that neither SML or
43
44
45
19 LML training groups improved isokinetic torque at 180°·s-1 while both groups significantly
46
47 20 (p < 0.01) improved peak torque at 30°·s-1. Finally, Bogdanis et al.64 observed similar
48
49
21 improvements in one repetition maximum squat (9.6%, ES = 0.61 vs. 11.9%, ES = 0.64) and
50
51
52 22 countermovement jump height (7.2%, ES = 0.66 vs. 8.4%, ES = 0.51) following SML and
53
54 23 LML leg press training, respectively. One possible explanation for these findings is that the
55
56 24 LML training groups in Alegree et al.30 and Noorkoiv et al.’s33 experienced larger
57
58
59 25 hypertrophic adaptations than the corresponding SML participants. Unfortunately, neither
60
21

1
2
3 1 Lindh40 or Bogdanis et al.64 assessed morphological adaptations, making further analysis
4
5
6 2 difficult.
7
8
9 3
10
11
12 4 4.4. Applications
13
14
5 While the direct transfer of isometric resistance training to dynamic movements is
15
16 6 questionable, physiological adaptations such as increased muscle mass and improved tendon
17
18 7 qualities are beneficial in a variety of contexts. There is a well-established relationship
19
20 8 between muscle mass, strength and functional performance in a variety of activities and
21
22
23 9 populations.108-110 While it may require specific training in a movement to optimize
24
25 10 neuromuscular performance,71,111 it is clear that producing and maintaining muscle mass and
26
27 11 strength should be a priority for athletes and special populations alike. For this reason,
PR
28
29
30 12 isometric contractions are regularly used in rehabilitation programs and during specific
OO
31
32 13 training phases where dynamic contractions may be contraindicated.
33
34
35 14
F
36
37
38 15 The long-held belief that isometric resistance training should occur at the most
39
40
41
16 important angle present in a dynamic activity holds true112-115 as the largest improvements in
42
43 17 neuromuscular function occur at the trained angle.31,32,37,38,40 However, large neurological
44
45 18 discrepancies exist between isometric and dynamic movements25 suggesting that static
46
47
19 training may not be an effective strategy for directly improving sports performance and
48
49
50 20 should be primarily employed to alter morphology. Therefore, isometric training should
51
52 21 occur predominantly at relatively LMLs as there is a clear advantage for improving muscle
53
54 22 volumes (Figure 2), and strength throughout a range of motion.30-33,37,38 Additionally, large
55
56
57 23 increases in tendon stiffness following LML have been reported, which would likely reduce
58
59 24 electromechanical delay and therefore improve RFD.5,31,116 Furthermore, LML isometric
60
22

1
2
3 1 training may have beneficial effects on the length-tension relationship,30 although greater
4
5
6 2 evidence is needed to solidify optimal angle as a key variable in performance and injury
7
8 3 prevention.92 Similarly, architectural qualities of muscle may underpin the length-tension
9
10 4 relationships. However, Alegre et al.30 observed no significant (p > 0.05) shift in fascicle
11
12
13
5 length regardless of training angle, while Noorkoiv et al.32 reported conflicting findings
14
15 6 depending on which quadriceps head was evaluated. Therefore, isometric resistance training,
16
17 7 regardless of muscle length, appears unlikely to efficiently lengthen muscle fascicles.
18
19
20 8
21
22
23 9 Training intensity is a key variable prescribed in intelligently designed resistance
24
25 10 training programs. Evidence suggests that high-intensity resistance training is superior for
26
27
PR
28 11 improving force production.45,76,117 However, the studies cited in this review show a
29
30 12 questionable relationship between intensity and force production adaptations (Figure 4).13,30-
OO
31
32 13 32,34,43,44,46,65 Consistent with recent original research and meta-analyses, isometric training
33
34
35 14 intensity does not appear to affect hypertrophic adaptations.76,77 While the lack of relationship
F
36
37 15 between contraction intensity and force production is somewhat surprising, previous
38
39 16 literature has reported that submaximal intensities can produce similar strength improvements
40
41
42
17 when taken to failure, or when the volume is equated between groups.77,118 These findings
43
44 18 suggest that isometric training intensity is not important when aiming to improve force
45
46 19 production or alter muscle morphology. Therefore, increasing contraction durations,34
47
48 20 increasing total volume, or shifting to longer muscle lengths30-32,38,40 are likely more efficient
49
50
51 21 means of progressing isometric resistance training if strength and muscle size are a priority.
52
53 22 Conversely, high-intensity (≥ 70% of MVIC) isometric contraction exclusively produced
54
55 23 increased tendon thickness and stiffness.41,42 As overly compliant tendons are often an issue
56
57
58 24 in untrained and injured populations, progressively increasing intensity during isometric
59
60 25 contractions may be a safe and efficient means of preparing tendinous tissue for future
23

1
2
3 1 dynamic loading.12,82 Additionally, sports requiring a high degree of reactive strength require
4
5
6 2 relatively stiff tendinous structures to optimize performance.90,119,120
7
8
9 3
10
11
12 4 Isometric training, like other modes of resistance exercise, should be executed in a
13
14 5 way that most closely relates to the primary outcome goal. When muscular hypertrophy or
15
16 6 maximal force production is the priority, the evidence demonstrates that there is little
17
18
19
7 difference between contractions completed with a ballistic, or a gradual ramp to the
20
21 8 prescribed intensity.43,47,48,66 However, if rapid force production takes precedence, as it would
22
23 9 in several sports, then isometric contractions should be performed as such.43,47,66 Conversely,
24
25 10 ballistic contractions may be contra-indicated or cause excessive pain in rehabilitative or
26
27
PR
28 11 special populations,20 despite potential to provide unique morphological tendon adaptations.67

29
30 12 Therefore, while ballistic contractions offer unique neuromuscular benefits, sustained
OO
31
32 13 contractions generally offer similar or greater morphological adaptations that are likely of
33
34
35 14 interest to a wider variety of trainee.43,48,66
F
36
37
38
15
39
40
41
16 4.5. Limitations and directions for future research
42
17 While trends, or lack thereof, are evident in many of the key independent variables
43
44
45 18 discussed in the current review, several limitations exist. While the widely homogeneous
46
47 19 populations inter, and intra-study allowed for simple analysis, none of the included studies
48
49 20 utilized special populations such as patients with tendon disorders, high-performance athletes
50
51
52 21 or experienced resistance trainees. Researchers and practitioners alike need to be cognizant of
53
54 22 this limitation if wishing to generalize findings. Similarly, very few of the included studies
55
56 23 examined the effect of isometric training on dynamic performance, and only one utilized
57
58
59
24 closed-chain or functional performance tasks in their testing batteries. Finally, while 26
60
24

1
2
3 1 studies were included, the large variety of independent and dependent variables made
4
5
6 2 extensive inter-study analysis difficult and hence definitive conclusions problematic.
7
8
9 3
10
11
12 4 While the limitations present are broad, several directions for interesting future
13
14 5 research exist. Isometric resistance training is often utilized by strength and conditioning
15
16 6 coaches early in a training plan with the intent of preparing muscle and tendon morphologies
17
18
19
7 for future dynamic loading. However, to the authors’ knowledge, no published studies have
20
21 8 examined the effect of a proceeding isometric training phase on dynamic or ballistic training
22
23 9 periods despite a rise in popularity with this approach.14 On a related note, a limited number
24
25 10 of studies have examined isometric training with free-weights. Isometric contraction intensity
26
27
PR
28 11 does not play a large role in driving morphological or neuromuscular adaptations, and total
29
30 12 volume is likely a more important variable. However, resistance training modes have specific
OO
31
32 13 load cut-off points for altering tissue or neural properties.1,10 As such, future studies should
33
34
35 14 aim to establish approximate weekly loading guidelines for a variety of populations, muscle
F
36
37 15 groups and dependent variables. Another interesting direction is determining whether
38
39 16 isometric training can improve dynamic muscular endurance. Unfortunately, only a single
40
41
42
17 included study evaluated fatigue,65 and no studies examined fatigue during dynamic or
43
44 18 stretch-shortening cycle activities such as cycling or running.
45
46
47 19
48
49
50 20 Another avenue for research geared towards rehabilitative populations is a
51
52 21 multivariate examination of contraction intensity and joint angles. Physical therapists often
53
54 22 prescribe isometric training as a means to stimulate morphological adaptations and improve
55
56
57 23 neuromuscular function while tightly maintaining a pain-free range of motion. Anecdotally,
58
59 24 therapists often limit isometric contractions to moderate joint angles as the increased ligament
60
25

