ARTICLE IN PRESS

Manual Therapy 13 (2008) 411–418

www.elsevier.com/math

Original Article

Alterations of stiffness and resting position of the elbow joint

following flexors resistance training
Juliana M. Ocarinoa,, Sérgio T. Fonsecab, Paula L.P. Silvac, Marisa C. Mancinib,
Gabriela G.P. Gonc- alvesd
a
Centro Universitário de Belo Horizonte UNIBH, Doctor Student Rehabilitation Science Program, Federal University of Minas Gerais – UFMG, Brazil
b
School of Physical Education, Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy – UFMG, Brazil
c
Doctor Student Center for the Ecological Studies of Perception and Action, University of Connecticut, USA
d
Master Student Rehabilitation Science Program – UFMG, Brazil
Received 6 November 2006; received in revised form 2 March 2007; accepted 14 March 2007

Abstract

Skeletal muscles adapt their length and stiffness according to the functional demands to which they are regularly submitted. The
modification of muscle stiffness and length induced by resistance training can alter joint stiffness and, theoretically, change joint
resting position.
Thirty subjects, randomly assigned to two groups, were submitted to a resistance training of the elbow flexor muscles of the non-
dominant arm. This training was performed in the inner range in group 1 and throughout the complete range of motion in group 2.
The dominant arm of each subject was considered the control. A biomechanical model of a hybrid mass–spring pendulum was used
to estimate the elbow joint stiffness and the elbow resting position was assessed using a standard goniometer.
There was a significant increase in joint stiffness of the experimental arm after complete range of motion training, which was not
observed after the training performed in inner range. The resting position of the experimental arm was modified to a significantly
greater flexion angle in both groups. No change was observed after resistance training in the control arm.
The results showed that modifications in joint stiffness seem to depend on the volume of work imposed to skeletal muscles.
In addition, both models of resistance training changed, through different mechanisms, the elbow joint resting position. These
findings suggest that posture and joint stability may be modified by specific strengthening protocols.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Stiffness; Muscular hypertrophy; Resting position; Equilibrium Point Hypothesis

1. Introduction dysfunctions (Gossman et al, 1982; Sahrmann, 2002).

Modifications in the structure and properties of the
skeletal muscles are proposed to result from adaptation
to particular demands imposed to them (Herbert, 1988).
There is evidence that modifications in muscle length
and stiffness may be associated with joint instability and
postural deviations commonly observed in movement
Corresponding author. Rua Progresso 234/501. Padre Eustaquio,
Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais 30720320, Brazil.
Tel.: +55 31 34138816.
E-mail address: julianaocarino@terra.com.br (J.M. Ocarino).
However, it is still not clear how joint stiffness can be
modified, and the influence of this modification in
postural alignment.
Muscle or joint stiffness represent the resistance
offered by these structures to their displacement or
deformation (Latash and Zatsiorsky, 1993). Joint
stiffness is given by the stiffness of the muscles and
passive tissues (capsule, ligaments) that cross the joint
(Obusek et al, 1995). The relation between joint or
muscle stiffness and joint position can be modeled
through the Equilibrium Point Hypotheses of movement
control (Feldman, 1986; Bizzi et al., 1992). These models

