A EGFJEPMESDN ’QF D‘t’NAMSC MD SENSE: STREs’a’fl-é WNW-NC: ON THE ELBQW FLEXGRS Thesis for the Degree of M. A; MECHEGAN STATE WVERSETY Ri‘CHéRD- RDNALD k’ifiilC'fi 1863 <= - - , _ Y. ,5 ‘IV:-‘. V: II a; ‘ LIBRAR Y ‘ Michigan State University I 1—1.- LS‘. _, ._ "v“ mi: i THESIS A COMPARISON OF DYNAMIC AND STATIC STRENGTH TRAINING ON THE ELBOW FLEXORS By Richard Ronald Wojick AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation Approved 5222;;525/7/g€E%%:j/;/:EEEE:T / ABSTRACT A COMPARISON OR DYNAMIC AND STATIC STRENGTH TRAINING ON THE ELBOW FLEXORS By Richard Ronald Wojick Statement of the Problem To compare the effects of static and dynamic strength training on the strength of the elbow flexor muscles. Methodology Twelve male students were selected as subjects from a freshman handball class at Michigan State University following a pretest, i.e., static strength at 90° elbow flexion. Based on the results of a static strength test at 90° elbow flexion, the twelve subjects were divided into three groups with the mean strength of each group being equal. Subjects in each of the three groups were tested at three different times—-at the beginning of the eight week exercise program, at the middle of the program, and at the end of the program. The exercise program included three sessions each week over eight weeks. The assessment of static strength was made using a specially designed chair with a cable tensiometer attached to it. The Richard Ronald Wojick Static Group followed an exercise program performing two six second contractions at two thirds maximum tension at five different angles of elbow flexion; 55°, 75°, 90°, 115°, and 135°. The Dynamic Group exercised with an adjustable dumbbell, which was lifted throughout the entire range of the elbow flexors. The subjects executed three sets of six repetitions maximal overload. Conclusions There is very little difference between the strength increases obtained in static and dynamic training. Static training was significantly better than dynamic training at those angles above 90° elbow flexion (115° and 135°) when the muscles were applying force at their longest length. It was also found that untrained subjects were strongest at 90° flexion while the trained subjects were stronger at angles away from 90° elbow flexion. A COMPARISON OF DYNAMIC AND STATIC STRENGTH TRAINING ON THE ELBOW FLEXORS By Richard Ronald Wojick A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation 1969 DEDICATION The author wishes to dedicate this thesis to his wife, Gay, who was a constant source of encouragement during the writing of this thesis. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his Sincere apprecia- tion to his advisor, Dr. Wayne D. Van Huss, for his invaluable guidance and assistance during the research of this thesis. Appreciation is acknowledged to the twelve sub— jects who faithfully devoted their time and effort during this research. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION ACKNOWLEDGMENTS LIST OF TABLES. LIST OF FIGURES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem Limitations of This Study. Definition of Terms. II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE III. METHODOLOGY Introduction Procedure Selection of Subjects Design of Equipment. . Exerc1se and Testing Procedures. Statistical Analysis IV. ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF DATA Test Scores Mean Strength Differences Within Groups Mean Strength Differences Between Groups at T1, T2, and T3 Statistical Analysis of Mean ImprovementS in Muscular Strength at All Angles of Pull. . . . . Discussion and Summary. iv Page ii iii vi vii 4:22: l-J 1U 14 1A 15 18 19 20 2O 20 2A Chapter Page V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 36 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . 36 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . 37 BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . A0 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A6 A. PERSONNEL DATA SHEET AND RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . A7 B. DATA SHEET FOR EXERCISE PROGRAM . . . . . A8 Table LIST OF TABLES Page Baseline test scores. . . . . . . . . 21 Summary of analysis of variance for each angle tested and the dynamic lift . . . . 31 Significance between the mean differences for T3—Tl. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Significance of difference in improvement between groups at all angles tested. . . . 33 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Static training and testing apparatus 2. Dynamic training and testing apparatus. Mean Strength Differences Within Groups 3. Static group A. Dynamic group . . . . . . . 5. Control group . . . . Mean Strength Differences Between Groups at T1, T2, and T3 6. Mean strength of groups at T1' Mean strength of groups at T2. CD Mean strength of groups at T3. \0 Difference in mean strength (T3 — Tl) vii Page 17 17 22 23 2A 25 25 27 29 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Interest in the development of muscular strength in humans has been identified in every age and stage of civilization. Interest in strength seems to have been related to man's efforts to overcome his environment and progress toward civilized living. Research in muscular strength can be traced back through the centuries. Muscular strength was of prime interest and concern to those individuals who developed the first physical education program, then called physi- cal training, in the earliest schools and colleges in the United States. Such leaders as W. G. Andersen, Edward M. Hartwell, Jay W. Seaver, Edward Hitchcock, and Dudley Sargent defined physical education or physical training as a vital and necessary element in all human training and as an integral and indispensable factor in the educa- tion of all children and youth. The philosophy of these early leaders included the idea that all around muscular strength and power was a primary means to improving the structure and function of all parts of the body. The development of physical education, including athletics, in schools and colleges in the United States 1 dating from the early beginnings in the 1800's down to the present time has been marked by a continuous con— cern for the develOpment of strength and an ever increas- ing sophistication in the study of ways to develop and maintain strength in individuals. As research methods and procedures developed in relation to the study of the many factors related to the whole matter of muscular strength, new knowledge and understandings were increased and views concerning the development and maintenance of muscular strength were greatly broadened. Gradually a whole field of study developed in the physiology of exercise. The study of muscular strength became an inte- gral part of the study of endurance, flexibility, agility, speed, balance, power, anthropometric measurement, heart and lung development, concern for general health and fit- ness, and even the concern for the mental and emotional well being of individuals. Today the concern