Strength Is Specific

Strength is Specific
By Chris Beardsley
version 1.0
Strength and Conditioning Research
CONTENTS
CONTENTS..........................................................................................................................2
1. WHY JUST GET STRONG IS WRONG!.............................................................................3
2. MUSCLE ACTION............................................................................................................. 5
3. VELOCITY...................................................................................................................... 21
4. RANGE OF MOTION...................................................................................................... 42
5. EXTERNAL LOAD TYPE................................................................................................... 53
6. EXTERNAL LOAD STABILITY............................................................................................70
7. IMPLICATIONS FOR SPORT............................................................................................ 72
Strength is Specific v1.0, Copyright Strength and Conditioning Research Limited, 2016
Strength and Conditioning Research
DEDICATIONS
By Chris Beardsley
Rather than ask someone to write a foreword, I decided to use this opportunity to say
thanks to a few people.
Thanks to Bret Contreras and Andrew Vigotsky. I am English, so I am not going to get all
choked up, but you guys are at the top of the list for a reason.
Thanks to Matt Palfrey, Emil Hodzovic, Joseph Lightfoot, and Scott Brady for putting up
with me in our various business ventures.
Thanks to Jakob karabot, J. B. Morin, Dan Coughlan, and Brendon Skinner for working
alongside me on various research projects.
Thanks to Mike Loosemore for including me in the research group working on the Team
GB boxing injury data.
Thanks to James Steele and James Fisher, for their determined efforts to resist appeals
to authority, and thereby constantly keeping me on my toes.
Thanks to Mike Reinold, Dean Somerset, John Rusin, Jonathan Mike, Nick Tumminello,
Travis Pollen, Adam Meakins, Scotty Butcher, Matt Rhea, Lars Avemarie, and Nick Ng for
their regular support of S&C Research.
Thanks to Martin Evans and Joe Hewitt, who keep inviting me back to see them at British
Cycling, even though I talk non-stop while I am there.
Thanks to Adam Bentley, Rory Heath, and Marco Altini for writing such great articles for
S&C Research.
Thanks to Marilia Coutinho, for being a light in the darkness when it comes to the
application of science in powerlifting.
Sorry to everyone else I forgot to thank! Let me know, and I will thank you in the next
book I write.
1. WHY JUST GET STRONG IS WRONG!
Page 4
Imagine you coach a track and field team. You have sprinters running 100 400m,
middle distance athletes running 800 1,500m, and maybe even long distance athletes
running >5km. Or imagine working with swimmers (four strokes over multiple
distances), rowers, triathletes, or cyclists.
As a good coach, you would likely put time into learning about programming for each
endurance sport.
Each of your programs would center around the main activity (running, swimming,
cycling, etc.), and it would be specific to the athletes goals in terms of both intensity
and distance.
Now, after putting in all that work, how would you feel if one of your colleagues ignored
your programs, and kept saying: it doesnt matter, just get fit.
I dont know about you, but I would be very annoyed!
After all, we know that fitness is specific to the type of training you do.
Why just get strong is wrong!

Just like fitness, strength gains are specific to the type of training that you do.
Instinctively, we know that this is true for fitness. A great marathon runner will never be
a great rower. And a great swimmer will never be a great cyclist.
But while we all pay lip service to the idea that strength is specific (we can all repeat the
Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands (SAID) acronym), many strength coaches do
not really believe it.
If we really believed it, then we would not say just get strong whenever someone asks
a question about how to program resistance training for sport. We would look more
carefully at the demands of the sport first.
In other words, just get strong is wrong because strength is specific.
Page 5
How is strength specific?

This ebook works through a series of chapters showing how strength is specific. Work
through them, and you will learn that strength gains are greater when tested with the
same muscle action, velocity, range of motion, external load type, and degree of stability
as are used in training.
So if you want to improve your ability to decelerate, eccentric training is better than
concentric training. To improve force production at high speeds, high-velocity is better
than low-velocity training. To get strong over partial ranges of motion, partials are better
than full range of motion exercises. To get strong against a constant load, train with a
constant load. To get strong in unstable environments, training under those conditions
gets you stronger than a more stable set-up.
Maximizing the effectiveness of a strength training program means designing it to fit the
specific goal you want to achieve. In other words, using the right tool for the job.
How much difference does specificity make?

You might be tempted to think that the specificity effect of strength training is just a
small detail. It is not. It is huge.
Compare the effects of training with eccentric vs. concentric muscle actions. Using elbow
flexion exercise, Vikne et al. (2006) showed that gains in eccentric 1RM after eccentric
training were more than twice as large as those after concentric training.
Or compare training with partial vs. full ranges of motion (ROM). When partials do
improve full ROM strength, it is never as much as full ROM training. On the other hand,
they usually produce much larger gains in partial ROM strength (Bloomquist et al. 2012).
Or compare the effects of training under different stability conditions, by looking at
strength gains after training on machines that use fixed bar paths or on machines that
use cables to allow freedom of movement (Cacchio et al. 2008). The same thing applies.
Sure, you can get stronger in all strength tests that use the same movement pattern
with any type of training. But if you use the exact same type of training, then your
strength gains will be much, much greater.
Get strong for the right movement, not the wrong one.
Page 6
Why are strength gains specific?

Many people get confused about the relationship between muscle size and strength, and
this leads them to swing from one extreme to another.
On the one hand, there are those who seem to think that muscular size and strength
have little connection with each other. On the other hand, there are plenty of fitness
writers these days who will argue that strength is almost entirely a function of size.
The truth is that although muscle size is the single most important predictor of strength,
it does not exclude other factors also having an impact. In a recent important study
exploring what makes some people stronger than others, the inter-individual variance in
muscle strength predicted by muscular size was around 55%.
So to be clear, muscle size is the most important predictor of strength.
That still leaves 45% unexplained, though!
The remainder of the difference is probably accounted for by many different peripheral
and central factors (not just neural ones, like you might read in an old textbook). These
include:
Muscle fascicle length
Muscle pennation angle
Moment arm length
Single fiber characteristics
Extracellular matrix features
Neural drive to the agonists
Co-activation of antagonists
Why am I talking about this?

These features are what make strength gains specific.
Page 7
References
1.
Bloomquist, K., Langberg, H., Karlsen, S., Madsgaard, S.,

Boesen, M., & Raastad, T. (2013). Effect of range of motion in
heavy load squatting on muscle and tendon adaptations.
European Journal of Applied Physiology, 113(8), 2133-2142.
2.
Cacchio, A., Don, R., Ranavolo, A., Guerra, E., McCaw, S. T.,
Procaccianti, R., & Santilli, V. (2008). Effects of 8-week
strength training with two models of chest press machines on
muscular activity pattern and strength. Journal of
Electromyography and Kinesiology, 18(4), 618.
3.
Hartmann, H., Wirth, K., Klusemann, M., Dalic, J., Matuschek,

C., & Schmidtbleicher, D. (2012). Influence of squatting depth
on jumping performance. Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 26(12), 3243.
4.
Vikne, H., Refsnes, P. E., Ekmark, M., Medb, J. I., Gundersen,

V., & Gundersen, K. (2006). Muscular performance after
concentric and eccentric exercise in trained men. Medicine &
Science in Sports & Exercise, 38(10), 1770-1781.
Page 8
2. MUSCLE ACTION
Page 9
In the last decade or so there has been a surge of interest in eccentric training, which is
training solely using the lowering phase of an exercise. Much of this excitement
surrounds the use of eccentric training for preventing or rehabilitating injuries. Even so,
a key point is that strength gains after eccentric training are muscle-action specific. They
are greatest when measured with an eccentric test.
This is not surprising, as specificity of strength gains is one of the fundamental principles
of strength training. Specificity can be observed to varying degrees in relation to load,
speed, range of motion, and external resistance type, as well as muscle action.
But why does it happen after eccentric training?
What do "eccentric" and "concentric" training mean?

When you lower a weight, it involves lengthening the prime mover muscles. This is called
the eccentric phase. When you lift a weight, it involves shortening the prime mover
muscles. This is called the concentric phase.
It is that simple, really.
Normal strength training comprises both lowering and lifting weights. This means both
lengthening and shortening muscles under tension, usually directly in sequence. This
sequence is called the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC).
Using solely the eccentric phase is very common in rehabilitation, but there are also
reasons why it might help enhance sports performance, for reasons I will explain shortly.
Using solely the concentric phase is rarer, but does occur naturally as a result of the way
in which some exercises are performed (such as the weightlifting derivatives, loaded
carries, and sled pushing or dragging).
Many literature review articles have been published about the unique properties of
eccentric training (e.g. Brughelli & Cronin, 2007; Roig et al. 2009; Butterfield, 2012;
Isner-Horobeti et al. 2013; Herzog, 2014; Vogt & Hoppeler, 2014; Kjaer & Heinemeier,
2014; Gluchowski et al. 2015; Duchateau & Enoka, 2016). There are also a number of
good practical guides to eccentric training (e.g. Mike et a. 2015).
What can I say? It is a popular topic.
Page 10
How do shortening and lengthening contractions differ?

To understand why eccentric training might produce specific strength gains, it is helpful
to start with how shortening and lengthening contractions differ at the most basic
(myofibrillar) level.
From a biomechanical point of view, muscles are structured of both active and passive
elements. Importantly, the passive element has elastic properties. However, when
performed from a standing start (and ignoring the role of titin for a moment), shortening
contractions can only make use of the active element.
Muscle shortening is driven (almost) entirely by chemical energy being converted into
kinetic energy within individual sarcomeres, which make up the myofibrils inside the
single fibers of a muscle. The thin (actin) and thick (myosin) myofilaments of the
sarcomeres slide past one another, in a crossbridge cycle. The myosin myofilament
drives this process, by detaching from actin, releasing ADP and rebinding with ATP, and
binding to actin again further along the myofilament (Mnsson et al. 2015).
In contrast, lengthening contractions make use of both active and passive elements.
Also, the way in which the active element functions in lengthening contractions differs
from the way it works in shortening contractions. In lengthening contractions, the
myosin crossbridges of the active elements are forcibly broken, detaching the myosin
head from actin, without release of ADP and subsequent rebinding of ATP (Mnsson et al.
2015). This is part of the reason why the energy requirement of lengthening contractions
is quite low in comparison with shortening contractions.
In addition to the different way in which the active elements function during lengthening
contractions, there is also a key role for passive elements: they resist lengthening. The
passive elements include the three main extracellular matrix layers that surround the
muscle fiber (the endomysium), the muscle fascicle (the perimysium), and the muscle
itself (the epimysium), as well as the giant molecule titin, which lies parallel to the actin
and myosin myofilaments.
Force production during muscle lengthening is therefore driven only partly by chemical
energy being converted into kinetic energy within individual sarcomeres, as it is also
partly supported by the elastic elements (Herzog, 2014).
This is a key point that differentiates lengthening and shortening contractions, and it has
important implications.
Page 11
What are the important implications?

When exerting the same external force, lengthening contractions require less input from
the active elements that drive muscle contraction, and they also require less energy.
This translates to both lower neural drive (as measured by EMG), and a smaller
metabolic cost in sub-maximal lengthening contractions compared to shortening
contractions, for the same external force (Bigland-Ritchie & Woods, 1976; Duchateau &
Enoka, 2016).
To put it another way, you experience sub-maximal lengthening contractions as being
easier than comparable shortening contractions. This is because the passive elements
contribute to the force production, which allows the active elements to have an easier
ride.
Additionally, maximal force producing capability in lengthening contractions is definitively
greater than in shortening contractions, despite what some strength coaches might
claim. It is greater by around 50 80% when measuring single fibers in vitro, and by
around 30 50% when measuring strength in live humans (Duchateau & Enoka, 2016).
Maximal force producing capability is greatest in lengthening contractions, because
under these conditions both active and passive elements can be made to contribute to
their full extent at the same time, and the sum is much greater than just the active
elements on their own.
Does eccentric training display specific strength gains?

In one of the first studies to compare eccentric and concentric training, Komi & Buskirk
(1972) reported that eccentric training improved eccentric strength more than concentric
training did, while both eccentric and concentric training groups improved concentric and
isometric strength tests similarly.
Many later studies have confirmed that gains in eccentric strength are greater after
eccentric training than after concentric training (Higbie et al. 1996; Hortobgyi et al.
1996; 2000; Miller et al. 2006; Nickols-Richardson et al. 2007).
What does that look like?
Page 12
Here is an example, taken from Nickols-Richardson et al. (2007):
And this is not just a newbie phenomenon. In fact, we can see exactly the same effects
in resistance-trained individuals. For example, as reported in Vikne et al. (2006):
As you can see from the charts, concentric training also displays strength specificity,
although the effect is much less marked.
Page 13
You can also see that eccentric training benefits concentric strength more than the other
way around.
The exact reasons for this are fairly obvious, but quite complex to explain. Put simply,
titin is involved in displaying both eccentric strength and concentric strength, but the
changes in titin that occur inside a muscle fiber are probably greater after eccentric
training, than after concentric training.
(I will explain more about how titin is affected by eccentric training below.)
In the meantime, what we can say is that after either eccentric or concentric training,
the ratios between eccentric and concentric strength, between eccentric and isometric
strength, and between concentric and isometric strength are all changed (Hortobgyi et
al. 1996; Vikne et al. 2006).
For example, in the study in trained subjects shown above, after elbow flexion training in
resistance-trained subjects, the ratio of eccentric to concentric 1RM decreased from 1.30
to 1.20 after concentric training, but increased from 1.21 to 1.33 after eccentric training
(Vikne et al. 2006).
So when we perform eccentric training, we are not just increasing strength, lengthening
muscle fascicles, or altering injury risk, we are also altering the ratio of how much force
we can produce while decelerating, compared to how much force we can produce while
accelerating.
(This has important injury prevention implications. I will not say any more about it here,
because I want to cover it properly in a later section.)
But why does this ratio change?
Page 14
Why are strength gains after eccentric training specific?

So why are the gains in eccentric strength after eccentric training so much larger than
gains in other forms of strength?
Although it has been extensively discussed whether eccentric training is superior to
concentric training for hypertrophy (Roig et al. 2009), the answer probably lies in some
of the other adaptations that occur after strength training, as hypertrophy should affect
strength gains in all contraction modes in a relatively similar way.
Indeed, some of these changes in other features of the musculoskeletal system are very
pronounced after eccentric training, while others are more obvious after concentric
training. Some of the key changes are:
Muscle architecture
Muscle fiber type
Regional hypertrophy
Extracellular matrix and cytoskeleton
Tendon stiffness
Neural adaptations
Let's take a look at each of these in turn.
Page 15
#1. Muscle architecture

Strength training produces alterations in muscle architecture (muscle fascicle length and
pennation angle), and these alterations differ in size depending on whether the
contraction type used is predominantly eccentric or concentric.
Muscle fascicle length seems to increase by more after eccentric training, compared to
after concentric training (Ema et al. 2016). Such changes probably occur through an
increase in the number of sarcomeres in series within the myofibrils of a muscle fiber
(Brughelli & Cronin, 2007; Butterfield, 2012).
These increases may have advantages for fast movements, as longer fascicle lengths
likely allow superior contraction velocities since all the sarcomeres in a myofibril contract
at the same time. They also seem to increase the joint angle for force production (to
longer muscle lengths), which could be beneficial in some cases (Brughelli & Cronin,
2007). On the other hand, developing longer muscle fascicles seems to be bad for RFD,
as longer fibers require more time to go from slack to taut at the onset of a muscle
contraction (Blazevich et al. 2009).
Since changing muscle fascicle length is essentially an increase in muscle size (Wisdom
et al. 2015) it is hard to determine the effects on strength, in isolation from hypertrophy.
But the emphasis on increasing muscle fascicle length rather than pennation angle may
be beneficial, in comparison with concentric training.
Indeed, muscle pennation angle seems to increase by more after concentric training,
than after eccentric training (Ema et al. 2016). Increases in muscle pennation angle
seem to be mainly a way to accommodate increases in muscle size, by packing more
muscle tissue into the same space (Fukunaga et al. 1996), and since the angle of force
production becomes less advantageous with increasing pennation angle, this involves a
trade-off between more muscle tissue and a smaller component of force.
In any event, without a lot of extra analysis, there seems to be no obvious reason at the
moment to assume that the different changes in muscle architecture (muscle fascicle
length vs. pennation angle) are responsible for the specificity of strength gains after
eccentric training.
Page 16
#2. Muscle fiber type

One common suggestion is that eccentric training can produce greater, or preferential,
type II muscle fiber area growth than concentric training.
Indeed, there are some indications that this may be the case (Hortobgyi et al. 1996;
Hortobgyi et al. 2000; Friedmann-Bette et al. 2010). But there are also an equal
number of contrary reports that should make us pause before jumping on this idea
(Mayhew et al. 1995; Seger et al. 1998; Vikne et al. 2006).
One explanation for this apparent phenomenon (assuming it is true) is that the size
principle is breached, and eccentric training produces earlier recruitment of high
threshold motor units, which are believed to correspond to type II muscle fibers
(McHugh et al. 2002).
This explanation has two key flaws.
Firstly, a review of studies using careful methods has shown that the size principle is
almost certainly not breached during eccentric training (Chalmers, 2008).
Secondly, although not widely-appreciated, the high threshold motor units that are
recruited under situations of high demand do not actually correspond directly to type II
muscle fibers anyway (Enoka & Duchateau, 2015).
Given the very conflicting evidence for preferential fiber type development from eccentric
training compared to concentric training or SSC exercise, on top of the lack of a plausible
mechanism, the jury is definitely out on whether this is a mechanism by which eccentric
training could produce greater gains in strength.
Therefore, there is no obvious reason to assume that different rates of growth in muscle
fibers of differing fiber types underpins the specificity of strength gains after eccentric
training.
Page 17
#3. Regional hypertrophy

Regional hypertrophy is a normal aspect of resistance training, and has been observed
after various different programs, and in many muscles.
Even so, it has been argued that eccentric training might be particularly effective at
producing regional hypertrophy, which is where certain parts of a muscle are more
extensively developed than others (Hedayatpour & Falla, 2012). A large portion of the
argument put forward here is dependent upon muscle fiber type differences and
differences in their activation between lengthening and shortening contractions, which is
an assumption that has recently been strongly challenged (see above).
Moreover, in the small number of studies that have actually compared the impact on
regional hypertrophy between concentric and eccentric training, there have been no
differences between the two training types (Smith & Rutherford, 1995; Blazevich et al.
2007).
So it seems very likely that regional hypertrophy does not differ between concentric and
eccentric training, and therefore that this phenomenon is not responsible for the
specificity of strength gains after eccentric training.
Page 18
#4. Extracellular matrix and cytoskeletal adaptations

