A COMPARISON OF THE “OXFORD” AND DELORME TECHNIQUES IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE OUADRICEPS Thesis {or Ike Degree OI M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Richard Laverne Durrant 1957 I. ”09'Q00*N-~Mto¢w - i . .m. I ‘H :3l5 A CO?».IPARISON OF THE "OXFORD" AND DELORME TECRNI QUE‘S IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE QUADRICEPS {57.2 'ZI'I/'/fi" 7 7 /J E/ ( A COMPARISON OF THE “OXFORD” AND DELORME TECHNIQUES IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE QUADRICEPS by Richard Laverne Durrant AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS Submitted to the College of Education of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation 1957 ABSTRACT Ti tie of Study. A comparison of the "Oxford“ and DeLorme Techniques in Development of the quadriceps. Statement of the Problem. To determine the relative effectiveness of the “Oxford“ and DeLorme techniques of progressive resistance exercise. More specifically, the problem was to com- pare the two techniques in regards: Ia) static and dynamic strength, (b) muscle hypertronhy, (c) strength decrement, and (d) cross education effects. Methodology, The subjects of this study were eight vol- unteers,between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, from physical education service courses at Michigan State University. The static strength of these subjects was determined and the subjects were paired on the basis of static strength scores. The paired subjects were then dividffl into two groups. One group exercised strictly according to the DeLorme technique of progressive resistance exercise. The other group trained strictly according to the Zinovieff, "Oxford Technique“. Except for the diff- erence in the administration of these two technioues of resistance exercise, the training program was similar for both groups. The training program con- sisted of training three days a week,with an alter- nate day of rest integrated between them, for a period of five weeks. Upon termination of the program, the initial and final scores were analyzed by the student "t" and the differences between the groups were compared. Conclusions. (1) Dynamic and static strength are not developed proportionately by P.R.E. (2) Both the DeLorme and "Oxford" techniques develop muscular hypertrOphy. (3) No differences were found between the two techniques that can be attributed to causes other than chance. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express sincere appreciation to his adviser, Dr. Wayne D. Van Hues, for his professional advice, and continual encourage- ment. Recognition is also due the subjects who cooperated so faithfully and sacrificed so much of their time to make this study possible. R011. Do DEDICATION The author wishes to dedicate this thesis to his parents. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v1 DEDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii LIST or TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM 1 Statement of the problem ? Need for the study . . . .'. . . . . x 2 Limitations. 3 Terminology 3 One .M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Ten RAE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . T7~ Tensiometer 4 Volumometer 4 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . 5 DeLorme technique . . . . . . . . . 6 Oxford technique . . . . . . . . . . 9 Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Dynamic . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll ix CHAPTER PAGE Static . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l4 t'ypertr0phy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Strength Decrement . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Cross Education . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 III. HETVODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Experimental Desigh. . . . . . . . . . . 33 Program of Training . . . . . . . . . . 33 Testing Technique . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Static strength . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Dynamic strength . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Strength decrement . . . . . . . . . . 37 Muscle hypertronhy . . . . . . . . . . 37 Cross Education . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Statistical technique . . . . . . . . 39 IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Static strength. . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Dynamic strength . . . . . . . . . . . 44 RypertIOphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Strength decrement . . . . . . . . . . 45 Cross Education. . . . . . . . . . . . 46 CHAPTER PAGE V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS and RECOMEENDATIONS. . . 49 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 LIST OF TABLES xi TABLE PAGE I. Initial to Final Test Results . . . . . . 47 II. Comparison of the DeLorme and Zinovieff Methods of P.R.E. . . . . . . . . . . . 48 LIST OF FIGURES xii FIGURE PAGE I. Position for the Execution of a Repetition. . 40 II. TheVolumometer...............4l CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM Progressive resistance exercise initially be- came recognized as a therapeutic method of develooing strength in 1944 and as a result of thirteen years of research, it is now conceded to be an excellent method of strength deve10pment. This method has been utilized predominately by hospitals and rehabilitation centers in the deveIOpment and reeducation of strephied muscle. However, progressive resistance exercises are not limited to therapeutic treatment, but may also be effectively employed as a method for further develop- ment of strength in normal symmetrical muscles. Although it has been established that progress— ive resistance exercise is an effective technique for deveIOping strength, there remains considerable contro- versy concerning the most effective training routines. The factors have been scrutinized throughout extensive research programs but the answer still remains beyond our comprehension. Statement of the Probleg, To determine the relative effectiveness of the ”Oxford" and DeLorme techniques of progressive resistance exercise. More specifically, the problem was to compare the two techniques in regards: (a) static and dynamic strength, (b)muscle by hypertrOphy, (c) strength decrement, and (d) cross education effects. Need for The Study. For a number of years, research workers have ven- tured to find the answer to the question -- what method of resistance exercise will produce the most desired results? Sires this technique has become so important as a thera- peutic agent, obviously it would be extremely beneficial to the patient and the therapist alike, if the most bene- ficial program could be employed. Before an ”ideal" program may be determined, a vast amount of research must be carried on to uncover the many "mysteries" pertinent to muscle deve10pment which remain unsolved. The results of this study may only reveal a very small portion of the information needed but the solution can only come from the accumulation and piecing together of data established by similar studies. Thus, it is of the utmost importance that research be carried on continually, in order that a scientific basis may be established for the most efficient administration of resistance exercises. Limitations. 1. The most critical limitations were of a psychological nature. One of these was concerned wdth the motivation of the subjects and the other being the fact that all the subjects were not inured to the physical discomforts associated with vigorous exercise. 2. The inadequate number of subjects partici- pating was a definite limitation but this situation was unavoidable. 3. The daily activity of each subject was an uncontrollable factor. 4. The techniaue for measuring hypertrOphy proved to be inadequate. Terminology. P.R.E. - A load-resisting knee extension exer- cise employing the use of a metal boot with adjustable weights to create the resistance. One R.M. - The maximum weight that can be lifted through a 90 degree range of motion to complete one repitition. _ ,. Ten R. n. - The maximum weight that can be lifted through a 90 degree range of motion to complete ten re— petitims. Tensiometer* - An instrument used to measure the amount of tension applied to a cable. Velumometer. - An instrument used to measure leg volume by means of water displacement. * Manufactured by the Pacific Scientific Company, Inc., 1430 Grands Vista Avenue, Los Angeles, California. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction to the Two Techniques of Exercise The principle of the DeLorme technique of P.R.E. is that of starting with a light load and systema- tically increasing to the maximum load for ten repeti- tions. The proguam consists of three bouts of exercise, with each bout composed of ten repetitions -- a total of thirty repetitions. DeLorme and Watkinslstate that the initial bout should be executed with a load equal- ling one-half the ten R.M. The load of the second bout should consist of three-quarters of the ten R.M. and‘ the final bout of ten repetitions should be executed with the total ten R.M. The exercise program to be compared with 'DsLorme's method is known as the Zinovieff “Oxford Technique“. The theories of these two proponents are antithetic. The principle of the "Oxford Technique" is that the individual starts each exercise period with his ten R.H. and after each bout of ten repetitions, the weight is reduced.‘ The purpose of the gradual re- duction is to compensate for the fatigue which the individual experiences, thus allowing him, with the lighter load, to complete the entire ten repetitions of each successive bout. This technique consists of a total of one hundred repetitions -- ten bouts of ten repetitions each. Zinovieff believes that an individual must exercise at maximal exertion in order to develop strength. DeLorme Techniggg, This technique of P.R.E. was developed in 1948 by DeLorme and Watkins, and since has become the most popular method in clinics and physical therapy departments through- out the country. To justify the procedure of their exercise pro- 2 state that the first two bouts gram, DeLorme and watkins of an underload nature are necessary to prepare the phy- siological state of the individual prior to the maximum exertion. They observe that it has been demonstrated through clinical treatment that one bout of ten repeti- tions at a maximum effort is sufficient for the optimum develOpment of strength. The authors base this theory on the fact that weight lifters have developed a great deal of power through use of the same routine. The purpose of the initial two bouts is not entirely clear since they assert that there has been no evidence pre- sented, suggesting that this type of exercise causes trauma to muscle fibers regardless of the severity of the effort. Tension deve10ps too slowly to produce muscle tears. The administration of the initial two bouts is for some physiological reason. There is a possi- bility though that the ligaments, tendons, and joints are susceptible to injury from a very heavy weight.3 McGovern and Luscombe4 criticized the DeLorme technique because they claim that due to the fatigue fac- tor, many individuals cannot complete the thirty repeti- tions. This is especially true among poliomyelitis patients; however, it has also been noted that this phenomenon is not related solely to weak muscles since muscles graded as ninety-five per cent,seventy-fivs or eighty per cent also were unable to complete the thirty repetitions. However, these authors reported that a comparison between the DeLorme technique and their modi- fied DeLorme technique revealed a "t' value of 0.342 which was of no statistical significance. Zinovieff5 also reports that early onset of fatigue inhibited an individual's performance, due to the fact that he could not extend his knee completely each time. Hellsbrandt and Houtz6 report that the only evi- dence to support the DeLorme technique is that obtained from clinics -- there is no scientific justification. This technique was developed during werld War II and was utilized in military hospitals and consequently was only a small part of the rehabilitation program which also in- cluded reconditioning exercises, various athletic programs, and occupational therapy. For this reason, the technique was acceptable since the patients received a sufficient amount of exercise. The majority of the civilian hospitals employing this technique, however, do not offer additional training programs. The expediency of administration was probably the primary factor in its growth and popularity. Hellebrandt and fibutz7reveal that two subjects participat- ing in the DeLorme technique, using a twenty-five R.M., improved their mean strength by 33.35 per cent over a training period of fifteen days -- this was not signifi- cant as compared with the Illinois underload and overload technicues. They have accumulated evidence which suggests that: The human machine Operates under such wide margins of safety that it is difficult to deplete hidden reserves of power in short periods of exer- cise consisting of a small number of contractions. Capen8 reviews comparisons of the DeLorme tech- nioue with three modifications of the same. Two of these comparisons resulted in no significant difference in strength gained, but the third method proved to be slight- ly superior to the DeLorme method. The technique that was superior consisted of five sets of repetitions in which the subject executed as many repetitions as possible each time. Oxford Technioue. This technique was origfinated in 1951 by A. I. Zinovieff, a physiatrist at the United Oxford Respitals. After contending with several problems in administering the DeLorme technique of P.R.E., Zinovieff devised the “Oxford Technique” which is based on the theory that an individual should exercise against an equivalent of max- imum resistance at all times. Zinovieff9 reports that in administering this technique to several patients with various knee injuries, the average increase in volume was three-sights of an inch every 2% weeks and that absolute power, as measured by a single spring lift, increased by ten pounds a week. The patients were discharged on an average of just over two weeks of treatment with normal, or nearly normal power -- nearly normal power was defined as being within ten pounds of the normal quadriceps. Zinovieff10 recog- nizes that one great practical difficulty lies in the estimation of the amount of weight to be deducted after each bout. He estimates that a one pound reduction was found to be average. McGovern and Luscombe11 experimented with a modi- fication of the “Oxford‘rechnique' and found that their results equal those obtained from the “Oxford Technique“. This modification consisted of a total of thirty repeti- tions instead of the advocated one—hundred. In 10 experimenting with poliomyelitis patients, these authors discovered the patients could complete the ”Oxford Technique“ whereas they couldn't accomplish the DeLorme method of P.R.E. Hellebrandt and Houtz13 also experiment- ed with this same mOdified method but they reported no significant increase in strength. McMorris and Elkins13 compared the effects upon strength of a modified DeLorme technique with a modified Zinovieff technique after a twelve week exercise period. The procedure for the DeLorme technique consisted of four bouts of ten repetitions starting with one-quarter, one-half, three-quarters, and then the total. The Zinovieff method was composed of the same groups of re- petitons only they were executed in reverse order. The results showed that the Zinovieff group increased their ten R.M. 5.5 per cent more than the DeLorme technique. Graphical data shows the increase for each group was gradual, but after eleven weeks, the Zinovieff group rises sharply. Hellebrandt and Houtz14 studied the effects of the original ”Oxford Technique‘, with the exception that there were twenty—five repetitions instead of ten, on the development of strength. One weakness of this study was that only one subject participated. The results dis- closed an increase in strength of 134.61 per cent over a 11 period of nine training days, at which point the experi- ment was discontinued because the exercise became so severe. The authors feel that the subject's ability to withstand stress was the principle reason why he achieved such a vast increase in strength so quickly. There is some controversy and surely a degree of hesitation among the patients to exert a maximal effort with only a very short warmpup period. In regards to this observed