is broaden- ing to include the totality of human activity or human performance. Studies related to muscular strength have been carried out on problems arising in such areas as: (a) the importance of muscular strength in promoting human growth and development and efficiency in total functioning of the human body, (b) methods and procedures for developing and measuring strength, (0) the design of curricula in physical education to include the development of strength, and (d) the use of strength in the improvement of per— formance of athletes in athletic or sport events. One of the most provocative and debated set of questions centers around the methods of develOping strength. In the last few years many individuals responsible for plan- ning and carrying out physical education programs in schools and colleges have sought the best ways to include strength development in their programs as an integral phase of promoting fitness of growing and developing school age children and youth. Those individuals respons~ ible for athletic teams, the athletic coaches, have in— tensified their efforts to assist boys to develop strength as a prime means for: improving agility and speed in movement; promoting safety and self protection; and as the central means for improving and maintaining indi- viduals in the best possible state of physical and mental well being. This interest in strength development has led re— searchers to design and carry out a number of studies directed at finding the best ways to develop strength in individuals. Such research has brought forth new facts and new concepts concerning strength development and factors related to it which have served to both improve understanding and heighten confusion concerning values, methods, and procedures for muscle training and strength development. One important controversy which has developed in the last few years arose in relation to the question of whether isometric or static exercise is superior to the accepted methods of developing strength and hypertrophy of striated muscle by use of progressive resistance exercises of an isotonic nature. It was interest in this controversy that prompted the study in this thesis. Statement of the Problem To compare the effects of static and dynamic strength training on the strength of the elbow flexor muscles. Limitations of This Study 1. This study was limited to only twelve male college freshman. 2. This experiment was carried out by those individuals using or exercising only their dominant arm, which in this study was the right arm,and all of the subjects indicated that they primarily used their right arm to do everything. 3. The study was limited to one muscle group, the elbow flexors. A. It was impossible to equally motivate all sub- jects to perform with an all out effort during each testing period. Definition of Terms 1. Dynamic strength--the maximum load which can be moved through a defined range of motion at a constant rate from a defined position. 2. Static strength—-the maximum force which can be applied at a defined unmovable position. Cable Tensiometer——a gauge for measuring cable tension in which the cable passes over two sectors and, when tension is applied, offsets a third sector (riser) which connects mechani- cally to the face of the device to permit re- cording tension in dial units which are con— vertible to pounds. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Much has been written in regard to the development of muscular strength. Many articles have been written by teachers, coaches of athletic teams, and others expressing their views, beliefs, and experiences concerning the value of training and physical conditioning programs, and the need for helping individuals develOp muscular strength. Research studies are reported on the values of strength to health and fitness, the results of strength training programs, strength in relation to performing sports skills, and a host of other problems related to methods and pro— cedures for developing strength in various muscle groups. The purpose in this chapter is to provide a brief summary of research studies of problems closely related to the main problem in this study. More specifically the review of literature was carried out to: gain ideas for the design of Special equipment for the experimental phase of the study; gather conclusions and facts that could be applied to this study; and to provide a basis for suggest- ing'next steps for further research of this or other problems related to it. Rasch, in his review of progress1ve resistance exercise (A6; pp. A6-50), states that: For centuries the accepted method of developing increased strength and hypertrOphy of striated muscle has been the use of progressive resis— tance exercises of an isotonic nature over a full range of joint movement. True, in 19A6 Hellebrandt (28; pp. 398—A01) had challenged the assumptions underlying this technique, suggesting that in theory more strength might be gained by the use of isometric contractions, since a muscle develops maximum tension when the load is so heavy that it is not allowed to shorten at all. Under these con— ditions the muscle maintains its optimum length for maximum energy production throughout the period of exertion, but her suggestion appeared to have attracted no particular attention. It was not until 1953 that Hettinger and Muller (31; pp. 111—126) reopened the debate between isotonic and iso- metric strength training by disclosing their findings that if an individual executed a single two—thirds maximum isometric contraction for six seconds per day he would experience a weekly gain of five per cent over his ini- tial strength. Immediately following Hettinger and Muller's report researchers around the world began to conduct studies to investigate the validity of their report. It was not long before contradictory evidence concerning the effectiveness of the Hettinger and Muller method of strength training developed. Wolbers and Sills (56; pp. AA6-A50) reported that an exercise program in which the muscles were held in static contraction for six seconds each day over a period of eight weeks produced better than chance gains in strength when used with adolescent males. On the other hand, Rasch and Morehouse (A8; pp. 29-3A) reported that dynamic exercises were more effective in developing strength and hypertrophy than were static exercises. In fact, their report showed insignificant gains in strength of elbow flexion following a six weeks' training program which employed a single daily fifteen second isometric exercise bout at two—thirds maximum tension. It is pos- sible, however, that Rasch and Morehouse's results varied from Hettinger and Muller's in that they provided only three training sessions each week, whereas Hettinger and Muller used five training days and one testing day each week. Mathews and Kruge (39; pp. 26-37), in comparing the effects of isometric and isotonic exercises on elbow flexor strength,concluded that the isometric type of contraction brought about greater gains in strength