Table 2.

Summary of studies investigating the architectural adaptations to ECC only vs. CON only loading protocols.

Studies	Population & muscle group	Intensity/duration	Matching	Results	Interpretation
Blazevich et al., 2007	Young men—Quadriceps	MVC—10 Wks	No	Similar Lf, PA and CSA increase in both groups	Muscle Architecture: 4 studies out of 5 show clear distinct architectural adaptations in reponse to either CON or ECC training. CON RET induces a greater increase of PA compared to ECC RET, whereas ECC loading is the predominant stimulus to achieve greater changes in Lf. Only 1 study found ECC and CON to achieve similar architectural remodeling patterns (Blazevich et al., 2007)
Reeves et al., 2009	Older men—Quadriceps	%80 5RM ECC and CON, respective to ECC or Conventional training mode—14 Wks	Matched for max relative load	ECC > CON on Lf increase (20% vs. 8%); CON > ECC on PA increase (35% vs. 5%); Similar increase in MT (~12%)
Franchi et al., 2014	Young men—Quadriceps	%80 1RM ECC and CON, respective to the training mode—10 Wks	Matched for max relative load and theoretical equivalent neural activation	ECC > CON on Lf increase (12% vs. 5%); CON > ECC on PA increase (30% vs. 5%); Similar increase in VOL (~7%)
Franchi et al., 2015	Young men—Quadriceps	%80 1RM ECC and CON, respective to the training mode—4 Wks	Matched for max relative load and theoretical equivalent neural activation	ECC > CON on Lf increase (5% vs. 2%); CON > ECC on PA increase (7% vs. 3%); Similar increase in MT (~8%)
Timmins et al., 2016a	Young men—Biceps Femoris	MVC—6 Wks	No	ECC > CON on Lf increase (16% vs.—11%); CON > ECC on PA increase (20% vs.—7%); No significant increase in MT in both groups