This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. 10.1111/sms.13375 doi: lead todifferences version between this andthe ofPleasec Version Record. been and throughtypesetting, proofreadingwhich may thecopyediting, process, pagination AcceptedThis article undergone has for and buthas accepted been not review publication fullpeer Conflict ofinterest: None Technology’s Vice Chancellors Doctoral Scholarship. OranchukFundingJ. Dustin information: OranchukCorrespondingauthor:J. Dustin ArticleAuthors: and intent: A systematic review Isometric training and long Articletype : ReviewArticle MR DUSTIN JAY ORANCHUK(Orcid ID : 0000 3 2 1

[email protected] ZealandAuckland, New AUT +64 0278008555 School ofHealth and Medical InstituteHealth for and Sport Technology, Auckland PerformanceSports InstituteZealand, Research Aucklandof University New Dustin J. Oranchuk J. Dustin - Millennium, 17AntaresMillennium, Bay Place, Mairangi

1 , , Adam G.Storey

New ZealandNew -

term adaptations; effects ofmuscle length, intensity

, Victoria Melbourne, University,

Science, University, Perth, Australia Cowan Edith - 0003 is

supported

- 4489 1 ,

Andr - 9022)

é

byUniversity Auckland the of

R

.

Nelson 2 ,

John John B. Cronin Australia ite this articleite this as

1,3

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. desired neuromuscular morphologicaladaptations. and isometric training (e.g. angle, tomanipulate variables joint intensity, intent) meeting criteria, theinclusion training are production 0.22/week) force p 10.5%/week, ES 0.003 whenvolumes comparedof toequal lengths (0.86 quality. training inhumans doctoral dissertations investigating mediumto CINAHL full databases. English, the relevant isometric trainingand onmorphological, performance variables. neurological review, todetaillong therefore, the was mediumto loading param guidelines desired a for of variety outcomes. populations andthe general regarding However, consensus public. little exists Isometric training A

Accepted Article BSTRACT

required - 0.07/week) roduction (1.2

Twenty result . were

subject matter subject S for -

ubstantial improvements in 1.69%/w s eters would be ofbenefitpractitioners. to would eters systematic The ofthis objective

in - improving tendon structure and function. tendonstructureimproving and

three research outputs reported =

. greater transferencegreater performance. todynamic is used

Ballistic intentresultedBallistic ingreater 0.02 were identified - 13.4%/week, ES eek, ES eek, - 0.31/week

regardless of in was performed the

t

= his review provides practitioners which his review into with insight provides rehabilitationphysical and ofspecial athletes, preparation

0.03 - text, peer text, . These studies were. These studies

vs. 1.64 shorter length muscle training - 0.09/week) producedgreater 0.09/week) m

= were training intensity

0.05 muscular hypertrophyand

through MEDLINE, PubMed, SPORTDiscus and MEDLINE, PubMed,SPORTDiscus through - - 5.53%/week, ES reviewed unpublished journal and articles

reviewed Understanding theadaptivetospecific response - 0.61/w long - - term adaptations of adaptations term term neuro eek vs.1.01 .

Isometric longerat trainingmuscle evaluatedfurther .

(≥3 weeks)

High Additionally, muscular activation (1.04 activation muscular

= -

0.03 intensity

Despite relatively studies few - 8.13%/week, ES

(0.08 -

maximal force 0.20/week adaptations to i to adaptations uscular hypertrophyuscular long muscle length different types of

(≥ 70%) (≥ - for methodologicalfor 0.83%/week, ES to

Exploration training achieve ) and rapid)

contractions

= - sometric

0.06 -

of =

-

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. isometric contra by inhibitoryexcitatory alteringand functions the corticomotor in pathways also beused acute toprovide an allow analgesic effect and can pos able to contractions isometricinducemaximal force force overloadas isgreater ofconcentric thanthat anglesjoint inrehabilitativesettings First, for isometric training a allows application tightly controlled of at aconstant length) are increasing inpopularity advantages musculoskeletal improving and function properties when neuromuscular programs shortening and improvingactivation voluntary mass public. elitepopulations rangingstrength andpower from 1. Keywords:

Accepted Article I NTRODUCTION , 2

1 tendon quality utilize Trainingwith isometric contractions Resistance training itively toperformance transfer

Commonly resistance traininginclude adaptations increased documented muscle . 10

cycle the comprise overwhelming (SSC) majorityofresistance training

. Eccentric, f fascicle, However 17

isometric training weak onspecific of that tofocus motion inarange points

Third, a practitioner the physicalof who a demands understands ctions are a ofassessingreliable highly andctions are tracking means

and their role as a training option providetheir the paper.role focusthis and as option of atraining , , isolated concentric, eccentric and, isolated isometric 3 - 5

strength,and range ofmotion power, is widely utilized . 14

Isometriccontractions (where themuscle orce, . 9 .

15,16 Dynamic incorporating movements the 18 mechanical load mechanical

and injury prevention

Secon

has as acomponentofphysical for preparation d, isometric training ameans provides to

been purported tohavebeen purported athletes ing,

muscle, tendon, stiffnessmuscle, tendon, to for pain

injure . , 19 6

delaying fatigue muscular

Isometric contractions have specificcontractions - d membersgeneral of the free loading dynamic forc - several tendon un tendon e

within painwithin contractions can . changes 22 stretch

Additionally,

advantages. sport it remaiit , strength -

, in force 11

may be

- - free 13

20,21 and , ns 7,8

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Boardapproval was necessary. Reviews and 2. variations systematicallyevaluateresearchcomparing directly ofisom theoutcomes topractitioners’.tendon would beof benefit Therefore,of this thepurpose Understanding ainmuscle theloadingthatadaptive desiredand parameters achieve response maintaining while resisting a position external joint contractions force) an isometric between“pushing” forceexerting object) (i.e.against “holding” an and immovable Additionally, uniqueneuromuscular emergingresearch has demonstrated methods suchas blood variations intent include contraction angles alter Thecommon isometric the most training stimulus. variationsaltering include joint functions architecture performance isquestionable production

Accepted Article METHODS 30 The systematic reviewconformed tothe“PreferredReportingItems Systematic for Isometric training elicit can changes in physiological q - 33,35 .

34 and to provide trainingandguidelines toprovidevariety a for ofdesired outcomes. . 23

, As withanymode of resistancebe can training, several variables - 30 40 - Meta 25

tendon stiffness andhealth and contraction intensity orduration

However, the abilityassessments predict ofisometric to dynamic

- Analyses

flow restriction, , ” (PRISMA) guidelines” (PRISMA) 23 -

25

despite multi

(eg. ballistic) ramp vs. 49,50 , 21,31

vibration

- joint angle joint appraisals promise showing . 34,39,41 . , 61 51,52

Therefore, ReviewInstitutional no -

and electrical stimulation specific torque - 47 43,47,48

Less f ualities including muscle

and incorporating special requently researched , 31 etric training characteristics review - 33

manipulated to and metabolic

. 26

was to - . 29 53 (i.e. . 54

- 60

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Therefore,each study yes)as (clearly zero (clearly(maybe), basedrubric no),orone scoring two onthis developed review the for current i isillustrated careand Adapted review rehabilitation. Brughelli from et al. a by systematic on established scales inthe fields ofsport utilized andexercise science, kinesiology,health resultsSearch strategyand inclusion/exclusion duration, 7) included variablessuch asvibration or restriction, blood electrical stimulation. 4) non primarysuch as toes; fingers dependent 3) were or variables relatedtocardiovascular health; they;were 2)focusedormusclespapers/posters/presentations; conferencejoints 1) on small the studyor more comparedofisometric training. variations two available in ORweek*)(Isometric AND(session* train*) train*)OR stiff*) (strength* AND ‘* the articleand keywords ‘OR’with abstract,andtruncation title, conjunctions using ‘AND’ and inception CINAHL toMarchKeyfrom terms databases 2018.

Accepted Article.’

2.1. 2.3. 2.2. Combinations oftheCombinations followingBoolean compr phrases - human subjects; 5) in human subjects; 5) Studies that Studies Studies An electronic conducted was MEDLINE, search utilizing PubMed SPORTDiscus, Literature methodology search

Quality assessment Inclusion and exclusion English; we re included

met theinclusioncriteria todetermineassessed were their qualitybased

2) peer received received -

- reviewed ordoctoral journal publications

vitro; 6) periodvitro; theintervention was in the reviewin onthefollowing based criteria: 1)full text a qualityscore ranging from zeroto20. c ; riteria

(Isometric train*) AND(IsometricOR tendon*) (muscle* train*)

.

n are summarized Supplementary file 1

ised thesearch terms:

in Studies wereStudies if excluded less thanthree weeks in Figure were searched . dissertations; Ten Two researchersTwo

1. 1.

items

62 ,

the scale

(Isometric were scored for within within for . ; 62

and, 3)

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. for13. an average of28.6 ± 8. variables, and trained participants. All trained untrained participants,the while remainder ( 31.8); seven failedtoreport studies participant age. mean studies( Most accepted investigations, the meanreported participants ofthe age 24. was 250 criteriainclusion for review ( the 3. within (pre active participants as: an intervention where appl indicate the magnitude of discrepancies inscoring. completed the ofeach qualityassessments paper 4

Accepted Article

trivial <0.35,small=0.35 2.4. ± 3. RESULTS - female) post) per week were calculated. week per post) were – ” A totalof Percent change and 6 group

participants. None of the accepted studies examined competitive examined athletes ofthe or acceptedstudies participants. None well Statistical analysisStatistical (range= 3 were withanaverage recruited of size sample ,

10 unless otherwise stated.unless otherwise

included a non included 2 . 63 6 -

14) weeks,average 3. 14) an with of studies with astudies with mean14. qualityscore of Where andwas data average possible, pooled 2

6 the practical icable. As recommended

accepted investigations clearly stated Cohen’s 2

(range= 15 - 0.80, medium=0.80 - Supplementary fileSupplementary 2 exercise control group.controlexercise meanofintervention The length was

d All reported

effect (ES)were to sizes calculated possible wherever effect. Effect sizes effect. sizes Effect - 56) total trainingInterventions56) total were sessions. 1 1 / 2

6 with with

ES and ) utilized - by Rhea 1.50 and recreationally large> 1.5for 5 ). A total of a researcher third settling any ± 0.96

percentagechange were averaged across 27.4

“active” or“recreationally , 3 63

/20 (range= 10 (range = 2

effect were sizes interpreted

±

independent anddependentindependent 28. 7

ES 1 3 1

participants ( participants changeand % change (4 16 - 7) sessionsper week 7) - 3 120) / 2 ± s 6

- 3.3 are pre ) 18) met the 18) . Of the recruited

the

years (19.3 463 length - po st male, -

of - This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. training> (Figure 70ºof atflexion 2). Accepted0.032 ±0.037ES/week angljoint between 0.34 32,34,43,44,67,69 increased in duration; “explosive” vs“sustained” variations include; 1)in intent ofcontraction which variations o outside while single stu Article46,65 examining theeffectcontraction intensity of (Table extensors inclusion the chronic (5 contractions. chainClosed movements volume equated in

- Of these studies,three examinedplantar flexors 3.26 When synthesisingWhen measures findings, significant statistically size ofmuscular Nine

joint angle and hypertrophicand angle adaptation joint 13,34 , es ≤ 70º (46 ± 6.9º) improvedes muscleby 0.48%/week size an ≤70º(46±6.9º) average of0.47 ± ) criteria 30

by 4.34%/week and 0.20ES/week.by 4.34%/week -

33,35,38,40,64 nine Maximal isometric increased force ( in14studies significantly

published published journal anddoctoral articles one unpublished dissertation examining 4 - ) rest period duration 12 weeks) effects12 weeks)fulfilled ofisometricthe training angles atjoint varying dies examined theelbow flexors dies examined

(Table 1) (Table studies 1 f joint position or contraction position f joint intensity 7 /2

with utilizing two , compared to 6

(5 studies were utilized only . 43,47,67 - 30 19.7%, ES=0.19 - 33,35 , while10/26studies included a non

contractions (Table - 38,40,64 ; 68 1.16 ±0.46%/week and 30

and 5) schemes periodization -

32 Of the

the

When comparingWhen thatreported studies thenine

in elbow flexors - 32,35,37,38,40,43,44,46 1.23) two ten 45

(n = 3studies)(n revealed that

and extensors, included studies, stud cluded “progressive” “rapid” vs

, 2 by 0.84 41,42,65 3 ) fulfilled the inclusion criteria) fulfilled theinclusion ); 2 ies

) total volume; , whereas 2

. were also included. one 36,37 %/week and 0.043 ES/week.%/weekand 0.043 0.067 ±0.032 ES/week when0.067 -

48,64

examined knee Six published articles

respectively - 67 69 - eight

exercise control group controlexercise The comparison

3 (Table / 2 39 6 centred ontheknee

utilized 3) contr 8 -

44 4 training with 60.3

). These . Training extensors

%, ES=

action action single joint 48,66 . 41,42,44

and

46 13,30 and

- . - This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. focus for discussion. subsequent Themusculoskeletal morphology the of including andfactors, mechanical,andresults inaltered hormonaloften metabolic function. 4. 24.2º) (Supplementary offlexion file 4) compared to ± 16.4º)resulte 4). 5.5%/week and improved muscleby size isometric force (Figure 3). 0.70 ±0.55%/week and byMVICsize improved muscle training onmuscular intensity hypertrophy (88.6 ±6º) ES/week, compared to 11.1 training angle joint and hypertrophic adaptations

Accepted 44,46,65 Article 4.1. DISCUSSION º) improved muscle size byº) improved muscle size an average of Adaptations tothe physical structure oftissues can

Morphological adaptations The 13,30 of flexion of flexion 3.4 ±4.2%/week and

joint anglejoint - 32,34,43,44,67,69

d in

(n =found that 3studies) 0.36

MVIC

± 0. (Supplementary file 3). 0.88 0.13 ±0.21ES/week whe 0.13 - 11 isometric force 6.8 ±3%/week and

improvements of

The comparisons of ES/week when> training70% at( ± 0. 8

0.77 ±0.26%/week and 0.77 %/week 0.15 ± 0.17 ES/week when training at > 70º (101.8 whenat± > 0.15 ±0.17ES/week training

.