Around muscle fascicles, and around muscles themselves is an extracellular matrix made
of different types of collagen (the three main layers are called the epimysium, the
perimysium, and the endomysium).
Within each muscle fiber are myofibrils, supported by scaffolding-type structure, called
the cytoskeleton. This cytoskeleton has longitudinal (parallel) and transverse
(perpendicular) elements, and the most important longitudinal element is titin.
The amount of collagen within a muscle can increase as a result of exercise (Kjaer, 2004;
Wisdom et al. 2015). While this is a bad thing for cattle breeders selling meat, it is
usually a good thing for athletes. Collagen itself is very stiff and adding more collagen
around the myofibrils increases the stiffness of the individual muscle fibers (Gillies &
Lieber, 2011). This probably contributes to enhanced force production during lengthening
contractions.
Similarly, the structure and content of the cytoskeleton within a muscle fiber can
increase with training. Titin in particular seems to be affected. The number of titin
filaments that surround each myosin filament can increase from 3 to 5 with training
(Hidalgo et al. 2014; Krger & Ktter, 2016). This almost certainly improves force
generation during lengthening contractions (Lindstedt et al. 2001).
Eccentric exercise is particularly good at damaging both the extracellular matrix and the
cytoskeleton, including titin (Friden & Lieber, 2001), and it triggers cellular signaling
processes that interact with titin (Krger & Ktter, 2016). This is almost certainly
because eccentric training naturally relies more on these passive elements during
contractions, and this greater loading in turn leads to more damage. Therefore, it is
logical that eccentric exercise might produce greater adaptations in the passive elements
than concentric training.
Unfortunately, very little work has been done to compare the effects of eccentric and
concentric training types on adaptations in the extracellular matrix, the cytoskeleton, or
titin (except for about a million studies looking at muscle damage).
Even so, it seems like a fairly safe bet that the specific gains in eccentric strength that
are observed after programs of eccentric training are caused at least partly by changes
in the extracellular matrix, in the cytoskeleton, and in titin.
Page 19
#5. Tendon stiffness, and muscle stiffness

Stiffness is the extent to which an object resists being lengthened. A stiff spring only
lengthens a little when you attach a weight to it. On the other hand, a compliant spring
lengthens quite a long way.
Muscle-tendon units have both muscles and tendons in series (one after the other). So
while we can look at the overall stiffness of the whole muscle-tendon unit, we can also
assess the individual stiffness of both the muscle and tendon, separately.
Strength training leads to increased tendon stiffness, and although the effects are
affected by load (higher loads are better), they do not differ between eccentric and
concentric training (Bohm et al. 2015).
In contrast, while muscle stiffness probably increases slightly after concentric training,
most likely because of increases in extracellular matrix and titin content (Gillies & Lieber,
2011) more recent research suggests that it actually decreases after eccentric training
(Kay et al. 2016).
This seems strange.
If anything, we might expect that increases in muscle stiffness should be superior after
eccentric training. Indeed, older research in animals using accentuated eccentric
training, such as downhill running, has reported contrary results (Lindstedt et al. 2001).
One possible explanation for this discrepancy could be the large increases in fascicle
length that are produced by eccentric-only training.
Stiffness is stress (force per unit area) divided by strain (relative length change). So
applying a stress to a long muscle fiber will result in a larger relative length change than
the same stress applied to a shorter muscle fiber, all other things being equal.
Consequently, increasing muscle fascicle length will lead to you recording a lower value
of stiffness, even if the individual muscle fibers are themselves now made of stiffer
material. What this means is that while muscle-tendon stiffness often increases with
normal strength training or with concentric exercise, it does not necessarily increase
after eccentric exercise (Kay et al. 2016). Increased muscle-tendon stiffness probably
translates to greater joint stiffness, which could be desirable or not, depending on the
goals of the athletes (Brazier et al. 2014).
Page 20
Ultimately, what we can say is that since changes in tendon stiffness do not seem to
differ between concentric and eccentric training, changes in tendon stiffness are not
responsible for the specificity of strength gains after eccentric training. The changes in
muscle stiffness are less clear, but this might be because they are produced by a
combination of variables.
#6. Neural adaptations

Over 20 years ago, a case was made that the neural control of lengthening contractions
was different from shortening contractions, such that high threshold motor units were
recruited earlier (Enoka, 1996). This would be in contradiction of the size principle.
More recently, this proposal was confirmed as rejected, and it is now believed that the
size principle is maintained in both lengthening and shortening contractions (Duchateau
& Enoka, 2016).
However, that does not mean that other aspects of neural control (that do not violate the
size principle) cannot differ between lengthening and shortening contractions.
So it is interesting to observe that after programs of unilateral exercise, eccentric
training produces a greater cross-over of strength gains from the trained limb to the
untrained limb than concentric training (Hortobgyi et al. 1997; Seger et al. 1998;
Nickols-Richardson et al. 2007; Kidgell et al. 2015). Kidgell et al. (2015) suggested that
this occurs because of greater reductions in corticospinal inhibition following eccentric
training, compared to after concentric training.
Consequently, it seems probable that the specific gains in eccentric strength that are
observed after programs of eccentric training are caused at least partly by different
neural changes, including greater reductions in corticospinal inhibition.
Page 21
Conclusions
Lengthening contractions involve lower metabolic cost, and require lower neural drive
than shortening contractions for the same external force production. Maximal eccentric
force is around 30 50% greater than maximal concentric force, and could be even
higher in athletes.
Compared to concentric training, eccentric training seems to produce greater increases
in muscle fascicle length, greater increases in the stiffness of passive structures
(extracellular matrix and titin), and greater reductions in corticospinal inhibition.
The specific gains in eccentric strength observed after programs of eccentric training are
probably caused by increased extracellular matrix and titin content, which increase
passive force production, and by elevated corticospinal excitability. Fiber type, regional
hypertrophy, tendon stiffness, and muscle architecture seem to be less important.
Page 22
20.
Hedayatpour, N., & Falla, D. (2012). Non-uniform muscle

adaptations to eccentric exercise and the implications for
training and sport. Journal of Electromyography and
Kinesiology, 22(3), 329-333.
21.
Hidalgo, C., Saripalli, C., & Granzier, H. L. (2014). Effect of

exercise training on post-translational and post-transcriptional
regulation of titin stiffness in striated muscle of wild type and
IG KO mice. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, 552,
100-107.
References
1.
Bigland-Ritchie, B., & Woods, J. J. (1976). Integrated

electromyogram and oxygen uptake during positive and
negative work. The Journal of Physiology, 260(2), 267.
2.
Blazevich, A. J., Cannavan, D., Coleman, D. R., & Horne, S.

(2007). Influence of concentric and eccentric resistance
training on architectural adaptation in human quadriceps
muscles. Journal of Applied Physiology, 103(5), 1565-1575.
22.
Blazevich, A. J., Cannavan, D., Horne, S., Coleman, D. R., &

Aagaard, P. (2009). Changes in muscle forcelength
properties affect the early rise of force in vivo. Muscle &
Nerve, 39(4), 512-520.
Higbie, E. J., Cureton, K. J., Warren, G. L., & Prior, B. M.

(1996). Effects of concentric and eccentric training on muscle
strength, cross-sectional area, and neural activation. Journal
of Applied Physiology, 81(5), 2173-2181.
23.
Bohm, S., Mersmann, F., & Arampatzis, A. (2015). Human

tendon adaptation in response to mechanical loading: a
systematic review and meta-analysis of exercise intervention
studies on healthy adults. Sports Med Open, 1(1), 7.
Hortobgyi, T., Hill, J. P., Houmard, J. A., Fraser, D. D.,

Lambert, N. J., & Israel, R. G. (1996). Adaptive responses to
muscle lengthening and shortening in humans. Journal of
Applied Physiology, 80(3), 765.]
24.
Brazier, J., Bishop, C., Simons, C., Antrobus, M., Read, P. J., &
Turner, A. N. (2014). Lower extremity stiffness: Effects on
performance and injury and implications for training. Strength
& Conditioning Journal, 36(5), 103-112.
Hortobgyi, T., Lambert, N. J., & Hill, J. P. (1997). Greater

cross education following training with muscle lengthening
than shortening. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise,
29(1), 107.
25.
Hortobgyi, T., Dempsey, L., Fraser, D., Zheng, D., Hamilton,

G., Lambert, J., & Dohm, L. (2000). Changes in muscle
strength, muscle fibre size and myofibrillar gene expression
after immobilization and retraining in humans. The Journal of
Physiology, 524(1), 293-304.
26.
Ishi, L., Srensen, C. N., Kaae, N. M., Jrgensen, L. B.,

Hlmich, P., & Serner, A. (2015). Large eccentric strength
increase using the Copenhagen Adduction exercise in football:
A randomized controlled trial. Scandinavian Journal of
Medicine & Science in Sports.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Brughelli, M., & Cronin, J. (2007). Altering the length-tension

relationship with eccentric exercise. Sports Medicine, 37(9),
807-826.
7.
Brughelli, M., & Cronin, J. (2008). Influence of running

velocity on vertical, leg and joint stiffness. Sports Medicine,
38(8), 647-657.
8.
Butterfield, T. A. (2010). Eccentric exercise in vivo: straininduced muscle damage and adaptation in a stable system.
Exercise & Sport Sciences Reviews, 38(2), 51-60.
27.
Chalmers, G. R. (2008). Can fast-twitch muscle fibres be

selectively recruited during lengthening contractions? Review
and applications to sport movements. Sports Biomechanics,
7(1), 137-157.
Isner-Horobeti, M. E., Dufour, S. P., Vautravers, P., Geny, B.,

Coudeyre, E., & Richard, R. (2013). Eccentric exercise
training: modalities, applications and perspectives. Sports
Medicine, 43(6), 483-512.
28.
Kay, A. D., Richmond, D., Talbot, C., Mina, M., Baross, A. W., &
Blazevich, A. J. (2016). Stretching of Active Muscle Elicits
Chronic Changes in Multiple Strain Risk Factors. Medicine &
Science in Sports & Exercise.
29.
Kidgell, D. J., Frazer, A. K., Rantalainen, T., Ruotsalainen, I.,

Ahtiainen, J., Avela, J., & Howatson, G. (2015). Increased
cross-education of muscle strength and reduced corticospinal
inhibition following eccentric strength training. Neuroscience,
300, 566-575.
9.
10.
Duchateau, J., & Enoka, R. M. (2016). Neural control of

lengthening contractions. Journal of Experimental Biology,
219(2), 197-204.
11.
Ema, R., Akagi, R., Wakahara, T., & Kawakami, Y. (2016).

Training-induced changes in architecture of human skeletal
muscles: Current evidence and unresolved issues. The Journal
of Physical Fitness and Sports Medicine, 5(1), 37-46.
12.
Enoka, R. M. (1996). Eccentric contractions require unique

activation strategies by the nervous system. Journal of
Applied Physiology, 81(6), 2339-2346.
30.
Kjaer, M. (2004). Role of extracellular matrix in adaptation of

tendon and skeletal muscle to mechanical loading.
Physiological Reviews, 84(2), 649-698.
13.
Enoka, R. M., & Duchateau, J. (2015). Inappropriate

interpretation of surface EMG signals and muscle fiber
characteristics impedes understanding of the control of
neuromuscular function. Journal of Applied Physiology,
119(12), 1516-1518.
31.
Kjaer, M., & Heinemeier, K. M. (2014). Eccentric exercise:

acute and chronic effects on healthy and diseased tendons.
Journal of Applied Physiology, 116(11), 1435-1438.
32.
Krger, M., & Ktter, S. (2016). Titin, a central mediator for

hypertrophic signaling, exercise-induced mechanosignaling
and skeletal muscle remodeling. Frontiers in Physiology, 7.
33.
Lindstedt, S. L., LaStayo, P. C., & Reich, T. E. (2001). When

active muscles lengthen: properties and consequences of
eccentric contractions. Physiology, 16(6), 256-261.
14.
Friedmann-Bette, B., Bauer, T., Kinscherf, R., Vorwald, S.,

Klute, K., Bischoff, D., & Brtsch, P. (2010). Effects of strength
training with eccentric overload on muscle adaptation in male
athletes. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 108(4), 821836.
15.
Fukunaga, T., Kawakami, Y., Kuno, S., Funato, K., & Fukashiro,
S. (1997). Muscle architecture and function in humans.
Journal of Biomechanics, 30(5), 457-463.
34.
Mnsson, A., Rassier, D., & Tsiavaliaris, G. (2015). Poorly

understood aspects of striated muscle contraction. BioMed
Research International, 2015.
16.
Friden, J., & Lieber, R. L. (2001). Eccentric exerciseinduced

injuries to contractile and cytoskeletal muscle fibre
components. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 171(3), 321326.
35.
Mayhew, T. P., Rothstein, J. M., Finucane, S. D., & Lamb, R. L.

(1995). Muscular adaptation to concentric and eccentric
exercise at equal power levels. Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise, 27(6), 868-873.
17.
Gillies, A. R., & Lieber, R. L. (2011). Structure and function of

the skeletal muscle extracellular matrix. Muscle & Nerve,
44(3), 318-331.
36.
McHugh, M. P., Tyler, T. F., Greenberg, S. C., & Gleim, G. W.

(2002). Differences in activation patterns between eccentric
and concentric quadriceps contractions. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 20(2), 83-91.
18.
Gluchowski, A., Harris, N., Dulson, D., & Cronin, J. (2015).

Chronic eccentric exercise and the older adult. Sports
Medicine, 45(10), 1413-1430.
37.
19.
Herzog, W. (2014). Mechanisms of enhanced force production

in lengthening (eccentric) muscle contractions. Journal of
Applied Physiology, 116(11), 1407-1417.
Mjlsnes, R., Arnason, A., sthagen, T., Raastad, T., & Bahr, R.
(2004). A 10-week randomized trial comparing eccentric vs.
concentric hamstring strength training in well-trained soccer
players. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports,
14(5), 311.
Page 23
38.
Mike, J., Kerksick, C. M., & Kravitz, L. (2015). How to

incorporate eccentric training into a resistance training
program. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 37(1), 5-17.
39.
Miller, L. E., Pierson, L. M., Nickols-Richardson, S. M.,

Wootten, D. F., Selmon, S. E., Ramp, W. K., & Herbert, W. G.
(2006). Knee extensor and flexor torque development with
concentric and eccentric isokinetic training. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77(1), 58-63.
40.
Nickols-Richardson, S. M., Miller, L. E., Wootten, D. F., Ramp,

W. K., & Herbert, W. G. (2007). Concentric and eccentric
isokinetic resistance training similarly increases muscular
strength, fat-free soft tissue mass, and specific bone mineral
measurements in young women. Osteoporosis International,
18(6), 789-796.
41.
Roig, M., O'Brien, K., Kirk, G., Murray, R., McKinnon, P.,
Shadgan, B., & Reid, D. W. (2009). The effects of eccentric
versus concentric resistance training on muscle strength and
mass in healthy adults: a systematic review with metaanalyses. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 43(8), 556.
42.
Seger, J. Y., Arvidsson, B., Thorstensson, A., & Seger, J. Y.

(1998). Specific effects of eccentric and concentric training on
muscle strength and morphology in humans. European
Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology,
79(1), 49-57.
43.
Smith, R. C., & Rutherford, O. M. (1995). The role of

metabolites in strength training. European Journal of Applied
Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 71(4), 332-336.
44.
Vikne, H., Refsnes, P. E., Ekmark, M., Medb, J. I., Gundersen,

V., & Gundersen, K. (2006). Muscular performance after
concentric and eccentric exercise in trained men. Medicine &
Science in Sports & Exercise, 38(10), 1770-1781.
45.
Vogt, M., & Hoppeler, H. H. (2014). Eccentric exercise:

mechanisms and effects when used as training regime or
training adjunct. Journal of Applied Physiology, 116(11),
1446-1454.
46.
Wisdom, K. M., Delp, S. L., & Kuhl, E. (2015). Use it or lose it:
multiscale skeletal muscle adaptation to mechanical stimuli.
Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology, 14(2), 195215.
Page 24
3. VELOCITY
Page 25
For developing the ability to produce force at high speeds, most coaches make use of
ballistic exercises that involve moving quickly under load, like jump squats and Olympic
weightlifting derivatives.
On the other hand, when asked, many people will tell you it is the intention to move
quickly that makes athletes stronger at high speeds. But if that was true, then ballistic
training would be unnecessary, and everything could be accomplished purely through
standard, heavy resistance training.
So are strength gains velocity-specific or not?
Here is one way to look at it.
What does "velocity specific" strength gains mean?

For velocity-specific strength gains to occur, we need to see the largest gains in strength
when we test force production at the same movement speed as we use in training.
So, if we train using a fast speed, we should see the greatest gains in strength when we
test strength at a high velocity, and the smallest gains in strength when we test at a low
velocity.
Similarly, if we train using a slow speed, we should see the greatest gains in strength
when we test strength at a low velocity, and the smallest gains in strength when we test
at a high velocity.
In practice, of course, we are most interested in whether we can produce greater gains
in strength at high velocities, by training using fast bar speeds.
It is that simple.
Page 26
Why is velocity-specificity so complicated, then?

Figuring out velocity-specificity gets complicated quickly, because there are two ways in
which you can alter the speed you are moving a weight.
Firstly, you can simply add plates to the bar. That will slow you down even if you are
using maximal effort for both the light and heavy loads, because of the force-velocity
relationship. You cannot move heavy loads as quickly as light loads, it is just not
possible.
Secondly, you can alter your intent towards how you perform the rep. You can choose to
perform it with maximal effort, or you can perform it with sub-maximal effort.
Which approach you choose has different implications. The best way to understand this
is to appreciate that the force you exert on a barbell is made up of two parts: weight
(force due to gravity) and inertia (force required to accelerate mass).
If you take the first approach, and add plates to the bar to reduce your speed, you will
increase weight, because the extra plates are heavier, but you will decrease inertia
slightly, because you cannot accelerate a heavy barbell as quickly (although its mass is
greater). The net effect is to increase total force.
If you take the second approach, and keep the same plates on the bar but deliberately
use a controlled tempo to reduce your speed, the weight stays the same, but you will
decrease inertia, because you have chosen to accelerate the barbell more slowly. The net
effect is obviously to decrease total force (Bentley et al. 2010).
In the first approach, force and velocity are matched to the underlying abilities of the
muscle, while in the second, force is lower than it could be.
So far, so good?
Page 27
Does changing the weight on the bar produce velocity-specific

strength gains?
If the weight on the bar produces velocity-specific gains in strength, then we should find
that training with low forces (and therefore light weights) produces greater strength
gains at faster speeds than when using high forces (and therefore heavy weights).
Essentially, we should get something roughly like the following picture, when low-velocity
and high-velocity groups test their strength at the same speeds, before and after
programs of strength training:
But does this really happen?

