Cited by 44Sports Performance and TrainingMuscle Physiology and DisordersCardiovascular and exercise physiology

Comparison of the muscle fascicle length between resistance-trained and untrained individuals: cross-sectional observation

Open access
Fukutani, Atsuki, Kurihara, Toshiyuki·2015·SpringerPlus

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Muscle plasticity is an important topic in the fields of sport science and physical therapy. The purpose of this study was to examine whether muscle fascicle length increases with resistance training through a comparison between resistance-trained and untrained individuals. If a hypothesis that fascicle length increases by resistance training is true, fascicle length should be longer in the resistance-trained individuals than in the untrained individuals. FINDINGS: Sixteen individuals (age, 21.3 ± 3.3 years; height, 1.74 ± 0.05 m; body mass, 83.6 ± 9.0 kg), who were either body builders or rugby players, were recruited as the training group, and 11 individuals (age, 20.3 ± 2.1 years; height, 1.70 ± 0.06 m; body mass, 54.0 ± 4.7 kg), who did not have regular resistance training experiences, were recruited as the control group. Fascicle length, pennation angle, and muscle thickness of the vastus lateralis and medial gastrocnemius were measured from ultrasonographic images. We found that the muscle thickness and pennation angles in the training group were significantly larger than those in the control group (p < 0.05). However, fascicle length did not significantly differ between the two groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that fascicle length is not associated with muscle size, suggesting that fascicle length would not increase with resistance training.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s40064-015-1133-1

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 27 · Cited by 44

Authors
Fukutani, A., & Kurihara, T.
Affiliations
Ritsumeikan University (JP)
Corresponding author
Fukutani, Atsuki
Venue
SpringerPlus
Published
2015-07-11
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
341-341
ISSN
2193-1801 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1759332326
Cited by
44
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1
FWCI
5.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • SpringerPlus (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (26350825, 13J03159)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Muscle Physiology and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
Keywords
fascicle length, resistance training, muscle plasticity, pennation angle, muscle thickness, vastus lateralis, medial gastrocnemius, bodybuilders, rugby players

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review