31,32,35,37,38,40,64 system comparison (n=?) showed (n=?) that comparison

training at ≤70%( training and 0.046 ±0.027ES/weekand 0.046

were that were that 4 ±2.1%/week and 13,30 0. 0.61 ±0.42%/week0.61 and 32

is ofrelevance andis review tothis training intensity in and improvements , -

32,34,43,44,67,69

training≤ 70º( angles withjoint n training> ±12%) 70% ofMVIC at(85.3 ± 0.1 intensities ≤70%intensities (68.9 ±3.3%) of

3

0.13 ±0.12ES/week, compared to

ES/week, compared to be caused 41.3

T 100 he 0.15 ±0.1ES/week,

±

comparative ± 16.5

0 by several factors, factors, by several

%) of MVIC of %) when trainingwhen > 70º at 0.0

%) of%) MVIC training at ≤70º(42.8 45

± 0.03 effect

8.9 ± provides the provides 59.8 4 (Figure

s

of ±

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Acceptedinvestigating/reporting training intensity hypertrophy was significantly not hypertrophy when p to muscular hypertrophy. compared contractions. toSML in greater increasing mechanical tension produce quantities ofmuscle higher damage, likely arm moment andby alteringjoint the beneficial hypertrophy is when literature that has demonstrated increasing muscle size. (LML) of wasvolumes t toequal superior Articlevolume comparing isometrictraining at angles differingjoint ( several conforming emerged, dynamic patterns toaccepted trainingOf principles. thestudies resistance demonstrated been training has to intensity,durationfrequency, and isimportantmuscular it size, optimally tounderstandalterincluding how to variables While volume equatedWhile isometric traininggreater leadsimprovements to in comparingWhen muscle volumebetween in adaptations variations isometrictraining methodsofprogressive most While result can resistanceinincreased training 4.1.1. or thickness blood flow

Muscle erformed aterformed long (LML) muscle lengths . 30 occlusion, - volume 32 30

- 74,75 All three isometric trainingat studiesfoundthat long muscle lengths 32

These findingssurprising area largeportionofthe notas existing

when compared to desired. 49

dynamicthrough traininglarge a rates of oxygen consumption

These metabolic factors established are well different in any of theseven any in studies different included of

each training method forefficiency.each training maximal Isometr 70 . 13,30 - 72 rainingat shortmuscle lengths (SM

Additionally,LML contractions at tendto

- induce significantinduce hypertrophy. 32,34,43,44

a

SML.

Interestingly, Table Table 73

C , 30,32,33 1 ontractions at LMLontractions at , ), only three evaluated), only three muscle

and metabolite build range of motion is is motion range of

the magnitude of the pooled data the pooled 13,30 L) for to contribut - 32,34,39,43,44

also - of up when

result e

ic ic

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. traininggroup of MVIC) isometric training. Following the12 strength” (40 x group( resulted insignificantlymusclegreater girthcompared improvements thelowvolume in to elbow Following flexors. thesix compared(3 x low better for hypertrophy, inducingregardless muscular o intensitygreater ofvoluntary maximal than 20% is contraction concluded adaptations thatif are similar hypertrophic total load sizes. intensity versus(12.4%, 5.3%, ES=0.28 0.26 H anatomical cross triceps hypertrophy, brachii between therewas nostatistical (10 employed ten (7.6%, ES=0.38, significant muscle thickness, increases was there little long bothlong duration (20ofWhile s)periods time. contractions andledbut tosmall, short et al. ofthe little and explains included studysuggestsaon hypertrophy, outcomes effect small thattraininghas intensity

Accepted Articleowever, high training intensity 0%) intensity. 13 44

compared theeffects of loadequated isometriccontractionsshort (~1 held s) for or

p When thetrainingWhen These findings arerecent inclose agreement with and studies meta

< 0 .05). Similarly, Balshaw et.05). al. BalshawSimilarly, - s weeks of volume equatedtrainingweeks ofvolume isometriceither lowor at (60%) high

3 experienced quadriceps significant in volume (8.1%, improvements muscle - - sectional area (low: 12.1%, ES = area1 sectional (low: 12.1%,ES s While both low andboth low high While p

contractions, 75% 6

= 0.023 vs.7.4%,ES= 0.36, = 0.023 - s

MVIC) and (20 high x

variation inhypertrophicadaptation example,For Kubo (Figure 3). volume -

had a greater thelower aeffect onmuscle had volume than week intervention

is not equatedis not of MVIC) “explosive” and (40 x 43 - intensity trainingintensity programs significantly increased

and Massey et al. 6 - - week intervention

s between groups, arebetween higher volumes itseems

p MVIC) training ofthe volumeisometric

, thehigh = 0.018). ; .72 vs.high: 17.1%, p

f contraction intensity. Meyers difference ( = 0.039) despite nearly identical effect

- - 13 group difference ( volume training program 67

. Similarly, Kanehisa et al. 76,77

is equated compared “maximal s p , the “maximal strength”, the“maximal

> 0.05) between>groups 0.05) 1

- ES = 1.65). ES s

- and trainingand contractions, analyses that p

= 0.061) in = 0.061) 44 39

80 44

% This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. AcceptedLMLnot ES=0.34, (3.8%, portion Interestingly,LML lateralis thevastus (87.5 flexion). fascicle ±6°knee length at the NosakaBlazevich and training onmuscle variations architecture; thathave, areequivocal. ofthose results pennation angle demonstrable between differences contraction and al type theadvantageexplain LML of goal.primary trainingmuscular when hypertrophy isthe Additionally, muscle contract in the muscle restrict b Articleunderwent time the same McCullySchott, and Ruther significantadaptations hypertrophic secti contractiongroup( significantly time when compare duration (4 x significant ( 0.195 ES =0.50, - onal area at the proximal (10.1%)onal whereas and area portion at(11.1%) of distal thefemur, no the proximal under - 0.247) didnot

Unlike muscle volume,which training ishighly ontotal dependent volume, thereare 4.1.2. of thefemur significantly(5.6%, following SML increased ES=0.63, lood flow, reduce musclelood flow,reduce oxygen and saturation increase metaboli - p tension p

= 0.001) wher

78,79 30 < d to short (4 sets x 10 setsx x (4 d toshort Muscle architecture . 0.0 - 80 second

stimulating hypertrophy multipl via

To 5 being equatedbeing ). . 43 43,67 date, 32

Furthermore,groups between thedifference was statistically

MVIC) ingreatercontractions resulted adaptations hypertrophic compared at(38.1 ±3 isometrictraining SML -

under Interestingly,

eas the “explosive” training groupeas “explosive” training the very few studies have comparedveryeffect resistance studies few have the ofisometric ford’s p

ions at LML moreions at consume oxygen = 0.20) training - p tension. However, sustained contractionstension. However, are knownto

34 = vastus lateraliscross 0.022) improved anatomical between groups. Followingbetween 14

findings are groups surprisingas somewhat both were observed 3

- Schott, McCullyandSchott, Rutherford second . 32

MVIC) despite duration total contractions C onversely,LML ES=0.33, (5.8%,

in the short duration group ( in the shortduration group e local andsystemic mechanisms

teration infascicleteration length and s

(2.6%, ES= (2.6%, - , weeks, the long weeks, the duration 49

which may .7° knee and flexion) .7° 34

found thatlong te concentrations 0. 1 p 7

p

in - = 0.01), but 0.26,

> 0.05) - part part

Noorkoiv, mid - p . p

74,75 =

= . - 34

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. tendon stiffnesschronic without loading through toincreased be can due tendonCSA Acceptedtendon stiffness, reducingelectromechanical thus the delay muscularlead toanincrease fo inmaximal habilitative and performance benefits response been specific toexercise, region foundandrehabilitative, have have pre tobe may muscle and bone increase thetime instiffness optimize and to magnitude offorce between transmission alteration intendon morphology is structure, and leading vascularization overall toincreased thickness due toa loading and injury experience are and architectural significant adaptations capablefrom of habitual adaptations facilitating motion. joint Article ofdistal portion themuscle. angle ofthe at adaptationsand the femuroutonpossible midpoint potentiallymissed at the ES =0.46, angle inc inmuscle architecture;study shifts reported meaningful vastuslateralis foundthat pennation whereas theSML greater ( increasinglength distalfascicle muscle ofthesame 0.02) significantly( The primary of thetendon function totransfer is forces between 4.1.3. p shift in viscoelastic propertie viscoelastic shift in reased following LML reased following ES=0.45, (10.6%,

< 0.01) physiological< cr 0.01) p

= 0.076)

Tendon morphology . 3,4,82 training, . 3 - p 5,81

.

= 0.01) = 0.01) 30 Conversely, healthy stiffness intendonthickness increases in and - 83

5 However, Alegre et al.

Although tobe inert originally assumed Injuredbe lessstiff, despite tendonstendto in

did not ( did not

outperformed oss

minimal in healthy, in minimal maturetissue human p

. - s > 0.05) 3,4,20,81,82 sectional areas inthreefour areas sectional ofthe quadriceps heads, . 5

Additionally, tendinopathy negativelyaffects tendon rce and raterce and of developmentby force increasing

SML training ( . 32

For instance, heavy(resistance)can training 30 Only isometric one training other comparison

only lateralis measured thevastus . 32 p

= 0.038),SML but not training (6.5%, Furthermore,LML training in resulted

- . 1.1%, ES = 0.04, 1.1%, ES=0.04, 5,83,85

Additionally, increased ,

tendinous tendinous . 5,84

Although long bone and muscle, and bone creased thickness , 5 structures can p

tendons can

> 0.05) for pennation - term term 84

-

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. or 90°of training SML training being to superior muscle lengths adaptation tendon on ~70% MVIC isrequiredtoinduce meaningful changes and stiffness. intendonthickness training between 70 reported (17.5 large increases which leavesa largerange ofpotentialHowever, intensities. previous have interventions Additionally, only studies theincluded isometrictrainingand 90% comparedat ofMVIC ~55 0.84, under 5.2 andtendon CSA stiffness following (17.1 high at (~55%) low high(~90%) intensities. or compared 14 of contraction length function. Two compared studies contraction intensity tendonous adaptations. inf movements. alterations properties, viscoelastic in

Accepted Articleormation regardingisometric trainingwhat arefor variables triggering important specific - 7.9%, ES=0.26 p stress

> 0.05),high butnot ( review, this Of thestudies only included in While onlyWhile a singleexamined theeffectofisometric training studyhas at different

flexion andobservedflexion increasesgreater a intendonstiffness significantly ( 5 (an indication ofelasticity) indication following(an increased low(14.0 -

While widelygeneral settings, usedlack inrehabilitation isa there of week volumeequated training programs consisting plantar of isometric flexion - - 100% ofMVIC100% , 0.37, 0.37, 13

intent, p

> 0.05) intensity training - - 67 1.4 61.

rest periods, - 6%, ES = 0.57 3.9%, ES=0.06 . , 11,13,85 potentially improving potentially 31

the results t . Kuboet al. B

Therefore, intensity might aminimum it bethat of oth investigations foundincreasedAchilles 68

- and angle joint 36%, ES=0.82 36%, - 4.9, 4.9, - endLML tosupport aparadigm of six six 0.20, 31 p ,

. 41,42 trained theat knee either 50° extensors 41,42

directlyassessed tendon structure or < 0.05) following intendon stiffness p

with others examining theeffects

Furthermore, elongation tendon

> 0.05) intensity training > 0.05) intensity saf . 31 ety when performing ballistic etyballistic when performing -

1.57, Arampatizis etal. p - 16.1%, ES=0.56 16.1%,

< 0.05), butlow( not < 0.05), 41,42 p .