Many researchers have explored this question, going back nearly 50 years.
In fact, they have usually found velocity-specific results after isokinetic strength training
when comparing two or more groups, where one group used a slow angular velocity, and
the other a fast angular velocity, but both groups exerted maximal effort.
Typically, higher velocity training leads to greater gains in strength when tested at high
isokinetic velocities (Moffroid & Whipple, 1970; Caiozzo et al. 1981; Coyle et al. 1981;
Jenkins et al. 1984; Garnica, 1986; Thome et al. 1987; Petersen et al. 1989; Bell et al.
1989; Ewing Jr et al. 1990), although not always (Farthing & Chilibeck, 2003).
Page 28
The velocity-specific effect of training with different loads is less consistently observed
when using free weights, but is still apparent.
Interestingly, there tends to be a clearer velocity-specific pattern when the subjects use
single-joint exercises (Kaneko et al. 1983; Aaagaard et al. 1994; 1996; Moss et al.
1997; Ingebrigtsen et al. 2009), than when they use multi-joint exercises (Almsbakk &
Hoff, 1996; McBride et al. 2002; Mora-Custodio et al. 2016).
There are a couple of reasons why this might be the case, but I will save that analysis
for another section.
Page 29
Does changing intention also produce velocity-specific strength

gains?
It is quite hard to figure out whether intent produces velocity-specific strength gains.
Sure, it is easy to find studies showing that groups training using free weights with
maximal speeds tend to experience greater strength gains measured at high velocities
compared with similar groups that train at sub-maximal speeds (Jones et al. 1999;
Morrissey et al. 1998; Ingebrigtsen et al. 2009; Gonzlez-Badillo et al. 2014).
The problem with this approach is that it does not measure intent alone. It measures
both intent and actual muscle contraction velocity.
So to be certain, researchers have isolated the effects of intent by controlling velocity.
They do this by setting velocity to zero, which means isometric contractions.
In reality, muscle contraction velocity can only be mostly controlled for in isometric
contractions. Isometric contractions involve some muscle shortening, even when the
joint angle does not change.
When a muscle contracts, it shortens, even during isometric contractions, but the tendon
lengthens so that there is no net change in the length of the total muscle-tendon unit.
So the velocity is not zero, and the muscle shortens more with increasing force
production (Narici et al. 1996).
Even so, training with maximal speed-intent and sub-maximal speed-intent isometric
contractions do in fact produce different results, with maximal speed-intent training
leading to greater gains in higher-velocity strength measures (Tillin et al. 2012b; Tillin &
Folland, 2014; Balshaw et al. 2016).
Page 30
So is intent the only factor driving velocity-specific strength

gains? (part 1)
In perhaps the most famous velocity-specificity study, Behm & Sale (1993) tasked
subjects to perform ankle dorsiflexion training using two methods (isometric and
isokinetic), where both conditions required the subjects to "move as rapidly as possible
regardless of the imposed resistance."
The isometric training was performed with maximal speed-intent but without moving,
while the isokinetic training was performed with maximal speed-intent, and at a
relatively high angular velocity (300 degrees/s).
Strength was tested at a range of angular velocities (0 300 degrees/s). However, there
was no difference between the two groups in respect of the changes in strength at any
velocity. Both training programs displayed velocity-specific strength gains, but there
were no differences between them.
So does that mean the case is closed?
Well, perhaps not.
Although I can see why this important study was set up as it was, there are a couple of
limitations that make me pause.
Firstly, it used a within-subject design, where one leg was trained using the isometric
training program, and the other used the isokinetic training program. This leaves us at
risk of a cross-over effect of specific strength gains from one limb to the other. Secondly,
the joint angle of peak contraction differed between muscles, as both started at 30
degrees of plantar flexion, but the isokinetic training program had to accelerate without
load until it reached the target velocity.
The study also reported a couple of unexpected results.
Normally, isometric training produces large increases in maximal isometric force (Del
Balso & Cafarelli, 2007). Even when the intent is explosive, gains in maximum isometric
force are usually seen (Maffiuletti & Martin, 2001; Tillin et al. 2012b; Tillin & Folland,
2014; Balshaw et al. 2016). But even though 500ms was allowed for each contraction
(meaning that maximum force was reached), Behm & Sale (1993) reported at least one
outcome where there was a reduction in maximum isometric force after training.
Page 31
Also, gains in maximum isometric force after training with isometric contractions are
usually much bigger than the gains in maximum isometric force after dynamic
contractions (Jones et al. 1987; Folland et al. 2005). However, Behm & Sale (1993)
reported no differences between the two conditions.
So ultimately, intent is probably not the only factor driving velocity-specificity.
So is intent the only factor driving velocity-specific strength

gains? (part 2)
Just to be clear, I think that velocity-specific strength gains do happen in response to
actual contraction speed, as well as in response to intent, for two main reasons.
Firstly, the subjects in almost all of the isokinetic studies that I referenced above were
provided with instructions to perform repetitions with "maximal effort" or something
along those lines, and yet there was still velocity-specificity when training with different
loads.
Secondly, and probably more importantly in practice, we see that there is also evidence
of velocity-specific gains in strength after resistance training or ballistic training with free
weights, again when all repetitions (using either high or low loads) are performed with
maximal effort (Moss et al. 1997; Ingebrigtsen et al. 2009).
So both actual velocity and intent are probably important.
Page 32
Why are gains in strength velocity-specific? (part 1)

So having settled that velocity-specific strength gains probably happen both in response
to actual movement velocity and the intent to move quickly, what is responsible for the
adaptation anyway?
Well, in theory muscles can either increase their rate of force development, or increase
their maximal contraction velocity while producing a certain level of tension (or they can
do both at the same time). The following diagram shows the two possible adaptations.
As you can see, within this model, the point in time where you measure force impacts
whether you will expect to observe an increase or decrease in force expressed at high
velocities after training.
If you measure force in the early phase (say around 100ms), while force is still rising
(e.g. Tillin & Folland, 2014), then you will see a change in force only if rate of force
development has increased. On the other hand, if you measure force in the late phase
(say around 300ms), after force has reached its peak (e.g. Behm & Sale, 1993), then
you will see a change in peak force only if force production at high velocities has altered.
Page 33
Life, however, is not as simple as this theoretical model, and there are two
complications.
Firstly, it is widely accepted that the motor program for explosive contractions is
preprogrammed (Duchateau & Hainaut, 2008). Once triggered, it goes all the way
through to the end before you get to stop running it. So many types of explosive or
ballistic training may well develop both rate of force development and high-velocity
strength at the same time.
Secondly, contraction type affects how quickly we reach peak force. Although it is widely
accepted that peak force is only reached after around 250 300ms, the reality is that
this only applies to isometric and eccentric contractions. Peak force in concentric
contractions is reached in <150ms (Tillin et al. 2012a). So high-velocity strength may be
more relevant than rate of force development in concentric contractions, than in
isometric and eccentric contractions.
So in conclusion, velocity-specificity can theoretically happen by either increasing rate of
force development or by improving force production at a maximal speed. Whether you
measure force in the early or late phases of an explosive movement might affect what
result you get from your strength test.
Page 34
Why are gains in strength velocity-specific? (part 2)

There are many factors that could cause velocity-specific gains in strength. Here are
some of the primary candidates:
Muscle architecture
Muscle fiber type
Tendon stiffness
Specific fiber velocity
Neural adaptations
We can try to figure out whether each of these factors change in different ways after
either velocity-focused (i.e. either high-velocity ballistic movements or explosive
isometric contractions) or force-focused (i.e. either high-force strength training or
sustained isometric contractions).
We can also look at whether they are theoretically more likely to produce early phase
(rate of force development) or late phase (high velocity strength) effects.
Page 35
#1. Muscle architecture

Strength training of all types, including both velocity-focused and force-focused
approaches, alters muscle architecture (fascicle length, pennation angle, and crosssectional area).
Increases in fascicle length could be helpful for increasing high-velocity strength, as
longer fascicle lengths mean higher contraction velocities (Wickiewicz et al. 1984). This
is because all the sarcomeres in a myofibril contract at the same time, meaning that a
greater total change in length happens in the same time period.
On the other hand, longer fascicle lengths seem to lead to reduced rate of force
development, as longer fibers require more time to go from slack to taut, at the onset of
a muscle contraction (Blazevich et al. 2009).
So there may be a trade-off in the effects of increasing fascicle length, with early phase
effects being disadvantageous and late phase effects being advantageous.
Even so, there are indications that fascicle length might increase by more after velocityfocused training, than after force-focused training (Blazevich et al. 2003; Alegre et al.
2006), suggesting that it may be a helpful adaptation in the overall mix of changes that
occur.
Increases in cross-sectional area are helpful for increasing high-velocity strength, as
larger, stronger fascicles can produce more force. This shifts the whole force-velocity
curve upwards, making it easier to produce force at a given velocity.
When training for hypertrophy, low loads may produce similar gains in cross-sectional
area to high loads, although this may require training to muscular failure (Schoenfeld et
al. 2014).
When developing speed, sets with light loads are not taken to failure, and will likely not
develop size to the same extent. This suggests that changes in cross-sectional area are
not responsible for velocity-specificity.
Page 36
Muscle pennation angle is much less easy to get a handle on than muscle fascicle length.
Although increases in pennation angle mean a reduction in muscle fascicle length, this
does not mean that muscle contraction velocity necessarily reduces.
Pennated muscle fascicles actually rotate during contractions, which reduces the
effective pennation angle (Brainerd & Azizi, 2005), and the amount of rotation is greater
in faster contractions (Azizi et al. 2008). This fiber rotation allows the muscle to achieve
a faster contraction velocity than the contraction velocity of the individual muscle fibers
within it, thereby negating the disadvantage that is associated with the pennation.
Even so, there are indications that pennation angle increases by more after forcefocused training than after velocity-focused training (Blazevich et al. 2003; Alegre et al.
2006), although this is probably just because pennation angle changes tend to track
changes in muscle size.
So to summarize, increasing muscle fascicle length might reduce rate of force
development but it might also increase maximal contraction velocity. Changes in crosssectional area and pennation angle are unlikely to contribute to velocity-specificity.
Page 37
#2. Muscle fiber type

Velocity-focused training might be able to produce shifts in muscle fiber type (measured
either by MHC composition or fiber type distribution) or preferential muscle fiber type
area hypertrophy, in the direction of type I type IIA type IIX.
This could contribute to velocity-specificity, as muscle fibers do contract faster in the
order type IIX > type IIA > type I (e.g. Trappe et al. 2006; Harber & Trappe, 2008).
Some studies have reported velocity-specific strength gains in conjunction with shifts in
muscle fiber type or in fiber type distribution (Liu et al. 2003; Zaras et al. 2013), but
most have found no changes in fiber type distribution, while still reporting velocityspecific strength gains (Coyle et al. 1981; Thome et al. 1987; Ewing Jr et al. 1990;
Malisoux et al. 2006; Vissing et al. 2008).
And while there are indications of preferential increases in type II muscle fiber type area
after training at faster speeds (Coyle et al. 1981; Thome et al. 1987; Zaras et al.
2013), this is also by no means a uniform finding (Ewing Jr et al. 1990; Malisoux et al.
2006; Vissing et al. 2008; Lamas et al. 2012).
This might be because of a trade-off in the effects of changing fiber type, with early
phase effects being disadvantageous and late phase effects being advantageous.
Maximal force production is affected by muscle size, and changes in muscle size occur
more in type IIA fibers, in parallel with a reduction in the proportion of type IIX fibers.
So we might expect there to be a trade-off in early phase velocity-specificity and late
phase velocity-specificity, because the loss of type IIX reduces rate of force development
in the early phase, and gains in type IIA increase rate of force development and force
production in the late phase.
This is more or less what we find, although the research is fairly limited.
For example, Hkkinen et al. (2003) found an increase in rate of force development over
early and late phases combined (500ms), while type IIX fiber area reduced, and type IIA
fiber area increased. Aagaard et al. (2010) reported no increase in rate of force
development in the early phase (<250ms) but instead reported an increase in the late
phase (at 250ms), again while type IIX fiber area reduced and type IIA fiber area
increased.
Page 38
More interestingly, Farup et al. (2014) found that the strength of the relationship
between rate of force development and type IIX muscle fiber relative area reduced
steadily as the time period moved further away from the onset of the contraction (r =
0.61, 0.56, 0.46, 0.26 for 30ms, 50ms, 100ms and 200ms). And Andersen et al. (2010)
reported that the reductions in type IIX muscle fiber relative area after training were
related (r = 0.61) to changes in rate of force development in the early phase (100ms)
but not in the late phase (200ms).
So changes in fiber type (fiber, distribution, and relative area) may produce both
decreases and increases in velocity-specific strength gains, depending on what time
period you measure strength over, but velocity-focused and force-focused training do not
seem to produce different effects (Malisoux et al. 2006; Vissing et al. 2008).
To summarize, different speeds of training do not seem to affect changes in muscle fiber
type, but the effects of fiber type after any kind of training could differ, depending on the
time period over which you measure force.
Page 39
#3. Tendon stiffness

Stiffness is the extent to which an object resists being lengthened. A stiff spring only
lengthens a little when you attach a weight to it. On the other hand, a compliant spring
lengthens quite a long way.
Stiffer springs have greater rates of force development when included in a system,
because they transmit forces quickly from one end to the other. More compliant springs
have smaller rates of force development, so they absorb some of the energy before
transmitting it to the system.
Strength training leads to increased tendon stiffness (Bohm et al. 2015) and it also leads
to increased rate of force development (Blazevich, 2012).
The effects of strength training are affected by load, in that higher loads produce greater
increases in tendon stiffness (Bohm et al. 2015), and strength levels are related to
tendon properties (Muraoka et al. 2005). Since some researchers have proposed that
heavier loads might produce superior gains in rate of force development to lighter loads
(Blazevich, 2012), increased tendon stiffness might be the mechanism by which this
adaptation occurs.
To summarize, increasing tendon stiffness likely increases rate of force development, but
is more likely to happen in response to force-focused, and not velocity-focused training.
It is therefore unlikely to contribute to velocity-specificity after high-velocity training.
Page 40
#4. Single fiber velocity

Given that muscle architecture, muscle fiber type, and tendon stiffness are poor
candidates for velocity-specificity, it is worth reminding ourselves that there must be
some changes inherent inside a muscle that contribute to greater gains in force at higher
speeds after velocity-focused training.
In their famous study, Duchateau & Hainaut (1984) compared force-focused and
velocity-focused training and reported greater gains in maximum strength after forcefocused training (20% vs. 11%), but maximal shortening velocity only improved after
velocity-focused training (by 21%). Moreover, this maximal shortening velocity was
measured in involuntary contractions, implying that peripheral factors must be involved.
One peripheral factor that we should not forget is the contractile properties of single
muscle fibers.
In a remarkable study, Malisoux et al. (2006) assessed the effects of long-term
plyometric training. They found that single fiber velocity increased in each muscle fiber
type, by 18% in type I muscle fibers, by 29% in type IIA muscle fibers, and by 22% in
type IIX muscle fibers. Although single fiber force also increased, this was caused by an
increase in the cross-sectional area, and single fiber force normalized to cross-sectional
area did not alter.
Previous studies in standard heavy resistance training reported increases in single fiber
force, but not single fiber velocity (Widrick et al. 2002), suggesting that perhaps one
way in which velocity-focused training produces velocity-specificity is by altering
contractile components of the individual muscle fibers.
To summarize, single fiber contraction velocity can be increased by velocity-focused
training, implying that velocity-specificity might be attributed to altered contractile
components of the individual muscle fibers.
Page 41
#5. Neural adaptations

There are three main ways in which neural adaptations might occur that produce
velocity-specific strength gains: changes in agonist muscle drive at different time points,
changes in co-activation, and changes in co-ordination.
Agonist neural drive is the signal from the brain to the muscle that makes it contract. It
is a composite signal, made up of both motor unit recruitment (how many motor units
are switched on), and motor unit firing frequency (how often they are activated each
second). We can only measure neural drive indirectly, and we do it in two ways:
voluntary activation (the difference between voluntary and involuntary force), and EMG
amplitude (the electrical voltage recorded inside the muscle).
Overall, EMG amplitude during maximum voluntary isometric contractions does not
appear to be altered differently after high-force or high-force-intent training, compared
to after high-velocity or explosive-intent training (Lamas et al. 2012; Tillin & Folland,
2014; Balshaw et al. 2016). However, the EMG amplitudes at different points within the
contraction do seem to be affected. Explosive training produces greater gains in early
phase EMG amplitude, while maximal strength training produces bigger increases in the
overall mean EMG amplitude during the whole contraction.
So there is definitely some sort of change in agonist neural drive strategy going on, with
explosive training causing a shift towards a more "pulsed" effect, that peaks higher and
then drops away.
Increased co-activation is thought to reduce performance, although it may be helpful for
joint stabilization. Reducing co-activation is therefore one way in which strength can be
increased, and it does seem to change with training (Tillin et al. 2011), although how
much it contributes to increased force production is less clear.
If co-activation can be observed specifically after velocity-focused, rather than after
force-focused training, then it could contribute to velocity-specific changes in strength.
And there are some hints in this direction.
Page 42
Indeed, Pousson et al. (1999) found that co-activation reduced only when tested
isokinetically at the same velocity used in training, when using a high velocity . Geertsen
et al. (2008) also reported evidence of suppressed co-activation during isometric
contractions, after velocity-focused training. And Arabatzi & Kellis (2012) found that
standard resistance training produced an increase in knee muscle co-activation during
vertical jumping, while Olympic weightlifting produced no change, or even a slight
reduction.
Changes in co-ordination can affect how much gains in more basic physical qualities
(such as force production or rate of force development) are able to contribute to
strength expressed at a certain speed.
In a short review, Blazevich (2012) noted that studies were less likely to report increases
in rate of force development after strength training when the test exercise was not
performed in the training period. So displaying gains in rate of force development that
have been achieved during training in a subsequent, different exercise may require
practice in the test exercise.
This is similar to the idea that using gains in force production achieved in training in
vertical jumping requires practice in vertical jumping once the strength has been gained
(Bobbert & Van Soest, 1994).
This could be one reason why high-velocity exercises seem to transfer better to sporting
performance than low-velocity exercises (Mora-Custodio et al. 2016). The faster
exercises contain high-speed co-ordination elements that then transfer better to sporting
movements than the slower exercises. This is not as far-fetched as it sounds, as the
extent to which different muscles contribute to overall performance in most sporting
movements differs with speed (Beardsley & Contreras, 2014).
To summarize, greater early phase neural drive (and increased rate of force
development), more suppressed co-activation, and greater co-ordination might all be
achievable with velocity-focused training, compared to force-focused training, suggesting
that each could contribute to velocity-specificity.
Page 43
Conclusions
Actual velocity and intent to move quickly can both independently cause velocity-specific
gains in strength. Velocity specific gains in strength probably occur by means of
increased rate of force development, and by gains in maximal contraction velocity.
The main candidates for velocity-specific effects after velocity-focused training are
probably greater increases in muscle fascicle length, larger changes in single fiber
velocity, greater increases in early phase neural drive, more suppressed co-activation,
and bigger improvements in co-ordination, compared to force-focused training.
Ultimately, however, both velocity-focused and force-focused training can produce
different adaptations that seem useful for improving the ability to produce force at high
velocities. This is evidenced by the greater increases in cross-sectional area and tendon
stiffness that are achievable using force-focused training.
Page 44
18.
Bobbert, M. F., & Van Soest, A. J. (1994). Effects of muscle

strengthening on vertical jump height: a simulation study.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 26(8), 1012-1020.
19.
Bohm, S., Mersmann, F., & Arampatzis, A. (2015). Human

tendon adaptation in response to mechanical loading: a
systematic review and meta-analysis of exercise intervention
studies on healthy adults. Sports Med Open, 1(1), 7.
20.
Brainerd, E. L., & Azizi, E. (2005). Muscle fiber angle, segment

bu lgin g an d arch itectu ral gear ratio in segmen ted
musculature. Journal of Experimental Biology, 208(17), 32493261.
21.
Caiozzo, V. J., Perrine, J. J., & Edgerton, V. R. (1981).

Training-induced alterations of the in vivo force-velocity
relationship of human muscle. Journal of Applied Physiology,
51(3), 750-754.
22.
Coburn, J. W., Housh, T. J., Malek, M. H., Weir, J. P., Cramer, J.

T., Beck, T. W., & Johnson, G. O. (2006). Neuromuscular
responses to three days of velocity-specific isokinetic training.
The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 20(4), 892898.
23.
Coyle, E. F., Feiring, D. C., Rotkis, T. C., Cote, R. W., Roby, F.

