 

 

 

 

é ﬂ , m ._ ...é:
$33.“.Nguﬁmﬁcammrﬂz mu be

.. a . 5..
.. 3??
.n A: .3; .

x
.24.“? .

.w

....

w,

0.. 5,
flit-lbs I
.5 I... sat: a.
....h..:.....!. nuns? n

. ..h

...IWJH.
.

2.“... 3

:3,an and". ...huuﬁmh 1.. ...

.15! . .. I )1 .
.3113». :5...
is
. I

Hut.
1.

Hoary}... .
545.5%». Slvnyﬂm

&\.i. :9

Q}.

A!!!
.

issx\ 14‘
1:3. 5: I!

u. L...

...J. . p _ ﬁﬁ$ﬂ

r
2 .05.! .1

 

.1

Inns...
9 .1‘ ﬁ.
an.»

.I
.
7..
x

2 LIBRARY
3 o O 6 Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

COMPARISON OF SELECTED KINETIC PERFORMANCE
VARIABLES FROM TWO DIFFERENT WEIGHT TRAINING
METHODS

presented by
JEROME MICHAEL LEARMAN

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Kinesiology

’ Major Professor’s Signature

ﬂyulf I6 7-”5'
V

 

Date

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 c:/CﬁC/DateDue.indd—p.15

 

COMPARISON OF SELECTED KINETIC PERFORMANCE VARIABLES FROM
TWO DIFFERENT WEIGHT TRAINING METHODS

By

Jerome Michael Learman

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial ﬁilﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Kinesiology

2005

ABSTRACT

COMPARISON OF SELECTED KINETIC PERFORMANCE VARIABLES FROM
TWO DIFFERENT WEIGHT TRAINING METHODS

By
Jerome Michael Leamian

The purpose of this study was to examine if participants (n = 31) trained two times
per week over a 15 week period at a high velocity using lighter weight (i.e., 35% of 1
RM), could they increase the amount of force, peak velocity, and time to peak velocity 1
RM, as much as if they had trained at a high force (i.e., 80% of 1 RM)? As the study used
high school male and female as participants, it also examined if gendered affect their
ability to increase the amount of maximum force (1 RM), peak velocity generated when
lifting lighter weights (i.e., 35% of 1 RM), and the time to peak velocity? Lastly the study
examined how two different weight training programs affect biomechanical parameters
over 15 weeks?

An analysis of the data found that group had no effect on change in 1 RM or peak
velocity and both groups had a signiﬁcant increase from pre-test to post-test, but between
the two different training groups the difference was not signiﬁcant. However the data
showed that participants from both groups had a signiﬁcant increase in time to peak
velocity from pre-test to post-test, but between the two different training groups the
difference was signiﬁcant. Gender did have an effect on change in 1 RM and peak
velocity. The shape of the velocity patterns did not change signiﬁcantly depending on
which weight training program the subject used, but they did change in amplitude. The
minimum and maximum values of the velocity curves increased. This supports the

contention that training occurred for both groups.

To my family for their help and support.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I need to thank many people for helping me complete this thesis. I thank Joanne Koratich
and Marjorie August for proofreading this manuscript for me. A great thanks to the
participants and their teacher, without them, there would have been no study. Thank you
to Drs. Habenstricker, Womack, and Atkinson for all of their help and guidance with this
study and my degree. I also owe a great deal of thanks to Drs. Marty Ewing and Randall
Fotiu for all of the statistical help they gave. Special thanks to my advisor, Dr. Eugene
Brown, for the countless hours he spent with me working on this dissertation and reading
it over and over again. Without him I never would have ﬁnished. And last but not least,
I thank my family for making me who I am, and all those people who helped that I did
not mention here.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. vii

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1

Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................... 1

Statement of Each Hypothesis ...................................................................... 3

Glossary of Terms ......................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................................................... 10

Hormonal Effects of Resistance Training ................................................... 10

Hormonal Effects Related to Load ................................................. 10

Hormonal Effects Related to Age and Gender ............................... 11

Resistance Training and Its Effect on the Force-Velocity Curve ............... 13

Speciﬁcity of Strength Training .................................................................. 16

Speciﬁcity and Isokinetic Training ................................................. 16

Speciﬁcity and Isometric Training .................................................. 18

Speciﬁcity, Contrast, and Transfer of Training .......................................... 19

Speciﬁcity and Neural Adaptations ............................................................ 21

Single Versus Multiple Sets ........................................................................ 22

Using 1 RM as a Measure of Strength ........................................................ 23
CHAPTER 3

METHODS ......................................................................................................... 25

Participant Population ................................................................................. 25

Anthropometrics ......................................................................................... 25

Treatment .................................................................................................... 26

High Velocity Group ....................................................................... 29

High Force Group ........................................................................... 29

Purpose of the Study ................................................................................... 3O

Reliability of the Measures ......................................................................... 31

Testing ......................................................................................................... 31

Statistical Analysis ...................................................................................... 33

Statement of Each Hypothesis .................................................................... 34

Hypotheses Based on Group Comparisons ..................................... 34

Hypothesis Based on Gender Comparisons .................................... 34

Regression Hypothesis .................................................................... 35

Contamination of the Variables Being Studied .......................................... 35

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS. .......................................................................................................... 37
Results for Each Hypothesis ....................................................................... 41
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND SUMMARY ......................................... 51
Discussion ................................................................................................... 51
Discussion Based on Group Comparisons ...................................... 51
Discussion Based on Gender Comparisons .................................... 52
Discussion of the Regression Results ............................................. 54
Conclusions ................................................................................................. 54
Recommendations for Future Studies ......................................................... 56
Practical Implications for Coaches ............................................................. 58
APPENDICES ....................................................................................................... 61
Appendix A (INFORMED WRITTEN CONSENT FORM) ...................... 61
Appendix B (FITRO DYNE PC) ................................................................ 66
Appendix C (SAMPLE OF DATA COLLECTED FROM A PARTICIPANT
PERFORMING THE SEATED SHOULDER PRESS) ........ 69
Appendix D (GUIDELINES FOR THE SHOULDER PRESS) ................. 74
Appendix E (PERSONAL DATA SHEET) ............................................... 76
Appendix F (MEASUREMENT GUIDELINES) ....................................... 80
Appendix G (BI-WEEKLY PHYSICAL ACTIVITY LOG) ..................... 82
Appendix H (CORRELATIONS OF SELECTED VARLABLES) ............ 84
BIBLIOGRAHPY ................................................................................................... 88

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 — Summary of Studies on Contrast Training ............................................. 21
Table 2 — List of Variables Used in Statistical Analyses ........................................ 34
Table 3 —— Population Variables with Means and Standard Deviations ................... 37
Table 4 — Variables with Means and Standard Deviations by Gender ................... 38
Table 5 — Variables with Means and Standard Deviations by Group ..................... 39

Table 6 — Variables with Means and Standard Deviations for Males by Group 40

Table 7 — Variables with Means and Standard Deviations for Females by Group. 41

Table 8 — Results of Group by Time ANOVA on 1 RM ........................................ 42
Table 9 — Means and Standard Deviations by Group and Time on 1 RM .............. 42
Table 10 — Means and Standard Deviations by Group on Force ............................ 43
Table 11 — Results of Group by Time ANOVA on Peak Velocity ......................... 43

Table 12 — Means and Standard Deviations by Group and Time on Peak Velocity.43

Table 13 — Results of Group by Time ANOVA on Time to Peak Velocity ........... 44
Table 14 — Means and Standard Deviations by Group and Time on Time to Peak
Velocity ................................................................................................. 44
Table 15 — Results for Gender from the Gender by Time AN OVAs ..................... 46
Table 16 — Means and Standard Deviations by Gender and Time ......................... 46
Table 17 — Results for Time from the Gender by Time ANOVAs ........................ 47
Table 18 — Regression Values for Peak Velocity ................................................... 48

Table 19 — Regression Values for 1 RM ................................................................. 49

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 — F orce-Velocity Curve of Muscle Contraction ......................................... 5
Figure 2 — Fitro Dyne PC Attached to Weight Stack of Universal Machine .......... 27

Figure 3 — Typical Velocity Data Collected as Represented by Two Participants. 28

Figure 4 — Starting to Raise the Weight .................................................................. 32
Figure 5 — Weight Almost Fully Raised ................................................................. 32
Figure 6 — Elbows Almost Locked Out .................................................................. 32
Figure 7 — Plot of Means by Group and Time on Time to Peak Velocity .............. 45
Figure 8 — Plot of Means by Gender and Time on 1 RM ....................................... 47

viii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Resistance training impacts several body systems, including muscular, endocrine,
skeletal, metabolic, immune, neural, and respiratory. According to Reeves, Laskowski,
and Smith (1998), more than 45 million Americans regularly train with weights.

For purposes of this study, the term "weight training" refers to exercises that use
weights for resistance to build strength and muscle mass. Several different styles of
weight training exist. At present, the use of machines may be the most common method
of ﬁtness-related weight training. Machines allow exercisers to circuit train or to focus on
individual muscles or muscle groups (e. g., deltoids, hamstrings).

Despite the fact that weight training, using either free weights or weight-stack
machines, is the most widely used form of resistance exercise, according to Morrissey,
Harman, and Johnson (1995), all but two studies (Palmitri (1987) and Young and Bilby
(1993)), devoted to resistance training velocity, have relied upon isokinetic machines to
provide resistance. Bell and Wenger (1992) suggest that the isokinetic training has only
been shown to be a successful modality in rehabilitation programs. Therefore, there
remains a large void in the literature of applicable studies on weight training.

Mose of the Stﬂy

The purpose of this study is to examine different training methods and modalities
(high velocity and high force) used in common practice by athletes and others who
weight train. More speciﬁcally the purpose of this study was to answer the following

research questions:

1. If participants trained two times per week over a 15 week period at a high velocity
using lighter weight (i.e., 35% of 1 RM), can they increase the amount of force, as
measured by 1 RM, as much as if they had trained at a high force (i.e., 80% of 1
RM)?

2. If participants trained two times per week over a 15 week period at a high force
(i.e., 80% of 1 RM at a self—selected frequency of repetition), can they increase
the peak velocity generated when lifting lighter weights (i.e., 35% of 1 RM) and
the time to peak velocity as much as if they had trained at a lighter weight (i.e.,
35% of 1 RM at a high frequency of repetition)?

3. If high school male and female participants trained two times per week over a 15
week period with the same protocol, does gender affect their ability to increase
the amount of maximum force (1 RM), peak velocity generated when lifting
lighter weights (i.e., 35% of 1 RM), and the time to peak velocity?

4. How do two different weight training programs (i.e., high frequency at 35% of 1
RM and high force associated with 80% of 1 RM at a self-selected frequency of
repetition) affect biomechanical parameters (i.e., complete velocity pattern of the
weight for all repetitions of weight taken every 10 milliseconds) over 15 weeks?
The answers to these research questions could greatly change the methods used to

weight train athletes and other populations in the future. Given the differences in the
ﬁnding of other studies such as Kramer and Newton (1994), Cronin, McNair, and
Marshall (2001a and 2001b), Apor (1987), Bell and Wenger (1992), Keeler et a1. (2001),

Young, McDowell, and Scarlett (2001), Jones et al. (2001), and Schmidtbleicher and

Haralambie (1981), which used different loads for resistance training, the results will help
clarify the beneﬁts of training at various loads.
Statement of Each Hypothesis

1. No difference will be found between the high velocity and high force groups from
pre-test to post-test in the change of 1 RM, change in maximum velocity when
lifting 35% of 1 RM, or change in time to maximum velocity when lifting 35% of
1 RM.

2. No differences between genders will be found from pre-test to post-test in 1 RM,
maximum velocity when lifting 35% of 1 RM, or time to maximum velocity when
lifting 35% of] RM.

3. The variables of gender, weight, height, maturational state, arm girth, arm skin
fold, and arm length will not be predictors of the dependent variables (1 RM,
maximum velocity, and time to maximum velocity when lifting 35% of 1 RM).

Glosgry of Terms

0 One repetition maximum (1 RM): the greatest amount of weight that a person
can lift at one time while still keeping proper form in a designated exercise

0 Absolute strength: maximum contractile force of a muscle, usually occurring
during eccentric contraction

0 Circuit training: technique that minimizes rest between sets and exercises; each
exercise is done in succession with minimal rest between stations; each station

involves a different exercise or weight training machine

Concentric contraction: muscle shortens in opposition to a resistance; tension
produced varies with acceleration of the resistance; muscle tension is greater than
the resistance

Contrast training: training method that uses both high force slow-velocity and
low-force high-velocity when working out to increase power and/or strength
Cross training effect: referred to in motor learning as contra-lateral training;
when one side of the body is trained, and increase in performance is found in the
untrained opposite side of the body

Eccentric contraction: muscle lengthens while attempting to lift a resistance;
while tension produced varies with the deceleration of a resistance, muscle
tension is less than the resistance

Force curve or force-velocity curve: the relationship of force to velocity for
skeletal muscle tissue (see Figure 1); for any given force, the maximum speed of
shortening or lengthening of a muscle; the Hill equation (Winter, 1990), best
known of the force-velocity equations, mathematically describes the fact that light
loads can be lifted quickly but heavy loads only slowly; although it is oﬁen stated
that maximum muscle force is available at zero velocity (isometric action), the

highest loads are achieved during eccentric muscle action

F ORCE-VELOCITY RELATIONSHIP

  

F om

 

 

Figure 1. Force-Velocity Curve of Muscle Contraction
High force training: resistance training using a weight close to a participant’s 1
RM
High power training: resistance training using a weight that optimizes for power
(assumed to be around 30% of a participant’s 1 RM (Newton & Kraemer, 1994));
due to the fact that high power is associated with moving at maximum repetition
frequency, it is also known as the high velocity training
High velocity force production: the ability to contract muscles as rapidly as
possible and still produce force, the force-velocity curve tells us the amount of
force that can be produces at a high velocity is limited
Isokinetic training: application of muscular torque at a joint when the angular
velocity of a segment of the joint is held to a constant speed; this differs from

isotonic training in that in isokinetic training the speed of contraction is controlled

by an accommodating machine resistance (i.e., the greater the torque applied by
the user, the greater the resistance torque provided by the machine)

Isometric training: application of muscular torque at a joint when the joint angle
of a segment of the joint is held constant; this differs from isotonic and isokinetic
training in that in isometric training no movement occurs (i.e., no change in
muscle length occurs)

Isotonic training or variable resistance training: application of muscular torque
at a joint when the angular velocity of the joint varies dynamically on the basis of
variations in muscular torque generated against the resistance

Lock out: maximum extension of a joint to a position where neither muscular
extensor torque nor muscular ﬂexor torque are required to maintain joint position
and position of an externally supported load; joint compression is experienced in
this position (e.g., when the elbow joints are fully extended during a bench press)
Maximum mechanical power: measure of the highest power output during a
particular exercise or activity as measured by the rate of work against an external
load

Maximum rate of force development: the shortest amount of time for muscular
contraction to achieve either a speciﬁc force level or a maximum force of
muscular contraction; equal to the greatest value achieved, during a deﬁned
muscular contraction, the quantity change in force divided by chance in time
Maximum strength: the greatest amount of muscular force that can be
voluntarily generated against an external resistance, normally measured by a 1

RM, where both eccentric and concentric contractions occur

Muscle excitability: a fundamental characteristic of muscle, the ability to respond
to stimuli either electrical or nerve impulses

Muscular endurance: the ability to persist in physical activity or resist muscular
fatigue, measured by time of muscular contraction or distance through which
muscular force is applied

