Influence of Resistance Training Volumeand Periodization on Physiological andPerformance Adaptations in CollegiateWomen Tennis Players

William J. Kraemer,*† PhD, Nicholas Ratamess,* MS, Andrew C. Fry,‡ PhD,Travis Triplett-McBride,‡ PhD, L. Perry Koziris,‡ PhD, Jeffrey A. Bauer,‡ PhD,

James M. Lynch,‡ MD, and Steven J. Fleck,§ PhD

From the ‡Laboratory for Sports Medicine, The Pennsylvania State University, UniversityPark, Pennsylvania, *The Human Performance Laboratory, Ball State University, Muncie,

Indiana, and the §Department of Sport Science, Colorado College, Colorado Springs, Colorado

ABSTRACT

Few data exist on the long-term adaptations to heavyresistance training in women. The purpose of this in-vestigation was to examine the effect of volume ofresistance exercise on the development of physicalperformance abilities in competitive, collegiatewomen tennis players. Twenty-four tennis playerswere matched for tennis ability and randomly placedinto one of three groups: a no resistance exercisecontrol group, a periodized multiple-set resistancetraining group, or a single-set circuit resistance traininggroup. No significant changes in body mass were ob-served in any of the groups throughout the entire train-ing period. However, significant increases in fat-freemass and decreases in percent body fat were ob-served in the periodized training group after 4, 6, and 9months of training. A significant increase in poweroutput was observed after 9 months of training in theperiodized training group only. One-repetition maxi-mum strength for the bench press, free-weight shoul-der press, and leg press increased significantly after 4,6, and 9 months of training in the periodized traininggroup, whereas the single-set circuit group increasedonly after 4 months of training. Significant increases inserve velocity were observed after 4 and 9 months oftraining in the periodized training group, whereas nosignificant changes were observed in the single-set

circuit group. These data demonstrate that sport-spe-cific resistance training using a periodized multiple-settraining method is superior to low-volume single-setresistance exercise protocols in the development ofphysical abilities in competitive, collegiate women ten-nis players.

Resistance training is one of the primary conditioningmodalities that has been shown to be effective in mediat-ing neuromuscular adaptations important for injury pre-vention and improved sport performance.11–13,32 How-ever, few studies have examined long-term trainingprograms (that is, 6 months or greater), especially in wom-en.37,38 With the increasing time demands placed on com-petitive intercollegiate athletes due to National CollegiateAthletic Association (NCAA) restrictions on the amount oftime allowed for supervised strength and conditioningduring both the in- and off-season programs, low-volumetraining sessions may reduce training time. However, theefficacy of low-volume heavy-resistance circuit trainingprotocols remains unclear in women athletes.7

These low-volume programs have been characterized bythe use of a single set for a group of exercises. The single-set system is one of the oldest systems, dating back to1925 when first described by Liederman.23 With the use ofsuch a training system, increases in strength have beenobserved over short-term periods (for example, 7 to 14weeks) that are comparable with those of high-volume mul-tiple-set programs in untrained subjects.4,15,24,29,31,34,36

However, such studies have not typically compared suchlow-volume programs with a properly periodized resis-tance training program over a long-term training period.

† Address correspondence and reprint requests to William J. Kraemer,PhD, The Human Performance Laboratory, Ball State University, Muncie, IN47306.

No author or related institution has received any financial benefit fromresearch in this study. See “Acknowledgments” for funding information.

0363-5465/100/2828-0626$02.00/0THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, Vol. 28, No. 5© 2000 American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine

626

A recent study demonstrated no significant differences inisometric torque values for knee extension and flexion atdifferent joint angles after 14 weeks of training with ei-ther one or three sets of dynamic strength training inuntrained men and women.36 However, the effect of usingsuch a training system in younger athletes over a longerperiod of training (for example, an entire academic year)remains unknown. Other studies in men have demon-strated that the use of high-volume multiple-set systemsmay result in superior strength gains in both untrainedsubjects1,3,33,39,41 and resistance-trained athletes.16,17 Inaddition, most athletes using multiple-set protocols nowperiodize their training to avoid overtraining, eliminateboredom in the training routine, and optimize recovery,which is of great importance in improving performanceand reducing the risk of injury.17,40,42

