Post on 09-May-2020
A COMPARISON OF STRENGTH GAINS FROM TWO WEIGHT
TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR FIFTEEN WEEKS
OF ACTIVE EXERCISE
APPROVED:
Mafi r Professor
'6UyiAjL<? 77 tor Professor
rman of the Department of Physical ducat ion
Dean of the Graduate School
/ / //
Carson, Earl L., A Comparison of Strength Gains frost
Two Weight Training Programs for Fifteen Weeks of Active
Exercise. Master of Science (Physical Education),
August, 1973, 50 pp., 12 tables, bibliography, 15 titles.
Two different weight training programs were compared
to determine which was most effective in improving strength.
The experiment was conducted with the bench press, leg
press, and sitting press for a period of fifteen weeks. A
total number of forty-six subjects were used. The subjects
were randomly assigned to a group and a daily workout
schedule. Prior to training, students were tested for a
maximum lift on the bench press, leg press, and sitting
press. The test for a maximum lift was repeated at five,
ten, and fifteen weeks. Training took place three times
weekly, with the variations in the program involving three
sets of four repetitions maximum and three sets of eight
repetitions maximum. The results showed that groups A
and B had made significant strength improvement, but there
was no statistical significant difference between the
strength gains made by both groups.
A COMPARISON OF STRENGTH GAINS FROM TWO WEIGHT
TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR FIFTEEN WEEKS
OF ACTIVE EXERCISE
THESIS
Presented to the Graduate Council of the
North Texas State University in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
By
Earl L. Carson, B. S.
Denton, Texas
August, 1973
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES . . iv
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . v
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the Problem Purposes of the Study Definition of the Terms Sources of Data Delimitations of the Study
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 6
III. PROCEDURES 16
IV. PRESENTATION 22
V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 35
Summary Findings Conclusions Recommendations
APPENDIX . . . 37
BIBLIOGRAPHY 49
i n
LIST OF TABLES
Table Fags
I. Results of the Frazier T-Test . 2 3
II, Pre-Test to Test III for Group A . . . . . . . 23
III. Pre-Test to Test III for Group B 24
IV. Bench Press 25
V. Leg Press 27
VI. Sitting Press 28
VII. Group A--Bench Press . 37
VIII. Group B--Bench Press 39
IX. Group A--Leg Press 41
X. Group B--Leg Press . . . . . 43
XI. Group A--Sitting Press . 45
XII. Group B--Sitting Press 47
IV
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
. 1. Bench Press * 29
2. Leg Press 30
3, Sitting Press . . . . . 31
v
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Weight training activities have for many years been
a part of training programs for athletes, disabled indi-
viduals , and rehabilitation programs. Thomas De Lorme,
as the earliest researcher in weight training programs,
helped develop interest in the usefulness of this activity.
His work began with disabled war veterans. De Lorme, along
with A. L. Watkins, developed programs for using weight
training to rehabilitate athletes with back and joint
injuries. Their research was helpful in increasing the
use of weight training in cases of athletic injuries (3, 4),
Edward Capen and Edward Chui furthered the developing
interest in weight training. Their research related to
increased physical endurance and athletic power snd was
important to later program research. In addition, Capen's
and Chui's research helped to demonstrate an increased
usefulness of, and practicality for, a well-balanced weight
training program (1, 2).
The uses of weight training are as varied as are the
problems of developing weight training programs, and De
Lorrae, Capen, and Chui, in the years 1948-1956, did much
to indicate the important uses of such training. Programs
designed to meet the physical therapist's needs may not be
applicable to the physical educator or athletic program (1,
2, 3, 4). Although a number of research projects in weight
training have been conducted in recent years, two principal
areas that still need attention concern an optimum combi-
nation of sets and repetitions and a complimentary time
schedule. Increased information in these two areas could
be beneficial to the physical therapist as well as to the
coach or physical educator.
Statement of the Problem
This study was concerned with the comparative value,
in terms of strength development, of weight training pro-
grams which varied in the number of sets and repetitions
maximum and the duration of the program in weeks.
Purposes of the Study
The purposes of this study were:
(1) to investigate two programs for weight training,
using (a) three sets of four repetitions maximum, and
(b) three sets of eight repetitions maximum;
(2) to make a comparison between programs (a) and (b)
and determine which program produces the most significant
strength gain; and
(3) to make a. comparison between the two programs at
five, ten, and fifteen weeks and determine the relative
effectiveness of the programs at each interval.
Definition of the Terms
Repetition.--the act of lifting a weight through a
complete range of motion a specific number of times.
Set.--a group of repetitions.
Maximum lift.--the total amount of weight an individual
can lift through a complete range of motion one time.
Repetition maximum.--the total amount of weight an
individual can lift through a complete range of motion for
a full set without assistance.
Sources of Data
Human sources: freshmen and sophomore male students
enrolled in physical education classes at Rosebud-Lott High
School. Age groups were fourteen to sixteen years. Average
weight was 1S7 1/2 pounds. Average height was five feet,
nine and three-eighths inches.