reluctance, Granit15 has pointed out that the human body contains an inhibitor that protects the muscles against traumatizing degrees of tension. Thus, the evidence suggests that a muscle cannot be injured by volitional effort when the range of motion and cadence are controlled. Strength. Qynamic. Due to the vast interest in strength development, there have been several excellent studies completed in regards to dynamic strength. As a result of this research, many research workers hypothesize that strength is the outgrowth of the overload principle. eteinhaus16 stated, 'a muscle develops in size and strength only as it is overbloaded, that is, as it is required to exert force against greater resistance than it normally does“. Some of the other advocates of the overload prin- 17 ciple are DeLorme and Watkins , and Hellebrandt and 18 Poutz18 . A study characteristic of the underload per- formance and excessive repetitions revealed gains in strength of around 9.88 per cent. In the same series of studies, strength gained through overload principles ranged from 123.36 per cent to 208.20 per cent. Exercis- ing to physiological degrees of fatigue are not contrap indicated if there are no cardio-vascular-respiratory defects and the general health is unimpaired.19 Steinhausz0 theorizes that strength is, in part, learned, which he bases on unusual feats of strength that are often performed by individuals under hypnosis or over- ly excited. DeLorme, Ferris, and Gallagher are also advocates of the learning theory. For example, in a recent experiment they didn't attempt to determine the individual's one 8.x. until he had been exercising a week -- allowing for motor learning.31 Mathews and Kruse studied the effect of frequency of exercise and resistance on strength and their findings ' suggest that by increasing the frequency, a more signifi— cant gain in isotonic strength is attained. However, regardless of frequency, individuals reacted in a manner peculiar to themselves. The authors concluded that one load may not be sufficient for all subjects.32 In regards to develOpment of strength after surgery,DeLorme and Watkinszs assert that within an average 13 period of six weeks, the individual will have recovered the normal strength of the quadriceps femoris. Generally, the longer that exercises are continued, the smaller will be the gain in strength as very often strength may be doubled within the first month or two of exercise and then gradually taper off.24 Once strength is attained, DeLorme and watkins found that little or no reductions have occured in athletes for a period of one year after the P.R.E. program was dis- 25 Possibly after developing strength, athletics continued. will afford enough exercise to maintain that level. This assumption may not hold true if reversed, since DeLorme and Watkins26 found that athletics of the most strenuous variety would not produce the same degree of strength as P.R.E. This has been exemplified in the quadriceps femoris development of football players and.trackmen with several years of competition -- some have been able to increase their strength from fifty to one-hundred per cent within six to eight weeks. Houtz et al.27 believe that after a period of time equal to the exercise period, there will be no appreciable reduction in muscular strength. Abramsong8 found that evidence of strength gained in a training period was still maintained, though considerably reduced, after a lapse of one year. Gallagher and DeLorme found no loss of ability to lift weight by 14 one R.M. measurements of the ouadriceps muscle in seven- teen adolescent boys, two to twelve months after the convalescent period. Static. Baer, et a1. declare that it is readily apparent that neither total work done nor power, in the physical sense, is a major factor in determining the im- provement of isometric tension after exercise programs. To defend their declaration, they report that upon com- pletion of experiments on isometric strength they obtained marked and significant increases in static strength in two weeks by a program of high resistance exercises at a rate of ten contractions per minute. A program with an increased speed of thirty contractions per minute dis- closed no significant effect.30 A. V. Hill vindicates this theory with the following statement; the more rapidly a muscle shortens, the more potential energy developed in it on stimulation is wasted in the passive and viscouglprocesses associated with the change of form.’ 32 Also in accord with this, Wilkie states that tension, \ .\_ decreases as the speed of contraction decreases. ‘*\- 33 studied the effects of Hettinger and Muller static strength and report that one practice period per day in which a steady contraction was held for six seconds, resulted in as much increase in strength as longer periods of muscle contraction and more frequent practices. "uscle 15 strength increased more rapidly with a load of two-thirds maximal strength but beyond this point, load had no effect. They postulate that the oxygen deficit of the muscles is a factor of strength deveIOpment. In relation to this postulation, DeLorme and Watkins34 theorize that even though P.R.E. is a dynamic movement, there may possibly be enough tension developed and the rate of exercise so slow that it exemplifies a static contraction and nulli- fies the usual stimulating effects of dynamic exercise on the circulation. Perhaps there is a relationship be- tween static contractions and the oxygen deficit theory —- it deserves a great deal of consideration. welbers and 8111335 studied the effects of static contractions on high school boys and revealed that contractions of six seconds duration produced significant gains in strength. Siebert:36 found that by stimulating one leg of several frogs isometrically, and the other leg isotoni- cally for fourteen days, the muscles that were contracted isometrically were thirteen per cent heavier than those contracted isotonically. He relates that this extra weight is due to hypertrophy and it is generally believed that hypertrOphy is related to strength. In a comparison of isotonic and isometric con- tractions, a study by Mathews and Kruse37 postulates that isometric contractions result in greater strength gains 16 than does the isotonic type of contractions in terms of exercises used in the study. Also in relation to development of static strength, Ouellettgaand Berger39 have found that programs of P.R.E. have significantly increased dynamic strength but have had no significant effects on static strength. The cause of this phenomenon could not be explained and at present, still remains to be an unsolved mystery. fiypertroghx. 4O McMorris and Elkins define muscular hypertro- phy as an increase in the circumference of muscle fibers -- beyond normal. DeLorme and Watkins41 attribute the fiber deve10pment to an increasing amount of connective tissue, thickening of the sarcolemma, increase in the number of capillaries and muscle hemoglobin, phospho- creatine, and glycogen, whereas Steinhaus43 attributes it largely to the sarcOplasm. Siebert43 has studied methods of developing hypertronhy and through animal experiments has found that is appears only when the rate of working is increased. The mere repetition of an activity is not conclusive to deve10pment of hypertrOphy of skeletal muscles. Power is the decisive factor and not the total amount of work 44 done. Kohlrausch has studied this same problem with dogs and reveals that hypertrOphy is a function of the 17 amount of work performed in a unit of time. The measurement of hypertrOphy has been one of the most problematical issues encountered in this field by research workers. DeLorme, Ferris, and Gallagher45 express that in their Opinion, measurement of hyper- trOphy in the laboratory is far from being easy and under clinical conditions it is much more difficult. In situations where microsc0pic measurement is impossible, McMorris and Elkins46 feel that hypertrophy must be measured through the use of volumetric studies, calipers, or circumferential tape measurements. Dr. Ray Piaskoski relates that the fallacy of using tape for circumferen— tial measures is reliable only if the same observer can duplicate the tension of the tape each time. In regards to tape measurements, Hrdlicka47 recommends a linen tape 43 reports that as being easier to