THE EFFECT OF STANDARD RATE OF WARMUP 0N STATTC KNEE EXTENSION STRENGTH Thesis for the Degree of M. A MICHIGAN STATE umveasm' George Edward Kaye . 1957 . ' LIBRARY Michigan State University _; sud-w F ‘é‘f) UL)‘, 3“ [1:1 I T .In‘ 9.;- e. UL. THE EFFECT OF STANDARD RATE OF WARMUP ON STATIC KNEE EXTENSION STRENGTH By George Edward Kaye AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS College of Education Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation 1967 J. ABSTRACT THE EFFECT OF STANDARD RATE OF WARMUP ON STATIC KNEE EXTENSION STRENGTH by George Edward Kaye Statement of the Problem The purpose of this investigation was to determine the effects of a standard rate of warmup on static knee extension strength. Methodology This study was initiated in the summer of 1966. The subjects used in the study were graduate and under- graduate male students at Michigan State University. All sixteen subjects used in this study were given an initial treadmill run (6 miles per hour, 0 grade, 10 minutes) in order to check their cardiovascular re— Sponse to exerciSe to determine their level of fitness. The four subjects deemed to have the greatest and least 0 H ° N cardiovascular fitness were termed "fit" and unfit for the purposes of this investigation. About two weeks after the initial run, all subjects had ten knee extension trials with standard treadmill runs ° h 0f 6 miles per hour, 0 grade, for 2 minutes between eac George Edward Kaye of the trials. The knee extension trials were measured in pounds on a recorder to which a strain gauge had been con- nected. An analysis of variance was used to evaluate (a) the effect of the warmup on the total group, (b) the difference in the effect of the warmup between the fit and unfit groups; and, (c) the difference in the effect of the warm- up between the fit and unfit groups per pound of body weight. Conclusions l. A standard warmup of the type, duration, and in- tensity used in this study significantly improved raw static knee extension strength. 2. Both fit and unfit groups improved their raw static knee extension strength, but the unfit group im- proved at a significantly greater rate than did the fit group due to the warmup. 3. No significant differences were observed when knee extension strength was divided by body weight. _ J- THE EFFECT OF STANDARD RATE OF WARMUP ON STATIC KNEE EXTENSION STRENGTH By George Edward Kaye A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS College of Education DEpartment of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation 1967 DEDICATION This thesis is respectfully dedicated to my loving wife LEEANN without whose constant encouragement this thesis would have been an impossibility and the memory of my late grandfather A. CROSMAN PRATT ii ACKNOWLEDGMENT Thankful appreciation is extended to Dr. Wayne VanHuss, whose advice and assistance made this study pos- sible. Gratitude is also expressed to Mr. David Anderson, Mr. Robert Wells, Mr. J. Peter Stothart, Miss Joanne Mueller, and all my friends who donated their time and effort as subjects. I also wish to thank my wife, LeeAnn, for her con- stant encouragement throughout this study. —-G.E.K. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION ACKNOWLEDGMENT LIST OF TABLES LIST OF CHARTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM Statement of the Problem. Need for the Study. Limitations to the Study. Definition of Terms II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. III. METHODOLOGY IV. ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF DATA Total Group Fit vs. Unfit . . Fit vs. Unfit Per Pound of Body Weight. V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions Recommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES A. Heart Rate In Initial Run B. Knee Extension Trials . . C. Knee Extension Strength / Body weight iv iii vi wmmw 10 23 23 2A 27 29 31 33 Table II. III. IV. LIST OF TABLES Reliability of Trials Analysis of Variance (Total Group). Analysis of Variance (Fit vs. Unfit). Analysis of Variance (Fit vs. Unfit per Pound of Body Weight) . __‘.. __.--.—.- __. Page 15 15 16 16 Chart I. II. LIST OF CHARTS Comparison of Group Mean Knee Extension Strengths Comparison of Group Mean Knee Extension Strengths Per Pound of Body Weight. vi Page 20 21 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM There have been a great variety of results obtained from studies exploring the effect of warmup on physical performance. Some studies have concluded that the warmup has indeed improved performance (I, 2, 3, A, 10, ll, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17). Another study has shown that there is a harmful effect upon performance (A). Many studies have found that warmup has no effect upon the performance of certain tasks (I, A, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16). There is some evidence that certain forms of warmup tend to have certain effects on certain types of athletic performance consistantly. Several of the studies have dealt with the lower ex— tremities (l, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, l3, 1A, 15), but all of them have used an activity which requires isotonic con— tractions. This study deals solely with a work performance Which requires isometric contractions of the quadriceps muscles. Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study was to determine if (a) warmup would improve static knee extension strength; 1 . (b) there were any differences between fit and unfit sub— jects' reactions to the warmup as reflected in their static knee extension strength; and (0) there were any differences between fit and unfit subjects' reactions to the warmup as reflected in their static knee extension strength per pound of body weight. Need for the Study Many coaches use warmup prior to practice and con— tests because they feel that it (a) prevents injuries, and (b) enhances performance of the athletes. Neither of these claims has been substantiated fully. However, it should be said that in many cases warmup plays a beneficial psychological role for the athlete so that he feels his performance might be better than if he had not warmed up. The conflicting results obtained in previous studies led this investigator to feel that the effects of warmup warranted further investigation. Limitations to the Study The following are limitations to this study: 1. The rather small number of subjects involved in the study. 2. The possibility that some or all of the subjects might not have extended their knees maximally. The sub— Jects were asked to perform maximally, but whether they did or not is unknown. The subjects were not harrassed or stimulated to make a better performance in any way. F... 3. Many of the strength measurements exceeded the limits to which the recorder had been calibrated. Definition of Terms It is necessary to define some of the terms used in this study as they have special meaning for purposes of this study. 1. Standard treadmill run.—-This was the warmup used throughout the study. It consisted of runs of six miles per hour, zero grade, for a duration of two minutes. Each subject made nine of these runs. 2. Tria1.--Used in the sense of two knee extensions within a one minute period of time. These trials came be— tween the standard treadmill runs. 3. Fit.--Classification of the subjects who showed the best cardiovascular response to a treadmill run of six miles per hour, zero grade, for ten minutes. A. Unfit.--C1assification of the subjects who showed the poorest response to the treadmill run. {an .] CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In this chapter, the pertinent literature pertaining to the effect of warmup on athletic performance will be reviewed. This literature shows that there is no clear cut result when testing for the effects of warmup. Asmussen and Boje (1) employed both active and passive forms of warmup prior to work on the bicycle ergometer. There were three separate tests administered—-956 mkg., a power event, 9860 mkg., an endurance event, and a test for calf strength in plantar flexion. They found that a hot shower at A70 C. for ten minutes, the radiodiathermy treat— ment, and the bicycle ergometer work at 660 mkg./min. for 30 minutes all had a significant positive effect on per— formance, but that the massage had no beneficial effect on the work performance. Blank (2) used calisthenics prior to the running of Sprints and concluded that the general body warmup was beneficial to the performance of this activity. Carlisle (3) had the subjects in his study, all competitive swimmers, take showers as hot as tolerable for eight and sixteen minutes prior to the swimming of two events--the 220 yard swim, an endurance event, and the A A0 yard swim, a sprint event. He found that passive warm~ up improved performance. DeVries (A) used both active and passive forms of warmup preceeding swimming. The two types of passive warm- up that he used were showers as hot as tolerable for six minutes and ten minutes of all over body massage. The active forms of warmup were swimming 500 yards at a pace chosen by the subjects and calisthenics. The work tests that he employed were the 100 yard crawl, breast stroke, and the dolphin. He found that massage had no effect, the 500 yard swim benefited performance of the total group, and that calisthenics had no effect on the total group, but slowed down the crawl swimmers and improved the per- formance of the breast strokers and dolphin swimmers. Hipple (5) used junior high school students to find the effect of running successive 50 yard sprints. Each subject ran five sprints of 50 yards with a five minute rest between them. All previous runs were considered warmup for each given run. Hipple found no beneficial effect of the first run on the second, the second on the third, etc. Karpovich and Hale (6) studied the effect of two types of warmup on a AAO yard run, an event which demands both Speed and endurance. They used deep massage and prelim- inary running as the forms of warmup. The running con— sisted of jogging AAO yards and sprinting 20, 30, and 50 lll’ L ..