RESISTANCE EXERCISE PROGRAMS ON STRENGTH AND HYPERTROPHY Thests éop flue Degree of M. A. MECHIGA‘N SMTE UNWERSETY Don R. Potter 1957 THE EFFECTS OF 10, 20 AND 30 RM PROGRESSIVE RESISTANCE EXERCISE PROGRAMS ON STRENGTH AND HYPERTROPHY BY DON R. POTTEB‘ A THESIS Submitted to the College of Education of Hichigan 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 Approved__%W _; I ‘ ABSTRACT Iitle Selected Progressive Resistance Exercise Programs and Their Effects on Strength, Huscle Hypertrophy and Strength Decrement. fitgtgmegt of thg ngblgg The problem consists of three phases: 1) to determine the dif- ference in static and.dynamic strength improvements in matched groups training three days per week for three sets each day on selected progressive resistance programs employing the 10 RM. 20 RH, and 30 RM. 2) to determine the effects of these progressive resistance programs on strength decrement. 3) to determine the effects of these progressive resistance programs on muscular hypertrophy. W Twelve subjects were selected frOm a group of thirty volunteers from Michigan State University physical education classes. They were divided equally into three groups matched on static strength of the right quadriceps femoris muscle group as measured by the cable tensiometer. All subjects had normal strength and function of their knees. None had a history of knee inJuries. The groups were placed on training programs of 10 RM, 20 RM and 30 RH, respectively. three days per week for a period of five weeks. At the end of the training period. the subjects were again tested on the matching variable, 1 RM strength. hypertrophy, and strength decrement. missing: The following conclusions are drawn on the basis of the data presented and should be viewed with careful consideration of the limitations of the study. 1. No differences of statistical significance were found be- tween the groups studied in this investigation for static and dynamic strength, strength decrement or muscular hypertrophy. 2. Dynamic strength was improved significantly by all of the training programs. 3. Strength decrement did not shift significantly as a result of any of the training programs. h. The static strength and muscle hypertrophy results were not significant and.were not interpretable. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Deep appreciation is expressed to Dr. Wayne Van Hues, the author's adviser, for his constant encouragement, help, and advice throughout this study. A note of thanks is extended to Dick Durrant for his faithful help in testing and gathering equipment. Thanks is also extended to all of those on the faculty and staff of Michigan State who made it possible through their cooperativeness and ingenuity for the author to conduct this study. Much appreciation is given to V1lliam Pierson for his time and assistance in statistical problems. Appreciation is also extended to the subjects who were so cooper- ative and gave up much of their time, to the typists and to the author's wife, Hiriam. Don R. Potter Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan June, 1957 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT.................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS............................................. 1v LIST OF TABLES.............................................. viii LIST OF FIGURES............................................. ix CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION.......................................... 1 Statement of the problem........................... 2 N Need for this study................................ Definition of terms.................. ........ ...... One repetition maximum (1 RM)................... Ten repetition maximum (10 RH).................. Cable tensiometer............. ..... ............. Progressive resistance exercise....... ....... ... Strength decrement................ ..... . ..... ... Bicycle ergometer............................... Vblumometer.................... ........ ......... Limitations of the Study........................... Referenceseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeo O U! {f 3‘ 4P 4? t?qu U 11. REVIEW or LIMAWOCCCOC.OCOCCCOOOIIOO......OOOOOOC. Effects of progressive resistance exercise on atremthOOIOOOOOOOI0......0......O...0.00.0000... 6 Effects of progressive resistance exercise on muscle hypertrOPMOOOOOODO......OOOOOOOOOO00.00.000.00... 11 CHAPTER -vii- Volumometer as a test of hypertrophy............... Strength decrement................................. cable tensiometerOOOOOOOOOO00.00.000.000. ..... 0.... Referenceseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeo III. “mommYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0000... Introduction....................................... Experimental design................................ Training program................................... Testing techniques................................. Dynamic strength................................ Static strength................................. Static strength deorement....................... Muscle hypertrophy.............................. Methods of statistical analysis.................... mferenCOBOOICOOOO......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0000... Iv. MSENTATIOI “D ANALYSIS OF DATAOCOQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Analysis of data................................... Results............................................ Strength............... ..... .................... Strength decrement................................. Hypertrophy........................................ Discussion......................................... Referenc’80000000000U0.00.0.0.........IOOOOCOIOI... PAGE 16 16 18 20 2a 2:» 2n 25 28 28 28 28 28 30 31 32 32 1‘3 x: 36 39 -viii- CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... ..... ... Summary............................................ Conclusions. .................... . ........ .......... Recommendations................... .......... ....... BIBLIOGRAPHY..................... ..... ...................... ”PMIXIOOCOOOIOOOOOOOOOO....O...000.00....OIOIOOOOOOOIOOO. PAGE in 1+2 ”5 TABLE II. III. IV. VI. LIST OF TABLES Initial to Final Testing Results...................... Analysis of Variance Results: Differences Between Groups, Initial and Final Test Deta......... ...... .. Analysis of Variance Results of Dynamic Strength: Differences Between Groups.......................... Analysis of Variance Results of Static Strength: Differences Between Groups.......................... Analysis of Variance Results of Strength Decrement: Differences Between Groups.......................... Analysis of Variance Results of Hypertrophy: Differences Between Groupe................ ..... ..... PAGE 33 35 u? u? LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Completion of a Correct Movement.. ................... 27 2. Volumometer. . . ................................ . ......... 