handle, but McCloy linen tapes are unsatisfactory because of shrinkage. In twenty duplicate arm measurements with the tape drawn to optimal tension, McMorris and Elkins report a mean diff- erence of .08 i .07 cm. and with the tape loosely applied, .06 3 .05 cm. was obtained. Neither of the differences were statistically significant. The history of volumometer measurement dates back to 1814 when John Robertson experimented with it in connection with specific gravity. After a lapse of one 18 50 hundred years, Spivak renewed the possibilities of volumetric testing because he felt the need fora technique that would measure redistribution of bulk. Sometimes the concentration of bulk may shift from one position to another and if this is the case, ordinary procedures of measurement do not allow for this redistribution of bulk. Theoretically, the principle of the volumometer is feas- ible but to the knowledge of this author, there is no evidence in the literature to support the reliability of this instrument. The reason why hypertrOphy is so difficult to measure is because there are so many variables. Some of these are: (1) amount of subcutaneous tissue, (2) the state of hydration, (3) the amount of vasodilation, (4) the state of development of other included muscles, and (5) the muscle length.51 As muscular hypertrOphy is developed, many authorities assert that strength is also developed. Some of the factors that influence hyper- trOphy and power are: (1) available Joint range for exercise, (2) degree of motor learning deterioration, (3) pain, (4) willingness and ability of the person to exert maximal volitional effort.52 DeLonme and Watkins53 through clinical experience believe that both are deve10p- ed synonymously. The circumference of a normal arm or thigh can be increased an inch or more through a few 19 weeks of exercise. This is attained by exercising with heavier weights and fewer repetitions. Clarke54 reports a correlation between girth and the McCloy arm strength score of .73. Rorick and Thompson55 studied the relation- ship of size and strength among fifty-one seven year old children by means of roentgenographic measures. The correlations reported between ankle extensor strength and measures of muscle size ranged from .58 to .63 for the boys. The correlations for the girls were all under .52 but this was attributed to the greater homogeneity of the girls scores. McMorris and Elkins56 correlated mean gains in girth with mean gains in strength of twelve subjects after an exercise period of twelve weeks and found no significant correlation. Frequently, in rehabilitation programs, strength of the atrophied quadriceps muscle is restored to normal before normal muscle volume is regained. This fact may seem insignificant but DeLorme and Watkin857 have ob- served that in cases such as this, the strength often deteriorates more rapidly than in cases where the volume has also attained normalcy. quor J. W. Schaeffer con- firms this and also states that readmission of men to the hospital was greater among the individuals who did 58 not regain normal muscle volume. If these observations are authentic, then therapists in rehabilitation should 20 strive for this more definite goal -— restoration of normal muscle volume as well as strength and efficiency of contraction. Concerning the rate at which hypertrOphy can be developed, a study related that among eighty patients, thigh circumference could not be restored to normal in a period of three weeks. This indicates that improving the efficiency of quadriceps, contraction may increase strength without a proportionate increase in muscular hypertrOphy.59 There has been evidence presented that during periods of rapid growth in body length, exercise does not affect muscle growth as much as when the tendency toward growth is in diameter. Another study of college students disclosed that the "asthenic type“ individuals respond the least while average sized individuals showed the greatest improvements in muscle girth.60 strength Decremgnt, Strength decrement is the effect of fatiguing a muscle to the point that its ability to apply mus- cular strength is reduced.61 Steinhaus postulates that the postponement of fatigue is related to the ability of an organism to balance catabolic with.appropriate anabolic ‘processes. Basically, this means a sufficient supply of 31 ' oxygen, and an adequate food supply.62 Some of the more evident causes of fatigue are: (l) depletion of phosphocreatine store as by loss of one or both of its breakdown products, (2) failure of the resynthesis process due to (3) inability to oxidize lactic acid promptly due to the shortage of oxygen. The lactic acid then accumulates in the circulatory system and causes, (4) disturbances in the carbon dioxide carrying power of the blood, in the respiratory center and in the vasomotor regulation which an increased cir- culation can only temporarily compensate, and (5) failure of the circulatory and respiratory system to meet these demands.63 Due to the apparent lack of research concerning 64 proceeded to study the strength decrement, Clarke et a1. effects of exhaustive muscular exercise on the elbow flexor muscles. The subjects exercised once a week for six weeks on the Kelso-Hellebrandt ergography. Ergography was performed in accordance with the technics described by Clarke. 65 The results of the study revealed a decre- ment in strength of twenty—nine to thirty-three per cent in thirty seconds after exercise but after about two hours, the trained subjects were only five to ten per cent below their pre-exercise level, while the untrained subjects were nineteen to twenty-five per cent below 22 their ore-exercise level. This evidence suggests that muscular training will develop a degree of endurance which will afford a faster recovery rate after exercise. Tuttle et al.66 investigated the relationship between strength and endurance involving the back and leg muscles for the comparison. They constructed a dynamometer that would measure strength and endurance especially for this experiment. The results of this study were: (1) individuals with a greater maximum strength have a greater strength endurance index, (2) stronger individuals can maintain a smaller prOportion of their maximum strength, and (3) the development of strength endurance is not directly preportional with the development of strength. 7 Holck6 conducted a long term experiment in an effort to study the improvement of endurance over a per- iod of 4% years. The forearm flexors were the muscles exercised and the Mosso type ergograph was the instrument used to measure the endurance. Continuous improvement in endurance was noted over a period of several years reaching a high point equal to five—hundred per cent of the original endurance after 4% years. In another study an endurance improvement, ibdvall reported an increase of 819 per cent in fifty days of training the arms on the Johnson ergograph. Within two months after cessation 23 of daily training, the level of endurance had fallen to one-third of the maximum attained in training.68 Baer et a1.69 experimented with various methods of isotonic and isometric exercise programs and they found a significant increase in endurance in all programs but no specific one had a more significant effect than any other. This would possibly be attributed to the fact that none of them exceeded twenty contractions. In re- gards to the number of contractions necessary to deve10p = endurance, DeLorme and Watkins7O relate that high re- petition and low resistance exercises are desirable in order to provide maximal increase in work capacity. Maison and Broeker71 studied this same problem and from their results they postulate that endurance for working with heavier loads may best be deveIOped by a great deal of practice with lighter loads. After analyzing the results, they feel that training is due largely to improvement in the nervous direction and vascular supply. Cross Education. The phenomenon of cross transfer of strength from the exercised ipsilateral limb to the unexercised contralateral limb was reported in the literature as far back as 1894. Even though this transfer of strength has been evident for so long, the reason for this peculi- arity is still unsolved. In fact, it hasn't received too much attention until just recently. Scripture et