Ithaca College
Digital Commons @ IC
Ithaca College Theses
2004
The effects of combined elastic-free weight
resistance training in experienced athletes
Corey Edward Anderson
Ithaca College
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.ithaca.edu/ic_theses
Part of the Sports Sciences Commons
Recommended Citation
Anderson, Corey Edward, "The effects of combined elastic-free weight resistance training in experienced athletes" (2004). Ithaca
College Theses. Paper 26.
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ IC. It has been accepted for inclusion in Ithaca College Theses by an
authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ IC.
THE EFFECTS OF COMBINED ELASTIC
― FREElWEIGHT
RESISTANCE TRAINING IN EXPERIENCED ATHLETES
-A Masters Thesis presented
to the Faculty of the Graduate
Program in Exercise and Sport Sciences
Ithaca College
￨
一
rn partial ful-fi=lIment of the requirements for the
Master of Science
.By
Corey Edward Anderson
December ,2004
degree
Ithaca Co■ ■ege
School of
Hea■ th Sc■ ences and Human
Performance
lthaca′ New York
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
MASTER OF SCIENCE THESIS
This is to certify that the Master of Sclence Thesis of
Corey Edward Anderson
submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for
the degree of Master of Science in the School of Health
Sciences and Human Performance at Ithaca College has been
approved.
Thes■ s Adv■ sor:
Commttttee Member:
Candidate:
Cha■
r′
Graduate PrOgram:
Dean of Graduate Studttes:
Date:
■ ■
.
ABSTRACT
This study wOs undertakenito determ■ ne
■f
combined e■ a
s tttc
and frOe weight reslstance (CR)trattning provides'different
strength and power adaptatttons than free wettght (FW)
｀
`
ヽ
training ialone. Forty― fё ur yOung (20± l yFS)′ rebiStance
trained (4± 2 yrs experien9e)subjects′ 22 males and 22
females′ were recruited from men′
s basketball′ wrest■ ing′
women′・s basketball′ and women′ s hockey teams at Cornё
ll
‐
1
_UniverSity. Subjects were dttvidё d usttng stratifttcid random
assignment according to the■ r respectttve teams to.e■ ther
the control (C′ n=21)or eXperimё ntal group (E′ n̈=23).
Prior to and after 7 weeks of resistance training′
were tested for lean body mass (LBM)using S丈
subjects
主nfold
measires′ l rep max back squat (BS)and bench press (BP)′
and peak (PP)and aVeragё power (AP) cal-iul-ated from
a
counteimovement vさ rtical jump. BothCandEgroups
performed identical workouts (
i.e.′ exercises′ sets′ Feps′
兌 of l RM)with the excepttton t,at the experttmenta■
group
used CR for the BS and BP while the control grOup used FW
arOne. cR was perfOrmed us■ ng an elastiC bungee cord
attached to a standard barbell loaded w■
Elastic tens■ on was accounted for
the total work dOne by each groupo
■■■
■n
th`weight plates.
an attempt to equalize
ANOvA (2x2 repeated
measures) revealed significant interactions and Tukey i:osthoe-
analyses found significant di'fferences between groups
after training in al-f measures except
LBM
and
PP.
Improvement for the E group, when coinpared to improVeinent
in the C group, was nearly t.hree times greater for BS 1 RM
I
(16.41t5.61 'kg vs. 6,84!.4.42 kg increase), two times
;
greater for BP 1 RM (6.6813.41 kg vs. 3.34t2.61 kg
increase), and neariy tfrree times greater for
(68 . 55184 . 35
with
CR may
watt vs.
23 .66140..56
AP
watt increase) . Training
be better for developing l-ower body strength,
upper.body strengthT and lower body power than using
trafning alone in resistance trained individual-s.
effects are uncl-ear but
CR
training
EW
Longr-term
makes a -meaningful
contribution in the short term, to performance adaptations
I
of experienced athl-etes. CR equipment was provided by Mike
Berry of
BNS
Ban{ Systems
・
iv
ACKNOWLEbGMENTS
.
There are many people, whos'e help and support were
invaluabl-e to the completion of t.his project.