Written sources: studies taken from Research Quarterly
and Completed Research; articles and information from
Archives of Physical Medicine, Sports Medicine, and Athletic
Journal.
4
Delimitations of the Study
The study was limited to male students enrolled in
physical education classes at Rosebud-Lott High School,
Rosebud, Texas, during the fall semester, 1972. A
student enrolled in athletics and physical education simul-
taneously was eliminated and any student who participated
in less than 45 per cent of the provided work periods was
eliminated.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Capen, E. X., "The Effect of Systematic Weight Training on Power, Strength and Endurance," Research Quarterly, XXI (May, 1950}, 83-93.
2. Cnui, Edward, "The Effect of Systematic Weight Training on Athletic Power," Research Quarterly, XXI (October, 1950), 180-194. '
3. De Lorme, Thomas, "Techniques of Progressive Resistance Exercises," Archives of Physical Medicine, XXIX (May, 1948), 263-271:
4. and A. L. Watkins, Progressive Resistance £xercise: Technique ancTTTedicaI~Xpplication, ftew YorKT-Apple t on-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1951,
CHAPTER 11
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Early research in weight training was directed at
its usefulness and practical applications (7, 8, 9, 10,
11). Some of the early researchers were Thomas De Lorme
(10, 11), Edward Capen (7, 8), Edward Chui (9), and
R. 0. McMorris and E. C. Elkins (12). The work of Thomas
De Lorme, Edward Capen, and Edward Chui was significant
to weight training development.
De Lorme * s early work dealt with the rehabilitation
of disabled war veterans, and from this work he devised
what later became the De Lorme method of weight training.
This method evolved from trial and error programs. It
involved training with one-half the repetition maximum for
the first set, three-fourths of the repetition maximum
for the second set, and the full repetition maximum for
the third set (10). The De Lorme method was later tested
and proved valid by R. 0. McMorris and E. C. Elkins when
they compared the De Lorme methods to the Oxford method.
The Oxford method was a weight training program that re-
versed the use of the repetition maximum and sets of the
De Lorme method.
This produced a program using the full repetition siaxisusE
for the first set, three-fourths of the repetition maximum
for the second set, and one-half of the repetition maximum
for the third set. From this comparison, they concluded
that there were no significant differences between the
methods, but both did significantly increase strength (12),
De Lorme's later work was with A. L. Watkins. They
investigated the idea of using weight training for the
rehabilitation of athletic injuries. The two areas of
concern were joint injuries and back damage. From this
work, De Lorme concluded that weight training was bene-
ficial to the rehabilitation of joint and back injuries
(U).
From his collection of studies and investigations,
De Lorme reached the following conclusions:
(1) Light weights with numerous repetitions would tend
to build more endurance and less strength.
(2) Heavier weights with fewer repetitions would in-
crease strength more with less endurance.
Edward Chui continued De Lorme*s research w.ith the use
of weight training in athletics, investigating specifically
the effect of weight training on athletic power. For this
study, Chui used two groups, a test group and control group.
Each group was tested on the following exercises:
(1) sargent jump
(2) standing broad jump
(3) eight pound shot from a stand
(4) twelve pound shot from a stand
(5) sixty yard sprint
(6) sargent jump (running)
The scores from each group were compared before and after
a twelve week period. During this period one group per-
formed barbell exercises and the second group participated
only in a physical education class (9).
Chui concluded from this study that the group performing
weight training exercises showed more consistent increases
in athletic power than the group not engaged in a weight
training program (9).
Edward Capen expanded on the research of Chui by in-
cluding endurance and strength with athletic power. Capen
used two groups. One group performed weight training
exercises similar to the barbell exercises used by Chui.
The second group did no weight training, but participated
in a rigorous conditioning program. The active time for
the study was eleven weeks. Capen concluded that the
weight training group showed more significant increases
than the conditioning group in all phases of the study.
The weight training group was significantly better in
strength and athletic power. Most surprising was that the
weight training group was significantly more improved than
the conditioning group in the cardiovascular aspect, a
factor emphasized in the conditioning exercises (7).
In 1956, Capen did one of the earlier investigations
concerning technique of a weight training program. Four
programs of heavy resistance exercises were compared. The
programs were established as follows: Program I used eight
repetitions maximum of one set as a starting point.. The
subjects were to increase the number of repetitions as
their strength development allowed. Program II was basically
the same with the exception that another set was added.
Program III used five repetitions maximum for three sets,
When the subjects could complete five repetitions maximum
for three sets, a new repetition maximum was established.
Program IV used one repetition maximum for the first set,
and the weight was reduced for the second and third sets,
with the subject executing as many repetitions as possible.
Capen's conclusions indicated that one repetition maximum
for three sets is superior to eight or fifteen repetitions
maximum for one set (8).
In 1962, Richard A. Berger conducted his first study
in this area dealing with an optimum number of repetitions.