1
2
3 1 strain and pressure synonymous with maximal contraction intensities at large degrees of joint
4
5
6 2 flexion may cause unwanted pain and inhibition.15,16 However, training at LML is superior to
7
8 3 SML training for producing morphological and neuromuscular adaptations. Therefore, it
9
10 4 would be fascinating to compare the effects of submaximal isometric training at LMLs with
11
12
13
5 maximal isometric training at SMLs. As previously mentioned, the body of literature
14
15 6 examining the characteristics of “pushing”, “holding” and “quasi” isometric actions is
16
17 7 growing.54-60,78 However, there is a paucity of long-term experimental studies examining
18
19
8 these isometric contraction subsets.
20
21
22
9
23
24
25 10 5. PERSPECTIVES
26
27 11 Despite a relatively limited quantity of studies to base conclusions upon, specificity of
PR
28
29
30 12 training applies to isometric resistance training as it does to traditional dynamic resistance
OO
31
32 13 training. Therefore, isometric training should be prescribed in line with the primary outcome
33
34 14 goals. Training at LML and with sustained contractions have been found to beneficial for
35
F
36
37
15 improving muscle morphology, while high-intensity contractions (>70% MVC) are likely
38
39 16 required to substantially improve tendon structure and function (e.g. tendon stiffness).
40
41 17 Similarly, ballistic intent has been found to improve rapid force production even though
42
43 18 movement velocity is zero. Finally, a greater number of studies, with a broader application of
44
45
46 19 isometric training variations are needed to determine optimal applications for altering the
47
48 20 morphology and improving dynamic performance in athletic, rehabilitative and special
49
50 21 populations alike.
51
52
53 22
54
55
56 23
57 24
58
59 25
60
26

1
2
3 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
4
5 2 Dustin J. Oranchuk, Adam G. Storey, André R. Nelson and John B. Cronin declare
6
7
3 that they have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this review. No funding was
8
9
10 4 received for this review that may have affected study design, data collection, analysis or
11
12 5 interpretation of data, writing of this manuscript, or the decision to submit for publication.
13
14 6 Dustin J. Oranchuk was supported by the Auckland University of Technology’s Vice
15
16
17 7 Chancellors Doctoral Scholarship.
18
19
20 8
21
22
23 9
24
25
26
10
27
PR
28
29
30 11
OO
31
32
33 12
34
35
F
36
37
13
38
39
40 14
41
42
43 15
44
45
46
47 16
48
49
50 17
51
52
53 18
54
55
56
57 19
58
59
60 20
27

1
2
3 1 REFERENCES
4
5
6 2 1. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA, French DN. Resistance training for health and
7
3 performance. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2002;1(3):165-171.
8
9 4 2. Damas F, Phillips S, Vechin FC, Ugrinowtsch C. A review of resistance training-
10 5 induced changes in skeletal muscle protein synthesis and their contribution to
11 6 hypertrophy. Sports Med. 2015;45(6):801-807.
12 7 3. Couppe C, Kongsgaard M, Aagaard P, et al. Habitual loading results in tendon
13 8 hypertrophy and increased stiffness of the human patellar tendon. J Appl Physiol.
14 9 2008;105(3):805-810.
15
16
10 4. Kongsgaard M, Reitelseder S, Pederson TG, et al. Region specific patellar tendon
17 11 hypertrophy in humans following resistance training. Acta Physiol Scand.
18 12 2007;191:111-121.
19 13 5. Magnusson PS, Kjaer M. The impact of loading, unloading, ageing and injury on the
20 14 human tendon. J Physiol. 2018;Ahead of print.
21 15 6. Morton SK, Whitehead JR, Brinkert RH, Caine DJ. Resistance training vs. static
22
16 stretching: Effects on flexibility and strength. J Strength Cond Res.
23
24 17 2011;25(12):3391-3398.
25 18 7. Aagaard P, Anderson LJ, Bennekou M, et al. Effects of resistance training on
26 19 endurance capacity and muscle fiber composition in young top-level cyclists. Scand J
27 20 Med Sci Sports. 2011;21(6):298-307.
PR
28 21 8. Tanaka H, Swensen T. Impact of resistance training on endurance performance.

29 22 Sports Med. 1998;25(3):191-200.
30
23 9. Aagaard P, Simonsen EB, Anderson JL, Magnusson P, Dyhre-Poulsen P. Neural
OO
31
32 24 adaptation to resistance training: Changes in evoked V-wave and H-reflex responses.
33 25 J Appl Physiol. 2002;92(6):2309-2318.
34 26 10. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA. Fundamentals of resistance training: Progression and
35 27 exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(4):674-688.
F
36 28 11. Burgess KE, Connik MJ, Graham-Smith P, Pearson SJ. Plyometric vs isometric
37 29 training influences on tendon propertied and muscle output. J Strength Cond Res.
38
39
30 2007;21(3):986-989.
40 31 12. Malliaras P, Kamal B, Nowell A, et al. Patellar tendon adaptation in relation to load-
41 32 intensity and contraction type. J Biomech. 2013;46(11):1893-1899.
42 33 13. Kubo K, Kanehisa H, Fukunaga T. Effects of different duration isometric contractions
43 34 on tendon elasticity in human quadriceps muscles. J Physiol. 2001;536(2):649-655.
44 35 14. Dietz C, Peterson B. Triphasic training: A systematic approach to elite speed and
45
36 explosive strength performance. Hudson, WI: Dietz Sport Enterprise; 2012.
46
47 37 15. Hasler EM, Denoth J, Stacoff A, Herzog W. Influence of hip and knee joint angles on
48 38 excitation of knee extensor muscles. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol.
49 39 1994;34(6):355-361.
50 40 16. Krebs DE, Staples WH, Cuttita D, Zickel RE. Knee joint angle: Its relationship to
51 41 quadriceps femoris activity in normal and postarthotomy limbs. Arch Phys Med
52 42 Rehabil. 1983;64(10):441-447.
53
43 17. Abbott BC, Wilkie DR. The relation between velocity of shortening and the tension-
54
55 44 length curve of skeletal muscle. J Physiol. 1953;120(1):214-223.
56 45 18. Tsoukos A, Bogdanis GC, Terzis G, Veligekas P. Acute improvement of vertical
57 46 jump performance after isometric squats depends on knee angle and vertical jumping
58 47 ability. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(8):2250-2257.
59
60
28