B., Lee, W., & Wilmore, J. H. (1981). Specificity of power
improvements through slow and fast isokinetic training.
24.
Del Balso, C., & Cafarelli, E. (2007). Adaptations in the

activation of human skeletal muscle induced by short-term
isometric resistance training. Journal of Applied Physiology,
103(1), 402.
25.
Duchateau, J., & Hainaut, K. (1984). Isometric or dynamic

training: differential effects on mechanical properties of a
human muscle. Journal of Applied Physiology, 56(2), 296.
References
1.
Aagaard, P., Simonsen, E. B., Trolle, M., Bangsbo, J., &

Klausen, K. (1994). Effects of different strength training
regimes on moment and power generation during dynamic
knee extensions. European Journal of Applied Physiology and
Occupational Physiology, 69(5), 382.
2.
Aagaard, P., Simonsen, E. B., Trolle, M., Bangsbo, J., &

Klausen, K. (1996). Specificity of training velocity and training
load on gains in isokinetic knee joint strength. Acta
Physiologica Scandinavica, 156(2), 123-129.
3.
Adeyanju, K., Crews, T. R., & Meadors, W. J. (1983). Effects of

two speeds of isokinetic training on muscular strength, power
and endurance. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical
Fitness, 23(3), 352.
4.
Alegre, L. M., Jimnez, F., Gonzalo-Orden, J. M., Martn-Acero,

R., & Aguado, X. (2006). Effects of dynamic resistance
training on fascicle length and isometric strength. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 24(5), 501.
5.
Almsbakk, B., & Hoff, J. (1996). Coordination, the

determinant of velocity specificity? Journal of Applied
Physiology, 81(5), 2046-2052.
6.
Andersen, L. L., Andersen, J. L., Zebis, M. K., & Aagaard, P.

(2010). Early and late rate of force development: differential
adaptive responses to resistance training? Scandinavian
Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 20(1), e162-e169.
7.
Arabatzi, F., & Kellis, E. (2012). Olympic weightlifting training

causes different knee musclecoactivation adaptations
compared with traditional weight training. The Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research, 26(8), 2192-2201.
8.
Azizi, E., Brainerd, E. L., & Roberts, T. J. (2008). Variable

gearing in pennate muscles. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 105(5), 1745-1750.
26.
Duchateau, J., & Hainaut, K. (2008). Mechanisms of Muscle

and Motor Unit Adaptation to Explosive Power Training.
Strength and Power in Sport, Second Edition, 316-330.
9.
Balshaw, T. G., Massey, G. J., Maden-Wilkinson, T. M., Tillin, N.

A., & Folland, J. P. (2016). Training specific functional, neural
and hypertrophic adaptations to explosive vs. sustained
contraction strength training. Journal of Applied Physiology,
jap-00091.
27.
Ewing Jr, J. L., Wolfe, D. R., Rogers, M. A., Amundson, M. L., &
Stull, G. A. (1990). Effects of velocity of isokinetic training on
strength, power, and quadriceps muscle fibre characteristics.
European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational
Physiology, 61(1-2), 159-162.
10.
Balshaw, T. G., Massey, G., Maden-Wilkinson, T., Tillin, N., &

Folland, J. P. (2016). Neural and morphological contributions
to the individual changes in explosive and maximal strength
following a 12-week training intervention period. Proceedings
of The Physiological Society.
28.
Farthing, J. P., & Chilibeck, P. D. (2003). The effects of

eccentric and concentric training at different velocities on
muscle hypertrophy. European Journal of Applied Physiology,
89(6), 578-586.
29.
11.
Beardsley, C., & Contreras, B. (2014). The increasing role of

the hip extensor musculature with heavier compound lowerbody movements and more explosive sport actions. Strength
& Conditioning Journal, 36(2), 49-55.
Farup, J., Srensen, H., & Kjlhede, T. (2014). Similar changes

in muscle fiber phenotype with differentiated consequences
for rate of force development: Endurance versus resistance
training. Human Movement Science, 34, 109-119.
30.
12.
Bell, G. J., Petersen, S. R., Quinney, H. A., & Wenger, H. A.

(1989). The effect of velocityspecific strength training on
peak torque and anaerobic rowing power. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 7(3), 205-214.
Folland, J. P., Hawker, K., Leach, B., Little, T., & Jones, D. A.
(2005). Strength training: Isometric training at a range of
joint angles versus dynamic training. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 23(8), 817-824.
31.
13.
Bentley, J. R., Amonette, W. E., De Witt, J. K., & Hagan, R. D.

(2010). Effects of different lifting cadences on ground reaction
forces during the squat exercise. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research, 24(5), 1414-1420.
Frost, D. M., Beach, T. A., Callaghan, J. P., & McGill, S. M.

(2015). The influence of load and speed on individuals'
movement behavior. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 29(9), 2417-2425.
32.
14.
Blazevich, A. J., & Jenkins, D. G. (2002). Effect of the

movement speed of resistance training exercises on sprint and
strength performance in concurrently training elite junior
sprinters. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20(12), 981-990.
Garnica, R. A. (1986). Muscular Power in Young Women After

Slow and Fast Isokinetic Training. Journal of Orthopaedic &
Sports Physical Therapy, 8(1), 1-9.
33.
Gillies, A. R., & Lieber, R. L. (2011). Structure and function of

the skeletal muscle extracellular matrix. Muscle & Nerve,
44(3), 318-331.
34.
Geertsen, S. S., Lundbye-Jensen, J., & Nielsen, J. B. (2008).

Increased central facilitation of antagonist reciprocal inhibition
at the onset of dorsiflexion following explosive strength
training. Journal of Applied Physiology, 105(3), 915-922.
35.
Gonzlez-Badillo, J. J., Rodrguez-Rosell, D., Snchez-Medina,

L., Gorostiaga, E. M., & Pareja-Blanco, F. (2014). Maximal
intended velocity training induces greater gains in bench press
performance than deliberately slower half-velocity training.
European Journal of Sport Science, 14(8), 772-781.
36.
Hkkinen, K., Alen, M., Kraemer, W. J., Gorostiaga, E.,

Izquierdo, M., Rusko, H. & Romu, S. (2003). Neuromuscular
adaptations during concurrent strength and endurance
15.
16.
17.
Blazevich, A. J., Gill, N. D., Bronks, R., & Newton, R. U.

(2003). Training-specific muscle architecture adaptation after
5-wk training in athletes. Medicine & Science in Sports and
Exercise, 35(12), 2013-2022.
Blazevich, A. J., Cannavan, D., Horne, S., Coleman, D. R., &
Aagaard, P. (2009). Changes in muscle forcelength
properties affect the early rise of force in vivo. Muscle &
Nerve, 39(4), 512-520.
Blazevich, A. (2012). Are training velocity and movement
pattern important determinants of muscular rate of force
development enhancement? European Journal of Applied
Physiology, 112(10), 3689-3691.
Page 45
training versus strength training. European Journal of Applied

Physiology, 89(1), 42-52.
37.
38.
Harber, M., & Trappe, S. (2008). Single muscle fiber

contractile properties of young competitive distance runners.
55.
Narici, M. V., Binzoni, T., Hiltbrand, E., Fasel, J., Terrier, F., &
Cerretelli, P. (1996). In vivo human gastrocnemius
architecture with changing joint angle at rest and during
graded isometric contraction. The Journal of Physiology,
496(Pt 1), 287.
56.
Pareja-Blanco, F., Rodrguez-Rosell, D., Snchez-Medina, L.,

Gorostiaga, E. M., & Gonzlez-Badillo, J. J. (2014). Effect of
movement velocity during resistance training on
neuromuscular performance. International Journal of Sports
Medicine, 35(11), 916-924
57.
Petersen, S. R., Miller, G. D., Quinney, H. A., & Wenger, H. A.

(1987). The effectiveness of a mini-cycle on velocity-specific
strength acquisition. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical
Therapy, 9(4), 156-159.
58.
Petersen, S. R., Bagnall, K. M., Wenger, H. A., Reid, D. C.,

Castor, W. R., & Quinney, H. A. (1989). The influence of
velocity-specific resistance training on the in vivo torquevelocity relationship and the cross-sectional area of
quadriceps femoris. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical
Therapy, 10(11), 456-462.
59.
Kjaer, M. (2004). Role of extracellular matrix in adaptation of

tendon and skeletal muscle to mechanical loading.
Physiological Reviews, 84(2), 649-698.
Pousson, M., Amiridis, I. G., Cometti, G., & Van Hoecke, J.

(1999). Velocity-specific training in elbow flexors. European
Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology,
80(4), 367-372.
60.
Lamas, L., Ugrinowitsch, C., Rodacki, A., Pereira, G., Mattos,

E. C., Kohn, A. F., & Tricoli, V. (2012). Effects of strength and
power training on neuromuscular adaptations and jumping
movement pattern and performance. The Journal of Strength
& Conditioning Research, 26(12), 3335-3344.
Prevost, M. C., Nelson, A. G., & Maraj, B. K. (1999). The effect

of two days of velocity-specific isokinetic training on torque
production. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research,
13(1), 35-39.
61.
Schoenfeld, B. J., Wilson, J. M., Lowery, R. P., & Krieger, J. W.

(2014). Muscular adaptations in low-versus high-load
resistance training: A meta-analysis. European Journal of
Sport Science, 1-10.
62.
Thome, R., Renstrm, P., Grimby, G., & Peterson, L. (1987).

Slow or fast isokinetic training after knee ligament surgery*.
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 8(10), 475479.
63.
Tillin, N. A., Pain, M. T., & Folland, J. P. (2011). Shortterm

unilateral resistance training affects the agonistantagonist
but not the forceagonist activation relationship. Muscle &
Nerve, 43(3), 375-384.
64.
Tillin, N. A., Pain, M. T., & Folland, J. P. (2012a). Contraction

type influences the human ability to use the available torque
capacity of skeletal muscle during explosive efforts.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 279(1736), 21062115.
65.
Tillin, N. A., Pain, M. T., & Folland, J. P. (2012b). Shortterm

training for explosive strength causes neural and mechanical
adaptations. Experimental Physiology, 97(5), 630-641.
Ingebrigtsen, J., Holtermann, A., & Roeleveld, K. (2009).

Effects of load and contraction velocity during three-week
biceps curls training on isometric and isokinetic performance.
The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(6),
1670-1676.
39.
Jenkins, W. L., Thackaberry, M., & Killian, C. (1984). Speedspecific isokinetic training. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports
Physical Therapy, 6(3), 181-183.
40.
Jones, D. A., & Rutherford, O. M. (1987). Human muscle

strength training: the effects of three different regimens and
the nature of the resultant changes. The Journal of Physiology,
391, 1.
41.
Jones, K., Hunter, G., Fleisig, G., Escamilla, R., & Lemak, L.
(1999). The effects of compensatory acceleration on upperbody strength and power in collegiate football players. The
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 13(2), 99-105.
42.
Kaneko, M., Fuchimoto, T., Toji, H., & Suei, K. (1983). Training
effect of different loads on the force-velocity relationship and
mechanical power output in human muscle. Scandinavian
Journal of Sports Science, 5(2), 50-55.
43.
44.
45.
46.
on rate of velocity development, peak torque, and

performance. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 21(3), 870-874.
Lee, T. H. (2015). The effects of load magnitude and lifting

speed on the kinematic data of load and human posture.
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics,
21(1), 55-61.
Liu, Y., Schlumberger, A., Wirth, K., Schmidtbleicher, D., &
Steinacker, J. M. (2003). Different effects on human skeletal
myosin heavy chain isoform expression: Strength vs.
combination training. Journal of Applied Physiology, 94(6),
2282-2288.
47.
Maffiuletti, N. A., & Martin, A. (2001). Progressive versus

rapid rate of contraction during 7 wk of isometric resistance
training. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 33(7),
1220.
48.
Malisoux, L., Francaux, M., Nielens, H., & Theisen, D. (2006).

Stretch-shortening cycle exercises: an effective training
paradigm to enhance power output of human single muscle
fibers. Journal of Applied Physiology, 100(3), 771.
49.
McBride, J. M., Triplett-McBride, T., Davie, A., & Newton, R. U.

(2002). The effect of heavy-vs. light-load jump squats on the
development of strength, power, and speed. The Journal of
66.
Tillin, N. A., & Folland, J. P. (2014). Maximal and explosive

strength training elicit distinct neuromuscular adaptations,
specific to the training stimulus. European Journal of Applied
Physiology, 114(2), 365-374.
50.
Moffroid, M. T., & Whipple, R. H. (1970). Specificity of speed

of exercise. Physical Therapy, 50(12), 1692-1700.
67.
51.
Mora-Custodio, R., Rodrguez-Rosell, D., Pareja-Blanco, F.,

Yaez-Garca, J. M., & Gonzlez-Badillo, J. J. (2016). Effect of
low-vs. moderate-load squat training on strength, jump and
sprint performance in physically active women. International
Journal of Sports Medicine.
Trappe, S., Harber, M., Creer, A., Gallagher, P., Slivka, D.,
Minchev, K., & Whitsett, D. (2006). Single muscle fiber
adaptations with marathon training. Journal of Applied
Physiology, 101(3), 721-727.
68.
Vissing, K., Brink, M., Lnbro, S., Srensen, H., Overgaard, K.,
Danborg, K., & Andersen, J. L. (2008). Muscle adaptations to
plyometric vs. resistance training in untrained young men.
The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 22(6),
1799-1810.
69.
Wickiewicz, T. L., Roy, R. R., Powell, P. L., Perrine, J. J., &

Edgerton, V. R. (1984). Muscle architecture and force-velocity
relationships in humans. Journal of Applied Physiology, 57(2),
435-443.
70.
Widrick, J. J., Stelzer, J. E., Shoepe, T. C., & Garner, D. P.

(2002). Functional properties of human muscle fibers after
short-term resistance exercise training. American Journal of
Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative
Physiology, 283(2), R408-R416.
52.
53.
54.
Morrissey, M. C., Harman, E. A., Frykman, P. N., & Han, K. H.

(1998). Early phase differential effects of slow and fast barbell
squat training. The American Journal of Sports Medicine,
26(2), 221-230.
Moss, B. M., Refsnes, P. E., Abildgaard, A., Nicolaysen, K., &
Jensen, J. (1997). Effects of maximal effort strength training
with different loads on dynamic strength, cross-sectional area,
load-power and load-velocity relationships. European Journal
of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 75(3),
193-199.
Murray, D. P., Brown, L. E., Zinder, S. M., Noffal, G. J., Bera, S.
G., & Garrett, N. M. (2007). Effects of velocity-specific training
Page 46
71.
Zaras, N., Spengos, K., Methenitis, S., Papadopoulos, C.,

Karampatsos, G., Georgiadis, G. & Terzis, G. (2013). Effects of
strength vs. ballistic-power training on throwing performance.
Journal of Sports science & Medicine, 12(1), 130.
Page 47
4. RANGE OF MOTION
Page 48
One of the things that frustrates me about training in a commercial gym is watching the
tiny little knee bends that some people call squats.
Quite honestly, it is enough to make me want to go back to training at home.
After all, we know from the research that partial squats are not as effective as full squats
for increasing lower body strength, not to mention being worse for leg development and
athletic performance.
But why are partial squats less effective?
Here is what I think is going on.
What is a partial exercise?

When talking about partial range of motion exercises, we tend to mean "just performing
the top part of the available range of motion". In practice, this refers to exercise
variations like board presses and half squats.
While it is possible to perform just the bottom part of the available range of motion, it is
much less common. For example, you might perform a deadlift until the bar passed your
knees (called a "halting deadlift") and then return it to the ground without completing
the movement.
However, as we will see, since muscle length is the main driver behind why partial range
of motion exercises produce partial results, this partial exercise variation is a completely
different animal from a "normal" partial exercise, so I am going to ignore it for today.
Page 49
Partial vs. full range of motion exercises

We can summarize how partial and full range of motion exercises differ very quickly.
Partial range of motion exercises make you stronger at doing partials (Hartmann et al.
2012; Bloomquist et al. 2013; McMahon et al. 2014). And although they usually improve
full range of motion strength as well (Massey et al. 2004; Steele et al. 2012; Bloomquist
et al. 2013), they sometimes do not (Weiss et al. 2000; Hartmann et al. 2012).
When partials do improve full range of motion strength, it is almost never as much as full
range of motion training (Massey et al. 2005; Hartmann et al. 2012; Bloomquist et al.
2013), albeit with some exceptions (Graves et al. 1992; Massey et al. 2004; Steele et al.
2012; Cale'-Benzoor et al. 2014).
More importantly, partial range of motion exercises display joint angle-specific gains in
strength, with the strength gains being greatest around the trained joint angle (Graves
et al. 1989; 1992; Barak et al. 2004; McMahon et al. 2014).
Also, the angle of peak torque moves to shorter muscle lengths (McMahon et al. 2014).
Full range of motion exercises tend to make you stronger at doing full range of motion
exercises (Hartmann et al. 2012; Bloomquist et al. 2013; McMahon et al. 2014) and this
type of training also usually transfers quite well to partial range of motion strength
(Weiss et al. 2000; Hartmann et al. 2012; Bloomquist et al. 2013; McMahon et al. 2014),
although usually not quite as well as training with partials.
Why does this happen?
Well, to explain why partial training produces greater strength gains in partial exercises,
while full range of motion training produces greater strength gains in full range of motion
exercises, we need to know how our strength differs across the joint angle range of
motion, and we also need to know how our strength at different joint angles changes
after strength training.
Let's look first at why we are stronger at some joint angles, compared others.
Page 50
Why are we stronger at some joint angles than others?

