Impact of range of motion during ecologically valid resistance training protocols on muscle size, subcutaneous fat, and strength.

Gerard Mc Mahon, Christopher I Morse, Adrian Burden, Keith Winwood, Gladys L Onambele

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The impact of using different resistance training (RT) kinematics, which therefore alters RT mechanics, and their subsequent effect on adaptations remain largely unreported. The aim of this study was to identify the differences to training at a longer (LR) compared with a shorter (SR) range of motion (ROM) and the time course of any changes during detraining. Recreationally active participants in LR (aged 19 ± 2.6 years; n = 8) and SR (aged 19 ± 3.4 years; n = 8) groups undertook 8 weeks of RT and 4 weeks of detraining. Muscle size, architecture, subcutaneous fat, and strength were measured at weeks 0, 8, 10, and 12 (repeated measures). A control group (aged 23 ± 2.4 years; n = 10) was also monitored during this period. Significant (p > 0.05) posttraining differences existed in strength (on average 4 ± 2 vs. 18 ± 2%), distal anatomical cross-sectional area (59 ± 15 vs. 16 ± 10%), fascicle length (23 ± 5 vs. 10 ± 2%), and subcutaneous fat (22 ± 8 vs. 5 ± 2%), with LR exhibiting greater adaptations than SR. Detraining resulted in significant (p > 0.05) deteriorations in all muscle parameters measured in both groups, with the SR group experiencing a more rapid relative loss of postexercise increases in strength than that experienced by the LR group (p > 0.05). Greater morphological and architectural RT adaptations in the LR (owing to higher mechanical stress) result in a more significant increase in strength compared with that of the SR. The practical implications for this body of work follow that LR should be observed in RT where increased muscle strength and size are the objective, because we demonstrate here that ROM should not be compromised for greater external loading.
LanguageEnglish
Pages245-255
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Volume28
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2014

Fingerprint

Resistance Training
Subcutaneous Fat
Articular Range of Motion
Muscles
Mechanical Stress
Muscle Strength
Mechanics
Biomechanical Phenomena
Control Groups

Keywords

  • detraining
  • hypertrophy
  • muscle architecture
  • range of motion
  • stress
  • strength training

Cite this

@article{7f9f9578a2de4454a19fb8144bbed936,
title = "Impact of range of motion during ecologically valid resistance training protocols on muscle size, subcutaneous fat, and strength.",
abstract = "The impact of using different resistance training (RT) kinematics, which therefore alters RT mechanics, and their subsequent effect on adaptations remain largely unreported. The aim of this study was to identify the differences to training at a longer (LR) compared with a shorter (SR) range of motion (ROM) and the time course of any changes during detraining. Recreationally active participants in LR (aged 19 ± 2.6 years; n = 8) and SR (aged 19 ± 3.4 years; n = 8) groups undertook 8 weeks of RT and 4 weeks of detraining. Muscle size, architecture, subcutaneous fat, and strength were measured at weeks 0, 8, 10, and 12 (repeated measures). A control group (aged 23 ± 2.4 years; n = 10) was also monitored during this period. Significant (p > 0.05) posttraining differences existed in strength (on average 4 ± 2 vs. 18 ± 2{\%}), distal anatomical cross-sectional area (59 ± 15 vs. 16 ± 10{\%}), fascicle length (23 ± 5 vs. 10 ± 2{\%}), and subcutaneous fat (22 ± 8 vs. 5 ± 2{\%}), with LR exhibiting greater adaptations than SR. Detraining resulted in significant (p > 0.05) deteriorations in all muscle parameters measured in both groups, with the SR group experiencing a more rapid relative loss of postexercise increases in strength than that experienced by the LR group (p > 0.05). Greater morphological and architectural RT adaptations in the LR (owing to higher mechanical stress) result in a more significant increase in strength compared with that of the SR. The practical implications for this body of work follow that LR should be observed in RT where increased muscle strength and size are the objective, because we demonstrate here that ROM should not be compromised for greater external loading.",
keywords = "detraining, hypertrophy, muscle architecture, range of motion, stress, strength training",
author = "{Mc Mahon}, Gerard and Morse, {Christopher I} and Adrian Burden and Keith Winwood and Onambele, {Gladys L}",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1519/JSC.0b013e318297143a",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
pages = "245--255",
journal = "Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research",
issn = "1064-8011",
number = "1",

}

Impact of range of motion during ecologically valid resistance training protocols on muscle size, subcutaneous fat, and strength. / Mc Mahon, Gerard; Morse, Christopher I; Burden, Adrian; Winwood, Keith; Onambele, Gladys L.