1
2
3 1 19. van Beijsterveldt AMC, van de Port IGL, Vereijken AJ, Backx FJG. Risk factors for
4
5
2 hamstring injuries in male soccer players: A systematic review of prospective studies.
6 3 Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2013;23(3):253-262.
7 4 20. Rio E, Kidgell D, Purdam C, et al. Isometric exercise induces analgesia and reduces
8 5 inhibition in patellar tendinopathy. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(19):1277-1283.
9 6 21. Rio E, van Ark M, Docking S, et al. Isometric contractions are more analgesic than
10 7 isotonic contractions for patellar tendon pain: An in-season randomized clinical trial.
11
8 Clin J Sport Med. 2017;27(3):253-259.
12
13
9 22. Goodwill AM, Pearce AJ, J KD. Corticomotor plasticity following unilateral strength
14 10 training. Muscle Nerve. 2012;46(3):384-393.
15 11 23. Murphy AJ, Wilson G, Pryor JF, Newton RU. Isometric assessment of muscular
16 12 function: The effect of joint angle. J Appl Biomech. 1995;11(2):205-215.
17 13 24. Murphy AJ, Wilson GJ. Poor correlations between isometric tests and dynamic
18 14 performance: Relationship to muscle activation. Eur J Appl Physiol. 1996;77:353-
19
15 357.
20
21 16 25. Wilson GJ, Murphy AJ. The use of isometric tests of muscular function in athletic
22 17 assessment. Sports Med. 1996;22(1):19-37.
23 18 26. Khamoui AV, Brown LE, Nguyen D, et al. Relationship between force-time and
24 19 velocity-time characteristics of dynamic and isometric muscle actions. J Strength
25 20 Cond Res. 2011;25(1):198-204.
26 21 27. McGuigan MR, Newton MJ, Winchester JB, Nelson AG. Relationship between
27
22 isometric and dynamic strength in recreationally trained men. J Strength Cond Res.
PR
28
29 23 2010;24(9):2570-2573.
30 24 28. Drake D, Kennedy R, Wallace E. The validity and responsiveness of isometric lower
25 body multi-joint tests of muscular strength: A systematic review. Sports Med Open.
OO
31
32 26 2017;3(32).
33 27 29. Oranchuk DJ, Robinson TL, Switaj ZJ, Drinkwater EJ. Comparison of the hang high-
34
28 pull and loaded jump squat for the development of vertical jump and isometric force-
35
F
36
29 time characteristics. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;Ahead of print.
37 30 30. Alegre LM, Ferri-Morales A, Rodriguez-Casares R, Aguado X. Effects of isometric
38 31 training on the knee extensor moment–angle relationship and vastus lateralis muscle
39 32 architecture. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2014;114(11):2437-2446.
40 33 31. Kubo K, Ohgo K, Takeishi R, et al. Effects of isometric training at different knee
41 34 angles on the muscle–tendon complex in vivo. Scand J Med Sci Sports.
42
35 2006;16(3):159-167.
43
44 36 32. Noorkoiv M, Nosaka K, Blazevich AJ. Neuromuscular adaptations associated with
45 37 knee joint angle-specific force change. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;46(8):1525-1537.
46 38 33. Noorkoiv M, Nosaka K, Blazevich AJ. Effects of isometric quadriceps strength
47 39 training at different muscle lengths on dynamic torque production. J Sports Sci.
48 40 2015;33(18):1952-1961.
49 41 34. Schott J, McCully K, Rutherford OM. The role of metabolites in strength training:
50
51
42 Short versus long isometric contractions. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol.
52 43 1995;71(4):337-341.
53 44 35. Sterling DR. Isometric strength position specificity resulting from isometric and
54 45 isotonic training as a determinant in performance. Eugene, Ore, University of
55 46 Oregon; 1969.
56 47 36. Rasch PJ, Pierson WR. One position versus multiple positions in isometric exercise.
57
48 Am J Phys Med. 1964;43(1):10-12.
58
59
60
29

1
2
3 1 37. Thepaut-Mathieu C, Van Hoecke J, Maton B. Myoelectrical and mechanical changes
4
5
2 linked to length specificity during isometric training. J Appl Physiol.
6 3 1988;64(4):1500-1505.
7 4 38. Bandy WD, Hanten WP. Changes in torque and electromyographic activity of the
8 5 quadriceps femoris muscles following isometric training. Phys Ther. 1993;73(7):455-
9 6 465.
10 7 39. Meyers CR. Effects of two isometric routines on strength, size, and endurance in
11
8 exercised and nonexercised arms. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1967;38(3):430-440.
12
13
9 40. Lindh M. Increase of muscle strength from isometric quadriceps exercises at different
14 10 knee angles. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1979;11(1):33-36.
15 11 41. Arampatzis A, Karamanidis K, Albracht K. Adaptational responses of the human
16 12 Achilles tendon by modulation of the applied cyclic strain magnitude. J Exp Biol.
17 13 2007;210:2743-2753.
18 14 42. Arampatzis A, Peper A, Bierbaum S, Albracht K. Plasticity of human Achilles tendon
19
15 mechanical and morphological properties in response to cyclic strain. J Biomech.
20
21 16 2010;43(16):3073-3079.
22 17 43. Balshaw TG, Massey GJ, Maden-Wilkinson TM, Tillin NA, Folland JP. Training-
23 18 specific functional, neural, and hypertrophic adaptations to explosive- vs. sustained-
24 19 contraction strength training. J Appl Physiol. 2016;120(11):1364-1373.
25 20 44. Kanehisa H, Nagareda H, Kawakami Y, et al. Effect of equivolume isometric training
26 21 programs comprising medium or high resistance on muscle size and strength. Eur J
27
22 Appl Physiol. 2002;87(2):112-119.
PR
28
29 23 45. Khouw W, Herbert R. Optimisation of isometric strength training intensity. Aust J
30 24 Phys Ther. 1998;44(1):43-46.
25 46. Szeto G, Strauss GR, De Domenico G, Sun Lai H. The effect of training intensity on
OO
31
32 26 voluntary isometric strength improvement. Aust J Phys Ther. 1989;34(4):210-217.
33 27 47. Tillin NA, Folland JP. Maximal and explosive strength training elicit distinct
34
28 neuromuscular adaptations, specific to the training stimulus. Eur J Appl Physiol.
35
F
36
29 2014;114(2):365-374.
37 30 48. Maffiuletti NA, Martin A. Progressive versus rapid rate of contraction during 7 wk of
38 31 isometric resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001;33(7):1220-1227.
39 32 49. de Ruiter CJ, de Boer MD, Spanjaard M, de Haan A. Knee angle-dependent oxygen
40 33 consumption during isometric contractions of the knee extensors determined with
41 34 near-infrared spectroscopy. J Appl Physiol. 2005;99:579-586.
42
35 50. Sjogaard G, Savard G, Carsten J. Muscle blood flow during isometric activity and its
43
44 36 relation to muscle fatigue. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1988;57:327-335.
45 37 51. Fisher J, Van-Dongen M, Sutherland R. Combined isometric and vibration training
46 38 does not enhance strength beyond that of isometric training alone. J Sports Med Phys
47 39 Fitness. 2015;55(9):899-904.
48 40 52. Silva HR, Couto BP, Szmuchrowski LA. Effects of mechanical vibration applied in
49 41 the opposite direction of muscle shortening on maximal isometric strength. J Strength
50
51
42 Cond Res. 2008;22(4):1031-1036.
52 43 53. Alberti G, Ragazzi R. Maximum strength and vertical jump effects of
53 44 electromyostimulation versus isometric training. Med Sport (Roma). 2007;60(4):557-
54 45 565.
55 46 54. Garner JC, Blackburn T, Wiemar W, Campbell B. Comparison of electromyographic
56 47 activity during eccentrically versus concentrically loaded isometric contractions. J
57
48 Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2008;18(3):466-471.
58
59
60
30

