ReviewSports medicine and health science2026
Does longer-muscle length resistance training cause greater longitudinal growth in humans? A systematic review.
Review in Sports medicine and health science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Partial Range, Full Gains? The Effect of 8 Weeks of Partial Range of Motion Training at Long Muscle Lengths on Elbow Flexor Hypertrophy and Strength in Trained Individuals.European journal of sport science · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Research into resistance training response heterogeneity: a summary of the 2025 conference at the University of Jyväskylä.Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.