than did the isotonic type contraction, even though the average exercise time given to the former was only a fraction of that devoted to the latter. Darcus and Salter (23; pp. 325—336) working in England reported gains in strength resulting from either iSOtonic or isometric exercise, although the greater gains resulted from use of isotonic exercise. However, the authors pointed out that the static training program involved only momentary isometric contractions, and thus, in terms of time of application of effort, the training program was not strictly comparable. In view of the contradictory findings reported in the literature, there appears to be a need for further studies as to the effectiveness of isotonic and isometric strength training. This thesis is an extension of the studies of the problems related to strength development, and its purpose is to add to the information related to solving this problem. Studies closely related to the problem in this thesis Show some contradiction and need for further research. Rasch (A7; p. 85) conducted a study to determine the rela- tionship between the amount of isometric tension that could be exerted by the elbow flexors, and the amount of weight which could be moved by the elbow flexors. He concluded that: So far as trained male subjects are concerned, there appears to be no great difference between the amount of tension which may be recorded in a single maximum isometric elbow contraction and the amount of weight which may be handled in a single maximum isotonic elbow flexion. Liberson and Maxim (35; pp. 330—336), in their study comparing daily, brief, six second isometric con— tractions with a progressive resistance or isotonic pro- gram, found that during isotonic exercises part of the work is done when the muscle is at an unfavorable length and therefore does not contribute to the development of it, Whereas in an isometric contraction with the muscle being held in a favorable position the muscle has a greater opportunity to develop maximal strength. IO Concerning joint movement and strength throughout the various angles of joint movement, Massey and Chaudet (A0; pp. Al—5l) found that heavy resistance exercise effects either a reductio or increase in range movement, depending upon the training routine and the manner in which the exercises are executed. They found that in young male adults there was a reduction of joint move- ment in those individuals who exercised maximally and did not lift throughout the range of the muscle as compared to an increase in this range of movement in those indi- viduals who exercised submaximal and lifted through the entire range of the muscle. Pierson (A3; pp. llA-115) in his study of new directions in weight training indicated that, with exception of the knee joint, strength training should be executed throughout the entire range of motion of the particular muscle or muscle groups being stressed. Hellebrandt and Houtz (30; pp. 371-383) found in their studies of muscle training that the more you overload a muscle the more limited its range of motion. Salter (50; p. 113), in her study on maximum isometric and iso- tonic contraction at different repetition rates, found the isotonic training will help to either maintain or increase the range of joint movement and that isometric training might be helpful where joint movement is con- traindicated. There are several contradictions as to the angle at which a muscle exerts its maximum force. Investigations by Rasch and Morehouse (A8; pp. 29-3A) have led to con- clusions that muscles tested in positions in which they were exercised showed Significant gains in strength while the same muscles tested in unaccustomed positions showed no significant gains in strength. In direct opposition to this is Darcus and Salter's findings in their research on the effects of repeated muscular exertion on muscle strength (23; pp. 325—336). Their research led them to conclude that isometric training, when practiced in only one position, will result in an increase of strength in all other positions. Clark, Elkins, Martin and Wakin found in their study of body positions and muscle power in relation to joint movements (20; pp. 81—89) that the strongest range of pulling power of the elbow flexors was from 115° to 120° and that the lowest power was at full flexion and this was due to the muscle being at a point of least tension. They also found that at full extension the pulling power of muscles was poor even though the muscle was fully stretched. This was con- tributed to the poor angle of leverage. They concluded that: other factors being equal, a muscle exerts its greatest power when it functions at its great— est tension; that the angle at which the muscle pulls is of importance but probably not of as great importance as the tension; that there probably is an optional position at which each muscle func- tions best, and that this position may be one in which the tension is optimal (not necessarily maxi- mal) and in which the angle of pull provides for the greatest rotary force. Wakin, Elkins and Martin (55; pp. 90-99) found that muscle power of the forearm flexors was greatest when the angle was between 80° and 90° and that it declined when the angle was increased or decreased beyond this range. Salter and Darcus (52; pp. 197-202) found in testing for maximum torques of the right hand that the strongest records were made with the elbow flexed at 90°, and the weakest recordings came with the elbow at 150°. Generally the literature is in agreement that strength can be increased through the use of either iso— tonic or isometric training. Disagreement arises in rela— tion to the question of how increases in muscular strength are most efficiently achieved. The answer to this ques— tion seems to be in the develOpment of tension whether it be applied isometrically or isotonically. The frequency and extent of this tension development lies in debate. Clarke (18; pp. 3A9-355) showed the recovery period from static exercise was approximately six to seven minutes, and the recovery rate from dynamic exercise was approximately ten to twelve minutes. Clarke, Shay and Mathews (21; pp. 560—567) found that mild general circula— tion resulting from body movement increased the strength recovery rates following exhaustive exercise. Clarke L3 (19; pp. 399-Al9) also found that the fatigue element was lower and the validity element higher if the order of testing and work outs was systematically changed or randomized. Berger (8; pp. 329—333) found that: l. A static strength test is not as accurate as a dynamic strength test in measuring changes in strength resulting from dynamic muscle training. 