THE EFFECTS GF SILECTEI} WESGEx‘? ”E'Méi‘éfiNG PROGRAMS 05% T3? QEVELGQMEM GE’- STRENGTH AND MUECLE HY?ER?RQPHY Thasis for flu Deg?“ af 2%.. A. MiCHtGAN S'M'f‘é UNEVERSEW .Eahn Pafrick G’Shaa 196:2 LIBRARY Michigan Stan: University THE EFFECTS OF SELECTED WEIGHT TRAINING PROGRAMS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTH AND MUSCLE ’ HYPERTROPHY By I John Patrick O'Shea 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 require- ments for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation /' y 1/ ./ './2&j/“¢um;_ /; Approved [22%;ZZQ/ ABSTRACT THE EFFECTS OF SELECTED WEIGHT TRAINING PROGRAMS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTH AND MUSCLE HYPERTROPHY by John Patrick O'Shea Statement of the Problem To determine the effects of selected weight training programs using varied repetitions on the development of strength and muscle hypertrophy. Methodology Thirty subjects were chosen at random from beginning weightlifting classes at Michigan State University. Follow- ing a two-week conditioning period the subjects were randomly divided into three groups of ten each for the controlled training period. The programs were as follows: Group A - 3 sets of 9-10 repetitions Group B - 3 sets of 5- 6 repetitions Group C - 3 sets of 2- 3 repetitions Individuals in each group handled maximum weight loads for the number of repetitions each were required to perform. The experiment consisted of six weeks of training, three sessions per week with each session thirty-five minutes in duration. Four testing periods were utilized at the ' John Patrick O'Shea beginning, second, fourth, and sixth week of training. On a testing day body weight and thigh measurements were recorded, static and dynamic strength were tested on a back and leg dynamometer and a single maximum effort on the deep-knee- bend, respectively. The data were statistically treated, using analysis of variance. The data also being graphically analyzed and percentages calculated. Conclusions Within the limitations of the study the following con- clusions were drawn: 1. No significant differences were found between the three systems of training. 2. All training procedures resulted in an improve- ment of dynamic and static strength. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author wishes to express his sincerest gratitude to Dr. Wayne D. VanHuss for his unfail- ing interest and kindness in aiding the author during the preparation of this study. ‘ Appreciation is also extended to the sub- -Jects who were very cOOperative, and to Dr. Philip J. Clark for his assistance in statistical matters. Chapter I.. II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem Purpose Of the Study . . Definition of Terms . . Limitations of the Study REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . I'JETI‘IODOLOG’Y o o o o o o O o . Equipment . . . . . . . Subjects . . . . . . . . Experimental Procedure . Training Programs . . . Methods of Analysis . . ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF DATA Body Weight . . . . . . Girth (Hypertrophy of the Right Thigh) Static and Dynamic Strength Summary of Changes in Hypertrophy and Strength over the EXperimental Period . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . SUID'EARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . 21 25 26 26 -27 iv Chapter Page Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3O LIST OF TABLES Table Page I. Analysis of Variance Results . . . . . . . . 20 II. Percentage Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 LIST OF TABLES Table Page I. Analysis of Variance Results . . . . . . . . 20 II. Percentage Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 CHART I. II. III. Iv. v. VI. LIST OF CHARTS Graph Showing Progress of quight O O O O O O 0 O Knee Measurement Middle Thigh Measurement Upper Thigh Measurement . Static Strength . Dynamic Strength Groups'Body Page 18 22 22 22 23 23 THE EFFECTS OF SELECTED WEIGHT TRAINING PROGRAMS - ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTH AND MUSCLE HYPERTROPHY BY John Patrick O'Shea A THESIS Submitted to the College of Education of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the require- ments for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation 1962 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Among coaches and athletic trainers today a great deal of controversy exists as to the most efficient system of progressive dynamic weight training to follow. All de- sire a system of training that will produce the most rapid increase in strength and muscle hypertrOphy within a limited time period. There is no generally accepted routine of weight training that one can follow. It may be said that the Optimum method is yet to be formulated. Seeking to find the answer to the phenomenon of 'strength and muscle hypertrOphy, a vast amount of experi- mental work has been done in recent years on animals