Muscular strength: the contractile force generated in a muscle or group of
muscles

Peak torque: the greatest muscular torque that can be generated at a designated
joint under deﬁned conditions (e. g., deﬁned angular velocity)

Plyometrics: exercises in which concentric muscle action is immediately
preceded by eccentric loading of the muscle (e.g., foot plant followed by lift off in
the long jump, rebounding in basketball)

Rebound motion: movement where the muscle is suddenly preloaded and forced
to stretch an instant prior to its concentric action; an example is jumping down
from a bench to a surface and immediately springing back up

Repetition (rep): each count of each cycle of an exercise that is performed; series
of repetitions called “sets” are performed on each exercise in a training program
Resistance training: all types of “strength” or “weight” training exercises that
use weight or resistance to build strength and muscle mass, this may involve free
weights, isokinetic dynamometers, variable resistance machines, body weight, and

isometric contractions

RM: acronym for "repetition maximum" (e.g., 5 RM stands for the maximum
amount of weight for which no more than ﬁve repetitions of a speciﬁed exercise
can be performed by the exerciser

Running economy: sub-maximal oxygen uptake per unit of body weight (i.e., the
less oxygen needed per weight at a certain pace; the less energy used, the more
economical the runner)

Set: a designated number of repetitions of an exercise movement done
consecutively without rest

Speciﬁcity of training: theory that purports the body adapts to the training
stimuli it is required to deal with; following training the body is likely to perform
best at the speciﬁc speed, type of contraction, muscle group usage, and energy
source usage it has become accustomed to in training

Station: a spot or place where a speciﬁc exercise is performed, this could be the
location of a certain piece of strength training equipment which a person is
appointed to perform; typically multiple stations are included in a circuit training
program

Strength curve: a graph of the maximum amount of muscular tension achievable
throughout the range of motion during a movement

Super slow training: typically represents 4-6 repetitions consisting of a 10-
second concentric phase followed by a four-second eccentric phase

Traditional training: originally the standard Nautilus training protocol, 8-12
repetitions are performed, each composed of a two-second concentric action, a

one-second pause, followed by a four-second eccentric action

Transfer of training: attempting to enhance an ability with non-speciﬁc training;
belief that many of the activities engaged in during weight training develop and
increase performance capabilities as they relate to other functions

Variable resistance: strength training equipment in which the amount of
resistance required to perform an exercise approximates the strength curve
through the use of elliptical cams or other such technology (e. g., dual cams)
Volume: the amount of weight lifted multiplied by the number of repetitions per

set times the number of sets executed

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Hormonal Effects of Resistance Training

Hormonal Effects Related to Load

While this study does not directly examine the hormonal effect of resistance
training, the research in this area should be examined to ensure that a design ﬂaw does
not exist in this study due to what is happening at the hormonal level.

Hakkinen and Pakarinen (1993) found that a single bout with sub-maximal loads
(70% of maximum) yielded statistically signiﬁcant increases in concentrations of serum
total and free testosterone (p S 0.05), cortisol (p < 0.001), and growth hormone (GH);
whereas, corresponding changes with a single bout of maximal loads were statistically
insigniﬁcant, except for a relatively slight increase in serum GH level. This contradicts
Raastad, Bjoro, and Hallen (2000) who, when analyzing testosterone, luteinizing
hormone, follicle stimulating hormone, cortisol, adrenocorticotropic hormone, growth
hormone, insulin—like growth factor, insulin, sex hormone binding globulin, creatine
kinase, total protein, glucose, and lactate, found that the responses of testosterone and
cortisol were greater during the hi gh-intensity protocol (100% of 3RM squat and 6RM
leg extensions) as compared to the moderate-intensity protocol (70% of 3RM squat and
6RM leg extensions). This study examined lifts in which the participants performed at
80% or 35% of 1 RM.

Further research suggests that by manipulating both load and frequency, the
hormonal effects of resistance training, due to load, will not be a confounding variable in

the study. Vanhelder, Radomski, and Goode (1984) found that with weightlifting

10

exercises of equal total external work output and duration, as well as identical work-rest
intervals, the load (85% versus 28% of 1 RM) and/or frequency (not manipulated) of an
exercise are determinant factors in the regulation of plasma GH levels. However, Schwab
et a1. (1993) found that moderate weightlifting (90-95% of 6 RM) and light weightlifting
(60-65% of 6 RM) have similar results on concentrations of serum testosterone in males.
It, therefore, can be concluded that neither maximum nor light loads produce a hormonal
change nor do light loads at the same rate as heavier loads. However, a range of sub-
maximal loads does affect hormonal response and it is unknown what effect the
frequency of an exercise will have on hormonal response. So there is a potential
confounding variable that will not be measured (i.e., the hormonal effects of resistance
training due to load) which may be used to explain the outcome of this study.
Hormonal Effects Related to Age and Gender

This study used school age participants (ages 14-16 years) who were expected to
have a wide range of physical maturation ages. This study used both males and females
who by biological deﬁnition are hormonally different. What does the research tell us
about how age, in general, will affect the hormonal response to weight training?
Hakkinen and Pakarinen (1995) looked at the hormonal responses to resistance exercise
in men and women at different ages (30’s, 50’s and 70’s) and found that the females and
elderly males (age 270 years) did not have a change in mean concentrations of serum
testosterone, but all males 550 years did. Serum growth hormone increased in both
genders in the groups $50 years of age but not in the older groups. Kraemer et al. (1998)
did a similar study using men. They looked at total and free testosterone,

adrenocorticotropic hormone, cortisol, growth hormone, and insulin. The younger (S30

11

years old) and older (262 years old) men both saw increases in total and free testosterone,
adrenocorticotropic hormone, and cortisol. However, analysis shows that the younger
group has a signiﬁcantly higher magnitude of increase for total and free testosterone,
adrenocorticotropic hormone, and growth hormone. Kraemer et a]. (1991) examined
changes in whole blood lactate and serum glucose, human grth hormone, testosterone,
and somatomedin-C in both males (24.7 :I: 4.5 years) and females (23.1 i 3.3 years).
Males showed a greater change in testosterone than females and, for females, the only
signiﬁcant increase in growth hormone occur after doing a 10 RM load with l-minute
rest periods, as opposed to a 5 RM load with 3-minute rest periods.

The problem with comparing these studies to the current study is that the age
groups differ. Past research studies used only adults and the current study used
adolescents. Kraemer et al. (1992) looked at resistance exercise-induced increases in
serum testosterone in adolescent males using junior elite male Olympic-style
weightlifters. It was found that exercise elicited signiﬁcant (p S 0.05) increases in serum
testosterone, cortisol, growth hormone, plasma beta-endorphin, and whole blood lactate.
Subsequent analysis revealed that participants with more than 2 years training experience
exhibited signiﬁcant exercise-induced increases in serum testosterone from pre-exercise
to ﬁve minutes post-exercise (16.2 i 6.2 to 21.4 :t 7.9 nmol per 1), while those with 2 or
less years of training showed no signiﬁcant serum testosterone differences. None of the
other hormones or whole blood lactate appeared to be inﬂuenced by training experience.
Staron et al. (1994) reported that skeletal muscle adaptations, that may contribute to

strength gains of the lower extremity, are similar for men (age 23.5 $3.2 years) and

12

women (age 20.6 $1.5 years) during the early phase of resistance training and that they
occurred gradually.

Lastly, in the study that relates the most to the current study with respect to age
and gender of population, Tsolakis et al. (2000) found that pre-pubertal (11-13 years) and
pubertal (14-16 years) groups respond differently from one another, both anabolicly and
androgenicly to strength training, but the same within each group. This means that the
participants in the study by Tsolakis et al. that are pre-pubertal may respond differently to
the training then will participants who are post-pubertal. It is unknown how participants
in the current study will respond hormonally; but, due to the similarity in age and Tanner
stage of the participants, the author does not expect it to effect the outcome.

Prior research has shown that hormonal response could confound the results in the
current study. Date of birth (age) data was recorded. Although it is not a variable that
was used to test the current study’s hypotheses. However, it could be used in future data
analysis to explain the results of this study. It is expected that the random assignment of
participants to groups prevented pubertal level from affecting the results of this study.

Resiﬁggce Training and Its Effect on t_he Force-Velocity Cm

Because the current study examined training at different points on the force curve
and also how training affects the force curve as a whole, other research on the force curve
was also examined. Kramer and Newton (1994) reported that a combination of light load
and fast weight training repetitions is best for improving maximum rate of force
development, high velocity force production, and maximum mechanical power. In
contrast, they state that training with heavy load is only best for improving maximum

strength as it is less effective in improving maximum rate of force development, high

13

velocity force production, and maximum mechanical power. Cronin, McNair, and
Marshall (2001a) found that the combinations of load, movement, and contraction type
affects mean and peak power in different capacities. Mean power output for rebound
motion was 11.7% greater than concentric only motion. The effect of the rebound was to
produce greater peak accelerations (average 38.5% greater), greater initial force and peak
forces (average 14.1% greater), and early termination of the concentric phase. Finally,
they found that loads of 50-70% 1 RM maximizes mean and peak power. Apor (1987), in
a study on the force-velocity relationship, suggested that strength training with 30% of
maximum force increases the maximum power the most and that high load strength
training causes changes primarily in the high force end of the curve. This implies that the
whole curve is not changed and that just speciﬁc parts of the curve are altered. Bell and
Wenger (1992) found that maximum force is inversely related to the velocity of
shortening; in other words, the faster one moves, the less force one can produce or to
produce the greatest amount of force one must move slowly against a heavy resistance.
However, they do not suggest a particular force or speed value for Optimal training when
trying to increase maximum force or velocity.

Cronin, McNair, and Marshall (2001b) found in pre—training and post-training
testing that the training velocity associated with the strength-trained (80% 1 RM) group
produced signiﬁcantly greater improvement in mean volume of weight lifted (85kg) and
mean power output (13.25 W) as compared to the power (60% 1 RM) and control groups
(p < 0.05). The strength-trained and power-trained groups signiﬁcantly improved netball
throw velocity by 12.4% and 8.8%, respectively, but with no signiﬁcant difference

between the groups. The validity of velocity-speciﬁc training and subsequent adaptations

l4

to improve functional sporting performance appears highly questionable as there was not
a statistically signiﬁcantly difference between the groups. The power group which trained
at a faster rate, closer to the throw velocity, experienced a smaller percentage change.
Keeler et al. (2001) found, when comparing strength gains in over eight different
exercises, that traditional training was better (correlated with greater strength gains) than
super slow training for sedentary individuals. Young, McDowell, and Scarlett (2001)
found that straight sprint training and agility training are speciﬁc to themselves and
produce limited, if any, transfer to each other.

Jones et al. (2001) conducted a study that is probably the most similar to the
current study with respect to training load and velocities. They had a light weight training
group (40-60% 1 RM) and a heavy weight training group (70-90% 1 RM) where the
participants lifted as fast as possible during the concentric contraction phase of each
repetition. While no statistically signiﬁcant interaction was found between load and peak
power, peak velocity, and 1 RM, trends showed light loads lead to increased peak power
and peak velocity and the heavier loads improved 1 RM the most. Enoka (1988) stated

“Based on a substantial review of the literature, McDonough and

Davies (1984) concluded that an increase in strength with voluntary

training techniques requires loads that are at least 66% of
maximum.”

Enoka also noted that strength training results in increased strength, but no change in
peak power production. Since power is the product of force and velocity and training
causes increases in force, then, according to Enoka’s conclusions about peak power,
strength training must elicit a decrease in the maximum velocity of whole muscle

shortening. More likely the point on the force-velocity curve the peak power occurs does

15

not change and force amount use to achieve peak velocity becomes a smaller percentage
of a participant’s 1 RM.

Schmidtbleicher and Haralambie (1981) had one group train with few repetitions
and maximum loads, and a second group with more repetitions and smaller loads. Both
groups lifted the same total volume during each training period. Muscle excitability
(contraction time of response to electrical impulse) signiﬁcantly decreased in all types of
training. Schmidtbleicher and Haralambie concluded that strength training with
maximum loads involved training the fast muscle ﬁbers, whereas, when training with
more repetitions, the training inﬂuence is less marked, and affects both fast and slow
ﬁber types.

One measure that separates the current study from all prior studies is that training
was monitored for ten participants to ensure that the participants were training in the
assigned method. Although many studies are similar to the current study, the present
study differs in that, to date, no weight training study has monitored the various
kinematic values of participants over an extended period of training. This was a valuable
tool in explaining the results of the current study as well as the timelines of any changes.

Specificity of Strength Training
Specificity and Isokinetic Training

The current study examined training at high force and high velocity points on the
force-velocity curve and attempted to determine how training protocol affects the force
curve as a whole. If no effect occurs on the whole curve, then this is really a study of
speciﬁc of training (i.e., training on the high force end of the curve only alters the high

force end of the curve and training on the high velocity portion of the curve would only

16

alter the high velocity part). Some studies have looked at velocity speciﬁc of training.
However, most of these studies have used isokinetic devices. This information is
examined, but one of the reasons this study was conducted was to look at the effects of
isotonic training, which is the method most commonly used.

One of the ﬁrst studies looking at velocity speciﬁcity and isokinetic training was
conducted by Moffroid and Whipple (1970), who found that velocity of exercise is
speciﬁc for muscular endurance (i.e., endurance gains occur at the velocity of endurance
training) and that force and/or peak torque increases at or below training velocity. Lesmes
et al. (1978) also found that isokinetic training at various speeds increases endurance,
work output, and peak muscle torque. Lesmes et al. could not compare between velocities
because of the cross training effect between legs (i.e., participants trained each legs with
a different training protocol). However, velocity speciﬁcity has not always been shown.
Caiozzo, Penine, and Edgerton (1981) found transfer to all but one other speed when
participants trained at the lowest speed. When training at the higher speed, they found
transfer to other velocities as well. Ewing et al. (1990) had mixed results depending on
the variable (peak torque, power, muscle ﬁber type, ﬁber cross sectional area), but power
for all training speeds improved. Ewing et al. found no signiﬁcant changes in percentages
of type I, Ila and Hb muscle ﬁbers; but when training at either speed, participants showed
signiﬁcant increases in the number of type I and Ma ﬁbers. Kanehsia and Mitusmasa
(1983) used slow, fast, and intermediate speed-training groups. The slow group showed a
signiﬁcant increase in power at all speeds. The intermediate group showed a signiﬁcant
increase in power at four of the ﬁve speeds. The fast group showed increases in power

only at the fastest speed. Coyle et al. (1981) using slow, fast, and mixed speed groups

17

only found speed speciﬁc improvements in peak torque with the slow group. Whereas,
the other groups had improvements in peak torque at all speeds.

Prevost, Arnold, and Maraj (1999) had participants train on an isokinetic device
two days at three different speeds. Participants that trained at the higher speed were the
only ones that had changes in mean peak torque and then only at the highest speed. These
changes were similar to changes found in other studies lasting six to ten weeks. They,
therefore, surmised that training at high velocity does not cause hypotrophy, and all
changes are due to neural adaptations. It is widely accepted that more than two sessions
of strength training are required to cause hypotrophy and that changes in 1 RM the ﬁrst
six weeks of weight training are due to neural changes. Smith and Melton (1981) divided
participants into four training groups: control, isotonic resistance, slow isokinetic, and
fast isokinetic. At the end of six weeks of training, all exercise groups showed an increase
in all types of strength (isometric, isotonic, and isokinetic).

