FitProven
Evidence Breakdown
Based on 2 studies
THE BIGGER QUESTION
Whether this one statement holds is settled above. What to actually do about it is a wider question, weighed across every claim that bears on it.
- What's the right way to train for muscle growth? — this claim is one of 5 weighed there
Evidence map
For & against, at a glance
Systematic Review
Pro
Schoenfeld BJ & Grgic J · 2020SAGE Open MedicineSystematic review of 6 studies (not 8) examining the effects of range of motion on muscle hypertrophy; "the total combined sample of the studies was n = 135, which comprised 127 men and 8 women." The evidence favoured full ROM over partial ROM, but the paper's conclusion is explicitly split by body region: "performing RT through a full ROM confers beneficial effects on hypertrophy of the lower body musculature when compared with training with a partial ROM," whereas "research on the effects of ROM for the upper extremities is limited and conflicting, thereby precluding the ability to draw strong practical inferences." The full-ROM recommendation is therefore well supported for the lower body only.
0.50
Systematic review of 6 studies (not 8) examining the effects of range of motion on muscle hypertrophy; "the total combined sample of the studies was n = 135, which comprised 127 men and 8 women." The evidence favoured full ROM over partial ROM, but the paper's conclusion is explicitly split by body region: "performing RT through a full ROM confers beneficial effects on hypertrophy of the lower body musculature when compared with training with a partial ROM," whereas "research on the effects of ROM for the upper extremities is limited and conflicting, thereby precluding the ability to draw strong practical inferences." The full-ROM recommendation is therefore well supported for the lower body only.
Design Systematic Review (0.9) × quality 0.55 = impact 0.50
View sourceRCT
Con
Pedrosa GF et al. · 2022European Journal of Sport ScienceRCT in 45 untrained women randomised to a non-training control or to one of four knee-extension range-of-motion conditions: full ROM (100°–30° of knee flexion), initial partial ROM (100°–65°, the lengthened position), final partial ROM (65°–30°, the shortened position), or varied ROM (daily alternation between the two partials). Outcomes were 1RM tested in each ROM, and cross-sectional area of the rectus femoris and vastus lateralis at 40%, 50%, 60% and 70% of femur length.
Training at long muscle lengths won on hypertrophy: "the INITIAL_ROM group presented a greater relative increase than all groups at 70%, and at 50% and 60% the increases were greater than FINAL_ROM, FULL_ROM, and non-training control (CON) groups," while the shortened-position group "presented similar changes compared to the CON group at 60% and 70%" — training only in the shortened range grew the muscle no better than not training at all, in those regions.
On strength: "FINAL_ROM and INITIAL_ROM groups presented greater relative increases at the ROM trained, and no group showed greater increases than VAR_ROM or INITIAL_ROM, regardless the ROM tested."
The lengthened portion of the range is the hypertrophically relevant one. A *partial* range, trained long, beat the full range — which is why this cuts against a blanket full-ROM recommendation rather than merely failing to support one.
0.44
RCT in 45 untrained women randomised to a non-training control or to one of four knee-extension range-of-motion conditions: full ROM (100°–30° of knee flexion), initial partial ROM (100°–65°, the lengthened position), final partial ROM (65°–30°, the shortened position), or varied ROM (daily alternation between the two partials). Outcomes were 1RM tested in each ROM, and cross-sectional area of the rectus femoris and vastus lateralis at 40%, 50%, 60% and 70% of femur length. Training at long muscle lengths won on hypertrophy: "the INITIAL_ROM group presented a greater relative increase than all groups at 70%, and at 50% and 60% the increases were greater than FINAL_ROM, FULL_ROM, and non-training control (CON) groups," while the shortened-position group "presented similar changes compared to the CON group at 60% and 70%" — training only in the shortened range grew the muscle no better than not training at all, in those regions. On strength: "FINAL_ROM and INITIAL_ROM groups presented greater relative increases at the ROM trained, and no group showed greater increases than VAR_ROM or INITIAL_ROM, regardless the ROM tested." The lengthened portion of the range is the hypertrophically relevant one. A *partial* range, trained long, beat the full range — which is why this cuts against a blanket full-ROM recommendation rather than merely failing to support one.
