THE EFFECTS OF ISOMETRIC, ISOTONIC, AND ISOKINETIC TRAINING PROGRAMS UPON PUSH—UP ACHIEVEMENT IN HIGH SCHOOL BOYS — — — 7 N _ _ — _ _, i 7, —_ _— .7, i — _ i — .’ ,_, — — Thesis for the Degree of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FRANK LEE DEITRICK 1972 WLIERARY Michigan State University BINDING-BY IIIJAB & SIINS' ABSTRACT THE EFFECTS OF ISOMETRIC, ISOTONIC, AND ISOKINETIC TRAINING PROGRAMS UPON PUSH-UP ACHIEVEMENT IN HIGH SCHOOL BOYS By Frank Lee Deitrick The purpose of the study was to examine the effects of isometric, isotonic, and isokinetic exercise under controlled conditions on the push—up achievement of high school boys. Since the isokinetic exerciser utilizes a constant rate, the effects of varying rates upon push-up performance was also examined. Twenty-eight subjects were.randomly selected from those enrolled in a sixth hour physical education class at Sexton High School (Lansing, Michigan). The subjects were randomly assigned to four treatment groups--control, isometric, isotonic, and isokinetic. Each subject was pretested for the number of complete push- ups which could be achieved at three different push-up rates. A pilot study determined the push-up rates that were used in the study. The hypothesis of the author was that there was no significant difference between the gain scores of the treatment groups. A five week training program was initiated with the control group attending the regular physical education class daily and the experimental groups training iso- metrically, isotonically, and isokinetically on the bench press exercise. Each experimental group trained three days a week and attended the regular physical education class the other two days. After the Frank Lee Deitrick training program, each subject was post—tested for the number of complete push-ups which could be achieved at the three push-up rates. The design of the study was a 4x3, 2-way Analysis of Variance of gain scores with unequal n. The results of the ANOVA of gain scores indicated there was a significant treatment effect at the .03 level, but neither the push-up rate effect nor the interactions were significant. However, in post hoc examination of the treatment effect, neither the Scheffé nor the less rigorous Duncan or Student Newman Keul multiple comparison tests could detect a significance at the .05 level between treatments. Thus, the conclusion of the study necessarily must be limited to the significant differences between the four treatment groups with no further definition. THE EFFECTS OF ISOMETRIC, ISOTONIC, AND ISOKINETIC TRAINING PROGRAMS UPON PUSH-UP ACHIEVEMENT IN HIGH SCHOOL BOYS By Frank Lee Deitrick A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Health, Physical Education and Recreation 1972 Dedication To Katherine Mary and Tracy Mac Leod Deitrick ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his appreciation to professors I)r. Wayne Van Huss and Dr. William Heusner for their professional zassistance, to Thomas Gilliam for his guidance with the analysis, and 'to John Collins whose physical education class was used in the research. iii FOREWORD This thesis is atypical from the conventional technique generally employed to report research data in a thesis format.‘ The data are presented as they would appear in a professional science journal describ- ing research. This change provides a more concise, scientific presentation of the research. The author has found it advantageous to work within this framework; it is hOped the reader will as well. Dr. Wayne Van Huss suggested and sanctioned this alternation from the conventional. This author encourages continuation of this format when appropriate. iv Chapter TABLE OF CONTENTS I INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . Limitations. . . . II METHODS OF RESEARCH . . . III RESULTS Design . . . . . . Subjects . . . . . Treatment Groups . Training Procedure . Testing Procedure. Pilot. 