This study was conducted to determine an optimum number of
repetitions for one set. Only one lift, the bench press
or supine press, was used. Each group trained with one
set of two, four, six, eight, ten, and twelve repetitions
(4). Berger concluded that "training with less than two
10
or more than ten repetitions will not improve strength as
rapidly as four, six, or eight repetitions when training
is carried out with one set three times weekly for twelve
weeks" (4, p. 338).
Berger expanded this first study by comparing results
of a group using heavier loads with fewer repetitions with
results of a group using lighter loads with increased
repetitions. Again Berger used the bench press as the
exercise for both groups. An associated problem in this
study was to determine an optimum number of sets and
repetitions. The groups performed one set of two repe-
titions, one set of ten repetitions, two sets of two
repetitions, two sets of six repetitions, two sets of ten
repetitions, three sets of two repetitions, three sets of
six repetitions, and three sets of ten repetitions. This
was Berger's most comprehensive study comparing results
from varied sets and repetitions, and the results indicated:
(1) the more sets, more repetitions per set and the
more total repetitions each training session resulted in
greater improvement in strength;
(2) increasing the number of repetitions beyond ten
would probably produce less rapid strength gains; and
(3) three sets of six repetitions produced the most
rapid and significant strength gains (3).
11
A similar study in 1363 by Berger compared groups,
training with six sets v£ two repetitions, three sets of
six repetitions, and three sets of ten repetitions. As
in the two previous studies the bench press was the only
exercise used. Berger's results were:
(1) three sets and six repetitions were more signif-
icant in improving strength; and
(2) more research is needed to determine the optimum
combination of sets and repetitions (1).
In 1965, Berger altered his approach and began to
investigate the amount of weight per lift used. His first
study in this area used three groups training with two-
thirds of the maximum with one weekly maximum effort. The
fourth group trained three times weekly with a maximum
weight. Results from this study were:
(1) significant increases in strength will occur after
two weeks of training twice weekly with two-thirds of the
one repetition maximum, provided at least one maximum dy-
namic effort per week is performed on the third weekly
training session;
(2) training with two-thirds or more of the one repe-
tition maximum for one set, three times weekly will not
increase strength in six weeks; and
(3) the increase in strength resulting from a training
program of one set with two-thirds of the one repetition
12
maximum, twice weekly, and the one maximum dynamic effort
once weekly, it due primarily to the one maximum dyn .hi a.
effort once a week (2).
The second study by Berger involving weight per lift
used two groups training with ten repetitions each. One
.group used ten repetitions of the repetition maximum for
one set. A second group used ten repetitions of the repe-
tition maximum, but the weight was gradually decreased with
each repetition. The comparison of these two programs
indicated that training with maximum or near maximum loads
(group II) was more effective for producing strength gains
(6).
Further study in this area was conducted by Patrick
O'Shea and R. T. Withers. 0'Shea's study was similar in
design to those by Berger. The groups for his study
trained with three sets of five or six repetitions, three
sets of nine or ten repetitions, and three sets of two or
three repetitions for six weeks. O'Shea found no signif-
icant differences between the groups, but all three groups
did increase dynamic and static strength (13).
Wither's study compared groups performing five sets
of three repetitions, four sets of five repetitions, and
three sets of seven repetitions for nine weeks. Results
from this study concluded:
(1) all groups increased strength significantly; and
13
(2) no group indicated a statistical significance
greater than tht. other groups.
A list of the major conclusions from all studies
reviewed revealed the following:
(1) increased repetitions with less weight will
develop more endurance than strength (11);
(2) fewer repetitions with heavier weights will build
more strength and less endurance (11);
(3) fewer than two repetitions or more than ten repe-
titions will not significantly increase strength when only
one set is used (4);
(4) three sets of six repetitions significantly in-
creases strength when compared to one set of two repetitions,
one set of six repetitions, one set of ten repetitions, two
sets of two repetitions, two sets of six repetitions, two
sets of ten repetitions, three sets of two repetitions, and
three sets of ten repetitions (3);
(5) all of the weight training programs reviewed
significantly increased strength (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14); and
(6) suggestions for longer studies were indicated
(2, 13, 14).
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Berger, R. A., "Comparative Effects of Three Weight Training Programs," XXXIV (October, 1963), 396-399.
2. , "Comparison of the Effect of Various Weight Training Loads on Strength," Research Quarterly, XXXVI (May, 1965) , 141-146. "
3. , "Effect of Varied Weight Training Programs on Strength," Research Quarterly, XXXIII (May, 1962), 168-181.
4. , "Optimum Repetitions for the Development of Strength," Research Quarterly, XXXIII (October, 1962), 334-3387* '
5. , "Weight Training to Develop Heart and Circulatory System," Athletic Journal, LII (February, 1972), 50+.
6. and Hardage, B., "Effect of Maximum Load lor Each of Ten Repetitions on Strength Improvement," Research Quarterly, XXXVIII (December, 1967), 7T3T7TF7
7. Capon, E. K.» "The Effect of Systematic Weight Training on Power, Strength and Endurance," Research Quarterly, XXI (May, 1950), 83-93.