1356-689X/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.math.2007.03.009
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
412 J.M. Ocarino et al. / Manual Therapy 13 (2008) 411–418
propose that the angle of a joint depends on the resting
length and stiffness of the muscles around the joint. As
the stiffness of the muscles can influence the joint’s
position, the Equilibrium Point Hypothesis could also
be applied as a model to understand modifications in
postural alignment. However, changes in postural
alignment through changes in muscle stiffness and
length still remain highly speculative, as it is not well
known the type of clinical intervention needed to effect
such changes.
Modifications in muscle length and stiffness have
been experimentally induced through immobiliza-
tion, electrostimulation and voluntary contraction
imposed to different muscle lengths (Williams and
Goldspink, 1978; Lynn et al., 1998). Increases in muscle
stiffness can be obtained through increases in activat-
ion level (Feldman, 1986; Obusek et al., 1995) and
or through tissue modifications (Kovanen et al, 1984).
There is evidence that resistance training increases
the stiffness of the joint, muscles and tendons due
to a production of contractile and non-contractile
proteins in the muscle (Chleboun et al., 1997; Reeves
et al., 2003). Hence, resistance training not only
increases the tension-generating capacity of the muscle,
but it seems to increase the stiffness of muscles and
joints.
Reduction in fiber length occurs not only when a
muscle is immobilized in a shortened position but also
when it is forced to work within a reduced range of
motion (Williams et al., 1988). For example, Williams
et al. (1988) observed a significant reduction in serial
sarcomere number and an increase in muscle stiffness in
the diaphragm muscle of hamsters that were forced to
work in a reduced range. In addition, several studies
that investigated adaptations of stiffness and length of
skeletal muscles after immobilization or muscle activa-
tion in shortened position verified a displacement of the
peak of the length-tension curve to the left, indicating a
reduction in muscle fiber length (Witzmann et al., 1982;
Williams et al., 1988). These modifications in length and
stiffness were more evident when the position in which
the muscle was held was associated with muscular
contraction.
Adaptive modifications in muscle stiffness and length
seem to happen as a consequence of the functional
demands to which the muscles are submitted (Herbert,
1988; Savelberg and Meijer, 2003). According to Goss-
man et al. (1982), the greater reduction in serial
sarcomere number with increase in muscle stiffness
occurs when muscles contract while in shortened
position (inner range). Hence, a resistance training
performed in inner range would have a greater potential
to induce adaptive changes in stiffness, muscle length,
and theoretically, in resting position of a joint when
compared to training performed in the complete range
of motion.
The objective of this study was to investigate
modifications in joint stiffness and resting position of
the elbow joint after progressive resistance training of
the elbow flexor muscles performed in the inner range
and throughout the complete range of elbow flexion.
In addition, this study investigated if there was any
difference between these two models of progressive
resistance training in relation to the gains obtained in
stiffness and resting position of the elbow joint after the
training period.
2. Methods
2.1. Subjects
Thirty subjects were randomly assigned to two
groups. The group 1 (13 women and 2 men; mean age
22.173 years; and mean body weight, 59.9710.3 kg)
undertook progressive resistance training of the elbow
flexor muscles in the inner range. The subjects in group 2
(12 women and 3 men; mean age, 21.0671.4 years; and
mean body weight, 58.68711.2 kg) undertook progres-
sive resistance training performed throughout the
complete range of motion. In both groups, the non-
dominant arm of each subject was used in training
(experimental arm). The dominant arm of each subject
was not trained and was used as a control to verify the
stability of the outcome measures. All subjects should
not have been involved in any type of strengthening
program within the last 12 months and they should not
have upper extremities pain or history of injury. The
procedures of the study were explained to the subjects
and informed consent was obtained. The University’s
Institutional Ethics Review Committee approved
this study.
2.2. Procedure
Initially, the subjects were weighted using a balance
scale and the length of the forearm (elbow axis to ulnar
styloid) and hand (wrist axis to knuckle II middle finger)
were measured with a measuring tape. During elbow
stiffness evaluation, the electromyographic (EMG)
activity of the biceps and triceps brachium muscles were
recorded to guarantee that any modification in elbow
stiffness was not due to increases in muscular activation
level, but a result of training. Active surface electrodes
were placed over these muscles after skin preparation
(Cram and Kasman, 1998). Data were collected
at a frequency of 1000 Hz by an electromyographer