41,42 = 0.021)

- - This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. strengthgroupexperienced training” tendon stiffness 0.34 training” morphological tendon longgroup thediscrepancy contractionexplain adaptations. could intendonous chronicmechanical changesload intotal tension was equalised not eacheffort building isometric spent wouldbe one relatively low ( (25.7%, ES=1.85, elastic increased energy long ES absorption inboth = 0.58, (12%, 0.05)= orshort 0.29, (4.1%, ES significanttendon elongation wereeither differencespresent in long in ( stiffness, asignificant between 0.003) andES =0.57, short (17.5%, and tendonadaptations,only a studyexists single trivial increase = 0.15, (3.9%, ES followingLML training ( 0.26, followingLMLES =1.22, (50.9%, p

Accepted=differences 0.056) despiteeffe change large and inpercent Article - second duration of the short contraction group meant proportion shortcontraction group thatsecond alargerof ofrelative the duration vs. p

Massey et al. = 0.181). Similarly,aponeurosis distaltendon and elongation deep decrea

4.4%, ES=0.38 produced p - ( value. While thetotaltime While value. 14.3%, ES =0.79 14.3%,

significant improvementsvast in p 67

= 0.002) duration groups nosignificant durationgroups= with 0.002) between difference

adaptations w ere ), Young’s modulus( - . 13 14%, ES=0.62,

the Similar tendon tomuscle tissue, adaptations are responsive to - group difference reported( was only p p . Both strength “maximal strengthand training” “explosive > 0.05) contraction> duration groups. 0.05) Similarly

vs. > 0.05). When comparing> 0.05). isometriccontraction When duration p

p researchers

significant = 0.014),compared when toSML trainingES= (6.7%,

= 0.217) contraction durations tendon increased 19.9%, ES=0.95 ; 3,86,87 - p under

= 0.034), whereasgroup= experiences 0.034), theSML a force. Therefore 14.4%, ES = 0.60 14.4%,

therefore,greater thepotentially loadinthe

increases intendon increases comparing contraction intent on . - 13 tension wasgroups, equalized between the

u While bothlong ES=1.38, (57.3%, s lateralis area aponeurosis ( ).

67

However, the maximal p cts sizes alongcts sizes witha

vs. = 0.045). p

- 21.1%, ES=1.13 21.1%, = 0.007) and= short 0.007) aponeurosis only th only - 2.2%, ES=0.19, 2.2%, 13 -

force time Additionally, no e “explosive

, calculated , sed complex 5.9%, ES= ) and - under p

p =

> - This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. atLML allmeasuredangles following (7 Accepted angles,joint respectively. improved EMG angles angles from 15° medium muscle exam over arange angles joint larger followingLML training, of atFor compared SML. totraining muscle lengths. (EMG),clear between a existed studiescomparing trend the isometrictraining at different of the data intheir results 32,37,38,43,47,48,65,66,68 Articlethreshold intensity forachieve loading mechanical tendon to dependent fol variables fibre re seconds. there differences While were ( load equated intr with isometric plantar flexions contraction ap tendon strain ( 0.31 elongation (16%, ES=1.0 4.2.

vs. ple, Bandy and Hanten condition were observed - Of the 23 studies included in this review,Of inthis the23studies 12directly included measured neural function organization)

0.41%, ES=0.03 Neurological adaptations p - 11.8%, ES = 0.56 11.8%, ES ear to be an importantear trainingcon tobe . - Electromyographic amplitudeElectromyographic activityat five (ES =0.36 13,65 lengthLML assessing (MML;(90°), EMG 60°)and 105° of flexion. Medium tolarge Medium flexion. (ES =0.74 105° of

Of , 68

When examining

,

while tworeported nosignificant 88,89 following LMLfollowing training,and whereas SML only MML training these isnotable it 12studies, thatoneany report didnot neurological lowing the14 lowing 38

), tendon elongation ( there were nobetween

vs.

Similarly,et al. Kubo 38

examined isometricknee trainingat extension SML (30°), - 2.96, ES =2.96, ES 0.10

vs.

- - 4.17, ES = 4.17, ES week intervention. EMG amplitude p

- > 0.05) intype> 0.05) 8.8%, ES = 0.45 8.8%, ES - 2.26), and four (ES =0.87 2.26), tends toincreasetends and by larger magnitudes ) -

a

11%, ES = 0.75 11%, and decreased( and tendonCSA - 0.19 - 31 group ( discrepancies contraction three, periods rest of or10 s ideration.

observed larg ) .

67

assessedelectromyography through changes followingregardless training, - 68

I and type Therefore

- These 0.72) compared to SML0.72) compared(3.1

adaptations. Lastly, - 2.28) improvements at six joint joint at2.28) six improvements

vs. er increases in EMG activity inEMG er increases data support adata paradigma support of - ,

IIcollagen(f intent and rateintent of - Waugh et al. Waugh amplitude amplitude 4.95%, ES=0.27 4.95%, - 1.65) of theasse1.65) p

86,87 0.05) inany> other

-

2.8%, ES= at seven joint actors in actors 68

compared . ssed ssed 13,30 ) and - - This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Furthermore, participantstraining intent(1.04 withaballistic (0.680.33/week) to EST compared when improvements in 0.048). increased (14.3%, ES=0.36, and100 ms 0 ES =0.67,p 0.003) activ increased EMG training” (19.1%, ES=0.44, strength“maximal (27.8%, training” ES=0.67, The improvements in s), withstrength “explosive training”(rapid ≥90%of to MVIC build for and 1 maintain of 12week specific tothe intent and peripheral interpolated nervestimulation twitch intents (ball lengths. investigations thatalterationsin in isokinetic knee extensions 50 magnitude EMG ofincreases in amplitude 7.5%, ES=0.25

Accepted Article- 60° (ES =0.77, 43 All four studiescomparingeffects trainingwith different the ofisometric contraction 37,71,72

Similarly, investigations ex previous

EMG amplitude in favour SML group,of so.Although the trainingonly the the todo investigation s of istic vs.ramp)istic assessed neuromuscular neurologicaladaptations and -

150 ms period ofmuscle period 150 ms contraction compared strength to“maximal training”

“maximal strength“maximal (1 training” - 0.44) training.Alegre Conversely, e EMG amplitude EMG amplitude p p

utilized

= 0.205) and= 60 0.205) = 0.009). EMG amplitude EMG

. in the firstofmuscle 100ms contractionES= 0.26, (12.5%, 30

in training. These findings withthe findings areconsistent ofother p

43 = amplitude

Additionally,group only significantly the rapidcontraction 0.099). strength Conversely, “explosive training” during (1.28 with MST MVIC EMG amplitude - 70° (ES = 1.0, 70° (ES =1.0, at MVICwere For example,For Balshaw et al. - 1.31%

weremedium ity to a greater ( toa ity amining greater contraction intent found - s build to~75%of maintainfor MVICand 3 s build p / week, = ES 0.18

< 0.001) compared to “explosive strength< 0.001) compared to“explosive . are spe most 43,47,48,66 p t al. larger

= 0.36) during ofknee flexion - 30

large,changes to were limited the

p reported an increase

(ES = 0.36,

As expected, were adaptations < 0.001) degree during< 0 0.001) the - 10.5%/week, ES =0.26 10.5%/week, cific at s - 7%/week, = ES 0.06 - 0.25/week). 43

examined theeffects p horter musclehorter

= 0.370) following 47,48,66 in via

EMG (31.3%,

EMG - - p - s).

= -

- This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. experiencedid not statistically strength significant improvements despite mediumeffect sizes 50% or 100%Following ofMVIC. overgroup three training weeks, the 15sessions at 25% alsome, butnot al. not appeara tobeclear advantage totraining at orlow(Figure high intensities major factor improvements, inperformance assessments for asses highlywith agrowing reliable body ofresearch ofisometric measure, reportingvalidity the betweengroups trainingat different intensities dynamic multi dynamicjoint performance preparation literature existing plan.Despite reporting ofisometric benefits training onmulti to dynamiconcepatterns performance specific movement proprioceptive function physical asa means plans neuromuscular, increase preparation to and musculoskeletal groups whotoproduceforce inthat regard. intended quickly, improved 0.07/week). maximal 0.31/week)greater achieved improvement in

Accepted46 Article 4.3.

was theonly reportedsignificant MVIC that study statisticallyin improvements force in Only inthe present studiesincluded compared directly four review MVIC production 4.3.1. Isometric trai

Performance enhancement contraction when compared (2.93 toMST 43,47,48,66

- Isometric joint assessments. assessments. joint l training groups.

These findings oftraining supportthe principle specificity as the only ning is commonly prescribed in rehabilitation settings, prescribedorearly iscommonly ning inrehabilitation in sing . It

peak force peak health and athletic performance. is thought , 11,85,90

Szeto etal.Szeto none ofthe studiesincludedreview inthe current included

that the

if MVIC forceif MVICoutcome isthedesired there does 46 EMG amplitude EMG aforementioned improvements aforementioned

. had 44 - 46,65

- subjects train 5

.53%/week,ES =0.03 Isometric isconsidered force peak a

28,91 are integrated

during the initial 150 ms of 150ms during theinitial While training isa specificity their

knee extensors at25%, extensors knee

into thephysical into -

will laterwill transfer

4 ). S zeto et zeto - This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Acceptedand Maton Interestingly,forceof thetested at angles. eight production Thepaut improved MVICLMLatgroup five experienced angles while the significantly improved (~12.3%). training (22 Bogdanis five angles and joint ofthefollowingSML, seven LML tested MMLand respectively. and post participantsmuscle lengthsand atdifferent angles measured joint MVIC at numerous pre Bogdanis etal. anglesjoint following ismuch lower training SML compared angles joint betweenLML and SML when interventions adaptations, there difference isno inmaxim ArticletrainingLML lengths.resultinggreater atmuscle different in Despite hypertrophic valuable groups. groupwith maximaleffort traininggreate underwent significantly group.the 25% betweengroupgroups, meaning thatthe50% training 1.44, were=when 1.14, (31.3%, training observed at ES 50% (22.3%, ES=0.61, p

46 A clear pattern = 0.013) of MVIC. - .

training. Bandy andtraining.Bandy

Additionally, of inclusion a eff perceived the et al. Similarly, 37 -

57.4%, ES = 0.88 57.4%, ES= found thattheirLMLgroup significantly ( 64 64

While nodataWhile

reported increasedof MVICtheassessed at two angl joint Kubo et al. p

the SML groupSMLal.’sthe in Kuboet = 0.085)

(Supplementary file 4) can be observed 46

31 However, time

Hanten

. - and Thepau about 46 2.41), while the LML2.41), sixgroup whilethe inall improved

Conversely, la

fatigue 38

observed ( significant when comparing maximal forcemaximal comparingfollowingwhen production t - - M al angle force joint production at the trained is presented under analyzing . 31,32,35,37,38,40,64 athieu, vanand HoeckeMaton rge andrge statistically improvements significant - . Fo tension, not total load,tension, not was equalized 31

p ort or fatigue scale mayfatigueort or scale been have r example,Hanten, Bandy and investigation significantly( the p roducedmuch totalforce as twice , it could, it

p < 0.0

seven = 0.002) and 100% (45.7%,and= 100% ES= 0.002)

However, transfer tonon p

5) improved at improved four angles, 5) <

0.05) improvements at0.05) four, improvements studies that be hypothesized r loading thanthe otherr loading - Mathieu, es following SML 37 directly

Van Hoecke

all t angles

p that the rained

< 0.05) 38

- trained trained

- as

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. training withdifferent any inisometric orisokineticlengt differences significant the length unsurprisinggiven exercisepreferableLMLs is that at acutely isometric for toSMLs altering isometric force was produced. training wasLMLgroup. maintained inthe decrease following( angle inoptimal training SML (7.3%, ES=0.91, followingtraining eightLML, theSMLgroup of weeks whereas experienced at a of shift 5.3° al. torque However, onlya reported singlestudy included review the inthis between a angle inthe shift optimal and muscle length contractions. following isometric for increas eccentric resistance tra muscle length produced. contractions, themuscle lengthas angle defined orjoint is at whichp improveis to force motion. throughout arange of suggestLML that and compared anglesfive andintheSML totwo and

Accepted30 Article

observed a shif , 30 The length 4.3.2.

in several other studies,nonein severalwere other significantat whichmaxim oraltered theangle

while another - 92 ing the optimal angle theoptimal ing long tension relationship. tension

Many have angle/length demonstratedacute optimal studies towards longer shifts

s following concentric,s following Length - p tension relationship, typicallytension relationship, by assessed isometricor isokinetic

t of11°(14.6%, ES=1.1, = 0.039) inthe direction. opposite = 0.039) - MML intensities, contraction orany intents independentintensities, variable. other iningawell andlargerestablished range trainingare ofmotion over tension examined optimal angle optimal examined throughan isometricleg

isometric resistance toSMLs trainingtheaim issuperior when

30 99

While a very sample, limited thereport

Finally, be should study notedthat it noincluded reported While length While -

isometric and eccentric and exerciseisometric term. 70,95 p

It plausible thatthe is

= 0.002) towards= longer lengths muscle - tension curve the shifted toward angle of MML

- 9.7%, ES = 1.77) while theoptimal anglewhile 9.7%, ES=1.77) Likewise,Bogdaniset al.

grouprespectively. These data

h - tension curves between groupstension curves between angle of isokinetic peak eak force/torqueeak is same relationship exists relationshipsame exists . 73,93

of Alegreal.of et - press. - 98

Additionally, 64 64

Alegre et

reported a 30

is al This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. improvingcharacteristics. RFD intent ofmovement maybe ofsimilar value external toactual contraction velocity whe heav as severalforce reported drivenand researchersincreasedproduction, power have rapid ( Balshawet al. and force ES=1.29, at (48.8%, 150ms traininggroup (31.6%, improvedactivation ES=1.84, voluntarysignificantly 1.56 therampWhile groupexperienced in larger,improvements example, Williams the previo to ra studies reported or“ballistic” training withan“explosive” that isometric intent was superior examining different contraction specific neuromuscularrapidfunction, characteristics force are production equally Therefore, isavalidmonitoring and whilepeak means force reliable highly ofbroadly performance,as force p

Accepted

to the execution usly discussed alterationsusly discussed p

= 0.0008 vs. = 0.0008vs.