8. , "Study of Four Programs of Heavy Resistance Exercises for Development of Muscular Strength," Research Quarterly, XXVII (May, 1956), 132-142. ^
9. Chui, Edward, "The Effect of Systematic Weight Training on Athletic Power," Research Quarterly, XXI (October, 1950), 188-194.
10. De Lorme, Thomas, "Techniques of Progressive Resistance Exercises," Archives of Physical Medicine, XXIX (May, 194 8),T6TT"2T3'. —
11. and A. L. Watkins, Progressive Resistance !!:.xercise7 Technique and Medical Application, RelTTorJc7 Appleton-Century-Crofts, Tnc.,"T951.
14
IS
12. McMorris, R. 0. and E. C. Elkins, "A Study of Production and Evaluation of Muscular Hypertrophy," Archives of Physical Medicing, XXXV (IS54), 420-426. *
13. 0'Shea, Patrick, "Effects of Selected Weight Training Programs on the Development of Strength and Muscular Hypertrophy," Research Quarterly, XXXVII (March, 1966) , 95-102.
14. Withers, R. T., "Effects of Varied Weight Training Loads on the Strength of University Freshmen,11
Research Quarterly, XLI (March, 1970), 110-114.
CHAPTER I I I
PROCEDURES
This study comparing two weight training programs
was conducted with students in physical education classes
at Rosebud-Lott High School. The subjects, freshmen and
sophomore boys, were enrolled in accordance with state
requirements. Therefore, no selection of subjects or
matching of groups was done. Two classes were used, one
with twenty-four students and one with twenty-two students,
for a total of forty-six students.
Assignment of individuals to a weight training pro-
gram was done in each class by random selection, so there
were students in each program in both classes. This was
accomplished by placing fifty cards in a basket marked A
or B. Those subjects drawing a card marked A were assigned
to group A. Those students drawing cards marked B were
assigned to group B. Group A trained with three sets of
four repetitions maximum. Group B trained with three sets
of eight repetitions maximum.
Both groups trained with three lifts, (1) the bench
press, (2) sitting press, and (3) leg press. All exercises
16
? 7 i
were executed on a Universal Gym which helped reduce
waiting time between exercises (1). The techniques for
the lifts were as follows:
(1) The bench press involved laying supine on a
bench. The handles to the Universal Gym were at chest
height. It was pressed upward and perpendicular to the
body. The weight was then lowered and bumped on the
weight stack before being lifted again.
(2) The sitting press was executed from a sitting
position on a stool. The stool was three feet high, and
for the average person the weight was shoulder height.
For shorter students this caused a small difference in
starting position. However, the actual distance the
weight was moved was the same in accordance with arm
length. The weight was then lifted vertically upward
from the body until a full extension of the arms was made.
It was lowered the same as the bench press.
(3) The leg press was executed from a sitting position
with the feet placed in pedals attached to the weight rack.
The weight was then pressed horizontally from the body until
the legs were fully extended. The weight was then lowered
the same as the bench press and sitting press.
There was a height adjustment on the chair that allowed for
heights from five feet to six feet five inches. The purpose
of the adjustment was to maintain a three-fourths bend in
18
the knees in the beginning position. The proper adjustment
for each subject was determined the first day of the progress
as a part of the explanation and demonstration of each lift.
To expedite the time used for training with each
exercise the subjects were randomly assigned the order in
which they performed the exercises on a day to day basis.
This random assignment was done prior to the beginning of
the exercise program. The subjects were assembled and drew
cards marked Number 1, Number 2, or Number 3. Number 1
represented the bench press. Number 2 represented the leg
press. And Number 3 represented the sitting press. Each
subject drew from a single basket containing one hundred
cards. He drew three cards or until he had drawn a
Number 1, Number 2, and Number 3. The subject then wrote
down the order in which he drew the numbered cards, and
this represented his workout order for one day. The
drawing procedure was repeated until a workout order for
each day of the exercise program was drawn.
At the beginning of the study, the first day was set
aside for the explanation and demonstration of the tech-
niques of each exercise. The subjects were also oriented
to five minute warm-up period. This warm-up period con-
sisted of the following:
(1) one minute of running in place,
(2) one minute of side-straddle hop exercises,
19
(3) one minute of windmill exercises,
(4) one minute of three-fourths knee bend exercises,
and
(5) one minute of running in place repeated.
A student assistant was available in each class to conduct
the warm-up sessions and help the instructor maintain proper
technique on the three exercises.
The first day of the exercise program was used to
determine a maximum lift for each exercise for all the sub-
jects. This first maximum effort represented the pre-test.
It was determined by the subject attempting as much weight
as he could lift one time. After each successful attempt,
the subject took a minimum one minute rest. The next
heaviest weight was then lifted or attempted until the
subject could no longer complete the lift. When this
point was reached, the previous amount of weight lifted
was recorded as that subject's maximum lift. The test for
a maximum lift was repeated at five, ten, and fifteen weeks.
These were designated Test I, Test II, and Test III. These
tests were conducted for the purpose of comparing the
groups at different time intervals and to determine which
group, if any, had the most significant strength gains.