2. A dynamic strength test is not as accurate as a static strength test in measuring changes in strength resulting from static muscle training. It is for this reason that the three research groups in this study were all subjected to both kinds of tests on their testing days. Wolbers (56), Mathews (39), Darcus and Salter (23), Hellebrandt (29), Elkins (26), and Capen (1A) all found that muscle contractions of a six second duration will cause Significant gains in strength and that a sixty second rest between contractions was an adequate rest period. Clarke (16; pp. 3-6) indicated that three con— secutive six—second maXimal contractions were significant in strength develOpment. Capen (1A), Berger (9), and DeLorme (2A) results indicate that a combination of six repetitions maximally performed for three sets was effective in improving strength. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Introduction This study was undertaken to compare the effects of static and dynamic strength training on the elbow flexor muscles. Procedure The comparison was carried out on three equated groups of subjects trained over an eight week period. A complete description of the experimental plan together with the methods and procedures and equipment utilized throughout the study is presented in this chapter. Selection of Subjects The twelve male subjects chosen for this study were selected out of a physical education class of thirty-five, on the basis of pre-testing and a questionnaire (see Appendix A). None of the subjects were involved in ath- letics or had jOOs that required more than minimal muscle stress, and all were dominately right handed. The subjects were divided into three groups, static, dynamic, and control, with the mean strength of the four subjects in each group equal to that of the four subjects 1A 15 in the other two groups. The mean strength was deter- mined by having each subject execute three maximal efforts statically at 90° elbow flexion in a specially designed static training chair (see Figure l, p. 17). Design of Equipment All the apparatus used in this study except for the tensiometer was designed Specifically for this study. The cable tensiometer was chosen to measure static strength becuase it is reliable, and the readings can easily be converted to pounds. The tensiometer was placed on a chair (see Figure 1, p. 17) specifically designed to control the angle of the elbow flexion. The chair was adjustable to angles of 55°, 75°, 90°, 115°, and 135°. The tensiometer cable was kept at 90° to the point of stress which was the padded wrist strap fastened to the wrist, while the arm was in the mid—position. The chair was equipped with an adjustable padded shoulder bar as a means for limiting the stress strictly to the elbow flexors and not have the shoulder muscle intervene. Padded brackets were placed along the outside edge of the forearm and elbow to prevent any extra movement of these segments. A strap was wrapped around the subject's chest and upper arms and was then secured around the back of the chair. The purpose of this strap was to prevent any type of upper body lean from being exerted while lifting. All subjects sat erect with their feet flat on the floor. The equipment for exercising and testing dynamic strength (Figure 2, p. 17) consiSted of one adjustable dumbbell, two knit caps, two steel bars, and two adjust- able straps. The dumbbells had couplings on both ends and could easily be adjusted to the proper weight by adding or subtracting weights. An allowance of two and one—eighth pounds for the weight of the bar and the couplings was made in the total sums of the weights. One knit cap was placed over the weights on each end of the dumbbell in order to keep the subjects from seeing the amount of weight they were lifting as a means to eliminate psychological limitations they may have had as to the amount of weight they were capable of lifting. The subjects stood erect against two padded steel angle irons anchored to the floor and ceiling, twelve inches out from the wall and eighteen inches apart. One strap was placed around the subject's cnest and shoulders and anchored behind the two bars, and another was placed just above the elbow, around the arm the subject used for lift- ing. These straps isolated the lifting of the dumbbell strictly to the elbow flexors and in no way restricted the biceps muscle from contracting and expanding. l7 ). also two ”L” brackets to restrict including tensiometer and adjustable shoulder shoulder board, degree bar, wrist strap, shoulder clamp and lateral movement of forearm Figure 1.--Static Training and Testing Apparatus (chair, upper body strap; ) bars to keep body straight and adjustable shoulder shoulder and upper arm straps to restrict upper body Figure 2.--Dynamic Training and Testing Apparatus (vertical movement while lifting l8 The only other piece of equipment was a stop watch for timing exercise and rest periods of both the dynamic and static phase of the research. Exercise and Testing Procedures The three groups performed the research in the following manner: A. Static Group—-this group exercised at five different angles; 55°, 75°, 90°, 115°, and 135°. At each angle they performed two six second contractions at two—thirds maximum tension. They were allotted a one minute rest period between each contraction and a two minute rest between each change of angle. The subjects never started at the same angle twice in succession, and every sixth exercise session they would start at the original starting angle. This round robin method helped to eliminate the possi- bility of fatigue setting in at any one angle. This exercise program was followed three days a week; Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, for a period of eight weeks. Dynamic Group—-this group exercised with an adjustable dumbbell, which was lifted through- out the entire range of the elbow flexors. The dumbbell was held in a parallel line to the body with the forearm in the mid-position. This was done to keep the static and dynamic arm position exactly alike while applying muscular tension. The subjects executed three sets of six repetitions maximal overload. Each repetition was executed on a ten second count, five seconds up and five seconds down. This was done to keep all subjects in the same rhythm of lifting and to help eliminate bal— listic movement as much as possible. The sub- jects were given a three minute rest between each set and were told to walk around the room moving their arms down along their side to help stimulate recovery. This exercise program was followed three days a week; Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, for a period of eight weeks. i9 C. Control Group--this group did no exercising of any nature during the eight weeks of the research program. This group was involved only in the initial, middle, and final tests that were administered to all three groups. The testing program consisted of the subjects, in all three groups, executing one maximal Six second static contraction at each of the five exercise angles. They were given a one minute rest between angles, and a five minute rest before being tested dynamically. Dynamically each subject lifted one repetition maximal to the rhythm of a ten second count; five seconds up and five seconds down. None of the subjects at any time in the testing were ever told the amount of static tension they were applying or the amount of weight they were lifting dynamically, and none of the subjects ever saw how the others were doing. During the weeks in which the three tests were conducted the subjects only exercised two days and were tested on the third day. Statistical Analysis A graphical analysis of the mean strength scores ) was made to illustrate the various at (T1, T and T 2 3 strength differences between the groups at each test period. The Duncan Multiple Range Test (5; pp. 107-11A) was used to compare each treatment means. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF DATA It was the purpose of this study to determine the effects of static and dynamic strength training upon the elbow flexor muscles. Test Scores The test scores made by all subjects in each group at each testing period, beginning—-middle--and end are presented in Table I. These scores provided a baseline for determining Changes in muscular strength of subjects in each of the three exercise groups. Test scores are provided for each subject in each group at each of the five angles of static tension and one for dynamic tension. Mean Strength Differences Within Groups The changes in strength for subjects in the static roup are presented in Figure 3. Changes are shown for each of the three testing periods. It can be seen that the static group was weakest at those angles furthest away from 90° elbow flexion at T1. At T3 there was a reversal in that the 115° angles became the strongest point and experienced the greatest strength increase which was nineteen pounds. The 90° angles improved the 20 21 ma Os OOH moa as OO aa mm OOH OOH as as Om Ow mm mm mm OO cowsmOcmm .a Oa as as as ms. Om sm as as as as am am. as OO as as Om amass .m am as as ms OO Oa mm am so ms aO am mm Om aO ms OO Hm Hamgopmm .m Ha mm mm as mm Hm mm am am on mm ma Hm mm am am .mm ma mcaxcmw .H dzoso Hopscoo sa ms Oaa OOH sO we aa as am ma ma ms em as mm mm mm as OcOaancpm .a ma as ms O OO a Oa as Om Oa cm as am am aO mm ms mm smecoo.o .m aa Ow NO mm mm Om am as as O OO mm sm as as as as am catom .m ma OO Om Om as as . Om ms as as ms as am mm mm as ms aO compasses .a goose oapmpm am mm NO mm mm ms Oa mm OOH ma ma m ma mm mm mm om Om spmsoz .a Oa ss as as as as ma . as Oa as Oa as am as as as as mm ammo .m aa as Om a as aO sm OO Om as m as am as as as OO OO mamasmsz .N Na mm ms as as mm sm on em mm m Hm mm mm mm ms mm ma Hafiz .H ososo owawczo oaeacse mma maa OO ms mm Oasmcsa mma mas OO ms mm oaeacso mma maa OO ms mm .amsv amass Amsv maOOas aasv amaoacs .Amocsoo Cw ohm mufiomos Hamv mopoow who» mafiaommmnl.a mqmas STRENGTH IN POUNDS 90 85 80 75 7O 65 6O 55 50 A5 A0 least of any of the angles having an increase of only seven pounds. STATIC GROUP - Ti ““"" T __ __._ . T3 ' T - 3 - T T2 - l 9 L L I I l 55 75 90 115 135 Dynamic DEGREES OF FLEXION Figure 3 The strength increases experienced by the dynamic group are illustrated in Figure A. Here once again, as was experienced in the static group, the dynamic group at T1 was strongest at 90° and progressively weaker at those angles away from 90° elbow flexion. At T3 the dynamic group once again, as in the static group, experienced its greatest improvement away from 90° elbow flexion. It is interesting to note that there was a nine pound improve- ment at 55°, a ten pound improvement at 75°, an eight pound improvement at 115°, and a six pound improvement STRENGTH IN POUNDS 90 85 80 75 7O 65 6O 55 50 A5 A0 35 at 135°. There was only a two pound improvement at 900 elbow flexion. DYNAMIC GROUP 1W7 s ‘// / — z - T3 _ T2 L. T1 LJ 4 l l_ L O _ 55 75 90 115 135 Dynamic DEGREES OF FLEXION Figure A The strength changes produced in the control group are presented in Figure 5. At T1 the control group was strongest at 90° elbow flexion and weakest at those angles furthest away from 90°. At T3 this group was still strongest at 90° elbow flexion, and its poorest strength increases were at those angles away from 90° with the exception of the 135° angle and the dynamic increase which were the Same as that experienced at 90°. NNCDGDKO OU'IOU'IOU'IO STRENGTH IN POUNDS o JrU'lU'lO‘xCh U"! U"! W: U10 {G . . . .177 2A _ CONTROL GROUP T _____ I l L Té___ - T 3 I L _ T T 3 T1 2 55 75 90 115 135 Dynamic DEGREES OF FLEXION Figure 5 Mean Strength Differences Between Groups at T1,,T2, and T3 Figure 6 illustrates the difference between the groups at T1‘ The static group was the strongest of the three groups at 55°, 75°, and 90° elbow flexion and weakest at the 115° and 135° angles. The dynamic group was weaker at the lower angles and stronger at the higher angles. The control group maintained an intermediate strength range between the static and dynamic groups. The differences between the groups at T2 are pre- sented in Figure 7, p. 25. It is apparent here that the control group dropped below the two experimental groups STRENGTH IN POUNDS STRENGTH IN POUNDS 90 r. 85 80 75 .. 7o 65 60 55 _ 50- A5 I no _ 35 FT MEAN STRENGTH OF GROUPS AT T A L 1 l STATIC_an._ DYNAMIC..._. CONTROL-———— STATIC DYNAMIC :l CONTROL 55 75 Figure 6 90 85L 80- 75- 7o_ 65 60_ 55- 50. A5_ no 35- 7 90 115 MEAN STRENGTH OF GROUPS AT T DEGREES OF FLEXION l 135 2 Dynamic STATIC.__M._ DYNAMIC _ __ CONTROL STATIC DYNAMIC CONTROL 55 75 Figure 7 115 DEGREES OF FLEXION 135 Dynamic 2’6 at all five angles of static testing and also in the dynamic testing. At the 55° angle the dynamic group had a strength gain of nine pounds and surpassed the static group, whom in T1 was seven pounds stronger than the dynamic group, who had only gained one pound. At the 75° angle the static group remained stronger but gained only one pound, while the dynamic group gained four pounds. At the 90° angle the static and dynamic groups were almost the same, with the static group experiencing no strength gain and the dynamic group gaining only one pound. At the 115° and 135° angles the static group gained considerably more strength than did the dynamic group. At the 115° angle the static group gained nine pounds while the dynamic group gained one pound. At the 135° angle the static group gained eight pounds, and the dynamic group gained three pounds. In the dynamic strength test at T the static group experienced a strength gain of 2 only one pound while the dynamic group gained nine pounds. Comparison of strength difference between the groups at T is made in Figure 8. In this final testing 3 period the static group had considerably greater strength than did the other two groups at all five angles of elbow flexion, the only exception being the dynamic lift where the dynamic group was one pound stronger. The control group surpassed the dynamic group by three pounds at the 900 angle of elbow flexion, while the static group STRENGTH IN POUNDS 27 MEAN STRENGTH OF GROUPS AT T 9O 3 STATIC --- —— - — DYNAMIC._.