43 The rate

and Tillin and Folland 66

comparedadaptations or followingballistic isometric thetraining. ramp application inmanyapplication occursperiods short activities time over

of force development

of explosive tasks of explosive ballistic, ballistic, mprovingproduction. force rapid 107 intents

15.7

104

and 100m in EMGamplitude - 106 47

- reported variables. RFD p 18.9%, ES=0.75

wheregroups trainingsignificantly onlytheballistic

Additionally,suggest thereisevidence to thatthe = 0.0074). . 2,100

s (Table s (Table - 103

Unfortunately, only 66

Similar findings

3 betweencontraction ). These findings are notsurprising,

- 0.88,

MVIC( 43,47,66 43,47,48 p

= 0.0036), only the ballistic only= 0.0036), theballistic

ramp, These findings alignwith

Regardless, allthree

three arereported by 17.8 valuable

intents. For training studies p - 20%, ES=

= 0.0096) .

14,100 and more n - 102

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. difficult. Lindh hypertrophic thanthe adaptations LML LML vs. 8.4%,ES=heightcountermovement 0.51) following ES=0.66 (7.2%, jump improvements in ( LMLgroupsat torque trainingisokinetic 180 improved MVIC betweengroups. improvements and 30 ( training at differen (120 improvements eccentric in torque at 60 or length contraction r of anglescomparing joint various trained assessingFive performance. stud dynamic yetelucidatedfully be to Likewise, the degreetransferencecontraction of ofisokinetic to questionable, despite isometric specific closely assessments relating to p p

Accepted< torque 0.01) at improved peak

·s training groupstraining in leg training, press respectively. 40 ° - The transferability isometric resistancetodynamic of training performance 4.3.4. ·s

1

or Bogdanis etal. )

-

angular intent. regardless velocities ofcontraction 1 , 60

° Dynamic performance ·s - one repetition maximum squatone maximum (9.6%, repetition ES=0.61vs.11.9%, ES=0.64) and 1 , 90 t muscle lengths,ett muscle al. Alegre ° ·s Alegree . - espectively. 24,26,27 1 64

and 120 assess

Regardless, testing avaluablemeans provides isokinetic of

et al. corresponding par SML ed 30 ° ·s

34 morphological adaptations, makinganalysis further

30 for explanation theseOne thatthe findingsis possible ° -

,

1 ·s ° Conversely, Lindh Conversely, 30,40,48 Maffiuletti andMartin

·s and Noorkoiv respectively, despitedifferences nosignificant in - 1 - . 1 ies Finally, Finally, and concentric at(60 torque slow

and two studies comparing contraction inte utili 30 z

and Noorkoiv etal. ed Bogdanis etal.

isokinetic assessments withthreeisokinetic assessments et al ° ·s

40 ticipants. Unfortunately, - . 1 ’s

reported SML thatneither or while bothgroups significantly When When 33 48

experienced larger reported similar real 64 comparing isometric -

observed similar world 33 sports

observed significant

movements has °

performance. ·s - 1

SML )

and faster neither neither is

and ° ·s nt - 1 48 91

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Acceptedprevention. evidence anglea optimal isneededtosolidify as training effects may beneficial have on electromechanical increases in volumes (Figure occuratLMLs predominantly relativelyas isaclear there advantage improving for muscle beshould primarilyemployed Therefore,alter morphology. should to isometrictraining trainingan mayeffectivefor strategy notbe improv directly discrepancies e neuro important angle present i Articletraining contractions wheremay phases dynamic isometric contractions regularly programs inrehabilitation are used specific andduring strengtha alike.athletes prioritypopulations reason, forFor be and should special this neuromuscular performance, populations. between strengthand muscle mass, functional performance inavariet qualities are a varietycontexts. beneficial in of questi 4.4. muscular functmuscular onable, physiological adaptations The long thedirectWhile of isometricresistance transfer trainingis todynamic movements Applications 92

108 tendon stiffness following LML following likelytendon stiffness beenwould reduce reported, have which

Similarly, - xist 110 - 2 held

), and streng), and While While mayit require training specific to inamovement delay anddelay therefore RFD. improve

between ion occurion at angle. the trained

belie architectural of qualities muscle n a dynamic activity true holds f

isometric and movements dynamic that isometric resistance at occur that should the most training 71,111 th throughout a rangeth throughout a

it it is clear thatandmuscle maintaining producing massand

the length such as tendon increased massand improved muscle There isawell key variableinpe be contraindicated - tension relationship, 31,32,37,38,40 of motion. of 5,31,116 112

may length the underpin

- 115

Furthermore,LML isometric ing

However, large neurological

as thelargestimprovements in - established relationship 30 25 sport -

33,37,38 suggesting thatstatic rformance and injury .

s yactivit of

performanceand 30

Additionally, large

althoughgreater optimi ies and - z tension e

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Acceptedrelativelystructures stiff to tendinous dynamic loading. contractionsa may safe beand efficient means in untrained andpopulations, progressively injured increasing intensityisometric during increased Conversely, high means ofprogressing are ifstrength resistanceand training muscle isometric size a increasing total production or alter morphology. muscle i Therefore, suggest intensity thatisometric training when takenwhen tofailure,orthe literaturer has betweencontraction issomewhat andsurprising,previous intensity force production intensityto appear not does Article32,34,43,44,46,65 questi improving force product training programs. Evidence suggests thathigh regardless ofmuscle length, depending on which quadriceps head length oftraini regardless relationships onable Training isakey intensity inintelligentlyvariable prescribed designed resistance

tendon thickness andstiffness.tendon thickness

Co . However, Alegre. However,al. et relationship betweenrelationship and intensity forceadaptations production eported that submaximal intensitieseported can submaximal strength produce that similar improvements nsistent withrecent and meta originalresearch volume - 12,82 intensity contraction ofMVIC) exclusively(≥ 70% isometric

Additionally, requiring a ofreactive strength sports degree high require ,

ion. or sh ng etwhile Noorkoiv al. angle,

affect hypertrophicadaptations. 45,76,117 appears unlikely toefficiently mu lengthen ifting lengths tolonger muscle volume

However, the studiescited review inthis showa 30 was evaluated was optimi

observed nosignificant ( i 41,42 s

not importantwhen aimingtoimprove force is equated

z As overlyarecompliant an tendons often issue e

- of preparing tendinousti of performance intensityis superior resistance for training . Therefore, isometricresistance training ncreasing contraction durations,

between groups.between 32

reported conflicting findings 76,77 . 30 90,119,120 - - 32,38,40 analyses, isometrictraining

p While thelackWhile ofrelationship

> 0.05) shift in fascicle in > 0.05) shift

are likely efficient more 77,118 scle fasciclesscle ssue for future

Thes

(Figure produce e findings priority 34

. 4

). d 13,30

. - , This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Acceptedextensive studies closed examined theeffect ofisometric wishing limitation if this togeneralize findings. Similarly, studies fewthe very included of or trainees. experiencedresistance Researche utilized populations inter discussed inthe current exist. While review,several limitations Articleinterest aoftrainee. to wider variety contractions Therefore, contractions neuromuscular whileballistic benefits, offerunique sustained special populations contractionsballistic contra maybe in several contracti thenisometric sports, prescribed intensity. difference orcontractions completedballistic, a with betweena gradualr forcemaximal isthepriority, production the way closely thatmost relates tothe primarygoal. hypertrophy muscular outcome When or 4.5. - chain trends,While or Isometric t

were included special populations suchas patientswithtendon disorders, Limitations

inter

generally or performance functional testing tasksintheir batteries - study analysis ,

and intra raining, like other shouldbeexecuted modesofexercise, ina resistance ,

20 43,47,48,66 and

, the large anddependent, the made ofindependent variables variety despite potentialtoprovide uniquemorphologicaladaptations. tendon offer similar

lack thereof directions forresearch future - study allowed for allowedstudy

However,

difficult andhence

training performance,and onlyone ondynamic utilized

- or g or , are evident in many of, are evidentthekey inmany independent variables 43,48,66 indicated excessiveor cause or pain rehabilitative in

if rapid force productionas would precedence, takes it reater ons should ons should

evidence rs and practitionersrs and tobecognizant alike of need

simple morphological adaptationsmorphological

definitive be performed

analysis, none studies ofthe included

demonstrates that there is little thatdemonstrates islittle there

conclusions the widelyhomogeneous

as such. high .

Finally, while - problematic performance amp to the to amp that are likelyof 43,47,66

Conversely, .

2

athletes 6

67

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. would be fascinating tocompare SML trainingand for neuromuscular morphological Therefore, producing adaptations. it mayflexion cau strain contraction andpressure at maximal synonymouswith intensities degrees large ofjoint therapists isometric often limit moderate contractions to as angles th joint neuromuscularwhile tightlyfunction a pain maintaining pr multivariate stretch i isom groupsand aim toestablishapproximate weeklyguidelines formuscle loading a ofpopulations, variety load cut volume islikelya more importan does play not a indriving largerole orneuromuscular morphological adaptations, of isometrictraining studies have examined withfree periods despite a rise i examined theeffectproceeding ofa ballistictraining ondynamic phase isometrictraining or for knowledge, futuretotheauthors’ studieshave loading. However, dynamic nopublished coachesa earlypreparing training mor planwith theintentof and in tendon muscle Isometric byresearch resistance utilized conditioning exist. and training strength isoften ncluded studyfatigue, evaluated

Acceptedescribe training isometric Article etric trainingendurance. onlycan dynamic Unfortunately, a improve muscular single - shortening Anothergeared a avenueresearch populationsis for rehabilitative towards Whi - off points for alteroff pointsfor depend le the limitations present are severalforfuture broad, directions interesting

examination ofexamination contractionangles. intensity joint and se unwanted pain unwanted andinhibition. se

cycle activities such ascycle or cyclingrunning. e nt

n popularityapproach. withthis variables. Another interestingdetermining is direction whether ing tissue or neuraling properties. or tissue

as a meansas morphological stimulate and to improve adaptations 65 the effects of submaximal isometric trainingthe effects ofsubmaximal LMLs at with t variable. resistance have However, training modes specific

and examined fatigue nostudies 15,16

However,LML trainingat issuperior to - weights. Isometricweights.contraction intensity 14

- On a related numbera limited note, free range Anecdotally, motion. free of

1,10

As such, future studiesshould

Physical therapists oftenPhysical

during dynamic during or e increased ligament and phologies

total This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. inter received that they of interest noconflicts have relevant ACKNOW populations alike. morphology isometri movement velocity iszero Similarly, required improving muscle morphology, while goals.at Training training. training Therefore,should isometric training resistancedoestotraditional dynamic applies training as toisometric resistance it 5. these isometric contraction subsets. growing. examining thecharacteristics of“pushing isometricmaximal training atAspreviously literature SMLs. mentioned,the body of

Accepted Article P pretation writing oft ofdata, ERSPECTIVES Dustin J. Oranchuk, J. G.Storey,Dustin Adam AndréR. Despite a limited relatively quantitybase conclusions of studies to upon c areoptimal trainingapplications for altering needed variations todetermine the

to 54 for review this

ballistic -

60,78 LEDGEMENTS substantially

and impro

However, there isa

LML

intent

ving dynamic performance inathletic,rehabilitative and dynamicspecialving performance

and

that improve tendon structure andimprove function tendonstructure has . Finally,greatera of a studies,with number broader

with mayaffected study have design, data been found

sustained his manuscript, or the decisionhis manuscript, or tosubmit pau

high

ci

ty to ”, -

contractions of long of intensity improve rapidimprove force production “holding” and“holding” “quas

be prescribed to the content ofreview. this - term examining experimental studies

contractions Nelson and John B. Cronindeclare andJohn Nelson

have been

in line wiin line

( i” isometric actions is e.g. tendon stiffness e.g. tendon

(>70% MVC)

c found to ollection, analysis ollection, or th the primaryth theoutcome

for publication.