Significance was determined to occur at or below the 0.05
level.
20
If at any time during the training period a subject
could do one more repetition than required for a complete
three sets the repetition maximum was increased to the next
heaviest weight.
Training periods were conducted on Mondays, Wednesdays,
and Fridays. Both classes met in the morning, one from
nine o'clock to ten o'clock and one from ten o'clock to
eleven o'clock. If a conflict arose within the normal
daily schedule, workouts were arranged to provide three
training periods per week. Fortunately, no situation
occurred to prevent three training periods per week.
According to a study by John Corbett, if the exercises had
to be conducted on consecutive days, it should not have
affected any strength gains (2). In addition, if a subject
missed a work period due to absence from school, he would
make it up during the week. However, if a student missed
more than forty-five percent of the workouts, he was
dropped from the study.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Berger, R. A., "Weight Training to Develop the Heart and Circulatory System," Athletic Journal, LII (February, 1972), 50.
2. Corbett, John J., "The Effect of Different Frequencies of Weight Training of Muscular Strength," Completed Research, XII (n.d.), 273.
21
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION OF DATA
A pre-test for a maximum lift was established for
groups A and B prior to the training program. Tests for
a maximum lift were also made at five-, ten-, and fifteen-
week intervals during the program. These tests were
labeled Test I, Test II, and Test III respectively. A
Frazier T-test was used to determine whether or not each
group's strength gains from pre-test to Test III were
significant. A T-test comparison of within group scores
was not made at each testing interval, The groups were
tested for within group strength gains from pre-test
to Test III.
Table I is a presentation of the results of the
Frazier T-test for groups A and B combined. Group A had
twenty-two subjects, and group B had twenty-four subjects,
making a total of forty-six subjects. Table I shows
that the combined groups of A and B made significant
strength gains for the bench press, leg press, and sit-
ting press.
Table II shows the results of the T-test for group A
on all three exercises from pre-test to Test III. The
23
TAELE I
RESULTS Or THE FRAZIER 7-TEST
Pre-Test Test III Meant Exercise Means Means Difference 1
Bench press 115 152 37.39 29.91*
Leg press 207 291 83.47 14.37*
Sitting press 97 129 31.30 23.34*
•At the ,05 level significance occurred above 2.02.
number of subjects in group A was twenty-two. The data
indicate that group A made significant strength gains on
all three exercises for the fifteen-week exercise program,
TABLE II
PRE-TEST TO TEST III FOR GROUP A (4RM)
Pre-Test Test III Mean Erercise Means Means Difference 1
Bench press 109 140 31.36 4.96*
Leg press 204 279 74.54 14.OS*
Sitting press 92 123 31.36 18.99*
*At the .05 level the T was significant above 2.07.
24
Table III presents the results of the T-test for •
g&oup B on all three exercises from pre-test to lest ill
The number of subjects in group B was twenty-four. The
data indicate that group B made significant strength
gains from pre-test to Test III on all exercises.
TABLE III
PRE-TEST TO TEST III FOR GROUP B (8RM)
Pre-Test Test III Mean Exercise Means Means Difference T
Bench press 120 163 42.91 10.37*
Leg press 210 302 91.66 9.30*
Sitting press 102 134 31.25 14.79*
*At the .OS level the T was significant above 2.06
An analysis of covariance was used to compare programs
A and B and to determine which program had significant
strength gains. Analysis of covariance was used because
the groups were not previously matched or equated. The
pre-test was used as the criterion, with Test I, Test II,
and Test III used as the Multiple covariants. This was
done to determine the differences between the groups in
strength gains at each testing level.
Table IV shows the data for the bench press for groups
A and B for Test I, Test II, and Test III. The data show
2S
w CQ g
« to C/3 oa cr; Pk X u w
I ! ;n I SA I 1 fl a [ «
f-4 00 • Ok *•"4
* * . •
CM €M K>
nd !
^ a «*r k* *o vd tn CTi # e& <M K5 to s- <4* trs *i~t $> «H fHI r4 rH «~4 •oss ,<
fsi to \0 vO 00 o Q
o ca r-f CO 00 «*• •
Q • * • • e • IS CO <«t o *A 00 K> t~4 3
r4 m fM K> CM <*t £ K <4 S
•d S
o til 4-> a as m a 0 « o CO o O K* *H •r% e$ CM Ki CM m ^ %o ** *d «s> «H r-4 M r-l r-4 ?H *H 5 s +«> PS 0 D 04
0) fH 1 1
\o 00 vO 00 vO 00 *»
K> O* to cr» *0 CTi s Q • • • • • • C LO oo r oo 00 *-* • »
CM CSS CM CM CM CM cT o
*•*
tfi as <D tA H C a> o cn o o* o > * eg O CM O CM O CM a a) u 5s*
r-i tH fHI fH iH iH i** *£i C*
S* :
*d <**•> / — \ /••**
a ss S 6 0 $5 a u u M N N * m <*? 00 00 00 »
o w w/ W W i u »*
$3 < m < m < £3 Q CO
tfS f-* O H4 H 4—1 $«*$ i~4
that there were no significant differences between groups
A and B at any time during the exercise program.