We are generally stronger at some joint angles than others. In fact, there is usually one
joint angle where we are much stronger than at all the other joint angles. This joint
angle is called the angle of peak torque, and it can change after strength training.
This is important for understanding how strength changes at different joint angles. After
all, even if we get stronger overall, if the angle of peak torque changes, then we will find
that some joint angles increase hugely in strength, while others do not improve strength
very much at all.
Many factors determine the angle of peak torque, including:
Moment arm length
Normalized fiber lengths
Regional muscle size
Tendon stiffness
Muscle stiffness
Neural drive
The angle of peak torque can change even after normal strength training, probably
because of changes in many of these factors, including neural drive, normalized fiber
length, regional muscle size, tendon stiffness, and muscle stiffness.
Depending on how much each of these factors alters, the angle of peak torque can either
move to a joint angle that corresponds to a shorter muscle length, or to a joint angle
that corresponds to a longer muscle length.
Factors that shift the angle of peak torque to longer muscle lengths after normal
strength training include increases in neural drive at long muscle lengths, increases in
normalized fiber length, specific gains in regional muscle size, and increases in muscle
stiffness. Factors that shift the angle of peak torque to shorter muscle lengths after
normal strength training include increases in neural drive at short muscle lengths,
decreases in normalized fiber length, specific gains in regional muscle size, and increases
in tendon stiffness.
Page 51
Long vs. short muscle length isometric training

Isometric training produces very strongly joint angle-specific gains in strength (Lindh,
1979; Thepaut-Mathieu et al. 1988; Kitai & Sale, 1989; Weir et al. 1995; Schott et al.
1995; Ebersole et al. 2002; Folland et al. 2005; Noorkiv et al. 2014; 2015).
Interestingly, these joint angle-specific gains in strength are smaller when the muscle is
trained isometrically at long muscle lengths, compared to when it is trained isometrically
at short lengths (Bandy & Hanten, 1993; Kubo et al. 2006; Ullrich et al. 2009; Noorkiv
et al. 2014), but there is still some specificity. Also, shifts in the angle of peak torque
towards the trained joint angle can occur after isometric training at long muscle lengths
(Ullrich et al. 2009; Alegre et al. 2014).
Bandy & Hanten (1993) tested isometric strength at multiple joint angles in three groups
who performed isometric knee extension training at either short muscle lengths (30
degrees of knee flexion), moderate muscle lengths (60 degrees of knee flexion) or long
muscle lengths (90 degrees of knee flexion), where full knee extension is 0 degrees of
knee flexion. The results are shown in the chart below.
You can see the differences between the groups in joint angle-specific strength gains
immediately.
Page 52
The blue line shows the effect of training at short muscle lengths (30 degrees), and the
increase in strength is only around the trained joint angle. The orange line shows the
effect of training at moderate muscle lengths (60 degrees), and the increase in strength
has a peak at the trained joint angle, but there is also a response at other joint angles.
The green line shows the effect of training at long muscle lengths (90 degrees), and the
increase in strength is strongest at the trained joint angle, but there is also a smaller
response at shorter muscle lengths.
Since these results are not unusual, there is clearly a different type of joint angle-specific
strength gain after isometric training with short muscle lengths, compared to after
isometric training with long muscle lengths.
Why is this?
Traditionally, it has been assumed that neural factors were responsible for joint anglespecific gains in strength after isometric training at all joint angles (Kitai & Sale, 1989;
Noorkiv et al. 2014). However, as you can see from the chart below showing the gains
in EMG amplitude reported by Bandy & Hanten (1993), the changes are similar in each
training group, and increases in joint angle-specific neural drive cannot explain the
difference in the shape of the curves for the gains in strength.
Page 53
Recent research has found that changes in joint angle-specific neural drive are indeed
responsible for the joint angle-specific gains in strength after isometric training at short
muscle lengths (Alegre et al. 2014; Noorkiv et al. 2014).
On the other hand, regional hypertrophy seems to be more important than changes in
joint angle-specific neural drive for the joint angle-specific gains in strength after
isometric training at long muscle lengths (Alegre et al. 2014; Noorkiv et al. 2014).
This explains why joint angle-specific strength gains differ between isometric training
with either long or short muscle lengths.
They are caused by different adaptations.
Neural drive is mainly responsible for joint angle-specific gains in strength at short
muscle lengths, while regional hypertrophy is more important for joint angle-specific
gains in strength at long muscle lengths.
Page 54
Partial vs. full range of motion exercises (part 1)

Now, here is the thing. Biomechanically, isometric training with short muscle lengths is
quite similar to partial range of motion training with constant-load, free weight exercises,
like the barbell back squat. And isometric training at long muscle lengths is similar to full
range of motion training with constant-load, free weight exercises. There are two
reasons for this.
Firstly, when you exert force against the barbell, total vertical force differs across the
phases of the lift. This is because total force comprises weight (force to counteract
gravity) and inertia (force to accelerate mass). Each part of the lift requires different
amounts of acceleration, and different amounts of force. The start of the lifting phase
needs most acceleration, and the greatest amount of force. Total vertical force is 10
20% bigger at the start of the lifting phase compared to the rest of the lift.
Secondly, external moment arms at the hip and knee are long at the start of a lift like
the back squat, and they get smaller as you lift the weight. This means that even though
the weight of the barbell does not change, the hip and knee joint torques produced by
the barbell are greatest at the start of the lift, and reduce as you rise upwards.
Page 55
In other words, whether the exercise is a partial movement or a full range of motion
movement, if you are using a constant-load, free weight exercise such as the barbell
back squat, your muscles have to contract really, really hard at the start of the lift. After
that the exercise gets much easier very quickly.
If you are doing a partial squat, then you will carry out this peak contraction at a fairly
short muscle length. On the other hand, if you are doing a full squat, then you will carry
out this peak contraction at much longer muscle lengths.
So full and partial range of motion training are not so very different from long and short
isometric training, really.
Partial vs. full range of motion exercises (part 2)

If partial range of motion training with free weights is similar to isometric training at
short muscle lengths, then we should see parallels between the two types of training.
Similarly, if full range of motion training with free weights is similar to isometric training
with long muscle lengths, then we should see parallels between those two types of
training as well.
We should see joint angle-specific gains in strength after partial range of motion training
being caused by increases in joint angle-specific neural drive, and we should see joint
angle-specific gains in strength after full range of motion training being caused by
regional hypertrophy.
Indeed, full range of motion training does produce greater changes in either muscle
thickness (Pinto et al. 2012; McMahon et al. 2013), muscle cross-sectional area
(McMahon et al. 2014) or regional muscle cross-sectional area (Bloomquist et al. 2013)
in comparison with partial range of motion training.
There is less information regarding the changes in EMG amplitude after partial range of
motion training. Even so, McMahon et al. (2013) did find that full range of motion
training produced similar increases in EMG amplitude at all joint angles, while partial
range of motion training left EMG amplitude unchanged at short muscle lengths, and
reduced EMG amplitude at longer muscle lengths. While the overall size of the change is
unexpected, this does follow the right shape of curve, with the change at short muscle
lengths being larger than the change at longer muscle lengths.
Page 56
Conclusions
Partial squats make you stronger at doing partial squats, but do not transfer well to full
squats. This is probably also applicable for some other exercises, particularly those
where external moment arm lengths change substantially in the lifting phase. In
contrast, full squats make you stronger at full squats, and also transfer somewhat to
partial squats (but not as well as partial squats).
Similarly, isometric training at short muscle lengths improves strength at that joint range
of motion, and only improves strength very slightly (if at all) at longer muscle lengths.
Isometric training at long muscle lengths improves strength at that joint range of
motion, and also (albeit slightly less) at shorter muscle lengths.
Partial and full range of motion training are not as different as you might think from
isometric training at short and long muscle lengths. Many exercises with free weights are
like squats and have external moment arms that are long at the bottom of the
movement, and short at the top. So the total range of motion of the exercise (partial or
full) determines the muscle length at which the peak contraction occurs.
It seems likely that these kinds of partial exercises improve strength at short muscle
lengths mainly because of joint-angle specific increases in neural drive, while comparable
full range of motion exercises may improve strength at long muscle lengths, mainly
because of differences in regional hypertrophy.
Page 57
18.
Noorkiv, M., Nosaka, K., & Blazevich, A. J. (2014).

Neuromuscular adaptations associated with knee joint anglespecific force change. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise,
46(8), 1525-1537.
19.
Noorkiv, M., Nosaka, K., & Blazevich, A. J. (2015). Effects of

isometric quadriceps strength training at different muscle
lengths on dynamic torque production. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 33(18), 1952-1961.
20.
Pinto, R. S., Gomes, N., Radaelli, R., Botton, C. E., Brown, L.

E., & Bottaro, M. (2012). Effect of range of motion on muscle
strength and thickness. The Journal of Strength &
21.
Schott, J., McCully, K., & Rutherford, O. M. (1995). The role of

metabolites in strength training. European Journal of Applied
22.
Steele, J., Bruce-Low, S., Smith, D., Jessop, D., & Osborne, N.
(2012). Limited range of motion lumbar extension resistance
exercise in chronic low back pain participants. In Proceedings
of The Physiological Society.
23.
Thpaut-Mathieu, C., Van Hoecke, J., & Maton, B. (1988).

Myoelectrical and mechanical changes linked to length
specificity during isometric training. Journal of Applied
Physiology, 64(4), 1500-1505.
24.
Ullrich, B., Kleinder, H., & Brggemann, G. P. (2009).

Moment-angle relations after specific exercise. International
Journal of Sports Medicine, 30(4), 293-301.
References
1.
Alegre, L. M., Ferri-Morales, A., Rodriguez-Casares, R., &

Aguado, X. (2014). Effects of isometric training on the knee
extensor momentangle relationship and vastus lateralis
muscle architecture. European Journal of Applied Physiology,
114(11), 2437-2446.
2.
Barak, Y., Ayalon, M., & Dvir, Z. (2004). Transferability of

strength gains from limited to full range of motion. Medicine &
Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(8), 1413.
3.
Bandy, W. D., & Hanten, W. P. (1993). Changes in torque and

electromyographic activity of the quadriceps femoris muscles
following isometric training. Physical Therapy, 73(7), 455-465.
4.
Bloomquist, K., Langberg, H., Karlsen, S., Madsgaard, S.,

Boesen, M., & Raastad, T. (2013). Effect of range of motion in
heavy load squatting on muscle and tendon adaptations.
European Journal of Applied Physiology, 113(8), 2133-2142.
5.
Cale'-Benzoor, M., Dickstein, R., Arnon, M., & Ayalon, M.

(2014). Strength enhancement with limited range closed
kinetic chain isokinetic exercise of the upper extremity.
Isokinetics and Exercise Science, 22(1), 37-46.
6.
Ebersole, K. T., Housh, T. J., Johnson, G. O., Perry, S. R., Bull,

A. J., & Cramer, J. T. (2002). Mechanomyographic and
electromyographic responses to unilateral isometric training.
7.
Folland, J. P., Hawker, K., Leach, B., Little, T., & Jones, D. A.
(2005). Strength training: Isometric training at a range of
joint angles versus dynamic training. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 23(8), 817-824.
25.
Weir, J. P., Housh, T. J., Weir, L. L., & Johnson, G. O. (1995).

Effects of unilateral isometric strength training on joint angle
specificity and cross-training. European Journal of Applied
8.
Graves, J. E., Pollock, M. L., Jones, A. E., Colvin, A. B., &

Leggett, S. H. (1989). Specificity of limited range of motion
variable resistance training. Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise, 21(1), 84-89.
26.
Weiss, L. W., Fry, A. C., Wodd, L. E., Relya, G. E., & Melton, C.
(2000). Comparative effects of deep versus shallow squat and
leg-press training on vertical jumping ability and related
factors. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research,
14(3), 241-247.
9.
Graves, J. E., Pollock, M. L., Leggett, S. H., Carpenter, D. M.,

Fix, C. K., & Fulton, M. N. (1992). Limited range-of-motion
lumbar extension strength training. Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise, 24(1), 128.
10.
Hartmann, H., Wirth, K., Klusemann, M., Dalic, J., Matuschek,

C., & Schmidtbleicher, D. (2012). Influence of squatting depth
on jumping performance. Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 26(12), 3243.
11.
Kitai, T. A., & Sale, D. G. (1989). Specificity of joint angle in

isometric training. European Journal of Applied Physiology and
Occupational Physiology, 58(7), 744-748.
12.
Kubo, K., Ohgo, K., Takeishi, R., Yoshinaga, K., Tsunoda, N.,
Kanehisa, H., & Fukunaga, T. (2006). Effects of isometric
training at different knee angles on the muscletendon
complex in vivo. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science
in Sports, 16(3), 159-167.
13.
Lindh, M. (1979). Increase of muscle strength from isometric

quadriceps exercises at different knee angles. Scandinavian
Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 11(1), 33.
14.
Massey, C. D., Vincent, J., Maneval, M., Moore, M., & Johnson,
J. T. (2004). An analysis of full range of motion vs. partial
range of motion training in the development of strength in
untrained men. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 18(3), 518-521.
15.
Massey, C. D., Vincent, J., Maneval, M., & Johnson, J. T.

(2005). Influence of range of motion in resistance training in
women: early phase adaptations. The Journal of Strength &
16.
McMahon, G. E., Onambl-Pearson, G. L., Morse, C. I.,

Burden, A. M., & Winwood, K. (2013). How deep should you
squat to maximise a holistic training response?
Electromyographic, energetic, cardiovascular, hypertrophic
and mechanical evidence. Electrodiagnosis in New Frontiers of
Clinical Research.
17.
McMahon, G. E., Morse, C. I., Burden, A., Winwood, K., &

Onambl, G. L. (2014). Impact of range of motion during
ecologically valid resistance training protocols on muscle size,
subcutaneous fat, and strength. The Journal of Strength &
Page 58
5. EXTERNAL LOAD TYPE
Page 59
Conventional weight training involving multi-joint exercises, often using barbells, is the
most commonly-used and well-researched strength training method for improving
athletic ability.
Of course, there are other methods available. Some of these are completely different
from conventional weight training (such as many types of modern machines), while
others differ by starting with barbells and then adding elastic bands or chains to produce
a different stimulus.
When debating the advantages and disadvantages of different strength training methods
for athletes, most reviewers focus on whether the stability demands of the method are
similar to those required in sport. Few reviewers have considered how using only weight
can produce a different training effect compared with other types of strength training,
because of where in the exercise range of motion each method produces a peak muscle
contraction. And this is a very unappreciated, but extremely important factor.
Where this peak muscle contraction occurs is determined by the external load type.
What is external load type?

External load type refers to the material that is used to produce resistance to movement.
In this way, it indirectly describes how the externally-applied force changes throughout
the range of motion of the exercise.
External load types include pneumatic resistance, elastic resistance, weights (including
free weights, chains, and machines), and dynamometers (which use magnets). All of
these can be used to produce slightly different levels of externally-applied force at
different points in the exercise range of motion.
For example, a barbell squat or bench press can be performed with just free weights,
with free weights plus elastic bands, with free weights plus chains, with just chains on an
empty barbell, or with just bands on an empty barbell.
The barbell squat or bench press with free weights has an externally-applied force that is
mostly (but not entirely) constant over the exercise range of motion, while the barbell
squat or bench press with just bands on an empty barbell is at the other extreme. The
externally-applied force varies from nearly zero at the bottom of the exercise, to very
large at the top.
Page 60
How does external load type alter the externally-applied force?

In theory, the externally-applied force can either vary across the whole joint angle range
of motion, or it can remain constant. In practice, it is quite rare for an externally-applied
force to remain completely constant during an exercise.
The way in which the externally-applied force changes over the exercise range of motion
is not determined by a single factor. Many different forces can act in the overall range of
motion during strength training, depending on the set-up. These include:
Weight due to gravity
Inertia due to mass
Rotational inertia due to rotating mass in a flywheel
Tension produced by lengthened elastic bands
Electromagnetic force in a dynamometer
Air resistance in a pneumatic device
Some of these types of external resistance change depending on other external factors,
while others do not.
For example, weight does not change, irrespective of where it is in the exercise range of
motion, nor does it change in response to how much it is accelerated. In contrast, the
tension produced by elastic bands is highly dependent upon where you test it in the
exercise range of motion, as it is nearly zero when the bands are slack but very high
when they are taut. Similarly, inertia and rotational inertia are highly dependent upon
the amount of acceleration that the load is subjected to. They are zero when acceleration
is zero but are very high when acceleration is high.
Page 61
Why is a free weight not a constant externally-applied force?

Although the weight or load remains constant throughout a free weight exercise, the
externally-applied force is not constant, because the total externally-applied force is not
solely caused by weight, but is equal to weight plus inertia.
The force due to inertia is dependent upon how fast the barbell is being accelerated.
Acceleration is always high at the start of the movement and zero when the barbell
reaches peak velocity.
For example, in the barbell back squat using free weights, the externally-applied force in
the middle of the exercise is largely just due to the weight of the barbell, while the force
at the start of the concentric is around 10 20% higher. At this point, the externallyapplied force is made up of both the weight of the barbell and the inertia in accelerating
the barbell up to its maximum speed.
When using free weights during multi-joint exercises, the externally-applied force is
almost always greatest at the beginning of the concentric phase, and this is where
muscle lengths are longest.
Page 62
What do externally-applied forces look like?

Externally-applied force differs depending on the type of external load. We can see this
in action if we sketch the torque-angle curves of a single-joint exercise when performed
with a couple of different external load types, like this:
As you can see, even though the exercise is the same, the externally-applied torque, or
turning force, differs with joint angle between the external load types.
The isokinetic load type makes the muscle work as hard as it possibly can at every
individual point in the movement, so it rises to a peak at the angle of peak torque, which
is usually somewhere in the middle of the joint range of motion (but remember that
angle of peak torque varies with velocity).
An isotonic external load type can display a slightly different profile at the beginning and
end of the curve depending on the exact set-up used, but typically has a very short
period where the load is low before whatever machine is being used "kicks in" and starts
resisting the movement with a fixed torque.
Page 63
The constant load (which as noted above is not a constant externally-applied force)
always displays a much higher torque at the start of the contraction, which is where the
muscle length is longest, because the start of the contraction involves working against
both gravity and inertia, while the middle of the contraction involves only working
against gravity, and the end of the contraction involves riding along with momentum as
the weight comes to a halt.
Although this example was for a single-joint exercise, the same effects also occur in
multi-joint exercises.
Why do strength coaches use bands and chains?

Elastic bands or chains can be added to the barbell during multi-joint exercises like
squats or bench presses.
In many common multi-joint exercises, like the squat and bench press, external moment
arm lengths decrease with increasing bar height. This means that the exercise naturally
becomes easier as the lifter progresses through the range of motion.
By adding bands and chains, the externally-applied force is increased, and this
counteracts the impact of the reducing external moment arm lengths.
This leads to a more constant level of muscle force throughout the movement. This is
often called accommodating resistance.
Page 64
How does using bands and chains affect strength gains?