No funding even though beneficial , specificity of , specificity application application

are likely ) .

for was of

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. 15. 14. 13. 12. 11. 10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. REFERENCES Chancellors J Dustin

Accepted Article

1994;34(6):355 ofexcitation knee muscles. extensor StacoffInfluenceHasler J, EM,Denoth A, W. Herzog ofhipand angles joint knee on explosive strength performance. Peterson C, Dietz B. on tendonelasticity quadriceps inhuman muscles. Kubo K, Kanehisa H,Fukunaga T.Effects du ofdifferent intensitytype.and contraction MalliarasB, KamalA,et P, Nowell adaptation al.Patellar toload relation tendon in 2007;21(3):986 training propertied influences ontendon output. and muscle Burgess Graham MJ, Connik KE, exercise prescription. Ratamess Kraemer WJ, NA. F J ApplPhysiol. adaptation resistance to training: V inevoked Changes DyhreAagaard EB,AndersonP, P,Simonsen JL, Magnusson Sport TanakaImpact T. ofresistance H,Swensen training onendurance performance. Med Sci Sports. youngendurance in muscle capacity fiber and top composition AagaardLJ, P,AndersonBen 2011;25(12):3391 stretching:flexibility on Effects and strength. Whitehead ResistanceMorton SK, Brinkert JR, static RH,Caine DJ. training vs. human tendon. Magnusson M.The Kjaer impact PS, ofloading, and unloading, ageing injury on 2007;191:111 hypertrophy inhumans followingresistance training. KongsgaardRegion S,Pedersonet M,Reitelseder TG,al.patellartendon specific 2008;105(3):805 hypertrophy stiffnesspatellar ofthehuman and increased tendon. Couppe Kongsgaard C, M, Aagaard loading P,et intendon al.Habitual results hypertrophy. induced muscle protein changes inskeletal synthes Damas Vechin FC, Ugrinowtsch S, F, C.Areview resistance Phillips training of performance. Ratamess Kraemer WJ, NA, French Resistance DN. training for and health .

Oranchuk Doctoral s Med.

was 1998;25(3):191 Sports Med. Med. Sports Curr Sports Med Rep. Sports Curr - S 121. J Physiol. J Physiol. - - cholarship 2002;92(6):2309 361. 989. 2011;21(6):298 - supported 810. - 3398.

Triphasic training: Asystematic training: Triphasic approach and toelite speed Med SciMed Exerc. Sports

2018;Ahead ofprint. 2015;45(6):801 .

by the - 200. nekou M, et al. Effects of resistance training on M,etofresistance al.Effects nekou training undamentals ofresistanceundamentals and training: Progression J Biomech. -

- Hudson, WI: Dietz Sport En Sport Dietz Hudson, WI: 307. 2318.

- Auckland UniversityAuckland Technology’s of Smith P, Pearson SJ. Plyometric SJ. Pearson P, Smith vsisometric 2002;1(3):165 Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. Electromyogr Clin

- 807. 2013;46(11):1893 2004;36(4):674 J Strength Cond Res. Cond J Strength

- is andtheir contribution to J Physiol. 171. Acta Physiol Scand. Acta Physiol - wave and H wave and

ration isometric contractionsration J Res. StrengthCond - - terprise; 2012. 688. 2001;536(2):649 1899. - Poulsen P.NeuralPoulsen - level cyclists. cyclists. level

J Appl Physiol. J

- reflex responses.reflex

Vice Vice

Scand J - 655. -

the

- This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Accepted33. 32. 31. 30. 29. 28. 27. 26. 25. Article24. 23. 22. 21. 20. 19. 18. 17. 16.

2015;33(18):1952 training lengths production. atmuscle dynamic different on torque Noorkoiv Nosaka M, Blazevich K, AJ. knee angle joint Noorkoiv Nosaka M, Blazevich Neuromuscular associated with K, AJ. adaptations 2006;16(3):159 angles onthe muscle Kubo K, et Ohgo R, K,Takeishi al.Effects training atknee ofisometric different architecture. training on AlegreLM,Ferri characteristics.time andpull loaded squat vertical jump for thedevelopment of andisometric force jump Robinson OranchukTL,ZJ,DJ, Drinkwater Comparisonof th Switaj EJ. 2017;3(32). body multi DrakeD, Kennedy responsiveness Wallace R, lowerand validity E.The ofisometric 2010;24(9):2570 isometric and recreationally dynamic in strength men. trained WinchesterMcGuiganMJ, Nelson JB, MR,Newton between AG.Relationship Res.Cond velocity KhamouiLE, AV,Nguyen between Brown D,et al.Relationship force assessment. GJ, Murphy Wilson AJ. The ofmuscular useof inathletic isometric tests function 357. performance: tomuscle activation. Relationship GJ. Murphy Wilson correlationsPoor AJ, isometrictests and between dynamic function: angle. The effect ofjoint G,PryorMurphy Wilson Newton JF, AJ, RU. training. KD. Corticomotor plasticity J Goodwill AM,PearceAJ, following strength unilateral J Med. Sport Clin contractionsisotonic patellar for tendonpain: E,vanRio ArkIsometric M,Docking et S, contractionsthan al.are analgesic more patellar in inhibition tendinopathy. Isom E,KidgellRio et C, al. D,Purdam Scand JSci Med Sports. hamstring review soccer players:prospective Asystematic injuries inmale studies. of vanIGL, Beijsterveldt AMC,vandeBackxfactors Risk PortFJG. AJ, for Vereijken ability. performancejump on knee squats jumping depends afterisometric and angle vertical Tsoukos A,Bogdanis Terzis G,Veligekas Acute GC, P. improvement of vertical lengthmuscle. curveofskeletal DR. Abbott BC, Wilkie The relation tension between velocityand ofshortening the Rehabil. quadriceps activity innormal femoris andpostarthotomy limbs. D,ZickelCuttita Krebs DE,Staples angl WH, Knee joint RE.

J Strength Cond Res. J StrengthCond - time characteristics of time Muscle Nerve. Muscle 1983;64(10):441 - 2011;25(1):198 the knee extensor moment the knee extensor ofmuscular tests joint strength: Asystematic review. Sports Med.Sports Eur J Appl Physiol. Eur J Appl - - 167. specific forcechange. specific - - 257 - Morales A,RodriguezMorales 2017;27(3):253 1961. J Strength Cond Res. Cond J Strength

– 3. tendon complex in complex tendon

2012;46(3):384

2013;23(3):253 1996;22(1):19 - - 447. 204. 2016;30(8):2250

dynamic muscle actions. and isometric

J Physi 2014;114(11):2437 - 259. J ApplBiomech. Br J Sports Med. Br J Med. Sports – angle and muscle vastus lateralis relationship

Med Exerc. Sports Sci - Effectsisometric quadriceps of strength ol. - etric exercise induces exercise reducesetric analgesia and 37. - - 393. 262. Casares R, AguadoR, isometric X. EffectsCasares of vivo. 2017;Ahead ofprint. 1953;120(1):214

An in - Isometric assessment of muscular 2257. Scand J Med Sci Sports. Eur J ApplPhysiol.

- 1995;11(2):205 season clinical randomized trial. -

2015;49(19):1277 2446.

- 223. e: Its to e: relationship 2014;46(8):1525 J Strength Cond Res. J StrengthCond

Arch Phys MedArch Phys

Sports Med Open. Med Sports J Sports Sci. J Sports - 215. 1 996;77:353 - - J Strength J Strength time andtime 1283.

e hang high

- 1537. - - - -

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Accepted52. 51. 50. 49. 48. 47. 46. 45. 44. 43. 42. Article41. 40. 39. 38. 37. 36. 35. 34.

Cond Re Cond isometricthe opposite directionmuscle strength. shortening of onmaximal BP, Szmuchrowski HR,Couto Silva LA.of mechanical Effects in vibration applied Fitness. does enhance beyond not strength th Fisher Van J, relation muscle fatigue. to SjogaardG, SavardCarst near duringconsumption isometriccontractions ofthe with determined extensors knee de Boerde Spanjaard CJ, Ruiter Haan A.Knee MD, M,deangle isometric resistance training. Maffiuletti Progressive rate NA,Martincontraction A. of versus rapid during 7 wkof 2014;114(2):365 neuromuscu Maximal NA,Folland andexplosiveTillin strength JP. training elicit distinct voluntary improvement. isometricstrength G,StraussDe GR, LaiSzeto Domenico The G, effect Sun H. oftraining on intensity Phys Ther. of HerbertKhouw isometricstrength W, R.Optimisation training intensity. Appl Physiol. orhighprograms muscleand size medium comprising resistancestrength. on Kanehisa KawakamiNagareda training Y,etH, ofequivolume H,isometric al.Effect contraction strength training. specific andhypertrophic ex to adaptations functional, neural, BalshawTG, Massey Maden GJ, 2010;43(16):3073 tocyclicmechanical properties andmorphological inresponse strain. Arampatzis A,PeperBierbaum Albracht A,Plasticity S, human K. Achill of 2007;210:2743 Achilles tendon byofthe applied cyclicstrain modulation magnitude. Arampatzis A,Karamanidis K,Albracht responses K.Adaptational of thehuman knee angles. LindhIncrease strength M. quadricepsat of muscle fromexercisesdifferent isometric exercised and arms. nonexercised Meyers isometric routines Effects CR. on oftwo 465. quadriceps following muscles isometrictraining. femoris Bandy Changes Hanten WP. and WD, electromyographic intorque activity ofthe 1988;64(4):1500 linked tolength specificityduring isometrictraining. Thepaut Am J Phys Med. Ras Oregon; 1969. adeterminant as training isotonic inperformance Sterling DR. 1995;71(4):337 versusShort long isometr J, McCullySchott metabolites instrengthOM. The role K,Rutherford of training: ch PJ, Pierson Onech WR. PJ, versus isometric multiple position in positions exercise. -

infrared spectroscopy.infrared - 2015;55(9):899 s. Mathieu C, Van Hoecke MatonB. andmechanicalchangesMathieu C,Van Myoelectrical J, 2008;22(4):1031 1998;44(1):43 lar adaptations, specificadaptations, tothe lartraining stimulus. Scand J Rehabil Med. J Rehabil Scand Isometric strength position specificity position Isometric isometric from strength resulting and - Dongen M, Sutherlandisometric and R.Combined Dongen vibration training M, 2002;87(2):112

- - 2753. 341. - - 1964;43(1):10 374. 1505. - 3079.

-

904. ic contractions. - 46. Eur J ApplPhysiolOccup Physiol. - J Appl Physiol. J ApplPhysiol. en J. Muscle bloodflowduringen J. activity and isometricits 1036.

Med SciMed Exerc. Sports J Appl Physiol. J ApplPhysiol. -

119. - 12. - Wilkinson TM, Tillin NA, Folland JP. Training NA, Folland TM,Tillin JP. Wilkinson

Res Q Exerc Sport. ExercRes Sport. Q

1979;11(1):33 at ofisometric trainingalone. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol Eur J Appl Physiol. Aust J Phys Ther. Aust J 2005;99:579 2016;120(11):1364 strength, and endurance size, in -

. Eugene, of Ore,University 36. 2001;33(7):1220 J A

1967;38(3):430 - ppl Physiol. ppl Physiol. 586. Phys Ther. Eur J ApplPhysiol. 1989;34(4):210 plosive 1988;57:327 - - 1373. dependent oxygendependent J Sports Med PhysJ Sports - 1993;73(7):455 - - 1227

J Biomech.J 440. J Exp Biol. Biol. J Exp vs. sustained

- .

J Strength 335. Aust J es tendon - Eur J 217.

-

- - This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. 69. 68 67. 66. 65. 64. 63. 62. 61. 60. 59. 58. 57. 56. 55. 54. 53.

