Recent partials study
Posted: 15 June 2017 06:35 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1139
Joined  2009-03-25

http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/publishahead/Partial_range_of_motion_exercise_is_effective_for.95936.aspx

Results looks odd

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 June 2017 11:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1413
Joined  2008-07-28

Hi Anatoly,

Sorry I didn’t see this. Not much activity these days hence don’t check.

From what I have seen, it is usually the other way around. I haven’t read the full text yet. So even if this is true, it needs to be replicated a few times.
If they equalized volume, I hope the partial group is using much higher weight than the full ROM group.

I will upload the full text here later today.

Thanks Anatoly!

 Signature 

Exercise Biology - The Science of Exercise & Nutrition

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 June 2017 05:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1139
Joined  2009-03-25

Actually, Im curious about huge CSA increases claimed in abstract, about 50% in 8 weeks, in trained

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2017 01:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1413
Joined  2008-07-28

I haven’t got the full text. My comp is going crazy.

But I am pretty sure they are reporting within group improvements. Usually, the difference reported is between-groups. Within group improvements are usually pretty large, but have issues with regression to the mean and such. I want to see how they did the statistical analysis

 Signature 

Exercise Biology - The Science of Exercise & Nutrition

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 June 2017 11:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1413
Joined  2008-07-28

I looked at the full text.

What I don’t understand is how come the short ROM and full ROM have almost similar load for training. You would expect the shorter ROM group to be using a much higher starting weight than the full ROM group. 

The authors didn’t really discuss other studies which have looked at short vs full ROM.

Also, when you do studies like these, the authors need to post a picture of the difference in ROM for the 2 exercises. 

Here is another study which looked at the same question, but had the opposite results.

J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Aug;26(8):2140-5. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31823a3b15.
Effect of range of motion on muscle strength and thickness.
Pinto RS1, Gomes N, Radaelli R, Botton CE, Brown LE, Bottaro M.
Author information
Abstract
The purpose of this investigation was to compare partial range-of-motion vs. full range-of-motion upper-body resistance training on strength and muscle thickness (MT) in young men. Volunteers were randomly assigned to 3 groups: (a) full range of motion (FULL; n = 15), (b) partial range of motion (PART; n = 15), or (c) control (CON; n = 10). The subjects trained 2 d · wk(-1) for 10 weeks in a periodized program. Primary outcome measures included elbow flexion maximal strength measured by 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and elbow flexors MT measured by ultrasound. The results indicated that elbow flexion 1RM significantly increased (p < 0.05) for the FULL (25.7 ± 9.6%) and PART groups (16.0 ± 6.7%) but not for the CON group (1.7 ± 5.5%). Also, FULL 1RM strength was significantly greater than the PART 1RM after the training period. Average elbow flexor MT significantly increased for both training groups (9.65 ± 4.4% for FULL and 7.83 ± 4.9 for PART). These data suggest that muscle strength and MT can be improved with both FULL and PART resistance training, but FULL may lead to greater strength gains.

 Signature 

Exercise Biology - The Science of Exercise & Nutrition

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 June 2017 03:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1139
Joined  2009-03-25

Thanks, Anoop
Werd results, indeed

Profile