These studies have shown a mixture of results. What this means or why it is
occurring is not clear. It appears that some level of speciﬁcity exists; but, there is also a
great deal of transfer (i.e., changes at velocities other than the one being trained). All that
can be concluded is that further research needs to be conducted on the speciﬁcity of
velocity of training and mechanisms that cause the results of these studies.

Specificity and Isometric Training

It was not the intention of this study to explore isometric training or concentric

movements at the high force end of the force-velocity curve which are very close to being

isometric due to the very slow velocity. It did study training at different parts of the

18

force-velocity curve in an attempt to determine if training on those parts of the curve
produced results speciﬁc to the training.

Speciﬁcity of training relates to all types of training. Therefore, isometric training
and the speciﬁcity of isometric training will be reviewed here. Duchateau and Hainaut
( 1984) found that isometric and isotonic training have different effects on the mechanical
properties (e. g., maximum tetanic tension, peak rate of tension development, twitch force,
rate of twitch force development, relaxation, maximum shortening velocity, and
maximum muscle power) of muscle. These ﬁndings support the contention that
speciﬁcity of training is related to the type of contraction, but it does not indicate any
speciﬁcity due to speed of movement, assuming movement occurs. Hakkinen, Komi, and
Alen (1985) found that high power training improves isometric contraction force. They
felt this was due to muscle hypertrophy and that the neural adaptations were velocity
speciﬁc. From this research it can be concluded that there is a chance that resistance
training is contraction speciﬁc. However, all measures in the current study used
concentric and eccentric contractions so that the type of contraction did not affect the
outcome of the study.

Specificig, Contrasg and Transfer of Training

The goal of the current study was to compare two different types of training and
to try to determine if one type is better than the other for improving strength and power. It
is acknowledged that a combination of the two types of training may be the most
beneﬁcial, but that was not explored.

Duthie, Young, and Aitken (2002) looked at training power using various training

methods. They found that the contrast method of training (alternating high force and high

19

velocity training) was best for increasing strength, as measured by 1 RM, and increasing
power, as measured by peak power and jump height using a force plate, but only for
athletes that already had relatively high strength levels. These results appear to contradict
training speciﬁcity and, in doing so, also raise the question of which training group in the
current study has the greatest changes in power. Harris et al. (2000) found that contrast or
combination training has better transfer to other measures of strength and power (i.e.,
various 1 RM’s, jumping, power, and velocity tests) than training solely with high force
or high power. This contradicts Behm and Sale (1993), who found velocity speciﬁcity in
resistance training (i.e., that the greatest strength gains occur at or near the training
velocity). The contradiction might be explained by Behm and Sale (1993b) themselves,
who when they had participants try to move very fast when a high force was required,
found evidence that the intent to make a hi gh-speed contraction may be the most crucial
factor in velocity speciﬁcity. Participants were instructed to try move as fast as possible,
but the force required did not permit them to move at a fast rate. Westcott ( 1993), looking
solely at the parameter of strength, found that speed of movement has no signiﬁcant
effect on strength gains.

Wilson et al. (1993) found that high power training is better than training with
higher force or plyometrics for increasing jumping height and isometric strength. This
contradicts Newton and McEvoy (1994), who found that heavy weight training leads to
the greatest increase in strength and throwing velocity. Bloomﬁeld et al. (1990) found no
increase in throwing velocity after eight weeks of strength training. Behm's (1991) results
disagree with the ﬁndings of the three previously mentioned studies and reported that the

three different types of training are equally effective in promoting strength gains. This

20

agrees with Young and Bilby (1993), who found that high speed and slow controlled
movements produced increases in strength, power measures, and muscle hypertrophy.
Paavolainen et al. (1999) found that explosive (high power) training improves running
economy and muscle power in distance runners, but they did not compare different types
of training. Various opinions still exist as to which type of training is best or even if a
combination of two types of training may be the best for increasing strength and power.
Due to the mixed results to date, it is clear that more research, such as the current study,
needs to focus on the difference of high velocity versus high power strength training.

Table 1: Summary of Studies on Contrast Training
Author(s) Results
Duthie, Young, and Contrast training best for power and strength
Aitken (2002)
Harris et al. (2000) Contrast training best for other measures of jumping, power, and

speed
Behm and Sale Strength gains found near training velocity
(1993)
Behm and Sale Intention to move fast most important for velocity speciﬁcity
(1993b)
Westcott (1993) Speed trained at not important for strength gains
Wilson et al. (1993) High power training is better for increasing jump height
Newton and High force training better for increasing throwing velocity and
McEvoy (1994) strength
Bloomﬁeld et al. No increase in throwing velocity with weight training
(1990)
Behm (1991) All types of strength training are equally effective
Young and Bilby All types of strength training are effective
(1993)
Paavolainen et al. High Power training improves running economy
(1999)

 

Speciﬁcigy and Neural Adaptations

Changes in strength are predominantly attributed to hypertrophy and neural
adaptations. Neural adaptations are difﬁcult to measure. Yet, neural adaptation may be

used to explain the results of strength training studies. Measures that have been used to

21

evaluate changes in neural adaptations include electromyography and nerve conduction
velocity. Studies, in which neural adaptations are used to explain results of strength
training, as they relate to the current study, are reported here. Sale (1988) determined that
most adaptations due to strength training are neural and this accounts for much of the
speciﬁcity that is found in the literature. He found that strength training may cause
adaptive changes within the nervous system and this allows a trainee to more fully
activate prime movers in speciﬁc movements and to better coordinate the activation of all
relevant muscles, thereby affecting a greater net force in the intended direction of
movement. Sale also found an inﬂuence on one limb when only the opposite limb was
trained (i.e., even though only the right leg was strength trained, the left leg show
strength gains; cross training effect). Research also shows speciﬁcity of training that
provides further evidence of neural adaptations. If Sale is correct, the current study could
be very valuable because the kinetic values measured may be the results of these neural
adaptations. Young (1993) believes that high power training is better for the development
of inter-muscular coordination, which would transfer more to other activities. But,
Young also believes that high force training is better for intra—muscular coordination
development and fast twitch muscle ﬁber hypertrophy. At this point, the ﬁndings of
neural adaptations are hypotheses, requiring further testing, and the current study tests
some of these hypotheses.
mgle Versus Multiple Sets

The current study had participants perform a single set of repetitions. Some of the

results of prior studies are mixed when comparing strength gains associated with looking

at single versus multiple sets. For example, Schlumberger, Stec, and Schmidtbleicher

22

(2001) found that, for women, multiple set training (i.e., three sets) produces superior
results for increasing 1 RM when compared with single set training. However, they
found, for individual exercises, that data was mixed as both groups made signiﬁcant
improvement on leg extension, but not on seated bench press. Most of the research shows
that single sets are just as effective as multiple sets. Carpinelli and Otto (1998) and
Carpinelli (1997) found that most of the studies reporting the results of training with
single versus multiple sets do not substantiate the tenet that multiple sets are better. In
fact, the preponderance of evidence suggests, that for training durations of four to 25
weeks, no signiﬁcant differences were found in the increase in strength or hypertrophy as
a result of training with single versus multiple sets. Carpinelli and Otto also found little
scientiﬁc evidence, and no theoretical or physiological basis, to suggest that a greater
volume or number of sets of exercises elicits greater increases in strength or hypertrophy.
Westcott (1991) found no signiﬁcant differences in muscular strength or endurance gains
among groups that train with one set of 10—repetitions or one set of 20-repetitions.
Paulsen, Myklestad, and Raastad (2003) also found that using a single set is just as
effective for upper body training. This is of interest as the current study used upper body
training. The current literature supports that single set weight training is just as effective
as multiple set weight training. Therefore, the results of the current study should be
applicable to people who weight train with single or multiple sets.
Using 1 RM as a Measure of Strength

This study used a 1 RM test as a measure of strength with one-minute rest

intervals between repeated attempts of 1 RM. The literature was searched to determine if

this is a valid measure of maximum strength and all evidence indicates that it is. Fields,

23

Bemben, and Mayhew (1997) used 1 RM bench press and leg press to measure lower and
upper body strength. This measure is described as a standard protocol by Stone and
O’Bryant (1984) and Stone, O’Bryant, and Garhammer (1981). Matuszak et al. (2003)
found that one-minute rest intervals are sufﬁcient for recovery between attempted lifts
during 1 RM testing. No literature was found that suggests that 1 RM is an invalid

measure for strength. Therefore, for the purposes of this study it is assumed to be valid.

24

CHAPTER 3
METHODS
Participant Population
Participants in this study were 16 male and 15 female students in a high school

freshman/sophomore physical education class. Data was collected during the fall
semester, 2003. The mean age of the participants was 15 years 3 months (males-15 years
2 months and females-15 years 3 months). Participation in this study was completely
voluntary and followed Michigan State University guidelines regarding informed
consent. Appendix A contains a copy of the informed consent form that was used in this
study.

The total number of participants that completed this study was 31. A total of 37
participants were tested at the beginning of the study. Six were dropped due to being
injured in activities outside of the current study, moving to a different school, dropping
the physical education class, or lacking sufﬁcient attendance required for inclusion.

Participants were asked to do a self-evaluation of sexual maturation using Tanner
stages. This is a valid method of assessing maturity (Duke, Iris, and Shasby, 1980) and
has been used in other strength training studies involving adolescent participants
(Lillegard et al. 1997). The mean Tanner stage for all participants was 4.54 d: 0.57
(females 4.40 i 0.63, males 4.68 d: 0.47).

Anthropometrics
An electronic scale with increments to the nearest tenth of kilogram was used for all
measures of participant weight. A standing anthropometer with increments to the nearest

millimeter was used to measure standing height. An anthropometer with increments to

25

the nearest millimeter was use to measure arm length. Lastly, a steel tape with increments
to the nearest millimeter was used to measure arm girth. The data collected was expected
to be accurate except for human (test administrator) error and any undetectable
equipment inaccuracies. In an attempt to eliminated measurement error, all measures
where taken twice, and any pair of measures more than two units (millimeters or tenth of
a kilogram) different precipitated more measures until the consistent difference was two
units or less. The tester was experienced with the equipment used, having worked with
this instrumentation in various setting for the past ten years. Due to the author’s prior
experience with the equipment, reliability of the data collection procedures was not
considered to be a factor to adversely affect the accuracy of data collected in this study.
Treatment

Each participant was randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups and
trained twice a week. The population was believed to be homogenous with respect to the
effect of the treatment based on similarities in Tanner stage and age. Therefore, it was not
believed that assignment to a speciﬁc group on the basis of these parameters (Tanner
stage, age, height, weight, or prior sports involvement) was warranted. The two treatment
groups were named the high velocity group and high force group. The treatment period
was for 15 weeks. An approximately equal number of participants of each gender was
placed in each treatment group (seven females and eight males in high velocity, eight
females and eight males in high force). All training sessions were monitored to ensure
that the participants trained according to the assigned method (i.e., proper weight, number
of repetitions, and assigned frequency). In addition, ten of the participants (ﬁve from each

group; two females and three males in high velocity, three females and two males in high

26

i

if:

 

Stool for Subjects
Performing Seated
Shoulder Press

 

 

Cable to
Weight Stack

_ i i ' Fitro Dyne PC

 

  
 

Cable to
Computer

 

Figure 2. F itro Dyne PC Attached to Weight Stack of Universal Machine

force) had all of their training sessions electronically monitored using the Fitro Dyne PC
(see Figure 2) to ensure that they trained according to the assigned method and as a check
to support the likelihood that all participants were able to follow their training
instructions. In addition, data collected during the monitored training sessions could be
used to help explain the history of changes that occur due to training and in between
testing.

Weight lifted in conjunction with the velocity of the weight being moved over

time was collected with the Fitro Dyne PC for every training repetition for the ten

participants whose training was being electronically monitored. The samples collected
from the training sessions showed that each participant had been in compliance with the
lift velocity requirements of this study. Also, the maximum magnitudes of the velocities
for the participants in the high force group was less and did not ﬂuctuate as much during
the lifting and lowering phases of each repetition, whereas the velocity pattern for the
high velocity group showed much greater variability in velocity. These results, in
addition to observation of the participants training, made the author very conﬁdent that

all participants complied with the lifting requirements.

M ” p ii“
if: i\ II I \[

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time ("II

I-ngFaoe—ngmj

 

 

 

 

Figure 3. Typical Velocity Data Collected as Represented by Two Participants

Figure 3 shows typical velocity data for one participant in the high force group
and one participant in the high velocity group. It is evident in this typical velocity curve
for the high force group that the acceleration approximates zero during the middle of the

lifting phase of each repetition, whereas acceleration is relatively large during the middle

28

 

of the lifting phase for the high velocity group. In general, the acceleration magnitudes
for the high velocity group are much higher.

Treatment for both groups was performed twice a week for 15 weeks, with the
exception of week eight which was used for testing. During weeks one, eight, and ﬁfteen,
participants engaged in one training session and one testing session. The results gathered
in the ﬁrst and ﬁnal weeks were the data used for analysis in this study. The testing
session in week eight was used to adjust the 1 RM values for all participants, and the
results were used to adjust their training weight for the remaining training sessions for
80% of the 1 RM and 35% of the 1 RM. This test at the midpoint of the study was not
intended to be used for data analysis, but to adjust the values for the different percentages
of 1 RM.

High Velocity Group

The high velocity group did one set of ten repetitions of the seated shoulder press
using 35% of their last tested 1 RM with their maximum repetition ﬁ'equency. Due to the
fact that 35% of 1 RM is also the optimal percent of 1 RM for peak power, it is similar to
high power groups in other studies (Apor, 1987). The high velocity group had 15
participants.

High Force Group

Participants in the high force group did one set using 80% of their 1 RM for the
seated shoulder press, and attempted to complete up to ten repetitions. Frequency for
repetition was self-selected by the participants in the high force group. While some
participants may have choose to use their maximum repetition frequency, the greater load

of the high force group prevented members of the high force from reaching velocities

29

similar to participants in the high velocity group. The high force group had 16

participants.

Purpose of the Stugy

The purpose of this study was to answer the following research questions:

1.

If participants trained two times per week over a 15 week period at a high velocity

. using lighter weight (i.e., 35% of 1 RM), can they increase the amount of force, as

measured by 1 RM, as much as if they had trained at a high force (i.e., 80% of 1
RM)?

If participants trained two times per week over a 15 week period at a high force
(i.e., 80% of 1 RM at a self-selected frequency of repetition), can they increase
the peak velocity generated when lifting lighter weights (i.e., 35% of 1 RM) and
the time to peak velocity as much as if they had trained at a lighter weight (i.e.,
35% of 1 RM at a high frequency of repetition)?

If high school male and female participants trained two times per week over a 15
week period with the same protocol, does gender affect their ability to increase
the amount of maximum force (1 RM), peak velocity generated when lifting
lighter weights (i.e., 35% of 1 RM), and the time to peak velocity?

How do two different weight training programs (i.e., high frequency at 35% of 1
RM and high force associated with 80% of 1 RM at a self-selected frequency of
repetition) affect biomechanical parameters (i.e., complete velocity pattern of the
weight for all repetitions of weight taken every 10 milliseconds) over 15 weeks?

The answers to these research questions could greatly change the methods used to

weight train athletes and other populations in the future.

