Background: Nowadays, there is a lack of consensus and high controversy about the most effective range of motion (ROM) to minimize the risk of injury and maximize the resistance training adaptations.Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the scientific evidence examining the effects of full and partial ROM resistance training interventions on neuromuscular, functional, and structural adaptations.Methods: The original protocol (CRD42020160976) was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database. Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify relevant articles from the earliest record up to and including March 2021. The RoB 2 and GRADE tools were used to judge the level of bias and quality of evidence. Meta‐analyses were performed using robust variance estimation with small‐sample corrections.Results: Sixteen studies were finally included in the systematic review and meta‐analyses. Full ROM training produced significantly greater adaptations than partial ROM on muscle strength (ES = 0.56,p = 0.004) and lower‐limb hypertrophy (ES = 0.88,p = 0.027). Furthermore, although not statistically significant, changes in functional performance were maximized by the full ROM training (ES = 0.44,p = 0.186). Finally, no significant superiority of either ROM was found to produce changes in muscle thickness, pennation angle, and fascicle length (ES = 0.28,p = 0.226).Conclusion: Full ROM resistance training is more effective than partial ROM to maximize muscle strength and lower‐limb muscle hypertrophy. Likewise, functional performance appears to be favored by the use of full ROM exercises. On the contrary, there are no large differences between the full and partial ROM interventions to generate changes in muscle architecture.

To investigate the synergist effects of exercise and β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate (HMB) supplementation on disability, cognitive and physical function, and muscle power in institutionalized older people. Cluster-randomized controlled trial. Seventy-two institutionalized older adults (age = 83 ± 10 years old; 63% women) were randomized in four groups: exercise plus placebo (EX), HMB supplementation, EX plus HMB supplementation (EX + HMB), and control (CT). The exercising participants completed a 12-week tailored multicomponent exercise intervention (Vivifrail; 5 days/week of an individualized resistance, cardiovascular, balance and flexibility program), whereas the HMB groups received a drink containing 3 g/day of HMB. Participants were assessed Pre and Post intervention for disability and cognitive function (validated questionnaires), physical function (short physical performance battery, SPPB), handgrip strength and sit-to-stand relative muscle power. Linear mixed-effect models were used to compare changes among groups. Compared to baseline, both EX and EX + HMB improved cognitive function (+2.9 and +1.9 points; p < 0.001), SPPB score (+2.9 points and +2.4 points; p < 0.001) and relative muscle power (+0.64 and +0.48 W·kg^-1; p < 0.001), while CT and HMB remained unchanged (p > 0.05). Significant between-group differences were noted between CT, EX and EX + HMB for cognitive function (p < 0.01), between CT and EX + HMB for physical function (p = 0.043), and between CT, EX and EX + HMB for relative muscle power (p < 0.001). The Vivifrail exercise program was effective in improving cognitive and physical function, and muscle power in nursing home residents, while HMB supplementation did not provide additional benefits when combined with exercise. These results emphasize the importance of physical exercise interventions in very old people as an essential basis for improving their overall health and quality of life.

This study aimed to examine the validity and reliability of the recently developed Assioma Favero pedals under laboratory cycling conditions. In total, 12 well-trained male cyclists and triathletes (VO_2max = 65.7 ± 8.7 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹) completed five cycling tests including graded exercises tests (GXT) at different cadences (70–100 revolutions per minute, rpm), workloads (100–650 Watts, W), pedaling positions (seated and standing), vibration stress (20–40 Hz), and an 8-s maximal sprint. Tests were completed using a calibrated direct drive indoor trainer for the standing, seated, and vibration GXTs, and a friction belt cycle ergometer for the high-workload step protocol. Power output (PO) and cadence were collected from three different brand, new pedal units against the gold-standard SRM crankset. The three units of the Assioma Favero exhibited very high within-test reliability and an extremely high agreement between 100 and 250 W, compared to the gold standard (Standard Error of Measurement, SEM from 2.3–6.4 W). Greater PO produced a significant underestimating trend (p < 0.05, Effect size, ES ≥ 0.22), with pedals showing systematically lower PO than SRM (1–3%) but producing low bias for all GXT tests and conditions (1.5–7.4 W). Furthermore, vibrations ≥ 30 Hz significantly increased the differences up to 4% (p < 0.05, ES ≥ 0.24), whereas peak and mean PO differed importantly between devices during the sprints (p < 0.03, ES ≥ 0.39). These results demonstrate that the Assioma Favero power meter pedals provide trustworthy PO readings from 100 to 650 W, in either seated or standing positions, with vibrations between 20 and 40 Hz at cadences of 70, 85, and 100 rpm, or even at a free chosen cadence.

This study aimed to examine the validity and repeatability of panoramic ultrasound to evaluate the anatomical cross-sectional area (ACSA) of quadriceps femoris muscles. Specifically, we aimed to quantify the errors generated during the image acquisition and analysis (repeatability), as well as when comparing with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (validity). Moreover, we analyzed the influence of the operator's experience and the region of the thigh, on these errors. Both thighs of 16 subjects were included. The validity and repeatability study quantified the errors made by two operators (trained and novice) when measuring ACSA of vastus lateralis (VL), vastus medialis-intermedius (VMVI), and rectus femoris (RF), in six thigh regions (from 20 to 70%). Two ACSA images were acquired 5 min apart to examine acquisition errors, whereas acquisition #1 was analyzed twice to quantify analysis errors. Thereafter, ACSA of acquisition #1 was compared with that measured by MRI. Statistics included the standard error of measurement (SEM) expressed in absolute (cm²) and relative terms (%) as a coefficient of variation (CV). Measurement errors were lower for the trained operator than for the novice: Acquisition (SEM = 0.05 - 0.78 vs. 0.25 - 1.42 cm²), analysis (SEM = 0.13 - 1.93 vs. 0.30 - 3.05 cm²) and compared-with-MRI (SEM = 0.13 - 1.93 vs. 0.30 - 3.05 cm²). Regions with the lowest errors were those located at the middle of the thigh (40-50%), although slight between-muscle differences were found: VMVI (30-40%), VL (40-50%), RF (50-60%). These findings suggest that the accurate implementation of panoramic ultrasound to measure ACSA of quadriceps femoris muscles requires a trained operator and specific evaluation sites.

We aimed to determine the feasibility, test–retest reliability and long-term stability of a novel method for assessing the force (torque)-velocity (cadence) profile and maximal dynamic force (MDF) during leg-pedaling using a friction-loaded isoinertial cycle ergometer and a high-precision power-meter device. Fifty-two trained male cyclists completed a progressive loading test up to the one-repetition maximum (1RM) on a cycle ergometer. The MDF was defined as the force attained at the cycle performed with the 1RM-load. To examine the test–retest reliability and long-term stability of torque–cadence values, the progressive test was repeated after 72 h and also after 10 weeks of aerobic and strength training. The participants’ MDF averaged 13.4 ± 1.3 N·kg⁻¹, which was attained with an average pedal cadence of 21 ± 3 rpm. Participants’ highest power output value was attained with a cadence of 110 ± 16 rpm (52 ± 5% MDF). The relationship between the MDF and cadence proved to be very strong (R² = 0.978) and independent of the cyclists’ MDF (p = 0.66). Cadence values derived from this relationship revealed a very high test–retest repeatability (mean SEM = 4 rpm, 3.3%) and long-term stability (SEM = 3 rpm, 2.3%); despite increases in the MDF following the 10-week period. Our findings support the validity, reliability and long-term stability of this method for the assessment of the torque–cadence profile and MDF in cyclists.