Eirst
and
foremost, f, would l-ike to thank my wife Lori for her
unl-imited support, love, friendship, and the long hours
I
helping me collect data and proofing the manuscript. I
would also l-ike to thank my children Byron, Trj-stan, anh
Sydney
for torgj-vj-ng
me
for missing so many bedtime stories
while.I wrote this thesis.
my
Many thanks
to Dri. Gary Sforzo,
thesis advisor, for his direction, patj.ence, and insightl
in-this- project., Thanks to my second reader Dr. Jotin Sigg
for his insight and help with instrumentation,o'f the
experimental- equipment, and to Dr. Janet Wigglesworth for
her statistical
i
expertise. Also a speciaL thanks to Dr.
Philip Al-l-sen of Brigham
Young
University "for his insight
and suggestions. This study coul-d not have been completed
without the heIp, coopera,tion, and facil-ities of the
i
Cornell- Strength & Conditioning Department. A sglecial
ihanks to
Tom
Howley, Tom Dilliplane, Matt Wise, and. George
Paraskevopoulos. A final- thanks to Mike Berry of Power-Up
I
USA,
Inc. for donating his patented
BNS Bungee System
(www.big-n-strong.com) for the CR training in this study.
V
一
一
ヽ
メ
︻
中
一
一
一
”
一
一
DEDICATION,
This thesis is dedicated to my wife, Lori.
t
l,
i
'Our'first
*
-
six years together have been amazing. I l-ook forward to
our next sixty.
V■
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT . . . .
■ ■■
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . .
。
. . . .‐ ・
「・
。
. . .
島
DEDICATION . . . .
V
V■
LIST OF FIGURES. .
｀
・
X■
X■ ■
Chapter
Statement Of 'urpOse . . . . . . .
１ ４ ４
1. INTRODUCT10N
・
・ ・・ ・
Null- Hypothesis
Attsμ mptiOns
of the Study . . . . . . . . . .
4
Defin■ tion of Terms.・
4
Delimitations of the S,udy . . . . . . . `. .
7｀
Limitations of the stuaシ . . . . . ・ ・ ・ ・ ・
氏
2.REVIEW OF、 LITERATURE
、
8
10
Sel-ected Adaptations
to Resistance T.raining ..:
StrengthAdaptations.
10
.:
11
,Neuromuscular Responses
and Adaptations
Neuromuscul-ar' Responses
12
12
.
Neuromuscular Adaptations
.
Muscular Hypertrophic Adaptations
vii
13
16
Fiber Hypertrophy.
,.
Fiber Hyperplasia.
Reξ
76
22
istance Trainttng MethOds.…
… … 1.
‐
24
Free Weight Training. . . . . . . . .
24
Variable Resistance Training.
26
Cofrlcined Resistance Training.
30
\,
Summary.
38
3. METHODS AND PROCEDURES .
. . . . . . . .
39
∫
Selecttton of subjects .
.
. . .
・・・・・.
39
41
41
Depend6nt Variables
Strength Measures.
43
43
.
.Power Measures
Body
Compos
j_tion Measures.
‐
46
.
Possible Confounding Variables.
Training Program procedures.
47
48、
51
Elastic Resistance procedures
51
Tralning program and periodization.
154
Treatment Of Data.
55
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
4せ 。
56
Subject Characteristics.
56
Lean Body Mass . . . . . . . . . .
58
V■ ■ ■
Peak Power
Ave■ 3ge・
61
POWer. . . . . . . .
Back Squat 1
・ ・ ・.
61
RM.
Bench Press 1
66
70
RM
Summary.
74
,5. or'scussroN oE RESULTS
76
Combined Resistance "Training
76
Possible Mechanisms for
ヽ
Performance Improvement
76
Other CR‐ Studies
84
Other Considerations
88
Practical Considerations
Summary. . . . . . . .
6.SuMMARY′ CONCLUSIONS′
90
・ ・ ・
. .
& RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary. . . . . . . .
94
・ ・ ・
95
Rdcommendations
95`
RE「 ERENCES
98
APPENDICES
A.
94-
.
・ ・ ・ ・
Conc■ us■ ons. . ._ . . . . .
92
120
ALL― COLLEGE REVIEW
BOARD FOR HUMAN
SUB」 ECTS RESEARCH
121
B.
IN「 ORMED
128
C.
MEDICAL CLEARANCE
CONSENT FORM.
FOR PARTICIPATION.
■X
130
D.
APPROVAL FOR THE USE OF
・
CORNELL UNIVERSITY FACILITIES. .
E・ .
SUB」 ECT TRAINING ATTENDANCE. . . . .
F.
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS. . .‐
G.
_PRE―
ざ
. . . . .
・ ・ ・ ・
. . . . .