0 O O O O 0 Statistical Treatment. IV SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. BIBLIOGRAPHY. . APPENDIXES. . . APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: Summary. . . Conclusion . Recommendations. PILOT DATA . TESTING DATA TRAINING DATA. . Page WW \:o~0\U1c~s~c~ :- oo 13 13 13 14 15 18 18 23 26 Table LIST OF TABLES Summary of Bastat and correlations within cells . . Pretest and post-test mean values and mean changes in the treatment groups 0 o o 'o o o o o o o o o o 0 Analysis of variance for treatments, push-up rates, and interactions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of mean gain scores for treatments, push-up rates, and interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pilot dataz. reliability of testing procedure . . . Pilot data: standard deviation of push-ups and mean rate Of a nOrmal DUSh_upo o o .0 o o o o o o o o o 0 Pilot data: rate of isokinetic exerciser (Super Mini-Gym) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o I 0 Pilot data: push—up rates and metronome settings . Testing data: pretest and post-test data . . . . . Training data: isometric group . . . . . . .-. . . Training data: isotonic group. . . . . . . . . . . Training data: isokinetic group. . . . . . . . . .' vi Page 10 IO 12 19 20 21 22 24 27 28 29 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Mean difference by treatment groups . . . . . . . . . . 11 2 Mean difference by push-up rates. . . . . . . '. . . . . ll vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Even though strength development methods have been practiced since earliest time, there is still disagreement among researchers as.to the best method for strength development. One of the systematic approaches to strength develOpment was pro- gressive resistance exercise or isotonics which loads a dynamically contracting muscle with weights or equivalent so that speed varies and resistance remains constant (as limited by gravity) over a full range of motion. It has been shown that isotonic training results in. strength gains. Research has been undertaken comparing various combi- nations of resistance and repetitions to find the best approach for maximal strength improvement (3,22,23,27). A second systematic approach was isometrics which loads a muscle so that speed is zero and resistance is proportional to muscular capacity in static positions. It has also been shown that isometric training results in strength gains (4,14,21).' There have been studies that have shown both methods to signifi- cantly increase strength but with no significant difference between methods (24,25,28,29,30). However, there have also been contradicting studies comparing isometrics and isotonics. For example, Berger and Rapp showed that an isotonic program was more effective than an isometric program in improving the vertical jump.(6). In contrasting effects of isotonic and isometric training on the vertical jump, Hannett found a 1 2 mean increase of 3.3 inches for his isometric group, and 2.6 inches for his isotonic group, and 1.4 inches for his control group. Improvements within each group were significant at the .05 level (26). To complicate the already confusing field of strength develoPment a new concept in strength development has been develOped to challenge isotonics and isometrics called isokinetics or accommodating resistance exercise (ARE). In this program a muscle is loaded dynamically so that movement is at a fixed rate of speed and resistance is directly propor- tional to the magnitude of the input at every given point in the range of movement. There have been recorded limitations which are inherent in both iso- tonic and isometric training programs (16). Clarke, for example, has described the variations in muscular force throughout a full range of motion resulting in sub-maximal loadings of the muscle (1). The research completed thus far indicates that isokinetic programs will increase strength significantly. Thistle reported that after an eight week period of exercise involving sixty subjects, the experimental group using isokinetics showed an improvement of 35.4% in total work ability while the group using isotonic methods improved only 27.5% and the group using isometric contractions improved only 9.2%. The results in peak force ability were more remarkable with the isokinetic group improving 47.2%, the isotonic group 28.6%, and the isometric group 12.1% (20). Berg, utilizing a ten-week isokinetic program, has recently reported an overall gain of 26% in strength (7). Hislop and Perrine have taken the position that isokinetic exercise permits greater demands to be placed on muscular performance than have heretofore been possible (11). 