In: Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, Vol. 28, No. 1, 01.01.2014, p. 245-255.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Impact of range of motion during ecologically valid resistance training protocols on muscle size, subcutaneous fat, and strength.

AU - Mc Mahon, Gerard

AU - Morse, Christopher I

AU - Burden, Adrian

AU - Winwood, Keith

AU - Onambele, Gladys L

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - The impact of using different resistance training (RT) kinematics, which therefore alters RT mechanics, and their subsequent effect on adaptations remain largely unreported. The aim of this study was to identify the differences to training at a longer (LR) compared with a shorter (SR) range of motion (ROM) and the time course of any changes during detraining. Recreationally active participants in LR (aged 19 ± 2.6 years; n = 8) and SR (aged 19 ± 3.4 years; n = 8) groups undertook 8 weeks of RT and 4 weeks of detraining. Muscle size, architecture, subcutaneous fat, and strength were measured at weeks 0, 8, 10, and 12 (repeated measures). A control group (aged 23 ± 2.4 years; n = 10) was also monitored during this period. Significant (p > 0.05) posttraining differences existed in strength (on average 4 ± 2 vs. 18 ± 2%), distal anatomical cross-sectional area (59 ± 15 vs. 16 ± 10%), fascicle length (23 ± 5 vs. 10 ± 2%), and subcutaneous fat (22 ± 8 vs. 5 ± 2%), with LR exhibiting greater adaptations than SR. Detraining resulted in significant (p > 0.05) deteriorations in all muscle parameters measured in both groups, with the SR group experiencing a more rapid relative loss of postexercise increases in strength than that experienced by the LR group (p > 0.05). Greater morphological and architectural RT adaptations in the LR (owing to higher mechanical stress) result in a more significant increase in strength compared with that of the SR. The practical implications for this body of work follow that LR should be observed in RT where increased muscle strength and size are the objective, because we demonstrate here that ROM should not be compromised for greater external loading.

AB - The impact of using different resistance training (RT) kinematics, which therefore alters RT mechanics, and their subsequent effect on adaptations remain largely unreported. The aim of this study was to identify the differences to training at a longer (LR) compared with a shorter (SR) range of motion (ROM) and the time course of any changes during detraining. Recreationally active participants in LR (aged 19 ± 2.6 years; n = 8) and SR (aged 19 ± 3.4 years; n = 8) groups undertook 8 weeks of RT and 4 weeks of detraining. Muscle size, architecture, subcutaneous fat, and strength were measured at weeks 0, 8, 10, and 12 (repeated measures). A control group (aged 23 ± 2.4 years; n = 10) was also monitored during this period. Significant (p > 0.05) posttraining differences existed in strength (on average 4 ± 2 vs. 18 ± 2%), distal anatomical cross-sectional area (59 ± 15 vs. 16 ± 10%), fascicle length (23 ± 5 vs. 10 ± 2%), and subcutaneous fat (22 ± 8 vs. 5 ± 2%), with LR exhibiting greater adaptations than SR. Detraining resulted in significant (p > 0.05) deteriorations in all muscle parameters measured in both groups, with the SR group experiencing a more rapid relative loss of postexercise increases in strength than that experienced by the LR group (p > 0.05). Greater morphological and architectural RT adaptations in the LR (owing to higher mechanical stress) result in a more significant increase in strength compared with that of the SR. The practical implications for this body of work follow that LR should be observed in RT where increased muscle strength and size are the objective, because we demonstrate here that ROM should not be compromised for greater external loading.

KW - detraining

KW - hypertrophy

KW - muscle architecture

KW - range of motion

KW - stress

KW - strength training

U2 - 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318297143a

DO - 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318297143a

M3 - Article

VL - 28

SP - 245

EP - 255

JO - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

T2 - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

JF - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

SN - 1064-8011

IS - 1

ER -