1
2
3 1 55. Hunter SK, Ryan DL, Ortega JD, Enoka RM. Task differences with the same load
4
5
2 torque alter the endurance time of submaximal fatiguing contractions in humans. J
6 3 Neurophysiol. 2002;88(6):3087-3096.
7 4 56. Rudroff T, Barry BK, Stone AL, Barry CJ, Enoka RM. Accessory muscle activity
8 5 contributes to the variation in time to task failure for different arm postures and loads.
9 6 J Appl Physiol. 2007;102(3):1000-1006.
10 7 57. Rudroff T, Justice JN, Holmes MR, Matthews SD, Enoka RM. Muscle activity and
11
8 time to task failure differ with load compliance and target force for elbow flexor
12
13
9 muscles. J Appl Physiol. 2011;110(1):125-136.
14 10 58. Rudroff T, Kalliokoski KK, Block DE, Gould JR, Klingensmith WC, Enoka RM.
15 11 PET/CT imaging of age- and task-associated differences in muscle activity during
16 12 fatiguing contractions. J Appl Physiol. 2013;114(9):1211-1219.
17 13 59. Schaefer LV, Bittmann FN. Are there two forms of isometric muscle action? Results
18 14 of the experimental study support a distinction between a holding and a pushing
19
15 isometric muscle function. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2017;9(11):1-13.
20
21 16 60. Semmler JG, Kornatz KW, Dinenno DV, Zhou S, Enoka RM. Motor unit
22 17 synchronization is enhanced during slow lengthening contractions of a hand muscle. J
23 18 Physiol. 2002;545(2):681-695.
24 19 61. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzalaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting
25 20 systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care
26 21 interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7).
27
22 62. Brughelli M, Cronin J, Levin G, Chaouachi A. Understanding change of direction
PR
28
29 23 ability in sport: A review of resistance training studies. Sports Med.
30 24 2008;38(12):1045-1063.
25 63. Rhea MR. Determining the magnitude of treatment effects in strength training
OO
31
32 26 research through the use of the effect size. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(4):918-920.
33 27 64. Bogdanis GC, Tsoukos A, Methenitis SK, Selima E, Veligekas P, Terzis G. Effects of
34
28 low volume isometric leg press complex training at two knee angles on force-angle
35
F
36
29 relationship and rate of force development. Eur J Sport Sci. 2018;Ahead of print.
37 30 65. Young K, McDonagh MJN, Davies CTM. The effects of two forms of isometric
38 31 training on the mechanical properties of the triceps surae in man. Pflügers Archiv.
39 32 1985;405(4):384-388.
40 33 66. Williams DM. The study of voluntary activation and force production relationships
41 34 and responses to varied isometric strength training parameters during fatiguing and
42
35 non-fatiguing test protocols, University of Iowa; 2011.
43
44 36 67. Massey G, Balshaw T, Maden-Wilkinson T, Tillin N, Folland J. Tendinous tissue
45 37 adaptation to explosive- vs. sustained-contraction strength training. Front Physiol.
46 38 2018;Ahead of print.
47 39 68. Waugh CM, Alktebi T, De Sa A, Scott A. Impact of rest duration on Achilles tendon
48 40 structure and function following isometric training. Scand J Med Sci Sports.
49 41 2018;28(2):436-445.
50
51
42 69. Ullrich B, Holzinger S, Soleimani M, Pelzer T, Stening J, Pfeiffer M. Neuromuscular
52 43 responses to 14 weeks of traditional and daily undulating resistance training. Int J
53 44 Sports Med. 2015;36(7):554-562.
54 45 70. Guex K, Degache F, Morisod C, Sailly M, Millet GP. Hamstring architectural and
55 46 functional adaptations following long vs. short muscle length eccentric training. Front
56 47 Physiol. 2016;7(340):1-9.
57
48 71. Barak Y, Ayalon M, Dvir Z. Transferability of strength gains from limited to full
58
59
49 range of motion. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(8):1413-1420.
60
31

1
2
3 1 72. Massey CD, Vincent J, Maneval M, Moore M, Johnson JT. An analysis of full range
4
5
2 of motion vs. partial range of motion training in the development of strength in
6 3 untrained men. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(3):518-521.
7 4 73. Allen TJ, Jones T, Tsay A, Morgan DL, Proske U. Muscle damage produced by
8 5 isometric contractions in human elbow flexors. J Appl Physiol. 2018;124(2):388-399.
9 6 74. Loenneke JP, Pujol TJ. The use of occlusion trianing to produce muscle hypertrophy.
10 7 Strength Cond J. 2009;31(3):77-84.
11
8 75. Dankel SJ, Mattocks KT, Jessee MB, Buckner SL, Mouser JG, Loenneke JP. Do
12
13
9 metabolites that are produced during resistance exercise enhance muscle hypertrophy?
14 10 Eur J Appl Physiol. 2017;117(11):2125-2135.
15 11 76. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Strength and hypertrophy adaptations
16 12 between low- versus high-load resistance training: A systematic review and meta-
17 13 analysis. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(12):3508-3523.
18 14 77. Lasevicius T, Ugrinowitsch C, Schoenfeld BJ, et al. Effects of different intensities of
19
15 resistance training with equated volume load on muscle strength and hypertrophy. Eur
20
21 16 J Sport Sci. 2018;18(6):772-780.
22 17 78. Spurway NC. Hiking physiology and the "quasi-isometric" concept. J Sports Sci.
23 18 2007;25(10):1081-1093.
24 19 79. Akima H, Ryosuke A. Oxygenation and neuromuscular activation of the quadriceps
25 20 femoris including the vastus intermedius during a fatiguing contraction. Clin Physiol
26 21 Funct Imaging. 2017;37:750-758.
27
22 80. Franchi MV, Reeves ND, Narici MV. Skeletal muscle remodeling in response to
PR
28
29 23 eccentric vs. concentric loading: Morphological, molecular, and metabolic
30 24 adaptations. Front Physiol. 2017;8(447):1-16.
25 81. Magnusson PS, Kjaer M. Region-specific differences in Achilles tendon cross-
OO
31
32 26 sectional area in runners and non-runners. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2003;90:549-553.
33 27 82. Reeves ND, Narici MV, Maganaris CN. Strength training alters the viscoelastic
34
28 properties of tendons in elderly humans. Muscle Nerve. 2003;28(1):74-81.
35
F
36
29 83. Kubo K, Morimoto M, Komuro T, et al. Effects of plyometric and weight training on
37 30 muscle-tendon complex and jump performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
38 31 2007;39(10):1801-1810.
39 32 84. Arya S, Kulig K. Tendinopathy alters mechanical and material properties of the
40 33 Achilles tendon. J Appl Physiol. 2010;108(3):670-675.
41 34 85. Kubo K, Ishigaki T, Ikebukuro T. Effects of plyometric and isometric training on
42
35 muscle and tendon stiffness in vivo. Physiol Rep. 2017;5(e13374):1-13.
43
44 36 86. Heinemeier KM, Olesen JL, Haddad F, et al. Expression of collagen and related
45 37 growth factors in rat tendon and skeletal muscle in response to specific contraction
46 38 types. J Physiol. 2007;582:1303-1316.
47 39 87. Heinemeier KM, Olesen JL, Schjerling P, et al. Short-term strength training and the
48 40 expression of myostatin and IGF-1 isoforms in rat muscle and tendon: Differential
49 41 effects of specific contraction types. J Appl Physiol. 2007;102:573-581.
50
51
42 88. van Schie HT, de Vos RJ, de Jonge S, et al. Ultrasonographic tissue characterisation
52 43 of human Achilles tendons: quantification of tendon structure through a novel non-
53 44 invasive approach. Br J Sports Med. 2010;44(16):1153-1159.
54 45 89. Docking SI, Rosengarten SD, Cook J. Achilles tendon structure improves on UTC
55 46 imaging over a 5-month pre-season in elite Australian football players. Scand J Med
56 47 Sci Sports. 2016;26(5):557-563.
57
48 90. Kubo K, Yata H, Kanehisa H, Fukunaga T. Effects of isometric squat training on the
58
59
49 tendon stiffness and jump performance. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006;96(3):305-314.
60
32