al.72 reported the cross transfer of strength from one limb to the other in 1894. A mercury dynamometer which consisted of a rubber bulb attached to a glass tube containing mercury was the instrument used for exercising the subjects. The effects were recorded in inches and after nine exercise bouts, the bulb pressure for the right hand increased from 28.8 to 48.6 inches. The unexercised left hand increased from 29.6 to 42.3 inches, which indicates cross transfer of strength. Slater-Hammel administered a systematic exercise program of weight lifting involving the flexion and extension of one arm and found a positive and significant improve- ment in the muscular performance of the other arm. This study also revealed that the bilateral gains were rapid- ly lost after cessation of exercise.73 4 5 Clarke et a1.7 and Mathews et a1.7 experimented with ergographic exercises to determine the relation- ship between cross transfer of strength and endurance on the exercised and unexercised arm. The results of both studies revealed a significant increase in muscular strength in the ipsilateral and contralateral limbs. The development of endurance in the ipsilateral limb was statistically significant but there was no significant increase of endurance in the unexercised arm. Hellebrandt 25 et al.76 found through experimenting with restive exer- cises that there was also a cross transfer of strength. All the research in this area conclusively agree that there is a cross transfer of strength but as yet, there is no significant evidence to substantiate the cross transfer of endurance. Wissler and Richardson77 postulate that this phenomenon is due to the diffusion of motor impulses in the Spinal cord which consequently radiate to the con- tralateral limb. Another theory suggests that cross transfer results from synergistic fixations of the con- tralateral musculature. The tensing or fixation of the Opposite muscles caused by exertion of the exercised muscle group results in increased strength of the un- exercised muscles.78 A possible assumption might be that the fixation of muscles of the contralateral limb could be a form of static contraction. Several studies have shown that static contractions produce significant in- creases in strength and Hettinger and Muller79 have found that only from one-third to two-thirds maximum effort needs to be exerted -- which would probably be about all the contralateral limb would exert. DJ 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 26 BIBLIOGRAPHY DeLorme, T. L. and A. L. Watkins, Progressive Resistance Exercigg: Technic and Medical Application, New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, Inc., 1951, p. 24. Ibid., p. 28. Ibid., D. 17. McGovern, R. E. and H. B. Luscombe: ”Useful Modifications of Progressive Resistance Exercise Technique“, Archives of Physical Medjcine, gg;475, (1953). Zinovieff, A. N., Heavy Resistance Exercises: ”The Oxford Tecnniques', The British Journal of Physical Medicine, l23128,(1951). Hellebrandt, F. A. and 8. J. Houtz, "Mechanisms of muscle Training in Man: Experimental Demonstration of the Overload Principle". The Physical Therapy Review, v.36 V0.6:9, June 1956. Ibid., p. 10. Capen, E. K., ”Study of Four Programs of Heavy Resistance Exercise for DevelOpment of Muscular Strength“, The Research Quarterly, §:133, May 1956. Zinovieff, 9g. cit., p. 130-131. Ibid., Hcflovern and Luscombe, Loc. cit. pellebrandt and Route, Loc. cit. McMorris, R. O. and E. C. Elkins, “A Study of Production and Evaluation of Muscular HypertrOphy“, Archives of Physical Medecine fig, 421 (1954). ~ Hellebrandt and Houtz,‘gg, cit., p. 11. ‘9 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 27 Granit, R. “Reflex Self-POpulation of Muscle Contraction and Autogenic inhibition“, Journal of RuerOthsiology, 13 372 (1950). Steinhaus, A. H., "Some Selected Facts from Physiology to Illustrate Scientific Principles of Athletic Training', College of Physical Education Association Proceedin s 57th, p.8 (1954). DeLorme and Watkins, op. cit., p. 10. Hellebrandt and Houtz, 22. cit., p. 12. Ibid., p. e. Steinhaus, A. H. "Chronic Effects of Exercise", Physiological Reviews, 13, 138, (1933). DeLorme, T. L.,B. T. Ferris, and J. R. Gallagher, ”Effect of Progressive Resistance Exercise on Muscle Contraction Time”, Archives of PhysiCQ; Medicine, 33., 88 (1952). Mathews, D. K. and R. Kruse, ”Effects of Isometric and Isotonic Exercises on Elbow Flexor Muscle Groups", Research anrterly, 25, 30 (1957). DeLorme and Watkins, QR.C1__1}_., p. 134. Ibid., p. 27. Ibid., p. 133. Ibid. Houtz, S. J., et al. "The Influence of Heavy Resistance Exercises on Strength", Physiotherggy Review 26 304 (1946). Abramson, E., Arbeitsphysiolgie ii, 148 (1929). Gallagher, J. R. and T. L. DeLorme, “The Use of the Technique of P.R.E. in Adolescence", Journal of Bone and Joint Sur er 91A, 847 (1949). , Beer, A D J. W. Garsten, et al., “Effect of Various Ezercise Programs on Isometric Tension, Endurance, and Reaction Time in the Human” Archives of Ph sical Med cine and Rehabilitation, §§,500 ,(1955). 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 28 Hill, A. V. "The Maximum Work and Mechanical Efficiency of Human Muscles and Their most Economical Speed”, Journal of Physiology 56, 25. (1922). Wilkie, D. R., "The Relationship Between Force Velocity in Human Muscles“ Journal of Physiology, 110, 265 (1949). ' """"' Hettinger, T. L. and E. A. Muller, ”Muskelleistung and Muskel Training”, Arbeitsphysiologie, 15, 111-116 (1953). DeLorme and Watkins, op, cit., p. 13. Delbers, C. P. and F. D. Sills, I'Development of Static Strength in High School Boys by Static Muscle Contractions“, Research Quarterly, 21, 450 (1956). Siebert, W. W. "Investigations on Hypertrophy of the Skeletal Muscles", Zeitschr. E. Klin. Med. 109 350-359 (1928). Mathews and Kruse, 22, cit., p. 37. Ouellette, R. C. The Effect of andriceps Development on Sprint Running Time: Unpublished Masters Thesis, Michigan State university, East Lansing, Michigan, 45 pp (1955). Berger, R. A. The Effects of Selected Progressive Resistance Exercige Programs on Strength, Hypertrophy, and Strengmh Decrement: Unpublished Masters Thesis, Michigan §tate University, East Lansing, Michigan, 51 pp. (1956). Hcliorris and Elkins, pp. cit., p. 420. DeLorme and flatkins, op, cit., p. 14. Steinhaus, A. H., "Chronic Effects of Strength”, 22, cit., 138. Siebert, op, cit., pp. 350-359. Kohlrausch, W. Arbeitsphyisolgie ii 46 (1929). DeLorme, Ferris, Gallagher, op. cit., p. 88. 1.7.)» n. v, . 8r I I... 7 u 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 58. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 29 chorris and Elkins, loc.cit. erlicka, Ales;?ractical AnthrOpometry: Philadelphia The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology (1947). VoCloy, C. R. "Appraising Physical Status: The Selection of Measurements“. University of Iowa Studies, Studies in Chilg welfare 3;; (1936). MoMorris and Elkins, op, cit., p. 422. Spivak, C. D. "The Specific Gravity of The HUman Body", Archives of Internal Hedicine, 39.628-642 (1915). McMorris and Elkins, op, cit., p. 425. DeLorme and Natkins, Qg,cit., p. 113. Ibid., p. 14. Clarke, R. H. "Relationship of Strength and Anthropometric Measures to Various Arm Strength Criteria“, Research Quarterly 25, 143 (1954). Rarick, L. and J. J. Thompson, Roentgenographic Measures of Leg Muscle Size and Ankle Extensor Strength of Seven-Year old Children“, Research Quarterly, El 326 (1956). McMorris and Elkins, 92, cit., p. 424. DeLorme and Watkins, 92,cit., p. 113. Schaeffer, J. N. Direct Communication to DeLorme and Watkins, Ibid. DeLorme and Watkins, Ibid. p. 134. Steinhaus, A. H. ”Chronic Effects of Exercise", ya. cit., p. 104. Clarke, H. H., C. T. Shay, and D. K. Mathews, "Strength Decrement Index: A New Test of Muscle Fatigue“ Archives of Ph sical Medicine and Rehabilitation, §§.376 (1955). 