A 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 resistance-training studies found greater strength gains and lower-limb hypertrophy with full range of motion than with partial range. That result is useful, but it pooled different exercises, populations and kinds of partial repetitions.
A 2025 preregistered cluster-randomized trial across 15 sites compared 12 weeks of full-range training with partial repetitions performed in the lengthened muscle position. Across 297 participants, the average limb-muscle growth was very similar between approaches.
Why “partial” is too vague
A short repetition near the easiest, shortened position is not the same intervention as training the portion where the target muscle is long. The older literature often grouped partial ranges together. Newer trials make that distinction more explicit, which is one reason the simple “full always wins” claim has weakened.
What remains solid
The 2026 ACSM position stand supports full range of motion for maximizing strength, while judging the hypertrophy evidence on range of motion insufficient for a firm prescription. That is a narrower conclusion than gym social media usually offers.
Practical implication
Use a controlled, comfortable full range as the default when the exercise and joints permit it. Lengthened partials can extend a set or provide variety, but they are not mandatory and should not be forced through pain or a range the lifter cannot control. This evidence concerns training adaptations in generally healthy resistance-training participants; it does not diagnose mobility limits or rehabilitate injury.
References
- Pallarés JG et al. Effects of range of motion on resistance training adaptations: systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed 34170576; DOI.
- Gschneidner D et al. Lengthened-partial versus full range training: 15-site randomized cluster trial. PubMed 41055237; DOI.
- American College of Sports Medicine. 2026 resistance-training position stand, overview of 137 systematic reviews. Full text.