MP100WSW (Biopac System).
2.2.1. Evaluation of joint stiffness
Elbow joint stiffness was evaluated through rhythmic
oscillations of the forearm and hand segments about the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.M. Ocarino et al. / Manual Therapy 13 (2008) 411–418
elbow joint, assuming a behavior consistent with an
escapement driven hybrid mass–spring pendulum model
(Kugler and Turvey, 1987). In order to perform the
oscillations in the frontal plane, the subjects were seated
in the chair of an isokinetic dynamometer (Biodex
System 3 Pros). The arm of each subject was positioned
in an armrest placed proximal to the elbow joint (Fig. 1).
An electrogoniometer (TSD 130s Biopac System) was
placed with adhesive tape on the upper limb of the
subjects, crossing the elbow joint and calibrated follow-
ing the manufacturer’s instructions. This equipment
recorded the cycles of oscillation performed during
stiffness evaluation. The subjects were instructed to
oscillate the forearm and hand about the elbow joint
simulating a pendulum movement. The oscillation was
performed in a smooth and comfortable manner without
pauses and considered as the natural frequency of arm
oscillation. The correct motion was demonstrated to the
subjects and a maximum of 5 min of training were
allowed before data collection.
The cycles of oscillation and EMG signals were
collected during 20 sec after natural frequency was
achieved and minimal EMG activity and stability of
the amplitude of oscillation cycle were observed. Pairs of
photoelectric cells were placed at each side of the
oscillating arm to guarantee that angular displacement
during the swing task did not exceed 201. Oscillations
with amplitudes above this limit were not accepted to
allow the use of a linearized equation of motion of the
pendulum. Five measures were obtained for each arm
with one minute of rest between them. The highest and
lowest frequency values were discarded and the mean of
the three remaining measures was considered for further
analyses. Test–retest reliability of this method was
assessed in 10 subjects, with a time interval between
test–retest of 24 h. An intra-class correlation coefficient
(ICC) of 0.98 was obtained with a standard error of
measurement (SEM) of 0.022.
Fig. 1. Positioning of the subjects during stiffness evaluation.
413
2.2.2. Evaluation of resting joint position
The subjects were instructed to stay in the same
position as before and place their arm as comfortable as
possible, on the armrest. As soon as the subjects were
completely relaxed, the elbow joint angle was measured
using a standard goniometer (test–retest reliability ICC
of 0.94, SEM of 0.71) and the value obtained was used
to represent the resting position of this joint. The mean
of three measures was considered for analyses. The
same examiner performed the pre- and post-training
evaluations.
2.2.3. Evaluation of the maximum voluntary isometric
contraction (mvic)
In order to evaluate the MVICs of the biceps and
triceps brachium muscles, the subjects were seated in the
dynamometer with their arm supported in the same way
described for stiffness evaluation. The elbow joint was
positioned at 1201 and 151 of elbow flexion for biceps
and triceps brachium evaluation, respectively. The
subjects were instructed to perform three maximum
isometric contractions of each muscle with duration of
6 s. The EMG signals were recorded during the MVIC
tests and the 2 s of highest activity in each trial were
processed. The highest value of the three trials was used
to normalize the EMG activity.
2.2.4. Resistance training program
All subjects were submitted to a progressive resistance
training program (Kraemer et al, 2002). The protocol
involved three sets of eight repetitions with an intensity
of 80% of one maximum repetition and two minutes of
rest between sets. This training was performed three
times a week for eight weeks. This protocol was chosen
to guarantee a sufficient stimulus to produce muscle
hypertrophy (Kraemer et al, 2002). When each subject
performed one repetition over the established number in
all sets and in two consecutive training sessions the load
was increased by approximately 10%. Group 1 was
submitted to a resistance training of the elbow flexor
muscles of the non-dominant arm in the last 401 of the
elbow flexion movement (part of the range in which the
muscles work in shortened position). During this
training, the subjects were seated with their trunk bent
forward and a support was used to guarantee that the
exercise was performed in the desired amplitude (Fig. 2).
The elbow flexor muscles of the non-dominant arm of
group 2 were submitted to resistance training in the
complete range of elbow flexion. This training was
performed with the subjects standing, leaning against a
wall, with their knees slightly bent (Fig. 3).
After eight weeks of training, all subjects were
submitted to stiffness, resting position and MVIC
evaluations following the same procedures described
before. The examiner was blinded in relation to group
and measures obtained in the pre-training evaluations.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
414 J.M. Ocarino et al. / Manual Therapy 13 (2008) 411–418