1
2
3 1 91. West DJ, Owen NJ, Jones MR, et al. Relationships between force-time characteristics
4
5
2 of the isometric midthigh pull and dynamic performance in professional rugby leage
6 3 players. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(11):3070-3075.
7 4 92. Timmins RG, Shield AJ, Williams MD, Opar DA. Is there evidence to support the use
8 5 of the angle of peak torque as a marker of hamstrings injury and re-injury risk. Sports
9 6 Med. 2015;46(1):7-13.
10 7 93. Bowers EJ, Morgan DL, Proske U. Damage to the human quadriceps muscle from
11
8 eccentric exercise and the training effect. J Sports Sci. 2004;22:1005-1014.
12
13
9 94. Brockett CL, Morgan DL, Proske U. Human hamstring muscles adapt to eccentric
14 10 exercise by changing optimum length. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001;33(5):783-790.
15 11 95. Guex K, Degache F, Gremion G, Millet GP. Effect of hip flexion angle on hamstring
16 12 optimum length after a single set of concentric contractions. J Sports Sci.
17 13 2013;31(14):1545-1552.
18 14 96. Philippou A, Borgdanis GC, Nevill AM, Maridaki M. Changes in the angle-force
19
15 curve of human elbow flexors following eccentric and isometric exercise. Eur J Appl
20
21 16 Physiol. 2004;93(1-2):237-244.
22 17 97. Philippou A, Maridaki M, Bogdanis GC, Halapas A, Koutsilieris M. Changes in the
23 18 mechanical properties of human quadriceps muscle after eccentric exercise In Vivo.
24 19 2009;23(5):859-865.
25 20 98. Yeung SS, Yeung EW. Shift of peak torque angle after eccentric exercise. Int J Sports
26 21 Med. 2008;29(3):251-256.
27
22 99. Philippou A, Maridaki M, Bogdanis GC. Angle-specific impairment of elbow flexors
PR
28
29 23 strength after isometric exercise at long muscle length. J Sports Sci. 2003;21(10):859-
30 24 865.
25 100. Beretić I, Burovic M, Okicik T, Dopsaj M. Relations between lower body isometric
OO
31
32 26 muscle force characteristics and start performance in elite male sprint swimmers. J
33 27 Sports Sci Med. 2013;12(4):639-645.
34
28 101. Leary BK, Statler J, Hopkins B, et al. The relationship between isometric force-time
35
F
36
29 curve characteristics and club head speed in recreational golfers. J Strength Cond Res.
37 30 2012;26(10):2685-2697.
38 31 102. Haff GG, Carlock JM, Hartman MJ, et al. Force-time curve characteristics of dynamic
39 32 and isometric muscle actions of elite women olympic weightlifters. J Strength Cond
40 33 Res. 2005;19(4):741-748.
41 34 103. Loturco I, Suchomel TJ, Bishop C, Kobal R, Pereira LA, McGuigan M. 1RM
42
35 measures or maximal bar-power output: Which is more related to sport performance?
43
44 36 Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2018;Ahead of print.
45 37 104. Winchester JB, McBride JM, Maher MA, et al. Eight weeks of ballistic exercise
46 38 improves power independently of changes in strength and muscle fiber type
47 39 expression. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(6):1728-1734.
48 40 105. Jenkins NDM, Maramonti AA, Hill EC, et al. Greater neural adaptations following
49 41 high- vs. low-load resistance training. Front Physiol. 2017;8(331):1-15.
50
51
42 106. Balshaw TG, Massey GJ, Maden-Wilkinson TM, et al. Changes in agonist neural
52 43 drive, hypertrophy and pre-training strength all contribute to the individual strength
53 44 gains after resistance training. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2017;117(4):631-640.
54 45 107. Behm DG, Sale DG. Intended rather than actual movement velocity determines
55 46 velocity-specific training response. J Appl Physiol. 1993;74(1):359-368.
56 47 108. Kubo J, Chishaki T, Nakamura N, et al. Differences in fat-free mass and muscle
57
48 thickness at various sites according to performance level amoung judo athletes. J
58
59
49 Strength Cond Res. 2006;20(3):654-657.
60
33

1
2
3 1 109. Perez-Gomez J, Redrigeuz GV, Ara I, et al. Role of muscle mass on sprint
4
5
2 performance: gender differences? Eur J Appl Physiol. 2008;102(6):685-694.
6 3 110. Faulkner JA, Davis CSM, C L, Brooks SV. The aging of elite male athletes: Age-
7 4 related changes in performance and skeletal muscle structure and function. Clin J
8 5 Sport Med. 2008;18(6):501-507.
9 6 111. James LP, Haff GG, Kelly VG, Connick MJ, Hoffman BW, Beckman EM. The
10 7 impact of strength level on adaptations to combined weightlifting, plyometric, and
11
8 ballistic training. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2018;28(5):1494-1505.
12
13
9 112. Giorgi A, Wilson GJ, Weatherby RP, Murphy AJ. Functional isometric weight
14 10 training: Its effects on the development of muscular function and the endocrine
15 11 system over an 8-week trianing period. J Strength Cond Res. 1998;21(1):18-25.
16 12 113. O'Shea KL, O'Shea JP. Functional isometric weight training: Its effects on dynamic
17 13 and static strength. J Appl Sport Sci Res. 1989;3(2):30-33.
18 14 114. O'Shea P, O'Shea K, Wynn B. Functional isometric lifting- Part I: Theory. Natl Str
19
15 Cond Assoc J. 1987;9(6):44-51.
20
21 16 115. O'Shea P, O'Shea K, Wynn B. Functional isometric lifting-Part II: Application. Natl
22 17 Str Cond Assoc J. 1988;10(1):60-62.
23 18 116. Muraoka T, Muramatsu T, Fukunaga T, Kanehisa H. Influence of tendon slack on
24 19 electromechanical delay in the human medial gastrocnemius in vivo. J Appl Physiol.
25 20 2004;96(2):540-544.
26 21 117. Schoenfeld BJ, Peterson MD, Ogborn D, Contreras B, Sonmez GT. Effects of low-
27
22 vs. high-load resistance training on muscle strength and hypertrophy in well-trained
PR
28
29 23 men. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(10):2954-2963.
30 24 118. Moore DR, Young M, Phillips SM. Similar increases in muscle size and strength in
25 young men after training with maximal shortening or lengthening contractions when
OO
31
32 26 matched for total work. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012;112(4):1587-1592.
33 27 119. Fukunaga T, Kawakami Y, Kubo K, Kanehisa H. Muscle and tendon interaction
34
28 during human movements. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2002;30(3):106-110.
35
F
36
29 120. Kubo K, Morimoto M, Komuro T, Tsunoda N, Kanehisa H, Fukunaga T. Influences
37 30 of tendon stiffness, joint stiffness, and electromyographic activity on jump
38 31 performances using single joint. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2007;99(3):235-243.
39
40 32
41
42
43 33
44
45
34
46
35
47
48 36
49
50 37
51
52 38
53
54 39
55
56 40
57
58 41
59
60 42
34

1
2
3 1 Figure 1. Search strategy
4
5 2
6
7
8
3 Figure 2. Isometrically trained joint angle and hypertrophic adaptations (N = 3)
9
10 4
11
12 5 Figure 3. Isometric training intensity and hypertrophic adaptations (multiple comparison, N =
13
14
6 9)
15
16
17 7
18
19 8 Figure 4. Isometric training intensity and force production (N = 3)
20
21 9
22
23
24 10
25
26 11
27
PR
28 12
29
30
13
OO
31
32
33 14
34
35 15
F
36
37
16
38
39
40 17
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
35