Understanding the effects of using periodized resistancetraining protocols with athletes may provide insights forenhancing performance and preventing injury. The pri-mary purpose of this study was to compare a high-volume,periodized, multiple-set strength training program to alow-volume, heavy-resistance circuit program over 9months of training in competitive women tennis players.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Experimental Design and Approach to the Question

In this study a prospective, longitudinal study was under-taken to examine the effect of exercise volume on thephysical performance of highly skilled tennis players. Acontrol group and two training cohorts were used to ex-amine this question over the course of 9 months of train-ing and tennis competition. This approach allowed us todirectly control and carefully monitor the training andstatus of each subject in the study to gain insights intothis exercise prescription question. The context of the datacan be generalized only to the type of population examinedin the world of competitive tennis.

Subjects

Twenty-four collegiate women tennis players werematched for tennis ability (that is, years of play, compet-itive level, and United States Tennis Association [USTA]ranking) and randomly placed into one of three groups. Allgroups participated in all activities associated with com-petitive collegiate tennis over 9 months, but the controlgroup (N 5 8) participated in no resistance training, theperiodized training group (N 5 8) participated in a peri-odized resistance training program, and the single-setgroup (N 5 8) participated in a single-set circuit resis-tance training program. No significant differences wereobserved between the subject characteristics at the onsetof the study (Table 1). Subjects reported a mean of 7.8 62.4 years of tennis experience with no differences betweengroups. Each of the subjects was informed of the benefitsand risks of the investigation and subsequently signed an

approved consent form in accordance with the guidelinesof the university Institutional Review Board for use ofhuman subjects. All subjects were medically screened be-fore the investigation and none had any medical or ortho-paedic problems that would compromise her participationand performance in the study. In addition, none of thesubjects were taking any medications that would confoundthe data during this study.

Testing Protocols

All tests were performed at the same time of day for eachsubject to reduce the effect of any diurnal variations. Sub-jects were instructed to keep similar dietary and activityprofiles for each testing phase by keeping a diary. Inaddition, subjects were instructed to refrain from exercisefor 24 hours before testing and to refrain from eatingwithin 6 hours of testing. Water was allowed ad libitum.Actual experimental testing after preliminary familiariza-tion and test-retest evaluations was performed on fouroccasions: in August (pretraining), December (4 months),February (6 months), and May (9 months) for all groups.All subjects were carefully familiarized with all testingand training protocols and procedures before initiation ofthe study. The importance of removing the random “learn-ing effects” in strength training studies has been verifiedby Dudley et al.6 and, thus, we tried to eliminate theinfluence of acute learning effects on the absolute magni-tude of changes in the test variables. A familiarizationperiod (consisting of at least three sessions) that includedinstruction on proper technique was used for all testingprocedures.6

Body Composition. Body composition was estimated us-ing three skinfold measurements obtained with a Langeskinfold caliper (Country Technology, Gays Mills, Wiscon-sin) according to the methods described by Jackson et al.14

The three sites consisted of the triceps, suprailiac, andthigh. Percent body fat was estimated using the equationof Siri.35 The same investigators performed all tests. Bodymass was measured on a calibrated physician’s scale.

Anaerobic Power. A Wingate cycle ergometer test proto-col was used to determine peak power output for eachsubject. Subjects were seated on a Monark cycle ergometer(Recreation Equipment Unlimited, Inc., Pittsburgh, Penn-sylvania) with the seat adjusted to a corresponding kneeangle of approximately 10° when one leg was in the ex-tended position. A 2-minute warm-up was allowed usingminimal or no resistance. The ergometer load setting wasdetermined by the product of the subject’s body weight

TABLE 1Descriptive Characteristics for the Three Study Groups

(Means 6 SD)

Characteristic

Group

Control Periodizedtraining

Single-settraining

Age (years) 19.8 6 1.7 19.0 6 0.9 18.9 6 1.2Height (cm) 167 6 5.1 168 6 4.2 167.5 6 5.2Body mass (kg) 58.9 6 7.8 60.4 6 7.6 60.8 6 7.7