biomechanical model of an escapement driven hybrid

mass–spring pendulum (Kugler and Turvey, 1987). The
calculation of elbow stiffness was performed using the
resonant equation (1) that describes the relationship
between the parameters of the model and its frequency
of oscillation (Kugler and Turvey, 1987)
Kb2 ¼ ðmL2e Þo2  mLe g, (1)
2
where Kb represents the elastic torque produced by the
muscles and connective tissue around the elbow joint, o
is the angular frequency of oscillation, m is the total
mass, Le is the length of the simple pendulum equivalent
to the pendulum composed by the forearm and hand,
and (g) gravitational acceleration. Any modification
in the elastic torque represents modifications in stiff-
ness (K).
Fig. 2. Positioning of the subjects during training performed in the
Estimates of forearm and hand masses, location of the
inner range of motion.
center of mass and radius of gyration of each segment
were calculated using Dempster’s anthropometrical
table (Winter, 1990). These estimates were used to
calculate the simple pendulum equivalent length using
the parallel axis theorem (Kugler and Turvey, 1987).
Mass and length of the pendulum were used to calculate
the gravitational torque (mLeg) for each subject. The
time to perform 10 cycles of oscillation during the
stiffness test was used to obtain the natural frequency of
oscillation of the simple pendulum equivalent.
Since joint stiffness is not independent of the mass
and length of the segments (Obusek et al., 1995), to
avoid the effects of anthropometrical differences, elastic
torque was divided by gravitational torque to obtain a
normalized stiffness variable, allowing comparison of
the experimental arms of subjects from different groups.
EMG data processing was performed using the
software (Biopac System, USA). The signals obtained
from the biceps and triceps brachium muscles during
stiffness and MVIC tests were low-pass and high-pass
filtered with cut-off frequencies of 500 and 10 Hz,
respectively, and full wave rectified. Root mean square
(RMS) value was calculated for each muscle. In order to
normalize the EMG signals, the RMS value of each
muscle recorded during the stiffness test was divided by
the highest RMS value obtained during the MVIC test
of same muscle and subject. Biceps and triceps muscles
EMG activities were added to obtain total EMG activity
variable.
Fig. 3. Positioning of the subjects during training performed in the
complete range of motion.
2.4. Data analysis

The subjects were not informed about the study’s
hypothesis.
2.3. Data reduction
The oscillatory movement of the forearm and hand
segments around the elbow joint was represented by a
Repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVA)
with one between-subject effect (group: models of
training) and two within-subject effect (arm: control
and experimental; condition: pre- and post-training)
were used to evaluate differences between the means of
normalized stiffness, resting position of the elbow joint,
and total EMG activity. This procedure allowed the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.M. Ocarino et al. / Manual Therapy 13 (2008) 411–418 415

testing of the main effects group, arm and condition, as
well as interaction effects, with a level set at 0.05. Four
pre-planned focused contrasts were performed to locate
significant differences between control arm in pre- and
post training conditions and between experimental arm
in pre and post training conditions, in both groups.
Bonferroni corrections were performed to adjust the
level of significance to the number of focused contrasts.
This procedure changed the a level to 0.0125. Indepen-
dent t-tests were used to test for significant differences
between groups in the gain obtained in normalized
stiffness and in elbow resting position after resistance
training.
3. Results
3.1. Normalized elbow stiffness (kb2/mlg)
The ANOVA demonstrated significant differences in
normalized elbow stiffness only between arms
(p ¼ 0.0001) and in the arm  condition interaction
(p ¼ 0.0178). Pre-planned contrast analyses showed a
significant increase in elbow stiffness of the experimental
arm after complete range of motion training (group 2)
(p ¼ 0.0019). However, no difference was observed in
elbow stiffness of the experimental arm after training
performed in inner range of motion (group 1)
(p ¼ 0.1264). There was no difference in normalized
stiffness of the control arm between pre- and post-
training condition, in group 1 (p ¼ 0.9222) and in group
2 (p ¼ 0.9443). The means, standard deviations and
confidence intervals (CI) are illustrated in Table 1.
The independent t-test did not show any difference in
relation to the gain obtained in elbow stiffness after
the resistance training (t ¼ 1.099, p ¼ 0.3035) when
groups 1 (mean ¼ 0.07; SD ¼ 0.07) and 2 (mean ¼ 0.15;
SD ¼ 0.08) were compared.
3.2. Resting position of the elbow joint
The ANOVA demonstrated significant differences in
elbow resting position only in the condition effect
(p ¼ 0.0001) and in the arm  condition interaction
(p ¼ 0.0001). Contrasts analyses revealed a significant
difference in elbow resting position of the experimental
arm in groups 1 (p ¼ 0.0001) and 2 (p ¼ 0.0001). After
both resistance training programs, the resting position
of the elbow joint was modified to a significantly greater
flexion angle. There was no difference in the control arm
in group 1 (p ¼ 0.6318) or in group 2 (p ¼ 0.9990)
when pre- and post-training condition were compared.
The means, standard deviations and CI are illustrated in
Table 1.
The independent t-test did not show difference in
relation to the gain obtained in elbow resting position
variable (t ¼ 0.001, p ¼ 0.9719) when groups 1 (mean ¼
8.731; SD ¼ 1.33) and 2 (mean ¼ 8.801; SD ¼ 1.90) were
compared.
3.3. Total electromyographic activity
The ANOVA demonstrated significant differences
only in condition effect (p ¼ 0.0020). The pre-planned
contrast analyses showed a significant decrease in
activation level only in the experimental arm of the
group 2 (p ¼ 0.0009). No other difference in total
electromyographic activity was observed (p40.0274).
The means, standard deviations and CI are illustrated in
Table 1.
4. Discussion
The results of the present study demonstrated that
elbow joint stiffness could be modified through resis-
tance training of elbow flexor muscles. Increase in elbow
stiffness related to the pre-training condition was