1
2
3 Table 1. Joint angle
4
Study, year Subjects Intervention Mechanical and neural adaptations Performance effect
5
(quality) (p < 0.05, ES ≥ 0.50) (p < 0.05, ES ≥ 0.50)
6
7 Alegre, Ferri-Morales, Healthy, untrained Isometric knee SML: SML:
8 Rodriguez-Casares, & university students extension ↑VL thickness at 25% and 50% muscle ↓Optimum angle (7.3%, ES = 0.91)
9 Aguado (2014)30 length (5.2-6.1%, ES = 0.23-0.24)
10 M = 22 SML = 50° ↑isokinetic EMG at 60-70° (ES = 1.0) and LML:
11 (18/20) F=7 LML = 90° 50-60° (p = 0.21, ES = 0.77) ↑Concentric torque at 60°·s-1 (22.6%, ES = 1.1)
12 ↑Optimum angle (14.6%, ES = 1.38)
13 19.3 years ~74% of MVIC
14 LML:
15 8 weeks, 2-3/week ↑VL thickness at 25%, 50%, and 75%
PR
16 muscle length (9-13.5%, ES = 0.31-0.65)
17 ↑VL pennation angle (11.7%, ES = 0.45)
OO
18
19 Bandy & Hanten Healthy, untrained, Isometric knee SML: SML:
20 (1993)38 university students extension ↑EMG at 15°, 30°, 45° and 60° vs. ↑EMG ↑MVIC at 15°, 30°, 45° and 60° (ES = 0.88-
F
21 in control (ES = 0.87-1.65) 1.94)
22 (18/20) F = 107 SML = 30°
23 MML = 60° MML: MML:
24 23.9 years LML = 90° ↑EMG at 15°, 30°, 45°, 60° and 70° vs. ↑MVIC at 15°, 30°, 45°, 60° and 75° (ES = 1.01-
25 ↑EMG control (ES = 0.36-2.26) 2.25)
26 100% of MVIC
27 LML: LML:
8 weeks, 4/week ↑EMG at 30°, 45°, 60°, 75°, 90°, and 105° ↑MVIC at 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 75°, 90°, and 105°
28
vs. ↑EMG in control (ES = 0.74-2.28) (ES = 0.94-3.26)
29
30
Bogdanis et al., Healthy, active Isometric leg press SML:
31
(2018)64 university students (+ countermovement ↓Optimum angle (9.7%, ES = 1.77)
32 jumps) ↑MVIC at 18° (22%, ES = 0.88) and 34° (57.4%,
33 (15/20) M = 15 ES = 2.41)
34 SML = 35° of knee ↓RFD 0-200ms and 0-300ms at 80° (11.8-13.8%,
35 21.5 ± 2.1 years flexion ES = 0.51-0.60)
36 ↑RFD 0-200ms and 0-300ms at 18° (40.7-45.4%,
37 LML = 95° of knee ES = 1.2-1.52) and 34° (17.9-20.9%, ES = 0.62-
38 flexion 0.77)
39 ↑1RM squat (9.6%, ES = 0.61)
40
41
42 36
43 Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports - PROOF
44
45
46

1
2
3 100% of MVIC ↑CMJ height (7.2%, ES = 0.66)
4
5 6 weeks, 3/week LML:
6 ↑MVIC (main time effect: p = 0.028) at all joint
7 angles (18-98°) (~12.3%)
8 *↑RFD 0-300ms at 34° (14.4%, ES =0.52)
9 ↑1RM squat (11.9%, ES = 0.64)
10 ↑CMJ height (8.4%, ES = 0.51)
11
12 Kubo et al., (2006)31 Healthy university Isometric knee SML: SML:
13 students extension ↑Quadriceps muscle volume (10%, ES = ↑MVIC at 40°, 50°, 60°, 70° and 80°
14 (11/20) 0.82)
15 M=9 SML = 50° ↑EMG at all joint angles (3.1-7.5%, ES = LML:
PR
16 LML = 100° 0.25-0.44) ↑MVIC at 40°, 50°, 60°, 70°, 80°, 90°, 100° and
17 24 ± 1 years 110°
OO
18 70% of MVIC
19 LML:
20 12 weeks, 4/week ↑Quadriceps muscle volume (11%, ES =
1.06)
F
21
↑Tendon stiffness (50.86%, ES = 1.22)
22
↓Tendon elongation (-14.01%, ES = 0.62)
23
↑EMG at all joint angles (7-8.84%, ES =
24 0.45-0.72)
25
26 Lindh (1979)40 Healthy Isometric knee SML:
27 extension ↑MVIC in SML at 15° (32%)
28 (13/20) F = 10 ↑MVIC at 60° (14%)
29 SML = 15° ↑Con torque at 30°·s-1
30 26.5 years LML = 60°
31 LML:
32 100% of MVIC ↑MVIC at 15° (11%)
33 ↑MVIC at 60° (31%)
34 5 weeks, 3/week ↑Con torque at 30°·s-1
35
36 Noorkoiv, Nosaka, & Healthy, untrained Isometric knee SML: SML:
37 Blazevich (2014)32 extension ↑Mid VL fascicle length (5.6%, ES = 0.63) ↑MVIC at 40° and 50° (8.0-14.2%, ES = 0.34-
38 M = 16 0.54)
39 (17/20) SML = 38.1 ± 3.7° LML:
40 23.7 ± 4.0 years LML = 87.5 ± 6.0°
41
42 37
44
45
46

1
2
3 ↑Voluntary activation at 50° (ES = 0.53)
4 100% of MVIC and 60° (ES = 1.02)
5 ↑Total quadriceps muscle volume (5.2%,
6 6 weeks, 3/week ES = 0.19)
7 ↑Distal VL fascicle length (5.8%, ES =
8 0.33)
9
10 Noorkoiv, Nosaka, & Healthy, untrained Isometric knee LML:
11 Blazevich (2015)33 extension ↑Concentric torque at 30, *60, *90, and 120°·s-1
12 M = 16 (10.1-13%, ES = 0.55-0.70)
13 (17/20) SML = 38.1 ± 3.7°
14 23.7 ± 4.0 years LML = 87.5 ± 6.0°
15
PR
16 100% of MVIC
17
OO
18 6 weeks, 3/week
19 Rasch & Pierson Healthy, untrained Isometric elbow flexion
20 (1964)36 university students
Single-angle = 3 sets at
F
21
(13/20) M = 29 90°
22
23
Multi-angle = 1 set at
24
60°, 90° and 120°
25
26 100% of MVIC
27
28 5 weeks, 5/week
29
30 Sterling, (1969)35 University physical Isometric “hip press” SML:
31 education students ↑MVIC at 25° and 55° (21-37.2%)
32 (18/20) SML = 25°
33 M = 120 MML = 55° MML:
34 LML = 85° ↑MVIC at 25° and 55° (15.4-51.4%)
35
36 100% MVIC LML:
37 ↑MVIC at 85° (3.1%)
38 7 weeks, 3/week
39
40
41
42 38
44
45
46

1
2
3 Thepaut-Mathieu, Van Untrained Isometric elbow flexion SML, MML & LML: SML:
4 Hoecke, & Maton ↑EMG at all angles ↑MVIC at 60° and 80° (10-25%)
5 (1988)37 M = 24 SML = 60°
6 MML = 100° MML:
7 11/20 31.8 years LML = 155° ↑MVIC at 60-155° (22-30%)
8
9 80% MVIC LML:
10 ↑MVIC at 80-155° (24-54%)
11 5 weeks, 3/week
12
13 SML = short muscle length. MML = medium muscle length. LML = long muscle length. MVIC = Maximal voluntary isometric contraction. Con = concentric. VL = vastus
14 lateralis, VM = vastus medialis, RF = rectus femoris. 1RM = 1 repetition maximum. CMJ = Countermovement jump. ES = effect size (Cohen’s d). * denotes p > 0.05.
15
PR
16
17
OO
18
19
20
F
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42 39
44
45
46