Training with bands and chains seems to produce slightly greater gains in strength in
advanced but not in novice trainees (Soria-Gila et al. 2015), although exactly why this
happens is unclear. There are many possible explanations.
Some authors have suggested that training with bands and chains targets the "sticking
region" of a lift, although why this should be the case for advanced lifters and not
novices is unclear.
Others propose that it might be because training with bands and chains produces greater
hypertrophy, although to date this has not been assessed. But similar investigations
using multi-joint machine exercises with either constant or variable load resistance have
found no differences in hypertrophy (Walker et al. 2013).
Another possibility is that accommodating resistance leads to a greater bar speed, and a
more consistent intent to accelerate the barbell, both of which produce specific
adaptations that are helpful for increasing high-velocity strength, and high-velocity
strength transfers better to low-velocity strength than the other way around.
Alternatively, it may be the case that accommodating resistance is usually a novel
stimulus to most trainees (even experienced ones) and this might explain the superior
effects in advanced trainees that are not mirrored in beginners.
Whatever the explanation, there is one downside.
Adding bands and chains is usually done in combination with reducing the amount of
weight plates on the barbell. So the increase in force later on in the exercise range of
motion (where muscle lengths are short) happens at the expense of reducing the peak
muscle force at the start of the concentric phase of the exercise (where muscle lengths
are long). And this might well produce joint angle-specific gains in strength, because of
the focus at different muscle lengths.
Let's take a look.
Page 65
How do different externally-applied forces affect strength gains

with different types of external load?
Many studies have compared the effects of different types of externally-applied forces on
external load type-specific strength gains. In general, these studies tend to compare
constant and variable loads, and largely fall into three main categories:
Powerlifting those that have explored the use of bands or chains in combination with
barbell free weights (variable resistance) compared with free weights only (constant
loads) during the bench press or back squat;
Machines those that have compared variable weights and constant weights using
machines for improving strength; and
Rehabilitation those that have compared elastic resistance (variable resistance) and
free weights (constant loads) during rehabilitation exercises.
The powerlifting studies

When looking at studies exploring the effects of adding bands or chains on specific
strength gains in the powerlifting exercises, most studies have reported that it does not
matter whether subjects use free weights alone, or free weights with added bands or
chains.
Free weights only and free weights plus either bands or chains seem to produce similar
gains in 1RM free weight squat or bench press (Anderson et al. 2008; McCurdy et al.
2009; Ghigiarelli et al. 2009; Rhea et al. 2009; Shoepe et al. 2011; Joy et al. 2014;
Jones, 2014; Ataee et al. 2014; Calatayud et al. 2015; Andersen et al. 2015).
There is only a small amount of evidence that specificity does occur.
And yet, that specificity is related to muscle length, as expected. Andersen et al. (2015)
reported joint angle-specific gains in strength, whereby squats with free weights
produced gains in isometric strength at both 60 and 90 degrees of knee flexion, while
squats against elastic bands produced gains in isometric strength only at 60 degrees of
knee flexion.
Page 66
The machine studies

When looking at studies reporting on the external load type specificity of strength gains
after long-term training programs performed on machines with both eccentric and
concentric muscle actions, there are conflicting reports.
Some studies have reported no external load type specificity of strength gains, although
these are primarily limited to those reporting on programs of single-joint knee extension
exercises (Manning et al. 1990; Hunter & Culpepper, 1995; Remaud et al. 2010) or
programs of combined single-joint and multi-joint leg extension exercises (Walker et al.
2013). Where these studies assessed joint angle-specific changes in strength, they found
no effects (Manning et al. 1990; Remaud et al. 2010).
Many similar studies have found that strength gains are specific to the type of external
load used. These studies have reported on programs of single-joint knee extension
exercise (Smith & Melton, 1981; Kovaleski et al. 1995; Wojtys et al. 1996; Golik-Peric et
al. 2011), and on programs of single-joint elbow flexion exercise (O'Hagan et al. 1995;
Staniszewski et al. 2016). Some studies have even tested the effects of different types
of external load during programs involving a range of upper and lower body single-joint
and multi-joint exercises (Pipes & Wilmore, 1974; Pipes, 1978; Frost et al. 2015), and
these produced quite a bit of specificity, as shown below.
Page 67
The rehabilitation studies

When comparing rehabilitation exercises performed with solely elastic resistance or with
solely free weights, most studies have generally reported no external load specific
strength gains (Behm, 1991; Colado et al. 2010).
In summary, we only observe external load-type specific strength gains in some groups
of study and not in others, which suggests that the specificity of external load type is
probably quite weak.
So what is causing these weak effects (and why are they small)?
What might cause the weak specificity in strength gains for external load type?
Previously, I explained how partial range of motion exercises produce joint angle-specific
gains in strength for the same reasons as isometric training at short muscle lengths,
which is mainly through neural adaptations. In contrast, full range of motion exercises
produce similar patterns of strength gains to isometric training at long muscle lengths,
mainly through regional hypertrophy.
External load types probably produce specificity for the same reasons.
Free weights and other constant loads (even those involving machines) during most
common exercises produce a peak contraction at long muscle lengths (there are some
exceptions). Most other types of external load, including those that add bands and
chains to barbells, reduce the size of the peak contraction at long muscle lengths and
increase it at shorter muscle lengths.
If this is the case, we should find that the main causes of specificity in strength gains
after training with different types of external load are regional hypertrophy and joint
angle-specific changes in neural drive (especially at end range of motion).
So is there any evidence for this?
Page 68
Does regional hypertrophy cause specificity of strength gains with

different types of external load?
Few studies have reported on changes in regional hypertrophy when comparing groups
training with different types of external load.
In one study comparing the effects of training with a machine knee extension and with
an isokinetic dynamometer, Matta et al. (2015a) reported that hypertrophy in individual
quadriceps muscles differed between the two types of training. Although both types of
external load were variable, the machine knee extension would still have involved a
larger contraction at longer muscle lengths than the isokinetic device.
The results are shown in the chart below.
Similarly, and using exactly the same training programs and exercise comparisons, Matta
et al. (2015b) found that the same phenomenon occurred in respect of the individual
parts of the rectus femoris.
So regional hypertrophy occurs both within muscle groups and within parts of the same
muscle, after training with different types of external load.
Page 69
Do joint angle-specific changes in neural drive cause specificity of

strength gains with different types of external load?
Few studies have reported on changes in neural drive at different joint angles when
comparing groups training with different types of external load.
In one study, Remaud et al. (2010) assessed joint angle-specific changes in maximum
voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) torque and in neural drive after isotonic and
isokinetic types of external load, using knee extension training. They tested joint angles
from long (90 degrees of knee flexion) to short (30 degrees of knee flexion) muscle
lengths, expecting to see greater gains for the isotonic group at both ends of the range
of motion, where loading was higher than in the middle.
In fact, they found no significant differences between groups. Even so, we need not
despair, as they did observe a non-significant trend towards greater torque at short
muscle lengths in the isotonic group, as well as a non-significant trend towards greater
EMG amplitude at both ends, as you can see in the pair of charts below.
Page 70
It is interesting that the non-significant EMG amplitude changes after isotonic training
follow a U-shaped curve, but only contribute to greater torque increases than the middle
range of motion at short muscle lengths (30 degrees). This is in line with the expected
effects of joint angle-specific changes in neural drive being most relevant at short muscle
lengths.
Fortunately, other research supports the presence of external load specificity in
conjunction with joint angle-specific differences in neural drive.
Using eccentric-only knee extension training, Guilhem et al. (2013) assessed the effect
of constant load and isokinetic external load types on joint-angle specific changes in
torque and EMG amplitude.
They found that constant load training led to increases in both torque and EMG
amplitude at all muscle lengths. In contrast, isokinetic training failed to improve torque
at short muscle lengths (35 and 45 degrees), and also failed to increase EMG amplitude
at long muscle lengths (85 degrees).
Page 71
Why is the specificity in strength gains for external load type so

weak?
Why is the specificity weak?
Isometric training at long muscle lengths is very different from isometric training at short
muscle lengths. At no point does it ever involve loading while the muscle is short.
Consequently, each displays remarkable joint angle-specific strength gains.
Full range of motion training is only moderately different from partial range of motion
training, as there are some points where contractions occur at the same muscle lengths.
The key differences are that the partial range of motion training involves no crossover
with the full range of motion training, and also involves a heavier load in the upper part
of the exercise range of motion. And joint angle-specific strength gains are smaller than
after isometric training at short vs. long muscle lengths.
Free weight training is only slightly different from variable or accommodating resistance
training, as contractions always occur at the same muscle lengths. The only difference is
that the accommodating resistance involves a lighter load in the lower part of the
exercise range of motion, and a heavier load in the upper part of the exercise range of
motion. And joint angle-specific strength gains are smaller than after partial range of
motion training vs. full range of motion training.
So we can see the following hierarchy of reducing specificity:
Long vs. short isometrics
Full range of motion vs. partial range of motion
Conventional free weight training vs. accommodating resistance training
Page 72
What does this mean in practice?

What type of training is best depends both on your goals, and also on your capacity for
improvement.
If your main goal is to improve strength towards the end of the concentric phase of an
exercise range of motion (e.g. you compete in equipped powerlifting, where suits provide
help at the start of the concentric phase), then isometrics at short muscle lengths,
partials or accommodating resistance could all work very well.
Deciding which is better depends on where you have room for improvement. Isometrics
at short muscle lengths or heavy partials will give you better strength gains around the
specific joint range of motion compared to accommodating resistance, but
accommodating resistance has the added benefit of producing more hypertrophy than
partials. So if you are already up against your limit for gaining muscle, then isometrics at
short muscle lengths or partials may be best. If you are still making size gains, then
accommodating resistance is probably a better bet.
On the other hand, if your main goal is to improve athletic performance, or if you are a
powerlifter who competes without equipment, then your primary goal should be to
develop the ability to produce force at long muscle lengths, because partial exercises do
not transfer to sport. In this case, you are best off sticking to constant-load, full range of
motion exercises, and only using accommodating resistance if you need the variety.
Page 73
Conclusions
Conventional weight training (using either barbells or constant-load machines) produce a
peak muscle contraction at the start of the concentric phase, where muscle lengths are
longest.
In contrast, variable loads (using either barbells plus bands or chains, or variable-load
machines) produce even muscle forces over the exercise range of motion. These
differences in externally-applied force over an exercise range of motion lead to joint
angle-specific strength gains.
These joint angle-specific strength gains are similar to the effects produced by full vs.
partial range of motion training, or isometrics at long vs. short muscle lengths, and are
probably caused by differences in regional hypertrophy and joint angle-specific changes
in neural drive (especially at end range of motion).
Whether constant-load or variable-load training is best for you depends both on your
goals, and also on your capacity for improvement. However, since athletes are likely to
benefit to a greater extent from the specific strength gains that come with training at
longer muscle lengths, conventional weight training is often going to be best for
improving sports performance.
Page 74
18.
Kovaleski, J. E., Heitman, R. H., Trundle, T. L., & Gilley, W. F.

(1995). Isotonic preload versus isokinetic knee extension
resistance training. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise,
27(6), 895-899.
19.
Manning, R. J., Graves, J. E., Carpenter, D. M., Leggett, S. H.,

& Pollock, M. L. (1990). Constant vs variable resistance knee
extension training. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise,
22(3), 397-401.
20.
Matta, T. T., Nascimento, F. X., Fernandes, I. A., & Oliveira, L.

F. (2015). Heterogeneity of rectus femoris muscle
architectural adaptations after two different 14week
resistance training programmes. Clinical Physiology and
Functional Imaging, 35(3), 210-215.
21.
Matta, T. T., Nascimento, F. X., Trajano, G. S., Simo, R.,

Willardson, J. M., & Oliveira, L. F. (2015). Selective
hypertrophy of the quadriceps musculature after 14 weeks of
isokinetic and conventional resistance training. Clinical
Physiology and Functional Imaging.
22.
McCurdy, K., Langford, G., Ernest, J., Jenkerson, D., &

Doscher, M. (2009). Comparison of chain-and plate-loaded
bench press training on strength, joint pain, and muscle
soreness in Division II baseball players. The Journal of
23.
Norrbrand, L., Tous-Fajardo, J., Vargas, R., & Tesch, P. A.

(2011). Quadriceps muscle use in the flywheel and barbell
squat. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 82(1),
13-19.
24.
O'Hagan, F. T., Sale, D. G., MacDougall, J. D., & Garner, S. H.

(1995). Comparative effectiveness of accommodating and
weight resistance training modes. Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise, 27(8), 1210-1219.
25.
Pipes, T. V., & Wilmore, J. H. (1974). Isokinetic vs isotonic

strength training in adult men. Medicine & Science in Sports,
7(4), 262-274.
26.
Pipes, T. V. (1978). Variable resistance versus constant

resistance strength training in adult males. European Journal
of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 39(1), 2735.
27.
Ratamess, N. A., Beller, N. A., Gonzalez, A. M., Spatz, G. E.,

Hoffman, J. R., Ross, R. E. & Kang, J. (2016). The effects of
multiple-joint isokinetic resistance training on maximal
isokinetic and dynamic muscle strength and local muscular
endurance. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 15, 3440.
28.
Remaud, A., Cornu, C., & Guvel, A. (2010). Neuromuscular

adaptations to 8-week strength training: Isotonic versus
isokinetic mode. European Journal of Applied Physiology,
108(1), 59-69.
29.
Rhea, M. R., Kenn, J. G., & Dermody, B. M. (2009). Alterations

in speed of squat movement and the use of accommodated
resistance among college athletes training for power. The
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(9), 26452650.
30.
Shoepe, T., Ramirez, D., Rovetti, R., Kohler, D., & Almstedt, H.
(2011). The effects of 24 weeks of resistance training with
simultaneous elastic and free weight loading on muscular
performance of novice lifters. Journal of Human Kinetics, 29,
93-106.
31.
Smith, M. J., & Melton, P. (1981). Isokinetic versus isotonic

variable-resistance training. The American Journal of Sports
Medicine, 9(4), 275-279.]
32.
Soria-Gila, M. A., Chirosa, I. J., Bautista, I. J., Baena, S., &

Chirosa, L. J. (2015). Effects of variable resistance training on
maximal strength: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Strength &
33.
Staniszewski, M., Urbanik, C., Mastalerz, A., Iwanska, D.,

Madej, A., & Karczewska, M. (2016). Comparison of changes
in the load components for intense training on two machines:
with a variable-cam and with a disc plate. The Journal of
Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness.
34.
Walker, S., Hulmi, J. J., Wernbom, M., Nyman, K., Kraemer, W.

J., Ahtiainen, J. P., & Hkkinen, K. (2013). Variable resistance
training promotes greater fatigue resistance but not
hypertrophy versus constant resistance training. European
References
1.
Andersen, V., Fimland, M. S., Kolnes, M. K., & Saeterbakken,

A. H. (2015). Elastic bands in combination with free weights in
strength training: Neuromuscular effects. The Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research, 29(10), 2932.
2.
Anderson, C. E., Sforzo, G. A., & Sigg, J. A. (2008). The

effects of combining elastic and free weight resistance on
strength and power in athletes. The Journal of Strength &
3.
Ataee, J., Koozehchian, M. S., Kreider, R. B., & Zuo, L. (2014).

Effectiveness of accommodation and constant resistance
training on maximal strength and power in trained athletes.
PeerJ, 2, e441.
4.
Behm, D. G. (1991). An analysis of intermediate speed

resistance exercises for velocity-specific strength gains. The
5.
Boyer, B. T. (1990). A comparison of the effects of three

strength training programs on women. The Journal of
6.
Buckthorpe, M., Erskine, R. M., Fletcher, G., & Folland, J. P.

(2015). Taskspecific neural adaptations to isoinertial
resistance training. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine &
Science in Sports, 25(5), 640-649.
7.
Calatayud, J., Borreani, S., Colado, J. C., Martin, F., Tella, V., &
Andersen, L. L. (2015). Bench press and push-up at
comparable levels of muscle activity results in similar strength
gains. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research,
29(1), 246-253.
8.
Colado, J. C., Garcia-Masso, X., Pellicer, M., Alakhdar, Y.,

Benavent, J., & Cabeza-Ruiz, R. (2010). A comparison of
elastic tubing and isotonic resistance exercises. International
Journal of Sports Medicine, 31(11), 810.
9.
Frost, D. M., Cronin, J., & Newton, R. U. (2010). A

biomechanical evaluation of resistance: fundamental concepts
for training and sports performance. Sports Medicine, 40(4),
303.
10.
Frost, D. M., Bronson, S., Cronin, J. B., & Newton, R. U.

(2015). Changes in maximal strength, velocity and power
following eight weeks of training with pneumatic or free
weight resistance. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research.
11.
Ghigiarelli, J. J., Nagle, E. F., Gross, F. L., Robertson, R. J.,

Irrgang, J. J., & Myslinski, T. (2009). The effects of a 7-week
heavy elastic band and weight chain program on upper-body
strength and upper-body power in a sample of division 1-AA
football players. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 23(3), 756-764.
12.
Golik-Peric, D., Drapsin, M., Obradovic, B., & Drid, P. (2011).

Short-term isokinetic training versus isotonic training: effects
on asymmetry in strength of thigh muscles. Journal of Human
Kinetics, 30, 29-35.
13.
Guilhem, G., Cornu, C., & Guvel, A. (2010). Neuromuscular

and muscle-tendon system adaptations to isotonic and
isokinetic eccentric exercise. Annals of Physical and
Rehabilitation Medicine, 53(5), 319-341.
14.
Guilhem, G., Cornu, C., Maffiuletti, N. A., & Guvel, A. (2013).

Neuromuscular adaptations to isoload versus isokinetic
eccentric resistance training. Medicine & Science in Sports and
Exercise, 45(2), 326.
15.
Hunter, G. R., & Culpepper, M. I. (1995). Joint angle specificity

of fixed mass versus hydraulic resistance knee flexion
training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research,
9(1), 13-16.
16.
Jones, M. T. (2014). Effect of compensatory acceleration

training in combination with accommodating resistance on
upper body strength in collegiate athletes. Open Access
Journal of Sports Medicine, 5, 183.
17.
Joy, J. M., Lowery, R. P., Oliveira, D. S. E., & Wilson, J. M.

(2013). Elastic bands as a component of periodized resistance
training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.
Page 75
35.
Wojtys, E. M., Huston, L. J., Taylor, P. D., & Bastian, S. D.

(1996). Neuromuscular adaptations in isokinetic, isotonic, and
agility training programs. The American Journal of Sports
Medicine, 24(2), 187-192.
Page 76
6. EXTERNAL LOAD STABILITY
Page 77
Many strength coaches recommend against training on unstable surfaces when using
free weights for improving sports performance. Leaving aside potential safety issues, the
main reason given is that lighter weights are used in less stable conditions. And using
lighter weights is thought to cause smaller strength gains.
Many coaches also recommend against using multi-joint machines, like the leg press,
when preparing athletes for sport. In this case, the main underlying reason is that the
strength gains will not transfer to a less stable environment (they are not functional),
where some degree of balance is required.
So do free weights involve a level of external load stability that is just right when
preparing athletes for sport? Or is all of this just wishful thinking?
What is external load stability?

The stability of the external load determines how much balance is needed when doing an
exercise. External load stability exists on a continuum from very stable, to neutrally
stable, to very unstable. Less stability means more balance is needed, while more
stability means that less balance is required.
Changes in stability involve altering the type of resistance used, or the type of surface on
which the lifter is standing, sitting, or lying. A bench press can be performed in a highly
stable set-up (on a bench with a barbell), in a moderately stable set-up (on a bench with
dumbbells), or in a very unstable set-up (on a Swiss ball with dumbbells).
Page 78
Changing from a barbell to dumbbells involves altering the stability of the external
resistance directly, while changing from a bench to a Swiss ball involves altering the
stability of the surface upon which the lifter is resting. Both of these changes alter the
stability requirements, and therefore the need to balance, but in different ways.
Why is external load stability important?