29 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Progressive resistance exercises as such had their inception in World War II. The urgent need during the war for speedier rehabili- tation of the wounded to vacate badly needed hospital beds, led to the development of this type of exercise therapy. However, weight- lifting in some form for various purposes has long been practiced. Nuch credit for the rapid spread of the progressive resistance ex- ercise program is due to those who appreciated principles of over» load training and applied them in their work. The actual opportunity to first test these principles of exer- cise arose when a ski trooper who had injured his knee appealed for some sort of treatment that would allow him to remove a long log brace which he was permanently wearing.1 He was due for a medical discharge and he desperately wanted to be able to remove the leg brace before his discharge. He had previously received conventional physical therapy for six months consisting of heat, massage, muscle- setting exercises. and the usual quadriceps exercises. The knee did not respond to this treatment and there was no improvement with this type of therapy. Consequently, as a last resort, a program of heavy weight-lifting exercises was undertaken as a possible solution. Af- ter a month on this program. all knee symptoms of inJury. pain, fluid, and buckling, completely subsided and the knee brace was discarded. The patient could even jitterbug again, much to the amazement of both -2- patient and physician. with this as its beginning, the progressive resistance exercise program has rapidly grown in scope and effectiveness chiefly because of the interest and aid of the Pope Foundation, and the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis.2 These foundations have made it possible to develop equipment and techniques to investigate the effec- tiveness of progressive resistance exercises in a large number of clinical conditions. Conditions on which these exercises have been investigated are poliomyelitis, muscular dystrophy. scolious, kypho- sis, peripheral neuritis and nerve inJuries. osteo and rheumatoid arthritis. multiple sclerosis. and following vitallium mold arthro- plasties of the hip. fitgfigmggfi 9f the Prgblgg The problem consists of three phases: (1) To determine the difference in strength improvement in matched.groups training three days per week on selected progressive resistance exercise programs employing the 10 RH, 20 RH, and 30 B! respectively. (2) To deter- mine the effects of these progressive resistance programs on strength decrement. (3) To determine the effects of these progressive resist- ance programs on muscular hypertrophy. The basic principles of progressive resistance exercise were 1; established empirically by the weight lifters. It has been known -3- for centuries that if a person lifts progressively larger loads. his muscles in response to the work stimulus will increase in strength and size. It is in fact now a commonly known physiological principle that strength can be augmented significantly by contracting against a degree of resistance that calls forth maximal effort. However, ab- solute strength does not necessarily mean that the participant has developed either the endurance or speed of movement necessary to do the physical work associated with a specific Job or sport. There is very little scientific evidence in regards to the number of repeti- tions needed for maximum muscle girth and strength increases. There- fore, it was hoped this study might give further insight into the use of progressive resistance exercise for the development of func- tional strength. pgginitign of Zggnl Qua-Repggitigg gagimum (1 pg). The greatest weight that can be lifted once through the full range of extension. T t M 1 RH ." The maximum weight that can be 5 lifted through the full range of extension 10 times. .Qghlg_ngnignpgjgz.’ A.small compact unit designed to measure 6 the amount of tension applied to a cable. ’ The same definition is applicable for 20 and 30 RH. ' Manufactured by Pacific Scientific Company, Inc.. 1&30 Grands Vista Avenue. Los Angeles, California. -h— ,2:ggIa1lizg_§e§;§jap§g_!zg:2;§g. Exercises in.which the resist- ance to contraction is progressively increased commensurate with the subject's muscle power. .§1::ng&h_2g§:ennnt. The loss of egrength in a given muscle group resulting from physical exertion. £flgzg11_]zggngtgg. Frictional type of bicycle in which the re- sistance to pedaling is supplied.by friction against the wheel of the 9 bicycle. .Iplunnngfigz. A device to measure muscular volume by water dis- placement. WW 1. The inability to control the subjects' activity during the week may have had some influence on the results. 2. In some cases. due to conflicting schedules, the impossi- bility of testing the subjects at the same time of day, may have caused some diurnal variations. 3. Lack of motivation, determination. and belief in self may possibly have affected the results. The sight of a heavy weight on the subject's foot may affect the effort he puts forth.10 h. The method used to measure muscular hypertrophy was not sufficiently reliable. -5- REFERENCES 1. Thomas L. Delorme and Arthur L. Watkins. W - _ i _ .st York: Appleton-century crOftS. Inc.. 1951.-p.2l.i" 2. Ibid.. p. 2. 30 Ilbiud- e O p. 20 u. Ibid.. p. 19. 5. Thomas L. DeLorme and Arthur L. Watkins. ”Techniques of Progressive Resistance lxercise'. Axghivg. g; ggzgicg; Mgdiging, 29:26h, l9h8. 6. H. Harrison Clarke. “Objective Strength Tests of Affected luscle Groups Involved in Orthopedic Disabilities“.,Rpgggz§§_gga;1gg- ‘11, 19:120. Hay. l9b8. 7. William Bierman. Hedi in r P Paul B. Reefer. Inc.. Medical Book Department of Harper and Brothers. 1952. p. 1401. 8. H. Harrison Clarke, Clayton T. Shay, and Donald K. Mathews. “Strength Decrement Index: A New Test of Muscle Fatigue”, Agchivgg W. 36: 376. 1955. 9. Peter V. Harpovich. 'A.Irictional Bicycle Brgometer"..§gr W. 21:210-215. 1950- 10. S.J. Houts. A.H. Parrish and !.A. Hellebrandt. 'The In- fluence of Heavy Resistance Exercise on Strength". Thg_§hzgig§hggphz mm. 26:300-305. 19%. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE It has been recognised for many years that one form or another of heavy resistance exercise provided one of the most effective methods for the development of strength. DeLorme1 in 19h5, pointed out that the skeletal muscle possessed several qualities. namely. power, endurance. speed and coordination- and that a different type of exercise was needed to develop the de- sired quality in any particular muscle. He described a system of hoary resistance and low repetition exercises to build up power and volume in the muscles. as opposed to low resistance and high repeti- tion exercises to develop endurance. The basic principle of progressive resistance exercise is that muscle power is better developed by exercising a muscle a few times at its maximum capacity than by having the muscle repeat an exercise many times against less resistance.2 This phenomenon of increasing strength is explained by the prin- ciple of overload. A.muscle will develop most rapidly in size and strength.when its power of contractiaiis against a maximum 30u050697 load. e E P v t rci t h Numerous studies have been conducted to show the effects of pro- gressive resistance exercise on strength. -7- 8 In an experiment by Gallagher who used ten adolescent boys to determine the effect of progressive resistance exercise on strength. -it was found that over a period of four’months exercising four times a day with hip-knee extension exercises. the mean increase in strength as determined by 1 RM was #9 per cent. No subject in the exercise group failed to increase his 1 RM. The smallest increase was 23 per cent. Likewise, in a control group. none of the subjects increased his 1 RN. 9 He Norris and llkins applied progressive resistance exercises to the right triceps brachii of twelve varied subjects over a twelve week period. A.mean gain in isotonic strength over the twelve week Period.was 2h.542.7h pounds or a gain of 59.h per cent. Gurevitsch10 studied the effects of progressive resistance ex- ercise on patients suffering from infantile paralysis. Thirteen ex- perimental patients were placed on an intensive program of progress- ive resistance exercise and a control group of thirteen patients followed a program of the usual physical therapy applied to infantile paralysis. The experimental group on the progressive