1
2
3 Table 2. Contraction intensity
4 Study, quality Subjects Intervention Morphological and neural Performance effect
5 adaptations (p < 0.05, ES ≥ (p < 0.05, ES ≥ 0.50)
6 0.50)
7
8 Adamantios Arampatzis, Healthy, untrained Isometric plantar flexion LI:
9 Karamanidis, & Albracht university students ↑Tendon elongation (16.2%,
10 (2007)41 LI = 55% MVIC (24 contractions) ES = 0.56)
11 M=7 HI = 90% MVIC (16 contractions) ↑Tendon strain (17.4%, ES =
12 14/20 F = 14 0.57)
13 14 weeks, 4/week ↑Calculated maximum tendon
14 28 years force (28.4%, ES = 1.76)
15
PR
16 HI:
17 ↑Tendon stiffness (36%, ES =
OO
18 1.57)
19 ↑Tendon CSA at 60% and
20 70% of tendon length
F
21
22 ↑Calculated maximum tendon
23 force (43.6%, ES = 2.04)
24
25 Adamantois Arampatzis, Healthy, untrained Isometric plantar flexion LI:
Peper, Bierbaum, & Albracht university students ↑Tendon elongation (14%, ES
26
(2010)42 LI = 55% MVIC (20 contractions) = 0.84)
27
M = 11 HI = 90% MVIC (12 contractions) ↑Tendon strain (13.7%, ES =
28
14/20 0.67)
29 23.9 years 14 weeks, 4/week ↑Calculated maximum tendon
30 force (11.7%, ES = 0.89)
31
32 HI:
33 ↑Tendon stiffness (17.1%, ES
34 = 0.82)
35 ↑Calculated maximum tendon
36 force (11.9%, ES = 0.81)
37
38
39
40
41
42 40
44
45
46

1
2
3 Kanehisa et al. (2002)44 Healthy, untrained Isometric elbow extension LI: LI:
4 ↑Muscle volume (5.3%, ES = ↑MVIC (61%, ES = 1.91)
5 16/20 M = 12 LI = 60% MVIC (4 x 30s) 0.26)
6 HI = 100% MVIC (12 x 6s) HI:
7 27.5 years HI: ↑MVIC (60.3%, ES = 2.71)
8 10 weeks, 3/week ↑Muscle volume (12.4%, ES =
9 0.28)
10
11 Khouw & Herbert (1998)45 51 untrained Isometric elbow flexion Greater ↑MVIC (slope = 0.19,
12 university students 5.3%, p = 0.006) when training
13 11/20 Each subject assigned to an individual closer to 100%
14 M = 18 intensity between 0% and 100% in 2%
15 F = 33 increments
PR
16
17 6 weeks, 3/week
OO
18
19 Szeto, Strauss, De Domenico, University students Isometric knee extension LI:
20 & Sun Lai (1989)46 *↑MVIC (22.3%, ES = 0.61)
M=6 LI = 25% MVIC
F
21
11/20 F = 12 MI = 50% MVIC MI:
22
HI = 100% MVIC ↑MVIC (31.3%, ES = 1.14)
23
24
3 weeks, 5/week HI:
25 ↑MVIC (45.7%, ES = 1.44)
26
27 Young, McDonagh, & Davies Healthy Isometric plantar flexion LI:
28 (1985)65 ↑MVIC (3.3%/week)
29 M=4 LI = 30% MVIC (7-15 x 60s) ↑MVIC (30.2%, ES = 2.22)
30 12/20 HI = 100% MVIC (3s contractions ↑Fatigue index (19.4%, ES = 1.72)
31 20.5 years
32 HI, 5 weeks; and LI, 8 weeks, 7/week HI:
33 ↑MVIC (5.5%/week
34 ↑MVIC (21.2%, ES = 1.67)
35
36 LI = low intensity. MI = medium intensity. HI = high intensity. MVIC = maximal voluntary isometric contraction. ES = effect size (Cohen’s d). * denotes p > 0.05.
37
38
39
40
41
42 41
44
45
46

1
2
3 Table 3. Contraction intent
4
Study, year Subjects Intervention Morphological and neural Performance effect
5
(quality) adaptations (p < 0.05, ES ≥ 0.50)
6 (p < 0.05, ES ≥ 0.50)
7
8 Balshaw, Massey, Maden- Healthy, untrained Isometric knee extension MST: MST:
9 Wilkinson, Tillin, & Folland ↑Muscle volume (8.1%, ES = ↑MVIC (23.4%, ES = 1.19)
10 (2016) 43 M = 43 MST = 1s build to 75% of MVIC, 0.50) ↑Force at 150ms (12.1%, ES =
11 hold for 3s (40 contractions) ↑EMG at MVIC (27.8%, ES = 0.74)
12 (15/20) 0.67)
13 EST = rapidly built to ≥ 80% of ↑EMG 0-150ms (14.3%, ES = EST:
14 MVIC and hold for 1s (40 0.36) ↑MVIC (17.2%, ES = 1.24)
15 contractions) ↑Force at 50, 100, 150ms
PR
16 EST: (14.4-32.6%, ES = 0.65-1.06)
17 12 weeks, 3/week ↑EMG 0-100 and 0-150ms
(12.5-31.3%, ES = 0.26-0.67)
OO
18
19
Maffiuletti & Martin (2001)48 Healthy untrained Isometric knee extension RC: RC:
20
↓VL EMG ↑MVIC at 55°, 65° (15.7%)
F
21
(17/20) M = 21 RC = 4 seconds to reach MVIC and 75°
22 BC = 1 second to reach MVIC BC: ↑Eccentric torque at 60°.s-1
23 ↑Peak twitch (29.8%) (15.6%)
24 7 weeks, 3/week ↓Contraction time ↑Concentric torque at 60°.s-1
25 ↓Maximal twitch relaxation and 240°.s-1
26
27 BC:
28 ↑MVIC at 55°, 65° (27.4%)
29 and 75°
30 ↑Eccentric torque at 60°.s-1
31 (18.3%)
32 ↑Concentric torque at 60°.s-1
33 and 240°.s-1
34
35 Massey, Balshaw, Maden- Healthy untrained Isometric knee extension MST: MST:
36 Wilkinson, Tillin, & Foland ↑Muscle volume (8.1%, ES = ↑MVIC (23.6%, ES = 1.17)
37 (2018)67 M = 42 MST = 1s build to 75% of MVIC, 0.47)
38 hold for 3s (~ 10 contractions) ↑VL aponeurosis area (5.9%, EST:
39 (18/20) MST = 25 ± 2 years ES = 0.34) ↑MVIC (16.7%, ES = 1.23)
40
41
42 42
44
45
46

1
2
3 EST = 25 ± 2 years EST = rapidly built to ~80% of ↑Tendon stiffness (14.3%, ES
4 MVIC (~ 10 contractions) = 0.79)
5 CON = 25 ± 3 years ↑Young’s modulus (14.4%, ES
6 12 weeks, 3/week = 0.60)
7 ↑Tendon-aponeurosis stiffness
8 (22.7%, ES = 0.54)
9
10 EST:
11 ↑VL aponeurosis area (4.4%,
12 ES = 0.38)
13 ↓Tendon CSA (2.8%, ES =
14 0.31)
15 ↓Tendon elongation (11%, ES
PR
16 = 0.75)
17 ↑Tendon stiffness (19.9%, ES
OO
18 = 0.95)
19 ↓Tendon strain (11.8%, ES =
0.56)
20
↑Young’s modulus (21.1%, ES
F
21
= 1.13)
22
↑Tendon-aponeurosis
23 elongation (16%, ES = 1.0)
24
25 Tillin & Folland (2014)47 Healthy, recreationally active Isometric knee extension MST: MST:
26 male university students ↑M-wave at MVIC (28.1%, ES ↑MVIC (20.5%, ES = 1.46)
27 (12/20) MST = 1s build to 75% of MVIC, = 1.28) ↑MVIC at 50, 100 and 150ms
28 N = 19 hold for 3s (10 contractions) ↓%EMG at 50 and 150ms (3.09-7.39%, ES = 0.084-0.52)
29 (11.7-22.1%, ES = 0.59-0.79)
30 MST = 20.9 ± 1.1 years EST = rapidly built to ≥ 90% of EST:
31 MVIC and hold for 1s (10 EST: ↑MVIC (10.6%, ES = 0.56)
32 EST = 20.2 ± 2.4 years contractions) ↑M-wave at 50 and 100ms ↑MVIC at 50, 100 and 150ms
33 (25-42%, ES = 0.95-1.05) (13.1-53.7%, ES = 0.96-1.2)
34 4 weeks, 4/week
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42 43
44
45
46