by physiOIOgists. Some of their findings have made it possible for dynamic weight training exercise to be applied on a scientific basis in physical medicine. In rehabilitation hospitals progressive dynamic weight training is now gener- ally utilized. This has evolved partly by trial and error and partly by imitating the methods weightlifters have used for many years. A great compliment was paid to weightlifters 1 by De Lorme and Watkins who pointed out that "they had sup- plied a rich heritage of empirical practice which has been I 1T. L. DeLorme and A. L. Watkins, "Techniques of Pro- gressive Resistance Exercise," Archives 2; Physical Medicine, 29:263, May, 1948. .applied to phySical mediCine.! It is generally thought that the repetitions and loads used on a clinical basis are inadequate for increasing strength and muscle hypertrophy needed by football players, shot putters, discus throwers, swimmers, weightlifters, and other athletes. The objectives of this study are to try and find an efficient result-producing mode of dynamic progres- sive weight training. A system capable of developing massive muscle hypertrophy or increased strength in the shortest possible time. Such a training program would be an invalu- able asset to any athlete as a pre-season conditioning rou- tine and as an aid to correct specific individual weaknesses. Statement of the Problem To determine the effects of selected weight training -programs using varied repetitions on the development of Strength and muscle hypertrophy. Purpose of the Study MOst coaches and athletic trainers today are conscious of the fact that strength and muscle hypertrophy can be developed through a system of prOgresSive dynamic weight training. Many coaches though refrain from having their athletes supplement their training with weight training be- cause of the lack of a generally accepted and proven program ‘to follow. Coaches and athletes desire a practical program 3 that produces desirable results in a specified limit of time. Most weight training practiced by athletes is performed as a pre-season conditioner where time is limited. During this period of conditioning it is the objective of the athlete to increase his strength and/or muscle hypertrOphy to whatever limits it is physically possible. What system of dynamic weight training should be practiced if the desired results are to be realized? A A system in which the individual performs three or four tests of many repetitions (10-12), or medium repetitions (5-6), or minimum repetitions (2-3), with a maximum load for the given number of repetitions being executed. Varying the weight load and the number of repetitions should have an effect on the quality of strength a muscle developed. Definition of Terms Repetition: One execution of an exercise or movement. A set 0 bout: A series of repetitions with no rest in between. . PrOgram: A series of sets of a particular exercise or exercises separated by rest. Example: An individual per- forming one pushhup is doing one repetition. -If he performs two or more in succession he is doing one set. Now, if he were to do one set Of five repetitions, then take a one- minute rest, then repeat the exercise for another five repetitions, he would be doing a program of two sets of five repetitions. peep-Knee Bend: The barbell is placed on the shoulders at the back of the neck. Keeping the back straight and head back, the exerciser lowers into a full squat and rises. Breathing with the exercise, the exerciser inhales before executing the exercise and exhales near the completion. Dynamic training: Exercise that allows the muscles to contract through the full range of movement. The load of resistance is moved and mechanical work performed. Strength ,deveIOped through this’type of training is referred to as Dynamic Strength. _ Static training: Working the muscIes against an im- movable load or resistance (static contraction). Muscle and bone Joints do not move through the entire range of movement. Strength developed through this type of training is Static Strength. Muscle hypertrOphy: As referred to in this study is an increase in muscle circumference indicated by a tape measure. With the use of the tape measure the increased girth of the extremity at best is only a rough estimate of hypertrophy of a muscle contained therein. Limitations of the Study 1. Confined to dynamic training only. 2. Limited to men with no previous weight training experience. 3. The study is of relatively short duration. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In reviewing the research literature relatingto strength deveIOpment and muscle hypertrophy, there is general (agreement that both can be best deveIOped through the practice of dynamic weight-training. However, there is controversy concerning the most efficient method that should be followed. Most weight training programs have an empirical rather than an experimental basis. Coaches and trainers have avoided . the use of weight training in their conditioning programs be- cause of poorly defined programs and because they were not certain of the effects. Through the practice of progressive resistance exer- 1 cise, De Lorme and his co-workers produced an increase in the circumference and strength of the arms and thighs. To build up power and muscle hypertrophy De Lorme uSed a system of heavy resistance-low repetition exercise. He described power as the whole potential strength of a muscle used over a short period of time (as in weightlifting) and endurance as the ability to use a muscle against moderate or light resistance for long periods (as in bicycle riding). De Lorme 1T. L. De Lorme, B. G. Ferris, and J. R. Gallagher, "Effects of Progressive Resistance Exercise on Muscle Con- traction Time," The Archives 9; Physical Medicine. 33:86, February, 1953. 6 recommends a system of heavy resistance-low repetition exer- cise to build up power and volume in muscle groups, and low resistance-high repetition exercise to develOp endurance. The De Lorme technique of training is to start during an exercise session with a light weight for a given number of .repetitions and progressively increase the load from one- quarter to one-half to three-quarters and then the total load. 2 believes that De Lorme's technique is too Zinovieff fatiguing and exhausting and that too great a strain is placed on the muscles. Using a modified form of De lorme's system, Zinovieff developed what he called the "Oxford technique?" The Oxford technique retains the principle of heavy resistance-low repetition, but reverses the procedure of De Lorme by starting with the heaviest weight first and - progressively decreasing the load. This system seemed to allow a longer period of exercise with less strain On the subject. 3 in a study using both De Lorme's McMorris and_Elkins, teéhnique and the Oxford technique, found that the Oxford technique produced a 5.5 per cent greater increase in *— 2A. N. Zinovieff, "Heavy-Resistance Exercise, the Ox- ford Technique," British Journal of Physical Medicine, 14: 129. June, 1951. 3R. O. McMorris and E. C. Elkins, "A Study of Pro- duction.and Evaluation of Muscular HypertrOphy,' Archives of 321114311. Medicine, 35: 420-426, August, 1954.. ' ' "" strength than De Lorme's. They believe that a series of experiments is necessary before it can be concluded that ' these methods produce consistently different results. In their study, McMorris and Elkins found that strength and muscle hypertrOphy devSIOped during a 12-week training period decreased 55 and 56 per cent, respectively, one year later. This may suggest that an individual must train once or twice a week in order to retain the strength and hypertrophy that he has develOped during a course of weight training. MacQueen,4 in a survey among weightlifters and body builders, found that there is a distinction between the type of exercise used to develOp muscular hypertrOphy and that used to develop strength. In the hypertrophy program, musclegroups are usually exercised on alternate days in three or four sets of 8-10 repetitions: the weight used be- ing the maximum that can be handled for the given number of repetitions. In the power program the initial weight is . never less than the maximum that can be lifted ten times. The power prOgram is essentially one of decreasing the number of repetitions performed with increasing resistance. In reviewing the literature concerning strength and hypertrophy, it seems that any program of dynamic weight training will increase both in varying degrees. The problem 4I. J. MacQueen, "Recent Advances in the Technique of Progressive Resistance Exercise," British Medical Journal, II31193-1198, 19540 is to try and choose the program that is most productive for a particular situation or individual. Capen5 found that a group using dynamic weight training made greater gains in muscular strength than did a group which did no weight train- ing but practiced track and field events. Capen's program, which consisted of 14 weight training exercises completed in 40 minutes, is mainly designed for building endurance. The power and strength deveIOped by performing 14 exercises in 40 minutes may be limited.' Chui'dsstudy consisted of 16 weightlifting exercises performed with high repetitions (8-12). This again was more of an endurance program than power and strength. By the time the exerciser is performing the fourth or fifth exercise his power is pretty well depleted. On this type of program the trainee would seem fatigued himself beyond adequate recovery between workouts. Kusinitz7 studied the strength deveIOpment resulting from a program of five basic exercises. In this study, as in Capen's and Chui's, the experimental group using weights 5Edward K. Capen, "The Effect of Systematic Weight Training on Power Strength and Endurance," Reggagch Quarterly, 21: 83-89, May, 1950.. 