resistance ex- ercise program increased in strength more rapidly than the control group. The power of normal muscles can be doubled in the first four to six weeks of exercise by using progressive resistance exercises. This is supported by evidence brought forth by DeLorme11 who studied twenty-seven weaker quadriceps muscles and found that fifteen doubled or more than doubled quadriceps power in the first month. The twelve -8- remaining showed improvement ranging from 1 per cent to 89 per cent. These results are believed.by DeLorme to compare favorably with the response of normal muscles. DeLorme's results supports Bouts, Parrish and Hellebrandt12 in that the single-effort test of strength cannot be used as a criterion of the functional capacity of a skeletal muscle. Others have shown that an actual decrease in work capacimy takes place with a large increase in muscle strength. DeLorme13 also states that the degree of improvement in power and work capacity is approximately the same for extremely weak.mus- cles as for muscles of greater initial strength, and that the failure to reach normal functional capacity is due to the absence of a nor- mal number of motor units.. Results of DeLorme's experiment on polio- myelitis patients were that progressive resistance exercise improved the functional ability of the patients in that they had less diffi- culty in performances requiring strength and added ability to perform for longer pariode without fatigue. Krusen1 found evidence. however, that was contrary to Delorme's. Krusen exercised quadriceps muscles affected by poliomyelitis using resistive exercises and found that on the average muscular strength increased practically as a straight line function over the period of study. The period of study averages about ten weeks depending on the condition of the patients involved. Strength improvement was deter- mined by comparing the initial 1 RH and 5 RM with the final 1 RH and 5 RM. Investigation showed that the gains in strength of the weaker ~9- muscles were consistently greater than the gains of the stronger muscles. Irusen stated that some improvement of muscular strength might be produced by resistive exercises. but that a limit would be reached within the period of the study. However. this limit was never at- tained: there was no appreciable leveling-off period. even after twelve weeks of training. Actually. the time required to develop maximum power in the normal muscle. is not known. Professional-strength athletes feel that approximately four years of hard work are necessary to achieve maximum muscle devs lopment. 15 The effect of weight training on athletic power which is related to strength. has been investigated by chui.16 In this study. one group of twenty—three subjects performed weight training exercises from two to three times a week for one hour over a period of three months. A control group of twenty-two subjects participated .in the required physical education program at the University of Iowa. but did no weight training. Both groups were tested at the beginning and end of the term on the Sargent Jump-standing, Sargent Jump running. standing broad Jump. eight-pound shot put from a stand. twelve-pound shot put from a stand. and sixty-yard sprint. Chui found a greater increase in all events by the weight trainers than by the control group. (Japen17 also studied the effect of systematic weight training on power. strength. and endurance. I'wo groups of students were used. -10- One was a.weight training class of sophomores and the other was a control group consisting of a conditioning class of freshmen all from the University of Tennessee. The classes met twice a.week for eleven weeks. Both groups were tested at the beginning and end of the eleven week period on muscular strength. muscular endurance. circulo-respir- story endurance. and athletic power. Batteries of tests were admin- istered to find the above items. Oapen found that the weight train- ing group showed greater general improvement in muscular strength than did the control group. There was no significant difference be- tween the two groups in the improvement of muscular endurance or circulo-respiratory endurance. The weight lifting group increased significantly more in speed events than did the conditioning group. It is interesting to note here that the‘weight training group had no practice in these speed events while the conditioning group had con- siderable practice. A.more recent study conducted by capen18 studied the effects of four different types of progressive resistance exercise programs on the development of muscular strength. The results of this study were that all subjects gained in muscular strength in all four programs. and that the amount of strength that was gained from each of the four programs was found to be nearly equal. Hettinger and Muller19 performed seventy-one separate experiments on nine male subjects over a period of eighteen months on the develop- ment of strength in muscle in relation to the intensity and frequency of training activities. They concluded the source of the increase in -11- strength is neither the intensity of contraction nor the degree of exhaustion of a muscle fiber, but rather a condition of anoxia within the muscle fiber. The observation that strength grows more rapidly as the training load increases from 1/3 to 2/3 maximal strength is to them only an apparent contradiction. They state that due to the internal arrangement of fibers within a.muscle. not all fibers are equally taxed so that not until the training load is about 2/3 max- imum are all fibers suffering some oxygen deficit. Bettinger and Muller claim that there is a ceiling on the development of strength in every muscle. This is usually accompanied by pain resulting from some injury within the muscle that stops further increase in effort. They postulate that the maximal strength of any muscle in the body is probably about three times the tension demanded of it in everyday activities. It is accepted that a.muscle under the proper conditions of work. may show a considerable increase in size. as shown by the arm muscles of a blacksmith or the general musculature of an athlete. Zoethout , 20 and Tuttle state: “The greater size of a trained muscle is caused by hypertrophy of the individual muscle fibers. This increased size of the fiber is attributed wholly to an increase in the amount of sarcoplasm present. An increase in the toughness of the con- nective tissue which binds the fibers together makes the muscle better able to withstand any additional mechanical demands placed upon it." -12- An increase in the size of a muscle increases its strength. But the increase in the size of the muscle is not in proportion to the strength gained by exercise. The strength gained by exercise is us- ually greater than can be accounted for by the increase in the size of the muscle.21 A muscle when required to perform heavy work for a protracted interval of time increases in volume. The cause of this has not yet been proven. It is the general opinion that this growth is due to hypertrophy of existent muscle fiber. rather than an increase in 22.23 their number. 2h In an experiment by DeIorme eight out of eighteen polio pat- ients showed a substantial increase in thigh circumference. These eight were muscles of good strength initially and developed nearly normal power after exercise. Ho increase in thigh circumference was found in several impaired subjects. Delorme's initial view of hypertrophy was that in order to ob- . tain rapid hypertrophy, the muscle must be subjected to stgenuous exercise and at regular intervals to its maximum exertion. 