1
2
3 Williams (2011)66 Healthy, untrained university Isometric knee extension RC: RC:
4 students ↑Ramp VA (7.7%, ES = 1.99) ↑Ramp MVIC (20%, ES =
5 (15/20) RC = 4 seconds to reach MVIC ↑Ballistic VA (8.3%, ES = 1.95)
6 M = 11 BC = 1 second to reach MVIC 1.75) ↑Ballistic MVIC (17.8%, ES =
7 F = 12 *↑150ms VA (9.82%, ES 1.56)
8 6 weeks, 3/week =0.74) *↑150ms force (14.3%, ES =
9 Ramp = 9 1.10)
10 Ballistic = 8 BC:
11 22.8 years ↑Ramp VA (4.1%, ES = 1.07) BC:
12 ↑Ballistic VA (7.9%, ES = ↑Ramp MVIC (15.7%, ES =
13 1.50) 0.75)
14 ↑150ms VA (31.6%, ES = ↑Ballistic MVIC (18.9%, ES =
15 1.84) 0.88)
PR
16 ↑150ms force (48.8%, ES =
17 3.66)
OO
18
19 MST = maximal strength training. EST = explosive strength training. RC = ramp contraction. BC = ballistic contraction. MVIC = maximal voluntary isometric contraction.
20 VA = voluntary activation. ES = effect size (Cohen’s d). * denotes p > 0.05.
F
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42 44
44
45
46

1
2
3 Table 4. Other independent variables
4
Study, quality Subjects Intervention Morphological and neural adaptations Performance effect
5
(p < 0.05, ES ≥ 0.50) (p < 0.05 and/or ES ≥ 0.50)
6
7 Kubo, Kanehisa, & Fukunaga Healthy, untrained Isometric knee extension SC: SC:
8 (2001)13 ↑Muscle volume (7.4%, ES = 0.36) ↑MVIC (49%, ES = 2.47)
9 M=8 SC = 3 x 50 rapid contractions *↑Tendon stiffness (17.5%, ES = 0.57)
10 14/20 LC = 4 x 20s ↑Elastic energy (25.6%, ES = 1.85) LC:
11 22.6 years ↑MVIC (41.6%, ES = 2.21)
12 70% MVIC LC:
13 ↑Muscle volume (7.6%, ES = 0.38)
14 12 weeks, 4/week ↑Tendon stiffness (57.3%, ES = 1.38)
15 ↑Elastic energy (12%, ES = 0.58)
PR
16
17 Meyers (1967)39 Healthy university Isometric elbow flexion LV: LV:
OO
18 students ↑Muscle girth at 170° in trained arm ↑MVIC at 170° (15.4%, ES
19 13/20 LV = 3 x 6s = 0.93)
20 M = 29 HV = 20 x 6s HV: *↑Muscle endurance (49.7%,
F
21 ↑Muscle girth at 170° in trained and ES = 0.71)
22 100% MVIC untrained arm
23 ↑Muscle girth at 90° in trained arm HV:
24 6 weeks, 3/week ↑MVIC at 170° (15.5 %, ES
= 0.46)
25
*↑MVIC at 90° (9%, ES =
26
0.50)
27
↑Muscle endurance (42.7%,
28 ES = 0.67)
29
30 Schott, McCully, & Rutherford Healthy, untrained Isometric knee extension LC: SC:
31 (1995)34 ↑Muscle ACSA at lower (11.1%) and ↑MVIC (31.5%)
32 M=1 SC = 4 x 10 x 3s upper (10.1%) femur ↑Concentric torque at 120°·s-
33 10/20 F=6 LC = 4 x 30s 1 and 180°·s-1 (11.3-11.6%)
34
35 22.7 years 70% of MVIC LC:
36 ↑MVIC at 90° (54.7%)
37 14 weeks, 3/week
38
39
40
41
42 45
44
45
46

1
2
3 Ullrich, Holzinger, Soleimani, Healthy, active Isometric knee extension TP: TP:
4 Pelzer, Stening, & Pfeiffer university students ↑Thigh circumference (6.2%, ES = 0.45) ↑MVIC (24%)
5 (2015)69 TP limb = 3 weeks 60%, 4 weeks ↑VL thickness at 25%, 50%, and 75% ↑Concentric torque at 60°.s-1
6 F = 10 80%, 3 weeks 60%, 2 weeks 80% of muscle length (15.5-18.5%, ES = 0.98- (19%)
7 16/20 MVIC 1.23)
8 24.4 ± 3.2 years ↑VL fascicle length (13.7%, ES = 1.17)
9 DUP limb = Alternating sessions at ↑MVIC EMG (45%) DUP:
10 60% and 80% of MVIC in one limb ↑MVIC (23%)
11 DUP: ↑Concentric torque at 60°.s-1
12 16 weeks, 2/week ↑Thigh circumference (5.0%, ES = 0.37) (15%)
13 ↑VL thickness at 25%, 50%, and 75%
14 muscle length (12.4-19.7%, ES = 0.72-
15 1.01)
PR
16 ↑VL fascicle length (14.2%, ES = 0.90)
17 ↑MVIC EMG (46%)
OO
18
19 Waugh, Alktebi, De Sa, & Scott Healthy, physically Isometric plantarflexion SR: SR & LR:
20 (2018)68 active ↑Echo-type II (collagen re-organization) ↑MVIC
SR = 3s between reps
F
21
14/20 M=8 LR = 10s between reps SR & LR:
22
F = 10 ↑Stiffness
23
90% MVIC ↑Tendon stress
24 30.1 ± 7.9 years ↑Young’s modulus
25 12 weeks, 3/week ↓Strain %
26 ↓Tendon elongation
27
28 SC = short contraction. LC = long contraction. LV = low volume. HV = high volume. SR = short rest. LR = long rest. TP = traditional periodization. DUP = daily undulating
29 periodization. MVIC = maximal voluntary isometric contraction. ES = effect size (Cohen’s d). * denotes p > 0.05.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42 46
44
45
46

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
PR
16
17
OO
18
19
20
F
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42 47
44
45
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PR
26
27 108x60mm (300 x 300 DPI)
28
OO
29
30
31
32
33
F
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PR
26
27 108x60mm (300 x 300 DPI)
28
OO
29
30
31
32
33
F
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PR
26
27 108x60mm (300 x 300 DPI)
28
OO
29
30
31
32
33
F
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PR
26
27 108x60mm (300 x 300 DPI)
28
OO
29
30
31
32
33
F
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
View publication stats

Isometric and Long Term Adaptation

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Isometric and Long Term Adaptation

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

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

Isometric training and long-term adaptations: Effects of muscle length,

Article in Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports · April 2019

Dustin J Oranchuk Adam Storey

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Andre Nelson John Cronin

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Eccentric Strength training and application to sport performance View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Isometric training and long-term adaptations; effects of

Journal: Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports

Manuscript Type: Review Article

Date Submitted by the

Complete List of Authors: Oranchuk, Dustin; Auckland University of Technology, Sports

Nelson, André; Victoria University College of Sport and Exercise Science,

School of Health and Medical Science

Eccentric, fascicle, force, mechanical loading, muscle, tendon, stiffness,

Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports - PROOF

Adaptations to isometric training

28 13 Auckland, New Zealand

36 17 Technology’s Vice Chancellors Doctoral Scholarship.

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

36 15 muscle lengths following concentric, isometric and eccentric exercise.73,93-98 Additionally,

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

28 12 or length of contraction respectively.34 Maffiuletti and Martin48 reported similar

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

28 11 special populations,20 despite potential to provide unique morphological tendon adaptations.67

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

28 21 8. Tanaka H, Swensen T. Impact of resistance training on endurance performance.

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training

Adaptations to isometric training