・ ・ ・ ・ ・
AND POST― TRAINING QUEST10NNAIRES
. . .
・
131
1133
134
135
H。
STUDY PROGRAM AND PER10DIZATION. . . . .
I.
RAW DATA. . . . .
」
SUB」 ECT DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICs . . . . . . .
140
MISSING
141
.
K.
・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・
DATA
X
・ ・
136
・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・
138
L]ST OF FIGURES
Mean and standard
t.
;;
deviation for pre- training
. testihg and post- training testing of
. controf and experimental groups
'2.
Mean and standard
LBM
for
59
deviation for'pre- and post-
training testing'of peak power using a
CVJ,
for control- and dxperimental groups
3. Average Power
62
means and sta-nd.ard deviation
for. pre- and post- training testing
for control and experimental groups
-Mean
4,
64
and standard devlation for pre- and post-
training testing of back squat 1 RM for
conitrol and experimental groups . . . . . .
.Mean and
5.
・ ・
67
standard deviation for pre- and post-
training testing of- bench press 1 RM for
control and experimental groups
ヽヽ
X■
72
ヽ・
L]ST OF
TABLES
1. Subject Characteristics
. !
,,t
2. -Lean Body
Mass ANOVA Sumniary
4. Average Power Output
Tabl-e.
ANOVA Summary
5. Back Squat 1 RM ANOVA
51
Summary
..
Tabl-e.
Tab1e
60
bS
6g
6. Back Squat 1 RM & Change in
)**-)
- Lean Body Mass (LBM) Correlations.
7L
7. Bench Press 1 RM ANOVA
Summary
Table.
13
r
8. Bench Press 1 RM & Change in
Lean Body Mass (LBM) Correlations
15
i
″
xii
1
^
CHAPTER
1
INTRODUCT]ON
'considerabl-e effort has been expended trying to devise
- the
-effective method for increasing strength. This
usually invol-ves f ree 'weights (e . g. , barberls, dumbbells,
most
I
ind pulIey mgchines), and different types of variabl-e
re-sistance maihines. Free weight traininQ does
j-mprove
'strength'r" but there are drawbacks associated with this
try.ing to deVelop strength. Because of .the
:'
body's lever system, a l-imitation commonly called a
method when
_
sticking point 1s created that dedermines the maxi-mum
weight"used during exerci-se. Thus, peak muscl-e tension
usually occurs at the most disadvantaged position (i.e.,
I
near the bottom of a squat and bench press) with q drqp in
i
tension at other points in the range of motion. ,rf peak
tension courd be maintained throughout a greater portion of
the movement, then greater strength .gains might
realized.
Maximi zrng
be
tension throughout the range of motion
hds
been a goal- of weight machine manufactures for some time,
and they have employed various .L".,= to achieve what is
termed variabre resistance. Manufacturers hav6 utifized
cam, l-ever, elastic, and pulley designs in an attempt to
1
l-
"2-
af-ter th'e,resistance as biomechanical- reverage is al-tered
throughout a ranqe of motion (Silvester, Stiggins,
McGown,
Bryce, 1981) . The'se solutions have met with limited
success and usually tend to be very expensive.
Strength practitioners have also used techniques
called comp.ensatory acieleratign training
(Caf
y
,
and
combined resistance (CRi to overcome the l-imitations
imposed
by the sticking pdint.
CAT invo-l-ves
attempts at
maximal-"Iy'accelerating submaximaf loads. Accelerating each
repetitlon as rapidly as possible, regardless of the
is a key to improving strength
Bi1by, 1993).
CAT
(Behm &
Sale, 7993; youngr&
has been shown to be significantly
effective at improving bench press 1 repetition
.(RM) "and'
1oad,
more
maxj_mum
seated medicine (med) bal-l- toss results than
more deliberate lifting
a
tempo (Jones, Hunt'er, Fleisj-g,
Escamilla, & Lemak, tgg6) . Cdf is easier to apply with
weightlifting implements thaL may be released (i.e.,
throwh) on completion of the repetition.
Implements such
as kettl-ebel-l-s and med ball-s are more easily used with
than barbe]ls.
using cAT
and- cR
together may provide the
opportunity to utilize cAT with free-weight movements
as the 'bench press and back squat
cAT
such
Recently cR methods harTe increased in popularity. one"
such method j-nvolves the use of free weights combined with
large el-astic bands or bungee cords in an attempt to
combine both -thl benefits of variabl-e resistance with those
' of free weights I This may alIow for a greater amount of .