5 How- ever. Hellebrandt and Kent:26 state. “The mere repetition of prevail- ing performance does not lead to the hypertrophy of skeletal muscles. HY'pertrophy appears only when the rate of working is increased.‘ Siebert27 with rats, also demonstrated that the mere repetition of prevailing performance does not lead to the hypertrophy of skeletal muscles. Hypertrophy appeared only when the rate of work was in- creased. It seems that power was the decisive factor. not the total -13. amount of work done. Thus far. little has been said about the nature of the changes occuring in the machinery of the human body by which the ability to perform work is enhanced. The rapidity with which overload stress increases the capacity for strenuous exercise suggests that this must be due to changes in the central nervous system and not to alterap tions in anatomical structure. It appears that too much attention has been.placed on the con- tractle tissue and not enough on the mechanisms which drive the skeletal musculature. From his initial view on.hypertrophy. Delorme since has changed and advocated that. "Fewer repetitions permit exercise with heavier muscle loads. thereby yielding greater and more rapid muscle goads. thereby yielding greater and.more rapid muscle hypertrophy."2 Ho systematic attempts. however. have been made to test this hypothesis. ”Reasoning from first principle suggests that some point must exist below which reduction in the dosage of exercise defeats the purpose for which it has been administered."29 The principle of overload is as important in the rehabilitation of the disabled as it is in the training of athletes. Limits of per- formance must be persistently extended to restore the function of muscles. The rate at which improvement progresses depends on the degree to which the person is willing to overload. Hellebrandt and Bouts?O conducted 620 experiments on.l7 normal adult subjects on the mechanisms of muscle training in man. Their conclusions were as -1u. follows: 1. Strength and endurance increase when repetitive exercise is performed against heavy resistance. 2. The slope gradient of the training curve varies with the magnitude of the stress impaired, the frequency of the practice sessions. and the duration of the overload effort. 3. Here repetition of contractions which place no stress on the neuromuscular system has little effect on the functional capacity of the skeletal muscles. b. The amount of work done per unit time is the critical var- iable on which extension of the limits of performance depends. 5. The speed with which functional capacity increases suggests that the central nervous system changes contribute an im- portant component to training. 6. The ability to develop maximal tension appears to be de- pendent on the proprioceptive facilitation with which over- loading is associated. 7. Ho evidence was forthcoming in support of the validity of currently popular techniques of administering progressive resistance exercise clinically. At best. the increased area of the extremity is a rough estimate of hypertrophy of a muscle contained therein. without microscopic studies. the only present means of measuring hypertrophy is indirectly either by volumetric studies of an extremity, by calipers or by girth measurements. Several studies have been completed in an attempt to show the effects of progressive resistance exercises on muscle girth and the amount of increase that takes place. McMorris and Elkins31 applied progressive resistance exercises over a.twelve week period to the right triceps brachii of twelve nor- mal subjects. nine male and three female. aged 20-29 years. Circum- ference measurements of the arm were taken preceding the exercise. at six weeks. and at the termination of the training program. -15. Measurements were taken with a steel tape and done by the same exam- iner. The mean gain in circumference was 3.1 per cent. McGovern and Luscombe32 after modifying DeLorme's and Zinovieff's methods of progressive resistance exercises in an attempt to reduce the time required by these methods. found thatin all experiments. measurements of thigh girth were of no significance. In all groups tested, thigh girth increased in some subjects. and decreased in others. They believe that this is related to change of individual difference in subcutaneous and fat deposits and not related to muscle substance. It was felt by these authors that their modifications produced results in terms of strength gain that are equal to those of the original procedure. In a particular technique of progressive exercises by Zinovieff33 (The "Oxford Technique,') carried out on fifty—five consecutive out- patients with weak quadriceps muscles. the average increase in muscle volume was 3/8 inch every 2} weeks. The ”Oxford Technique“ involves the same principle of heavy resistance and low repetitions to develop maximal strength but after each bout of ten lifts. weight was reduced instead of increased to approximate the fatigue in the muscles. yet the muscle was exercised to its maximum of capacity. Gallagherju found that thigh measurement showed a mean increase of approximately 7/8 inch for members of an exercise group using pro- gressive resistance exercises on a knee extension program four times a week for four months. No member of a control group showed an in- crease in muscle girth. -l6— Very little has been done using the volumometer as a test of muscle girth. The first modern volumometer for the human body was Spivak's35 developed in 1915 in Denver. Sixteen.men were tested, the volume was obtained by direct immersion. The increase in the level of the water permitted the calculation of the volume of water displaced by the body. The tank had an outside glass tube graduated in centimeters and millimeters. It was entered by means of a step ladder. the water level being carefully read before and after immer— sion. The reliability of this instrument was not given. The volumometer or any other clinical measurement of muscle girth has many variable factors that must be taken into consideration when measuring the circumference of an extremity. Yet. measuring the circumference of a limb is the most common means used clinicalhy to determine hypertrophy or muscle growth. Among the many Variables are: the “amount of subcutaneous tissue. the state of hydration. the amount of vasodilation, the state of development of other included 36 muscles and the muscle length”. cre t The Strength Decrement Index has been proposed as a test of muscle fatigue. The basic concept of this test is that an immediate effect of fatiguing muscles is to reduce their ability to develop 3? tensions. -17- The formula for strength index is: SDI 2 Mi; 100 Si When: Si Initial strength: taken before exercisg Sf Final strength: taken after exercise.3 39 Clarke demonstrated the effect of strength decrement and fatiguing exercise on the elbow flexor muscles. He found the hmmed— iate effect of muscular fatigue is to reduce their ability to apply muscular tension. the degrees of muscular fatigue are reflected in changed strength scores. Gable-tension elbow flexion strength tests were given each subject 30 seconds after the exercise. and again at intervals of five minutes to determine the strength recovery. The initial drop at 30 seconds after exercise was 29 to 32 per cent of pro-exercise strength. Muscles under physical stress may weaken.when carrying loads. This was clearly demonstrated by Clarke.no When conditioned, however, subjects experience lass strength loss as measured by a lower strength decrement index. 