Vol. 28, No. 5, 2000 Volume Effects on Resistance Training for Women Tennis Players 627

and a factor of 0.075. Load was applied to the ergometerafter subjects attained the fastest possible pedaling rate.Each subject maintained her maximal pedaling ratethroughout the 30-second test. Pedal revolutions were dig-itally determined via a sensor on the flywheel interfacedto a computer throughout the 30-second test and recordedat each 5-second period. Power values were then calcu-lated according to previously established methods.21

Maximal counter-movement vertical jump height wasdetermined using a Vertec measurement device (SportsImports, Columbus, Ohio). Each subject was allowed onepractice trial, rested, and then was given three trials withapproximately 2 to 3 minutes of rest between trials. Thehighest jump was recorded for analysis. Each score wasmeasured as the difference between the jump height andthe standing vertical reach of the subject on the Vertecsystem.

Dynamic Muscular Strength Assessments. One-repeti-tion maximum strength was determined for the seatedmachine leg press, the free-weight shoulder press, and thebench press exercises according to methods previouslydescribed by Kraemer and Fry.19 A warm-up set of 5 to 10repetitions was performed using 40% to 60% of the per-ceived maximum strength. After a 1-minute rest period, aset of 3 to 5 repetitions was performed at 60% to 80% of theperceived one-repetition maximum strength. Subse-quently, 3 to 4 maximal trials (one-repetition sets) wereperformed to determine the one-repetition maximumstrength. Rest periods between trials were 3 to 5 minutes.A complete range of motion and proper technique wererequired for each successful trial.

Maximal Serve Velocity. The methods used to analyzethe serve velocity have been previously described in de-tail.22 Two Panasonic 60 Hz model AG-450 video cameras(Panasonic, Tokyo, Japan) were positioned facing eachother along the baseline of the testing court. Each camerafilmed all serves, producing a front and back view of allthe subjects. After a warm-up period, each subject wasinstructed to hit the ball as hard as possible until 10acceptable serves were filmed. An acceptable shot wasaccomplished by hitting a ball into the deuce court forright-handed players and into the ad court for left-handedplayers. Ball velocity was determined by digitizing trialsand frame-by-frame analysis with the Peak Performance2-D Motion Analysis system (Peak Performance Technol-ogies, Englewood, Colorado). The data were expanded torepresent collection at 240 Hz using a cubic spline inter-polation routine with no smoothing. Both displacementand flight time of the ball were determined and were usedto calculate the velocity. Flight time of the ball was de-fined as the time frame between immediate (approximate-ly 17 msec) contact with the racket and contact within theservice box during the digitized trials. The mean of the topthree trial velocities for the serves was used for analysisas this gave the highest test-retest reliability.

Training Programs

The resistance training protocols are overviewed in Table2. Both groups trained 2 to 3 days per week depending on

match schedules for 9 months (totaling 100 workouts,100% compliance). Training started in September and wascompleted in May. Both resistance training groups per-formed the same exercises (Table 2). The resistance usedfor each exercise was based on the ability of the individualathlete. The athlete adjusted the resistance for a givenexercise to allow only the set number of repetitions to beperformed. The single-set group used an 8 to 10 repetitionloading protocol for one set, whereas the periodized train-ing group rotated each workout using either 4 to 6 repe-titions (heavy resistance), 8 to 10 repetitions (moderateresistance), or 12 to 15 repetitions (light resistance) for 2to 4 sets of each exercise. This nonlinear periodizationprogram was designed to permit variation of both inten-sity and volume, which is more practical for a sport liketennis where match play and practice are year-round. Inaddition, this model is specific for the sport of tennis andconducive to the type of time constraints placed on thetennis player over the course of a year (in-season andoff-season). All workouts were completed within 90 min-utes or less, with the single-set circuit being shorter induration than the periodized program. Each workout wasindividually supervised and workouts were recorded forboth resistance training groups. The control group tookpart in all of the tennis-specific training and conditioningdrills but did not participate in the resistance trainingsegment of this investigation.

Statistical Analyses

The statistical evaluation of the data were accomplishedwith an analysis of variance (3 groups by 4 time points)with repeated measures. When appropriate, Tukey’s posthoc tests were used for pairwise comparisons. The subjects

TABLE 2Resistance Training Exercise Protocols

Resistance:Single-Set Circuit: 8 to 10 repetition maximum for all

exercises.Periodized: Resistances were varied within a week between 4

to 6, 8 to 10, and 12 to 15 repetition maximum for theexercises marked with an asterisk. All other exercises useda constant resistance of 8 to 10. Number of sets variedfrom 2 to 4.