3 Isokinetic exercise has received enthusiastic responses from athletes, coaches, trainers, physical educators, and physical therapists (8,9,10,12,13,15,l7,18,l9). It is clear, however, that careful and complete evaluation of isokinetic programs is needed. Statement of the Problem To examine the effects of isometric, isotonic, and isokinetic exercise under controlled conditions on the push—up achievement of high school boys. As a secondary problem, since the isokinetic exerciser utilizes a constant rate, the effects of varying rates upon push-up performance will be investigated.‘ Limitations This study was limited by the following factors. 1. The subjects knew they were part of a research study. 2. There was no control over diet, sleep, and other daily living habits. 3. Nothing was known about past training programs of the subjects. 4. The motivation of the subjects during testing and training may have been lacking; however, encouragement was given daily to each group. S. The number of available subjects was small. 6. The study was limited to five weeks of training. CHAPTER II METHODS OF RESEARCH Design The design of the study was a 4x3, 2-way Analysis of Variance. FACTOR A - TREATMENT Control Isometric Isotonic Isokinetic FACTOR N° ““31 B I PUSH-UP Medium RATE Slow Subjects Twenty-eight subjects were randomly selected from a sixth hour physical education class at Sexton High School (Lansing, Michigan). There were no prerequisites for this class. The subjects were randomly assigned to four treatment groups. Due to absenteeism and personal injury, only twenty—three subjects were used in the final analysis. Treatment Groups The four treatment groups were defined as follows: Group AeControl, Group B-Isometric, Group C-Isotonic, Group D-Isokinetic. The study was conducted over a period of five weeks. 5 Training Procedure The subjects of Group A (N-7), the control group, participated in the regular physical education class. During the study the physical education class had received instruction in golf and swimming. The writer asked these subjects not to become involved in any training pro- grams that might involve the upper extremities. The subjects of Group B (N-6), the isometric group, performed the bench press isometrically on a power rack at five different positions in the range of movement. These positions were approximately chest level, 90° of arm flexion, 115° of arm flexion, 140° of arm flexion, "and 165° of arm flexion. Each subject was directed to sustain a 2/3 to maximum contraction for six seconds at each position in the range (4). The subjects trained three days a week. After their training session each subject returned to the regular physical education class. The subjects of Group C (N-S), the isotonic group, performed three sets of eight repetitions in the bench press. The repetitions were performed at the same rate as the slow push-up rate. This rate was controlled by a metronome. DeLorme's progressive resistance program was followed in the training program.- The first set consisted of 8 repetitions against one-half the subjects 8 repetition maximum (RM), the second set involved 8 repetitions with three-quarters of the 8 RM, and the final set of 8 repetitions was performed with the 8 RM (3). Whenever the subject progressed so that he could successfully complete all three sets of 8 repetitions, an additional 10 pounds of» resistance was added and this new weight was then used as the 8 RH for subsequent training. The subjects trained three days a week. After their training session each subject returned to the regular physical education class. 