30

Reliability of the Measures

A F itro Dyne PC (see Appendix B) was used to input the data (weight (kg), time
(ms), speed (cm/s), acceleration (m/sz), force (N), power (W), distance (cm)) into a
Toshiba Satellite Pro 490 CDT, Pentium Pro(r) 233 MHz processor with 32 megabytes of
RAM. The Fitro Dyne PC has a resolution of 12 bits, range of 3:600 cm/s, resolution
motion speed of 0.29 cm/s, resolution distance of 5.4 mm, and sample frequency of
1 kHz. The data collected from the instrumentation was expected to be accurate to the
nearest tenth of a unit. Exceptions to this accuracy could be the result of human (test
administrator) error, calibration error, and any undetectable equipment inaccuracies. The
testers were experienced with the equipment used. The Fitro Dyne PC that was used was
calibrated to be accurate to 25.4 mm. Due to the author’s two years of prior experience
with the equipment, reliability of the data collection procedures was not considered to be
a factor to adversely affect the accuracy of data collected in this study. An example of the
numerical data that can be generated by the Fitro Dyne PC is found in Appendix C.
Figure 2 shows the Fitro Dyne PC setup used for this study.

M122
Participants performed the seated shoulder press using a Universal machine
following guidelines established by the National Strength and Conditioning Association
(Appendix D). Figures 4-6 show the sequence of movements for the seated shoulder
press. Participants were asked to achieve an elbow angle of less than 90°, at the end of
the eccentric phase of movement by lowering the handles to shoulder level (see Figure 4,
which shows the handles just above shoulder level). At the top of the movement,

participants were instructed to lock out the elbow joints (see Figure 6).

31

The range of weights available for this exercise on the Universal machine was 15
to 200 pounds in increments of 2.5 pounds. Participants were tested at the beginning,
middle, and end of the study for 1 RM and also for three repetitions of 35% of their 1 RM

resistance, which they were instructed to perform as fast as possible. The test in the

middle of the study was used to adjust the 1 RM and the related 35 % of their 1 RM.

 

Figure 6. Elbows Almost Locked Out

The protocol used for assessing 1 RM required participants to warm up with ﬁve

repetitions at 15 pounds. Participants would then guess their 1 RM and attempt that

weight. On a successful attempt the weight was increased 2.5 pounds and then tried again
after a ﬁve minute break. After a failed attempt, the weight was decreased 2.5 pounds and
then tried again after a ﬁve minute break. Participants were given one attempt to repeat
on a failure if they desired. Three to ﬁve attempts where typically necessary to determine
1 RM. Proper form was enforced, following guidelines in Appendix B.

Anthropometric and physical activity participation data were collected at the
beginning and end of the study. A personal data sheet (see Appendix E) was used to
collect and code information on sports involvement, anthropometry, and maturation of
the participants. Appendix F includes the guidelines used to collect all of the
anthropometric measurements. Five potential participants who engaged in other physical
activities that were deemed to affect the results of this study (i.e., any sport that required
weightlifting or use of the upper body to manipulate heavy objects) were not allowed to
participate in this study. Of the ﬁve people excluded from the study, three played
football, one golfed, and one worked on his family’s farm.

Statistical Analysis

The variables selected for statistical analyses are reported in Table 2. The Pearson
Product Moment linear coefﬁcient of correlation and analysis of variance (ANOVA)
were applied in an attempt to ﬁnd signiﬁcant relationships and correlations between the
selected variables. A 0.05 alpha level of signiﬁcance was used for all measures.
Statistical Product and Service Solutions version 11.5 software, formerly Statistical

Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to calculate all statistical measures.

33

Table 2: List of Variables Used in Statistical Analyses

 

Collected Variables

 

Weight*

Height“

Maturational Stage*

Arm Girth*

Arm Skin fold*

Arm Length*

Weight Lifted for 1 RM*

Time to Maximum Velocity at 35% of 1 RM*
Maximum Velocity at 35% of 1 RM*
Training Group

Gender
*Pre and post test values used.

Statemept of Each Hprs
Hypothesis Based on Group Comparisons

1. No difference will be found between the high velocity and high force groups from
pre-test to post-test in the change of 1 RM, change in maximum velocity when
lifting 35% of 1 RM., or change in time to maximum velocity when lifting 35% of
1 RM. Signiﬁcance was determined by a repeated measures design one-way
AN OVA. The factor (training group), with two levels (high force and high
velocity), between subjects, and the signiﬁcance of their interaction were tested
multivariately. The two level within subjects factor (pre-test and post-test) was
tested with a univariate F-test.

Hypothesis Based on Gender Comparisons

2. No differences between genders will be found from pre-test to post-test in 1 RM,

maximum velocity when lifting 35% of 1 RM, or time to maximum velocity when

34

lifting 35% of 1 RM. Signiﬁcance was determined by three repeated measures
design one-way AN OVAs. The factor (gender), with two levels (male and
female), between subjects, and the signiﬁcance of their interaction, were tested
multivariately. The two level within subjects factor (pre-test and post-test) was
tested with a univariate F-test.
Regression Hypothesis
3. The variables of gender, weight, height, maturational state, arm girth, arm skin
fold, and arm length will not be predictors of the dependent variables (1 RM,
maximum velocity, and time to maximum velocity when lifting 35% of 1 RM). A
stepwise regression was performed for each of these dependent variables using
the independent variables of gender, weight, height, maturational state, arm girth,
arm skin fold, and arm length as predictors.
Contamination of the Variables Being Sﬂdieq
For purposes of this study, this investigator chose to use the shoulder press since none
of the other weight training movements that the participants would be doing in the weight
room in their physical education class would involve shoulder abduction and elbow
extension, involving the deltoid and tricep muscle groups (Westcott, 1996). It is possible
that other activities, in which the participants engage, could have interfered with the
results of this study, but unless they had access to another weight room, it is highly
unlikely that the activities involved resistance training. Due to this possible
contamination of data, prior to each training session, participants were asked to ﬁll out an
activity log detailing any athletic or work related activities in the days since their last

treatment session. All of this information was kept on ﬁle. It was also explained to the

35

participants how other activities could alter the results of the study, and the importance of
them being accurate in their activity logs. The data collected in the activity log was not
expected to affect the results of the study, but to help the investigator explain any
confounding results. If activities involved the same muscles and movements, the data was
examined and when it was inconsistent with other data from the same group, it was to be
thrown out. However, this did not occur within this study. The activity log can be found

in Appendix G.

36

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The variables used for participant description and statistical analyses are shown in
Tables 3-7. Table 3 contains variables for the entire population, Table 4 contains
variables by gender, Table 5 contains variables by group, and Tables 6 and 7 contain
variables by group and gender. Means and standard deviations were reported when
applicable.

Table 3: Population Variables with Means and Standard Deviations

 

 

 

 

Standard
Variables (units) M_e_ap Deviation
1 RM Pre-test (lbs) 87.41 25.55
Peak Velocity Pre-test (cm/s) 163.65 16.94
Time to Peak Velocity Pre-test (ms) 365.49 136.48
1 RM Post-test (lbs) 98.87 29.37
Peak Velocity Post-test (cm/s) 174. 30 16.34
Time to Peak Velocity Post-test (ms) 411.61 71.09

Pre-test to Post-test Changes
1 RM (lbs) 11.45 6.70
Peak Velocity (cm/s) 10.64 21.11
Time to Peak Velocity (ms) 46.13 126.03
Post-test Measures of Physical Chargcteristics

Height (cm) 167.00 6.10
Weight (kg) 69.11 14.39
Tanner Stage 4.54 0.57
Arm Girth (cm) 29.97 3.44
Arm Length (cm) 69.21 3.54
Arm Skin fold (m) 13.61 5.99

 

37

Table 4: Variables with Means and Standard Deviations by Gender

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gender Female Male
11 15 16

Standard Standard
Variables (units) Mean Deviation Mean Deviation
1 RM Pre-test (lbs) 68.67 11.25 105.00 22.51
Peak Velocity Pre-test (cm/s) 158.69 12.88 168.31 19.27
Time to Peak Velocity Pre-test (ms) 400.67 117.62 332.50 148.12
1 RM Post-test (lbs) 75.67 11.63 120.63 23.59
Peak Velocity Post-test (cm/s) 164.67 14.21 183.33 12.89
Time to Peak Velocity Post-test (ms) 396.00 64.90 426.25 75.53

Change from Pre-test to Post-test
1 RM (lbs) 7.00 4.93 15.63 5.44
Peak Velocity (cm/s) 5.98 17.43 15.01 23.79
Time to Peak Velocity (ms) -4.67 89.43 93.75 138.94
Post-test Measures of Physical Chggcteristics

Height (cm) 164.03 6.29 170.01 4.55
Weight (kg) 66.18 12.59 71.85 15.80
Tanner Stage 4.40 0.63 4.68 0.47
Arm Girth (cm) 28.69 3.28 31.17 3.24
Arm Length (cm) 67.07 3.64 71.22 1.96
Arm Skin fold (m) 16.13 4.30 11.25 6.51

 

38

Table 5: Variables with Means and Standard Deviations by Group

 

 

 

 

Group High Force High Velocity
n 16 (8 females,8 males) 15 (7 females,8 males)
Standard Standard
Variables (units) M Deviation Mean Deviation
1 RM Pre-test (lbs) 85.63 27.56 89.33 24.04
Peak Velocity Pre-test (cm/s) 159.31 14.29 168.29 18.74
Time to Peak Velocity Pre-test (ms) 384.38 123.66 345.33 150.61
1 RM Post-test (lbs) 96.56 30.15 101.33 29.37
Peak Velocity Post-test (cm/s) 168.98 17.85 179.97 12.83
Time to Peak Velocity Post-test (ms) 383.75 67.12 441.33 64.57

Change from Pre-test to Post-test

 

1 RM (lbs) 10.94 5.84 12.00 7.75
Peak Velocity (cm/s) 9.67 21.69 1 1.68 21.19
Time to Peak Velocity (ms) -0.63 84.65 96.00 145.59
Post-test Measures of Physical Characteristics
Height (cm) 166.68 7.21 167.58 5.05
Weight (kg) 70.47 16.82 67.65 11.68
Tanner Stage 4.50 0.27 4.60 0.63
Arm Girth (cm) 30.94 3.64 28.93 2.99
Arm Length (cm) 68.96 4.05 69.47 3.02
Arm Skin fold (m) 14.88 6.35 12.27 5.48

 

39

Table 6: Variables with Means and Standard Deviations for Males by Group

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group and Gender High Force Males High Velocity Males
n 8

Standard Standard
Variables (units) Mean Deviation Mean Deviation
1 RM Pre-test (lbs) 105.00 25.50 105.00 22.04
Peak Velocity Pre-test (cm/s) 158.78 15.68 177.85 18.49
Time to Peak Velocity Pre-test (ms) 397.50 166.20 267.50 98.67
1 RM Post-test (lbs) 118.75 25.18 122.50 23.45
Peak Velocity Post—test (cm/s) 180.25 15.99 186.40 8.87
Time to Peak Velocity Post-test (ms) 397.50 76.86 455.00 66.55

Change from Pre-test to Post-test
1 RM (lbs) 13.75 4.43 17.50 5.98
Peak Velocity (cm/s) 21.48 19.59 8.55 27.08
Time to Peak Velocity (ms) 0.00 99.43 187.50 106.73
Post-test Measures of Physical Mcteﬁstics

Height (cm) 170.75 5.79 169.28 3.08
Weight (kg) 76.28 18.79 67.43 11.72
Tanner Stage 4.63 0.52 4.75 0.46
Arm Girth (cm) 32.14 3.39 30.20 2.97
Arm Length (cm) 71.16 2.52 71.28 1.36
Arm Skin fold (m) 13.75 8.01 8.75 3.49

 

40

Table 7: Variables with Means and Standard Deviations for Females by Group

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group and Gender High Force Females High Velocity Females
n 8 7

Standard Standard
Variables (units) 54ch Deviation Mean Deviation
1 RM Pre-test (lbs) 66.25 13.02 71.42 9.00
Peak Velocity Pre-test (cm/s) 159.84 13.83 157.37 12.65
Time to Peak Velocity Pre-test (ms) 371.25 68.96 434.29 155.76
1 RM Post-test (lbs) 74.38 13.74 77.14 9.51
Peak Velocity Post-test (cm/s) 157.70 1 1.67 172.63 13.20
Time to Peak Velocity Post-test (ms) 370.00 57.67 425.71 63.47

Change from Pre-test to Post-test

1 RM (lbs) 8.13 5.94 5.71 3.45
Peak Velocity (cm/s) -2.14 17.48 15.26 12.82
Time to Peak Velocity (ms) -1 .25 73.96 -8.57 110.67

Post-test Measures of Physical Characteristics

Height (cm) 162.61 6.32 165.64 6.34
Weight (kg) 64.66 13.27 67.91 12.56
Tanner Stage 4.38 0.52 4.43 0.79
Arm Girth (cm) 29.75 3.70 27.49 2.45
Arm Length (cm) 66.76 4.22 67.41 3.14
Arm Skin fold (mm) 16 4.40 16.29 4.54

 

Resplts for Each Hypothesis

1. No difference will be found between the high velocity and high force groups from

pre-test to post-test in the change of 1 RM, change in maximum velocity when

41

lifting 35% of 1 RM., or change in time to maximum velocity when lifting 35% of

1 RM.
Signiﬁcance was determined by repeated measures design one-way AN OVAs. The
factor (training group), with two levels (high force and high velocity), between
subjects, and the signiﬁcance of their interaction were tested using multivariate
analysis. The two time levels within subjects factor (pre-test and post-test) was tested
with a univariate F -test. The results in Table 8 show no effect (p > 0.05) for the
training group or the interaction of time and training group ﬁ'om pre-test to post-test
on 1 RM based on the percent of 1 RM with which the participants trained.

Table 8: Results of Group by Time AN OVA on 1 RM

 

 

Effect Qt F p
Time (pre to post test) 1 87.439 .000
Training Group 1 0.188 .673
Time by Group 1 0.188 .668
Error 29

 

A signiﬁcant effect due to time indicated a difference in 1 RM from pre-test to post-test
in each of the training groups (see Table 9). On average, the high force group gained
10.93 pounds and the high velocity group gained 12 pounds.

Table 9: Means and Standard Deviations by Group and Time on 1 RM

 

 

 

High Force High Velocity
Variable (units) Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev
1 RM Pre-test (lbs) 8563* 27.56 89.33* 24.04
1 RM Post-test (lbs) 9656* 30.15 101.33* 29.36

 

* The change from pre to post test is signiﬁcant at p < 0.05.
In this case the hypothesis held, and participants from both groups had a signiﬁcant
increase (p S 0.05) from pre-test to post-test, but between the two different training

groups (see Table 10) the difference was not signiﬁcant (p > 0.05).

42

Table 10: Means and Standard Deviations by Group on Force

 

 

 

High Force High Velocity
Variables (units) Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev
Average Force (N) 323.74 110.98 166.76 55.50
Average Peak Force (N) 732.15 275.84 616.55 149.69

 

The results in Table 11 show an effect (p S 0.05) for the training group from pre-test to
post-test in peak velocity based on the percent 1 RM with which the participants trained.

Table 11: Results of Group by Time ANOVA on Peak Velocity

 

 

Effect Qt: E p
Time 1 7.667 .010
Training Group 1 5.345 .028
Time by Group 1 0.068 .796
Error 29

 

A signiﬁcant effect (p S 0.05) due to time indicates a difference from pre-test to post-test.
Table 12 shows that both groups improved their peak velocity by over 10% in lifting 35%
of 1 RM. On average, the high force group gained 9.68 cm/s and the high velocity group
gained 11.68 cm/s.