Rest Periods1 to 2 minutes for 12 to 15 and 8 to 10 repetition

maximum resistance, and 2 to 3 minutes for 4 to 6repetition maximum resistance.

Resistance ExercisesLeg press (machine)Bench press (barbells)Single leg curls (machine)Bent-over-rows (dumbbell)Dumbbell lunge (dumbbell)Split squats (barbell)Military press (barbell)Single knee extensions (machine)Front pull downs (machine)Back extensions (dumbbell)Internal/external rotations (dumbbell)Sit-ups/crunchesHip tucksWrist extension/curls/hammers (dumbbell)

628 Kraemer et al. American Journal of Sports Medicine

were familiarized with each test over a 2-week period andrepeat testing established a baseline. This was followed bytwo separate testing times where the same test was ad-ministered under the same conditions with the same in-vestigators or technicians who would perform the tests inthe study. This resulted in test-retest reliability of themeasures to demonstrate good stability in the measureswith intraclass correlation coefficients of r $ 0.95. Thecontrol group was used to examine the stability of themeasures over time. Nevertheless, in calculating intra-class correlations in the control group the r values were$0.90, again showing solid stability over time in the de-pendent measures. Prior work also demonstrated a goodtest-retest reliability for the measures used.22 Using thenQuery Advisor software (Statistical Solutions, Saugus,Massachusetts), we found the statistical power for the nsize used ranged from 0.79 to 0.92. Statistical significancewas chosen as P # 0.05.

RESULTS

The results for this study are presented in the subsequentsections. Compliance for this study was 100% for all sub-jects who were placed into a resistance training group.Therefore, all women in the single-set and periodizedtraining groups completed 100 workouts.

Anthropometrics

No significant differences in body mass from pretrainingvalues were observed in any group over the 9-month train-ing/competition period. However, significant increases infat-free mass and decreases in percent body fat were ob-served in the periodized training group at 4, 6, and 9

months (percent body fat data are shown in Fig. 1). Nosignificant differences were observed in either the single-set or the control groups.

Anaerobic Power

Changes in the peak power for the Wingate cycle ergome-ter power test are shown in Figure 2A. A significant in-crease in power output was observed at 9 months for theperiodized training group. No significant differences wereobserved for the single-set or control groups. Changes inthe counter-movement vertical jump height are presentedin Figure 2B. Significant increases above pretraining val-ues were observed at 4, 6, and 9 months for the periodizedtraining group. No significant differences were observedfor the single-set or control groups at any time point.

Dynamic Muscular Strength

Changes in one-repetition maximum strength for thebench press, free-weight shoulder press, and leg press canbe seen in Figure 3. The periodized training group signif-

Figure 1. The effects of low-volume and high-volume, peri-odized resistance training on percent body fat. *, significantdecrease from pretraining. @, significant decrease from pre-training, 4 months, and 6 months. Significant decreases wereobserved only in the periodized training group. P, periodizedtraining group; SSC, single-set circuit group; Con, controlgroup.

Figure 2. The effects of low-volume and high-volume, peri-odized resistance training on muscular power. Panel A indi-cates differences in the Wingate anaerobic power perfor-mance test. Panel B indicates differences in vertical jumpperformance. *, significant increase from pretraining. @, sig-nificant increase from pretraining, 4 months, and 6 months.Significant increases were observed only for the periodizedtraining group. See the legend at Figure 1 for abbreviations.

Vol. 28, No. 5, 2000 Volume Effects on Resistance Training for Women Tennis Players 629

icantly increased their one-repetition maximum strengthat 4, 6, and 9 months for all of the exercises. The single-setgroup significantly increased strength only at 4 monthsfor all exercises. No further changes were observed beyondthis point. No difference in strength for any exercise wasobserved in the control group.

Serve Velocity

Changes in serve velocity are shown in Figure 4. A signif-icant increase above pretraining values in serve velocitywas observed at 4, 6 and 9 months in the periodizedtraining group. No significant changes were observed ineither the single-set or control groups.