6Edward Chui, "The Effect of Systematic Weight Training on Athletic Power," Research Quarterly, 21:188-194, October, 1950. 71. Kusinitz, "The Effects of Progressive Weight Training on Health and Physical Fitness of Adolescent Boys," Research Quarterly, 29: 294-301, May, 1958. dynamically made a greater percentage improvement in strength and anthropometric measurements than the non-weight trained group. 8 found the subjects who practiced Rasch and Morehouse progressive dynamic weight training showed greater gains in strength and muscle hypertrophy than a non-weight trained group or the group that trained on static resistance. They state the gains made on the program of dynamic training may have resulted from acquisition of skill rather than the exercise program. Darcus and Salter9 studied the development of strength through both dynamic and static exercise. Gains were reported in strength resulting from either dynamic or static exercise although dynamic training caused a greater percentage improve- ment than static training. Differences were found in the pattern of the training curves in dynamic and static exer- cise. Dynamic exerCise generally resulted in immediate and rapid improvement; whereas, static exercise produced no con- sistent upward trend until the second week of training. Their study also revealed that improvement on maximum static force was developed through dynamic training. However, the 8R. J. Rasch and L. E. Morehouse, "Effect of Static and Dynamic Exercise on Muscular Strength and Hypertrophy," Journal 9;,Applied PhysiOIOgy, II:29-34, July, 1957. 9H. D. Darcus and N. Salter, "The Effects of Repeated Muscular Exertion on Muscle Strength," gournal 9; Ph siolo , 129:325-336. Ausust. 1955. - 10 percentage of improvement was much less for maximum dynamic work after training on static exercise. No review of literature concerning strength deveIOp- ment would be complete without including Hoffman. Bob Hoff- man is widely known as the "Father of American Weightlifting." Since 1932 he has been U. S. National and Olympic coach. He has spent more than 30 years in the quest of strength. In his latest book, Hoffman‘o claims that the average man can increase his strength 100 per cent in a 20-week period using his system. This system of training is a combination of dynamic and static contraction with weights which allows the trainee to exert maximum force in the various ranges of motions or lifting positions for a period of 8 to 12 seconds. Hoffman claims that one maximum contraction in each position (there are about 12 positions) per training session, three training sesSions a week, is all that is necessary to in- crease strength and muscle hypertrophy. Although he has produced only meager non-scientific evidence to back his claim, this system does merit further investigation and study. 11 A recent study by Petersen in Denmark found that there was no effect on strength by one static contraction 1OBob Hoffman, Functional Isometric Contractional System (YOrk, Pennsylvania: Bob Hoffman Fbundation, 1931). 11F. B. Petersen, "Muscle Training by Static Con- traction and Eccentric Contraction," Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 48:406-416, 1960. ~ 11 per day. Only training by hard dynamic work, not necessarily of maximal intensity, increased the muscle strength. Peter- .sen found that his results were in direct conflict with those reported by Hettinger and Muller12 who reported that a training program of one static contraction, five days a week, with a tension of two-thirds of the maximum would induce and increase in static strength at 8 per cent per week. Peter- sen found no great effect on strength if one maximum static contraction'per day was performed. He did find that by in- creasing the number of contractions to ten per day it was possible to show an increase in strength of 13 per Cent in 35 days. This is one-fifth of that expected from the re- sults of Hettinger and Muller. Norbert Schemansky,13 former'World and Olympic weight- lifting champion, bases his training entirely on five or six dynamic exercises of three to four sets of two to three repetitions of maximum or near maximum weight load. Sche- . mansky feels that an athlete must practice the full range of movement in order to build strength, speed, timing, and co- ordination necessary in competitive lifting and other sports. 12T. Hettinger and E. A. Muller, "Muskelleistung and Muskeltraining," Arbeitsphysiologie u, 15:111- 126’ 19530 13Expressed personal Opinion of Norbert Schemansky, personal interview at the Michigan State University Weight- lifting Clinic, March 10, 1961. 