Table 1
Means (standard deviation), mean differences (confidence intervals of 99%) of normalized stiffness, resting position of the elbow joint, and total
EMG activity variables for control and experimental arms in groups 1 and 2

Arm Variable Group Pre Post Mean differences (CI)

Experimental Normalized 1 0.402 (0.274) 0.472 (0.224) 0.07 (0.17 to 0.03)

Stiffness 2 0.397 (0.321) 0.549 (0.286) 0.15 (0.36 to 0.06)
Resting 1 54.1 (5.6) 62.8 (4.2) 8.73 (12.2 to 5.23)
Position (1) 2 52.7 (8.4) 61.5 (5.0) 8.8 (13.15 to 4.45)
Total EMG 1 0.032 (0.017) 0.024 (0.013) 0.008 (0.001 to 0.02)
Activity 2 0.034 (0.029) 0.019 (0.01) 0.015 (0.01 to 0.04)
Control Normalized 1 0.368 (0.272) 0.363 (0.280) 0.004 (-0.14 to 0.15)
Stiffness 2 0.327 (0.250) 0.330 (0.233) 0.003 (0.14 to 0.14)
Resting 1 56.7 (5.2) 57.1 (4.9) 0.47 (3.61 to 2.67)
Position (1) 2 55.5 (7.7) 55.5 (5.0) 0.000 (3.52 to 3.52)
Total EMG 1 0.028 (0.022) 0.019 (0.010) 0.009 (0.01 to 0.03)
Activity 2 0.031 (0.025) 0.023 (0.019) 0.008 (0.001 to 0.02)
 significant difference (po0.0125).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
416 J.M. Ocarino et al. / Manual Therapy 13 (2008) 411–418
observed only when the training was performed
throughout the complete range of motion, although
there was no difference between groups. In addition, the
results demonstrated that resistance training, indepen-
dent of work range, modified the resting position of the
elbow joint.
The increase in elbow joint stiffness observed in the
experimental arm after complete range of motion
training is in agreement with evidences of increased
stiffness in individuals submitted to muscular training
(Chleboun et al., 1997). The greater volume of work
induced by the complete range of motion training has
probably been sufficient to promote an increase in
muscle mass and, consequently, in muscle stiffness.
Although muscular volume was not measured in this
study, there is evidence that resistance training per-
formed during six weeks is enough to promote
significant increases in the muscles’ cross sectional area
(Kraemer et al., 2002). The increase in joint stiffness
observed in the experimental arm of group 2 cannot be
explained by modifications in activation level of the
assessed muscles, since there was a significant decrease
in total EMG activity in this arm. In addition, the lack
of differences in elbow stiffness in the control arm
between pre- and post-training conditions reinforced the
idea that the increase in joint stiffness observed in the
experimental arm of group 2 was produced by the flexor
muscles resistance training.
The increase in elbow stiffness observed after resis-
tance training performed in the inner range was not
significant. Several studies have investigated the effect of
muscular contraction in a shortened position and
demonstrated increases in muscle stiffness (Williams
et al., 1998; Gunst and Wu, 2001). However, these
studies were carried out with animals and did not
measure joint stiffness. In the present study, the lack of
significant differences in elbow joint stiffness in the
experimental arm after training suggests that the volume
of muscular work imposed in inner range training did
not promote the hypertrophy necessary to modify joint
stiffness. However, as the group 1 presented smaller
effect size than group 2, the sample size might not have
been enough to allow the identification of significant
differences in joint stiffness in group 1 when pre- and
Fig. 4. Graphic representation of modification in joint resting position according to Equilibrium Point Model where: FT: flexor torque; ET: extensor
torque; EP1: equilibrium point of the joint. (a) EP2: new equilibrium point of the joint due to increase of the flexors muscles stiffness (slope); (b) EP2:
new equilibrium point of the joint due to reduction of the flexors muscles length (displacement of the line to the left). Adapted from Bizzi et al. (1992).
post-training conditions were compared. Although
significant increases in joint stiffness were observed only
after complete range of motion training, there was no
significant difference between the two resistance training
models in relation to the gain in joint stiffness.
The results of this study indicated that the resting
position of the elbow joint was modified to a greater
flexion angle after both resistance training models. In
the experimental arm of group 2, the modification in
elbow resting position was possibly caused by increases
in muscle stiffness. Applying the equilibrium point
model, increases in the stiffness of flexor muscles,
showed by an increase in the slope of the line
representing its torque–angle relationship, changes the
location of the crossing point between the two slopes
(resting joint position) to a greater flexion angle
(Fig. 4a). The experimental arm of the group trained
in inner range also presented a modification in the
resting position. However, in this group, there was no
increase in joint stiffness, which suggests that another
mechanism might have been responsible for the mod-
ification observed in elbow resting position. There is
evidence that when muscles contract in a shortened
position there is a reduction in their number of
sarcomeres in series with consequent displacement of
the length-tension curve to the left (Williams et al.,
1998). According to the equilibrium point model, a
decrease in muscle length, represented by displacement
of the line to the left also has the potential to modify the
location of the crossing between the slopes (Fig. 4b).
Hence, a possible mechanism that could explain the
change in elbow resting position to greater flexion angle
would be a reduction in the number of sarcomeres in
series. While the equilibrium point hypothesis was
proposed to investigate the control of voluntary move-
ments, the present study demonstrated that it is possible
to use this concept to explain modifications in the
resting position of a joint due to modifications in
the passive characteristics of a muscle, such as stiffness
and length.
The studies that have investigated adaptations in
muscle length and number of sarcomeres in series,
resulting from immobilization or electrostimulation,
showed that when muscle length decreases, there is a
