A COMPARISON OF STRENGTH GAINS FROM TWO WEIGHT TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR FIFTEEN WEEKS OF ACTIVE EXERCISE

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 ducation 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 in

LIST OF TABLES Table Fags I. Results of the Frazier T-Test.23 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 individuals, 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 combination 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 programs 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 simultaneously 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 - Appleton-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 reversed 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 beneficial 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 increase 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 performed 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 including 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 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, 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 significant 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 twothirds 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 dynamic effort per week is performed on the third weekly training session; (2) training with two-thirds or more of the one repetition 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^.hia.^ 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 repetition 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. design to those by Berger. 0'Shea's study was similar in 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 significant 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 repetitions will not significantly increase strength when only one set is used (4); (4) three sets of six repetitions significantly increases 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, 1948),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 III 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 program 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 techniques of each exercise. The subjects were also oriented to five minute warm-up period. This warm-up period consisted 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 subjects. 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 fifteenweek 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 sitting 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! ;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 $> «H fhi r4 rh oss «~4,< w CQ g «to C/3 oa cr; Pk X u w : fsi to \0 o ca vo 00 o Q r-f CO 00 «* * e IS CO <«t o *A 00 K> t~4 3 r4 m fm K> CM <*t K <4 S d o 4-> til as m a 0 «o CO o O K* *H r%e$ CM Ki CM m ^ %o ** *d «s> «H r-4 M r-l r-4?h *H 5 s +«> PS D 0 04 0) fh 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) r-i th fhi fh ih ih u5s* i* * i C* S* *d <** > / \ / ** a ss S 6 a 0 $5 u u M N N * m <*? 00» o 00 00 w w/ W W u»* i $3 < m < m < 3 Q CO tfs O f-* H H4 $«*$ 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, however, 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 thedata and comparisons of groups A and B. Fig. 1 shows the strength gains for groups A and B during the fifteen-week

27 *0 1 10 <s SI I $r i *0 fi ih O o% m o CM M *4 m < H * tn w m fx CU CP m 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 <u to CO ss 01 V) 10 o 3 6 VO 00 Ok CM *mcd CM «sr m vo o 4-> a> V CM <M CM N CM ro H 3 *32 *> im 0> Ctf > 0* > 0) l f* A*l 1 CD N i>* <M r^ *o X 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 <Do <Nl fm CM CM CM CM tf u MS 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»H O w w w/ v-/ t d 5 feo CS < PQ < «< m c* H co CO * <M I to H \ H- I i i 1-4 H4 HH

28 «#* 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% $> fh rh rh fh ih *H TJS < w m g * CO 00 ta eg 04 O S5 H H H frh to ^ 00 vo *3* *o ^ *0 O to V0 Q»» CO Ci «?f o tn O I*** rh C^4 ci cm c*i CM "d o <P m w 3 A fh rh O rh to «ct *r*i C$ O rh H CN CM K> d o eh th *H rh fh ph «s 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 g 'H S e 10 a o *N <P H *-> *x a> N * t 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* O H as *H > 41 *d U ctf d /" > VJ fi e e s & p* M f-( ^ N u u ^ 00 «?f CO oo O w N a < PQ < pa < «w C3 4-> «CS CO *A 0) w *4 H. hh t IH

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 5 10 15 TIME IN WEEKS Fig. 1--Bench press GROUP B GROUP A 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 m o z D 2 X (!) 53 * 300 255 250H 245 295-290- 285-280- 275-270- 265-260- 240-235- z us 230-1 5 225-215 220-210- 205-200; 5 10 TIME IN WEEKS Fig. 2--Leg press /GROUP e GROUP A 15 average gain for group B was 29.66 pounds per five-week period. Group A had strength gains of twenty-five, twentyeight, and twenty-four pounds for Test I, Test II, 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 10^ 100 2 ^ 951 2 90 5 10 TIME IN WEEKS Fig. 3--Sitting press GROUP A v GROUP B 15

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 variations 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 differences 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 indicate 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 difference 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 repetitions 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

38 TABLE VII--Continued 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

40 TABLE VIII--Continued 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

42 TABLE IX--Continued Pre-Test Test I Test II Test III 180 200 220 240 200.240 260 280

* % TABLE X GROUP 5--LEG PRHS5 Pre-Test Test I Test II Test III 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

45 TABLE XI GROUP A--SITTING PRESS Pre-Test Test I Test II Test III 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 90 100 110 loo 110 110 130

47 TABLE XII GROUP B~-SITTING PRESS 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

48 TABLE XII--Continued 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. Chui f 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.