~ .- mI yards over the course of ten minutes. They found no signi- ficant effect of either form of warmup upon the running of AAO yards. Lotter (7) used a test of cranking a hand ergometer at maximum speed for four minutes, which requires both speed and endurance. He used the following warmup-—spot running with rotating arms. There were two foot movements and one arm movement per second. He had one group do this for four minutes immediately prior to the work task and ' ; another which warmed up for two minutes and then rested for two minutes immediately prior to the work. He found 3:. y that the warmup had no effect on the performance. Massey, Johnson, and Kramer (8) tried to eliminate any psychological factor in their study by placing their subjects under hypnosis prior to the warmup. The subjects warmed up using either a series of moderate calisthenics which would give them an informal general type of warmup, or else they did not warmup at all. However, due to being in the hypnotic state, the subjects did not know their state of warmup at the time they were to perform their-work tasks. The work consisted of one hundred revolutions on a bicycle ergometer (9,399 foot—pounds). They found no advantage to the warmup. Mathews and Snyder (9) preceeded a speed-endurance activity, the AAO yard run by jogging AAO yards, then doing six pushups, six leg pulls, ten toe touches, six situps, and three ten yard sprints. The subjects then ‘T 'J (1‘ r1 'r1 rested for five to ten minutes before running the AAO yards. They found that there was no significant improve- ment in performance due to the preliminary activity. Merlino (10) used a passive form of warmup, massage, prior to the administration of a standard vertical jumping test, a power event. He found that warmup improved per- formance significantly. 5““ Michael, Skubic, and Rochelle (11) used both formal and informal active warmup prior to a softball throw for ; maximum distance. The formal warmup consisted of five minutes of playing catch, increasing the distance from 25 feet to 100 plus feet by 25 foot increments. The informal warmup was one minute of jumping jacks, one minute of toe touching, one minute of alternate toe touching and two minutes of running sprints. They found that both the formal and informal warmup significantly improved the performance to a similar extent. Muido (12) used both active and passive forms of warmup prior to swimming events. The active warmup con— sisted of a light gym workout of the subjects choosing, and.the passive warmup was hot baths of AO-A3O C. for fifteen to eighteen minutes duration. The swimming events tested were the 50 meter crawl, the A00 meter crawl, and the 200.meter breast stroke. Muido found that both the active and passive forms of warmUp significantly improved the performance of all three events. Pacheco conducted two investigations of the effect of warn~ up on athletic performance. The first (13) tested vertical jumping ability after warmup. The warmup she used was three minutes of spot running with one and one-half minutes rest prior to the five vertical jumps. She found that there was a significant improvement due to the warmup. Her other study (1A) also involves the vertical jump. She rm"- took a group of junior high girls and administered the following warmup programs——three minutes of leg and hip . mobilizing, stationary running, and deep knee bends. The girls were then tested on six vertical jumps spaced one and one-half minutes apart. She found that all three types of warmup significantly improved performance. She dis— covered they benefited the performance in the following order--running, mobilizing, and deep knee bends. Skubic and Hodgkins (15) studied the effect of warm— up on three separate activities. The first part of the study dealt with using jumping jacks (informal) and eight bicycle ergometer (formal) prior to one tenth of a mile on the bicycle ergometer at maximum speed. The second part of the study dealt with the use of twelve