Accepted. Article

Sports Med.Sports responses traditional and daily to14weeksof resistance undulating training. Ullrich T, B, M,Pelzer Stening Soleimani HolzingerS, Pfeiffer M.N J, 2018;28(2):436 structurefunction followingisometrictraining. and WaughImpact AlktebiT,De CM, Sa A,ScottA. ofrest tendon duration onAchilles 2018;Ahead ofprint. adaptation explosive to Massey G,Balshaw T, Maden non parameters fati and responses during strength training tovaried isometric DM. Williams 1985;405(4):384 training Young Davieseffects K,McDonaghCTM.The MJN, oftwoforms ofisometric relationship andrate force of development. low volume isometricleg presstraining knee complex two at angles onforce SelimaA, MethenitisBogdanis SK, E,Veligekas TsoukosG.Effec GC, Terzis P, researchof theeffect through theuse size. Rhea Determining MR. themagnitude effects strength oftreatment in training 2008;38(12):104 ability Areview insport: ofresistance training studies. Levin Brughelli G,ChaouachiUnderstanding change J, ofdirection M,Cronin A. interventions: Explanation and elaboration. systematicmeta and reviews LiberatiTetzalaff et A,Altman DG, al.The J, PRISMA for statement reporting Physiol. synchronizationenhanced is muscle. during slowlengthening contractions ofa hand Kornatz Dinenno KW, DV,Semmler Enoka Zhou JG, Moto RM. S, isometric muscle function. of theexperimental supportabetween study distinction a a pushing and holding SchaeferLV,Bittmann Are FN. theretwo fatiguing contractions. imagingPET/CT age of Rudrof muscles. totaskfailuretime withload compliance differ target and elbow force for flexor HolmesRudroff JN, Matthews T,Enoka MR, Justice SD, Muscle RM. activity and J A contributes totask failure intime tothevariation for and loads. postures different arm AccessoryRudroff RM. T, AL,Enoka BK, Barryactivity Barry Stone muscle CJ, Neurophysiol. torque of alterendurance time su the Hunter SK,RyanEnoka DL, Task RM. Ortega differences JD, load thesame with Electromyogr Kinesiol. activityloaded duringconcentrically eccentrically versusisometriccontractions. BlackburnGarner CampbellB. W, Wiemar JC, Comparisonof electrom T, 565. electromyostimulation versus isometric training. Maximum strengthAlberti R. G,Ragazzi effects jump andvertical of ppl Physiol. ppl Physiol. -

fatiguing testprotocolsfatiguing f T, Kalliokoski KK, Block DE, Gould JR, Block EnokaKlingensmithf T,Gould JR, RM. Kalliokoski KK, DE, WC, on themechanicalproperties surae triceps of the inman. 2002;545(2):681 J ApplPhysiol. 2015;36(7):554 2002;88(6):3087 The studyofvoluntaryactivation andforce productionrelationships - 2007;102(3):1000 445. - 5 388. - 1063.

J Appl Physiol. J - - 2008;18(3):466

vs. sustained

2011;110(1):125 and task - 695. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil.BMC SciMed Sports , University of Iowa;, University2011. of - - 562. analyses of studies that analyses ofstudies -

Wilkinson T, Tillin T,Tillin Tendinous N, Folland tissue Wilkinson J. - 3096.

- - associated differences in muscle activity differencesassociated during inmuscle 1006. bmaximal fatiguingbmaximal humans. contractions in -

contraction strength training. 2013;114(9):1211 - 471.

- forms of isometric muscle action? Results ofResults isometricmuscleforms action? 136. J Strength Cond Res. Cond J Strength Eur J Sport Sci.Sport Eur J PLoS Med.PLoS

Med Sport (Roma).Med Sport

Scand J Sci Med Sports.

evaluate care health

Sports Med.Sports 2009;6(7). - 1219. 2017;9(11):1 2018;Ahead print. of

2004;18(4):918 Pflügers Archiv. Pflügers

Front Physiol. Front Physiol. r unit 2007;60(4):557 - euromuscular 13. guing and

yographic - Int J angle - 920.

J J ts of - J

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Accepted88. 87. 86. 85. 84. 83. 82. 81. 80. 79. 78. Article77. 76. 75. 74. 73. 72. 71. 70.

invasive approach. of quantification humanAchilles structure of tendons: tendon through n a novel van de Schie HT,VosRJ, Jonge et de S, al. Ultrasonographic characterisation tissue effects types. ofspecific contraction ofexpression myostatinIGF and HeinemeierJL,KM, Olesen Schjerlinget P, al.Short types. growth factorsrat in HeinemeierJL,KM, OlesenF, etof Haddad collagen al.Expression related and muscle andvivo. in tendonstiffness IshigakiIkebukuroKubo K, T, T.Effects and isometric ofplyometric training on Achilles tendon. AryaK. Tendinopathyalters Kuligand S, mechanicalthe material of properties 2007;39(10):1801 muscle Kubo K, M,KomuroT, Morimoto et plyometric al.Effectsand of weight traini properties of tendonsinelderly humans. ReevesMaganaristraining ND, Narici MV,the CN.Strength alters viscoelastic sectionaland non area inrunners Magnusson M.Region Kjaer PS, adaptations. ecc Franchi Narici MV,ReevesND, remodeling to MV.Skeletal inresponse muscle Funct Imaging. femoris intermedius during includingfatiguing a thevastus contraction. Akima H, RyosukeA. Oxyg 2007;25(10):1081 Spurway NC.Hiking"quasi and physiology the J Sci. Sport resistance strength volumeloadwith equated andhypertrophy. onmuscle training Lasevicius etBJ, al.Effects C,Schoenfeld T,Ugrinowitsch intensities ofdifferent analysis. between low GrgicSchoenfeldBJ, Str Ogborn D, J, Krieger JW. Eur J ApplPhysiol. metabolites that areenhance producedexercise during resistance muscle hypertrophy? Loenneke MattocksKT, JesseeDankel MB, Do Mouser Buckner JG, SJ, SL, JP. J.Strength Cond TJ. TheLoenneke Pujol useof trianing JP, occlusion toproducemuscle hypertrophy. isometric contractionshuman elbow flexors. in T,TsayAllen TJ, MuscleJones A, Morgan damageU. DL, Proske produce untrained men. partialof vs. range motion training ofmotion development in inthe ofstrength Massey Maneval Vincent CD, M,M J, range ofmotion. BarakDvir Y,AyalonZ.gains tofull M, ofstrength from Transferability limited Physiol. functional adaptations vs.s followinglong K,DegacheGuex Sailly C, F, Morisod Hamstring GP. M,Millet architectural and entric vs.concentric molecular, loading: Morphological, and metabolic J Physiol. J - tendon complex and performance.tendon complex jump 2016;7(340):1 J Res. StrengthCond 2018;18(6):772 Front Physiol. Front Physiol. -

versus high J Strength Cond Res. Cond J Strength 2017;37:750 2007;582:1303 Physiol. J Appl Med Sci Sports Exerc. Sports Med Sci 2009;31(3):77 - - 1810. 1093. Br J Sports Med. Br J Sports 2017;117(11):2125 tendon and response skeletaltendon tospecific contraction muscle in - 9.

-

load resistanceAsystematic meta training: and review - 2017;8(447):1 enation andenation neuromuscular of activation thequadriceps 780. - 758. 2017;31(12):3508 - - 84. -

2010;108(3):670 1316. - - 1 isoforms in rat muscle and rat 1 isoforms tendon in runners. runners. specific differences inAchillestendon differences specific cross

Physiol Rep. J Appl Physiol. Appl Physiol. J 2010;44(16):1153 2004;18(3):518

oore M, Johnson JT. An analysis JT. oore offull range M,Johnson - 2004;36(8):1413 2135. Muscle Nerve. - Eur J Appl Physi Eur J Appl hort muscle length eccentric training. 16.

J Appl Physiol. J - Med Sci Exerc. Sports isometric" concept.isometric" - - 2017;5(e13374):1 3523. 675. engthand hypertrophyadaptations 2007;102:573 - - 521. term and strengththe training

-

1159. 2003;28(1):74 - 1420.

ol.

2003;90:549

2018;124(2):388 - 581. - J Sci. Sports 13. : Differential - 81.

Clin Physiol Clin

- d by 553. - ng on on - Front

- 399. -

Eur of

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Accepted106. 105. 104. 103. 102. 101. 100. 99. 98. 97. Article96. 95. 94. 93. 92. 91. 90. 89.

gainsresistance training. after drive, hypertrophyand pre BalshawTG, Massey Maden GJ, high NDM, MaramontiJenkins et AA,Hill EC, al.Greater following neural adaptations expression. improves power independently MaherWinchester McBride MA, JB, JM, et al.Eight exercise ofballistic weeks Int J PhysiolPerform. Sports bar measures ormaximal I,Loturco BishopLA, Kobal C, Pereira Suchomel TJ, R, McGu Res. and isometric ofelite muscle women actions olympicweightlifters. Haff et Hartman al.Force Carlock MJ, GG, JM, 2012;26(10):2685 curveclub characteristicsgolfers. andhead inrecreational speed LearyBK, HopkinsB, between Statler etrelationship J, al.The isometr SciMed.Sports muscle force characteristics and inelite startmale performance sprintswimmers. BeretićI,Burovic M, 865. strengthafter at exercise long isometric muscle length. A,MaridakiPhilippou Bogdanis M, Angle GC. Med. Yeung Yeungofpeak Shift after SS, angleEW. eccen torque 2009;23(5):859 human quadricepsmechanical properties aftereccentric of exercise muscle A,MaridakiPhilippou Bogdanis M, A,Koutsilieris M.Changes inthe Halapas GC, Physiol. curve following elbow eccentric and ofhuman flexors isometric exercise. A,BorgdanisPhilippou Nevill M.Changes GC, AM,Maridaki intheangle 2013;31(14):1545 lengthoptimum aftera single se K,Degache angleGuex GP.Effect G,Millet ofhipflexion hamstring F, on Gremion exercise length. by changing optimum Brockett CL, Morga eccentric trainingandeffect. exercise the MorganBowers EJ, Proske humanquadriceps U.Damage DL, tothe from muscle Med. of the angle ofas torque a peak Shield AJ,Opar MD, RG, Timmins DA.Williams Is the use evidence there tosupport players. andof pull the isometricdynamic midthigh inprofessionalrugby leage performance Owen NJ, Jones et DJ, West MR, al.Relationships between force tendon stiffness andjumpperformance. Kubo K, YataKanehisa H,Fukunaga H, ofisometric squat T.Effects training onthe Sci Sports. imaginga over 5 Docking Achilles Cook tendon SD, structureJ. UTC SI,Rosengarten improves on

- 2005;19(4):741

2008;29(3):251 2015;46(1):7 vs. low J Strength Cond Res. J StrengthCond 2004;93(1 2016;26(5):557 J Res. StrengthCond - load resistance training.load - 2013;12(4):639 865. - month pre month - - - 2697. 1552. - 13. 2):23 n DL, Proske U.Humann DL, hamstring eccentric muscles to adapt -

748. -

Okicik T,Dopsaj M.Relationsbetween Okicik body isometric lower 256.

7 -

power output: Which ismorepower Which relatedperformance? output: tosport -

- - 244. training strength strength tothe individual allcontribute 5 - season in elite Australianfootball in season players. 63. 2018;Ahead ofprint. 2011;25(11):3070 Eur J Appl Physiol. Eur J ApplPhysiol.

of changesfiber of andmuscle type instrength marker of hamstringsre injuryandmarker of -

t of concentric contractions. t of 645. - 2008;22(6):1728 Wilkinson TM,et al.Changesagonist neuralWilkinson in

Front Physiol. Front Physiol. Med Sci Sports Exerc.Med Sci Sports Eur J Appl Physiol. Physiol. J Appl Eur J Sports Sci. J Sports - - - specific impairment of elbow flexors elbow impairmentspecific of time curvetime characteristics ofdynamic 3075.