DISCUSSION

Few data exist concerning the long-term resistance train-ing adaptations in women.37 The primary findings of thisinvestigation were that a high-volume, periodized, multi-ple-set resistance training program elicited superior1) increases in upper and lower body maximal strength,2) increases in muscular power, 3) increases in lean bodymass, 4) decreases in percent body fat, and 5) increases intennis serve velocity when compared with a low-volume,single-set circuit program in competitive collegiate womentennis players during 9 months of training. A secondaryfinding of interest was that both groups increased muscu-lar strength during the first 4 months of training, but onlythe periodized training group continued to improve signif-icantly beyond this point. Of particular importance forwomen tennis players was the finding that the periodizedtraining group was the only group to see sport-specificchanges in the maximal ball velocity in the tennis serve.These findings may significantly affect program designand long-term prescription of resistance training pro-grams for women tennis players. It appears that a volumeof exercise threshold may be vital for some parameters tocontinue to change over time and be integrated within theathlete’s physiologic profile as it relates to performance.

Our data demonstrated a distinct difference in the pro-gression of maximal strength over the 9-month trainingperiod. The group undergoing periodized training had asignificantly different pattern of change when comparedwith the low-volume single-set group after the first 4months. Our data indicate that program differentiationmay take longer than a few months in women tennisplayers because of the rapid increases observed in theearly phase of training (that is, first several months) toalmost any overload.37,38 Such separation may be veryvolume-specific. Direct comparisons of single- and multi-

Figure 3. The effects of low-volume and high-volume, peri-odized resistance training on muscular strength. Panel Aindicates differences in bench press. Panel B indicates dif-ferences in free-weight shoulder press. Panel C indicatesdifferences in leg press. *, significant increase from pretrain-ing. #, significant increase from pretraining and 4 months. @,significant increase from pretraining, 4 months, and 6months. See the legend at Figure 1 for abbreviations.

Figure 4. The effects of low-volume and high-volume, peri-odized resistance training on tennis serve velocity. *, signif-icant increase from pretraining. #, significant increase frompretraining and 4 months. A significant increase was ob-served only in the periodized training group. See the legendat Figure 1 for abbreviations.

630 Kraemer et al. American Journal of Sports Medicine

ple-set protocols have produced conflicting results. Sev-eral studies have reported superior increases in maximalstrength and vertical jump performance when multiple-set protocols were used with untrained subjects.1,3,33,39,41

In addition, the increases observed in groups who trainedwith multiple sets were significantly greater when vol-ume and intensity were periodized.33, 41 In contrast,several studies have reported similar strength increasesusing both single- and multiple-set protocols in un-trained subjects.3, 4, 15, 24, 29, 31, 34, 36 To date, no studyhas reported superior performance enhancement usingsingle-set programs in untrained or trained subjects.However, from a practical perspective not all exerciseshave to be performed for the same number of sets, andthus the key factor appears to be the volume of exerciseperformed for a given joint’s musculature as the numberof sets only contributes to that volume equation (sets 3repetitions 3 intensity).

Limited data are available comparing single- and mul-tiple-set programs in athletes. The results of the presentstudy support previous findings in trained men wherehigh-volume, periodized, multiple-set resistance trainingprograms were superior to low-volume, single-set pro-grams for increasing muscular strength16,17 and fat-freemass.17 In the present study, muscular strength increasedsignificantly in both groups during the first 4 months oftraining. However, only the periodized training groupshowed further improvement beyond this point. Thesefindings have direct implications for resistance trainingexercise prescription oriented toward long-term progres-sion in training tennis players with the goal of improve-ment in these parameters. Kraemer17 reported greaterincreases in muscular strength, power, endurance, andlean body mass when multiple-set programs were used incollegiate football players versus nonperiodized low-vol-ume programs. Kramer et al.16 reported significantlygreater increases in one-repetition maximum squat usingmultiple-set programs in resistance-trained college men.In contrast, Ostrowski et al.28 reported no significant dif-ferences in maximal strength between training with ei-ther one, two, or four sets per exercise in moderatelytrained men. Considering that continued improvement inweight training becomes more difficult with experience,10

it appears that multiple-set, high-volume resistance exer-cise protocols are most effective for long-term performanceenhancement in athletes. These findings may also supportthe use of greater time commitments for resistance train-ing in athletes.

