Assertion

Partials at short lengths are less effective than full range of motion or partials at long lengths for muscle growth.

40 / 100

0 / 100

Explained

The scientific literature suggests that partials at short lengths do not allow for the full contraction and stretch of the muscle, which is important for muscle growth. This assertion is based on the comparison of different range of motion exercises for muscle growth.

Context for Assertion

The context of this assertion is the comparison of different range of motion exercises for muscle growth.

Concepts for Assertion

Evidence for Assertion

Why relevant:

Why true:The study found that partials at short lengths were less effective than full range of motion or partials at long lengths for muscle growth through a randomized controlled trial.

How it is true:The study conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the effects of different range of motion exercises on muscle growth.

ELI5

The study tested the claim by comparing the effects of different range of motion exercises on muscle growth.
They found that partials at short lengths were less effective than full range of motion or partials at long lengths for muscle growth.
This means that the claim that partials at short lengths are not as effective as a full range of motion or partials at long lengths for muscle growth is supported by the study.

40 / 100

The study compared changes in strength and regional muscle hypertrophy between different ranges of motion (ROM) in the knee extension exercise

Study Type:Human Study

DOI:N/a

Experimental Study

Human

n=45

p≤0.05

Unknown

Publication

Assertion from content

It’s Finally Here! This NEW Study on Muscle Growth is Epic

“The scientific literature tends to find that partials at Short lengths aren't as effective as a full range of motion or partials at long lengths.”