Yuktasir Comparison of Weight Training Methods

8/10/2019 Yuktasir Comparison of Weight Training Methods

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/yuktasir-comparison-of-weight-training-methods 1/8

COMPARISON OF WEIGHTTRAINING METHODSA comparison of the two progressive weight training methods on legstrength of high school boys.

By Bekir Yuktasir and Fehmi Tuncel

Re-printed with permission from New Studies in Athletics.

“The effect on static and dy namic leg strength of a period of eight weeks multipleset progressive isotonic resistance (MSPIR) training was compared with that of asimilar period of manual resistance (MR) training in 47 high school boys aged 16-17 years. The subjects were classified into a control group (n=16), MSPIR group

(n=16) and MR group (n=15). Standardized field tests were used to measure thesubjects’ performance within one week before and after training. Both in MSPIRand MR training methods, barbell and free weights were used and subjects usedknee extension/flexion. One-way ANOVA, paired sample T-test and Tukey testwere used to evaluate the effects of training. MSPIR and MR training methodsshowed a significant increase in dynamic leg strength (p<0.05) and static legstrength (p<0.05) but they did not differ significantly from each other. The controlgroup demonstrated no significant change in any of the measured variables.”

Bekir Yuktasir was a graduate student at the Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, Department of Physical Education and Sports. He is now

graduate assistant at the Abant Izzet Baysal University.

Or Fehmi Tuncel is Associate Professor and Chairman at the Middle EastTechnical University, Ankara, Turkey, Department of Physical Education andSports.

1 Introduction

The quest to enhance physical performance has led to very specific andmultifaceted modes of training. Through constant search, researchers haveimproved the methods and techniques used to enhance fitness levels and

athletic prowess (ALLEN/BYRD/SMITH 1976). Unfortunately isotonic strengthdevelopment techniques, unlike those of cardiovascular development, have notshared the same scientifically based specificity and are subject to muchspeculation with regard to specific sets, repetitions and rest periods. Althoughstrength is a highly valued commodity in sports and other activities, virtually notwo strength programmes employ identical systems of strength development dueto lack of knowledge regarding specific work loads, intensity, sets, repetitions,and rest duration.



The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of multiple setprogressive isotonic resistance training and manual resistance training programson leg strength and anaerobic power in male high school students aged 16 —17years. Another purpose of the study was to determine which of the trainingprograms was more effective in terms of dynamic or static strength development.

2 Methods

Two kinds of isotonic strength training were applied to the subjects: a) multipleset progressive isotonic resistance strength training and b) manual resistancestrength training. The level of the athletes’ strength was determined one weekbefore and after training.

2.1 Subjects

A total of 47 untrained healthy boys aged 16- 17 years, who were students at

Gazi Anatolian High School in Ankara, voluntarily participated in this study. Thesubjects were randomly assigned to three groups, which were called a multipleset progressive isotonic resistance group (n=16), a manual resistance group(n=15), and a control group (n —16).

2.2 Experimental protocol

The multiple set progressive isotonic resistance training method (MSPIR) and themanual resistance training method (MR) were performed 3 days a week for 8weeks. Group I was the multiple set progressive isotonic resistance (MSPIR)training group, and group II the manual resistance (MR) training group. Group Ill

was the control group. In both methods, extensor and flexor muscles of both legswere used.

2.3 Multiple set progressive isotonic resistance training programme(MSPIR)

The multiple set progressive isotonic resistance training programme (BERGER1962a, 1962b) was used for improving leg strength.

One repetition maximum (1 RM) was determined for each subject with barbelland free weights, following MCARDLE / KATCH / KATC H’s (1981) directions. A

suitable starting weight, close to but below the subject’s estimated maximumlifting capacity, was selected. If one repetition was completed, the experimenter added weight to the apparatus, until the subject reached his maximum capacity.Both legs were tested.

Subjects did warm-up exercises and appropriate stretching of involved musclegroups before exercise. Standard lifting procedure was used for the squat lifts.Subjects stood erect with the feet about shoulder width apart and placed thebarbell behind the neck and across the shoulders. They kept the head up and the



back straight. The subjects executed the lift by lowering the body until the thighswere parallel with the floor and then returning to the starting position. If necessary, as a safety device, a bench was placed behind the lifter, to allow himto sit down if balance was lost.