Our data demonstrate limited transfer of the training topower and maximal ball velocity in the tennis serve withthe single-set circuit program. Previously, Kraemer17 alsoreported limited improvements in various muscular per-formance variables between the 3rd and 6th months oftraining using a single-set program in football players.This may have been due to either a lack of variation inprogram design16,17,40 or inadequate volume needed toproduce further increases that transfer to the skills be-yond that of the initial adaptations.16,17 It could also bedue to the speed of movement used in the exercise. Mul-tiple-set periodized programs have demonstrated superior

long-term performance improvements compared with sin-gle-set17,33 and nonperiodized multiple-set programs.42

Therefore, these data demonstrate that short-term im-provements in muscular strength may be attained witheither single- or multiple-set programs during the firstfew months. However, periodized multiple-set programsare superior for transfer specificity in the carryover tolong-term performance enhancements of multiple-joint,whole-body, closed kinetic chain activities in women ten-nis athletes.

Fat-free mass increased significantly at 4, 6, and 9months for the periodized training group, but no changeswere observed for the single-set group. Kraemer17 re-ported similar results in football players who trained witheither a single-set or periodized multiple-set training pro-gram. Muscular hypertrophy in women, as a result ofresistance training, has been reported in previous stud-ies.37,38 These studies used multiple-set programs duringresistance training. Limited data exist examining differ-ences in fat-free mass resulting from single- versus mul-tiple-set training in women. A possible explanation is al-terations in hormonal concentrations conducive toanabolism. Acute increases in growth hormone have beenreported during high-volume resistance exercise.18,20 Inparticular, multiple-set programs were shown to be supe-rior for rapid increases in growth hormone and decreasesin cortisol in women.26 Therefore, it appears that thevolume of resistance exercise may be significant for hor-monal alterations and, consequently, increases in fat-freemass in women.

A significant difference between groups was also ob-served for lower-body power. The periodized traininggroup significantly increased in the nonspecific Wingatepower output test at 9 months and in vertical jump heightat 4, 6, and 9 months, whereas no significant differenceswere observed for the single-set group for either anaerobicpower test. Part of this variance may be accounted for bytotal training volume. Kraemer17 and Stone et al.39 re-ported significantly greater increases in muscular powerand vertical jump performance when high-volume, multi-ple-set programs were used. Sanborn et al.33 reported an11% increase in vertical jump after 8 weeks of trainingwith multiple sets compared with a 0.3% increase ob-served in a single-set group. Interestingly, Ostrowski etal.28 reported an insignificant decrease for the verticaljump after 10 weeks of single-set training. In addition, alarge percentage of this variance may be accounted for byrepetition velocity. The periodized training group per-formed their repetitions with moderate-to-explosive mus-cle actions and velocities whereas the single-set groupperformed each repetition in a slow, controlled manner.Proponents of low-volume training typically prescribe oneset of 8 to 12 repetitions performed to momentary muscu-lar failure at a slow velocity for predominantly single-jointexercises.29,36 Thus, the single-set group performed eachrepetition in accordance with this training approach. Ithas been reported that fast contraction velocities are mosteffective for increasing muscular power.5,25,27 Therefore,training solely with slow movements may have limitedpower development in the single-set group, but explosive

Vol. 28, No. 5, 2000 Volume Effects on Resistance Training for Women Tennis Players 631

lifting is typically not supported by low-volume trainingtheories.

Perhaps the most significant finding was that the peri-odized training group significantly increased their servevelocity at 4 and 9 months, whereas the single-set groupshowed no significant changes. The women who partici-pated in this study were competitive collegiate tennisplayers matched for tennis playing ability. Tennis is aphysiologically demanding sport2 that requires power,speed, balance, agility, coordination, flexibility, and car-diovascular endurance.8,9,30 Thus, increasing tennis-spe-cific fitness components beyond typical tennis practicegains was the goal of the resistance training program.Both upper and lower body power are essential compo-nents of tennis.8 Testing maximal serve velocity was usedas an indicator variable for the efficacy of the trainingprograms on tennis performance ability. Therefore, theperiodized, multiple-set resistance training program wasmost effective for increasing aspects of tennis performanceabove pretraining values at 4, 6, and 9 months. It appearsa threshold of volume is needed to affect performancechanges. This has obvious value to tennis players andcoaches. Furthermore, these gains were maintained overthe duration of the study through a competitive tennisseason.