____. CONTROL 0 O H H 22 E—I <1 .4 <1: 2 O [—4 >4 a: U) Q [—1 Z O 0 3‘4 L L l l l ] 55 75 90 115 135 Dynamic DEGREES OF FLEXION Figure 8 experienced greater strength gains at all angles tested with the exception of the dynamic lift, here the dynamic group experienced a strength gain of nine pounds, while the static group gained seven pounds. A breakdown of strength gains of T over T2 is as follows: at 55° the 3 dynamic group gained nothing while the static group gained ten pounds, and the control group gained three pounds; at 75° the dynamic group gained six pounds while the static group gained seven pounds, and the control group gained two pounds; at 90° the dynamic group gained one pound while the static group gained seven pounds, and the 28 control group gained five pounds; at 115° the dynamic group gained one pound while the static group gained ten pounds, and the control group gained two pounds; and at 135° the dynamic group gained three pounds while the static group gained nine pounds, and the control group gained six pounds. The differences in the mean strengths of the three groups between T3 - T1 are presented in Figure 9, p. 29. Both the static and dynamic experimental groups exper- ienced the greatest gains in strength away from 900 of elbow flexion, while the control group experienced its greatest strength gain, six pounds, at 90° elbow flexion. The static group's greatest strength gain of nineteen pounds came at the 115° angle of elbow flexion. The dynamic group experienced its greatest strength gain at lifting one repetition maximal, this gain was eleven pounds. The dynamic group's two pound strength increase at 90° elbow flexion was the lowest of any of the groups. This also was the only angle where the control group out gained either of the two experimental groups. The dynamic group experienced its greatest strength increase at 115° elbow flexion. Over—all the static group experienced the greatest strength increase throughout this research. STRENGTH IN POUNDS H +4 H +4 H +4 H'FJ F‘FJ m o +4 m to firkn ox~q a>u3 o Ol—‘MLulz'U'lChNCDKO |\) \O DIFFERENCE IN MEAN STRENGTH (T3 — T I f\\\ STATIC ..... l) , ‘~\ DYNAMIC-——-—- t , CONTROL DYNAMIC / \ STATIC I l / f ,7f’ / A CONTROL _ .. \/ L J l I l I 455 75 90 115 135 Dynamic DEGREES OF FLEXION Figure 9 Statistical Analysis of Mean Improvements in Muscular Strength at All Angles of Pull A statistical analysis was made of the mean improve- ment in each group at the five angles of static tension and the dynamic lift. The results obtained when an analysis of variance was applied to the mean strength 30 scores at,each angle tested and the dynamic lift are pre— sented in Table 2, p. 31. The Duncan Multiple Range Test (53 pp. lO7—llA) was used to compare each treatment mean with every other treatment mean. A significance at the .05 level of confidence was used to analyze the results. Table 3, p. 32, is a separate analysis of the significance between the mean differences for T3 - T1 at each angle tested and the dynamic lift. From this table it is evident that the only angles that proved to show any significance at the .05 level of confidence were 115° and 135°. Here it is evident that the static group is the only group to have experienced significant strength increases over any one group or com- bination of groups. Table A further portrays these analyses. In the static versus dynamic analysis it is evident that the static group experienced significant strength increases; at the .05 level of confidence, over the dynamic group at 115° and 135° elbow flexion. In the analysis of the static versus control group, the static group experienced significant strength increases over the control group at 115° and 135° elbow flexion. In the dynamic versus control analysis, neither group experienced any significant strength increases over the other group. TABLE 2.——Summary of analysis 31 of variance for each angle tested and the dynamic lift. _ _ Sum of a Source Squares df Ms F 55° Analysis Total 1219 19 -- -- Treatments 266 A 66.50 l.A2A Subjects 393 3 131.00 2.806a Error 560 12 A6.67 75° Analysis Total 1165 19 -- -- Treatments A55 A 113.75 3.211 Subjects 285 3 95.00 2.682a Error A25 12 35.A2 90° Analysis Total 871 19 —- -- Treatments 12A A 31.00 1.789 Subjects 539 3 179.67 10.368a Error 208 12 17.33 115° Analysis Total 11u0 19 -- -- Treatments 51A A 128.50 A.9A2 Subjects 314 3 10A 67 14.026a Error 312 12 26.00 135° Analysis Total 1076 19 —- -- Treatments A18 A 10A.50 2.71A Subjects 196 3 65.33 1.697a Error A62 12 38.50 Dynamic Analysis Total 288 19 -- -- Treatments 75 A 18.67 1.082 Subjects 5 3 1.67 .096 Error 208 12 17.33 aSignificant at the .05 level. TABLE 3.——Significance between the mean differences for T3—T1.* 550 Analysis Static Group Dynamic Group Control Group Mean Diff. . T3—Tl 11.50 8.00 2.75 75° Analysis Dynamic Group Static Group Control Group Mean Diff. T —T 10.00 8.25 2.00 3 1 90° Analysis Control Group Static Group Dynamic Group Mean Diff. T3-Tl 6.50 6.25 2.00 115° Analysis Static Group Dynamic Group Control Group Mean Diff. T3—Tl 19.00 9.00 5.00 135° Analysis Static Group Control Group Dynamic Group Mean Diff. T —T 16.75 6.00 5.25 3 1 Dynamic Analysis Dynamic Group Static Group Control Group Mean Diff. T3—Tl 10.25 9.75 5.25 *These differences are arranged in decreasing order from left to right, each underscore is a separate analysis. Any mean not underscored by the same line is significantly different (.05 level) from the first mean underscored by that line. .1 .mcmoE 03p mmonp cmozuoo mocososwflo one so ouCHOHsficme on» ma m>ocm cocowpcoe cosmoasacwfim OQB .Qsosw oaemcam one so pcosm>osasfi some on» we .mnH oo.m OHHQS .Qooso oapmpm can so pamEo>osQEH some one ma .moa oo.mH .coaxoas zooao mo mooswoo maa pm ozoso ossmczo on» Spas oommmfioo meats ma OOOAO ancom map page mmuOhomOaaa macs . rOO.Ommm.mau caeacso .ms ancom mt Umpsomosd ma cows: Aomaav Loos: flame pmswm map Op omuomsflc ms soapsopp< .oosmpwscoo so Ho>oa mo. on» pm mdoosw coospop cosmoamflcmam mumoaocH oceaasocco mmcam> one .poumop mmawcm who no Qsosw comm CH ucoEo>oadEH some map mmmsoxo msoom Umpmpm mosam> ones mmtm Imm.oa oo.wlmm.m oo.mloo.m om.mloo.m oo.m Ioo.oa ms.mloo.m Hospcoo .m> OHEmcha mm.m Ims.m oo.mlms.ma oo.mloo.mH om.wlmm.© oo.m Imm.w ms.mlom.HH Hospnoo .m> afipmpm mm.oalms.m mm.mlms.mfi oo.mloo.mH oo.mlmm.