6 The subjects of Group D (N-S), the isokinetic group, performed two sets of 8 repetitions at maximum resistance on an isokinetic exerciser, the Super Mini-Gym.l Two sets of 8 repetitions were performed in an attempt to equate the work in foot/lbs. in groups C and D. The subjects trained three days a week. After their training session each subject returned to the regular physical education class. TestinglProcedure Each subject was tested for the number of complete push-ups which could be achieved at three different push-up rates--normal, medium, and slow—-determined from a pilot study. A complete push-up was defined as one where the subject performed a push-up maintaining the given rate with his back straight, head level, hands approximately shoulder width, and chest touching a block eight centimeters in height on the floor. Each subject was pretested and post-tested for the number of complete push—ups which could be achieved at the three push-up rates. The rate of each push-up was controlled by a metronome. The. test order was randomly assigned to each subject with a five minute. interval for recovery. tiles Prior to beginning the actual collection of data, a pilot study was undertaken to determine: 1. The variability of the data from which the sample size could be determined. 2. The reliability of testing procedures. 1Super Mini-Gym, Indicator Model No. 250, Mgr. Mini-Gym, Inc., Box 266, Independence, Missouri 64051. 3. The push-up rates. 4. The potential administrative problems connected with the testing and training of the subjects. The results of the pilot study were as follows: 1. The standard deviation of the available sample was 6.42. Based on this information and an 0-.05, 8-.10, a necessary and sufficient n was determined to be 6 per treatment group (2). 2. The reliability of the testing procedures was r-0.925 for the normal rate and r-0.738 for the slow rate. 3. The normal push-up rate was determined to be 58.06 cm per second, the slow push-up rate was 24.58 cm per second, and the medium push-up rate was 41.32 cm per second. The slow rate was the rate of the isokinetic exerciser. The medium rate was midway between the normal and slow rates. From this information the metronome set- tings were normal-90, medium~64, and slow-38 beats per minute. In the testing procedure two beats constituted one complete push-up. 4. The height of the block used in the testing was changed from five centimeters in the pilot study to eight centimeters in the actual study. Statistical Treatment A preliminary analysis of the correlation between cells was per- formed to determine if the assumptions could be met for Analysis of' Variance. Since the assumptions were met the final analysis was a 4x3, 2-way ANOVA of gain scores with unequal‘n. CHAPTER III RESULTS There was a question about the appropriate analysis for the data, Analysis of Variance or Analysis of Covariance. In Table l are the results of a preliminary investigation into the standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis, and correlations of the original data. As a result, it was decided that the apprOpriate analysis was an ANOVA of gain scores with unequal n. Table 1. Summary of Bastat and correlations within cells Treatments Control Isometric Isotonic Isokinetic Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post- test test test test test test test test Mean 18.7 18.7 17.8 18.3 14.0 18.0 17.6 21.2 Standard .3 deviation 7.3 6.9 5.0 5.7 6.1 6.7 8.2 6.9 §8kewness --0.001 0.113 0.747 0.053 -o.256 0.576 0.360 -0.305 m z Kurtosis 1.708 1.577 2.827 2.444 2.372 2.013 2.503 2.319 E Correlation .7211 .6595 .9241 .9592 9‘ Mean 17.3 16.7 18.7 19.3 15.8 18.0 15.6 18.6 '5 Standard 53 a deviation 5.5 5.5 6.4 6.0 7.7 4.1 4.9 5.3 g Skewness 0.390 0.801 0.094 -0.879 0.251 0.000 -0.068 -0.330 é’ Kurtosis 1.812 1.839 1.751 2.489 1.641 1.527 1.934 1.989 Correlation .8410 .5800 .7281 .8790 Table l (cont'd.) Treatments Control Isometric Isotonic Isokinetic Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post- test test test test test test test test Mean 14.3 14.7 16.8 15.7 14.8 17.8 12.8 15.2 6 Standard : deviation 4.8 