1 The strength decrement of men carrying various army packs on military marches was studied. They found the physical condition of the subjects improved as a result of repeated pack-carrying marches. This factor was re- flectsd in lessened strength losses for the late marches in the series. As a result of these studies. the Strength Decrement Index ‘was proposed as a test of local fatigue of muscle groups. In the performance of even simple motor acts. the element of -lB- learning plays an important part and probably contributes to the in- creased ability to exert a maximum effort. At the time of initiation of exercise. the influence of learning is the lowest. and strength measurements taken at this time often reveal considerable lower values than measurements taken a few days later. This early improvement in strength would appear to be due to motor learning. Measurable strength loss then results from exhaustive exercise. The amount of weight required to induce exhaustion in a short time depends on the strength of the included muscles. The work output of muscles in exhaustion performances is greater when in position to “2 apply greatest strength at the point of greatest stress. “Muscle fatigue is accompanied by loss in ability to develop tension; the amount of this loss can be measured. or this amount varies in relation to the degree of fatigue. the proportionate strength loss may be utilised as an indicator of the amount of fatigqu ““3 W The cable tensiometer is a device for measuring strengzh. A re- view of the literature by Daniels. Williams and Worthingham on strength testing techniques indicates that nearly all tests developed between 1912 and l9h6 were dependent upon the subjective judgment of the examiner as he estimated the ability of the muscle to overcome gravity and outside fozge. In view of the lack of objectivity of strength tests. Clarke examined several different types of instru- ments to find the one most applicable for measuring muscle strength. -19- The cable tensiometer was found to be superior for this purpose. In using the cable tensiometer as a test for strength. one of the difficulties in administering the test is to isolate the effect of the muscles controlling the specific joint movements and to elim- inate the effect of compensatory muscles. When considerable care 'was taken in administering the test and specific instructions were followed. Clarkehé found the objectivity coefficient of this test when used to test the strength of the quadricep muscles by extenr sion of the leg at the knee joint to be .9“. The accepted standard of objectivity is .90.“? Clarke and llkins found the best position for testing the quadriceps is in a sitting position leaning backward with the arms extended to the rear and the hands grasping the sides of the table. The leg is best tested at 115 degrees of extension. REFERENCES 1. Thomas L. DeLorme. “Restoration of Muscle Power by Heavy Hestive Exercises”. Journal of gong gpd Jgigt Surgen. 27:645. 1995. 2. Thomas L. Delorms. Robert L. Schwab. and Arthur L. Iatkins. “The Response of the Quadriceps remoris to Progressive Resistance Ixercises in Poliomyelitis Patients”. a1 f d J t Bu x222. 30A:8h7. 19MB. 3. Arthur H. Steinhaus . ”Some Selected Pacts from Phsiology to Illustrate Scientific Principles in Athletic Training”. Mg; WW1. 57th:8. 19514. 1+. Peter V. Harpovich. Mgiglggz 9; finale; Activity. Phila- delphia: v.3. Saunders Co. 1953. p. 28. 5. Duane A. Schram. “Resistive Exercises in the Treatment of Poliomvsntu' . MW. 33: 599. 1952. 6. LG. Hakim. ”The Physiologic Aspects of Therapeutic Physical Exercise“. MW. NZ: 106 Jammy 1950. 7. Thomas L. DsIorme and Arthur L. Watkins. W- e e: T 0. Me 1 li ti . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Inc.. 1951. p. 6. 8. Roswell J. Gallagher. ”Effect of Progressive Resistance Exercise on Muscle Contraction Time". WW. 33:86-920 1952- 9. Hex O. Mcflorris and Earl C. Hlkins. 'A Study of Production and Evaluation of Muscular Evaortrorhv". W. 35: use-#26. 1951+. 10. David A. Gurevitsch. “Intensive Graduated Exercises in Early Infantile Paralysis“. W. 31:213-218. April 1950. ll. DeIorme. Schwab and Watkins. op. cit. 3OA:841. 12. SJ. Bouts. A.M. Parrish and LA. Hellebrandt. “The Influ- ence of Heavy Resistance Exercise on Strength“. W 3.11m. 26:300-305. 19%. 13. DeLorme. Schwab and Watkins. op. cit.. 30A:81+3. -21. 1“. Edward M. Hrusen. ”Functional Improvement Produced by Re- sistive Exercise of Quadriceps Muscles Affected by Poliomylitis". W. 30:271-277. 1949. 15. Del-norms. Schwab and Watkins. op. cit.. 3OA:8146. 16. Edward Chui. "The Effect of Systemic Weight Training on Athletic Power“. W. 218138-1915. 1950. 17. Edward H. Capen. ”Functional Improvements Produced by Re- sistive Exercise of Quadriceps Muscles Affected by Poliomyelitis". MW. 30:271-277. 1999. 18. Edward I. Capen. ”Study of Pour Programs of Heavy Resistive Exercises for Development of Muscular Strength“. W. 27:132-1142. May 1956. 19. Thomas Hettinger and E. A. Muller. 'Murkelleistung and Mur- koltrunins'. We 15:111-116. 1953. 20. William D. Zoethout and VLV. Tattle. W. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby Company. 1952. p. 11“. 21. Ibid” p. 11“. 22. R.D. Adams. I. Dennis-Brown and C.M. Pearson. D W W. New York: Paul B. Hoefer. Inc.. 1953. pp. 208-210. 23. Bob Hoffman. f t f B rb T i . New York. New York: Barbell 60.. 1991. p. 12. 2h. Delorme. Schwab and Watkins. op. cit.. 30mm. 25. DeIorme. op. cit.. 273695. 26. LA. Hellebrandt and Sara. Jane Houts. ”Mechanisms of Muscle Training in Man: Experimental Demonstration of the Overload Principle”. W. 36:12. June 1956. 27. A.H. Steinhaus. "Chronic Effects of Exercise”. W m. 13:109. January 1933. 28. Thomas L. DeIorme and Arthur L. Watkins. ”Techniques of Progressive Resistance Exercise”. WM. 29:26h. l9u8. 29. Hellebrandt and Rants. op. cit.. p. 2. -22. 30. .1221... pp. 1-13. 31. McMorris and Elkins. loc. cit. 32. Richard E. McGovern and Harold D. Luscombe. ”Useful Modi- fications of Progressive Resistive Exercise Technique”.|§;ghi1gg_gf thgiggl Mgdigim. BMW’s-W9. 1953. 33. A.M. Zinovieff. "Heavy Resistance Exercises. The 'Oxford Technique". Br J M dici . 14:128-132. 1951. 34. Roswell J. Gallagher. “Effect of Progressive Resistance Exercise on Muscle Contraction Time“. Apghivgg 9f Ehzgiggl Mgdigigg. 33:86-92. 1952. 35. C.D. Spivak. IThe Specific Gravity of the Human Body“. MW. 39:628-6bz. 1915. 36. McMorris and Elkins. op. cit.. 35:h26. 37. H. Harrison Clarke. Clayton T. Shay and Donald H. Mathews. “Strength Decrement Index: A Mew Test of Muscle Patigue'.lggghgzgg Wales. 36:376. 1955. 38° M's 3633760 39. H. Harrison Clarke. “Objective Strength Tests of Affected Muscle Groups Involved in Orthopedic Disabilities“. £gggg;gh_9331§gp— 1L 19:118-lh7. May 19148. "0. Clarke. Shay and.Mathews. op. cit.. 36:376-378. #1. H. Harrison Clarke. Clayton T. Shay and Donald K. Mathews. 'Strength Decrements from Carrying Various Army Packs on Military Marches". W. 26:253—265. 1955. #2. H. Harrison Clarke. "Recent Advances in.Measurement and Understanding of Yalitorial Muscular Strength". WM. “3. Clarke. Shay and Mathews. op. cit.. 36:378. uh. Lucile Daniels. Marian Williams and Catherine Worthingham. .53!£1£.I§lllfl£. Philadelphia: W.D. Saunders Company. 