Design RCT (0.8) × quality 0.55 = impact 0.44
View sourceSystematic Review
Pro
Schoenfeld BJ & Grgic J · 2020SAGE Open MedicineSystematic review of 6 studies (not 8) examining the effects of range of motion on muscle hypertrophy; "the total combined sample of the studies was n = 135, which comprised 127 men and 8 women." The evidence favoured full ROM over partial ROM, but the paper's conclusion is explicitly split by body region: "performing RT through a full ROM confers beneficial effects on hypertrophy of the lower body musculature when compared with training with a partial ROM," whereas "research on the effects of ROM for the upper extremities is limited and conflicting, thereby precluding the ability to draw strong practical inferences." The full-ROM recommendation is therefore well supported for the lower body only.
0.50
Systematic review of 6 studies (not 8) examining the effects of range of motion on muscle hypertrophy; "the total combined sample of the studies was n = 135, which comprised 127 men and 8 women." The evidence favoured full ROM over partial ROM, but the paper's conclusion is explicitly split by body region: "performing RT through a full ROM confers beneficial effects on hypertrophy of the lower body musculature when compared with training with a partial ROM," whereas "research on the effects of ROM for the upper extremities is limited and conflicting, thereby precluding the ability to draw strong practical inferences." The full-ROM recommendation is therefore well supported for the lower body only.
Design Systematic Review (0.9) × quality 0.55 = impact 0.50
View sourceRCT
Con
Pedrosa GF et al. · 2022European Journal of Sport ScienceRCT in 45 untrained women randomised to a non-training control or to one of four knee-extension range-of-motion conditions: full ROM (100°–30° of knee flexion), initial partial ROM (100°–65°, the lengthened position), final partial ROM (65°–30°, the shortened position), or varied ROM (daily alternation between the two partials). Outcomes were 1RM tested in each ROM, and cross-sectional area of the rectus femoris and vastus lateralis at 40%, 50%, 60% and 70% of femur length.
Training at long muscle lengths won on hypertrophy: "the INITIAL_ROM group presented a greater relative increase than all groups at 70%, and at 50% and 60% the increases were greater than FINAL_ROM, FULL_ROM, and non-training control (CON) groups," while the shortened-position group "presented similar changes compared to the CON group at 60% and 70%" — training only in the shortened range grew the muscle no better than not training at all, in those regions.
On strength: "FINAL_ROM and INITIAL_ROM groups presented greater relative increases at the ROM trained, and no group showed greater increases than VAR_ROM or INITIAL_ROM, regardless the ROM tested."
The lengthened portion of the range is the hypertrophically relevant one. A *partial* range, trained long, beat the full range — which is why this cuts against a blanket full-ROM recommendation rather than merely failing to support one.
0.44
RCT in 45 untrained women randomised to a non-training control or to one of four knee-extension range-of-motion conditions: full ROM (100°–30° of knee flexion), initial partial ROM (100°–65°, the lengthened position), final partial ROM (65°–30°, the shortened position), or varied ROM (daily alternation between the two partials). Outcomes were 1RM tested in each ROM, and cross-sectional area of the rectus femoris and vastus lateralis at 40%, 50%, 60% and 70% of femur length. Training at long muscle lengths won on hypertrophy: "the INITIAL_ROM group presented a greater relative increase than all groups at 70%, and at 50% and 60% the increases were greater than FINAL_ROM, FULL_ROM, and non-training control (CON) groups," while the shortened-position group "presented similar changes compared to the CON group at 60% and 70%" — training only in the shortened range grew the muscle no better than not training at all, in those regions. On strength: "FINAL_ROM and INITIAL_ROM groups presented greater relative increases at the ROM trained, and no group showed greater increases than VAR_ROM or INITIAL_ROM, regardless the ROM tested." The lengthened portion of the range is the hypertrophically relevant one. A *partial* range, trained long, beat the full range — which is why this cuts against a blanket full-ROM recommendation rather than merely failing to support one.
