Effects of range of motion on resistance training adaptations: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials
Systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention trials
PubMed 34170576 · doi:10.1111/sms.14006
What was done
Authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42020160976) searching Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science through March 2021. They evaluated studies comparing full versus partial range of motion (ROM) resistance training interventions on neuromuscular, functional, and structural adaptations. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2, quality of evidence with GRADE, and meta-analyses were performed using robust variance estimation with small-sample corrections across 16 included studies.
What was found
Full ROM training produced significantly greater adaptations than partial ROM for muscle strength (ES = 0.56, p = 0.004) and lower-limb hypertrophy (ES = 0.88, p = 0.027). Functional performance showed a non-significant trend favoring full ROM (ES = 0.44, p = 0.186). No significant differences between full and partial ROM were found for muscle thickness, pennation angle, and fascicle length (ES = 0.28, p = 0.226).
Why it matters
This review clarifies conflicting opinions on resistance training execution by showing that training through a full ROM is superior for maximizing strength and lower-body muscle growth.
Limits
The abstract does not disclose participant characteristics (total sample size, sex, training status), specific exercise types, or intervention durations. Upper-body hypertrophy outcomes were not reported, and exact confidence intervals or GRADE certainty ratings per outcome were omitted from the abstract.
Cited by
- supports Scientific evidence shows that repetition quality—including technique, range of motion, intent, and mind-muscle connection—influences muscle growth and strength gains.