1997. pp. 9-13. “5. Clarke. op. cit.. 19:120. -23. #6. Clarke. op. cit.. 19:118-1#7. #7. Clarke. op. cit.. 198135. #8. H. Harrison Clarke. Earl C. Elkins. Gordon M. Martin and Khalil G. Hakim. "Relationship Between Body Position and the Appli- cation of Muscle Power to Movements of the Joints”. ggghiveg gf gag? 11W. 3138‘1-85. February 1950. CHAPTER I I I METHODOLOGY I gtggduct ign The present study was undertaken to determine the effects of three «different progressive resistance exercise programs on dynamic and static‘ strength. muscular hypertrophy and static strength decrement. The test 1 battery used consisted of the 1 RM to measure dynamic strength. a volumometer to measure musclar hypertrophy by water displacement2 and a cable tensiometer to measure static strength. Twelve subjects were selected from physical education service courses at Michigan State University and matched on static strength scores. Prior to and after their respective training program. the sub- jects were measured for static and dynamic strength. muscular hyper- trophy and strength decrement of the right quadriceps femoris muscle group. The training program consisted of ten. twenty. and thirty RM. respectively. The superiority in the amount of muscular strength gained when participating in a program of progressive resistance ex- ercises three days a week rather than five yields a probablility of 1: six per cent. W Twelve subjects matched into three groups on the static strength -25. of the right knee extensors were selected from a large number of students measured from the physical education service courses at Michigan State University. All subjects had normal strength and function of their knees. The groups were randomly placed on train- ing programs of 10. 20 and 30 RM three days per week for a period of five weeks. Subjects were tested prior to (T1) and following the training program (mg) on the matching variable. 1 RM strength. hypertrophy. and strength decrement. W Each subject. regardless of group. performed three sets of rap- etitions resting two minutes between sets. The muscle group tested was the right quadriceps femoris muscle by means of a knee extension movement. The movement was performed by extending the leg completely from 90 degrees flexion to 180 degrees extension. Progressive re- sistance was applied by means of a boot strapped to the foot with attachable barbell plates ranging in weight from 2% pounds to 25 pounds. The initial resistance used was based on percentages of 70%. 60% and 50% of the 1 m: which corresponds roughly to the 10. 20 and 30 m4 respectively. Adjustments were then made to obtain the exact RM for each subject. Extreme care was taken to make sure that the maximum load for the number of repetitions was being executed. For example. in the 10 RM program. ifthe subject could lift the weight 11 times. weight was added before starting the second set. -26- No change was made for the third set. If the subjects could lift the weight only 9 times. weight was not removed until the next training day when he would start‘with a slightly lighter load. If the subject could lift only the prescribed number of repetitions and no more. weight was added the next training day. In most cases. when two or three bouts of exercise are executed. only one need be pitched to the level of maximal effort to give a max- imum gain in strength in.a minimum amount of time.5 In fact. only "one-half to two-third: of the contractions performed require less than maximal tension". The exercise performed was repetitive. The motion of the leg from flexion to extension by each subject was kept constant by execut- ing the exercise to the rhythm of a.metronome. This eliminated jerk— ing movements and any advantages that might be gained by an uneven or speedier movement. The cadence was kept constant throughout the experiment. To control the total number of correct movements during a set of repetitions. an apparatus was used which indicated when the knee was fully extended.(ligure 1). On completing 180 degree extension. the subject received credit for a complete repetition.when his foot was within three inches of this apparatus. When executing a move- ment. the buttocks had a tendency to rise off the table. thus lower- ing the foot slightly. To compensate for this tendency. three inches was selected arbitrarily as close enough to be considered a complete repetition. $95998.“ mowaaco m we no“... ...;500 .H mafimfim I ~28- The maximum repetition a subject was able to perform with a par— ticular resistance was the repetition following the last movement in which contact was made with the apparatus. To further eliminate errors. a hand counter was used to count all repetitions and the total number was recorded after each set. A Kodak Timer was used to keep the two minute interval constant be- tween rests. W W. The one repetition maximum (1 M) as described by DeIaorme7 was used as the test of dynamic strength. We Determined by use of the cable tensiometer as described by Clarke. W. Determined by using the cable ten- siometer to measure static strength then riding a friction bicycle ergometer twenty miles per hour with six and one-half pounds of re- sistance until pace could no longer be maintained. Thirty seconds after completion of the ride. the static strength was again measured. The difference between the two measurements was considered to be strength decrement. ' 9 . lo Clarke's tensiometer procedures were followed. Karpovich describes the use of the friction bicycle ergometer in greater detail. W. A specially constructed volumometer (Fig— ure 2) was used to measure the volume of the right log by water dis- placement before and after the five week training period. The ‘9. o. e I!- {'2 .. 3 .'- ' - L -..-0‘ Figure 2. V0 lumometer. -30- volumometer was constructed just large enough to comfortably contain a subject's leg. It consisted of two outlets. One a ”cut off" valve and the other an overflow spout. The tank was filled with water to the l'cut--off" valve and allowed to overflow until the water stopped dripping. The valve was then closed and the subject placed his right leg in the tank. The water displaced through the overflow spout was caught in a glass beaker and then weighed on a scale broken down into grams. Paraffin was placed in the outlets to cut down the drip. The water was kept at body temperature to eliminate changes that occur when a muscle is subjected to a sudden temperature change. A one. two or five inch block was placed in the bottom of the tank depending on the length of the subject's leg. This was to stand- ardize the amount of volume that was placed in the tank each time. The subject's body weight was also recorded before and after the training program. The reliability of the volumometer as determined by the test re—test method of correlation on 30 cases was .21. tdsfSii 1 11 The student 't' test of significance was used on the initial to final test data for each.group. 12 For all measures analysis of variance was used to compare the differences between.groups. REFERENCES 1. Edward M. Krusen. “Functional Improvement Produced by Re- sistive Exercise of Quadriceps Muscles Affected by Poliomyelitis'. WW. 30:272. 19h9. 2. C.D. Spivak. |'The Specific Gravity of the Human Body”. WW. 39:628-6h2. 1915. 3. H. Harrison Clarke. "Objective Strength Tests of Affected Muscle Groups Involved in Orthopedic Disabilities”..ngggggh_gna£§gglz. 2?:lbl. Hay 1956. h. Edward I. Capen. “Study of Thur Programs of Heavy Resistive Exercises for Development of Muscular Strength”.‘figgg§;§g_ggggtgglz. 27:1“1. May 1956. 5. Thomas L. DeLorme and Arthur L. Watkins. "Techniques of Progressive Resistance Exercise”. v i H . 29:19h8 pp. 263-273. 6. I.A. Hellebrandt and Sara.Jane Bouts. 'Hechanisms of Muscle Training in Han: Experimental Demonstration of the Overload Princi- ple“. MW. 36:5. June 1956. 7. DeLorme and Watkins. op. cit.. 29:263—273. 3. 3. Harrison Clarke. Earl C. Elkins. Gordon M. Martin. and Khalil G. Hakim. “Relationship Between Body Position and the Applica- tion of Muscle Power to Movements of the Joints”. Agghivgg gf Egg? gicg; Hedicing. 31:?ebruary 1950. pp. 81-89. 90 M‘. pp. 81.89e 10. Peter V. Karpovich. “A Frictional Bicycle Ergometer”. fig? Wu. 21:210-215. 1950. 11. Allen L. Edwards. .fitgtiggig§;_égglzgig. New York; Rinehart and.Company. Inc.. l9h6. p. 180. 