Background:This paper aimed to systematically review the literature regarding the effects of resistance training(RT)performed at longer-muscle length(LML)versus shorter-muscle length(SML)on proxy measurements for long...Background:This paper aimed to systematically review the literature regarding the effects of resistance training(RT)performed at longer-muscle length(LML)versus shorter-muscle length(SML)on proxy measurements for longitudinal hypertrophy.Methods:We included studies that satisfied the following criteria:(1)be a resistance training intervention with a comparison of LML vs SML-RT;(2)assess both fascicle length(FL)and muscle size pre-and post-intervention;(3)involve healthy adults aged≥18 years;(4)be published in an English-language journal,and;(5)have a minimum training intervention duration of 4 weeks.Three databases were searched in February 2024(Google Scholar,PubMed/Medline,Scopus)for relevant articles,alongside'forward'and'backward'citation searching of articles included and additions via authors'personal knowledge.The results of studies were described narratively,compared,and contrasted.Eight studies met the inclusion criteria,totaling a sample size of 120.Results:Our results suggest that both muscle size and fascicle length increases may be greater following LML-RT versus SML-RT,suggesting LML-RT may lead to greater longitudinal hypertrophy than SML-RT.Notably,evidence is largely mixed;no studies to date have attempted to estimate serial sarcomere number changes from LML versus SML-RT,and all but one study used linear extrapolation methods to estimate FL,which has questionable validity.Therefore,the structural adaptations underlying hypertrophy from LML-RT remain undetermined.Conclusion:In conclusion,results suggest that LML-RT may be superior to SML-RT for inducing muscle hypertrophy and,more specifically,longitudinal growth,though evidence is mixed.展开更多
文摘Background:This paper aimed to systematically review the literature regarding the effects of resistance training(RT)performed at longer-muscle length(LML)versus shorter-muscle length(SML)on proxy measurements for longitudinal hypertrophy.Methods:We included studies that satisfied the following criteria:(1)be a resistance training intervention with a comparison of LML vs SML-RT;(2)assess both fascicle length(FL)and muscle size pre-and post-intervention;(3)involve healthy adults aged≥18 years;(4)be published in an English-language journal,and;(5)have a minimum training intervention duration of 4 weeks.Three databases were searched in February 2024(Google Scholar,PubMed/Medline,Scopus)for relevant articles,alongside'forward'and'backward'citation searching of articles included and additions via authors'personal knowledge.The results of studies were described narratively,compared,and contrasted.Eight studies met the inclusion criteria,totaling a sample size of 120.Results:Our results suggest that both muscle size and fascicle length increases may be greater following LML-RT versus SML-RT,suggesting LML-RT may lead to greater longitudinal hypertrophy than SML-RT.Notably,evidence is largely mixed;no studies to date have attempted to estimate serial sarcomere number changes from LML versus SML-RT,and all but one study used linear extrapolation methods to estimate FL,which has questionable validity.Therefore,the structural adaptations underlying hypertrophy from LML-RT remain undetermined.Conclusion:In conclusion,results suggest that LML-RT may be superior to SML-RT for inducing muscle hypertrophy and,more specifically,longitudinal growth,though evidence is mixed.