6.3 5.0 6.2 6.4 7.8 2.7 3.5 “i g Skewness 0.428 0.534 -0.863 0.884 -0.201 0.566 0.670 1.074 E "’ Kurtosis 3.105 2.010 2.824 3.146 1.745 1.637 2.310 2.524 5 Correlation .8425 .6564 .8370 .9123 The findings of the study indicated an overall treatment effect significant at the .03 level, but there was no significance in the overall push-up rate effect or in any of the interactions between treatment and push-up rates, Table 3. In post hoc examination of the treatment effects, neither the Scheffé nor the less rigorous Duncan or Student Newman Keul multiple comparison tests could detect a significance at the .05 level between the treatments. Table 4 summarizes the results of the mean gain scores for the treatments, push-up'rates, and interactions. Table 2 summarizes the pretest and post-test means for each treatment and push-up rate. pretest and post-test means are presented. In Figures 1 and 2 the mean differences between the From the results it can be concluded that significant differences exist between treatments. interactions were observed. Neither a rate effect nor any significant Although on the basis of the mean values, an attractive explanation appeared probable in the differences between the Control-Isometric Groups and the Isotonic-Isokinetic Groups on the basis of the post hoc tests such an explanation was not legitimate. It 10 Table 2. Pretest and post-test mean values and.mean changes in the treatment groups Pretest Post-test Mean Groups Means Means Changes Control Normal 18.7 18.7 0.0 Medium 17.3 16.7 -0.6 Slow 14.3 14.7 0.4 Isometric Normal 17.8_ 18.3_ 0.5 Medium 18.66_ 19.33 0.7 Slow 16.833 15.66 -l.2 Isotonic Normal 14.0 18.0 4.0 Medium 15.8 18.0 2.2 Slow 14.8 17.8 3.0 Isokinetic Normal 17.6 21.2 3.6 Medium 15.6 18.6 3.0 Slow 12.8 15.2 2.4 Table 3. Analysis of variance for treatments, push-up rates, and interactions Sum Mean Source Squares df Square F P Treatment effect 158.72 3 52.91 3.16 .03 Push-up'rate effect 9.44 2 4.72 0.28 .76 Treatment X push-up rate 19.50 6 3.25 0.19 .98 Error 954.30 57 16.74 Total 1140.61 68 MEAN DIFFERENCE MEAN DIFFERENCE 4.0 3.0 2.0 |.O .0 o I 'o I .N O 4.0 3.0 2.0 .. m Normal Control Control '0‘ Medium 11 Figure I Mean Difference by Treatment Groups 0.4 Slow TREATMENTS Isometric Isotonic 4.0 3.0 2.2 0.6 '7 -|.z - - s 2 .5 g 8 s g S i a 3 i .7. PUSH - UP RATES Figure 2 Mean Difference by Push-Up Rates PUSH-UP RATES Normal 4.0 0.5 0 '5 .2 z .3. O O .‘2 .2 Isokinetic Medium 3.0 2.2 0.7 -o.e o .2 — '2 o o- 8 s g .1! E 8 ~ 3 8 2 .3 2 TREATMENTS 0.4 Control 3.0 Isokinetic 3.0 2.4 E 3 °- 3 3 2 (0 Normal Slow Isometric 3.0 Isotonic 2.4 isokinetic 12 was also attractive to hypothesize a summing effect in the data from the different rates but again there is no statistical significance to support this position. Thus, the conclusion of the study necessarily must be limited to the significant differences between the four groups with no further definition. Table 4. Table of mean gain scores for treatments, push-up rates, and interactions Overall mean FACTOR A - TREATMENT- values by Control Isometric Isotonic Isokinetic push-up rate I Normal 0.0000 0.5000 4.0000 3.6000 1.8246 :n g TMedium -0.5714 0. 6667 2.2000 3.0000 1.1234 Elm E § Slow 0.4286 -1.1667 3.0000 2.4000 0.9651 Overall mean values -0.0476 0.0000 3.0667 3.0000 1.3044 by treat- ments CHAPTER IV SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The purpose of the study was to examine the effects of isometric, isotonic, and isokinetic exercise under controlled conditions on the. push-up achievement of high school boys. Since the isokinetic exerciser utilizes a constant rate, the effects of varying rates upon push-up performance was also examined. Twenty-eight subjects were randomly selected from those enrolled in a sixth hour physical education class at Sexton High School (Lansing, Michigan). The subjects were randomly assigned to four treatment groups--control, isometric, isotonic, and isokinetic. Each subject was pretested for the number of complete push-up which could be achieved. Following a five week training program, each subject was