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.M. Ocarino et al. / Manual Therapy 13 (2008) 411–418
consequent increase in muscle stiffness (Williams and
Goldspink, 1978). Although the modification in elbow
resting position in individuals trained in the inner range
of motion suggested a change in flexors muscles length,
there was no significant increase in stiffness in this group.
A limitation of the present study is related to the
biomechanical model used to estimate joint stiffness.
This model involved oscillations of the forearm and hand
segments in short amplitudes, which allowed the assess-
ment of the stiffness only in the initial toe region of the
passive torque–angle curve. In this portion of the curve,
relatively low torques are required to move a joint. In the
passive torque–angle curve, there is another region
named linear portion. In this region, joint stiffness
rapidly increases with joint movement. Chleboun et al.
(1997) demonstrated that muscle volume influenced
elbow joint stiffness in the linear portion of the torque–
angle curve. Despite the documented association be-
tween muscle volume and stiffness in the linear portion
of the curve, there is no evidence to support the
argument that changes in stiffness due to modifications
in muscle length are more evident in the toe region or in
the linear portion of the torque–angle curve. Hence, if
increases in elbow stiffness caused by reduction in muscle
length were more expressive in the linear portion of
the torque–angle curve, these increases would not be
detected by the methodology used in the present study.
The adaptability of the muscle tissue has clinical
implications, since undesired alterations in stiffness and
muscle length have been associated with lack of stability
and suboptimal joint alignments (Gossman et al., 1982;
Herbert, 1988; Sahrmann, 2002). As resistance training
may alter joint stiffness and joint resting position,
rehabilitation programs could apply these interventions
with the objective of producing postural changes or
increasing joint stability. Since many postural changes
are associated with increased muscle length, some
authors suggest exercise programs that emphasize
strengthening lengthened muscles in a shortened posi-
tion, with the objective of restoring ideal resting muscle
length and consequently modifying postural alignment
(Gossman et al., 1982; Sahrmann, 2002). For example,
in individuals with abducted scapula, the rhomboid
muscles adapt with addition of sarcomeres in series. In
this case, the rhomboid muscles could be strengthened in
a shortened position with the objective of reducing their
resting length and consequently changing the position-
ing of the scapula. The results of the present study
support the clinical assumption that working a muscle in
a shortened range can alter its resting length.
The results of the present study demonstrated the effect
of muscular training in joint stiffness and joint resting
position. In addition, the study applied a theoretical
model (Equilibrium Point Hypothesis) to understand the
mechanisms responsible for modifications in joint resting
position. The increases in stiffness and the changes in
417
resting position of the elbow joint observed in the present
study can be used in interventions with the objective of
producing or maintaining the adaptive remodeling
process of the muscle to promote gains in joint stability
and postural modifications. However, more clinically
oriented studies are still needed to verify the effect of
changes in muscle stiffness and length on joint stability
and on corrections of postural disorders.
5. Conclusion
The present study demonstrated that elbow joint
stiffness increased after muscular resistance training
performed in complete range of motion, which was not
observed after training performed in inner range.
However, both resistance training models modified the
resting position of the elbow joint to a greater flexion
angle. In the group trained in the complete range of
motion, the elbow resting position was possibly changed
by increases in joint stiffness. The lack of significant
increase in stiffness in the group trained in the inner
range suggests that another mechanism, possibly a
decrease in the number of sarcomeres in series, could
be responsible for the modification in resting position of
the elbow joint.
References
Bizzi E, et al. Does the nervous system use equilibrium point control to
guide single and multiple joint movements. Behavior Brain Science
1992;15:603–15.
Chleboun GS, et al. The relationship between elbow flexor volume and
angular stiffness at the elbow. Clinical Biomechanics 1997;12(6):
383–92.
Cram JR, Kasman GS. Instrumentation. In: Cram JR, Kasman GS,
editors. Introduction to surface electromyography. Maryland:
Aspen Publisher; 1998. p. 43–80.
Feldman AG. Once more on the equilibrium point hypotheses (lambda
model) for motor control. Journal of Motor Behavior 1986;18:
17–54.
Gossman MR, et al. Review of length-associated changes in muscle.
Experimental evidence and clinical implications. Physical Therapy
1982;62(12):1799–808.
Gunst SJ, Wu MF. Plasticity in skeletal, cardiac, and smooth muscle
selected contribution: plasticity of airway smooth muscle stiffness
and extensibility: role of length-adaptative mechanisms. Journal of
Applied Physiology 2001;90:741–9.
Herbert R. The passive mechanical properties of muscle and their
adaptations to altered patterns of use. The Australian Journal of
Physiotherapy 1988;34(3):141–9.
Kovanen V, et al. Mechanical properties of fast and slow skeletal
muscle with special reference to collagen and endurance. Journal of
Biomechanics 1984;17(10):725–35.
Kraemer WJ, et al. American College of Sports Medicine position
stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2002;34(2):364–80.
Kugler PN, Turvey MT. An experimental methodology for investigat-
ing the soft, self-assembly of the pendular, clocking mode. In:
Information, natural law, and self-assembly of rhythmic move-
ments. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaun Associates; 1987. p. 1–463.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
418 J.M. Ocarino et al. / Manual Therapy 13 (2008) 411–418