12. Ibid.. PP. 225-232. CHAPTER.IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA The subjects in this study were individually matched in static strength and divided into three groups. Each group participated in knee extension progressive resistance exercise training programs three times a week for five weeks. The 10 RM. 20 RH and 30 RM res— pectively were employed for the three groups. The effects of the training programs on strength and hypertrophy are compared in this chapter. Agglygig 9f Data The pro-training (T1) to post-training (T2) data for all mea- sures were compared using the Student "t' test of significance.1 To compare the differences between the 10 RM. 20 RH and 30 RH groups. the analysis of variance technique was calculated.2 For each group. prior to and following training. static strength was measured with the tensiometer and recorded. Dynamic strength was determined by the 1 RM and recorded. Strength decrement and mus- cle hypertrophy were also measured before and after the 5 week train- ing period. mm .§5xgng1h. The mean difference from T1 to T2 in dynamic strength improvement'was statistically significant beyond the l per cent level in the 10. 20 and 30 RM groups (Table I). In static strength. the INITIAL TO FINAL TESTING RESULTS -33— TABLE I 10 an user GROUP MEAN r1 MEAN r2 nxrrsasncs t 1 an (lbs.) 60.8 100.6 39.9 10.9' Static Strength (1be.) 213.1 313.1 100.0 1.8» Decrement (1bs.) lb.h -28.8 ”3.1 3.0 Hypertrophy (gm.) 3226.0 3&33.0 207.0 3.7** 20 an ggggg 1 m 58.3 101.3 “3.0 15.6" Static Strength (lbs.) 213.3 296.9 _83.6 3.2*' Decrement (lbs.) 27.6 -18.1 -h5.8 1.7 Hypertrophy (gm.) 26hO.8 2737.6 96.9 1.8 30 as .93992. . 1 1m _ ’ 70.3 99A 29.1 6.7‘ Static Strength (lbs.) 211.9 276.9 65.0 3.h*' Decrement (lbs.) 21.9 1.3 —20.6 1.0 Hypertrophy (gm.) 2hh7.7 2758.8 311.2 3.6'"I ‘ Significant at the 1 per cent level. "Significant at the 5 per cent level. -31.. mean difference from T1 to T2 was statistically significant at the 5 per cent level in the 20 and 30 RM groups. but was insignificant in the 10 RH group. The improvements in static and dynamic strength in the 10. 20 and 30 RH groups. however. were not significantly different (353.79h. P. greater than 5 per cant; I - .hhh, P a greater than 5 per cent. respectively). Though insignificant. dynamic strength improvement was greatest in the 20 RM group (Table II). The 10 RM group had a greater increase than the 30 RM group. The present data seem to support those of Berger3 in that there appears to be an inverse re- lationship between dynamic and static strength improvement. The sig- nificant static strength results for the 20 and 30 RM groups are the first in the Michigan State University laboratory. It is important to note. however. that the programs evaluated are not significantly different. S h r m n The differences in strength decrement between the 10. 20 and 30 RM groups (Table II) were not statistically significant. The differences from initial to final tests were not statistically sig- nificant (Table l) for each of the groups. Before training. all three groups showed improvements in strength following the bicycle ergo- meter ride. After training for five weeks. however. all three groups showed a decrement in static strength. Before training. the 20 EM group had the greatest increase in strength after the fatiguing ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS: TABLE II 1 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUPS. INITIAL AND FINAL TEST Duma‘ 14mm DIFFERENCES. Critical 1' T1— T2 value (5% MEASURE 1m 1' Level) Dynamic Strength (lbs.) 39.9 “3.0 29.1 3.8 5.1 Static Strength (lbs.) 100.0 83.6 65.0 .H 5.1 Decrement (lbs.) h3.l -h5.8 —20.6 3.h 5.1 Hypertrophy (em) 207.0 96.9 311.1 2.5 5.1 3 Analysis of variance tables for each analysis are in Appendix B. -36- exercise. followed by the 30 RM group and the 10 RM group. After training. the 20 RR group had the largest decrement followed by the 10.3" and the 30 RH. These differences. however. were not statistic- ally significant. .flznazlzsnhz In the 10 and 30 RH groups. there were significant differences between initial and final test results on the right leg (Table I). The 20 RH groups data were not statistically significant. The 30 BM group showed the greatest increase in.muscle sise. Between the three groups. the differences were not statistically significant (Table II). 211M211 The results of the 10 RN strength improvement may have been biased due to conditions beyond the author's control. One of the subjects in this group was in the hospital during the last week of the experiment and.missed two days of training. Another subject in the same group had completed two hours of H.O.T.C. drill just prior to being tested on dynamic strength. It was felt by the writer that the latter subject should_have done much better on his 1 RH test. These two factors may account for the poorer showing in dynamic strength in the 10 RH group. The results of this study show a trend between static and dynamic strength improvement (See Table I). With more repetitions and a lighter load, the mean static strength was less in each group. The 20 and 30 RH groups. though showing less improvement. were both -37- statistically significant in the initial to final test data. The dynamic strength data are not clear due to the bias in the 10 RH re- sults. These data seem to indicate a poor relationship between strength and endurance. Though the differences between groups were not step tistically significant. the 20 RM group had the greatest increase in dynamic strength and the greater decrement at the end of the training period. The 10 RM group had the next greatest increase in 1 RH and the next largest decrement followed in the same manner by the 30 RH group. The stronger subjects seemed to have less endurance. This ‘was also evident before training. It is interesting to note that before training. all but one subject had an actual increase in strength after the fatiguing exercise. While after the training period. all but two subjects had considerably large decrements. This may be due to warm up factors. (See Appendix A) However. since there were no significant differences within groups nor between groups in strength decrement. it should not be assumed that the testing technique used for this purpose was not sufficient. Before any definite assumption can be drawn regarding the effects of various progressive resistance exercise programs on strength decrement. a range of loads should be investigated. It is felt by the writer that the test of hypertrophy with some improvement in the testing techniques would become a fairly reliable instrument. Even with its poor reliability of .21. however. there were definite shifts in hypertrophy. All but the 10 BM group showed -38.. statistically significant increases in muscular girth. Statistically significant differences between groups in all measures may not have taken place because the training time involved was not sufficient. Since most measures had significant increases within groups after training. this may have also occurred between.groups had the training period extended over a longer period of time. The opposite is Just as likely. however. in that the training programs may not have been sufficiently different to produce statistically significant results. particularly in view of the rather rough 1 RM, hypertrophy. and strength decrement techniques of measurement. REFERENCES 1. Allen L. Edwards. .filaiisiisal_Aaalxsis. How York: Rinehart and Company. Inc.. l9u6. p. 180. 2. Ibid.. pp. 225-232. 3. Richard Anthony Berger. "The Effects of Selected Progressive Resistance Exercise Programs on Strength. Hypertrophy and Strength Decrement". (unpublished Master's Thesis. Michigan State University. August. 