post-tested for the number of complete push-ups which could be achieved. The design of the study was a 4x3, 2-way Analysis of Variance of gain scores with unequal n. Conclusion Within the limitations of the study, there was a significant treat- ment effect at the .03 level, but neither the push-up rate effect nor the interactions were significant. However, in post hoc examination of the treatment effects, neither the Scheffé nor the less rigorous Duncan or Student Newman Keul multiple comparison tests could detect a 13 14 significance at the .05 level between treatments. Thus, the conclusion of the study necessarily must be limited to the significant differences between the four treatment groups with no further definition. Recommendations Upon conclusion of the study the following considerations are recommended: 1. Increase the length of the study to ten weeks. 2. Increase the number of subjects to be used in the study. 3. Attempt to equate the training programs between experimental groups. 4. Attempt to control the motivation of the subjects while train- ing and testing. This control is particularly important in the iso- metric and isokinetic groups. BIBLIOGRAPHY 10. 11. 12. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Clarke, H. H. Muscular Strength and Endurance. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1966. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Academic Press, 1969. DeLorme, T. L. and A. L. Watkins. Progressive Resistance Emercise. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1951. Hettinger, T. Physiology of’Strength. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1961. Leighton, J. R. Progressive Weight Training. New York: Roland Press Co., 1961. Periodicals Berger, R. A. and D. Rapp. "Effects of Dynamic and Static Training on Vertical Jumping Ability," Research Quarterly, 34:419-429, December, 1963. "Changing Concepts in a Changing World of Sports," Amateur.Achete, September, 1970, pp. 37-38. Chu, D. A. and G. Smith. "Isokinetic Exercise: ‘Controlled Speed and Accommodating Resistance," The Journal of’the National Athletic Trainers Association, 6:23-24, Spring, 1971. Councilman, J. "Isokinetic Exercise:: A New Concept in Strength Building," swimming Wbrld, 10:60-61, November, 1969. Hinson, M. and J. Rosentswieg. "Comparing the Three Best ways of DevelOping Strength," scholastic coach, 41:34, March, 1972. Hislop, H. and J. Perrine. "The Isokinetic Concept of Exercise," Physical Therapy, 47:114-117, February, 1967. Lay, P. A. "Isokinetic Contractions: A New Concept of Accommodat- ing Resistive Exercise," The Athletics Coach, 4:33, June, 1970. 15 13. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 16 Lossau, P. "New Adapted PE Program," The Trapeze, November 19, 1971, p. 6. Muller, E. A.‘ "The Regulation of Muscular Strength," JOurnal 0f the Association for Physical and.Mental Rehabilitation, 11:41-47, March-April, 1957. Moffroid, M. and others. "A Study of Isokinetic Exercise," Physical Therapy, 49:735-747, July, 1969. Perrine, J. "Isokinetic Exercise and Mechanical Energy Potentials of Muscle," Journal of'Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 39:40-44, May, 1968. Settino, H. L. and J. Disanza. "Developing Hitting and Throwing Strength Through Isokinetics," Coach and Athlete, 33:14, February, 1971. Spackman, R. "A New Approach to Strength Building," Athletic Journal, 51:70-71, January, 1971. "Stubborn Machine Helps Retain Muscles,".Medical Wbrld News, September 23, 1966, p. 70. Thistle, H. G. and others. "Isokinetic Contraction: A New Con- cept of Resistive Exercise," Archives of'Physical.Medicine and Rehabilitation, 48:279-282, June, 1967. Vander Hoff, E. R. and others. "Effects of Muscle Strength and Endurance DevelOpment on Blood Flow," Journal of’Applied Physiology, 16:873-877, September, 1961. Unpublished Materials Barney, V. S. "A Comparison of DeLorme's Techniques of Progressive Resistance Exercise with a Modified Technique." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Brigham Young University, 1956. Berger, R. A. "The Effects of Varied Weight Training Programs on Strength and Endurance." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Illinois, 1960. Bergeron, P. "The Effects of Static Strength Training at Various Positions and Dynamic Strength Training Through a Full Range of Motion on Strength, Speed of Movement, and Power." Un- published Doctor's dissertation, Louisiana State University, 1966. Grouwinkle, G. "A Comparison of the Effect of Isotonic Exercise and Isometric Exercise on Speed of Arm Mbvement and on Arm Strength." Unpublished Master's thesis, State University of Iowa, 1964. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 17 Hannett, J. L. "The Effects of an Isometric Training Program and a Weight Training Program on the Vertical Jump, Dynamic Strength, Static Strength, and Thigh Girth in Male College Students." Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1964. Hoffman, J. A. "A Comparison of the Effects of Two Programs of Weight Training on Explosive Force." Unpublished Master's thesis, South Dakota State College, 1959. Kruse, R. D. "The Effects of Varying Frequencies of Training Sessions upon.Strength of Elbow Flexor Muscle Groups." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Springfield College, 1956. McCall, G. "The Ipsilateral and Contralateral Effects of Isotonic versus Isometric Unilateral Training." Unpublished Master's thesis, Long Beach State College, 1963. Ward, P. E. "The Effects of Isometric and Isotonic Exercises on Strength, Endurance, and AnthrOpometric Measurements." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of-Washington, 1963. APPENDIXES APPENDIX A PILOT DATA 18 19 Table A-1. Pilot data: reliability of testing procedure Push-up Pretest Push-up_Post-test' Order TestingZRates Order Testing;Rates Subject Tests Given Normal Slow Tests Given Normal Slow Edy slow - nor 11 13 slow - nor 10 9 Farmer nor - slow 30 18 slow - nor 27 23 Garner slow - nor 17 13 nor - slow 17 ll Goodenow slow - nor 15 14 nor - slow 13 10 Jackson nor - slow 31 17 nor - slow 35 17 Jordon slow - nor 15 11 slow - nor 15 12 Monahan slow - nor 27 21 slow - nor 22 18 Phillips nor - slow 25 14 slow - nor 20 17 Ruhno nor — slow 25 10 slow - nor 20 11 Satterlee slow - nor 17 12 nor - slow 14 13 Testing Rates: normal - 120 beats per minute slow - 38 beats per minute Results 1. r - .925 normal 2. = .738 r slow Table A—2. 20 Pilot data: standard deviation of push-ups and mean rate of a normal push-up Number Arm Length Time for'lo Repe- Subject of Push—ups in Centimeters tions in Seconds Edy ll 44 16.5 Farmer 30 46 13.6 Garner 17 49 13.2 Goodenow 15 46 18.0 Jackson 31 45 14.9 Jordon 15 48 12.0 Monahan 27 44 12.8 Phillips 25 50 14.3 Ruhno 25 46 12.2 Satterlee 17 50 16.5 Results 1. Standard deviation = 6.42 2. Mean arm length - 46.8 3. Mean time for l repetition = 1.44 sec. 4. Mean distance moved on 1 repetition . 93.6-10-83.6 cm 5. Rate of normal push-up - 58.06 cm per sec Table A-3. Pilot data: 21 rate of isokinetic exerciser (Super Mini-Gym) Actual Resistance Resistance Reading on 1 :- Time in Seconds to Move in Pounds Super Mini-Gym 100 cm for each trial 50 125 4.6, 4.5, 4.5, 4.5, 4.4 100 225 4.2, 4.1, 4.1, 4.0, 3.9 150 325 4 1, 4.0. 4 0, 9, 3.8 200 425 4 0, 4.0, 3.9, 3.9, 3.8 250 above the Mini- 4.0. 3.9, 3.8 Gym scale Results 1. Mean time to move 100 cm - 4.068 sec 2. Rate of Super Mini-Gym - 24.58 cm per sec 22 Table A—4. Pilot data: push-up rates and metronome settings 1. Push-up Rates Normal — 58.06 cm per sec Medium - 41.32 cm per sec Slow - 24.58 cm per sec 2. Distance moved on each repetition - 77.6 cm Mean distance moved - block height (8 cm) 93.6 - 16 77.6 cm 3. Time for each push-up rate repetition Normal - 1.34 sec Medium — 1.88 sec Slow - 3.16 sec 4. Metronome settings for push-up rates Normal - 90 beats per minute Medium - 64 beats per minute Slow - 38 beats per minute APPENDIX B TESTING DATA 23 24 Table B—1. Testing data: pretest and post-test data Control Group PUSthP Pretest Push-up Post-test Order Testinngates Order Testing_Rates Subjects Tests Given Nor. Med Slow Tests Given Nor Med' Slow. Fay NMS 24 20 16 SMN 22 24 ll Ellis MNS 17 26 15 NSM 26 25 21 Guyselman MNS 9 15 12 SMN‘ 10 14 . 