-

2017;117(4):631 1734. 2017;8(331):1

2004;22:1005 J Sci. Sports

2006;96(3):305 J Sci. Sports tric exercise. 2001;33(5):783 igan M. 1RM igan M.1RM J Strength Cond Res.Cond J Strength - time characteristic time - injury risk. injury risk. - - J Strength Cond Cond J Strength 2003;21(10):859 640. 1 - 1014. 5. Scand J MedScand ic force

Eur J Appl Int JSports Int

- In Vivo. - force 314. - 790. - Sports Sports time time

J

s - This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Accepted 120. 119. 118. 117. 116. Article115. 114. 113. 112. 111. 110. 109. 108. 107.

performances joint. single using of tendonstiffness, stiffness, joint andelectromyographic activity onjump Kubo K, M,KomuroT,Influences Morimoto Tsunoda N,Kanehisa H, Fukunaga T. during humanmovements. FukunagaY, KuboMuscle T, KawakamiK,Kanehisa and H. tendoninteraction matched for total work. youngaft men SM. MooreSimilar DR,Young M,Phillips increases and inmuscle size strength in men. vs. high PetersonSchoenfeldBJ, MD,OgbornB, D, Sonm Contreras 2004;96(2):540 electromechanicalgastrocnemius thehuman medial vivo. delay in in InfluenceT, FukunagaH. Muraoka T,Kanehisa oftendon on T,Muramatsu slack Assoc J.Str Cond O'Shea B. O'Shea Functional P, isometric lifting K,Wynn AssocCond J. O'Shea B. O'Shea Functional P, isometric lifting K,Wynn and static strength. FunctionalO'Shea training:Its KL, isometric weight JP. O'Shea dynamic effects on system an over 8 training:Itsth on effects WeatherbyGiorgi GJ, Functional Murphy A,Wilson AJ. RP, isometric weight training.ballistic impact weightlifting, of strengthadaptations and leveltocombined plyometric, on LP,James GG, BW, Hoffman The KellyBeckman HaffVG, MJ, EM. Connick Med.Sport related changes structure inperformancefunction. and muscle skeletal and Faulkner performance:gender differences? Perez Res.Strength Cond accthickness atvarious sites T,Nakamura Chishaki Kubo J, al. infat Differences N,et velocity Behm D J Strength Cond Res. J Res. StrengthCond - Gomez J, Redrigeuz GV, AraI, J, Gomez al. of Role muscle et massonsprint - - G, Sale DG. Intended DG. G, Sale ratherthan movement actual velocity determines load resistance andload hypertrophy strength training onmuscle inwell specific training response. training specific

JA, Davis CSM, C L, DavisC Brooks SV.The CSM, JA, Age aging ofelite athletes: male 2008;18(6):501 er training with maximal shorteningerwith maximal trainingorlengthening contractions when 1987;9(6):44 - 544. - Scand J MedScand J Sci Sports. week trianing period. week trianing period. 1988;10 J Appl Sport Sci Sport J Appl 2006;20(3):654

Eur J ApplPhysiol. e development function endocrine ofmuscular and the (1):60 2015;29(10):2954 - Exerc Sci Sport R - 507. ording to performance levelording toperformance amoung judoathletes. 51.

- Eur J ApplPhysiol. 62. Eur J ApplPhysiol. -

J Appl Physiol. J ApplPhysiol. Res. 657.

J Strength Cond Res.Cond J Strength

1989;3(2):30 2018;28(5):1494 2012;112(4):1587 ev. ev. - 2963. 2002;30(3):106

1993;74(1):359

2007;99(3):235 - 2008;102(6):685 33. -

- - free mass andfree muscle mass Part II: Application. Part - Part I:Part Theory. 1505. ez GT. ez Effects oflow 1998;21(1):18 - 1592. - 110.

- 368. -

243. J ApplPhysiol. - 694.

Natl Str Natl Clin J Clin - -

25. trained

Natl Natl J - -

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Fig 9 Fig Fig Fig ) Accepted Article ure ure ure ure

4 Isometric adaptations trainingand 3. intensity (multiple hypertrophic 2 1. Search strategy . Isometric training. Isometrically angle joint . trained and ( hypertrophicadaptations

intensity and force production ( andintensity force production

N

= 3)

N

= 3) comparison

, N

= This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. (15/20) (2018) al., et Bogdanis (18/20) ( Hanten & Bandy (18/20) ( Aguado & Casares, Rodriguez Morales, Ferri Alegre, (quality) year Study, Table Accepted1993 Article2014 ) ) 64 38 30

1

.

- Joint Joint

- a ngle Subjects years 2.1 ± 21.5 15 = M students university active Healthy, years 23.9 107 F = students university untrained, Healthy, years 19.3 7 F = 22 = M students university untrained Healthy

,

Intervention 8 ofMVIC 100% 90° LML= 60° MML= SML30° = extension knee Isometric weeks, 2 8 ofMVIC ~74% 90° LML= SML50° = extension knee Isometric flexion ofknee 95° LML= flexion ofknee SML35° = jumps) countermovement (+ leg press Isometric

weeks,4/week

-

3/week

(11.7%, ES = = ES 0.45) (11.7%, ↑ 0.31 length(9 muscle75% and 50%, 25%, at ↑VLthickness LML: 0.77) ( 60° and 1.0) = (ES 70° 60 at EMG ↑isokinetic 0.24) (5.2 muscle length 50% and 25% at ↑VLthickness SML: ( adaptations neural and Mechanical 0.74 = (ES control ↑EMGin vs.105° and 90°, 75°, 60°, 45°, 30°, ↑EMGat LML: 2.26) ( control 70° and 60° 45°, 30°, 15°, ↑EMGat MML: 1.65) 0.87 = (ES control vs. 60° and 45° 30°, 15°, ↑EMGat SML:

p VL p VL

< 0.05, ES ES 0.50) ≥ 0.05, < - - - 6.1%, ES = 0.23 = ES 6.1%, p 0.65) 2.28)

ennation angle angle ennation

= 0.21, ES = = ES = 0.21,

ES = 0.36 = ES - 13.5%, ES = = ES 13.5%,

↑EMG in

vs.

↑EMG - - 50

- - - ES = 1.38) 1.38) = ES (14.6%, angle ↑Optimum 60°·s at torque ↑Concentric LML: 0.91) = ES (7.3%, angle ↓Optimum SML: ( effect Performance 300ms at 18° (40.7 300ms18° at 0 ↑RFD 0.51 = ES 13.8%, (11.8 300ms80° at 0 ↓RFD 2.41) = (57.4%, 34° and 0.88) = ES (22%, ↑MVIC18° at 1.77) = ES (9.7%, angle ↓Optimum SML: 0.94 = (ES 105° and 90°, 75°, 60°, 45°, 30°, ↑MVIC15°, at LML: 2.25) 1.01 = (ES 75° and 60° 45°, 30°, ↑MVIC15°, at MML: 0.88 = (ES 60° and 45° 30°, ↑MVIC15°, at SML: p

< 0.05, ES ES 0.50) ≥ 0.05, <

- 1

(22.6%, ES = 1.1) = ES (22.6%, - - 200ms and 0 and 200ms 0 and 200ms

-

3.26)

- 0.60) - - -

1.94) 1.94)

- -

ES ES -

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. (13/2 Lindh (11/20) ( al., et Kubo Accepted Article2006 0) ) ( 31

1979

) 40

26.5 years 26.5 10 F = Healthy ± 24 M =9 students university Healthy 1

years

6 weeks, 3 6 ofMVIC 100% 12 weeks, 12 4/week ofMVIC 70% 100° LML= SML50° = extension knee Isometric 5 ofMVIC 100% 60° LML= SML15° = extension knee Isometric

weeks,3/week

/week

0.82) = ES volume(10%, muscle ↑Quadriceps SML: 0.45 (7 angles joint all ↑EMGat = ES 0.62) 14.01%, ( ↓Tendonelongation 1.22) = ES (50.86%, stiffness ↑Tendon 1.06) = ES volume(11%, muscle ↑Quadriceps LML: 0.25 angles joint all ↑EMGat - -

0.72) 0.44)

(3.1 - 8.84%, ES = = ES 8.84%,

- 7.5%, ES = = ES 7.5%,

- 80° and 70° 60°, 50°, ↑MVIC40°, at SML: 0.51) = ES (8.4%, height ↑CMJ 0.64) = ES (11.9%, ↑1RMsquat =0.52)ES (14.4%, *↑RFD 0 (18 angles p time eff ↑MVIC(main LML: 0.66) = ES (7.2%, height ↑CMJ 0.61) = ES (9.6%, ↑1RMsquat 0.62 (17.9 34° 1.2 = ES 45.4%, 30°·s at torque ↑Con (31%) ↑MVIC60° at (11%) ↑MVIC15° at LML: 30°·s at torque ↑Con (14%) ↑MVIC60° at (32%) 15° at SML ↑MVICin SML: 110° and 100° 90°, 80°, 70°, ↑ LML: MVIC at 40°, 50°, 60°, 60°, 50°, 40°, at MVIC

= 0.028) at all jointall at 0.028) = -

0.77)

- - 300ms at 34° 34° at 300ms 20.9%, ES = = ES 20.9%, -

98°) (~12.3%) 98°)

- 1.52) and and 1.52)

- -

1 1

ect: ect:

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. (18/20) ( Sterling, (13/20) ( Pierson & Rasch (17/20) ( Blazevich & Nosaka, Noorkoiv, (17/20) ( Blazevich & Nosaka, Noorkoiv, Accepted1969 1964 Article2015 2014 ) ) ) ) 35 36 33 32

16 = M untrained Healthy, M = 120 = M students education physical University 29 = M students university untrained Healthy, years 4.0 ± 23.7 16 = M untrained Healthy, years 4.0 ± 23.7

LML = 87.5 ± 6.0° ± 87.5 LML= 3.7° ± SML38.1 = extension knee Isometric press” “hip Isometric 5 ofMVIC 100% 60°, at Multi sets90° at Single flexion elbow Isometric 6 ofMVIC 100% 6.0° ± 87.5 LML= 3.7° ± SML38.1 = extension knee Isometric 6 ofMVIC 100% 7 MVIC 100% 85° LML= 55° MML= SML=

weeks,3/week weeks,5/week weeks,3/week weeks,3/week -

angle = 1 set 1 = angle -

90° and 120° and 90° 3 = angle 25°

0.33) = ES length(5.8%, fascicle VL ↑Distal 0.19) = ES volume(5.2%, muscle quadriceps ↑Total 1.02) = (ES and 60° 0.53) = (ES 50° ↑Voluntary LML: 0.63) = ES length(5.6%, fascicle VL ↑Mid SML:

activation at activation 0.70) 0.70) (10.1 *90,120°·s and *60, 30, at torque ↑Concentric LML: 0. (8.0 50° and ↑MVIC40° at SML: (3.1%) ↑MVIC85° at LML: (15.4 55° and ↑MVIC25° at MML: (21 55° and ↑MVIC25° at SML: 5 4) - - 37.2%) 37.2%) 14.2%, ES = = ES 0. 14.2%,

- -

13%, ES = = ES 0.55 13%, 51.4%)

3 - 4 1

-

- This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. 11/20 Maton & Hoecke, Van Mathieu, Thepaut femoris. 1RM = 1 repetition maximum. CMJ = Countermo = CMJ maximum. repetition 1 = 1RM femoris. voluntary isometric contraction. Con = concentric. VL = vastus lateralis, VM = vastus medialis, RF = rectus medialis,RFrectus = vastus = VM vastus= lateralis, VL concentric. Con = contraction. voluntaryisometric Accepted ArticleMaximal = MVIC musclelength. long LML = musclelength. medium MML = musclelength. SMLshort =

( 1988 - ) 37

31.8 years 31.8 24 = M Untrained

MML = 100° MML= SML60° = flexion elbow Isometric 5 weeks, 3/week 5 MVIC 80% 155° LML=

p

> 0.05. > ↑EMG at all angles all ↑EMGat LML: & SML,MML vement jump. ES = effect size (Cohen’s size effect = ES vement jump.

54%) ↑MVIC80 at LML: 30%) ↑MVIC60 at MML: (10 80° and ↑MVIC60° at SML: - 25%)

- - d 155° (24 155° (22 155° ). * denotes ). - - This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. 16/20 ( al. et Kanehisa 14/20 (2010) Albracht & Bierbaum, Pe Arampatzis, Adamantois 14/20 (2007) Albracht & Karamanidis, Arampatzis Adamantios Study Table Accepted2002 Article

, q ) 4 4 2

uality .

Contraction ,

per, per, 42 41

27.5 years 27.5 12 = M untrained Healthy, years 23.9 11 = M students university untra Healthy, years 28 14 F = M =7 students university untrained H Subjects ealthy, ealthy, i ntensity ined ined

14 weeks, 14 4/week contractions) (12 MVIC 90% = HI contractions) MVIC LI55% = flexion plantar Isometric weeks, 14 4/week contractions) MVIC 90% = HI contractions) MVIC LI55% = flexion plantar Isometric Intervention x6s) MVIC 100% = HI 30s) MVIC LI60% = extension elbow Isometric

(24 (24 (4 x (4 (20 (16 (16

(12 (12 ↑ length tendon 60 CSAat ↑Tendon 1.57) = ES (36%, stiffness ↑Tendon HI: 1.76) = ES (28.4%, force tendon maximum ↑Calculated = ES 0.57) (17.4%, strain ↑Tendon = ES 0.56) (16.2%, ↑Tendonelongation LI: 0.05, < n and Morphological (12.4%, ES = = ES 0.28) (12.4%, ↑ HI: 0.26) = ES (5.3%, ↑ LI: 0.81 = ES (11.9%, force tendon maximum ↑Calculated = ES 0.82) (17.1%, stiffness ↑Tendon HI: 0.89) = ES (11.7%, force maximum ↑Calculated = ES 0.67) (13.7%, strain ↑Tendon (14 ↑Tendonelongation LI: 2.04) force tendon maximum Calculated Calculated eu M M

% and 70% of 70% % and

%, ES = 0.84) 0.84) = ES %, uscle volume uscle volume uscle ral adaptations ( adaptations ral

)

(43.6%, ES = = ES (43.6%,

ES ≥ 0.50) ≥ ES tendon tendon

p

( Performance 2.71) 2.71) ↑MVIC HI: 1.91) = ES ↑MVIC(61%, LI:

p

< 0.05, 0.05, <

(60.3%, ES = = ES (60.3%, ES ES 0.50) ≥ e ffect

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Accepted12/20 (1985) &Davies McDonagh, Young, Article11/20 Lai(1989) &Sun Domenico, Straus Szeto, 11/20 (1998) &Herbert Khouw LI = low intensity. LIlow= intensity.

