The effect of eccentric phase duration on maximal strength, muscle hypertrophy and countermovement jump height: A systematic review and meta-analysis

★

☆

SHARE

Overview

Paper Summary

Conflicts of Interest

Identified Weaknesses

Rating Explanation

Good to know

Topic Hierarchy

File Information

Paper Summary

Paperzilla title

Short Eccentric Phases = Big Jumps: A Meta-Analysis (But More Research Needed!)

This meta-analysis investigated the effects of eccentric phase duration on strength, muscle growth, and jump height. Shorter eccentric phases led to greater improvements in jump height, while longer phases may be better for strength gains in trained individuals or when volume-load is matched. Results for muscle growth were inconclusive, highlighting the need for further research.

Possible Conflicts of Interest

None identified

Identified Weaknesses

Small sample sizes

The limited number of studies and participants per study reduces the certainty of the findings and limits the generalizability of the results.

Exploratory subgroup analyses

Subgroup analyses were not all pre-planned and should be considered exploratory, potentially reducing the reliability of the findings.

Limited range of eccentric durations

The shortest eccentric phase duration analyzed was 1 second, which may not be generalizable to ballistic training with even shorter durations.

Inconsistency in concentric tempos

Only one study allowed maximal intent concentric contractions, making it difficult to generalize findings about CMJ to studies with set concentric tempos.

Limited reported outcomes

The study did not report changes in body mass, relative strength, or specific jump characteristics, which limit practical applications for practitioners.

Rating Explanation

This meta-analysis provides valuable insights into the effects of eccentric phase duration on various training outcomes. It uses a robust methodology with appropriate statistical analyses. However, the small sample sizes and some limitations in the included studies warrant a rating of 4, rather than 5.

Good to know

This is our free standard analysis. Paperzilla Pro fact-checks every citation, researches author backgrounds and funding sources, and uses advanced AI reasoning for more thorough insights.

Explore Pro →