jumping jacks and throwing a softball five times prior to throwing the softball for distance. The third consisted of twelve jumping jacks and three basketball shots before shooting ten free throws. They found that there was no significant improvement due to the warmup upon any of the three activities. Thompson (16) used both formal and informal types of active warmup prior to several tasks. He tested the fol— lowing performances——3O yard swim, swimming a maximal distance in five minutes, basketball shooting, bowling, typing and back and leg strength as measured by a dynamo— meter. The warmups he administered were a hot shower for three minutes plus swimming movements followed by five ,, minutes rest, a series of calisthenics which would provide (”—— total body warmup, and finger calisthenics. Prior only to those events, the subjects practiced basketball, bowling, and typing. He found that the formal warmup improved the swim, basketball shooting, and bowling. The informal warmup had no significant effect on any of these activities. VanHuss and others (17) employed an overloaded base— ball prior to pitching for speed and accuracy and found that overload warmup significantly improves the velocity of throwing and the accuracy response is altered, yielding a significantly different pattern of successive throws. J CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This study was conducted to determine the effect of a standard rate of warmup upon static knee extension strength. It was initiated in the summer of 1966 and carried out in the facilities of the Human Energy Research Laboratory on the campus of Michigan State University. The sixteen subjects who participated in this study were all graduate or undergraduate students at Michigan State University. They were all males, ranging in age from 19 to 29 years and in weight from 125 to 2A0 pounds. All the work performed in this study was at, as nearly as possible, constant conditions. The temperature of the treadmill room of the laboratory, where all the work was performed, ranged from 7G’to 800 F., but no attempt was made to regulate the humidity. All work was done with the doors to the room closed and all foot traffic routed around the room. At no time were the subjects harrassed or stimulated, but they were all asked prior to their work to give a maximal performance. All sixteen subjects were given a treadmill run of medium intensity (6 mph, 0 grade, 10 minutes) at the be- ginning of the study in order to attempt to classify them 10 11 into fitness levels by cardiovascular response to exer- cise. Surface electrodes were taped to the chests of the subjects and were lead into a Sanborn recorder where an electrocardiogram was taken. The electrocardiogram was divided into twenty thirty—second segments and the half- minute heart rates were determined by counting the R— waves. The pulse rates were plotted against time (Appendix K‘Tmut A). Dr. VanHuss classified the subjects "fit", "unfit", : A or into an intermediate category on the basis of their g exercise pulse rate curves. Those classified "fit" were the four subjects showing the highest degree of cardio- vascular fitness as reflected by their pulse rate curve during exercise, and the four showing the least degree of cardiovascular fitness were classified "unfit”. The remaining eight subjects were placed in the intermediate group. The criteria for establishing the fitness levels were the maximal pulse rate during exercise and the amount of time it took the subject to reach a "steady state" performance. Two to four weeks after the initial run to determine the level of fitness, each of the subjects returned to the laboratory for the second phase of the study. This phase consisted of the subjects being tested for the effect of a standard warmup upon their static knee ex— tension strength. The test for static knee extension strength was carried out by having the subject sit on a work table from Hr“ A... Dr! lonl (I) 12 which an arm extended at approximately 1350 to the top of the table. At the end of the arm distal from the pivot point was a padded rest under which the subject could place his ankle to force against during the knee extension. The arm was indirectly connected to a strain gauge (Baldwin— Lima-Hamilton load cell) which was led into a Gilson recorder which had been calibrated using weights to i 2%. fr“. Within a period of one minute, each subject would extend his knee twice, the purpose of the two extensions being to assure a high degree of reliability in measuring the trials. Between each pair of knee extension trials, the subject would run on the treadmill at six miles per hour, zero grade, for two minutes. This was repeated so