If strength gains are stability-specific, then gains in strength in a very stable exercise
set-up (such as sitting on a machine) might not transfer to strength displayed in less
stable environments (such as standing on the ground), while gains in very unstable
environments (such as balancing on a wobble board) might not transfer to those in more
stable environments (Willardson, 2004).
This is important for athletes, who tend to spend much of their time exerting force into
the ground.
There are clues that strength is indeed stability-specific.
For example, the association between a machine 1RM and a similar exercise free weights
1RM can range between moderate and strong (Willardson & Bressel, 2004; Cotterman et
al. 2005; Langford et al. 2007; Lyons et al. 2010; Mayhew et al. 2010; Ferraresi et al.
2013). This suggests that there are some factors that differ as a result of the stability
requirement. Otherwise, the relationship would be very strong, as everyone would
simply scale their strength levels between stable and unstable exercises in the same
way.
If this is the case, then we should probably be trying to match the stability requirements
of the exercise to the stability requirements of the sport.
Page 79
Comparing training with machines and free weights

The advantages and disadvantages of training with either machines or free weights have
been debated at great length (e.g. Stone et al. 2000; Haff, 2000). Here, I want to focus
on whether strength gains are stability-specific. To do this, we can look at studies
comparing the following:
1. Training with machines vs. free weights, then testing free weights strength.
2. Training with machines vs. free weights, then testing an athletic ability.
#1. Comparisons of machine and free weights training on free

weights strength
More studies than you might expect have assessed the effects of long-term training
programs with machines on strength tested with free weights in young adults (Boyer,
1990; Augustsson et al. 1998; Langford et al. 2007; Lennon et al. 2010; Mayhew et al.
2010; Ratamess et al. 2016). Without exception, every single study has shown that
training using machines can improve strength as measured using free weights.
Several of these studies have also compared the effects of training with machines with
the effects of training with free weights on strength tested with free weights (Boyer,
1990; Augustsson et al. 1998; Langford et al. 2007; Mayhew et al. 2010; Lennon et al.
2010).
Only Langford et al. (2007) found no evidence of stability-specificity when training with
machines or free weights, possibly because the difference in stability between conditions
may not have been that substantial, as indicated by the small difference in force
between exercise variations of just 3 8%. Most have found evidence of stabilityspecificity in both directions, both when the exercises performed are very similar (Boyer,
1990; Lennon et al. 2010; Mayhew et al. 2010), and when they are different
(Augustsson et al. 1998).
Page 80
#2. Comparisons of machine and free weights training on athletic

performance
Many studies have assessed the effects of training the lower body with machines on
sports performance in young, healthy adults.
Improving leg press strength seems to transfer reasonably well to greater vertical jump
height (Silvester & Bryce, 1981; Papadopoulos et al. 2014; Wirth et al. 2015;
Manolopoulos et al. 2016) as well as single-leg hop for distance (Wawrzyniak et al.
1996). Smith machine squat training seems to improve vertical jump height and sprint
running ability (De Hoyo et al. 2015b). Even the knee extension can improve vertical
jump height (Augustsson et al. 1998; Friedmann-Bette et al. 2010).
Flywheel training is an increasingly popular form of machine training, although arguably
this requires more control than a more traditional machine with a fixed bar path, since it
uses a cable to direct the force. Flywheel squat training seems to transfer very well to
vertical jump height (Sheppard et al. 2008; Gual et al. 2015; De Hoyo et al. 2015a), and
flywheel leg curl training transfers well to sprint running (Askling et al. 2003; De Hoyo et
al. 2015a).
So training using machines does transfer to sporting performance, despite what some
alarmists might tell you.
Unfortunately, far fewer studies have compared the effects of machine and free weights
training in young adults on athletic performance (Augustsson et al. 1998; Wirth et al.
2015). Even so, both of these studies confirm that machine training does not transfer as
well to vertical jumping ability as free weights, both when the exercises used are similar
(Wirth et al. 2015), and when they are different (Augustsson et al. 1998).
To summarize, machine training does improve free weights strength, but not by as much
as free weight training (and the other way around). Stability-specific strength gains do
happen. And also, machine weight training can improve athletic ability, but not by as
much as free weight training.
Page 81
Comparing training with stable or unstable machines

In some training studies, different types of machines have been compared with one
another, where one type of machine makes use of fixed bar paths and the other type of
machine uses cables that allow freedom of movement, to perform essentially the same
multi-joint exercise (Spennewyn, 2008; Cacchio et al. 2008).
Strength gains are different between the two types of machine, and there is again
definite evidence of stability-specific gains in strength going in both directions (Cacchio
et al. 2008).
Interestingly, these studies also show that gains in dynamic strength, when tested in the
machine on which the training was performed, are much higher when training with the
cable machines than when training with fixed bar path machines (Spennewyn, 2008;
Cacchio et al. 2008).
This suggests that there may well be a learning component inherent in using the cable
machines that contributes substantially to the gains in strength. Indeed, Cacchio et al.
(2008) did note that training with the cable machines led to beneficial alterations in the
EMG amplitudes of the stabilizers and of the antagonist muscles, while training with the
fixed bar path machines did not.
We will come back to this point later on.
Page 82
Comparing training on stable and unstable surfaces

The advantages and disadvantages of unstable surface training have also been discussed
ad nauseam (e.g. Hubbard, 2010; Behm & Sanchez, 2013). Here, I want to focus on
whether strength gains are stability-specific. To do this, we can look at studies exploring:
1. Training with stable vs. unstable surfaces, then testing strength on stable
surfaces.
2. Training with stable vs. unstable surfaces, then testing an athletic ability.
#1. Comparisons of training on stable vs. unstable surfaces on

strength on stable surfaces
Very few studies have compared the effects of training on stable vs. unstable surfaces on
strength on stable surfaces. Those that have are summarized in a recent systematic
review (Behm et al. 2015), although the measures used to assess strength are not
differentiated, which makes the results difficult to interpret.
The most stable surface typically measured in studies is maximum isometric force, using
a dynamometer. Training on unstable surfaces tends to produce similar gains in
maximum isometric force as training on stable surfaces (Kibele & Behm, 2009; Sparkes
& Behm, 2010; Prieske et al. 2016).
The second most stable surface typically measured in studies is maximum dynamic
force, using the strength exercise used in the stable-surface training group, such as 1RM
bench press (Cowley et al. 2007; Marinkovi et al. 2012; Premkumar et al. 2012; MatMuoz et al. 2014), 3RM bench press (Sparkes & Behm, 2010), 1RM back squat
(Marinkovi et al. 2012; Mat-Muoz et al. 2014), and 3RM back squat (Sparkes &
Behm, 2010).
Training on unstable surfaces seems to produce similar gains in dynamic strength in the
exercise used during training, compared to training with the same exercise on stable
surfaces.
Page 83
This suggests that there is no evidence of stability-specific strength when testing

strength on stable surfaces after either stable or unstable surface training. However,
although not as well-researched, there are some suggestions that gains in strength on
unstable surfaces might be greater after training on unstable surfaces (Sparkes & Behm,
2010), which would mean that stability-specific strength gains still occur, albeit only in
one direction.
Importantly, however, all of these studies were performed in untrained individuals.
Since there are indications that unstable surface training does not lead to greater EMG
amplitudes than stable surface training with the same absolute loads in resistancetrained individuals (Wahl & Behm, 2008; Li et al. 2013), training on unstable surfaces
may not be as effective as training on stable surfaces in trained subjects.
#2. Comparisons of training on stable vs. unstable surfaces on

athletic performance
Very few studies have compared the effects of training on stable vs. unstable surfaces on
athletic performance measures. Those that have are summarized in a recent systematic
review (Behm et al. 2015), although the measures used to assess athletic ability are not
differentiated, which makes the results difficult to interpret.
Looking only at those studies exploring the effects of lower body strength training on
countermovement jump height, a majority have found that performing the exercises on
stable surfaces is better than performing the exercises on unstable surfaces (Cressey et
al. 2007; Oberacker et al. 2012), although a minority have found no differences (MatMuoz et al. 2014).
This suggests that lower body training on unstable surfaces may not transfer as well to
the same exercises performed on the ground for common tests of athletic ability, such as
vertical jumping.
To summarize, unstable surface training does improve strength on stable surfaces to a
similar extent as stable surface training in untrained subjects. However, this may not
apply to trained individuals. And also, unstable surface training may not improve
common tests of athletic ability as well as the same exercises performed on the ground.
Page 84
What mechanisms cause stability-specific strength gains?

Given that stability-specific strength gains do occur, what might be the underlying
mechanisms?
One difference between more stable and less stable exercises is the amount of force that
is produced. This could be a mechanism by which stability-specific strength gains occur,
if the greater force exerted in the more stable conditions then leads to greater
neuromuscular adaptations.
Another difference between more stable and less stable exercises is the amount of
balance that is needed. Differences in the need to balance could produce adaptations
involving mechanisms by which stability-specific strength gains then occur. Balance
requirements could produce improvements in strength simply by being a balance
challenge (as balance training does have neural effects), or because they alter the way
in which an exercise is performed, thereby changing the co-ordination and muscles
involved in the movement.
Let's take a look at both of these possibilities, and see which of them might be
responsible for stability-specific strength gains.
Page 85
Does force production lead to stability-specific strength gains

(part 1)?
When using machines to perform an exercise with the same relative load, the force
involved is usually (but not always) greater than when using free weights to perform a
very similar exercise (Cotterman et al. 2005; Cowley et al. 2007; Lyons et al. 2010).
Similarly, when using unstable surfaces to perform an exercise with the same relative
load, the force involved is usually (but not always) less than when using the same
exercise on a stable surface (Goodman et al. 2008; Behm & Colado, 2012).
The size of the difference caused by stability changes depends on the exercise
(Cotterman et al. 2005), on the muscle group (Lehman et al. 2006), and of course on
how much instability is involved.
Even so, it is largely true that more stability = more force; less stability = less force.

(part 2)?
For the greater externally-applied force during more stable exercises to produce greater
neuromuscular adaptations, it needs to translate to greater internal muscle force.
Muscle activation, as measured by EMG amplitude, is a good proxy for internal muscle
force production, particularly when measurements are taken under non-fatiguing
conditions, and when the muscle action is isometric.
When investigating exercises performed with the same relative load (which means a
lower absolute load in the unstable condition), some researchers have found that EMG
amplitude of the prime movers is similar in exercises performed in unstable and stable
environments. This has been found both during isometric (Anderson & Behm, 2004;
Saeterbakken & Fimland, 2013a) and dynamic (Anderson & Behm, 2004; Welsch et al.
2005; Goodman et al. 2008; Schick et al. 2010; Saeterbakken et al. 2011; Andersen et
al. 2014) muscle actions.
Some have even reported that the EMG amplitude of the prime movers is higher when
using an unstable environment, compared to a stable environment (McCaw & Friday,
1994; Schwanbeck et al. 2009; Saeterbakken & Fimland, 2013b; Fletcher & Bagley,
2014; Campbell et al. 2014).
Page 86
On the other hand, many other researchers have reported that the EMG amplitudes of
the prime movers are lower under unstable conditions than under stable conditions, both
during isometric (McBride et al. 2006; Chulvi-Medrano et al. 2010) and dynamic (Kohler
et al. 2010; Chulvi-Medrano et al. 2010; Saeterbakken & Fimland, 2013c; Andersen et
al. 2014) muscle actions.
Although the findings of these studies are conflicting, it seems fairly clear that the
greater external force in more stable exercises does not always translate to greater
internal muscle forces.
Why might this be?

(part 3)?
When lighter loads are used in unstable environments, internal muscle force production
might be higher than expected because of increased antagonist co-activation, and
synergist activation (Anderson & Behm, 2005; Sparkes & Behm, 2010).
Force produced by the prime mover muscles is greater, because they are working to cocontract with the antagonist and synergist muscles in order to hold the body and/or the
weights in place, as well as move them through space.
Indeed, unstable surfaces do produce greater activation of the synergists and
antagonists. For example, middle (but not anterior) deltoid activation tends to be greater
during free weight bench presses compared to Smith machine bench presses (Schick et
al. 2010). Similarly, latissimus dorsi, posterior deltoid, biceps brachii, upper trapezius,
and lower trapezius EMG amplitudes tend to be greater during a pressing exercise
performed when using a cable machine compared to when using a fixed bar path
machine.
This suggests that the greater externally-applied forces observed when performing an
exercise under stable conditions probably only lead to slightly greater internal muscle
forces compared to training under less stable conditions, because the muscles have to
work harder against the antagonists and stabilizers in less stable environments. This
increases agonist muscle forces, even when external loads are lower.
Page 87
On this basis, we might anticipate training in stable environments to increase strength

by slightly more than training in unstable environments, but the difference may not be
as substantial as we might initially expect.
Additionally, since unstable surface training probably does not lead to greater EMG
amplitudes than stable surface training with the same absolute loads in resistancetrained individuals (Wahl & Behm, 2008; Li et al. 2013), training on unstable surfaces
may not be as effective in trained subjects.
Either way, there is no obvious reason why levels of force production should be a
mechanism by which stability-specific strength gains occur.
Page 88
Does the need to balance cause stability-specific strength gains

(part 1)?
When using machines to perform an exercise, the balance challenge involved is smaller
than when using free weights to perform a very similar exercise. Similarly, when using
unstable surfaces, the balance challenge is greater than when performing the same
exercise on a stable surface.
More stability = less need to balance; less stability = more need to balance.

(part 2)?
Surprisingly, balance training on its own can increase strength.
This could mean that the balance aspect of unstable surface training could lead to
strength gains irrespective of the loading used.
Studies show that balance training even without concomitant strength training leads to
strength gains (Heitkamp et al. 2001; 2002; Bruhn et al. 2006; Myer et al. 2006;
Beurskens et al. 2015; Cug et al. 2016). Such gains seem to be connected with
increases in rate of force development (Gruber & Gollhofer, 2004; Bruhn et al. 2006;
Gruber et al. 2007; Behrens et al. 2015), probably caused by increases in early phase
neural drive, through faster motor unit firing rates (Gruber & Gollhofer, 2004).
What is behind these changes is unclear.
Increases in neural drive after strength training are probably caused by increases in
corticospinal excitability (Beck et al. 2007; Griffin & Cafarelli, 2007; Kidgell et al. 2010),
at least partly because of reductions in corticospinal inhibition (Latella et al. 2012; Weier
et al. 2012; Christie & Kamen, 2014; Rio et al. 2015).
At first glance, it might seem that balance training produces completely different neural
adaptations, as it leads to reductions in corticospinal excitability in balance tests (Taube
et al. 2007; Beck et al. 2007; Schubert et al. 2008). However, these reductions in
corticospinal excitability are very task-specific, just like improvements in balance
(Kmmel et al. 2016). In fact, corticospinal excitability is still elevated after balance
training in tests that have not been practiced, including strength tests.
Page 89
This shared underlying mechanism would explain why additional gains in strength do not
arise either when balance training is preceded by a period of strength training (Bruhn et
al. 2006), nor when a program of balance training is performed together with a program
of strength training (Manolopoulos et al. 2016). It may also help explain how strength
training can improve balance in a range of populations (Heitkamp et al. 2001; Anderson
& Behm, 2005; Orr et al. 2008; Manolopoulos et al. 2016), and also increases coordination (Carroll et al. 2001).
So the improvements in strength after balance training and after strength training occur
through a common mechanism. This may partly account for the surprisingly larger-thanexpected gains in strength after training on unstable surfaces in untrained subjects (but
perhaps not in trained individuals), although it does not explain stability-specific gains in
strength.

(part 3)?
The need to balance seems to affect the co-ordination patterns of muscles during multijoint exercises. This affects the extent to which force can be produced during specific,
dynamic movements.
Performing an exercise in an unstable environment produces greater activation of the
synergist and antagonist muscles compared to the exact same exercise performed under
more stable conditions, even where agonist activation is similar (Cacchio et al. 2008;
Schick et al. 2010).
More importantly, training in the unstable environment reduces the antagonist activation,
and increases the activation of the stabilizers.
These changes lead to a more efficient pattern of muscular contractions in that specific,
dynamic movement under unstable conditions, which improves strength very
substantially, in a stability-specific way.
For example, when comparing training with cable machines and with fixed bar path
machines, Cacchio et al. (2008) found that training with the cable machines led to
increases in the EMG amplitudes of the stabilizers, and reductions in the EMG amplitudes
of the antagonist muscles during a cable machine strength test, while training with the
fixed bar path machines did not.
Page 90
Given that performance in balance tasks is very task-specific (Kmmel et al. 2016), and
also that changes in neural drive after balance training are very task-specific (Beck et al.
2007; Schubert et al. 2008), it therefore seems very likely that such changes in intermuscular co-ordination during specific dynamic movements are the underlying
mechanism that causes stability-specific strength gains.
Since free weight exercises performed on the ground (like barbell squats) are most
similar in terms of stability requirements to athletic ability tests (like vertical jumps), this
also explains why free weights are indeed just right in terms of external load stability,
and therefore transfer most effectively.
Page 91
Conclusions
Training in more stable environments (i.e. machines rather than free weights, or barbells
rather than dumbbells) involves greater externally-applied forces. These greater
externally-applied forces are only partly reflected in greater internal muscle forces (and
possibly even less in trained individuals), because of the greater antagonist and stabilizer
activation in unstable environments.
This suggests that more stability is better for enhancing force production, when stability
is not a factor. Even so, levels of force production are probably not a mechanism by
which stability-specific strength gains occur.
Balance training and strength training produce strength gains at least partly through a
common mechanism. This may account for the some of the larger-than-expected gains
in strength after training on unstable surfaces in untrained individuals, although again it
does not explain stability-specific gains in strength.
The need to balance in an unstable environment affects the co-ordination patterns of
muscles during multi-joint exercises, increasing the activation of the synergist and
antagonists. This affects the extent to which force can be produced. Training in the
unstable environment reduces antagonist, and increases synergist activation. This leads
to a more efficient pattern of muscular contractions, which improves strength in a
stability-specific way, and transfers best to athletic ability.
Page 92
References
18. Christie, A., & Kamen, G. (2014). Cortical inhibition is reduced

following short-term training in young and older adults. Age,
36(2), 749-758.
1.
Andersen, V., Fimland, M. S., Brennset, ., Haslestad, L. R.,

Lundteigen, M. S., Skalleberg, K., & Saeterbakken, A. H.
(2014). Muscle activation and strength in squat and Bulgarian
squat on stable and unstable surface. International Journal of
Sports Medicine, 35(14), 1196-1202.
19. Chulvi-Medrano, I., Garca-Mass, X., Colado, J. C., Pablos, C.,

de Moraes, J. A., & Fuster, M. A. (2010). Deadlift muscle force
and activation under stable and unstable conditions. The
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24(10), 27232730.
2.
Anderson, K. G., & Behm, D. G. (2004). Maintenance of EMG

activity and loss of force output with instability. The Journal of
3.
Anderson, K., & Behm, D. G. (2005). The impact of instability

resistance training on balance and stability. Sports Medicine,
35(1), 43-53.
20. Cotterman, M. L., Darby, L. A., & Skelly, W. A. (2005).

Comparison of muscle force production using the Smith
machine and free weights for bench press and squat exercises.
4.
5.
6.
Askling, C., Karlsson, J., & Thorstensson, A. (2003). Hamstring

injury occurrence in elite soccer players after preseason
strength training with eccentric overload. Scandinavian Journal
of Medicine & Science in Sports, 13(4), 244-250.
Augustsson, J., Esko, A., Thome, R., & Svantesson, U. (1998).
Weight training of the thigh muscles using closed versus open
kinetic chain exercises: a comparison of performance
enhancement. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical
Therapy, 27(1), 3-8.
Beck, S., Taube, W., Gruber, M., Amtage, F., Gollhofer, A., &
Schubert, M. (2007). Task-specific changes in motor evoked
potentials of lower limb muscles after different training
interventions. Brain Research, 1179, 51-60.
7.
Behm, D. G., & Anderson, K. G. (2006). The role of instability

with resistance training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 20(3), 716-722.
8.
Behm, D., & Colado, J. C. (2012). The effectiveness of

resistance training using unstable surfaces and devices for
rehabilitation. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy,
7(2), 226.
9.
Behm, D. G., Muehlbauer, T., Kibele, A., & Granacher, U. (2015).