In summary, a higher-volume, periodized, multiple-setresistance training program produced superior increasesin muscular strength, power, lean body mass, tennis per-formance (as measured maximal serve velocity), and pro-duced a superior decrease in percent body fat over a9-month training period. A finding of interest was thatonly the periodized training group showed continued im-provement beyond that of the initial 4 months of training.These findings have direct implications for program de-sign for collegiate women tennis players where traininggoals are related to long-term continued improvement insuch training variables. Based on our data, it appears thatperiodized, multiple-set, resistance training programs aremost effective for long-term performance increases inthese collegiate athletes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was supported in part by a grant from UnitedStates Tennis Association, Key Biscayne, Florida. Wethank all of the athletes and coaches who supported thissport science project. In addition, we thank all of thelaboratory staff and trainers who helped with the testingand training of these subjects and Coach Sue Whitesidefor her support.

REFERENCES

1. Berger R: Comparative effects of three weight training programs. Res Q34: 396–398, 1963

2. Bergeron MF, Maresh CM, Kraemer WJ, et al: Tennis: A physiologicalprofile during match play. Int J Sports Med 12: 474–479, 1991

3. Capen EK: Study of four programs of heavy resistance exercises fordevelopment of muscular strength. Res Q 27: 132–142, 1956

4. Coleman AE: Nautilus vs Universal gym strength training in adult males.Am Correct Ther J 31: 103–107, 1977

5. Coyle EF, Feiring DC, Rotkis TC, et al: Specificity of power improvementsthrough slow and fast isokinetic training. J Appl Physiol 51: 1437–1442,1981

6. Dudley GA, Tesch PA, Miller BJ, et al: Importance of eccentric actions inperformance adaptations to resistance training. Aviat Space Environ Med62: 543–550, 1991

7. Fleck SJ, Kraemer WJ: Designing Resistance Training Programs. Secondedition. Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics, 1997

8. Groppel JL, Roetert EP: Applied physiology of tennis. Sports Med 14:260–268, 1992

9. Hageman CE, Lehman RC: Stretching, strengthening, and conditioningfor the competitive tennis player. Clin Sports Med 7: 211–228, 1988

10. Hakkinen K: Factors affecting trainability of muscular strength duringshort-term and prolonged training. NSCA Journal 7: 32–37, 1985

11. Hakkinen K, Alen M, Komi PV: Changes in isometric force- and relaxation-time, electromyographic and muscle fibre characteristics of human skel-etal muscle during strength training and detraining. Acta Physiol Scand125: 573–585, 1985

12. Hakkinen K, Pakarinen A, Alen M, et al: Relationships between trainingvolume, physical performance capacity, and serum hormone concentra-tions during prolonged training in elite weight lifters. Int J Sports Med 8(suppl): 61–65, 1987

13. Hakkinen K, Pakarinen A, Kyrolainen H, et al: Neuromuscular adaptationsand serum hormones in females during prolonged power training. IntJ Sports Med 11: 91–98, 1990

14. Jackson AS, Pollock ML, Ward A: Generalized equations for predictingbody density of women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 12: 175–182, 1980

15. Jacobson BH: A comparison of two progressive weight training techniqueson knee extensor strength. Athletic Training 21: 315–318, 1986

16. Kramer JB, Stone MH, O’Bryant HS, et al: Effects of single vs. multiplesets of weight training: Impact of volume, intensity, and variation. JStrength Cond Res 11: 143–147, 1997

17. Kraemer WJ: A series of studies: The physiological basis for strengthtraining in American football: Fact over philosophy. J Strength Cond Res11: 131–142, 1997

18. Kraemer WJ, Fleck SJ, Dziados JE, et al: Changes in hormonal concen-trations after different heavy-resistance exercise protocols in women.J Appl Physiol 75: 594–604, 1993

19. Kraemer WJ, Fry AC: Strength testing: Development and evaluation ofmethodology, in Maud PJ, Foster C (eds): Physiological Assessment ofHuman Fitness. Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics, 1995, pp 115–138