Table V shows the data for the leg press for groups
A and B for Test I, Test II, and Test III. A significant
difference did occur on the leg press after the first
five-week exercise period, or at the time of Test I. The
P-value for this comparison was 0.01 in favor of group B.
However, for the remainder of the exercise program, the
two groups showed no significant differences.
Table VI is a presentation of the data for the
sitting press from pre-test to Test III for group A and
group B. There was no significant difference between
groups A and B on the sitting press. This exercise, how-
ever, did produce results different from the bench or
leg press. There were no significant differences between
group A and group B on the bench press, but group B had a
larger strength gain. There was a significant difference
between group A and group B for the first five weeks of
training on the leg press. Group B also had larger
strength gains for the fifteen week program. However,
for the sitting press, group A had a larger strength gain
than group B, This strength gain did not indicate a
significant difference between the groups.
Pictorial graphs provide a further analysis of the -
data and comparisons of groups A and B. Fig. 1 shows the
strength gains for groups A and B during the fifteen-week
27
M *4 m <
H
* tn w m fX CU
CP m
I *0 1 10 I <s SSI £ I $r i
*0 fi® iH O o%
• m •
o CM
O *-» V) W C5 cn vo o* , f~i Ch P CM ^ U% r\Q CO Ol •r-> 0> CNi CM CM CM <M CM <T* 2 < •
* / * O
CM Q% iSi fsj o>
•
i-4 *0 tn so 1 tH • ctf • » • » • « 6 rC
CO to «H O CM SO *3 4-> K> in iti «*t vO g
*H to X tf) C0 0) e «H
*d e
<u to CO ss 01
V) 10 o 3 6 VO 00 Ok CM *m cd CM «sr m vo o 4-> a>
V CM <M CM N CM ro •H 3 *3 2 *> iM £ 0> Ctf £> 0* >
0) l f* A*l 1 1 CD
N i>* <M r *o £ X a
vO iH SO r-4 VO iH 6 a • * • « * *
CO N r**> CM 1. N £ to m *0 W> K1 til <L?
*
£ * O •H ** O
to 03 u O M *H b* H a ^ o O ^ O > § <35 O fH O ?H O «H U <D o <Nl fM CM CM CM CM •tf u M S
•tf
O P«
u a> as u
£ ctf /—N /-% r\ cd o
10 a a e a 6 S •H P. u u (A *4-1 $ *5fr 00 ©0 «** 00 t »H O w w w/ v-/ t d
5 feO CS < PQ < « < m c* •H co CO £ *
<M I to •H
i—i 1-4 \ H- I H4 HH
28
w
m g
* CO 00 ta eg 04
O S5 •H H H frH
«#* m I m £ <m 1 a
ea o £***
o o o * • *
o o o
(ft ^ a vD vO v0 \Q 01 CO 53 o o «H rH <NI fs# •r% $> fH rH rH fH iH *H T J S <
to ^ 00 vO *3* *o ^ *0 O tO V0
Q » » • • • • CO Ci «?f o tn O I***
rH C4 ci cm c*i CM
"d o <P m w 3 A fH rH O rH to «ct *r*i C$ O rH •H CN| CM K> •d o « s
eH tH *H rH fH pH
a £3
O KJ O tO o *o to Oi tO Ok to cn
Q • • • • * • to 01 <M O <N* O* CNI
*H Cg rH C4 iH N
•M tA 0* W H A C4 CM inj rs| <NI C4 I «J cn o o* o cn o 3> CU iH rH rH N S A*
/ " • >
VJ fi § e e s & p* M f-( ^ N u u
^ 00 «?f CO oo w w O
oo w w
N a < PQ < pa < «
*A 0) w •*4 H . hH •—t IH
g 'H
S e
10 a o *N <P •H *->
*x a> N * t
£ O •H
as *H > 41 *d
U ctf •d
C3 4->
«
CS CO
29
exercise program for the bench press. Fig, 1 indicates
that group B had a thirteen-pound increase each five-week
period, for an average gain of thirteen pounds per testing
period. Group A had a fifteen-, nine-, and twelve-pound
increase revealed by Test I, Test II, and Test III,
.respectively, for an average gain of twelve pounds per
testing period.
CO a z 3 O Q.
I-X © Ul 5
< Ui 2
ISO" 155 -150 145 1 140 135 " I30-125-120
115 • 1 1 0 -
105 100
GROUP B
GROUP A
5 10 15 TIME IN WEEKS
Fig. 1--Bench press
Fig. 2 depicts the strength gains for groups A and B
on the leg press during the fifteen-week exercise program.