Latash ML, Zatsiorsky VM. Joint stiffness: Myth or reality? Human
Movement Science 1993;12:653–92.
Lynn R, et al. Differences in rat skeletal muscles after incline and
decline running. Journal of Applied Physiology 1998;85(1):98–104.
Obusek JP, et al. The hybrid mass-spring pendulum model of human
leg swinging: stiffness in the control of cycle period. Biological
Cybernetics 1995;73:139–47.
Reeves ND, et al. Strength training alters the viscoelastic properties of
tendons in elderly humans. Muscle & Nerve 2003;28(1):74–81.
Sahrmann SA. Concepts and principles of movement. In: Sahrmann
SA, White K, editors. Diagnosis and treatment of movement
impairment syndromes. Mosby; 2002. p. 9–50.
Savelberg HHCM, Meijer K. Contribution of mono and biarticular
muscles to extending knee joint moments in runners an cyclists.
Journal of Applied Physiology 2003;94:2241–8.
Williams PE, Goldspink G. Changes in sarcomere length and
physiological properties in immobilized muscle. Journal of
Anatomy 1978;127(3):459–68.
Williams PE, et al. The importance of stretch and contractile activity in
the prevention of connective tissue accumulation in muscle. Journal
of Anatomy 1988;158:109–14.
Williams PE, et al. The morphological basis of increased stiffness of
rabbit tibilalis anterior muscles during surgical limb-lengthening.
Journal of Anatomy 1998;193:131–8.
Winter DA. Anthropometry. In: Winter DA, editor. Biomechanics and
motor control of human movement. New York: Wiley; 1990. p. 51–74.
Witzmann FA, et al. Hind limb immobilization: length-tension and
contractile properties of skeletal muscle. Journal of Applied
Physiology: Respiratory Environment Exercise Physiology 1982;
53(2):335–45.