- work performed per repetition Lhan would have'been pbssibJ-e
' with traditional free weights, The forces apprieg by using
' cR shourd account for an j-ncreased elfort required during
an exercise. cR al-so al-l-ows for application of cAT methods
to barbell- exercises (Newton et a1.,
Many
..
2OO2) .
strength practitioners have dabbl-ed ,itrr various
ways of applying CR, and have written. extensively on this
subject in the popul-'ar media (Berry et df .,
2OO2;
Siff
,
2000; Simmons,, 7999, 7996; Tate, 200L). Although their
findings are encouraging, their reports r-ack scientifj-c
rigor.
little
Few controll-ed
studies have been conducted
and
published research on CR is found in the peer-
revi-ewed l-iterature.
shows promi'se
However, what rittle
research exists
for cR effectiveness and the need for zu.trru,
investigati'bn (Behm, 1988; Newton et df .,
2OO2)
.
Statement of Purpose
This study was undertaken to determine if cR trai-nl.ng
,._
provides different adapt.ations than free weight resistance
training alone in resistance trained ath1etes.
Nu]l- Hypothesis
There will be no significant'differences
between
CR
and control groups in measures of back squat, bench press,
lower body power output, or lean body ma'ss following the
seven week- tralning program.
Assumptions of tFe Study
The following assumptj-ons were niade"in the study:
1.
No additional physical activity
affected the expected
adaptations of the training program
2.
Mdasured changes
in lean body mass (LBM) represent
chanqes in musc.l-e tissue
3.
A11 subjects applied maximal effort to the concentric
phase of all- repetitions regardless of load (i. e. ,
explosive concentric. effort)
, 4.
.
Strength gains due to improvement in exercise
technique were slmi-Iar for both groups
De fin■ ti6n
1.
Academic
oi
lerms
Year: A calendar term referring to the Fall
and Spring Semesters at many unj-versitids.' This is
3
typically nine months'1ong, from September until May
(e.9., September 2002 - May 2003 wou1d be referred to
' as the 2002-2003 achdemic year)..
2.
Average Musc]e Force: The average muscld force
produced during an entire.movement.
' 3.
Compensatory Acceieration
Training: Attempts at
maximal-ly acceJ-erating submaximal_ loads during
a
hovement.
4.
CR:
Combfned
elastic and free weight resistance
exercise.
3.
Elastic:
Material capable of being easily stretched
or expanded and resuming former shape (e.9.,
bungee
cord)
4. " Force: An influence (i.e., a muscle) that if applied
to a free body (i.e., a weight) resufts chiefly in
an
acceleration of the body and sometimes in el-astic
deformation (i.e.,
elastic bungee cord deformation)
and other effects (mass x acceleration).
5.
Leverage: Leveiage refers tb ttre mechanical
efficiency of applying a force to an object,
upon
lhe mechanical Ieveragg given the
and fulcrum of the object:
dependeht
moment aims,
5
Load: Load is defined att the resistance or tbnsion'of
an object used in resistance trattning (ioe.′
gravitational force acting upon a mass (barbel_l), or
the amount of tensj-on in an elastlc material_ after
deformation).
Muscle Tension : A foree inside the muscle fibers
resulting from the excitation-contracti on couplirig .of
myosin and actin.
■sometr■
Th'is force may re'sul-t in either
c contraction′
or
isotonic contracti-on which
C,n prOd'Ce mOVe■ ent Of a body
to the contracting muscle。
1
Peak ForCe:t The httghest force
meaSured and
limb that, is attached
(maSS x acce■ eration)
attdined dqring a movement.
Periodi zation i
The planned variation of training
Varlables covering multttple perttods Of time.
10
Power: -The. rate at which work i-s'done or energy is'
emitted Or transferred (1.e.′ force/time).
11
RM:
Repetitュ oi maXlmum is the 16ad limit ior that
particular repetitlon
maximum
(e.9., a 1RM is the
l_oad where
in a given movement'
a subject can only
perform one repetition for that movement).
12
Sticking Point: A common Strength training term )
referri-ng to the point in time where reverage is at
..
the" l-owest val-ue for a given weight lifting
the_reby
,movement
limiting force production by a muscle or
muscl-e group
it
13. Trained: Resistance training experience of a
minimum
Of tW9 academ・ C years of cOntinuous and structured
res■ stance tra■
14.