Results in Fig. 2 indicate that group B had the largest
strength gains, with thirty-six, eighteen, and thirty-five
pounds for Test I„ Test II, and Test III respectively. The
30
300
295-
290-
285-
280-
275-
270-
265-
260-
255
250H
245
240-
235-z us 230-1 5
225-
220-
215
210-
205-
200;
m o z D 2
X (!) 53 *
/GROUP e
5 10 TIME IN WEEKS
Fig. 2--Leg press
GROUP A
15
average gain fo r group B was 29.66 pounds per five-week
per iod . Group A had s t rength gains of twen ty- f ive , twenty-
e igh t , and twenty-four pounds fo r Test I , Test I I , and
31
Test III respectively. Although the strength gains for
group B were not as consistent as the strength gains for
group A, the overall strength gains were larger. Fig. 2
also shows the difference between groups A and B for the
first five-week period, when a significant difference
occurred in favor of group B.
Fig. 3 is an illustration of strength gains for
groups A and B on the sitting press for the fifteen-week
exercise program. Both groups had consistent strength
gains. Group A had the largest strength gains with
fourteen, ten, and thirteen pounds for Test I, Test II,
and Test III respectively. The average gain for group A
130
125-1
CO % 120-
2 us -
2 ~ NO \r
1 1 0 ^
100 2 ^ 951 2
90
GROUP A
v GROUP B
5 10
TIME IN WEEKS 15
Fig. 3--Sitting press
32
was 12.33 pounds per five weeks. The average gain for
group B was 8.66 pounds per five weeks.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
This experiment in weight training was conducted using
forty-six physical education students from Rosebud-Lott
High School in Rosebud, Texas. This investigation used
the bench press, leg press, and sitting press. The vari-
ations in the program involved using three sets of four
repetitions maximum and three sets of eight repetitions
maximum. The active time for the experiment was fifteen
weeks.
Findings
The data show that both groups made significant strength
gains from pre-test to Test III of the exercise program.
The data also indicate, with the exception of the sitting
press, that group B had the largest strength gains. On the
sitting press, however, group A had a larger overall strength
gain than group B. However, there was only one significant
strength increase that occurred during the exercise program.
This occurred on the leg press during the first five weeks
of training.
33
34
Conclusions
The data collected would indicate that both programs
A and B would be beneficial as weight training programs
to increase strength. The leg press provided the only
significant difference between group A and group B... For
the leg press, group B had a more significant strength
gain after the first five weeks of training than group A,
For the duration of the study there were no further dif-
ferences on the leg press. This supports the conclusion
reached by Berger that "the more sets, more repetitions
per set and the more total repetitions each training
session will result in greater strength improvements" (3,
p. 173). The data also indicate that no statistical
differences occurred between group A and group B on the
bench press or sitting press. However, Fig. 1 shows
group B increasing the distance between itself and group A
on the bench press at the time of Test III. This greater
increase in strength from pre-test to Test III would indi-
cate program B could be more beneficial for the bench
press.
The sitting press data revealed that group A and
group B had equal increases in strength from pre-test to
Test III. Fig. 3 and Table VI indicate only a one pound
difference between the groups at the time of Test III.
35
Observation o£ the subjects revealed a tendency for
the subjects to perform the beach press and leg press more
efficiently than the sitting press. Many subjects had high
scores for the bench and leg press , but seemingly low
scores for the sitting press. The technique involved in
the sitting press appeared difficult for even the stronger
students.
Recommendations
In view of these tendencies, it is recommended that
the reliability and validity of the sitting press should be
researched. The sitting press might not be the best tool
of measure for weight training programs.
Further study in the development of weight training
programs is needed. Figs. 1 and 2 show a pronounded dif-
ference appearing between group A and group B at the time
of Test III. This might indicate that if the study had
been extended more significant differences could possibly
have occurred. The significant difference occurring on
the leg press suggests that short term weight training
programs may be beneficial. The first five weeks of this
exercise program, consisting of three sets of eight repe-
titions maximum, could be beneficial if a limited allotment
of time were available.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Berger, R. A,, "Effect of Varied Weight Training Programs on Strength," Research Quarterly, XXXVI (May, 1965), 3.68-181.
36
APPENDIX
TABLE VII
GROUP A--BENCH PRESS
Pre-Test Test I Test II Test III
80 90 90 100
90 100 100 110
100 120 140 150
110 130 140 165
120 150 180 180
90 110 130 140
130 130 130 140
110 120 120 130
120 120 130 150
140 140 150 165
100 120 130 140
SO 90 100 110
100 120 120 140
80 80 90 100
140 140 150 165
ISO 195 195 195
100 120 130 140
37
TABLE VII--Continued
38
Prc-test Test I Test II Test III
80 100 110 120
70 110 120 140
110 120 120 130
90 110 120 130
120 130 130 140
39
TABLE ¥111
GROUr B--BENCH PRESS
Pre-Test Test 1 Test II Test III
ISO 165 180 210
30 100 110 120
150 150 165 195
110 120 130 140
110 140 150 165
100 120 120 130
140 180 . 195 195
100 110 110 140
110 120 120 130
100 110 120 130
120 180 210 225
140 140 150 165
.90 100 110 120
150 180 195 210
ISO 165 210 225
130 150 165 180
140 165 180 195
110 120 120 130
120 130 165 165
90 110 110 120
TABLE VIII--Continued
40
Pre-Test Test I Test II Test III
70 80 80 80
120 130 149 150
120 140 150 165
195 195 225 240
41
TABLE IX
GROUP A - - LEG PRESS
f !