12 P. Johnson SNM 29 22 23 NSM 28 16 25 Loggins NMS 11 12 7 MSN 12 13 7 Philo NSM 24 ll 14 SMN 15 12 16 Stalker MSN 17 15 13 SNM 18 13 ll Isometric Group Push-up Pretest Push-up Post-test Order Testingfgates Order TestingTRates Subjects Tests Given Nor Med Slow Tests Given Nor- Med Slow Crouch NMS 9 10 8 MNS 10 9 8 Davis* NSM 22 11 9 MNS -- -- -- Eberly SMN 20 16 22 MSN 15 25 13 Eschbach SNM 17 15 17 NMS 18 21 15 Griffin MNS 24 27 17 NMS 20 21 16 Kuhn, MSN 20 25 21 NSM 27 24 27 Tremblay SMN 17 19 16 NMS 20 16 15 Push-up Test Rates N - normal M - medium S - slow *Subject not used in final analysis as he did not finish study. 25 Table B-1 (cont'd.) Isotonic Group Push-up Pretest Pushfiup_Post-test Order Testinijates Order Testinngates Subjects Tests Given Nor Med Slow Tests Given Nor Med Slow Brown* MSN 12 12 9 NSM 12 11 12 Glisson MSN 16 26 20 SNM 21 21 29 B. Johnson* SMN 23 25 24 MNS 28 18 17 Kirvan SNM 13 11 12 NMS 16 18 ll Lintemuth MSN 5 7 6 MNS 11 15 12 Reemsnyder SNM 14 14 14 SMN 14 13 14 Sinko MSN 22 21 22 MSN 28 23 23 Isokinetic Group Push-up Pretest Push-up Post-test Order TestigggRates Order Test1ng Rates Subjects Tests Given Nor Med‘ Slow Tests Given Nor Med: Slow Foster* NMS 15 19 13 MSN 16 20 13 Gaffee NMS 17 22 17 MNS 24 25 21 Magee MNS 7 9 10 SNM 11 ll 13 Redburn NMS 30 18 13 SMN 30 21 13 Ward NSM 16 13 ll NSM 20 20 13 WOods NSM 18 16 13 SNM 21 16 16 Zillizitt* SNM 8 9 8 MSN -- —- -- Push-up Test Rates N - normal M - medium S - slow *Subject not used in final analysis as he did not finish study. APPENDIX C TRAINING DATA 26 27 Training data: isometric group Subjects Date May 8 10 12 15 17 19 22 24 26 29 31 Crouch Davis Eberly Eschbach Griffin Kuhn Tremblay \\\\\\'\ \\\\\\\ \\"\"\\\\ \"\'\\"\ \\\\"\ \\\\\ \\\\\\\ \"\\\\ \\"\\"\ \\\\\ \\\"\"\ \\"\\\ \"\\\\ \\\\\ \\\"\\ / - performed isometric exercises for that date. new use moonunuoaouee "nuance an mocauonmoma 28 nuance 0H annoyed“ 2m wlpum an m «\MIvoN mm m ~\Hluma "muom e n n e N anonn a anoan a a a anonn a a snoon a a a a a ann.no a anoo a a a ann.~a a a annn a a a a a anna a anoa a a a annn a a anon oxena a nnoan a a n e a a N enoHH a anoon anon anoa anoon a anon a a a a a a a ann.~a a anne ann.na anon anne a anoa a a a a a a a annn a anon anne anoe anon noonoaaooa a nnoan a n e a H a n n anonn anoon anon anoa anooH a . anon a a a a a a a a ann.~a annn ann.~a anoa annn a anoo a a a a a a a a annn anon anno anoe anon nonaooona anoon a a a n nnoo a n a n a a nnoa anon onoon annn a a a a ann.na a a a a a a anoa ann.~n ennn anon a a a a anne a a a a a a anoe annn anon onenna n nnoan anonn . anoon anon anoa anoon a anon ann.~a anne ann.na anoa annn a anoa annn anon anne anoe anon oonoaoo .a a n a a N n nnoen a a A anonn a known anode anooH a a a a a a annon a a a ann.no a anon ann.~a annn a a a a a a anon a a a anna a anon annn anon oonnnno e e n n a anoa onoon a a a a a anoa anns a a a a a anoe anon osona «« e a a n N an am an on Na an an nn an on a nooonoon mosh has Quan— moouw oneouomfi ”mono mononaue .Nlu mamas 29 Table C-3. Training data: isokinetic group Date May June Subjects 8 10 12 15 l7 19 22 24 26 29 31 2 5 7 8 Foster 135*175 160 155 160 160 175 175 180 175 180 180 180 175 Gaffee 155 185 200 200 195 200 210 200 200 190 210 205 205 200 200 175 190 205 205 200 195 205 210 200 205 225 210 215 215 200 Magee 135 130 140 155 165 175 160 160 150 190 145 160 215 200 185 120 150 175 170 125 170 155 160 170 155 140 175 155 150 145 Redburn 250 275 245 255 250 250 300 260 220 260 255 245 240 240 250 270 260 245 250 260 255 290 255 245 250 250 250 255 255 240 Ward 210 250 235 240 225 275 230 235 245 240 240 220 220 235 225 235 250 240 240 300 240 220 225 240 220 215 225 235 240 235 Woods 130 150 150 175 160 170 170 165 160 160 200 185 175 185 160 150 175 145 155 155 170 160 195 175 180 195 185 175 200 170 Zillizitt 175 180 180 205 205 200 205 180 165 170 180 180 170 175 200 185 200 215 180 190 180 175 175 170 * Reading on Super Mini-Gym Exerciser. MIC CHlIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRAR REl