approved: mafi r professor '6uyiajl

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).


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


80

loo

90

110

100

110

110

130

TABLE XII

GROUP B~-SITTING PRESS

47


.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


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.

approved: mafi r professor '6uyiajl

Documents