12 4 two-time Olympic 800-meter running Mai Whitfield,‘ champion, followed a progressive weight training prOgram designed to produce maximum strength. One exercise that he devoted much time to was the deep-knee-bend. He practiced this exercise in five sets of three repetitions with heavy weight loads ranging from 255 to 270. Separate studies by Masley15 and Wilkins16 seem to con- firm Schemansky's and Whitfield's theory that progressive dynamic training is an effective method for increasing strength, speed, and coordination. 14G. R. Bruce, "Mal Whitfield, Iron-Muscled Running Champion," Streggth and Health, December, 1954, p. 8. 1SJ. W. Masley, "Weight Training in Relation to Strength, Speed, and Coordination," Research Quarterly, 24: 308-315, May, 1953. 16B. M. Wilkins, "The Effect of Weight Training on Speed of Movement," Research Quarterly, 23:361-369, March, 1952.. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This study was undertaken to determine the effects of .a six-weeks progressive dynamic weight training program, us- ing one exercise, the deep-knee-bend, on the development of strength and muscle hypertrophy. In analyzing the effective- ness of the program, tests and measurements were taken at the beginning of the study and every two weeks thereafter. Individual tests consisted of maximum single repeti- .tion on the deep-knee-bend and the average of two maximum efforts on the back and leg dynamometer. Other measures taken included: body weight (stripped), thigh girths mea- sured with the quadriseps contracted. Measurements of the right thigh were recordedat three different locations: . just above the knee (vastus medialis area), middle thigh (vactus lateralis area), and the upper thigh/(tensor fascia ' lata area). Three measurements were taken at each location. The average value was used in subsequent analyses. Equipment Regular six-foot steel weightlifting bars and weights were used. Collars on the outside of the bar kept the weight from sliding off. -Towels were wrapped around the bar to keep it from digging into the back of the neck, thus 14 making it more comfortable for the subjects. Pipe iron racks, 4% feet high, supported the bar and weights, saving considerable time and effort. Subjects Thirty subjects were randomly selected from beginning weightlifting classes at Michigan State University. The subjects were underclassmen ranging in age from 18 to 23 years. None had previous weight training experience. All subjects lived in University dormitories and, for the most part, atethe same food. Experimental Procedure The thirty subjects were given a two-weeks condition- ing program to reduce the chance of injury and to familiar- ize themselves with the deep-knee-bend technique. The techniques involved are: keeping the back straight and head back, lowering into a full squat (parallel or below) and rising, inhaling before executing the exercise and ex- haling near the completion. Following the two-weeks conditioning period, the sub- jects were randomly divided into three groups of ten each for a controlled training period of six weeks, three train- ing sessions a week, each session lasting 35 minutes. 15 Training Programs Group A - 3 sets of 9 to 10 repetitions Group B - 3 sets of 5 to 6 repetitions Group C - 3 sets of 2 to 3 repetitions Individuals in each group handled maximum weight loads for the number of repetitions they were required to perform. . Example: In Group A, one subject would be using 150 pounds for his three sets of 9 to 10 repetitions. Another subject of the same group might be using 165 pounds. The weight load for each group was increased five pounds per week. Training days were Monday” Wednesday, and Friday; Monday be- ing the day the weight was increased. Every other Monday was testing and measuring day. On the testing day the sub- jects were first weighed and the thigh measurement recorded. Next, static strength was tested on the back and leg dynamo- meter followed by a single maximum effort on the deep-knee- bend to measure dynamic strength. Prior to attempting a maximum effort, the subjects warmed up with lighter weights working up to within 20 or 25 pounds of their previous maximum. In a regular training day each subject warmed up with light calisthentics before proceeding on to the deep-knee- bend. Each group worked independently of the other. The subjects were under constant observation to inSure that correct training procedures were followed. If time permitted 16 each training session ended with form work on one of the three Olympic lifts (press, snatch, clean, and jerk) that the rest of the class was working on at the time. Methods of Analysis The results were graphically analyzed and percentages were calculated. The data were also statistically treated using analysis of variance.1 _— 1C. H. Goulden, Method 2; Statistical Analysis (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1952), pp. 63-98., CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF DATA The effectiveness of the six-weeks deep-kneeébend training program with weights, on the develOpment of strength and muscle hypertrophy, was determined by three measurements: (1) thigh