1956). CHAPTER V SUMMARY. OONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS human: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of 10. 20. and 30 RM progressive resistance exercise programs on strength and hypertrophy. Three groups of four subjects each matched on static strength respectively employed 10. 20 and 30 RM programs of progres- sive resistance exercise three days a week for a period of five weeks. Testing for each of the measures was completed prior to and immed- iately following the five week training period. W The following conclusions are drawn on the basis of the data presented and should be viewed with careful consideration of the limitations of the study. 1. No differences of statistical significance were found be- tween the groups studied in this investigation for static and dynamic strength. strength decrement or muscular hypertrophy. 2. Dynamic strength was improved significantly by all of the training programs. 3. Strength decrement did not shift significantly as a result of any of the training programs. h. The static strength and muscle hypertrophy results were in- consistent and were interpretable. -41- me t 1. It is recommended that a similar study be made over a longer period of time and with more subjects. 2. When determining strength decrement for further studies. a range of loads should be used. 3. A better technique of measuring muscular hypertrophy should be developed before attempting to measure growth of muscle girth in ‘future studies. 4. Additional studies should be made to determine the relation- ship between static and dynamic strength. BI BLI OGRAPHY 4+2- BIBLIOGRAPHY 3293.3 Adam. R.D.; D. Denny-Brown. and 0.1!. Pearson. W. W. low York: Paul B. Roeber. Inc.. 1953. Berger. Richard Anthony. "The Effects of Selected Progressive Re- sistance Exercise Programs on Strength. Hypertrophy and. Strength Decrement". (Unpublished Master's Thesis. Michigan State Univer- SiW. A1191“. 1956). Bierman. William and Sidney Licht. 1 Hedi M, Paul B. Hoeber. Inc.. Medical Book Department of Harper and Brothers, 1952. Daniels. Lucile; Marian Villiams. and Catherine Worthingham. mg m. Philadelphia: V.B. Saunders Company. 19147. Delacrme. Thomas L. and Arthur L. Watkins. r i e : T d H 6. ti . New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts. Inc.. 1951. Edwards. A. L. ti t i . New York: Binehart and Company. Inc.. 19146. Hoffman. Bob. WWW. lav York. New York: Barbell Co.. 19141. Iarpovich. Peter V. M r ivit . Philadelphia: VLB. Saunders 00.. 1953- Zoothout. William D. and VJ. Tuttle. “WM. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby Company. 1952. PERIODI CALS Capen, Edward K. “Functional Improvement Produced by Resistive Ix- ercise of Quadriceps Muscles Affected by Poliomyelitis". _A__r- WM. 30:271-277. 191*9. Capen. Edward I. ”Study of Four Programs of Heavy Resistive lxerb cises for Dovelopment of Muscular Strength”. W 27:132-lh2. May 1956. Chui. Edward. ”The Effect of Systematic Weight Training on Athletic Power”. W. 21:188-19“. 1950- 43- Clarke. H. Harrison; Clayton T. Shay and Donald K. Mathews. "Strength Decrement Index: A New Test of Muscle Fatigue“. W- W 36 3376-373. 1955. Clarke. H. Harrison. “Recent Advances in Measurement and Understand- ing of Valitorial Muscular Strength". W. 27:263- 275. 1956. Clarke. H. Harrison. "Objective Strength Tests of Affected Muscle Groups Involved in Orthopedic Disabilities“. WW 19:118-1u7. May 191:8. Clarke. H. Harrison; Earl C. Hlkins. Gordon M. Martin. and Dialil G. Hakim. "Relationship Between Body Position and the Application of Muscle Power to Movements of the Joints". mm mm. 31:81-89. l'ebmery 1950. Clarke. Harrison H.: Clayton T. Shay and Donald K. Mathews. "Strength Decrements from Carrying Various Army Packs on Military Marches”. W. 26:253-265. 1955. DeLorme. Thomas L. and Arthur L. Watkins. “Techniques of Progressive Resistance Exercise“. W. 29:263-273. 191:8. DeLorme. Thomas L. “Restoration of Muscle Power by Heavy Resistive herein-u“. WWW. 27:6“5. October. 191:5. Delcme. Thomas L.. Robert S. Schwab and Arthur L. Watkins. “The Response of the Quadriceps Pemoris to Progressive Resistive Ex- ercises in Polionwelitis Patients”. W m. 30A:831+—8h7. 1914-8. Gallagher. J. Roswell. "Effect of Progressive Resistance Exercise on Muscle Contraction Time“. WW. 33:86-92e 1952s Gurevitsch. David A. ”Intensive Graduated hercises in Early Infantile Paralysis". WW. 31:213-218. April 1950. Hellebrandt. LA. and Sara Jane Houts. ”Mechanisms of Muscle Training in Man: Experimental Demonstration of the Overload Principle“. W. 36:1-13. June 1956. Hettinger. Thomas. and LA. Muller. ”Muskelleistung and Muskeltrain- 136'. W. 153111-116. 1953- 4:1:- Houts. S.J.: A.M. Parrish. and LA. Hellebrandt. ”The Influence of Heavy Resistance Exercise on Strength”. WW. 26:300-305. 19%. Karpovich. Peter V. ”A Frictional Bicycle Ergometer". W m. 21:210-215. 1950. Krusen. Edward M.. "Mctional Improvement Produced by Resistive Exercise of Quadriceps Muscles Affected by Poliomyelitis". A:- W. 30:271-277. 1918. McGovern. Richard E.. and Harold B. Luscombe. "Useful Modifications of Progressive Resistive Exercise Technique”. W M. 31‘3‘475-“79. 1953. McMorris. Rex 0.. and Earl C. Elkins. “A Study of Production and Evaluation of Muscular Hypertrophy”. WW 35zh20-h26. 1951:. Schram. Duane A. "Resistive Exercises in the Treatment of Poliomyeli- “8". WW. 33:51:7-550. September 1952. Steinhaus. A.H. “Chronic Effects of Exercise”. Physiglggicg; ggviewg. 13:107-110. January 1933. Steinhaus. Arthur H. ”Some Selected Pacts from Physiology to Illus- trate Scientific Principles in Athletic Training“. W- Ed t t P . 57th:9. 195a. Spivak. C.D. "The Specific Gravity of the Human Body”. W I M di 1 . 39:628-6u2, April 1915. Hakim. LG. ”The Physiologic Aspects of Therapeutic Pmrsical Exercise“. ri M ti 1: J . 11:2:10h—107. January 1950. Zinovieff. A.M. "Heavy Resistance Exercises. The 'Oxford Technique". t f i 1 Medi i . 1h:128-132. 1951. APPENDI X on... 3 an x a a a an a a a 3 8 n n I a k R I a n n a a a a a a a a a d j a. “a l .11 2 2 n u an 2 a. I a = 2 a «a -a 2 a. 2 z z 2 .. Illnl. . a d... 2 _ s a «A A. : o u «a! «.83- 2 m¢= ‘4! a . . wads-1 J.’ v NI 4‘1“ n in -a.~ . Uchfl 1k.‘ m :0 é ¢H¢fl ..Sc ..13 a“ gm! 3‘ g SJ. 8333 Nani-1295...!» 8 31 .593 295.53% a all! -h6- APPENDIX B TABLE III ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS OF DYNAMIC STRENGTH: DIFTERENCES BETWEEN GROUPS CRITICAL I VALUE grouse; or VARIANCE ss _g_r s§_ r 15% LEVEL) Between Groups h23.8 2 211.9 3.3 5.1 Between Subjects 136.8 3 h5.6 .8 b.8 Residual 335.0 6 55.8 Total 895.7 11 TABLE IV .ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESUDTS 0F STATIC STRENGTH: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUPS m CRITICAL H VALUE SOURCE or wages as; df mg g: (5% EL Between Groups 2h53.h 2 1226.? .b 5.1 Between Subjects 3071.0 3 10263.? 3.7 “.8 Residual 16562.1 6 2?60.h Total “9806.6 11 “527.9 -u7- TABLE V ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESUDTS OF STRENGTH DECREMENT: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN'GROUPS CRITICAL I VALUE sounqg_or VARIANCE egg; gg; as r (5% LEVEL) Between Groups 16792.1 2 8396.1 3.“ 5.1 Between Subjects 1585.8 3 528.6 2.1 “.8 Residual 1h7h8.h 6 2458.0 Total 33126.3 11 TABLE VI ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS OF HYPERTROPHY: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUPS CRITICAL P VALUE ._§guaq§ or VARIANCE 53 __gg us A! (5% LEVEL) Between Groups 91873.0 2 #5936.5 2.5 5.1 Between Subjects 528h9.8 3 17616.6 1.0 “.8 Residual 109570.9 6 18261. 8 Total 25h293.7 11 23117.6 RBQM USE. B ‘1 AU . Demco-293 Circulation. Date \1 lept. CHIIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRAR IIIIIIIII II III