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74, 30 Steinhaus, A. H. "Chronic Effects of Exercise", op, cit., p. 138. Ibid. Clarke, H. H., C. T. Shay, and D. K. Mathews, “Strength Decrement of Elbow Flexor Muscles Follewing Exhaustive Exercise“, Archives of Ph sical Medicine and Rehabilitation, :5 560 (1954). Clarke, H. H. "Single Bout Elbow Flexion and Shoulder Flexion Ergography Under Conditions of Exhaustion Testing' Archives of Physical yed:cine, §g_240 (1953). Tuttle, W. H., C. D. Janney, and J. V. Salzono, "Relation of Maximum Back and Leg Strength to Back and Leg Stren th Endurance“, Research Qg’ arterly, 2_§_ 105 1955). Helck, H. H. 6., “Diet and Efficiency", University of Chicago Mono ra he in Medicine: The University of 5hicago Press, p. 42 (1929). Hedvall, Skand. Archives f. Phyeigl. XXIII 115 (1915). Beer, A. D., J. W. Gersten, et al.,Loc. cit. DeLorme and Watkins, op, cit., p. 10. Maison, G. L. and A. G. Broecker, “Training in Muscles Working With and Without Blood Supply" American Journal of Physiology, 132 390 - 404 (1941).' Scripture, E. H., T. L. Smith, and E. M. Brown, 'On the Education of Muscular Control and Power”, Studies Yale Psychological Laboratory 3, 118 (1894). Slater-Hammel, A. T., "Bilateral Effects of Muscle Activity“, Research Quarterly 21- 203-309 (1950). - Clarke, H. H., C. T. Shay, and D. K. Mathews, "Strength and Endurance Effects of Exhaustive Exercise of the Elbow Flexor Muscles', Ibid., p. 188. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 31 Mathews, D. C., C. T. Shay, F. Godin, and R. Rogdon, "Cross Transfer of Training 0n Strength and Endurance”, Research Quarterly_§1, 212 (1956). Hellebrandt, F. A., S. J. Houtz, and A. M. Parrish, "The influence of Unilateral Exercise on the Contralateral Limb”, Archives of Ph sical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 21, 85 (1947). fliseler, C. E., w.'R. Richardson, "Diffusion of the Motor Impulse", Psychological Revie!_ z, 38 (1900). Davis, 3. W” ”Researches in Cross Education“, Studies Yale Psychological Laborator , 6. 6—50 (1898). Hettinger, T. H. and A. E. Muller, Loc. cit. If CHAPTER III Methodology Introduction. This study was conducted in an endeavor to evaluate the DeLorme technique of P.R.E. as compared with Zinovieff's |‘0xford TechniQue' of heavy resistance exercise in regards to static and dynamic strength, strength decrement, hypertrOphy, and cross education. The subjects who participated in this experiment were volunteer male students from physical education service courses at Michigan State university. These subjects were eoually divided into two groups and each group participated in a training program for a period of five weeks. Due to the many measurements necessary, various instruments were employed. The instruments used and the measurements recorded were as follows: (1) one R.M. to measure dynamic strength, (2) cable tensiometer to measure static strength, strength decrement, and cross edHeation, (3) the frictional bicycle ergometer as an instrument on which work could be standardized, and (4) 'the*volumometer to measure hypertrOphy. 33 Experimental Desigg. Eight subjects with normal knees,ranging in age from eighteen to twenty—six years, were selected from physical education service courses at Michigan State University. The subjects were matched on static strength and divided into two groups. Prior to commencement of the five week training period, initial measurements were collected (T1) to determine static and dynamic strength, strength decrement, thigh girth, and the static strength of the contralateral limb. Upon termination of the training period, measurements identical to the initial measurements were again administered (T3) and the differences in the data analyzed. ’ Programs of Training. The exercise performed by all eight subjects was knee extension of the right leg. The position the ’eubject assumed was identical to the position recommended by Clarke1 for testing quadriceps strength, with the exceptions that in performing the exercise the subject in this study moved his leg through a 90 degree range of motion -- from 90 to 180 degrees. A three inch Dad was Placed under the femur just proximal to the knee joint for the purpose of providing comfort and to keep the femur parallel to the floor. (Fig. I) The cadence of 34 of the contraction to full extension and return to 90 degrees flexion was controlled by a metronome. One com- plete repetition was performed in six seconds -— three seconds to contract and three seconds to return to the starting position -- and a bout of ten repetitions was completed in one minute. Upon execution of one bout, all the subjects rested for one minute before commencing the next bout. The rest pause was equal in duration to the exercise period. A counter was utilized to record the repetitions. An Eastman Kodak timer was used in all situations where time was a critical factor. All subjects exercised three days per week, integrated with an alternate day of rest, for a period of five weeks. The four subjects comprising the DeLorme group performed three bouts of ten repetitions each day of exer- cise. The first bout consisted of a weight equal to one- half of each individual's ten R.M. The second bout was executed with a weight equal to three—quarters the subject's 'ten R.M. and the final bout was executed with the individ— ual's total weight for ten R.M. The four subjects that made up the Zinovieff RIOUp performed ten bouts of ten repetitions —- a total of one hundred repetitions each day of exercise. Before proceeding to exercise with the maximal load, each subject Performed ten anti-gravity knee extensions as a general —w ‘3‘;3:" mFA-ot- th 35 warm-up. Each subject executed the first bout with his ten R.M. and each of the nine successive bouts were per- formed with a lighter load than the preceeding bout but with a load which was still considered to be the individ- ual's maximum —- allowing for the degree of fatigue due to the muscular exertion. It was impossible to reduce the weight systematically after each bout and still main- tain a maximum effort on the suceeding bout, especially on a day when the ten R.M. was increased. The maximum effort was maintained by the subjective observation of the experimentor because there is no objective technique which insures maintenance of maximal effort. The amount of variation of an individual from day to day is another factor to be confronted. Basically, the ten R.M. for the subjects of both groups was determined in the same manner -- seventy per cent of each individual's one R.M. was arbitrarily chosen as the starting point. From here, through trial and error, adjustments were made to determine the individual's true ten R.M. The method of increasing the ten R.M. of each subject was also based on the subjective judgement of the experimentor. Upon completion of the ten R.M., the subject was asked if he thought he could have done a few more repetitions. Muscle tremors, facial grimaces, and other apparent overt physical signs indicative of 36 stress were observed by the experimentor in an effort to determine whether the subject was putting forth maximal exertion. Because of the hypothesis of this study it was necessary that the individual extend his leg completely each time and to determine Complete extension, a guide was employed. (Fig. I) Each subject was instructed to touch the projecting portion of the guide each time and if he couldn't do it, the weights were adjusted according- ly in order that this aim could be fulfilled. If, through these observations, it was evident that the subject could increase his ten R.M., additional weight was added the next day of exercise. Testing Techniggg, _ Sggtic Strength. The static strength of each individual was measured by the cable-tensiometer using the technique suggested by Clarke2 with the exception that the weight of the leg was not taken into consider- ation. The static strength of each subject for the initial and final tests was recorded as the average of two ten- siometer scores. The author of this study obtained a .91 co— efficient of rehability for the tensiometer by the test- retest technique. ngggic Strength. The dynamic strength for each individual was recorded as the maximum amount of weight 37 that could be lifted for one repetition, by knee exten— sion. Strength Decrement. This was obtained by measur- .ing the static strength of each subject before he exer— cised on the ergometer and again thirty seconds after- wards. The difference between these measurements was considered to be the decrement. This particular time 3 duration was chosen in view of a study by Clarke et a1. whichtheyfound the greatest decrement to be thirty seconds after exercise. A duration of time less than thirty seconds may have been more effective but enough