girth, (2) dynamic strength as meaeured by 1-RM on the deep-knee-bend, and (3) static strength as measured on the dynamometer. The results were graphically analyzed and. percentages calculated. The data were also statistically treated using analysis of variance. Body Weight The analysis of variance results (see Table I) indi- cated the weight of the individuals was significantly differ- ent in GrouijB versus C. In the A versus B and A versus C analysis, the individuals were not significantly different in body weight. This does not imply that the individuals were not different. In placing individuals into groups by random selection there would usually be less variation in group body weights than occurred in this study. In Group A the mean body weight was 172 pOunds; Group B, 160 pounds; and Group C, 1958 pounds (see Table II). The test inter— action indicates that the training did not significantly alter the body weights of the groups. Groups A and B had 18 (lbs) Body Weigh1 , CHART I '73 T 4L —0 ITZCZ 7" 171 BODY WEIGHT — GROUP A . 9-10 Rep. '70 _ GROUP 3 ---- 5-6 Rep. _ GROUP C — -— 2-3, Rep. I69 ' I68 167 166 165 ‘ 164 163 162 7+? ’ \ I \\ 161 A? >43 l” 160< 159 ,2 -e er—A O 2 4 6 Weeks of Training , GRAPH SHOWING PROGRESS OF GROUP'S BODY WEIGHT 19 mean gains of a pound while Group C did not change. Girth (HypertrOphy of the Right Thigh) The analysis of variance results indicates the sub- jects were significantly different as would be expected. The groups were not significantly different excepting in the upper thigh A.versus C analysis., However, in nine analyses one could have occurred by chance alone. All groups in- creased in girth about an inch (see Table II). However, with the Test interaction indicates this improvement is not signi- ficant. The Groups X Test interaction was insignificant as would be expected from the group and test results. Girth measurement increased on an average of 3 to 6 per cent during the experiment. Charts 2 and 3 reveal that a good percentage of the hypertrophy took place during the first two weeks of the experiment. The notable exception is noted on Chart 3 (middle thigh) where all groups made considerable improvement during the fourth and sixth weeks. Group B showed the greatest mean improvement, 5.2 per cent in girth, Group A 4.2 per cent, and Group C 3.5 per cent. - Static and Dynamic Strength The groups were significantly different. This could be due to significant differences in their response to training or thatsince they were not matched at the start of the experiment, they might have been significantly 20 _.i0. sass mesa 1 ma .i00. case seen 1 ate em.. 0m.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 , no.0 secs x easosc **N¢.m tom.m *aon.n **b—.m *mp.m *a mp.mm mamspa>aomH *amm.mm **ON.OP mm.o mp.P wm.o .wp.o pmms aam0.0m aem.m 0m.m em.. 00._ .m.m eases0 .0 .m> m mm.0 mm.i 00.0 «0.0 00.0 ma.0 same a cheese **©m.wm ##nm.m N..o **o~.ow ##mm._ m¢._ mamsod>H©cH *amm.ma aaom.p_ 00.0 40.. n0.a 00.0 same **00.0m a0m.0 40.0 a..m laem.a ea.a assets 0 .me a, mm.00 00.00 R_.o m0.0 mi.0 00.0 pace x seesaw **©¢.#P **on.>m *soo.m *aom.m **Ov.m mN.P mamsoa>aocH **00.en aaoa.0e m0.0 ma.0 mp.0 00.0 sees *am.m aa00.mm 00.0 00.0 0m._ am.m masons m .ae a essem ssmscaem easesca swans caeenz swaps seaaa phases sesagsz eaesem seeps ea men eemsm men semam seem men ssmsm spasm spade . sense . mpasmmm mommHLm> Mo mammammd H mqm¢e 131/1. .‘ 21 Summary of Changes in HypertrOphy and Strength Over the Experimental Period TABLE II Percentage Analysis Average Per cent Increase Initial Total Through ‘ Test Final Absolute Per cent Testing Group Average Test Increase Increase Periods Right Leg A 16.6" f7.0" 0.35" 2.1 0.5 (vastus B 16.0 T7.0 1.00 6.2 1.5 medialis) C 15.9 16.4 0.59 3.1 0.77 Right Leg A 19.8 21.0 1.20 5.3 1.4 (vastus B 20.0 21.0 1.00 5.0 1.2 lateralis) .C 19.4 20.1 0.70 3.6 0.9 ' Right Leg A 22.7 24.0 1.26 5.3 1.4 (Tensor B 22.0 23.0 1,00 4.5 1.1 fascialata) C 21.5 22.3 0.80 3.7 0.9 Body Weight A 172 lbs. 173 1 lb. -- -- B 160 161 1 -- ~- 0 158 158 0 -- ~- Static A 260 315 55 21.1 5.2 Strength B 290 335 45 15.5 3.8 C 280 345 65 23.2 5.8 Dynamic A 201 lbs. 251 50 lbs. 20.4 5.1 Strength B 209 265 56 lbs. 26.7 6.6 C 192 234 42 lbs. 21.8 5.4 22 024 23 0.80... .020... Hzmzwmamqms. 19.1... mmaa: 0552...? 8.33.. w .v 0 [11A F? i. X ~ L Jr. s 11 \o 1111 Ill] m..N CNN I llll w ._.de0 QVN . a2. 0_- a 024 3.223 ia..z.ao> .rzmimmjmqms. I21... N159: 9:52... .0 8.33 N w I 0m. ,0.0N WON O._N m 5.410 .aem TNIIIIII 0 .505 4 a00m0 saqaul o 024 3.0.00.2 m88> Hzmzmmamqws. mmzx @558... S 9.33 w v N O a.” Aw. Ax \.\..w .1. . . . .. ~ . . . . ~ N .5310 rod. 06. ON. seqaul 23 d3... muNIIIIU anomo Iscszm 0.25 BEEF .0 9.003 N O dam. $10 IIIII m .595 .03. 0.1m 4 anomo toaam E:E.xos: Ibczwmbm 0.5.425 00.0.2... *0 9.002. w v N o w v .r 8. \ . \ . ooN A.“ . a Va \ x \\ , . \ 8~ We . K... e\ ix a. Ava. 00m \ \\ \1 OmN OmN iii—R m ...~..