Table 12: Means and Standard Deviations by Group and Time on Peak Velocity

 

 

 

High Force High Velocity
Variables (units) Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev
1 Peak Velocity Pre-test (cm/s) 159.30* 14.29 168.29* 18.74
1 Peak Velocity Post-test (cm/s) 168.98* 17.85 179.97* 12.83

 

* The change from pre to post test is signiﬁcant at p < 0.05.

Despite a signiﬁcant effect for training group showing up, an examination of the data
shows that the hypothesis will still hold. When looking at the pre-test and post-test values
for both groups, it is clear that while the change from pre-test to post-test is very much
the same, the starting values for each group are not. Participants from both groups had a

signiﬁcant increase in peak velocity from pre-test to post-test, with only a 2.00 cm/s

43

difference between the two training groups. But, the starting point for the high velocity
group was 8.99 cm/s high than the high force group. The signiﬁcant effect being found is
due to the differences in the groups before training, and not due to different ﬁndings as a
result of training.

The results in Table 13 show no effect (p > 0.05) for training group in time to peak
velocity based on the force level with which the participants trained. A signiﬁcant effect
(p S 0.05) due to time indicates a difference from pre-test to post-test. There is also a
signiﬁcant effect (p S 0.05) due to the interaction of time and training group.

Table 13: Results of Grormhy Time AN OVA on Time to Peak Velocity

 

 

m Di E 2
Time 1 5.052 .032
Training Group 1 .082 .777
Time by Group 1 5.185 .030
Error 29

 

From Table 14 and Figure 7 it is evident that the group that trained with the heavier
load generally did not change their time to peak velocity, but time to peak velocity
actually increased signiﬁcantly for the high velocity group. In this case the hypothesis did
not hold. Only participants from the high velocity group had a signiﬁcant increase from
pre—test to post-test in time to peak velocity and therefore the groups are adapting
differently to the training.

Table 14: Means and Standard Deviations by
Group and Time on Time to Peak Velocity

 

 

High Force High Velocigg
Variables (units) Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev
Time to Peak Velocity Pre-test (ms) 384.38* 123.66 345.33* 150.61
Time to Peak Velocity Post-test (ms) 383.75* 67.12 441.33* 64.57

 

* The change from pre to post test is signiﬁcant at p < 0.05.

44

440

 

 

420

 

ms 400

 

 

 

380 *~

 

 

‘ 360

 

 

 

‘ 340 ‘ . i ‘
1 Time to Peak Velocity Pre-test Time to Peak Velocity Post-test

 

1+ H.971 Force“ + High VeToEity i

-______ hh,,_____., ___ _ _____ . _ . ..- , _V J

 

 

Figure 7. Plot of Means by Group and Time on Time to Peak Velocity

2. No differences between genders will be found from pre-test to post-test in 1 RM,
maximum velocity when lifting 35% of 1 RM, or time to maximum velocity when
lifting 35% of 1 RM.

Signiﬁcance was determined by three one-way AN OVAs with repeated measures design.
The factor (gender), with two levels (male and female), between subjects, and the
signiﬁcance of their interaction, were tested multivariately. The two level within subjects
factor (pre-test and post-test) was tested with a univariate F -test.

As seen in Table 15, this hypothesis holds for time to peak velocity, but does not hold

for 1 RM and peak velocity. Gender affects changed from pre-test to post-test in 1 RM

and peak velocity, but not in time to peak velocity.

45

Table 15: Results for Gender from the Gender by Time AN OVAs

 

 

Variable DE F p
1 RM 1 38.600 .000
Peak Velocity 1 13.132 .001
Time to Peak Velocity 1 0.346 .561
Error 29

 

The data in Table 16 indicates that while both genders increased their 1 RM and peak
velocity from pre-test to post-test, on average, males increased their time to peak velocity
while females decreased their time. The difference in results for time to peak velocity
was not found to be statistically signiﬁcant as shown in table 15.

Table 16: Means and Standard Deviations by Gender and Time

 

 

M_ale_s Females
Variables (units) Mean Std Dev Me_an M
1 RM Pre-test (lbs) 105.00 22.51 68.67 11.25
1 RM Post-test (lbs) 120.63 23.58 75.67 11.63
Peak Velocity Pre-test (cm/s) 168.31 19.27 158.67 12.88
Peak Velocity Post-test (cm/s) 183 .33 12.89 164.67 14.22
Time to Peak Velocity Pre-test (ms) 332.50 148.12 400.67 117.62
Time to Peak Velocity Post-test (ms) 426.25 75.53 396.00 64.89

 

Both genders had a signiﬁcant change from pre-test to post-test in 1 RM,
maximum velocity when lifting 35% of 1 RM, and time to maximum velocity when
lifting 35% of 1 RM. This is expected as both groups also had a signiﬁcant effect for time

from pre-test to post-test on the same measures. These results are shown in Table 17.

46

Table 17: Results for Time from the Gender by Time ANOVAs

 

 

Variable IE E p
1 RM 1 146.638 .000
Peak Velocity 1 7.762 .009
Time to Peak Velocity 1 4.437 .044
Error 29

 

Only 1 RM was found to have a signiﬁcant (p S 0.05) interaction for gender by time
(F (1, 29) = 21.310, p = 0.000). This is shown graphically in Figure 8. It is clear the
slopes of the lines are different and males have a greater rate of change in 1 RM than

females.

F7 If 4_ . I . if

130

 

120

110

 

1 RM Pre-test 1 RM Post-test

r
l + Males + Females

 

Figure 8. Plot of Means by Gender and Time on 1 RM

3. The variables of gender, weight, height, maturational state, arm girth, arm skin
fold, and arm length will not be predictors of the dependent variables (1 RM,

maximum velocity, and time to maximum velocity when lifting 35% of 1 RM).

47

A stepwise regression was performed for each of these dependent variables using the
independent variables of gender, weight, height, maturational state, arm girth, arm skin
fold, and arm length as predictors.

A stepwise regression was performed for time to maximum velocity at 35% of 1 RM
attempting to use gender, weight, height, maturational state, arm girth, arm skin fold, and
arm length as predictors. No variables entered with signiﬁcance of p > 0.05. This is not
surprising as none of the variables used correlated highly with time to maximum velocity
at 35% of 1 RM. The same stepwise regression was performed for each gender separately
and again no variables entered with signiﬁcance of p > 0.05. Therefore, for time to
maximum velocity at 35% of 1 RM the variables of gender, weight, height, maturational
state, arm girth, arm skin fold, and arm length were not predictors and the hypothesis
held.

A stepwise regression was performed for peak velocity attempting to use gender,
weight, height, maturational state, arm girth, arm skin fold, and arm length as predictors.
Results are shown in Table 18. The only variable entered with signiﬁcance of p > 0.05
was gender. Gender was the sole selected predictor in peak velocity at 35 % of 1 RM,
predicting 33.6% of the variance. This may indicate that the training done during this
study was not the major predictor in peak velocity and that genetics may play a role in
maximum velocity.

Table 18: RtgLCSSIOll Values for Peak Velocity

Variable R a? Change in R2
Gender .580 .336 .336

The same stepwise regression was performed for each gender separately. For females,

no variables entered with signiﬁcance of p > 0.05. Males had different results with arm

48

skin fold entered with a signiﬁcance of p > 0.05, R = .661, and R2 = .437. The correlation
for peak velocity and arm skin fold was r = -.661 meaning, the smaller the skin fold the
higher the peak velocity. Peak velocity also had a high correlation with height (r = -.608)
meaning, that the shorter the participant the higher the peak velocity. This is further
confused by the fact that peak velocity also had a high correlations with arm length (r =
.418) meaning, that the longer the participants arms the higher the peak velocity. It would
be expected that participants with long arms would be taller. This may explain why,
despite these high correlations for males in the study, arm length and height are not
predictors of high velocity. For maximum velocity, the variable of gender was a predictor
and the hypothesis did not hold. It should be noted that, because males and females had
different results, when the regressions were performed separately, there would be
separate models for predicting peak velocity.

A stepwise regression was performed for 1 RM attempting to use gender, weight,
height, maturational state, arm girth, arm skin fold, and arm length as predictors (p >
0.05). The one variable that entered with signiﬁcance of p > 0.05 was gender. As shown
in Table 19, gender was the only predictor of 1 RM, accounting for 60.5% of the variance
despite high correlations (r > .300) with several variables. This is due to the high
correlation of gender to 1 RM (r = .778).

Table 19: Regression Values for 1 RM
Variable R R: Change in R2
Gender .778 .605 .605

When a regression was run without gender, males had no variable entered with
signiﬁcance of p > 0.05. For females body weight became the only predictor with r =

.604. The correlation for 1 RM and body weight was r = -.604, meaning, the lighter the

49

participant the higher the 1 RM. Arm length also had a high correlation with 1 RM (r = -
.593), meaning, that the shorter the participants’ arms, the higher the 1 RM. This is not
necessarily contradictory, as participants with shorter arms could be lighter. This appears
to be the case as arm length and weight correlate highly for females (r = -.777). For 1 RM
the variable of gender was a predictor and the hypothesis did not hold. Due to the fact
that males and females have different results, when the regressions were performed ;
separately, there would be a separate model for predicting 1 RM.

Appendix H has a list of the correlation values for the variables used in the regression

 

with both genders combined. Appendix H also lists males and females separately. Lastly, i
for more detail, Appendix H has a list of variables collected and their correlated values.

The post—test values for height, weight, arm length, arm skin fold, and arm girth were

used. Little to no change in height and weight occurred with the correlation of r > 0.98.

This indicates little change occurred from pre-test to post-test. Weight training is not

expected to affect height or arm length and should have a minimal impact on weight.

Arm girth and arm skin fold are expected to change minimally, as is shown with

correlations of r = 0.73 and 0.68, respectively. The mean change for arm girth was 0.6 cm

and the mean change for arm skin fold was 6.3 mm.

50

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND SUMMARY
Discussion
Discussion Based on Group Comparisons
When looking at the ﬁrst hypothesis that no difference would be found between the
high velocity and high force groups from pre-test to post-test in the change of 1 RM,
change in maximum velocity when lifting 35% of 1 RM., or change in time to maximum
velocity when lifting 35% of 1 RM. The hypothesis held for change in lRM. This has
signiﬁcant implications for all people who weight train because it shows that a lighter
load (35% of 1 RM) lifted at a high velocity will result in similar changes in 1 RM as
lifting a heavier load (80% of 1 RM). The results of this study suggest that the force level
required to lift a lighter weight at a faster rate may compensate for the lifting of a heavier
weight at a slower frequency, if the goal is to increase 1 RM. Future studies are warranted
to determine if simply weight training with any weight will increase 1 RM or if a high
force level is required. It should be noted that when analyzing the force data of the ten
selected participants, the average force (mass x acceleration) of the high force group was
49% more than the high velocity group, but the average of the peak forces for the high
force group was only about 16% higher than the average peak force for the high velocity
group.
The ﬁrst hypothesis also held for peak velocity. This has signiﬁcant implications for
all people who weight train because it shows that a lighter load (3 5% of 1 RM) lifted at a
high velocity will result in similar gains in peak velocity at 35% of 1 RM than lifting a

heavier load (80% of 1 RM). Percent of 1 RM used for training may be a factor in

51

determining the peak velocity at which to train; further testing should be done to
determine if there is a different change in peak velocity if participants trained with the
same weight, but at a different frequency.

The ﬁrst hypothesis did not hold for time to peak velocity. What this implies for
people who weight train is that to decrease time to peak velocity, training may not need
to occur at peak velocity for a given load. A review of this data produces no obvious
explanation for why this phenomenon occurred. All participants were tested at the same
time and the equipment passed all calibration tests. It should be noted that the standard
deviation was reduced to about half of the original values from pre-test to post-test,
which indicates that some training did occur and the participants became more similar in
their results for time to peak velocity. Why time to peak velocity was affected in this
manner is not clear. This might be related to the fact that group also affected peak
velocity, but it did not effect time to peak velocity in the same manner. One possible
explanation is that participants in the high force group had to apply more force
throughout the whole movement, while participants in the high velocity group had to
apply a greater impulse at the beginning of each concentric contraction.

Discussion Based on Gender Comparisons

When looking at the second hypothesis that no differences between genders would be
found from pre-test to post-test in 1 RM, maximmri velocity when lifting 35% of 1 RM,
or time to maximum velocity when lifting 35% of 1 RM. This hypothesis held for time to
peak velocity, but did not hold for 1 RM and peak velocity. Therefore gender affects
changed from pre-test to post-test in 1 RM and peak velocity, but not in time to peak

velocity.

52

While both genders increased their 1 RM and peak velocity from pre-test to post-
test, on average, males increased their time to peak velocity while females decreased their
time. The difference in results for time to peak velocity was not found to be statistically
signiﬁcant, yet one possible explanation is that more time was needed to reach peak
velocity due to the higher peak velocities that the males achieved. It should also be noted
that only for time to peak velocity did the standard deviation become reduced to about
half of the original values, which indicates that some training occurred and that the
participants became similar in their results for peak velocity.

At ﬁrst glace, it is surprising that, gender had such a big effect on change in 1 RM
from pre-test to post-test. The mean Tanner stage was 4.55 with a standard deviation of
0.57. All males in the study were either at stage four or ﬁve, and only one female
participant (stage three) fell below stage four. This was unexpected since one of the
reasons that this age group was chosen was to ensure a wider range of Tanner stages.
Anecdotally, when speaking to some of the students who chose not to participate in the
study, it was found that potential participants with lower Tanner stages were reluctant to
participate in the study because they may have been self-conscious of their maturity even
though they were informed that the results were to be kept conﬁdential. It is suspected
that a wider range of Tanner stages would have altered the results of the study so that
gender may not have had an effect on 1 RM.

Due to the advanced Tanner stage of the participants engaged in this study, it is
not surprising that gender had an effect on 1 RM. A review of the literature substantiates

that males have a greater hormonal response to weight training after they achieve

53

maturation in comparison to equally mature females. Future research should be done to
investigate why 1 RM was effected while time to peak velocity was not.

Discussion of the Regression Results

The third and ﬁnal hypothesis was that the variables of gender, weight, height,

maturational state, arm girth, arm skin fold, and arm length would not be predictors of the
dependent variables (1 RM, maximum velocity, and time to maximum velocity at 35% 1
RM). This hypothesis held for time to peak velocity, but not for lRM and peak velocity,
both which had gender as a predictor. The fact that two parts of hypothesis three did not
hold does not come as a surprise since the second hypothesis found that gender had a
signiﬁcant effect on peak velocity and 1 RM, the areas where hypothesis three also failed
to hold.

Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to attempt to answer the following questions:

1. If participants train at a high velocity using lighter weight (35% of 1 RM), can
they increase the amount of force (1 RM) generated as much as if they train at a
high force (80% of 1 RM)?

The answer to this question was clearly yes. Hypothesis one in chapter four showed

that group had no effect on change in 1 RM and both groups had a signiﬁcant

increase from pre-test to post-test, but between the two different training groups the
difference was not signiﬁcant. This has signiﬁcant implications for all people who
weight train because it shows that a lighter load (35% of 1 RM) lifted at a high

velocity will result in similar changes in 1 RM as lifting a heavier load (80% of 1

RM). The results of this study suggest that the force level required to lift a lighter

54

weight at a faster rate may compensate for the lifting of a heavier weight at a slower

frequency, if the goal is to increase 1 RM.

2. If participants trained two times per week over a 15 week period at a high force
(i.e., 80% of 1 RM at a self-selected frequency of repetition), can they increase
the peak velocity generated when lifting lighter weights (i.e., 35% of 1 RM) and
the time to peak velocity as much as if they had trained at a lighter weight (i.e.,
35% of 1 RM at a high frequency of repetition)?

