Full Range of Motion Is NOT Optimal For Building Muscle (New Study)

0:00 Intro
0:52 Limitation with current range of motion research
4:50 New research on a partial range of motion
8:52 Training at long muscle lengths vs short lengths
10:00 Why a partial range of motion could be better
18:42 Limitations and further considerations

Up until recently, the scientific consensus was trending towards the idea that a full range of motion is superior for muscle hypertrophy. Excluding the new study that is the core of this video, there have been 6 studies comparing a full range of motion to a partial range of motion for muscle growth. 4 of these found a full range of motion to be better. However, if we carefully assessed these 4 research papers, you could not truly conclude that a full range of motion is optimal for building muscle. This is because, in all 4 of these studies, they compared a partial range of motion that trained the muscle at a short length to a full range of motion. Therefore, these 4 studies do not tell us how a partial range of motion that trains a muscle at a long length compares to a full range of motion. Luckily, a new study by Pedrosa et al. does.

In this study, a partial range of motion at long muscle lengths produced overall superior muscle growth responses compared to a full range of motion and a partial range of motion at short lengths. These results are quite surprising and challenge conventional beliefs.

Ultimately, this is only one study. At this moment, it isn't sensible to truly confirm and conclude a partial range of motion at long muscle lengths is superior to a full range of motion. Future research neccessary.

Music:
1) L'Indécis - Departure - https://chll.to/e8099930
  / lindecis  

2) Ruck P - A Tribe Called Tenz
Copyright Chillhop Music - https://chll.to/6945fbe1
  / ruckp  

References:
Pinto et al. - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22027...

Bloomquist et al. - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23604...
Kubo et al. - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31230...
McMahon et al. - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23629...
Valamatos et al. - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29982...
Goto et al. - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31034...
Pedrosa et al. - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33977...
McMahon et al. (long length vs short length) - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23625...
Oranchuk et al. - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30580...
Kooistra et al. (oxygen consumption at long muscle lengths) - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17962...
Foure et al. (more damage at long lengths) - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31807...
Child et al. (more damage at long lengths)- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9663954/
Nosaka et al. (more damage at long lengths) - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11194...
Wackerhage et al. (muscle hypertrophy mechanisms: discussion on metabolic stress, muscle damage, and mechanical tension) - https://journals.physiology.org/doi/f...
Bampouras et al. - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17013...
Becker et al. - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11317...
Kluka et al. - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25083...
Kubo et al. - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14648...
Lanza et al. - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28594...
Douget et al. - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27997...
Some info about titin - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Details about sarcomere lengths and muscle lengths - https://www.houseofhypertrophy.com/th...
Cutts (quadriceps sarcomere lengths) - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...