time had to be allotted for positioning the subject. The exerted effort on the ergometer was a rate of speed of twenty miles per hour, 6% pounds resistance, and for a period of time only as long as the particular rate of speed was maintained. The epeed was recorded by a speedometer and the revolutions completed by the leftfoot were recorded by means of an automatic counter. |Instructions employed in regards to the use of the frictional bicycle ergometer were those suggested by Karpovich.4 Muscle Hypertrophy. The volumometer was used to determine the girth of each subject's leg: (Figure II). The tank was thirtybfive inches high and 13% inches in diameter. One of the two water outlets was 29% inches 38 from the bottom and had an open-close attachment which was used in standardizing the level of the water. The other outlet was an overflow opening, thirty-three inches from the bottom, through which the water was displaced for measurement. The purpose of both outlets was to eliminate almost two gallons of water from the measure- ment. It was estimated so that the smallest leg probably measured would at least displace a small quantity of water. By obtaining this smaller quantity of water, the measurements were more accurate. Both outlets were coated on the inside with the paraffin wax to precipitate the displacement of water. When filling the tank, the standardizing valve was left Open and when water started flowing from it, the inflow of water into the tank was discontinued. When the water stopped dripping from this valve, it was closed and the tank was ready for use. Be- fore entering the tank, each subject was instructed to stand flat footed with all his weight on the right leg, to keep his leg straight, to avoid contracting his quad- riceps, and to remain as motionless as possible. When the measurement was ready to be taken, the subject stood on an eighteen inch stool which was alongside the tank. He then stood on his left leg and slowly lowered his right leg into the tank, keeping his heel along the inside of the tank. After getting into the tank he was permitted 39 to rest his buttocks against the back of the tank. The displaced water was then collected in a 3000 millileter beaker and weighed on a balance scale in grams. The coefficient of reliability for this instru- ment was .21. Cross Education. The development of strength in the contralateral limb was measured by the cable- tensiometer. Statistical Technique. The student "t"5 was the statistical technique used to analyze the differences between the DeLorme and Zinovieff groups and the diff- erences within the groups in regards to all tests administered. Figure I Position for the Execution of a Repetition 41 Figure II The Volumometer 42 BIBLIOGRAPHY Clarke, H. H. “Improvement of Objective Strength~ Tests of Muscle Groups of Cable-Tension Methods”, Research ngyterly, §1_408 (1950). Ibid. Clarke, R; H., C. T. Shay, and D. K. Mathews, "Strength Decrement of Elbow Flexor Muscles Following Exhaustive Exercise“, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 35.56 (1954). [ Karpovich, P. V., “A Frictional Bicycle Ergometer' Resegych ngrterly, 21, 210 (1950). Edwards, A. L., Statistical Analysis, New York, Rinehart and Company, 1954. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA The present study was undertaken as a comparison between DeLorme's Progressive Resistance Exercise technique , and Zinovieff's "Oxford Method” in regards to their effect on static and dynamic strength, hypertrOphy, strength decrement, and cross education. The purpose of this analysis was to determine whether either of these training programs would produce greater improvements than the other. Analysis of 2315. Static Strength. An analysis of the T1 and T3 scores show that neither the DeLorme group nor the Zinovieff group produce statistically significant results in the ipsilateral limb; however, every subject in both groups increased his static strength from T1 to T2 . (Table I), The ”Oxford" group showed the greatest mean improvement (Table II), but the difference between the two groups was not statis- tically significant. 44 Since the "Oxford Technique“ produced a great- er mean difference from T1 to Tb (Table II), the results of this study support the results of previous studiesl'g that have shown a positive relationship between static strength deve10pment with an increas- ing number of repetitions. Dynamic Strength. The DeLorme grOup im- proved their dynamic strength (1 R.M.) to a degree that was statistically significant at the five per cent level of significance. (Table I). One of the ; subjects improved over one hundred per cent while another came very close to that degree in the fifteen days of training. The subjects in the “Oxford" group did not increase their strength significantly, (Table I) although one individual also increased his dynamic strength by over one hundred per cent. Another came very close to this degree of improvement. One subject however, increased his dynamic strength by only five pounds. ' The DeLorme group showed the greater mean improvement (Table II) but the mean differences be- tween the groups wemanot significant. Since the mean difference of the DeLorme group was the greater, even though only slightly, than the "Oxford" group, these results tend to agree with the evidence suggested by 45 other studiesl’z that there is a positive relation- ship between the development of dynamic strength and exercises consisting of fewer repetitions. hypertrgph . The difference between the T1 and T2 scores of the DeLorme group were found to be statistically significant beyond the five per cent level of significance. (Table I). Analysis of the T1 and T3 scores of the Zinovieff group reveal the differ- ence was significant beyond the one per cent level of significance. (Table I). Analysis of the T1 and T3 differences of each individual in both groups reveals that in every case the T3 score was greater than the T1 score. A comparison of the T1 and T2 differences of the two groups revealed no statistically significant differ- ences. (Table II). gtgength Decrement. Statistical analysis of the decrement of the DeLorme group showed no statis- tical significance between the T1 and T2 scores. (Table I). The mean difference between the T1 and T2 scores of the "Oxford" group also was of no statis- tical difference. (Table I). The mean differences of each group were also analyzed and were found to be statistically insignificant. (Table II). 46 Cross Educatign. Analysis of the T1 and T2 scores of the DeLorme group reveal a statistically significant deve10pment of static strength in the contra- lateral limb beyond the five per cent level. (Table I). The "Oxford Technique" did not produce a statistically significant deve10pment in strength of the contra- lateral limb. (Table I). A comparison of the mean differences of the two groups was not statistically significant. (Table II). TABLE I Initial to Final Test Results 47 DeLorme Mean T%_ Hean T3w t j{j£__- Static strength 254.38 318.75 2.61 10 One R.M. 60.00 96.25 5.32 5 1~‘ypertr0phy 3872.95 4175.13 3.23 5 Strength Decrement 1.88 455.63 2.05 20 Cross Education 230.00 270.00 3.57 5 ngord Kean T}, Heanla t P % Static strength 255.00 341.88 2.33 20 One R.H. 66.25 101.88 3.05 10 HypertrODhy 3369.44 3535.13 6.24 1 Strength Decrement -10.00 '125.00 .77 50 Cross Education 238.75 296.25 1.57 30 48 TABLE II Comparison of DeLorme and Zinovieff Methods of P.R.E. DeLorme Mean Zinovieff Uifference Hean t P % Tl-Tz Difference ' Static Strength 64.25 86.88 .25 80 One P.M. 36.25 35.63 2.52 10 Hypertroohy 302.18 165.69 .63 60 Strength Decrement -57.5 -21.25 .99 40 Cross Education 42.50 57.50 1.03 40 CHAPTER V smmARY, CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS Summary. The subjects for this study were eight volunteer male students from the physical education service courses at Michigan State finiversity. The subjects were matched on static strength and then the pairs were divided into two groups. One group trained strictly according to the DeLorme technique of progressive exercise while the other group trained according to the Zinovieff, ”Oxford, technique'of resistance exercise. The training program consisted of three exercise days per week, integrated with a day of rest, for a period of five weeks. The purpose of this study was to compare these two techniques of progressive resistance exercise in an effort to de- termine their affect on static and dynamic strength, hypertrOphy, strength decrement, and cross education. Conclusions. 