The answer to the ﬁrst part of question was clearly yes, as hypothesis one in chapter four
showed that participants from both groups had a signiﬁcant increase in peak velocity
from pre-test to post-test, but between the two different training groups the difference
was not signiﬁcant. This has signiﬁcant implications for all people who weight train
because it shows that a lighter load (35% of 1 RM) lifted at a high velocity will result in
similar changes in peak velocity at 35% of 1 RM than lifting a heavier load (80% of 1
RM). The answer to the second part of the question was no, as hypothesis one in chapter
four showed that participants from both groups had a signiﬁcant increase in time to peak
velocity from pre-test to post-test, but between the two different training groups the
difference was signiﬁcant.

Because both groups were able to increase both their 1 RMs and their peak velocity, it
appears that the location training occurs on the force curve does not affect the ability to
increase force over the whole curve. In other words, force will be increased over the
whole curve regardless of where on the curve training occurs.

3. If high school male and female participants trained two times per week over a 15

week period with the same protocol, does gender affect their ability to increase

55

the amount of maximum force (1 RM), peak velocity generated when lifting

lighter weights (i.e., 35% of 1 RM), and the time to peak velocity?
Again the answer to this question was yes. Gender did have an effect, especially on
change in 1 RM, which is what was used as a measure of force. The average change for
females was 7 lbs, while the average change in 1 RM for males was 16 lbs. This was
more than double the amount for females. Gender also had an effect on change in peak
velocity, which is what was used as a measure of velocity. The average change for l
females was 8 cm/s, while the average change for males was 15 cm/s, almost double the

females’ change.

 

4. How do two different weight training programs (i.e., high frequency at 35% of 1
RM and high force associated with 80% of 1 RM at a self-selected frequency of
repetition) affect biomechanical parameters (i.e., complete velocity pattern of the
weight for all repetitions of weight taken every 10 milliseconds) over 15 weeks?

The shape of the velocity patterns did not change signiﬁcantly, but they did change in
amplitude. The minimum and maximum values of the velocity curves increased. This
supports the contention that training occurred for both groups.
Recommendatiops for Fature Studies

This study produced some clear results and some not so clear results. Gender is
deﬁnitely a factor in 1 RM and peak velocity when comparing sexually mature males and
females. No difference in change in 1 RM or peak velocity was seen whether participants
trained with high force or high velocity. When training with either method, participants
had a signiﬁcant increase in their 1 RM and a signiﬁcant increase in their peak velocity.

Time to peak velocity is more confusing. The standard deviation for time to peak velocity

56

decreased greatly, which suggests that the participants became more similar in time to
peak velocity due to training. Yet, gender had a signiﬁcant effect as the males increased
their time to peak velocity and the high velocity group increased their time to peak
velocity. No variable predicted time to peak velocity.

Since the inception of this study, other research has been published which ties in with

the results of the current study. Liow and Hopkins (2003), using slow training and

‘ v—T‘T'T-

explosive training with a control group, found that all groups improved strength and

sprint performance, but they concluded that slow weight training was more effective than

 

explosive training for improving acceleration when force is high throughout the
movement. This could help to explain why the high velocity group had an increase in I
time to peak velocity. This does not agree with earlier studies such as Morrissey,
Harman, Frykman, and Han (1998) who found that their fast group improved strength
most at the faster velocities, while the slow group’s strength changes were consistent
across the velocities tested. Liow and Hopkins also agree with the ﬁndings of Stone et al.
(2003) that to improve jumping power, one should shift from lighter to heavier loads.
The result for time to peak velocity does not make obvious sense on the surface and
more research will have to be done to determine why males and the high velocity group
increased their time to peak velocity. Newton et al. (1996) suggested that fast movements
with light loads do not approximate movements in sports such as a throw because the
resistance is not accelerated throughout the movement. This agrees with the ﬁndings of
Cronin, McNair, and Marshall (2003) who examined force and velocity with loads of 30,
40, 50, 60, 70, and 80% of 1 RM and found the expected result that force increases and

velocities decreases as weight is increased. They concluded that the advantage of the

57

 

 

slower, heavier weight is that it removes the elastic energy from the movement. The
advantage of lighter weights is that the acceleration/deceleration proﬁle is similar to that
encountered in an athletic environment.
metical Implications for Coaghg
What are the implications for the practitioner from this study? The most relevant

result is no difference in change in 1 RM or peak velocity occurs if a person trains with

 

high force or high velocity and there will likely be a signiﬁcant change no matter which E
training method is used. This ﬁnding is similar to Hoffman et al. (2004) who found that

Olympic and traditional powerlifting produced statistically identical results for six

different ﬁeld measures related to football. Since training with one method provides no i

beneﬁt over the other, this author suggests that people weight train using both methods.
This would be equivalent to doing contrast training which was supported by several
studies in the review of literature. This has the added beneﬁt of increased variety when
using other methods of resistance training. Baker (2003) found an increase in power
output by alternating heavy and light resistances. These are two very good reasons to use

both high velocity and high force alternately when doing resistance training.

58

APPENDICES

59

Appendix A

60

Appendix A

INFORMED WRITTEN CONSENT FORM

COMPARISON OF SELECTED KINETIC VALUES OF

TWO DIFFERENT WEIGHT TRAINING METHODS

For the participants/parents (of subject under 18 years of age) in the study ofdiﬂerent

modalities of weight training

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between various biomechanical

measures (e. g. weight lifted, peak velocity, time to peak velocity) and how these measures
change in relation to the method of weight training. This study will take 13 weeks to
complete.

Each participant will be randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups and train two

un-nj

times a week for eight weeks. One treatment group will do one set of 10 repetitions of the
seated shoulder press using 35% of their one repetition maximum (1 RM) with their
maximum repetition frequency and the other treatment group will do one set using 80% of
their 1 RM for the seated shoulder press attempting to complete up to 10 repetitions with
their normal repetition frequency. Each training session will take approximately one minute
to complete.

Items of Consent:

1.

You have read the purpose of the study.

2. The names of the participants will not be associated with any publication and/or

presentation of the data collected in this study.

Videotapes will be taken of your (child’s) performances and that these tapes may
be used for demonstrations, instruction, and study.

Participation in this study does not guarantee any beneﬁcial results.

If you (your child and/or yourself) would like additional information and have
questions about this study, you may contact the investigators at 623-6001 for
further explanations and answers to your questions.

You (your child and/or yourself) may receive a copy of your child’s personal
assessment data after the study has been completed.

You (your child) will not receive any extra credit for participating in this study.
You (your child has) have no history of prior injuries that could be aggravated by
participation in this study.

There is always a slight risk of injury when people are involved with weight
training. If you are injured as a result of your participation in this research project,
Michigan State University will assist you in obtaining medical care if necessary
for your research related injuries. If you have insurance for this medical care,
your insurance carrier may be billed in the ordinary manner. You will be
reimbursed by (MSU or another payee) for non-covered research related medical
expenses, including deductibles. This does not mean you are giving up any legal
rights you may have. You may contact Dr. Eugene W. Brown (517) 353-6491
with any questions.

61

10. You (your child) will be asked to do a self-assessment of his or her Tanner stag
using the drawings below. This is important to the study because maturity will
impact the hormonal effect of resistance training. Participants will only see the
drawing of their own gender.

in A ill ‘

2

2 / . .
ii 131/ 3 i l
l i\ \ l _ ) I

N

h.

 

4 4 4

l 21"}
1 i\ r

,V t

.p ‘ "Kg; ’
ll i\ i “'1'"

11. The participants are free to discontinue involvement in this study at any time
without penalty.

12. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

13. If you have any questions about this study, please contact Jerome Learman by
phone (517) 623-6001, by email (learmanj @msu.edu) or by regular mail PO Box
162, Dansville, MI 48819 or Dr. Eugene W. Brown by phone (517) 353-6491, by
email (ewbrown@msu.edu) or by regular mail 204 IM Sports Circle, East
Lansing, MI 48824. If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a
study participant, or are dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this study, you
may contact —— anonymously, if you wish — Ashir Kumar, M.D., Chair of the
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (U CRIHS) by
phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular
mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

14. You freely consent to (allow your child to) take part in this scientiﬁc study being
conducted by Jerome M. Learman and Dr. Eugene W. Brown of Michigan State

 

 

 

 

University.
Signature of participant Date Phone number of participant
Signature of parent (guardian) Date Phone number of parent! guardian

62

INFORMED WRITTEN ASSENT FORM

COMPARISON OF SELECTED KINETIC VALUES OF

TWO DIFFERENT WEIGHT TRAINING METHODS

For the participants (under 18 years of age) in the study of
different modalities of weight training

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between various biomechanical
measures (e. g. weight lifted, peak velocity, time to peak velocity) and how these measures
change in relation to the method of weight training. This study will take 13 weeks to
complete.

Each participant will be randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups and train two
times a week for eight weeks. One treatment group will do one set of 10 repetitions of the
seated shoulder press using 35% of their one repetition maximum (1 RM) with their
maximum repetition frequency and the other treatment group will do one set using 80% of
their 1 RM for the seated shoulder press attempting to complete up to 10 repetitions with
their normal repetition frequency. Each training session will take approximately one minute
to complete.

Items of Consent:

1. You have read the purpose of the study.

2. The names of the participants will not be associated with any publication and/or
presentation of the data collected in this study.

3. Videotapes will be taken of your performances and that these tapes may be used
for demonstrations, instruction, and study.

4. Participation in this study does not guarantee any beneﬁcial results.

5. If you would like additional information and have questions about this study, you
may contact the investigators at 623-6001 for further explanations and answers to
your questions.

6. You may receive a copy of your personal assessment data after the study has been
completed.

7. You will not receive any extra credit for participating in this study.

8. You (your child has) have no history of prior injuries that could be aggravated by
participation in this study.

9. There is always a slight risk of injury when people are involved with weight
training. If you are injured as a result of your participation in this research project,
Michigan State University will assist you in obtaining medical care if necessary
for your research related injuries. If you have insurance for this medical care,
your insurance carrier may be billed in the ordinary manner. You will be
reimbursed by (MSU or another payee) for non-covered research related medical
expenses, including deductibles. This does not mean you are giving up any legal
rights you may have. You may contact Dr. Eugene W. Brown (517) 353-6491
with any questions.

63

10. You asked to do a self-assessment of your Tanner stage. This is important to the
study because maturity will impact the hormonal effect of resistance training.

11. The participants are free to discontinue involvement in this study at any time
without penalty.

12. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

13. If you have any questions about this study, please contact Jerome Learman by
phone (517) 623-6001, by email (learmanj@msu.edu) or by regular mail PO Box
162, Dansville, MI 48819 or Dr. Eugene W. Brown by phone (517) 353-6491, by
email (ewbrown@msu.edu) or by regular mail 204 IM Sports Circle, East
Lansing, MI 48824. If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a
study participant, or are dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this study, you
may contact — anonymously, if you wish — Ashir Kumar, M.D., Chair of the
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (U CRIHS) by
phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular
mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

14. You freely consent to take part in this scientiﬁc study being conducted by Jerome
M. Learman and Dr. Eugene W. Brown of Michigan State University.

 

Signature of participant Date Phone number of participant

Appendix B

65

Appendix B

FITRO DYNE PC

Adopted from the WEBA Sports web site: http://www.weba-sport.com/ﬁtro_dyne.html,
July 2004).

PRINCIPLE

Fitro dyne is a system working on the simple principle of mechanics saying that
actual force is a product of acceleration and mass. (Since the velocity and acceleration
change during the lifting exercise, so does the actual force and also the other variables,

e. g. power. Therefore, lifting the same weight in a more dynamic way with pronounced
acceleration produces a higher peak force than a slowly performed lift. Also counter
movement exercise produces much higher peaks than lift from rest position. Differences
in parameters like force and power (which may be well quantiﬁed by this system) due to
different physiological mechanisms involved in control of muscle contraction. One may,
therefore, expect also different adaptation patterns.)

Acceleration of vertical movements (above or below g) is being obtained by
derivation of vertical velocity, measured by highly precise analogue device mechanically
coupled with a barbell or weights of an exercise machine (also complex lifting movement
like clean and jerk or snatch can be monitored). In addition, power is being calculated as
a product of force and velocity, the actual position by integration of velocity.

However, to be able to carry out these calculations, you have to enter mass of
barbell or weights on the exercise machine ﬁrst.

CONSTRUCTION

Technically the system consists of 2 functional components, a sensor and an
electronic unit, stored in a small box of about 28x13x7, 5 cm.

The sensor unit contains a precise analog velocity sensor and an infrared impulse
sensor with resolution of 3 mm. Both are mechanically coupled with the reel. While
pulling the tether out of the reel, this rotates and velocity is being measured. Back
movement of the reel is guaranteed by string producing force of about 2 N. The tether can
be pulled out to the distance of about 2.5 meter.

The other end of the tether is to be connected by means of a small hook either to
the barbell axis or to the weights of the weight exercise machine. The attachment is easy
and does not take more than several seconds.

The electronic box contains the signal modiﬁcation part, a 12 bit AD converter
and an acoustic device for differential signalization of reaching preset lower and upper
positions during exercise (range of motion) as well as decrease of power under preset
level. Use of signalization is optional, you can switch it on or off in a software setup.

The electronic box communicates with the computer by means of COMl. You
can use any IBM-compatible computer (even 286); clock speed does not play any role.
The only requirement is a VGA card and a VGA monitor (color or monochrome).

66

SOFTWARE

Comprehensive software allows you to collect, calculate and on-line display the
basic biomechanical parameters involved with the weight exercise. Of course you can
store the data for further analyses of single repetitions or the whole set.

During the diagnostic measurement a movement of symbolic barbell axis and
graph of any of derived parameter, i.e. velocity, force, power or acceleration. After each
repetition you receive a summary of mean and peak data in digital form, separately for
eccentric and concentric phase.

The calibration of the system is software driven and basically very simple. This is
due to simultaneous registration of velocity and distance. According to instructions on the
screen you only have to pull the tether the deﬁned distance between 50 and 100 cm
(system calibrates the distance) and then to pull at least 50 cm with medium velocity
(system calibrates the velocity). The calibration is in fact stable, a recalibration is
necessary only if you use an exercise machine, in which - due to other than 1:1 levering -
the weights are moved with different velocity than axis at which force is being applied. In
this case you move the axis while performing calibration.

Producer:
FiTRONiC

67

 

Appendix C

68

Appendix C

SAMPLE OF DATA COLLECTED FROM A PARTICIPANT PERFORMING

THE SEATED SHOULD PRESS

A graph of this information is at the end of the data set

0 Name = Hour - participant number — week - day of the week

0 Therefore this is:
0 3rd hour
0 participant 3

o the 5th week of the study,

0 the 2nd day of training that week

0 Inclination: 0 grades: The weight moved vertically up and down, not at an angle.

0 Weight is the weight lifted in kilograms. This participant is lifting 11kg.

Bold text is concentric movement and normal text is eccentric movement. Therefore, the
data represent the ﬁrst of ten complete repetitions beginning with concentric contraction
and ending with eccentric contraction.

