Assertion
Partials at short lengths are less effective than full range of motion and partials at long lengths for muscle growth.
40 / 100
0 / 100
Explained
This assertion is based on the idea that the scientific literature tends to find that partials at short lengths are less effective than other methods. The explanation for this is that the peak squeeze achieved by a full range of motion may not deliver additional gains, and partials at long lengths might be an alternative.
Context for Assertion
The context of this assertion is the discussion of different training methods for muscle growth.
Concepts for Assertion
Tags
muscle growth
training methods
Evidence for Assertion
Why relevant:
Why true:The study found that partials at short lengths were not as effective as a full range of motion or partials at long lengths.
How it is true:The study conducted an experiment to test the effects of different ranges of motion on muscle growth.
ELI5
- The study tested the claim by comparing the effects of different ranges of motion on muscle growth.
- They found that partials at short lengths were not as effective as a full range of motion or partials at long lengths.
- This means that the claim that partials at short lengths are not as effective is supported by the study.
40 / 100
Study Type:Human Study
DOI:N/a
Experimental Study
Human
n=45
p≤0.05
Unknown
Publication