© oo.oalmm.m oo.wlom.HH OHEmQ%Q .m> oapmpm caeaeso omma omaa OOO oms 0mm OOOOAO so comatmanO *.cmpmmp moawcm Ham pm masopm Coozpmn ucoEm>osQEH CH monopommao mo mommOHmflcmfimll.a mqm¢e 5A Discussion and Summary The statistical analysis has illustrated that on a whole the two experimental groups, static and dynamic, experienced greater strength increase than did the con- trol group. The experimental groups experienced greatest strength increase at angles less than and more than 90° elbow flexion, while the control group experienced its greatest strength increase at 90° elbow flexion. The control group experienced an increase of four pounds more than the dynamic group at 90°. The control group's better performance at 900 elbow flexion is in direct agreement with Wakins, Elkin and Martin's study (55; pp. 90-99) and Salter and Darcus's study (52; pp. 197—202), both of whom found their subjects to have their greatest muscle power at 90° and a decline in strength when the angle was increased or decreased. As was expected, the dynamic group experienced the greatest strength increase in the dynamic lift, but this increase was only one pound more than the static group's and five pounds more than the control group's. The dynamic group experienced its greatest static strength increases (more significant) at the two angles below 90° elbow flexion, (550 and 75°) while the static group experienced its greatest relative static strength increases at the two angles above 90° elbow flexion (115° and 135°). At 115° elbow flexion the static group improved significantly more than both the o5 dynamic and control groups, the static group improved eleven pounds more than the dynamic group and fourteen pounds more than the control group at this angle. The static group also had significantly greater strength increases than the Other two groups at l35° elbow flexion; here the static group improved eleven pounds more than each of the other two groups. The significantly greater strength increases of the Static Group at the angles above 900 can be attributed to the specificity of overload in static training with respect to the effects of gravity on dynamic training. The Dynamic Group experienced a greater pull of gravity at the angles below 90° and had to apply greater muscular stress at thsee angles in order to successfully lift the required overload through the entire range of motion, thus causing greater strength improvements at these angles. The specificity of the overload that can be applied in static training caused the Static Group to experience greater increases in strength throughout the entire range of the elbow flexors, irregardless of the effects of gravity. The Static Group's greater increase in strength at those angles above 90° can be attributed to the fact that a muscle is at its strongest when fully stretched and decreases in strength as its degree of stretch de- creases (2; p. 63). CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Twelve male subjects, freshman physical education students, were selected on the basis of pretesting and a questionnaire to participate in this research thesis. The twelve subjects were divided into three groups of four each (static, dynamic, and control) and were tested once at the beginning of the eight week program, once mid—way through the program, and once at the end. The subjects in the static and dynamic groups worked out three days a week for eight weeks. The static group worked out in a chair specifically designed to test static tension at various angles of elbow flexion, and the dynamic group worked out with an adjustable dumbbell. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of static and dynamic strength training upon the elbow flexor muscles. Conclusions Within the limitations of the experimental design the following conclusions are warranted: 1. Static strength training resulted in signifi— cantly greater improvements above 900 of flexion. 36 R.) :7 No differences in dynamic strength improve- ment were found. At the angles most affected by gravity in dynamic strength training (below 90;) no dif- ferences in static strength improvement were observed between the groups. An hypothesis that static strength improvement is directly related to the amount of overload applied at each angle would appear to be tenable from these results. Recommendations Conduct a study to find the correlation and the validity of the test conducted at the five angles of static tension with that of the dynamic test of one repetition maximal. A similar study to this, but conducted over a longer period of time and with considerably more subjects in order to see if the static group would eventually become significantly stronger at all of the angles or if the dynamic group would eventually become as strong or significantly stronger than the static group. Similar studies to this, but carried out on several different muscle groups. A study conducted and designed Similar to this study but having two static groups, one 38 exercising at 55° and 75° and another at llSO and 135°. The aim would be to discover the amount of carryover strength that could be developed by static tension. The research could also include having the dynamic group lifting at a faster rate than in this study in order to determine the influence ballistic movement might have at the extreme angles of elbow flexion. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY A. Books Edwards, A. L. Statistical Analysis. New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1946. Morehouse, L. E., and A. T. Miller. Physiology of Exercise. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Company, 1963. Schneider, E. C. and P. V. Karpovich. Physiology of Muscular Activity. Philadelphia and London: W. B. Saunders Company, 19A9. Seyffarth, Henrik. The Behaviour of Motor-Units in Voluntary Contraction. Oslo, Norway: Skrifter Utgitt Av Det Norski Videnskaps—Akadem, Nrat— Naturv. Klasse, 19A0, No. A. Steel, R., G. D. Torrie, and J. James. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960. Zierler, Kenneth L. "Mechanism of Muscle Contrac— tion and Its Energetics." Medical Physiology. Edited by P. Bard. llth ed. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Company, 1961. B. Periodicals Berger, A. "Comparison Between Resistance Load and Strength Improvement." Research Quarterly, 33:637, December, 1962. "Comparison of Static and Dynamic Strength Increases." Research Quarterly, 33:329-333, October, 1962. "Effect of Varied Weight Training Programs on Strength." Research Quarterly, 33:168—181, May, 1962. 40 10. ll. 12. 13. 1A. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. AI Berger, A. "Optimum Repetitions for the Development of Strength." Research Quarterly, 33:334—338, October, 1962. Bigland, B. and O. C. Lippold. "Motor Unit Activity in the Voluntary Contraction of Human Muscle." Journal of Physiology, 125:322-335, September, 195A. Bronk, D. W. "The Energy Expended in Maintaining a Muscular Contraction." Journal of Physiology, 69:306—315, October, 1930. Colville, F. "Effect of Duration of Exercise on Neuromuscular Hand Tremor.” Research Quarterly, 31:7-11, March, 1960. Capen, E. K. "Study of Four Programs of Heavy Resistance Exercise for Development of Mus— cular Strength." Research Quarterly, 27: 132-1A2, May, 1956. . "The Effect of Systematic Weight Training on Power, Strength, and Endurance." Research Quarterly, 21:83—93, May, 1950. Clarke, H. H. "Energy Cost of Isometric Exercise." Research Quarterly, 31:3-6, March, 1960. . "Objective Strength Tests of Affected Muscle Groups Involved in Orthopedic Disabili- ties." Research Quarterly, 19:118—1U7, May, 1948. "Strength Recovery from Static and Dynamic Muscular Fatigue." Research Quarterly, 33: 3A9—355, October, 1962. . "Improvement of Objective Strength Tests of Muscle Groups by Cable Tension Methods." Research Quarterly, 21:399-“19, December, 1950. Clarke, H. H., E. C. Elkins, G. M. Martin, and K. G. Wakim. "Relationship Between Body Position and the Application of Muscle Power to Movements of the Joints." Archives of Physical Medicine, 31:81-89, February, 1950. Clarke, H. H., C. P. Shay and D. K. Mathews. "Strength Decrement of Elbow Flexor Muscles Following Exhaustive Exercise." Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 35: 560-567, October, 195“. 22. 23. 2A. 25. 26. 27. 29. 30. 31. 32. A2 Clarke, H. H., C. P. Shay and D. K. Mathews. "Strength and Endurance Conditioning of Exhaustive Exercise of the Elbow Flexor Muscles." Journal of the Association for Physical and Mental Rehabilitation, 8:185- 188, November-December, 1953. Darcus, H. D. and N. Salter. "The Effect of Re— peated Muscular Exertion on Muscle Strength." Journal of Physiology, 129:325—336, August, 1955. DeLorme, T. L. and A. L. Watkins. "Techniques of Progressive Resistance Exercise." Archives of Physical Medicine, 29:263-272, 1958. Dennison, J. D., M. L. Howell and W. R. Morford. "Effect of Isometric and Isotonic Exercise Programs Upon Muscular Endurance." Research Quarterly, 32:348-352, October, 1961. Elkins, E. C., U. M. Leden and K. G. Wakim. "Objec- tive Recording of the Strength of Normal Muscles." Archives of Physical Medicine, 32:639-6u7, October, 1951. Fenn, W. O. and B. S. Marsh. "Muscular Force at Different Speeds of Shortening." Journal of Physiology, 85:277-297, March, 1935. Hellebrandt, F. A. "Recent Advances in Methods of Hastening Convalescence Through Exercise." Southern Medical Journal, 39:398—A01, May, 19h6. Hellebrandt, F. A., A. M. Parrish and S. J. Houtz. "Cross Ed.: The Influence of Unilateral Exercise on the Contralateral Limb." Archives of Physical Medicine, 28:76, May, 19A7. Hellebrandt, F. A. and S. J. Houtz, M.S. "Mechanisms of Muscle Training in Man: Experimental Demon- stration of the Overload Principle." The Physical Therapy Review, 36:371—383, June, 1956. Hettinger, Th. and A. E. Muller. "Muskelleistung Und Muskeltraining." Arbeitsphysiologie, XV, No. 2, 111-126, October, 1953. Hortree, W. and A. V. Hill. "Developing Static and Dynamic Strength." Journal of Physiology, 55:133, May, 1921. 33. 3A. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. A0. Al. A2. 43 Hugh, J. P. "The Effect of Limb Position in Seated Subjects on Their Ability to Uilitze the Maximum Contractile Force of the Limb Muscle." Journal of Physiology, 105:332-3AA, June, 19A7. Hunscker, P. and G. Greey. "Studies in Human Strength." Research Quarterly, 28:109—122, May, 1957. Liberson, W. T. and A. M. Maxim. "Further Studies of Brief Isometric Exercise." Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, H0: 330-336, 1959. Lombard, W. P. "Some of the Influences Which Affect the Power of Voluntary muscle Contractions." Journal of Physiology, 13:1-58, May, 1892. McCloy, C. H. "Home Exercises for Convalescing Cardiac Patients." Journal of the Association for Physical and Mental Rehabilitation, 12: 5—7, January-February, 1958. McMorris, R. O. and E. C. Elkins. "A Study of Pro— duction and Evaluation of Muscular Hypertrophy.W Archives of Physical Medicine, 35:7: A20-A26, July, 195“. Mathews, D. K. and R. Kruse. "Effects of Isometric and Isotonic Exercises on Elbow Flexor Muscle Groups." Research Quarterly, 28:26-37, March, 1957. Massey, B. H. and N. L. Chaudet. "Effects of Sys- tematic, Heavy Resistive Exercise on Range of Joint Movement in Young Male Adults." Research Quarterly, 27:A1-51, March, 1956. Muller, E. A. "The Regulation of Muscular Strength." Journal of the Association for Physical and Mental Rehabilitation, 11:“1-A7, March-April, 1957. ‘ Pastor, P. J. "Threshold Muscular Fatigue Level and Strength Decrement Recovery of Elbow Flexor Muscles Resulting from Varying Degrees of Muscular Work." Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, A0:2A7—252, February, 1959. “3. AA. “5. A6. “7. A8. A9. 50. 51. 52. 53. an Pierson, W. R. "New Directions in W ight Training and Athletics." Journal of the Association for Physical and Mental Rehabilitation, 15: llA-115, May, 1961. Provens, K. A. and N. Salter. "Maximum Torque Exerted About the Elbow Joint." Journal of Applied Physiology, 7:393-398, January, 1955. Rasch, P. J. "Effect of Position of Forearm on Strength of Elbow Flexion." Research Quarterly, 27:333-337, October, 1956. "Progressive Resistance Exercise: Isotonic and Isometric: A Review." Journal of the Association for Physical and Mental Rehabili- tation, 15:A6-50, March-April, 1961. "Relationship Between Maximum Isometric Tension and Maximum Isotonic Elbow Flexion." Research Quarterly, 28:85, March, 1957. Rasch, P. J. and L. E. Morehouse. "Effect of Static and Dynamic Exercise on Muscular Strength and Hypertrophy." Journal of Applied Physiology, 11:29-3“, March, 1957. Rasch, P. J. and Pierson. "Relationship Between Maximum Isometric Tension and Breaking Strength of Forearm Flexors." Research Quarterly, 31, 53A—535, October, 1960. Salter, N. "The Effect on Muscle Strength of Maximum Isometric and Isotonic Contractions of Different Repetition Rates." Journal of Physiology, 130:109—113, March, 1955. Salter, N. and A. Hammel. "Bilateral Effects of Muscle Activity." Research Quarterly, 21: 203—209, October, 1950. Salter, N. and H. D. Darcus. "The Effect of the Degree of Elbow Flexion on the Maximum Forg- ing Developed on Pronation and Supination of the Right Hand." Journal of Anatomy, 86: 197-202, April, 1952. Salter, N. and A. T. Hammel. "Influence of Order of Exercise Bouts Upon Neuromuscular Tremor." Research Quarterly, 26:88-95, March, 1955. 5A. 55. 56. ”5 Thompson, C. W. "Some Physiologic Effects of Iso— metric Work in Man." Researcn Quarterly, 25:476-A82, December, 195A. Wakim, K. G., J. W. Gersten, E. C. Elkins and G. M. Martin. "Objective Recording of Muscle Strength." Archives of Physical Medicine, 31:90-99, February, 1950. Wolbers, G. P. and F. D. Sills. "Development of Strength in High School Boys by Static Muscle Contractions." Research Quarterly, 27:“A6-A50, December, 1956. APPENDICES Th 10. 11. APPENDIX A PERSONNEL DATA SHEET AND RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE Name Age Class Height Weight Local Address Phone Term's Schedule (classes, part-time work, etc.) 8-9 9-10 10-11 11—12 12-1 1—2 2—3 3—A A—S Did you do any regular heavy work last term? Yes — No Will you be doing regular heavy work this term? Yes — No Did you participate in varsity athletics last term? Yes - No Will you be participating in varsity athletics this term? Yes - No Would you be interested in participating in a research project this term? Yes - No Your dominant arm is: circle one: right or left If your answer was Yes to any of the questions in 5 through 8, please explain. A7 A8 Date APPENDIX B Dick Wojick 355-9850 - If found, please return EXERCISE PROGRAM Dynamic Group 1. W111 : 3-6 @ ( ) 2. Nearpass : 3—6 G ( ) 3. Ogar : 3-6 @ ( ) u. McVety : 3-6 @ ( ) Dynamic Group Weight Order Will Near ass 0 ar McVet +2 178 +2 1/8 +2 178 +2 178 Static Group @ 5 Ls 1. Patterson: 55° 750 90° ' 115° 135° 2. Borin: 55° f 75° 90° 115° 135° .__-‘>— 1. V‘ L. n 3. 3. O'Connor: 55° 75° 90° 115° 135° l I 2. 3. u. Strickland: 55° 75° 90° 115° 135° 1. 2. II II] I