Comparing the Effects of Push and Hold Isometric Training on Strength and Musculotendinous Adaptations: A Within-Subject Randomized Controlled Trial.

Abstract

Lum, D, Oranchuk, DJ, Chen, SE, and Kong, PW. Comparing the effects of push and hold isometric training on strength and musculotendinous adaptations: A within-subject randomized controlled trial. J Strength Cond Res 40(9): 1050-1058, 2026-Despite recent interest in delineating pushing (PIMA) and holding (HIMA) isometric muscle actions, training-induced adaptations have not been examined. As such, we compared the strength and morphological adaptations between PIMA and HIMA training. Twenty limbs across 10 adults (5 men, 5 women, age: 31.4 &#xb1; 6.5 years) were randomly assigned to PIMA or HIMA conditions and underwent 12 training sessions over 6 weeks. PIMA required subjects to exert force against a fixed lever while the HIMA limb maintained a set joint angle while resisting an isotonic lever. During each contraction, subjects had to exert force at 70% of maximal voluntary contraction for 20 seconds at an 80&#xb0; knee angle, for 4-6 repetitions. Subjects completed isometric, concentric, and eccentric knee extension assessments for both limbs before and after the intervention. Pre- and postintervention ultrasound scans were performed to determine quadriceps muscle architecture and patellar tendon thickness. Increased isometric torque was found following both conditions (p < 0.05, g = 0.30-0.36), while concentric (p < 0.05, g = 0.31) and eccentric (p < 0.01, g = 0.50) torque only increased following PIMA. Both conditions increased muscle thickness (p < 0.05, g = 0.27-0.88) and vastus lateralis fascicle length (p < 0.05, g = 0.20-0.31). Only HIMA increased patellar tendon thickness (p < 0.05, g = 0.12). The increase in total quadriceps (p < 0.05, g = 0.46) and especially rectus femoris (p < 0.05, g = 1.44) thickness was greater in HIMA. The results suggest that PIMA may be more effective at improving strength, while HIMA may be superior for inducing morphological adaptations. Larger sample sizes and more ecologically valid training programs are warranted to further elucidate potential differences between different isometric types.