What we've found so far suggests that, for trained lifters doing upper-body exercises, partial range of motion training may build a similar amount of muscle as full range of motion training over an 8-week period [1]. This appears to hold true as long as lifters perform the same total work and continue each set until they can’t do another rep.
Our analysis of the available research shows that when trained individuals lift weights for their upper body, the extent of joint movement—whether full or partial—may not make a clear difference in muscle growth over time [1]. In the evidence we’ve reviewed, studies found that arm muscles grew to a comparable degree in both conditions, assuming effort and volume were matched [1]. This means that if someone does fewer reps through a shorter range but lifts enough to match the total workload and pushes to failure, they may get similar results.
That said, what we’ve found so far is based on a limited set of findings, all focused on upper-body training in experienced lifters over a relatively short time frame. We don’t yet know how these results might change with lower-body exercises, longer training periods, or different levels of training experience.
The evidence we’ve reviewed leans toward the idea that muscle growth can be similar with partial and full range of motion in these specific conditions [1]. However, we don’t have enough evidence to say this applies more broadly across different exercises, muscle groups, or training goals.
Practical takeaway: If you're experienced with lifting and training your upper body, stopping short of a full range of motion might still lead to similar arm muscle gains—as long as you work hard, match your total volume, and go to the point of failure. But this doesn’t mean full range is unnecessary in all cases; we’re still building our understanding.
2 items of evidenceView full answer