Which ROMs Lead to Rome?
Title: Which ROMs Lead to Rome? A Systematic Review of the Effects of Range of Motion on Muscle Hypertrophy. Authors: Kassiano, Witalo; Costa, Bruna; Nunes, João Pedro; Ribeiro, Alex S.; Schoenfeld, Brad J.; Cyrino, Edilson S.
What is it?
A systematic review with a baller title on how strength training through different ranges of motion alters muscle hypertrophy.
Why does it matter?
Everyone and their mother claims that you need to squat to _____ in order to maximize results.
Do we need to go ATG?
Parallel?
Or is Joel Seedman truly an enlightened guru with his eccentric isometric concentric geocentric 90 degree squat grunts? (If you don’t know anything about Joel Seedman’s training methods, you’re not missing out.)
What did they find?
Leg extensions: quad size seemed to increase more with partial range of motion at long lengths (65-100 deg of knee flexion) than full ROM and partial ROM at short lengths.
Back squats: overall, muscle growth seemed to be more prominent with full ROM than partial ROM (all partial ROM studies were the top half of a squat (0-60 or 90 deg).
The next two are for the meatheads looking to get some big arms.
Preacher curls: partial ROM in the bottom half of the curl grows muscle in the distal part of the biceps than partial ROM in the top half of the curl. The proximal and middle biceps growth was similar between the groups.
Lying triceps extension (skullcrushers): Partial ROM in the middle of the movement (45-90 deg elbow flexion) had better muscle growth than full ROM.
What was the process?
They searched a bunch of stuff, reviewed a bunch of stuff, and picked out the stuff that met the inclusion criteria.
Boring systematic review stuff.
The inclusion criteria was: population of healthy adults (18 years or older), intervention of strength training programs at least 4 weeks (isometric interventions excluded), comparison between full ROM vs partial ROM or partial ROM vs different partial ROM, and outcomes of changes in muscle size.
My thoughts.
Nothing here is overly conclusive.
In general, if you’re looking to increase hypertrophy, it seems that following a general rule of thumb of strengthening the muscle at a lengthened position will provide the best bang for your buck.
Remember, though, this study only focused on hypertrophy.
This is not a study looking at strength outcomes that transfer to your sport.
How can you use it?
1. If you’re chasing muscle growth, you’ll want to make sure you are strength training through the lengthened position of the muscle.Â
What do the Bulgarians and Shakira have in common? Hips.
Title: Greater Hip Moments in Rear-Foot-Elevated Split Squats Than in Conventional Back Squats With the Same Relative Intensity of Loads. Authors: Arakawa, Hiroshi; Mori, Miyuki; Tanimoto, Michiya.
What is it?
A within-subjects study with a not-so-baller title comparing whether rear-foot elevated split squats (RFESS, aka Bulgarians) have higher or lower hip moments than traditional back squats in 8 male college rugby players.
Why does it matter?
Unilateral training is gaining a larger share-hold of the market in the performance training world, with RFESS being one of the most commonly used exercises.
Previous studies have used EMG to compare muscle activity, but this study examines 3-dimensional joint kinetics to compare traditional back squats to RFESS.
The more insight we have into what actually happens during these two commonly juxtaposed exercises, the better we can make programming decisions.
What did they find?
Hip extension moments were greater in the RFESS at the bottom position (44% larger) and when comparing the highest moment from each exercise (47% larger).
Knee extension moments were not significantly different between the exercises..
Hip abduction & external rotation moments at the bottom position were greater in the RFESS.
The torso was more vertical in the RFESS. Combining that with the lower external loads used, this indicates there was a lower spine extension moment. In theory, this means spine extension weakness wouldn’t limit hip extension development with RFESS.
What was the process?
For 4 months prior to test day, the rugby players included RFESS and back squats in their training 2x per week. This reduced the chances of the results being skewed by dudes who had no clue how to actually perform the movements.
Their rules for back squat form included: toes forward, feet shoulder width apart, and the hip
joint had to get lower than the knee joint for depth to count.
Their rules for RFESS included: toes forward, bench height of 0.40 m (15.75 inches in ‘Merican numbers) off the ground, dorsum (top) of the foot on the bench, holding DBs, the front foot distance was 50% of each subject’s height, and the hip joint had to get lower than the knee joint for depth to count.
On test day, back squats and RFESS were performed in a random order. Data was collected with a 3-D motion capture system that included 12 cameras and 17 reflective markers.
The loads used were equal to each athlete’s 10RM, but they only performed 3 reps with that weight. For RFESS, the right foot was on the force plate and the left foot was on the bench. For back squats, both feet were on the force plate.
My thoughts.
I’m a big proponent of prioritizing unilateral training if your goal is athletic performance, so on the surface this appears to be a study that confirms my bias.
But, don’t get lost in dichotomy. You don’t have to choose either or.
Additionally, the moments in these exercises can be heavily altered by making a few small changes.
If we shorten the front foot distance in RFESS, the hip extension moment will decrease and the knee extension moment will increase.
The authors in this study used a narrow stance, high bar back squat. If we widen the stance and move the bar down, the hip extension moment is going to increase.
What holds true, though, is the RFESS will have higher non-sagittal hip moments (abduction and external rotation) and reduced spine extension moments.
How can you use it?
1. Inappropriately use it as evidence to confirm your bias that unilateral strength training is superior to bilateral work.
2. If someone puts a gun to your head and makes you decide between those two exercises under those exact form conditions, choose RFESS.Â
3. Add it to your context bank to make programming decisions. If you’re time strapped and would like to make sure you’re getting frontal and transverse plane strengthening in, RFESS is a better option. Â
In case your ability to detect sarcasm (or my ability to transmit sarcasm through the written word) isn’t strong, the directly actionable takeaways are not strong with this study. It does add greater context to a larger puzzle, though.