1. Dynamic and static strength are not developed pr0portionately by P.R.E. 50 2. Both the DeLorme and "Oxford" techniques deve10p muscular hypertrOphy. 3. No differences were found between the two techniques that can be attributed to causes other than chance. Recommendations. 1. Further experimentation with the volum- ometer as instrument to measure muscular hypertrOphy. 3. The need for more extensive research in regards to the relationship between static and dynamic strength. 3. Further research in regards to the relap tive deve10pment of strength and muscular endurance. B IBL I OGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY A. Books DeLorme, T. L. and A. L. ”atkins Progressive , Resistance Exercise: Technic and Medial {fink Application, New York: AppletonsCentury- ‘ Crofts, Inc., 1951, 'mR' '1 _ Edwards, A. L., Statistical Analysis, New York, Rinehart and Company, 1954. " Axle 733T B. Periodicals Abramson, E., ArbeitSphysiolgie ii. (1929). Baer,A.D.,J. W. Garsten, et al., "Effect of Various Exercise Programs on Isometric Tension Endurance, and Reaction Time in the Human", Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 38 (1955) Capen, E. K., "Study of Four Programs of Heavy Resistance Exercise for Development of Muscular Strength", The Research Quarterly, §_(1956). Clarke, R. H. "Improvement of Objective Strength Tests of Muscle Groups by Cable-Tension Methods", Reseggch anrterly, gl,(1950). Clarke, H. H. "Relationship of Strength and Anthropometric Measures to Various Arm Strength Criteria", Resggrch anrterly 25, (1954). Clarke, R. H. “Single Bout Elbow Flexion and Shoulder Flexion Ergography Under Conditions of Exhaustion Testing", Archives of Physical Medicine, 11 (1953). Clarke, R. R., C. T. Shay, and D. K. Mathews, “Strength Decrement Index: A New Test of Muscle Fatigue" Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, §§_(1955), Clarke, R. H., C. T. Shay, and D. K. Mathews, “Strength Decrement of Elbow Flexor Muscles Following Exhaustive Exercise", Archives of Ph sical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 35 (1954). Davis, W. W.,"Researches in Cross Education“, Studies Yale Ps cholo ical Laboratory, 6. 6—50 (1898). DeLorme, T. L., B. T. Ferris, and J. R. Gallagher, "Effect of Progressive Resistance Exercise on Muscle Contraction Time“, Archives of Physical Medicine, 33, (1952). Gallagher, J. R. and T. L. DeLonme, “The Use of The Technique of P.R.E. in Adolescence", Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 91A, 194 . Granit, R. “Reflex Self-Pepulation of Muscle Contraction and Autogenic Inhibition”, Journal of Neuroghysiology, IQ, (1950). Hedvall, Skand. Archgges f. Physiol. XXXII (1915). Hellebrandt, F. A. and S. J. Routz, “Mechanisms of muscle Training in Man; Experimental Demonstration of the Overload Principle“. The Physical Thergpy Review, v. 36 No. 6 (1956). Hellebrandt, F.A., S. J. Houtz, and A. M. Parrish, "The Influence of Unilateral Exercise on the Contralateral Limb“, Archives of Ph sical Hedicineggnd Rehabilitation, §Z_(I947)I 'Hettinger, T. L. and E. A. Muller, "Muskelleistung and Huskel Training", Arbeitsphysiologie, 1g, 111-116 (1953). Hill, A. V. "The Maximum Work and Mechanical Efficiency of Human Muscles and Their most Economical Speed", Journal of Physiology §§.. (1922). E §fA‘,.-; " : 5". 53 L'olck, R. H. C., “Diet and Efficiency", University of Chicago Monographs in Medicine: The University of Chicago Press,(1929). Houtz, S. J., et al., ”The Influence of Reavy Resistance Exercises on Strength“, Physiotherapy Review §§,(1946). Prdlicka, Ales,Practical Anthropometry, Philadslphia The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology (1947). Karpovich, P. V., ”A Frictional Bicycle Ergometer" Research Quarterly, 21, (1950). Kohlrausch, W3,Arbeitsphyisolgie ii (1929). Maison, G. L. and A. G. Rroecker, “Training in Vuscles Working With and Without Blood Supply" American Journal of Physiology, 132 390 — 404 (T941). :1— rathews, D. K. and R. Kruse, "Effects of Isometric and Isotonic Exercises on Elbow Flexor Muscle Groups“, Resegrch anrterLy, 28, (1957). MathewS, D. C., C. T. Shay, F. Godin, and R. Rogdon, “Cross Transfer of Training on Strength and Endurgnce', Research Quarterly 22, ' (1956 . McCloy, C. H. "Appraising Physical Status: The Selection of Measurements", University of Iowa Studies, Studies in Child Welfare XII (1936). McGovern, R. E. and H. B. Luscombe: ”Useful Modifications of Progressive Resistance Exercise Technique“, Archives of Physiggl Medicine, §g{(1953). HeHorris, R. O. and E. C. Elkins, "A Study of Production and Evaluation of Muscular HypertrOphy', Archives of Physicgg Medicine 32. (1954). Rarick, L. and J. J. Thompson, Roentgenographic Measures of Leg Muscle Size and Ankle Extensor Strength of Seven-Year Old Children", Research ggarterly, §Z_(1956). Il.ll§.-a...... 1.4;... Scripture, E. R., T. L. Smith, and E. M. Brown, "0n the Education of Muscular Control and Power”, Studies Yale Psychological Laboratory E» (1894). Siebert, W. W. "Investigations on Hypertrophy of the Skeletal Muscles“, Zeitschr. §L_Klin. ”ed. 109 350-359 (1928). Slater-Hammel, A. T., ”Bilateral Effects of Muscle Activity", Research Quarterly_§l_203- 209 (1950). Spivak, C. D. "The Specific Gravity of The Human Body", Archives of Internal Medicine, §g_ 628-642 _(1915)} Steinhaus, A. H., “Some Selected Facts from Physiology to Illustrate Scientific Principles Of Athletic Training", College of Physical Education Association Proceedings 57th, (1954). Steinhaus, A. R., "Chronic Effects of Exercise", Physiological Reviews, 13” (1933). Tuttle, W. R., C. D. Janney, and J. V. Salzono, ”Relation of Maximum Back and Leg Strength to Back and Leg Strength Endurance”, Research 3 uarterly, 26 (1955). Wilkie, D. R., "The Relationship Between Force Velocity in Human Muscles", Journal of Physiology, 110, (1949). Wissler, C. E., W. R. Richardson, ”Diffusion of the Rotor Impulse“, Psycholo ical Review 1, (1900). ‘ Wolbers, C. P., and F. D. 81113, "Development of Static Strength in High School Boys by Static Muscle Contractions", Research Quarteryy, El. (1956). Zinovieff, A. H., Heavy Resistance Exercises: “The Oxford Techniques“, The Britisthournal of Physical Medicine, ;g(1951), ' C. Unpublished Materials Berger, R. A., The Effects of Selected Progressive Resistance Exercise Programs on Strength, ~ Rypertronhy, and Strength Decrement: Unpublished Vasters Thesis, ”ichigan State "niversity, East Tarising, Michigan, 51 op. (1956). Cuellette, R. C., The Effect offiguadriceos Development on Sprint Running Time: unpublished Vasters Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, "ichigan, 45 pp. (1955). APPENDIX I on a “Jame." venous; R «a usages—1-0.8 .u . @qu ufiwm a a a a 8 .913”. 9.3mm .9: S- m.~m 6.: mmw mam .92 mdom wfimm 1.22 mo 8 .92 8 a manna Sean .9; 3- m: .md on n.3,” .nd mom mi: J14 mo." om 5:2 a a Tom? 2.5 .59 2... m? .59 can omm .59 9.7. mom .mA 03 2. 2...“. I a méwm $3 :HH o mm- 2.1m own 2». :32 82 0.1a .ad 9%: mo :3“ a a .2 3388 831,83 «Hogans. u pang alcwaxocmn. a n n z a a steam: 2.92 dd om- o Sm SSH... 2m dam 3m SAN .3” m.S 8 .95 a a 231% Sauna .35 mm- m: .aé m5: o3 .36 msSm Wm: .9...“ méo m.m.n 4...... u z 8. 9.12.6 .od 2.- mém- .od 0 gm .o.n can .9an od m.S 0: .05 a 8 «Ann flammm 59a Wéo- 0 .od ma mam .oé méos ohm .o. . Wmfl Wt. 5.1 R 2 35m 33 «£33 3» 8.. scam 33.5 3 .33 all dqu 333 32'. 2 2 2 a." .38.“: unofifloon 5 Gabon no a 033. no.6 2m 28 2 2 2 2 2 z 2 2 2 2 mém m.$ mo mfim mm m.~m Cum on méz m.5 .3 o: o: m.~m on on 6.: ~— : mm 3 mém mm m.mm om cm WE mg: mg: m4 13 a: mém mm mm .94 2 2 mdm mama. mi, mo m.mo 3 oo .95 mm mm mm mm on m.~m om .om .59 o. . m.mm mi. 2. 2. mg... .3 m.mo 3 mém mém on $3 mg: m: m: m: :3 . . unions. 2 a o a a m2. 9% ”3m mém mm m.~m m.~m m.~m mdm mass mam mdw was om om am .95 a . as: om n: a; a; a1 a. ma ms .3 m: as MS a. man as a...” . m om am 3 3 no: 3 3 WR 3m mm mam .. on on on on .05 . ~ mm ma. m.$ me mdo 8 8 mém mém mém mém mm mm Wm“ .8 on .oi u _ an AuaohonH H38. ma 3 ma ma .3 on o m 2. o m 2 m w a «has “cash. unsung .2 24532 323.152» lag: Sealing», 8E... Guam zOFSgh Hal-assures... i :«= 3 III!!! Viol!- . “mm iii/11111111 (Li/E11111)”