45

46

s, De s, 65

20.5 years 20.5 M =4 Healthy 12 F = M =6 students University 33 F = 18 = M students university untrained 51 MI = mediumintensity = MI contraction. contraction.

ES = = ES weeks, HI, contractions (3s MVIC 100% = HI x60s) LI30% = flexion plantar Isometric 3 MVIC 100% = HI MVIC 50% = MI MVIC LI25% = extension knee Isometric 6 increments in2% 100% and 0% between intensity an individual to assigned subject Each flexion elbow Isometric 10

weeks,5/wee weeks,3/week

weeks,3/week effect 5

weeks;LI, and

. HI = high intensity. intensity. high = HI . 7/week

size ( size

MVIC (7 MVIC

Cohen’s Cohen’s k

- 15 8

d ) .

* denotes *denotes

MVIC = maximal vomaximal = MVIC p

> 0.05 > .

luntary isometric luntaryisometric HI: HI: 1.14) ↑MVIC MI: 0.61) = * LI: 100% to trainingcloser when 0.006) = p 5.3%, 0.19, = (slope ↑MVIC Greater 1.67) = ES ↑MVIC(21.2%, ↑MVIC( HI: = ES 1.72) (19.4%, index ↑Fatigue 2.22) = ES ↑MVIC(30.2%, ↑MVIC LI: 1.44) ↑MVIC ↑MVIC (22.3%, ES ES (22.3%, ↑MVIC

(31.3%, ES = = ES (31.3%, ( = ES (45.7%, 5.5%/week 3.3%/week

)

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. (18/20) (2018) & Foland Tillin, Maden Massey,Balshaw, (17/20) Martin & Maffiuletti (15/20) ( & Folland Tillin, Maden Massey, Balshaw, (quality) year Study, Table Accepted Article2016 ) 67

- - 43

( 3 Wilkinson, Wilkinson, Wilkinson, Wilkinson, 2001

. Contraction

) 48

years 3 ± 25 CON= years± 25 = 2 EST years ± 25 = 2 MST 42 = M untrained Healthy 21 = M untrained Healthy 43 = M untrained Healthy, Subjects i ntent

weeks, 12 3/week contractions) 10 (~ ofMVIC ~80% to rapidly= built EST contractions) for hold ofMVIC, 75% to build 1s = MST extension knee Isometric 7 MVIC reach to second 1 = BC MVIC reach to seconds RC4 = extension knee Isometric weeks, 12 3/week contractions) and ≥ to rapidly= EST contractions) (40 3s for hold ofMVIC, 75% to build 1s = MST extension knee Isometric Intervention

weeks,3/week

3s (~ 10 10 (~ 3s hold for 1s (40 (40 1s for hold 80 % of MVIC % ofMVIC

built built

(29.8%) twitch ↑Peak BC: ↓VLEMG RC: 0.26 = ES 150ms(12.5 ↑EMG0 EST: = ES 0.36) (14.3%, ↑EMG0 = ES 0.67) (27.8%, MVIC ↑EMGat 0.50) = ES (8.1%, volume ↑Muscle MST: ( neuraladaptations and Morphological (11%, ES = 0.75) = ES (11%, ↓Tendonelongation 0.31) = ES (2.8%, CSA ↓Tendon 0.38) = ES (4.4%, area ↑VLaponeurosis EST: = ES 0.54) (22.7%, stiffness aponeurosis ↑Tendon = ES 0.60) (14.4%, modulus ↑Young’s = ES 0.79) (14.3%, stiffness ↑Tendon 0.34) = ES (5.9%, area ↑VLaponeurosis 0. = ES (8.1%, volume ↑Muscle MST: relaxation twitch ↓Maximal time ↓Contraction p

< 0.05, ES ES 0.50) ≥ 0.05, <

- - - 100 and 0 and 100 150ms -

0.67) - 31.3%, 31.3%, 47

)

-

↑Concentric torque torque ↑Concentric 60° at ↑Eccentrictorque and 75° (15.7%) 65° ↑MVIC55°, at RC: 1.06) 0.65 = ES 32.6%, 150ms(14.4 100, 50, at ↑Force 1.24) = ES ↑MVIC(17.2%, EST: = ES 0.74) (12.1%, 15 at ↑Force 1.19) = ES ↑MVIC(23.4%, MST: 0.50) ( effect Performance 1.23) = ES ↑MVIC(16.7%, EST: 1.17) = ES ↑MVIC(23.6%, MST: 1 60° at torque ↑Concentric 60° at ↑Eccentric and 75° (27.4%) 65° ↑MVIC55°, at BC: 1 60° at

p

< 0.05, ES ES ≥ 0.05, <

. . . . s s s s

- - - - 1 1 1 1

and 240° and 240° and (15.6%) (18.3%) torque torque - 0ms

- . . s s

- -

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. (15/20) Williams (12/20) ( & Folland Tillin 2014 MST = maximal strength training. EST = explosive strength training. RC = ramp contraction. BC = ballistic ballistic = BC contraction. ramp = training.RC strength explosive= EST maximaltraining. = strength MST Accepted contraction. Article ) 47

( 2011 MVIC = maximal voluntary isometric contraction. VA = voluntaryactivation. VA = contraction. voluntary isometric maximal = MVIC )

66

22.8 years 22.8 8 = Ballistic 9 Ramp= 12 F = 11 = M students university untrained Healthy, years 2.4 20.2 ± = EST years 1.1 20.9 ± = MST 19 = N students university male active recreationally Healthy,

(

Cohen’s Cohen’s 6 weeks, 3/week 6 MVIC reach to second 1 = BC MVIC reach to seconds RC4 = extension knee Isometric 4 contractions) (10 1s for hold and ofMVIC 90% ≥ to rapidly= built EST contractions) (10 3s for hold ofMVIC, 75% to build 1s = MST extension knee Isometric

weeks,4/week d ) . * denotes

p

> 0.05 >

0.95 = 100ms(25 ↑M EST: ES 150ms(11.7 and 50 ↓%EMGat = ES 1.28) (28.1%, ↑M MST: 1.0) = ES (16%, elongation aponeurosis ↑Tendon (21.1%, modulus ↑Young’s = ES 0.56 (11.8%, strain ↓Tendon = ES 0.95) (19.9%, stiffness ↑Tendon 1.84) = ES (31.6%, VA ↑150ms 1.50) = ES (7.9%, ↑Ballistic VA 1.07) = ES (4.1%, VA ↑Ramp BC: =0.74)ES (9.82%, VA *↑150ms 1.75) = ES (8.3%, ↑Ballistic VA 1.99) = ES (7.7%, VA ↑Ramp RC: . - - = 0.59 =

wave at 50 and and wave50 at waveMVIC at

- 1.05)

ES = = ES 1.13) - - - 0.79)

42%, ES ES 42%,

- 22.1%, 22.1%,

)

1.2) 0.96 = ES 53.7%, 150ms and (13.1 100 ↑MVIC50, at 0.56) = ES ↑MVIC(10.6%, EST: 0.52) 0.084 = ES 7.39%, 150ms and (3.09 100 ↑MVIC50, at 1.46) = ES ↑MVIC(20.5%, MST: = ES 3.66) (48.8%, force ↑150ms = ES 0.88) (18.9%, ↑BallisticMVIC = ES 0.75) (15.7%, MVIC ↑Ramp BC: = ES 1.10) (14.3%, force *↑150ms = ES 1.56) (17.8%, ↑BallisticMVIC 1.95) = ES (20%, MVIC ↑Ramp RC:

ES = = ES

effect size

- -

- -

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. 13/20 (1967) Meyers 14/20 (2001) Fukunaga K Study,q Table

Accepted Article& Kanehisa, ubo,

4 uality .

Other

39

13 i

ndependent ndependent M = 29 = M students university Healthy years 22.6 M =8 untrained Healthy, Subjects

v ariables 100% MVIC 100% x 6s 20 = HV x 6s LV 3 = flexion elbow Isometric weeks, 12 4/week MVIC 70% LCx 20 4 = contractio SC extension knee Isometric Intervention 6

weeks,3/week

= 3 x 50 rapid rapid x 50 3 =

ns

s

↑Tendon stiffness stiffness ↑Tendon 0.38) = ES volume(7.6%, ↑Muscle LC: 1.85) = ES (25.6%, ↑Elasticenergy = ES (17.5%, stiffness *↑Tendon 0.36) = ES volume(7.4%, ↑Muscle SC: 0.05, < (p n and Morphological arm trained ↑ arm unt and trained girth170° at ↑Muscle HV: arm trained girth170° at ↑Muscle LV: 0.58) = ES (12%, ↑Elasticenergy = ES 1.38) (57.3%, eu M uscle girth at 90° ingirth 90° at uscle

ral adaptations adaptations ral

ES ES 0.50) ≥

0.57) 0.57) rained rained

in in ES = 2.21) = ES ↑MVIC(41.6%, LC: 2.47) = ES ↑MVIC(49%, SC: 0.50) ≥ ES ( e Performance ES = 0.67) = ES endurance ↑Muscle (9 90° at *↑MVIC 0.46) = ES %, (15.5 ↑MVIC170° at HV: 0.71) = ES endurance *↑Muscle = ES 0.93) (15.4%, ↑MVIC170° at LV: p

%, ES = 0.50) = ES %, < 0.05 and/or and/or 0.05 <

(42.7%, (42.7%, (49.7%, ffect

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. 16/20 (2015) & Pfeiffer Stening, Pelzer, Soleimani, Holzinger, Ullrich, 10/ (1995) & Scho Rutherford Rutherford

Accepted Article20 tt, McCully, McCully, tt,

69 34

years 3.2 ± 24.4 10 F = students university active Healthy, years 22.7 6 F = M = untrained Healthy, 1

16 in limb MVIC one of 80% and 60% A DUP ofMVIC 80% weeks 2 weeks60%, weeks 3 4 80%, 60%, TP extension knee Isometric weeks, 14 3/week ofMVIC 70% LCx 30s 4 = x 3s x 10 SC4 = extension knee Isometric

lternating sessions at sessions lternating

weeks,2/week limb

limb

=

3 weeks 3 =

↑Thigh circumference circumference ↑Thigh TP: femur (10.1%) upper and (11.1%) ACSA ↑Muscle LC: ↑MV = ES 0.90) (14.2%, length ↑VLfascicle 0.72 = length(12.4 muscle75% and 50%, ↑ 0.37) = ES (5.0%, circumference ↑Thigh DUP: ↑ = ES 1.17) (13.7%, length ↑VLfascicle 0.98 = length 50%, 25%, at ↑VLthickness 0.45) = ES (6.2%, VL thickness at 25%, 25%, at thickness VL MV

I I

and 75% muscle75% and C EMG CEMG (45%) CEMG - - (15.5 1.01) 1.23) - -

19.7%, ES ES 19.7%, ES 18.5%, (46%)

at lower lower at

↑ TP: (54.7%) ↑MVIC90° at LC: 11.6%) 180°·s 120°·s at ↑ ↑MVIC SC: 60° at ↑ ↑ DUP: 60° at ↑ MV C Concentric torque torque Concentric MV torque Concentric on

I I centric

. . C(24%) C(23%) s s - 1

- -

1 1

(11.3 (31.5%)

- (19%) (15%) 1

and and

torque torque -

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Accepted Article contraction. isometric longrest. short rest. = SR volume. high= volume.HV LV low = LCcontraction. long = contraction. SCshort = 14/20 (2018) & Sa, Scott De Waugh

68 , Alktebi, ,

TP = traditional periodization. DUP = dailyperiodization. = undulating DUP traditional= periodization. TP years ± 30.1 10 F = M =8 active physically Healthy, ES = effect size (Cohen’s (Cohen’s effect size = ES

7.9 7.9 12 weeks, 12 3/week MVIC 90% LR10s = SR3s = plantarflexion Isometric

between reps between

d) between reps between

. * . denotes

p

> 0.0 > ↓Tendonelongation % ↓Strain modulus ↑Young’s stress ↑Tendon ↑Stiffness &LR: SR re ↑Echo SR: - organization)

5.

- type II II type

(collagen MVIC = maximal voluntary maximalvoluntary = MVIC

↑ &LR: SR MVIC

LR=

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Accepted Article

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Accepted Article