Name: 3-3-5-2
Inclination: 0 grades
Date: 23.10.2003
Time: 12:15:42
Weight: 11

Time (ms)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

100
110
120
1 30
1 40
150
160
1 70
1 80
1 90
200
210
220

Speed

(cm/s)

2.4
6.9
10.1
15.4
20.6
27.1
34.4
42.5
51.3
61 .1
71 .6
82.1
92.6
102.7
112.4
120.9
128.6
135
140.3
143.9
147.2

69

Acceleration
(m/sZ)
0
2.4
4.4
3.2
5.3
5.3
6.5
7.3
8.1
8.9
9.7
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.1
9.7
8.5
7.7
6.5
5.3
3.6
3.2

Force
(N)
107.9
134.6
156.8
143.5
165.7
165.7
179.1
1 88
196.9
205.8
214.7
223.5
223.5
223.5
219.1
214.7
201.3
192.4
1 79.1
1 65.7
147.9
143.5

Power

(W)
o

3.3
10.8
14.5
25.5
34.2
48.5
64.6
83.6

105.7
131
1 60
183.5
207
225
241.3
243.4
247.4
241 .8
232.5
212.9
211 .2

Distance
(cm)
0

0

0

0

0
0.5
0.5
1
1.5
2.1
2.6
3.1
4.1
5.1
6.2
7.2
8.7
10.3
1 1.3
12.8
14.4
15.9

230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
31 0
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
41 0
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
51 0
520
530
540
550
560
570
580
590
600
61 0
620
630
640
650
660
670
680
690
700
71 0
720

150.4
152.4
154.5
155.7
156.1
156.1
156.5
156.5
156.9
157.3
157.7
157.7
157.3
156.9
156.1
155.7
154.9
153.6
151.6
148.8
144.7
139.5
132.2
123.3
112.4
99.1
83.7
65.9
45.3
25.1
5.3
-12.1
-29.1
-42.5
-56.6
-69.9
-84.9
-99.1
-114.4
-129
-143.9
-158.5
-172.6
—186
-198.5
-209.8
-218.3
-223.6
-223.6
-218.3

70

3.2

1 .2
0.4

0.4

0.4
0.4
0.4

-o.4
-o.4
-0.8
-o.4
-0.8
-1.2

-2.8

-5.3
-7.3
-8.9
-10.9
-13.3
-15.4
-17.8
-20.6
-20.2
-19.8
-17.4
-17
-13.3
-14.2
-13.3
-15
-14.2
-15.4
-14.6
-15
-14.6
-14.2
-13.3
-12.5
-11.3
-8.5
-5.3

5.3

143.5
130.1
130.1
121.3
112.4
107.9
112.4
107.9
112.4
112.4
112.4
107.9
103.5
103.5
99
103.5
99
94.6
85.7
76.8
63.4
50.1
27.9
10.1
-12.2
-38.9
-61.1
-87.8
-118.9
-114.5
-110
-83.3
-78.9
-38.9
-47.8
-38.9
-56.6
-47.8
-61 .1
-52.2
-56.6
-52.2
-47.8
-38.9
-30
-16.6
14.5
50.1
107.9
165.7

215.8
1 98.4
201

1 88.7
175.4
1 68.4
175.8
1 68.8
1 76.3
1 76.7
177.2
170.2
1 62.7
1 62.3
154.5
161.1
1 53.3
145.3
129.9
114.2
91.8
69.9
36.8
1 2.4
-13.7
-38.5
-51.1
-57.9
-53.8
-28.7
-5.8
10.1
23
16.5
27
27.2
48.1
47.3
69.9
67.3
81 .5
82.7
82.4
72.3
59.5
34.9
-31 .7
-1 12
-241 .3
-361 .8

17.5

19
20.5
22.1
23.6
25.2
26.7
28.2
29.8
31 .3
32.9
34.4
35.9

38

39
41 .1
42.1
44.2
45.2
47.2
48.3
49.8
51.4
52.4
53.4
54.4
55.5

56
56.5
56.5
56.5
56.5

56
55.5
54.9
54.4
53.4
52.4
51 .4
49.8
48.3
46.7
45.2
43.1
41 .1

39
36.5
34.4
31 .8
29.8

 

730
740
750
760
770
780
790
800
810
820
830
840

-210.7
-202.2
-185.6
-172.6
-152.8
-133
-105.9
-84.5
-55.8
-34.4
-8.9
12.5

71

7.7

8.5
16.6
12.9
19.8
19.8
27.1
21.4
28.7
21.4
25.5
21.4

192.4
201.3
290.3
250.2
325.8
325.8
405.9
343.6
423.7
343.6
388.1
343.6

-405.3
-407
-538.7
-432
-498
-433.4
—430
~290.4
-236.4
-1 18.1
-34.5
43.1

27.7
25.7
23.6
22.1
20.5

19
18.5
17.5
16.9
16.9
16.9
16.9

 

 

 

sz meow; ., 33.5 5:96.686? - - - E88 33ml

 

:Eovoocmﬁﬁ. - - - A>>v526d

 

as:
- 8o-

2? -iiiiiii.i.i iiliiiiii i Iii i. i. .il OOVI

. com-

 

 

 

 

 

 

r oom

 

 

 

 

“3...... ..e
r l w i , ii 11‘ i,i. I -- 84

 

r com

88 .o £35

72

Appendix D

73

Appendix D
GUIDELINES FOR THE SHOULDER PRESS

Adopted from the Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning (Baechle, 1994).

Beginning Position

Grasp Handles with a closer pronated grip.

Sit or stand and assume a ﬂat back position.
Position feet on the ﬂoor or on the rungs of the seat.
Focus eyes straight ahead.

Upward Movement Phase
0 Push handles up.
0 Keep elbows pointed out to sides until arms are fully extended.
0 Maintain body position.
0 Do not forcefully lock out elbows.

Downward Movement Phase
0 Lower handles slowly and under control to shoulder level.
0 Do not jerk or bounce at bottom of movement.

Breathing

o Exhale through the sticking point of the upward movement phase.
0 Inhale on the downward movement phase.

74

WERE! 3- ... “-an

Appendix E

75

Appendix E
PERSONAL DATA SHEET

Name

 

Date of Birth /__/___

Athletic Playing Experience (please list every sport played in school or out of school by
year, starting with kindergarten)

S rtPla ed Year in school

 

 

INFORMATION BELOW IS TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE RESEARCHERS

Anthropometric Data

 

Standing height (mm) Sitting height (mm)
Arm length (mm) Weight (kg)
Weight used for 1 RM shoulder press (lbs) in (kg)

 

Name of computer ﬁle(s) with velocity data:

 

76

0 You are being asked to self assess your sexual maturity.
- You can use the pictures below and the descriptions.
0 Try to pick the picture that looks the most like you.

3 3 ?
Enlargement of breast, areola.

Areola rises above rest of breast.

Areola no longer projects from breast.

/:
\\

OM,

/l

N
>— -

N
M
...—W

MW

‘y '1

Female scoring
Same as in childhood.
Breast buds visible.

2:,-
:\\__:,\/

P‘PP’NT‘

Circle The Tanner Stage 1-5 that most resembles yourself:

1 2 3 4

77

0 You are being asked to self assess your sexual maturity.
0 You can use the pictures below and the descriptions.
0 Try to pick the picture that looks the most like you.

Male scoring

Same as in childhood.
Enlargement of-testes, scrotum.
Penis lengthened.

Scrotum darkened, penis width increases, glands develop.
Pubic hair spreads to medial aspect of thighs.

V‘PF’N?‘

Circle The Tanner Stage 1-5 that most resembles yourself:

78

Appendix F

79

Appendix F

MEASUREMENT GUIDELINES

Adopted from the Anthropometric Standardization Reference Manual (Lohman, Roche, and
Martorell, 1988).

Weight: An electronic scale will be used. The participant stands on the center of the scale’s
platform with body weight evenly distributed over both feet. The participant will wear gym
shorts, appropriate undergarments, a t-shirt and socks, but no shoes. The scale being used is

calibrated annually and is accurate to the nearest tenth of a pound or kilogram.

Standing Height: A standing anthropometer will be used. The participant will stand with
body weight evenly distributed over both feet and the head will be position horizontally.
The arms will hang freely by the sides of the trunk, with the palms facing the thighs. The
heels are placed together and the medial boarders of the feet are at about a 60-degree angle.
The participant is asked to inhale deeply and maintain posture. Height will be measured
from the highest point on the head with sufﬁcient pressure to compress the hair. The
participant will wear socks, but no shoes.

Arm Girth: A steel tape will be used. The participant stands with the right arm abducted,
elbow ﬂexed, and the forearm supinated. The tape is positioned around the arm. The
participant is them requested to clench the ﬁst, fully ﬂex the elbow and contract the biceps
as strongly as possible. The tapes is then positioned so that it is perpendicular to the long
axis of the arm and located at the place of maximum circumference.

Arm length: An anthropometer will be used. The participant will stand with body weight
evenly distributed over both feet and the head will be positioned horizontally. The right arm
will be measured at about a 70-degree angle to the ground. The left arm will hang freely by
the side of the trunk. Both palms will be facing the thighs. The heels are placed together
and the medial boarders of the feet are about at a 60-degree angle. The participant is asked
to maintain posture. Length will be measured from the acrommial process to the end of the
third digit.

8O

Appendix G

81

Appendix G

BI-WEEKLY PHYSICAL ACTIVITY LOG

 

 

 

 

Bi-Weekly Physical Activity Log for: Date:

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
Activities: Activities: Activities: Activities: Activities: Activities: Activities:
1: l: 1: 1: 1: 1: l:

2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2.
Intensity: Intensity: Intensity: Intensity: Intensity: Intensity: Intensity:
1. 1. 1. l. 1. l. 1.

2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2.
Minutes: Minutes: Minutes: Minutes: Minutes: Minutes: Minutes:
1. 1. 1. l. l. 1. 1.

2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2.
Activities: Activities: Activities: Activities: Activities: Activities: Activities:
1: l: 1: l: 1: 1: 1:

2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2.
Intensity: Intensity: Intensity: Intensity: Intensity: Intensity: Intensity:
1. l. l. l. l. 1. 1.

2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2.
Minutes: Minutes: Minutes: ' Minutes: Minutes: Minutes: Minutes:
1. l 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1.

2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. List your daily activities. If you need to, use more than one sheet per day and
staple them together.

2. Assign each an intensity level - (low, med, high).

3. Indicate how many minutes each activity lasted.

Low intensity exercises include easy walking, household chores, light gardening, etc.
Moderate intensity exercises include brisk walking or easy jogging, moderately paced
bicycling, etc., and high intensity exercises include fast running, lap swimming, jumping

rcpe, heavy liﬁing, etc.

Adopted from the Let's Get Moving web site:

http://commtechlab.msu.edu/sites/letsnet/Frames/Subj ects/health/b8u4ll .htrnl

82

 

Appendix H

83

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5:. 2% 3.2 ...... ......m :5. ...m...
.8 ..2 3% 59.3 82 -.<
.5 .....m 3.3. .....o :5. o...
R. mm... 39m .055 2%
...... om... . ..3 2......» t5
.5 :8 .32 ...ws: E
2». MO.©N — m — 6v Eva-20m 9 ohm 80¢ 530—0.» Java 9 083 E Mucus-U >n:-U
280 :..~ 3.3 .m2-.mom 9 0.5 So... .3622, xmoa E owcmnu >mU
.... MS 2.... .838. o. e.. as. E. . ... 3.35 3.5
we 8. . n 3.. ... 3.8.3 v...»... o. as: 32.8.. mi
2.... 2.2 one: 28.3 3.8.. 32.8.. 20>
m... 2.8 :23 .5. ...o 838.. 25.
.m. w... 9.8.. 9.8.5 ..0
we $.22 2.2... 5.8.? V...... o. 08:- aaé. Se
2.8 3.2 2.8. .28.? V...“... .83... ..o>
.... 2.2 3.. 23. . .o 52...... .32
. uoﬁGDO :00
31—3 €033.59 whausaam ﬂue—Z 036:5? ﬂotagohnajy
8.. 2. .- mm... 2... 2 . .- 2... .....- OS.- 2... N2. 2....- .m... am.- ..o... an- 9.....- ...... am...
.3..- ...... E. ...N. 8... ....N. 2.... .8. on... a..- N2. .9... m8. 8.“.- .s .. 8m. mom. .2
mm... 3N. co. gm. cmm. omw. one. 5m. 3%. Sb. 2 .. mm... Rem.- mmo. Km; new. mom. 9..
2... 2m. gm. 8.. 2.... N2. an. .2... E. m8.- 2... ....m. a... ...... .8... mm. 5. E
o:- 8... CNN. ...... 8.. an. 2.... a... as. 2... h . M. N2. ..8. a. _ .- .5. mm. .8... E
2... a... a... RN. 2.”. 8.. a... ... _. .m... 8m. 2.... .... .. 8...- m8. .....- ...... 8N. E
o. n- 2.... E... .2... .3. m2.- o... ...... on... 8.. 2... .2. a... 2...- R... .....m. 3... it
2.... ...~. Sm. 3. m8. ... _. so. ...... 3. ....m. t... .3... ....o. .8. .2.- Sn 5 _ N. >..c
mwor omm. 3%. K .. omm. .3. ON... 9&2 co. mm»: m _ m. 3%. 95. v0. .- moor mm... .3. Emu
N8. 2... R... E... mmo. Sm. 8.. 3m. 2m. 8.. 5.- ..o. ..... 8... ca. 2....- ..a. Ni
2:..- Nmm. o. .. co... 2m. 96. mm... to. Em. 5mm. cc. moo. m3: ~00. m2. 2... 3%. 26>
.9..- .om. mm... 2%. mmm. om .. .3. wow. 2%. _ 5. mac. cc. mmo. 8m.- nvo. 9.0. w»... N2”.
am.- m... 8m. 2.... ..S. 2....- ..2. ...... 2.... .... NE. a... 8.. m... .- oz. 3.. ...8. .5
.3... com; mmo. .mm: mm..- mmm. 0mm: .omr 2...- Nov. momr m¢m.- we..- so. Now-.- 20. vmmr _>..
mm.- ..2. RN.- 8... 2m. .....- a... .2.- 8... an. 2.. 2.... .5. New- 8.. .2. am. ....>
co?- mom. mow. mmm. mmm. wxo. omm. Em. wt! owo. N _ n. 33. m8. Rm: mmc. co. mmn. .52
......- ma. m2. 5. 3... 8m. 3.... :N. .8. ...N. own 2.. m8. EN.- owm. NE. 8.. so
am... .< o... E is E 2.8 >..o 25 NE 20> Q... ..o .i ...> .5... So

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmAm<—¢<> GthQOm ...—O mZOF—kjgou I. I 56:09:.

 

Correlation Values of Variables Used in Regression

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time __Afm
PV t9 Tanner Arm Arm Skin
1 RM — 3y Gender Height Weight Stage Girth Length fgL
1 RM 1.000 .692 .011 .778 .180 .252 .348 .485 .391 -.451
W" .692 1.000 -.237 .580 -.045 .317 .406 .110 .552 -.487
:3? to .011 -.237 1.000 .216 .302 .085 .023 .077 - 123 .052
Gender .778 .580 .216 1.000 .200 .493 .257 .365 .595 -.414
Height .180 -045 .302 .200 1.000 .285 .252 .830 .204 .686
Weight .252 .317 .085 .493 .285 1.000 .045 .220 .800 -.170
Tanner
Sta .348 .406 -.023 .257 .252 .045 1.000 .387 .216 .055
g6
Arm 7
Girth .485 .1 10 .077 .365 .830 .220 .387 1.000 .274 .4.8
Arm
Length .391 .552 -.123 .595 .204 .800 .216 .274 1.000 -.l96
Arm - 451 - 487 052 414 686 170 055 428 196 1 000
Skinfold - o 6 -o . -- - o -- 0
PV = Peak Velocity
Correlation Values for Males of Variables Used in Regression
Time Tanner Arm Arm Arm
1 RM PX to PV Height Weight Stage Girth Length Skinfold
1 RM 1.000 .621 -.508 -.020 -.057 .255 .413 .185 -.323
W“ .621 1.000 -.759 -.608 -.125 .085 -.266 .418 -.661
33‘1“" -.508 -.759 1.000 .363 .019 -.016 .049 -.487 .295
Height -.020 -.608 .363 1.000 .134 —.137 .872 -.227 .864
Weight -.057 -.125 .019 .134 1.000 -.544 .072 .621 -.135
Tanner
Stage .255 .085 -.016 -. 137 -.554 1.000 .127 -.100 -.016
Ann Girth .413 -.266 .049 .872 .072 .127 1.000 -.086 .667
Arm
Length .185 .418 -.487 -.227 .621 -.100 -.086 1.000 -.286
Arm
Skinfold -.323 -.661 .295 .864 -.135 -.016 .667 -.286 1.000

 

PV = Peak velocity.