Pre-Test Test I 1 Test II Test III
160 180 | 200 - 200
200 220 240 260
200 200 220 260
200 240 260 280
220 240 260 340
200 220 240 260
240 280 280 300
180 200 220 240
240 260 280 320
240 240 280 320
180 220 280 300
140 200 200 220 "
240 240 260 300
160 140 180 200
220 280 320 320
280 300 360 400
200 220 2S0 300
ISO 220 260 260
220 220 240 260
220 220 260 280
TABLE IX--Continued
42
Pre-Test Test I Test II Test III
180
200
200
.240
220
260
240
280
* %
TABLE X
GROUP 5--LEG PRHS5
Pre-Test Test I Test II Test I I I
240 260 300 - 500
160 180 200 220
260 280 300 320
200 240 260 300
200 240 260 320
160 180 200 280
240 260 280 300
180 200 220 260
180 220 240 280
180 220 240 280
300 320 340 360
280 320 340 360
180 200 220 260
340 360 360 380
260 300 340 380
200 240 240 260
240 260 280 300
200 200 220 240
140 260 270 280
180 220 220 240
44
TABLE X--Continued
Pre-Test Test I Test II Test III
120 160 180 200
200 240 260 : 280
200 280 280 300
280 330 360 360
TABLE XI
GROUP A--SITTING PRESS
45
Pre-Test Test I Test I I Test I I I
60 70 80 90
70 80 90 110
90 100 110 120
80 90 100 110
100 120 130 140
90 100 110 130
120 130 130 140
80 90 100 100
110 110 120 130
110 120 140 150
90 100 110 120
70 80 90 100
110 120 130 140
70 70 80 110
120 130 140 150
130 130 150 170
90 100 110 130
70 80 80 90
80 90 100 120
110 120 120 130
u
TABLE XI--Continued
Pre-Test Test I Test II Test III
80
loo
90
110
100
110
110
130
TABLE XII
GROUP B~-SITTING PRESS
47
Pre-Test Test I Test II Test III
.120 120 140 160
70 80 90 100
130 140 150 160
90 100 110 130
90 110 120 140
70 70 80 100
110 130 150 160
80 90 90 100
100 110 120 130
90 90 100 110
110 130 130 140
130 130 150 160
80 80 90 110
130 150 160 170
120 130 140 160
110 120 130 160
130 130 140 160
90 100 100 110
110 120 130 130
70 90 100 100
TABLE XII--Continued
48
Pre-Test Test I Test II Test III
70 70 80 80
110 110 120 130
110 120 130 140
150 160 170 180
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
De Lorme, Thomas and A. L. Watkins, Progressive Resistance Exercise: Technique and Medical Application, New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1951.
Articles
Berger, R. A., "Comparative Effects of Three Weight Training Programs," Research Quarterly. XXXIV (October, 1963), 396^JW. —
, "Comparison of the Effect of Various Weight Training Loads on Strength," Research Quarterly. XXXVI (May, 1965), 141-146.
, "Effect of Varied Weight Training Programs on Strength," Research Quarterly, XXXIII (May, 1962), 168-181.
, "Optimum Repetitions for the Development of Strength," Research Quarterly, XXXIII (October, 1962), 334-338.
, "Weight Training to Develop Heart and Circulatory System," Athletic Journal, LII (February. 1972), 50+.
and B. Hardage, "Effect of Maximum Load for "Bach of Ten Repetitions on Strength Improvement Research Quarterly, XXXVIII (December, 1967), 715-718.
Capen, E. K., "The Effect of Systematic Weight Training on Power, Strength and Endurance," Research Quarterly, XXI (May, 1950), 83-93.
, "Study of Four Programs of Heavy Resistance "Exercises for Development of Muscular Strength," Research Quarterly, XXVII (May, 1956), 132-142.
Chuif Edward, "The Effect of Systematic Weight Training on Athletic Power," Research Quarterly, XXI (October, 1950), 188-194. "
49
so
Corbett, John J., "The Effect of Different Frequencies of Weight Training of Muscular Strength/'' Completed Research, XII (r . u«)» 273.
De Lorme, Thomas, "Techniques of Progressive Resistance Exercises," Archives of Physical Medicine, XXIX (May, 1948)»"2FT:T7T.~~ — -
McMorris, R. 0. and E. C. Elkins, "A Study of Production and Evaluation of Muscular Hypertrophy," Archives of Physical Medicine, XXXV (1954), 420-426.
O'Shea, Patrick, "Effects of Selected Weight Training Programs on the Development of Strength and Muscular Hypertrophy," Research Quarterly, XXXVII (March, 1966), 95-102.
Withers, R. T., "Effects of Varied Weight Training Loads on the Strength of University Freshmen," Research quarterly, XLI (March, 1970), 110-114.