20. Kraemer WJ, Gordon SE, Fleck SJ, et al: Endogenous anabolic hormonaland growth factor responses to heavy resistance exercise in males andfemales. Int J Sports Med 12: 228–235, 1991

21. Kraemer WJ, Patton JF, Gordon SE, et al: Compatibility of high intensitystrength and endurance training on hormonal and skeletal muscle adap-tations. J Appl Physiol 78: 976–989, 1995

22. Kraemer WJ, Triplett NT, Fry AC, et al: An in-depth sports medicine profileof women college tennis players. J Sport Rehabil 4: 79–98, 1995

23. Liederman EE: Secrets of Strength. New York, E. Liederman, 192524. Messier SP, Dill ME: Alterations in strength and maximal oxygen uptake

consequent to Nautilus circuit weight training. Res Q Exerc Sport 56:345–351, 1985

25. Morrissey MC, Harman EA, Frykman PN, et al: Early phase differentialeffects of slow and fast barbell squat training. Am J Sports Med 26:221–230, 1998

26. Mulligan SE, Fleck SJ, Gordon SE, et al: Influence of resistance exercisevolume on serum growth hormone and cortisol concentrations in women.J Strength Cond Res 10: 256–262, 1996

27. Newton RU, Kraemer WJ: Developing explosive muscular power: Impli-cations for a mixed methods training strategy. J Strength Cond 16: 20,1994

28. Ostrowski KJ, Wilson GJ, Weatherby R, et al: The effect of weight trainingvolume on hormonal output and muscular size and function. J StrengthCond Res 11: 148–154, 1997

29. Pollock ML, Graves JE, Bamman MM, et al: Frequency and volume ofresistance training: Effect on cervical extension strength. Arch Phys MedRehabil 74: 1080–1086, 1993

30. Powers SK, Walker R: Physiological and anatomical characteristics ofoutstanding female junior tennis players. Res Q Exerc Sport 53: 172–175,1982

31. Reid CM, Yeater RA, Ullrich IH: Weight training and strength, cardiore-spiratory functioning and body composition of men. Br J Sports Med 21:40–44, 1987

32. Sale DG: Neural adaptation to strength training, in Komi PV (ed): Strengthand Power in Sport. Boston, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1991, pp249–265

632 Kraemer et al. American Journal of Sports Medicine

33. Sanborn K, Boros R, Hruby J, et al: Performance effects of weight trainingwith multiple sets not to failure versus a single set to failure in women. JStrength Cond Res 14(2): 328–331, 2000

34. Silvester LJ, Stiggins C, McGown C, et al: The effect of variable resistanceand free-weight training programs on strength and vertical jump. NSCAJournal 3: 30–33, 1982

35. Siri WE: Gross composition of the body, in Lawrence JH, Tobias CA (eds):Advances in Biological and Medical Physics. Volume IV. New York, Aca-demic Press, 1956

36. Starkey DB, Pollock ML, Ishida Y, et al: Effect of resistance trainingvolume on strength and muscle thickness. Med Sci Sports Exerc 28:1311–1320, 1996

37. Staron RS, Leonardi MJ, Karapondo DL, et al: Strength and skeletalmuscle adaptations in heavy-resistance-trained women after detrainingand retraining. J Appl Physiol 70: 631–640, 1991

38. Staron RS, Malicky ES, Leonardi MJ, et al: Muscle hypertrophy and fastfiber type conversions in heavy resistance-trained women. Eur J ApplPhysiol 60: 71–79, 1990

39. Stone MH, Johnson RL, Carter DR: A short term comparison of twodifferent methods of resistance training on leg strength and power. AthleticTraining 14: 158–160, 1979

40. Stone MH, Plisk SS, Stone ME, et al: Athletic performance development:Volume load - 1 set vs. multiple sets, training velocity and training varia-tion. Strength Conditioning 20: 22–31, 1998

41. Stowers T, McMillian J, Scala D, et al: The short-term effects of threedifferent strength-power training methods. NSCA Journal 5: 24 –27,1983

42. Willoughby DS: Training volume equated: A comparison of periodized andprogressive resistance weight training programs. J Hum Mov Studies 21:233–248, 1991

Vol. 28, No. 5, 2000 Volume Effects on Resistance Training for Women Tennis Players 633