85

Correlation Values for Females of Variables Used in Regression

 

 

Time Tanner Arm Arm Arm
1 RM ﬂy to PV Height Weight Stage Girth Length Skinfold
1 RM 1.000 .281 .354 .204 -.604 .301 .254 -.593 .084
W" .281 1.000 -.120 .288 .164 .507 -.009 .205 .122
:33? ‘0 .354 -. 120 1.000 .126 -.067 -.150 -.065 —.249 -.095
Height .204 .288 .126 1.000 .381 .581 .788 .366 .867
Weight -.604 .164 -.O67 .381 1.000 .164 .033 .777 .258
Tanner
Stage .301 .507 -.150 .581 .164 1.000 .033 .777 .258
Arm Girth .254 -.009 -.065 .788 .033 .490 1.000 .173 .748
Arm
Length -.593 .205 -.249 .366 .777 .161 .173 1.000 .394
Ann
Skinfold .084 .122 -.095 .867 .258 .451 .748 .394 1.000

 

* PV = Peak velocity.

86

BIBLIOGRAHPY

87

BIBLIOGRAHPY

Apor, P. (1987). Measurement of mechanical performance of human skeletal muscle
under natural movements. Medicine and Sport Science 26, 174-186.

Baechle, T. R. (Ed.). (1994). Essentials of strength and conditioning. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.

Baker D. (2003). Acute effect of alternating heavy and light resistances on power output
during upper-body complex power training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research 17(3), 493 — 497.

Behm, D. G. (1991). An analysis of intermediate speed resistance exercises for velocity-
speciﬁc strength gains. Journal of Applied Sports Science Research 5(1), 1-5.

Behm, D. G. & Sale, D. G. (1993). Velocity speciﬁcity of resistance training. Sports
Medicine 15(6), 374-388.

Behm, D. G. & Sale, D. G. (1993b). Intended rather than actually movement velocity
determines velocity speciﬁc response. Journal of Applied Physiology 74 (I), 359-368.

Bell, G. J. & Wenger, H. A. (1992). Physiological adaptations to velocity controlled
resistance training. Sports Medicine 13(4), 234-244.

Bloomﬁeld, J ., Blanksby, B. A., Ackland, T. R., & Allison, G. T. (1990). The inﬂuence
of strength training on overhead throwing velocity of elite water polo players.
Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 22(3), 63-67.

Caiozzo, V. J ., Perrine, J. J ., & Edgerton, V. R. (1981). Training-induced alterations of
the in vivo force-velocity relationship of human muscle. Journal of Applied
Physiology 51(3), 750-754.

Carpinelli, R. (1997). More on multiple sets and muscular fatigue. Master Trainer 7(1),
15-17.

Carpinelli, R. N. & Otto, R. M. (1998). Strength training. Single versus multiple sets.
Sports Medicine 26(2), 73-84.

Coyle, E. F., Feiring, D. C., Rotkis, T. C., Cote HI, R. W., Roby, F. B., Lee. W., &
Wilrnore, J. H. (1981). Speciﬁcity of power improvements through slow and fast
isokinetic training. Journal of Applied Physiology 51(6), 1437-1442.

Cronin, J ., McNair, P. J ., & Marshall, R. N. (2001a). Developing explosive power: A

comparison of technique and training. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 4(1),
59-70.

88

Cronin, J ., McNair, P. J ., & Marshall, R. N. (2001b). Developing explosive power: A
comparison of technique and training. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 4(2),
168-1 78.

Cronin, J ., McNair, P. J ., & Marshall, R. N. (2003). Force-velocity analysis of strength-
training techniques and load: Implications for training strategy and research. Journal
of Strength and Conditioning Research 1 7(1), 148-155.

Duchateau, J. & Hainaut, K. (1984). Isometric or dynamic training differential effects on
mechanical properties of a human muscle. Journal of Applied Physiology 56(2), 296-
301.

Duke, P., Iris, 1., & Shasby, G. B. (1980). Adolescents’ self-assessment of sexual
maturation. Pediatrics 66, 918-920.

Duthie, G. M., Young, W. B., & Aitken, D. A. (2002). The acute effects of heavy loads
on jump squat performance: An evaluation of the complex and contrast methods of
power development. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 16 (4), 530-538.

Enoka, R. (1988). Muscle strength and its development. Sports Medicine 6, 146-168.

Ewing, J. L., Wolfe, R., Rogers, M. A., Amundson, M. L., & Still, G. A. (1990). Effects
of velocity of isokinetic training on strength, power, and quadriceps muscle ﬁber
characteristics. European Journal of Applied Physiology 61, 159-162.

Fields, D. A., Bemben, M. G., & Mayhew, J. L. (1997). The inﬂuence of muscle group
location and race on the relationship between muscle strength and power. Journal of
Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness (3 7), 24-31.

Hakkinen, K., Komi, P.V., & Alen, M. (1985). Effect of explosive type strength training
on isometric force and relaxation-time electromyographic and muscle ﬁbre
characteristics of legs extensor muscles. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica 125, 587-
600.

Hakkinen, K., & Pakarinen, A. (1995). Acute hormonal responses to heavy resistance
exercise in men and women at different ages. International Journal of Sports
Medicine 16(8), 507-513.

Hakkinen, K., & Pakarinen, A. (1993). Acute hormonal responses to two different
fatiguing heavy-resistance protocols in male athletes. Journal of Applied Physiology
74(2), 882-887.

Harris, G. R., Stone, M. H., O’Braynt, H. S., Proulx, C. M., & Johnson, R (2000). Short-

terrn performance effects of high power, high force, or combined weight training
methods. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 14 (1), 14-20.

89

Hoffman, J. R., C00per, J ., Wendell, M., & Kang, J. (2004). Comparison of Olympic vs.
traditional powerlifting training programs in football players. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research 18(1), 129-135.

Jones, K., Bishop, P., Hunter, G., & Fleisig, G. (2001). The effect of vary resistance
training loads on intermediate and high velocity speciﬁc adaptations. The Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research 15(3), 349-356.

Kanehsia, H., & Mitusmasa, M. (1983). Speciﬁcity of velocity in strength training.
European Journal of Applied Physiology 52, 104- 1 06.

Keeler, L. A., Finkelstein, L. J ., Miller, W., & Femhall, B. (2001). Early-phase
adaptations of traditional speed vs. superslow resistance training on strength and
aerobic capacity in sedentary individuals. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research 15(3), 309-314.

Kraemer, W. J ., Fry, A. C., Warren, B. J ., Stone, M. H., Fleck, S. J ., Kearney, J. T.,
Conroy, B. P, Maresh, C. M., Wiseman, C. A., & Triplett. N. T. (1992). Acute
hormonal responses in elite junior weightlifters. International Journal of Sports
Medicine 13(2), 103-109.

Kraemer, W. J ., Hakkinen, K., Newton, R. U., McCormick, M., Nindl, B. C., Volek, J.
S., Gotshalk, L. A., Fleck, S. J ., Campbell, W. W., Gordon, S. E., Farrell, P. A., &
Evans, W. J. (1998). Acute hormonal responses to heavy resistance exercise in
younger and older men. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational

Physiology 77(3), 206-211.

Kraemer, W. J ., Gordon, S. E., Fleck, S. J ., Marchitelli, L. J ., Mello, R., Dziados, J. E.,
Fried], K., Harman, E., Maresh, C., & Fry, A. C. (1991). Endogenous anabolic
hormonal and growth factor responses to heavy resistance exercise in males and
females. International Journal of Sports Medicine 12(2), 228-235.

Kraemer, W. J. & Newton, R. U. (1994). Training for improved vertical jump. Sport
Science Exchange 7(6), 1-5.

Lesmes, G. R., Costill, D. L. Coyle, E. F., & Fink, W. J. (1978). Muscle strength and
power changes during maximal isokinetic training. Medicine and Science in Sports
10(4), 266-269.

Let's Get Moving, Keeping a Physical Activity Log (n.d.). Retrieved August 8, 2003, from
http://commtech1ab.msu.edu/sites/letsnet/Frames/Subjects/health/b8u4l1 .html.

Lillegard, W. A., Brown, E. W., Wilson, D. J ., Henderson, R., & Lewis, B. (1997).

Efﬁcacy of strength training in prepubescent to early post pubescent males and
females: Effects of gender and maturity. Pediatric Rehabilitation 1(3), 147-157.

90

Liow, D. R. & Hopkins, W. G. (2003). Velocity speciﬁcity of weight training for kayak
sprint performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 35(7), 1232-1237.

Matuszak, M. E., Fry, A. C., Weiss, L. W., Ireland, T. R., & McKnight, M, M. (2003).
Effect of rest interval length of repeated 1 repetition maximum back squats. Journal
of Strength and Conditioning Research 1 7(4), 634-637.

Moffroid, M. T. & Whipple, R. H. (1970). Speciﬁcity of speed of exercise. Physical
Therapy 50(12), 1692-1700.

Morrissey, M. C., Harman, E. A., Frykman, P. N., & Han, K. H. (1998). Early phase
differential effects of slow and fast barbell squat training. The American Journal of
Sports Medicine 26, 221-230

Morrissey, M. C., Harman, E. A., & Johnson, M. J. (1995). Resistance training modes:
speciﬁcity and effectiveness. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 27(5),
648-660.

Newton, R. U., Kraemer, W. J ., Hakkinen, K., Humphries, B. J ., & Murphy, A. J. (1996).
Kinematics, kinetics, and muscle activation during upper body movements. Journal
of Applied Biomechanics 12, 31-43.

Newton, R. U. & Kraemer, W. J. (1994). Developing explosive muscular power:
Implications for a mixed methods training strategy. Strength and Conditioning 16(5),
20-21.

Newton, R. U. & McEvoy, K. P. (1994). Baseball throwing velocity: A comparison of
medicine ball training and weight training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research 8(3), 198-203.

Paavolainen, L., Hakkinen, K., Hamalainen, I., Nummela, A., & Rusko, H. (1999).
Explosive-strength training improves 5-lon nmning time by improving running
economy and muscle power. Journal of Applied Physiology 85(5), 1527-1533.

Palmitri, G. A. (1987). Weight training and repetition speed. Journal of Applied Sports
Science Research (1), 36-38.

Paulsen, G., Myklestad, D., & Raastad T. (2003). The inﬂuence of volume of exercise on
early adaptations to strength training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
17(1),115 — 120.

Prevost, M. C., Nelson, A. G., & Maraj, B. K.V. (1999). The effect of two days of

velocity-speciﬁc isokinetic training on torque production. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research 13 (1), 35-39.

91

 

Raastad, T., Bjoro, T., & Hallen, J. (2000). Hormonal responses to hi gh- and moderate-
intensity strength exercise. European Journal of Applied Physiology 82(1-2), 121-
128.

Reeves, R. K., Laskowski, E. R., & Smith, J. (1998). Weight training injuries: Part 1:
Diagnosing and managing acute conditions. The Physician and Sports Medicine
26(2). Online on 02/10/03 at:
http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/1 998/02 feb/laskow.htm.

Sale, D. G. (1988). Neural adaptation to resistance training. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise 20(5), 8135-8145.

Schlumberger, A., Stec, J ., & Schmidtbleicher, D. (2001). Single vs. multiple-set strength
training in women. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 15 (3), 284-
289.

Schmidtbleicher, D. & Haralambie, G. (1981). Changes in contractile properties of
muscle after strength training in man. European Journal of Applied Physiology and
Occupational Physiology 46 (3), 221-228.

Schwab, R., Johnson, G. 0., Housh, T. J ., Kinder, J. E., & Weir, J. P (1993). Acute
effects of different intensities of weightlifting on serum testosterone. Medicine and
Science in Sports and Exercise 25 (12), 1381-1385.

Smith, M. J. & Melton, P. (1981). Isokinetic versus isotonic variable resistance training.
American Journal of Sports Medicine 9 (4), 275-279.

Staron, R. S., Karanpondo, D. L., Kraemer, W. J ., Fry, A. G, Gordon, S. E., Falkel, J. E.,
Hagerman, D. C., & Hikida, R. S. (1994). Skeletal muscle adaptations during early
phase of heavy resistance training in men and women. Journal of Applied Physiology
76(3), 1247-1255.

Stone, M. & O’Bryant, H (1984). Weight Training: A Scientific Approach. Minneapolis,
MN: Burgess Publishing.

Stone, M. H., O’Bryant, H., & Garhammer, J. (1981). A Hypothetical model for strength
training. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 21(4), 342-352.

Stone, M. H., O’Bryant, H. S., McCoy, L., Coglianese, R., Lehmkuhl, M., & Schilling, B.
(2003). Power and maximum strength relationships during performance of dynamic
and static weighted jumps. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 1 7(1),
140-147.

Tsolakis, C., Dimosthenis, M., Stergiouloas, A., & Dessypris, A. (2000). Hormonal

responses aﬁer strength training and detraining in prepubertal and pubertal boys.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 14(4), 399-404.

92

Vanhelder, W. P., Radomski, M. W., & Goode, R. C. (1984). Growth hormone responses
during intermittent weightlifting exercise in men. European Journal of Applied
Physiology and Occupational Physiology 53(1), 31-34.

WEBA SPORTS — FIT RODYNE PC. (n.d.). Retrieved July 10, 2004, from
http://www.weba-sport.com/ﬁtro_dyne.htm1.

Westcott, W. (1996). Building Strength and Stamina. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics
1 O6.

Westcott, W. (1993, January). Does training speed affect muscle and strength
development. American Fitness Quarterly 20-21.

Westcott, W. (1991, April). Effect of lO-repetition and 20-repetiotion resistance exercise
on muscular strength and endurance. American Fitness Quarterly 25-27.

Wilson, G. J ., Newton, R. U., Murphy A., & Humphries, B. (1993). The optimal training
load for the development of dynamic athletic performance. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise 25 (1 1), 1279 -1286.

Winter, D. A. (1990). Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Wiley Interscience 178.

Young, W. (1993). Training for speed/strength: Heavy vs. light loads. National Strength
and Conditioning Association Journal 15(5), 34—42.

Young, W. B. & Bilby, G. E. (1993). The effect of voluntary effort to inﬂuence speed of
contraction on strength, muscular power, and hypertrophy development. The Journal
of Strength and Conditioning Research 7(3), 172-178.

Young, W. B., McDowell, M. H., & Scarlett, B. J. (2001). Speciﬁcity of sprint and

agility training methods. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 15(3),
3 15-3 19.

93

   

1191111111111111111111311