that the subjects had ten knee extension trials and nine standard treadmill runs. The following equipment was used in the study: An A.R. Young treadmill which is located in the Human Energy Research Laboratory. The treadmill was run at all times at six miles per hour, zero grade. This treadmill had been calibrated for accuracy of speed prior to the author's use of it. A Sanborn recorder which uses heat sensitive paper was used to take the electrocardiograms. A Gilson recorder with a Servo channel recording on -ll-inch paper.by pen and ink was used to measure knee ex- ~--tension~strength of the subjects. It was calibrated by the author with weights to be accurate at any point in the 13 range of 12 to 13A pounds with an error no greater than 2%. The load cell used on the work table had a capacity of one ton and was temperature compensated. The work table was described above. In order to determine the effect of the standardized warmup, an analysis of variance was used to evaluate (a) the effect on the total group; (b) the difference in the x, effect of the warmup between the fit and unfit groups; {TI and, (c) the difference in the effect of the warmup be- tween the fit and unfit groups per pound of body weight. .u u ARE Tl CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF DATA The purpose of this investigation was to determine the effect of a standard warmup upon static knee extension f-n strength. The sixteen subjects, portions of whom were divided into fit and unfit categories based on cardiovascular response to exercise, each had ten knee extension strength La trials with a standard treadmill run of six miles per hour, zero grade,for two minutes between each of the trials. In each of the knee extension trials, the subjects were made to contract maximally twice in order to assure a more reliable measurement of their strength. The relia— bility varied from a low of .866 in the sixth trial to a high of .980 in the tenth trial. There seemed to be no general pattern of increment or decrement in the relia- bility of the trials. Table I below shows the reliability values of each of the ten trials. The results obtained during the trials were compiled and tabulated (Appendix B). Analyses of variance were run to determine the effect of the warmup on total group performance (Table II), the differences in the effect of the 1A 15 warmup on the fit and unfit groups (Table III), and the difference in the effect of the warmup on the fit and un- fit groups per pound of body weight (Table IV). TABLE I RELIABILITY OF TRIALS Trial 1 2 3 A 5 Reliability (r) .966 .928 .958 .955 .868 Trial 6 7 8 9 10 Reliability (r) .866 .949 .965 .915 .980 TABLE II ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (Total Group) Source Sum squares df Mean square F value Total 170652.70 159 Test 3291.73 9 365.75 2.52* Individual lA77A0.10 15 98A9.AO 67.77** Error 19620.87 135 1A5-3A *--significant at .05 level **-—significant at .01 level 16 TABLE III ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (Fit vs. Unfit) Source Sum squares df Mean square F value Total 77622.98 79 Group 21730.54 1 21730.5A 165.55** Test l838.9A 9 20A.33 1.56 Individual 228A3.59 6 3807.27 29.01** Group x Test 2A121.92 9 2680.21 20.A2** Error 7087.99 5A 131.26 **——significant at .01 level TABLE IV ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (Fit vs. Unfit per Pound of Body Weight) Source 1 Sum square df Mean Square F value Total 2.769 79 Group .oou l .oou .154 Test .070 9 .0077 .297 Individual 1.120 6 .202 7.799** Group x Test .088 9 -0098 .378 Error V 1.397 5A .0259 —_ **——significant at .01 level I I ‘ A ‘ I . rfla .0 a guy Ally |.r Tiller. . III. . nE'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIv'H .Ih Filip-WEE L4 17 Total Group Tg§2.-—The difference between trials from the first through the tenth was compared using an analysis of variance. The value obtained (F = 2.52) was found to be significant at the .05 level of confidence where an (F = 1.95) is needed for significance. The value obtained was nearly great enough to be significant at the .01 level where a (F = 2.56) was needed. Individuals.——The difference between individuals was found to be highly significant where a value (F = 2.18) was needed for significance at the .01 level and a value (F = 67.77) was obtained. Discussion.-—An analysis of variance was used to compare the differences between trials for the total group. The group mean rose 15.9 pounds from the first to the tenth trial. It was found that the increase was significant at the .05 level. The differences between individuals was found to be highly significant. The improvement from the first to the tenth trials would tend to support the hy— pothesis that warmup of a standard nature can improve static knee extension strength. Fit vs. Unfit Groups.