Effects of strength training using unstable surfaces on strength,
power and balance performance across the lifespan: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 45(12),
1645-1669.
10. Behm, D. G., & Sanchez, J. C. C. (2013). Instability resistance

training across the exercise continuum. Sports Health: A
Multidisciplinary Approach, 1941738113477815.
11. Behrens, M., Mau-Moeller, A., Wassermann, F., Bader, R., &
Bruhn, S. (2015). Effect of balance training on neuromuscular
function at rest and during isometric maximum voluntary
contraction. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 115(5),
1075-1085.
12. Beurskens, R., Gollhofer, A., Muehlbauer, T., Cardinale, M., &
Granacher, U. (2015). Effects of heavy-resistance strength and
balance training on unilateral and bilateral leg strength
performance in old adults. PloS One, 10(2), e0118535.
13. Boyer, B. T. (1990). A comparison of the effects of three
strength training programs on women. The Journal of Strength
& Conditioning Research, 4(3), 88-94.
14. Bruhn, S., Kullmann, N., & Gollhofer, A. (2006). Combinatory
effects of high-intensity-strength training and sensorimotor
training on muscle strength. International Journal of Sports
Medicine, 27(5), 401.
15. Cacchio, A., Don, R., Ranavolo, A., Guerra, E., McCaw, S. T.,
Procaccianti, R., & Santilli, V. (2008). Effects of 8-week strength
training with two models of chest press machines on muscular
activity pattern and strength. Journal of Electromyography and
Kinesiology, 18(4), 618.
16. Campbell, B. M., Kutz, M. R., Morgan, A. L., Fullenkamp, A. M.,
& Ballenger, R. (2014). An evaluation of upper-body muscle
activation during coupled and uncoupled instability resistance
training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research,
28(7), 1833-1838.
17. Carroll, T. J., Barry, B., Riek, S., & Carson, R. G. (2001).
Resistance training enhances the stability of sensorimotor
coordination. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences, 268(1464), 221.
21. Cowley, P. M., Swensen, T., & Sforzo, G. A. (2007). Efficacy of

instability resistance training. International Journal of Sports
Medicine, 28(10), 829-835.
22. Cressey, E. M., West, C. A., Tiberio, D. P., Kraemer, W. J., &
Maresh, C. M. (2007). The effects of ten weeks of lower-body
unstable surface training on markers of athletic performance.
23. Cug, M., Duncan, A., & Wikstrom, E. (2016). Comparative
effects of different balance-training-progression styles on
postural control and ankle force production: A randomized
controlled trial. Journal of Athletic Training, 51(2), 101-110.
24. De Hoyo, M., Pozzo, M., Saudo, B., Carrasco, L., Gonzalo-Skok,
O., Domnguez-Cobo, S., & Morn-Camacho, E. (2014). Effects
of a 10-week in-season eccentric overload training program on
muscle injury prevention and performance in junior elite soccer
players. International Journal of Sports Physiology &
Performance.
25. De Hoyo, M., Saudo, B., Carrasco, L., Domnguez-Cobo, S.,
Mateo-Cortes, J., Cadenas-Snchez, M. M., & Nimphius, S.
(2015b). Effects of traditional versus horizontal inertial flywheel
power training on common sport-related tasks. Journal of
Human Kinetics, 47(1), 155-167.
26. Ferraresi, C., Baldissera, V., Perez, S. E., Junior, E. M., Bagnato,
V. S., & Parizotto, N. A. (2013). One-repetition maximum test
and isokinetic leg extension and flexion: Correlations and
predicted values. Isokinetics and Exercise Science, 21(1), 6976.
27. Fletcher, I. M., & Bagley, A. (2014). Changing the stability
conditions in a back squat: the effect on maximum load lifted
and erector spinae muscle activity. Sports Biomechanics, 13(4),
380-390.
28. Friedmann-Bette, B., Bauer, T., Kinscherf, R., Vorwald, S., Klute,
K., Bischoff, D., & Brtsch, P. (2010). Effects of strength
training with eccentric overload on muscle adaptation in male
athletes. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 108(4), 821836.
29. Goodman, C. A., Pearce, A. J., Nicholes, C. J., Gatt, B. M., &
Fairweather, I. H. (2008). No difference in 1RM strength and
muscle activation during the barbell chest press on a stable and
unstable surface. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 22(1), 88-94.
30. Griffin, L., & Cafarelli, E. (2007). Transcranial magnetic
stimulation during resistance training of the tibialis anterior
muscle. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 17(4),
446-452.
31. Gruber, M., & Gollhofer, A. (2004). Impact of sensorimotor
training on the rate of force development and neural activation.
European Journal of Applied Physiology, 92(1-2), 98-105.
32. Gruber, M., Gruber, S. B., Taube, W., Schubert, M., Beck, S. C.,
& Gollhofer, A. (2007). Differential effects of ballistic versus
sensorimotor training on rate of force development and neural
activation in humans. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 21(1), 274-282.
33. Gual, G., Fort-Vanmeerhaeghe, A., Romero-Rodrguez, D., &
Tesch, P. A. (2015). Effects of in-season inertial resistance
training with eccentric overload in a sports population at risk for
patellar tendinopathy. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research.
34. Haff, G. G. (2000). Roundtable discussion: Machines versus free
weights. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 22(6), 18.
Page 93
35. Heitkamp, H. C., Horstmann, T., Mayer, F., Weller, J., &
Dickhuth, H. H. (2001). Gain in strength and muscular balance
after balance training. International Journal of Sports Medicine,
22(4), 285-290.
36. Heitkamp, H. C., Mayer, F., Fleck, M., & Horstmann, T. (2002).
Gain in thigh muscle strength after balance training in male and
female judokas. Isokinetics and Exercise Science, 10(4), 199202.
37. Hubbard, D. (2010). Is unstable surface training advisable for
healthy adults?. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 32(3), 64-66.
38. Kibele, A., & Behm, D. G. (2009). Seven weeks of instability
and traditional resistance training effects on strength, balance
and functional performance. The Journal of Strength &
39. Kidgell, D. J., Stokes, M. A., Castricum, T. J., & Pearce, A. J.
(2010). Neurophysiological responses after short-term strength
training of the biceps brachii muscle. The Journal of Strength &
40. Kohler, J. M., Flanagan, S. P., & Whiting, W. C. (2010). Muscle
activation patterns while lifting stable and unstable loads on
stable and unstable surfaces. The Journal of Strength &
41. Kmmel, J., Kramer, A., Giboin, L. S., & Gruber, M. (2016).
Specificity of balance training in healthy individuals: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 1-11.
training on power, balance, and landing force in female

athletes. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research,
20(2), 345.
54. Oberacker, L. M., Davis, S. E., Haff, G. G., Witmer, C. A., & Moir,
G. L. (2012). The Yo-Yo IR2 test: physiological response,
reliability, and application to elite soccer. The Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research, 26(10), 2734.
55. Orr, R., Raymond, J., & Singh, M. F. (2008). Efficacy of
progressive resistance training on balance performance in older
adults. Sports Medicine, 38(4), 317-343.
56. Papadopoulos, C., Theodosiou, K., Bogdanis, G. C., Gkantiraga,
E., Gissis, I., Sambanis, M. & Sotiropoulos, A. (2014).
Multiarticular isokinetic high-load eccentric training induces
large increases in eccentric and concentric strength and
jumping performance. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 28(9), 2680-2688.
57. Premkumar, M., Alagesan, J., & Vaidya, N. (2012). Effect of
instability resistance training of abdominal muscles in healthy
young femalesan experimental study. International Journal of
Pharmaceutical Science and Health Care , 2(3), 91-7.
58. Prieske, O., Muehlbauer, T., Borde, R., Gube, M., Bruhn, S.,
Behm, D. G., & Granacher, U. (2016). Neuromuscular and
athletic performance following core strength training in elite
youth soccer: Role of instability. Scandinavian Journal of
Medicine & Science in Sports, 26(1), 48-56.
42. Langford, G. A., McCurdy, K. W., Ernest, J. M., Doscher, M. W., &
Walters, S. D. (2007). Specificity of machine, barbell, and
water-filled log bench press resistance training on measures of
strength. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research,
21(4), 1061.
59. Ratamess, N. A., Beller, N. A., Gonzalez, A. M., Spatz, G. E.,

Hoffman, J. R., Ross, R. E., Faigenbaum, A. D., & Kang, J.
(2016). The effects of multiple-joint isokinetic resistance
training on maximal isokinetic and dynamic muscle strength
and local muscular endurance. Journal of Sports Science and
Medicine, 15, 34-40.
43. Latella, C., Kidgell, D. J., & Pearce, A. J. (2012). Reduction in

corticospinal inhibition in the trained and untrained limb
following unilateral leg strength training. European Journal of
Applied Physiology, 112(8), 3097.
60. Rio, E., Kidgell, D., Purdam, C., Gaida, J., Moseley, G. L.,
Pearce, A. J., & Cook, J. (2015). Isometric exercise induces
analgesia and reduces inhibition in patellar tendinopathy. British
Journal of Sports Medicine, 49(19), 1277-1283.
44. Lehman, G. J., MacMillan, B., MacIntyre, I., Chivers, M., &
Fluter, M. (2006). Shoulder muscle EMG activity during push up
variations on and off a Swiss ball. Dynamic Medicine, 5, 7.
61. Saeterbakken, A. H., van den Tillaar, R., & Fimland, M. S.

(2011). A comparison of muscle activity and 1-RM strength of
t h r e e c h e s t- p r e s s e xe r c i s e s w i t h d i f f e r e n t s t a b i l i t y
requirements. Journal of Sports Sciences, 29(5), 533-538.
45. Lennon, E., Mathis, E., & Ratermann, A. (2010). Comparison of

strength changes following resistance training using free
weights and machine weights. Missouri Journal of Health,
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 9.
46. Li, Y., Cao, C., & Chen, X. (2013). Similar electromyographic
activities of lower limbs between squatting on a reebok core
board and ground. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 27(5), 1349-1353.
47. Lyons, T. S., McLester, J. R., Arnett, S. W., & Thoma, M. J.
(2010). Specificity of training modalities on upper-body one
repetition maximum performance: free weights vs. hammer
strength equipment. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 24(11), 2984-2988.
62. Saeterbakken, A. H., & Fimland, M. S. (2013a). Muscle force

output and electromyographic activity in squats with various
unstable surfaces. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 27(1), 130-136.
63. Saeterbakken, A. H., & Fimland, M. S. (2013b). Effects of body
position and loading modality on muscle activity and strength in
shoulder presses. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 27(7), 1824-1831.
64. S a e t e r b a k k e n , A . H ., & F i m l a n d , M . S . ( 2 0 1 3 c ) .
Electromyographic activity and 6RM strength in bench press on
stable and unstable surfaces. The Journal of Strength &
48. Manolopoulos, K., Gissis, I., Galazoulas, C., Manolopoulos, E.,

Patikas, D., Gollhofer, A., & Kotzamanidis, C. (2016). Effect of
combined sensorimotor-resistance training on strength,
balance, and jumping performance of soccer players. The
65. Schick, E. E., Coburn, J. W., Brown, L. E., Judelson, D. A.,

Khamoui, A. V., Tran, T. T., & Uribe, B. P. (2010). A comparison
of muscle activation between a Smith machine and free weight
bench press. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research,
24(3), 779-784.
49. Marinkovi, M., Brati, M., Ignjatovi, A., & Radovanovi, D.

(2012). Effects of 8-week instability resistance training on
maximal strength in inexperienced young individuals. Serbian
Journal of Sports Sciences, (1).
66. Schubert, M., Beck, S., Taube, W., Amtage, F., Faist, M., &
Gruber, M. (2008). Balance training and ballistic strength
training are associated with task-specific corticospinal
adaptations. The European Journal of Neuroscience, 27(8),
2007.
50. Mat-Muoz, J. L., Antn, A. J. M., Jimnez, P. J. & GarnachoCastao, M. V. (2014). Effects of instability versus traditional
resistance training on strength, power and velocity in untrained
men. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 13, 460-468.
51. Mayhew, J. L., Smith, A. E., Arabas, J. L., & Roberts, B. S.
(2010). Upper-body strength gains from different modes of
resistance training in women who are underweight and women
who are obese. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 24(10), 2779-2784.
52. McCaw, S. T., & Friday, J. J. (1994). A comparison of muscle
activity between a free weight and machine bench press. The
53. Myer, G. D., Ford, K. R., Brent, J. L., & Hewett, T. E. (2006). The
effects of plyometric vs. dynamic stabilization and balance
67. Schwanbeck, S., Chilibeck, P. D., & Binsted, G. (2009). A

comparison of free weight squat to Smith machine squat using
electromyography. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 23(9), 2588-2591.
68. Sheppard, J., Hobson, S., Barker, M., Taylor, K., Chapman, D.,
McGuigan, M., & Newton, R. (2008). The effect of training with
accentuated eccentric load counter-movement jumps on
strength and power characteristics of high-performance
volleyball players. International Journal of Sports Science and
Coaching, 3(3), 355-363.
69. Silvester, L. J., & Bryce, G. R. (1981). The effect of variable
resistance and free-weight training programs on strength and
vertical jump. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 3(6), 30-33.
Page 94
70. Sparkes, R., & Behm, D. G. (2010). Training adaptations

associated with an 8-week instability resistance training
program with recreationally active individuals. The Journal of
71. Spennewyn, K. C. (2008). Strength outcomes in fixed versus
free-form resistance equipment. The Journal of Strength &
72. Stone, M. H., Collins, D., Plisk, S., Haff, G., & Stone, M. E.
(2000). Training principles: Evaluation of modes and methods
of resistance training. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 22(3),
65.
73. Taube, W., Gruber, M., Beck, S., Faist, M., Gollhofer, A., &
Schubert, M. (2007). Cortical and spinal adaptations induced by
balance training: correlation between stance stability and
corticospinal activation. Acta Physiologica, 189(4), 347-358.
74. Taube, W., Gruber, M., & Gollhofer, A. (2008). Spinal and
supraspinal adaptations associated with balance training and
their functional relevance. Acta Physiologica, 193(2), 101-116.
75. Wahl, M. J., & Behm, D. G. (2008). Not all instability training
devices enhance muscle activation in highly resistance-trained
individuals. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research,
22(4), 1360-1370.
76. Wawrzyniak, J. R., Tracy, J. E., Catizone, P. V., & Storrow, R. R.
(1996). Effect of closed chain exercise on quadriceps femoris
peak torque and functional performance. Journal of Athletic
Training, 31(4), 335.
77. Weier, A. T., Pearce, A. J., & Kidgell, D. J. (2012). Strength
training reduces intracortical inhibition. Acta Physiologica,
206(2), 109-119.
78. We l s c h , E . A ., B i r d , M ., & M a y h e w, J . L . ( 2 0 0 5 ) .
Electromyographic activity of the pectoralis major and anterior
deltoid muscles during three upper-body lifts. The Journal of
79. Willardson, J. M., & Bressel, E. (2004). Predicting a 10
repetition maximum for the free weight parallel squat using the
45 degrees angled leg press. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research, 18(3), 567.
80. Willardson, J. M. (2004). The effectiveness of resistance
exercises performed on unstable equipment. Strength &
Conditioning Journal, 26(5), 70-74.
81. Wirth, K., Hartmann, H., Sander, A., Mickel, C., Szilvas, E., &
Keiner, M. (2015). The impact of back squat and leg-press
exercises on maximal strength and speed-strength parameters.
The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.
82. Zech, A., Hbscher, M., Vogt, L., Banzer, W., Hnsel, F., &
Pfeifer, K. (2010). Balance training for neuromuscular control
and performance enhancement: a systematic review. Journal of
Athletic Training, 45(4), 392-403.
Page 95
7. IMPLICATIONS FOR SPORT
Page 96
So why does the idea that strength is specific actually matter?

It matters because it shows us that the best way to improve strength for a sport is to
analyze the requirements of that sport in terms of muscle action, speed, range of
motion, external load type, and stability.
Matching these features in your strength training program with those that are important
in your sport will give you better sport-specific strength gains than doing a one-sizefits-all training program.
Take a quick glance at these principles and you can see that this is already where the
cutting edge of sports performance lies today.
Everywhere you look, there is a big focus on eccentric contractions, which are essential
when athletes find themselves needing to stop suddenly after winding up a big sprint.
And there is also a big focus on higher velocity training, as coaches move towards
training faster, with lighter loads. Both of these trends are easily predictable based on
the concept of strength specificity.
On the other hand, bands and chains dont get a lot of mileage these days, because they
do not reflect the same strength curves that athletes face on the field, especially when
muscles are contracting at higher speeds.
Similarly, while free weights are making a comeback, it is rare to see stability balls
anywhere except in rehabilitation. Athletes simply do not require strength under
additional levels of instability beyond what they get from using free weights. Again,
these trends are easily predictable based on the idea of strength specificity.
Strength is specific.
Page 97

Strength Is Specific

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Strength Is Specific

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Strength is Specific

Strength and Conditioning Research

Strength and Conditioning Research

1. WHY JUST GET STRONG IS WRONG!

Why just get strong is wrong!

How is strength specific?

How much difference does specificity make?

Why are strength gains specific?

Muscle fascicle length

Muscle pennation angle

Moment arm length

Single fiber characteristics

Extracellular matrix features

Neural drive to the agonists

Why am I talking about this?

Bloomquist, K., Langberg, H., Karlsen, S., Madsgaard, S.,

Hartmann, H., Wirth, K., Klusemann, M., Dalic, J., Matuschek,

Vikne, H., Refsnes, P. E., Ekmark, M., Medb, J. I., Gundersen,

What do "eccentric" and "concentric" training mean?

How do shortening and lengthening contractions differ?

What are the important implications?

Does eccentric training display specific strength gains?

Here is an example, taken from Nickols-Richardson et al. (2007):

Why are strength gains after eccentric training specific?

Muscle fiber type

Extracellular matrix and cytoskeleton

Let's take a look at each of these in turn.

#1. Muscle architecture

#2. Muscle fiber type

#3. Regional hypertrophy

#4. Extracellular matrix and cytoskeletal adaptations

#5. Tendon stiffness, and muscle stiffness

#6. Neural adaptations

Hedayatpour, N., & Falla, D. (2012). Non-uniform muscle

Hidalgo, C., Saripalli, C., & Granzier, H. L. (2014). Effect of

Bigland-Ritchie, B., & Woods, J. J. (1976). Integrated

Blazevich, A. J., Cannavan, D., Coleman, D. R., & Horne, S.

Blazevich, A. J., Cannavan, D., Horne, S., Coleman, D. R., &

Higbie, E. J., Cureton, K. J., Warren, G. L., & Prior, B. M.

Bohm, S., Mersmann, F., & Arampatzis, A. (2015). Human

Hortobgyi, T., Hill, J. P., Houmard, J. A., Fraser, D. D.,

Hortobgyi, T., Lambert, N. J., & Hill, J. P. (1997). Greater

Hortobgyi, T., Dempsey, L., Fraser, D., Zheng, D., Hamilton,

Ishi, L., Srensen, C. N., Kaae, N. M., Jrgensen, L. B.,

Brughelli, M., & Cronin, J. (2007). Altering the length-tension

Brughelli, M., & Cronin, J. (2008). Influence of running

Chalmers, G. R. (2008). Can fast-twitch muscle fibres be

Isner-Horobeti, M. E., Dufour, S. P., Vautravers, P., Geny, B.,

Kidgell, D. J., Frazer, A. K., Rantalainen, T., Ruotsalainen, I.,

Duchateau, J., & Enoka, R. M. (2016). Neural control of

Ema, R., Akagi, R., Wakahara, T., & Kawakami, Y. (2016).

Enoka, R. M. (1996). Eccentric contractions require unique

Kjaer, M. (2004). Role of extracellular matrix in adaptation of

Enoka, R. M., & Duchateau, J. (2015). Inappropriate

Kjaer, M., & Heinemeier, K. M. (2014). Eccentric exercise:

Krger, M., & Ktter, S. (2016). Titin, a central mediator for

Lindstedt, S. L., LaStayo, P. C., & Reich, T. E. (2001). When

Friedmann-Bette, B., Bauer, T., Kinscherf, R., Vorwald, S.,

Mnsson, A., Rassier, D., & Tsiavaliaris, G. (2015). Poorly

Friden, J., & Lieber, R. L. (2001). Eccentric exerciseinduced

Mayhew, T. P., Rothstein, J. M., Finucane, S. D., & Lamb, R. L.

Gillies, A. R., & Lieber, R. L. (2011). Structure and function of

McHugh, M. P., Tyler, T. F., Greenberg, S. C., & Gleim, G. W.