Design RCT (0.8) × quality 0.55 = impact 0.44
View sourceTap any node to expand its detail.
Evidence
PRO (1)
PRO Systematic Reviewn=1350.55 Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J (2020)
Across 6 studies (n = 135; 127 men, 8 women), full ROM beat partial ROM for LOWER-body hypertrophy; for the upper extremities the authors call the research 'limited and conflicting, thereby precluding the ability to draw strong practical inferences'
Systematic review of 6 studies (not 8) examining the effects of range of motion on muscle hypertrophy; "the total combined sample of the studies was n = 135, which comprised 127 men and 8 women." The evidence favoured full ROM over partial ROM, but the paper's conclusion is explicitly split by body region: "performing RT through a full ROM confers beneficial effects on hypertrophy of the lower body musculature when compared with training with a partial ROM," whereas "research on the effects of ROM for the upper extremities is limited and conflicting, thereby precluding the ability to draw strong practical inferences." The full-ROM recommendation is therefore well supported for the lower body only.
Weighted 0.55 — k=6 studies, 135 participants pooled (127 men, 8 women). NOTE: the summary body above says 8 studies; the paper itself states six. Independent (authors received no financial support, no competing interests) and all six studies scored 6/7 on a modified PEDro scale. But the total pooled sample is small, women are almost absent (n=8), and the review is qualitative rather than meta-analysed, so the synthesis rests on vote-counting.
Funding: none declared
SAGE Open Medicine
AGAINST (1)
AGAINST RCTn=450.55 Pedrosa GF, Lima FV et al. (2022)
Knee extension in 45 untrained women: partial ROM at long muscle lengths (INITIAL_ROM, 100-65 deg) produced greater relative hypertrophy than full ROM, final-partial ROM and non-training control at 50%, 60% and 70% of femur length; final-partial ROM (65-30 deg) was no better than the control group at 60% and 70%. For 1RM, no group beat varied ROM or initial-partial ROM, and strength gains were largest in the ROM actually trained
RCT in 45 untrained women randomised to a non-training control or to one of four knee-extension range-of-motion conditions: full ROM (100°–30° of knee flexion), initial partial ROM (100°–65°, the lengthened position), final partial ROM (65°–30°, the shortened position), or varied ROM (daily alternation between the two partials). Outcomes were 1RM tested in each ROM, and cross-sectional area of the rectus femoris and vastus lateralis at 40%, 50%, 60% and 70% of femur length.
Training at long muscle lengths won on hypertrophy: "the INITIAL_ROM group presented a greater relative increase than all groups at 70%, and at 50% and 60% the increases were greater than FINAL_ROM, FULL_ROM, and non-training control (CON) groups," while the shortened-position group "presented similar changes compared to the CON group at 60% and 70%" — training only in the shortened range grew the muscle no better than not training at all, in those regions.
On strength: "FINAL_ROM and INITIAL_ROM groups presented greater relative increases at the ROM trained, and no group showed greater increases than VAR_ROM or INITIAL_ROM, regardless the ROM tested."
The lengthened portion of the range is the hypertrophically relevant one. A partial range, trained long, beat the full range — which is why this cuts against a blanket full-ROM recommendation rather than merely failing to support one.
Weighted 0.55 — Citation repaired 2026-07-12. The record carried a dead DOI (10.1055/a-1720-3516) and the wrong journal (International Journal of Sports Medicine), and an earlier version of the summary described a preacher-curl trial that is not this paper at all. Both are now corrected against the real article (verified via Crossref: same authors, same topic), and the quotes in the body are verbatim from it. Weight 0.55: it is a real randomised trial testing exactly the comparison the claim makes, but small (45 women across five groups, roughly nine each), short, in untrained participants, and necessarily unblinded.
European Journal of Sport Science