-—The results of the compiled data for the two groups showed that the unfit group was significantly stronger in raw strength than the fit group. The value (F = 165.55) was found to be highly significant at the .01 level where a value (F = 7.13) was needed. f... 18 TE§E.--The difference between trials for the first through the tenth trials was compared using an analysis of variance. The value (F = 1.56) obtained was not signi- ficant at the .05 level where a value (F = 2.80) was re- quired for significance. Individuals.——An analysis of variance was used to compare individuals. The differences were found to be .. significant at the .01 level of confidence by obtaining a {VI value (F = 29.01) where a value (F = 3.16) was needed. Groups and Tests.——An analysis of variance was applied to the groups and trials interaction. The value (F = 20.A2) obtained was found to be highly significant where a value (F = 2.76) was needed for significance at the .01 level. Discussion.-—The unfit group improved their static knee extension strength by 25 pounds from the first to the tenth trials, whereas the fit group improved a mean of only 3.6 pounds in the same span. The two greatest dif— ferences occurred between the first and second trials where the unfit group improved a mean of 17.3 pounds more than the fit group, and between the ninth and tenth trials where the improvement of the unfit group exceeded that of the fit by 1A pounds (Chart 1). The group analysis showed the unfit group had greater raw static knee extension strength than the fit group. The individual analysis showed a difference between indi— viduals. The interaction between groups and trials re— flects the greater improvement of the unfit group across 19 the tests. The tests were not significant because it took into consideration both groups, thus the fit groups' failure to improve produced the low F value. Fit vs. Unfit Per Pound of Body Weight Groups.~—An analysis of variance was applied to the group differences per pound of body weight. The value ob— tained (F = .15A) was not found to be significant where a value (F = 252) was needed for significance at the .05 level of confidence. Tg§t§.-—The difference between tests per pound of body weight was compared by an analysis of variance. A value of (F = .297) was obtained where a value of (F = 2.79) was needed for significance at the .05 level of confidence. Individuals.-—The comparison of strength of indi— viduals per pound of body weight was made by an analysis of variance, and the value (F = 7.799) obtained was found to be significant at the .01 level where a (F = 3.16) was needed. Groups and Tests.-—An analysis of variance was ap— plied to the groups and tests interaction per pound of body weight. The value (F = .378) obtained was not significant where an (F = 2.97) was needed for significance at the .05 level of confidence. Discussion.——In the fit versus unfit comparisons per pound of body weight, only the individual differences were found to be significant. Chart II shows the differences -...~.5Ln.-—.‘.uu VERV uu.n7~....~‘v}\.w.~ n.~....~/~V~ 3t\.v~ 2O CHART I Unfit H 0*———0 Fit | l 160 _1_ 150 1A0 __ 130 .. 1201- n.mmdv mbzmmEm ZOHWZMBNW MWZM 3¢m 10 TRIAL uTu.~ v —.-. w I .quZHLVaL rr‘ 9 P \i;.;-.- .7; mu 2 V NV huh-(ufisfliu 3mEaLm saa maa mma saa aaa aoa aaa we ma ma aaa moa oma aea maa moa aaa eoa aaa ea aoeeom ooa mm mm so ooa ea maa aea moa ama moa em am eoa maa aaa maa maa maa oma mesoeez aea aea sea aea sma mma mma sea mom esa aea sea aea oma aaa asa mba mea esa ema eeezoa aea esa aaa asa ama oma wma mea oma maa asa ema mma mma mea mm aea mea oma mma eeoa ooa maa soa aaa sm e as ma sa ea maa soa maa aoa ooa mm esa so we .ma oeeeom mma aea mma mea mma. m . oma aaa mm moa ca oma oma mma mma mm woa aea ma eoa NOa someaaooeo amwmw amass amass amass amass ease aware amass amass eats somemam 2pm Low cps zoo no; zse MAM UCW pea APPENDIX C KNEE EXTENSION STRENGTH (LBS.) / BODY WEIGHT (LBS.) 32 33 eae. Nee. see. mse. mes. mme. eme. ess. ems. mme. mea eeoa eee. mme. mae.a eee a eee a eee. wee. mme. eme. eee. mea maaoe mas. awe. mee. mae. ame. mes. Nee. aee. Nee. ses. mam ease mse. mme. eae. Mme. ase. sse. eee. mae. eee. Nee. eem maozoa eeeme eaaze mas. aee. ems. see. see. eee. ees. ame. eee. emm. eea absmom mam. sow. som. moo. men. maw. 0mm. 3mm. mwo. ems. mma cospnmm eem.a mmm.a emm.a moa.a emm.a mam.a eaa.a eee.a ema.a eem.a ema seoeom mme. mme. Nea. mee. mes. ees. nee. bee. sse. see. aea obmeauoaee aeeme saa amaae amaae awaLB awapa Heaps amas e mae E . . B HmHLB HMHLB HMHSB H .SB Dm rpea see new cos eee pom eoe em eem pea emeams semen