The multiple set progressive isotonic resistance (MSPIR) training groupperformed three sets of six repetitions with the barbell. Each of t he subject’sworkload of 80-85% of 1 repetition maximum was calculated prior to the initialtraining session. In order to perform the multiple set progressive isotonicresistance (MSPIR) training technique correctly, each subject had to be able toexecute a minimum of two sets of the required six repetitions. It was suggestedthat the subject reached concentric muscle failure on the fourth, fifth or sixthrepetition. If the subject did not fail within the specified number of repetitions onthe third set, then he increased his training load. All subjects executed all threesets of the prescribed exercise with a 90sec rest interval between sets. Thesubjects’ 1 RM and adjusted percentage load were calculated every two weeks

as progressive strength gains demanded.2.4 Manual resistance training programme (MR)

The manual resistance training technique was taken from RILEY (1978, 1982).

1 RM was determined for each subject according to MCARDLE / KATCH /KATC H’s (1981) directions. The difference fro m the multiple set progressiveisotonic resistance (MSPIR) method was that a partner was now used to supplyadded force to the weight by pushing down on the barbell during the eccentricphase of the exercise. This added (partner) resistance had to be adequately

applied so that the subject was brought down in the eccentric phase within 3-4sec. During the 3-4sec of the eccentric phase the subject had to exert maximumeffort. Subsequently the partner released the existing weight so that the subjectmoved the weight independently during the concentric phase. As the exerciseneared completion, the partner had to assist the subject through the last 3-4concentric contractions, to assure the desired eccentric failure. An importantcriterion of the manual resistance (MR) technique was that concentric musclefailure had to occur between the subject’s sixth and eighth repetition, andeccentric muscle failure between his eighth and twelfth repetition.

The subjects performed warm-up exercises and appropriate stretching of theinvolved muscle group before exercise. Standard lifting procedure was used for knee extension and flexion. The subjects performed only one set of the exercise.Each subject used a 60-65% weight load, based on his individual 1 RM, andadjusted his percentage load every two weeks as progressive strength gainsdemanded, in order to adhere to a newly established 1 RM. As the subjectsprogressively increased their maximum strength loads, the training loads alsoincreased to maintain their 60-65% training load during all workout sessions. Allassisted eccentric phases of the lift were performed at a constant rate of 3-4secwith the subject’s calculated percent of load.



2.5 Test administration

The control group was not permitted to participate in any training programmes.

However all three groups participated in pre and post test of dynamic and staticstrength tests. All measurements were taken one week before and after trainingat the same time of day.

2.6 Dynamic strength test

A barbell and free weights were used to measure dynamic strength. A suitablestarting weight, close to, but below the subject’s estimated maximum liftingcapacity was selected. If one repetition was completed, the experimenter addedweight to the barbell until the subject reached his maximum capacity. Both legswere tested. The weight increments were usually 5, 2 and 1kg during the period

of measurement (MCARDLE / KATCH / KATCH 1981).2.7 Static strength test

A Takei leg and back dynamometer was used to measure the static leg strength.The subjects stood on the dynamometer platform and crouched to the desiredleg bend position, while strapped around the waist to the dynamometer. At aprescribed time they exerted a maximum force straight upward by extending their legs. They kept their backs straight, head erect and chest high. 3 trials wereallowed to the subjects and the best score was taken. Subjects had a restbetween the trials (JENSEN / FISHER).

2.8 Statistical analysis of data

One Way ANOVA test was used to compare the differences among the means of groups. After this, the Tukey test was used to discover any significant differencesamong the measurements of the groups.

A paired t test was computed, to determine whether significant increasesoccurred within each group from the pre-test to post-test. The 0.05 level of significance was accepted in all instances. Percent difference was computed asfollows: pre-test - post-test / pre-test X 100. The statistical analysis was

accomplished by using statistical package for the social sciences (S.P.S.S).3 Results

Descriptive statistics for physical and performance characteristics of the subjectsare presented in Table 1. Table 2 shows the physical and performancemeasurements in the post —test.



One-way ANOVA was used to test for any significant differences among thethree groups scores. In these calculations, the mean difference between pre-testand post-test results were computed for each group. Thus, the gained scoreswere obtained for each variable of the groups. One way ANOVA revealed thatthere were no significant differences in weight among the three groups. However,there were significant differences in dynamic and static strength at the 0.05significance level. In order to determine where the significant difference occurred,the groups were compared with each other, using the Tukey test.

Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations of gained scores for the threegroups.

Following the 8 weeks training period, a significant increase was observed in thedynamic leg strength of the MSPIR group (X=11.93, 19.2%, t=51.52, p<0.05) andthe MR group (X=11.53, 19.1%, t=28.78, p<0.05) over the control group (X=1.00,1.5%, t=2.45, p>0.05). But there were no significant differences in the dynamicleg strength between the MSPIR group and MR group.

The static leg strength increased significantly for the MSPIR group (X=30.53,16.4%, t=6.79, p<0.05) and the MR group (X=26.90, 14.5%, t=8.87, p<0.05)whereas there was no significant increase in the control group (X=2.06, 1.2%,t=2.23, p>0.05).





resistance training techniques to improve leg strength and anaerobicpower. One commonly employed and proven method incorporated threesets of six to eight repetitions, with loads at 85°/n of 1 Repetition Maximum(1 RM) according to BEROER (1962a, 1962b). The other method calledmanual resistance (MR), involved complete failure in both the concentric

and eccentric phase of the exercise (RILEY 1978, 1982). Thus, this study attempted to discover which training program was more

effective to improve leg strength. If it could be demonstrated that themethod of manual resistance (MR) training is as affective as that of multiple set progressive isotonic resistance (MSPIR) training, it wouldprovide beneficial information to coaches. Also, if shown to increase legstrength significantly, the latter of these two methods, which requires onlyone set and less than half time of the first system, would be extremelyadvantageous to time-conscious coaches or athletes.

REFERENCES

ALLEN, T.E.; BYRD, R.J.; SMITH D.P.:

Hemodynamic Consequences of Circuit Weight Training. In: Research Quarterly47 / 1976), pp. 229-308 /quoted by Jacobson 1986)

ALLSEN, Philip E.:

Strength Training for Beginners, Body Builders, Athletes. Bringham Younguniversity, 1986

BERGER R.A.:

Effects of Varied Weight Training and Various Dynamic Training Programs. In:Research Quarterly 33 (1962a), p. 637 (quoted by Jacobson 1986)

BERGER, R.A.:

comparison Between Static Training and yarious Dynamic Training Programs. In:Research Quarterly 33 (1962). 10, pp. 329-333. 1962b (quoted by Jacobson1986)

HUNTER, GR; CULPEPPER, M.:

Knee Extension Torque Joint Position Relationships Following Isotonic FixedResistance and Hydraulic Resistance Training. In: Athletic Training. 23 (1988), 1,pp. 16-20

JACOBSON, B.H.A:



Comparison of Two Progressive Weight Training Techniques on Knee Extensor Strength. In: Athletic Training. 21 (1986). 4, PP. 315-317

JENSEN. CR.; FISHER, AG.:

Scientific Basis of Athletic Conditioning. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lea and Febinger.1990

MCARDLE W.D.; KATCH F.I., KATCH V.L.;

Exercise Physiology: Energy, Nutrition and High Performance. Philadelphia: Leaand Febiger 1981

PIPES, T.V.; WHITMORE, J.H.;

Isokinetic Versus Isotonic Strength Training in Adult Men. In: Medicine and

Science in Sports 7, (1975), pp. 262 —274 (quoted by Jacobson 1986)

RAMSEY, IA.; BIMKIE C.J.R., SMITH K.;

Strength Training Effects in Prepubescent Boys. In: Medicine and Science inSports and Exercise 22 1)990), pp. 605-614

RILEY D.P.;

Conditioning for Football. The Penn State Way. West Point (N.Y.): leisure Press,1978

RILEY, D.P.;

Strength Training by the Experts. 2nd edition. West Point (NY.): leisure Press1982

SEWALL, L.; MICHELI, L.J.;

Strength Conditioning for Children. In: J. Ped. Orthop. 6, pp. 143-146

SMITH M.J., MELTON P.;

Isokinetic Versus Isotonic Variable resistance Training. Ame ican Journal of Sport Medicine 9 (1981). 4, pp. 275 —279

STEVENS, R,:

Isokinetic Versus Isotonic Training in the Development of Lower Body StrengthPower. In: Scholastic Coach 49 (1980), 6, pp. 74-76

Documents

Yuktasir Comparison of Weight Training Methods