VR:
thё
ヽ
n■
ng at the cOllegiate leve■
Varttable Resistance is a training technique where
■oad
(ioe.′
(e.g。 ′ the
po■ nt ュn
Work:
resttstaバ ce on a cam― based machttne wil■ vary
)
こam
at a given
、
the range of motion.
The transfer of energy to a body (1.e.′
barberl) by the application of a force that mbves the
body in the direction of the force. it is carcurated
as the -product of the force and the distance through
which the body moves (i.e.,
range of moti.on)
.
,\
,
1.
subjeits were NCAA Division rA student-athl-'etes fiom
lr
men's basketbal-l- anci wrestling, and women's hockey and
basketbail
2.
_
resttstance)changes with limb position
depending upon the dynamttcs of the
´ 15。
.
teams
subjects_ were aged r.9-24 yr with at least two academic
yeals of consecutive and structured resistance
training. experience.
.
bl
｀
on■ y the paralle1 0■ ympic style back squat (baCk
squaビ )′ benCh press with feet on the ground (benCh
press)′ countermovemё nt vertical jump (CV」
〕body
4。
and lean
)′
mass (LBM)were tested before、 and after・ trainlng。
Strength training parameters (see Appendix A)were
selected for program desttgn (i.e.′
.
3-6 setS Of 2-6
repettttions at a ■oad of 72を -98Z of l RM). ′AccesSory
exercises were performedlusュ ng 3-4 sets of 5-12
repetitionS at a load of 65%-90% of l RM.
Workouts consisted of 15-20 total Sets.
subjects were
1
‐
receivttng
trOined three days per week for seven weeks′
a total of 10 upper body workouts and 10 1ower body
Workouts fOr 20 workouts.
The experimental
じroup
uSed
CR for the back squat On all lower body workoutも and
dur■ ng
the bench press for all upper
ゃody
wOrkOuts.
Periodization consisted Of decreasing v01ume and
■ncreas■ ng
intens■ ty in a wave― like fashion.
Limtttations of the Study
、
,
ヽ
1.
Thqse results may not be generalizab■ e to athletes
other than NCAA Dttvision IA student― athletes.
2.
/
Given the prttor experience subjects had with
i
res■ stance tra■ n■ ng′ these results w■ th CR‐ may not be
´
t,
representAtive of beginners or those with vast"
training. experience.
3.'
Results of
CR
.press, Iower
training
UoOV
may
only apply to the
bench
power measured during tVJ,. anh
parallei- Olympic style back squat. Since there
many
styles of squatting, the resul-ts may not
geneia.l
4.
,are
be
ized to aI1 forms of squatting.
These re"sults with CR may be specif ic to the strength
t.raining- parameters used and similar resul-ts may not
1
be obtained if the nature" of the training program" i3
substantially aftered,
5.
The resutis of CR training ,apply to sevbn weeks of
training and may be different with training periods of
longer .or' shorter duration.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Thtt s・
review of literature provides relevant backgrOuna
■nformattton
concern■ ng the effects ttf adding elastic
res■ stance to free weight res■
fol■ ow■ ng
stance exerc■ ses.
The
topics are covered in this chapter:
1).Selё ごted
Adaptations to ResistanCe Training
・
a)Strength Adaptations
b)Neuromuscular RespOnses and Adaptations
i)Neuromuscular RespOnses
ii)Neuromuscular Adaptations
C)MuSCular Hypertrophic Adaptatttons
i)Fiber Hypertrophy
i土
、
)Fttber Hyperp■ asia
2) Re3igtance Training Methods
a)Free Weight Training
・
b)Variab■ e Resistance (VR)Training
C)COmbined Resistance (CR)Training
3)Summary
・
Selected Adaptatttons_ o Res■
stance Tra■ n■ ng
A variety of physiological responses and adaptations_
Occur with resistance exercise and training (Fleck &・
Kraさ mer′ ,2004′ Kraemer′ F■ eck′ & Evans′ 1996′
al.′
1991).
Staron et
It iS beyond the scope of thtts thesis to
10
11
discuss al-l of these effects.
Strength gains are primarily
the result of both increased neuromuscular.activity
and
muscle cross:sectional area (Higbie, Cureton, Warren,
Prior ,
i-996)
&
. ,i.,.. strength gains are the focus of this
study,the.fo1]-owingreviewwitIbeIimitedtothe
neuromuscul-ar and muscle mass adaptations
(i."e., fiber
hypertrophy e fiber hyperplasia) that might occur with
r'esistance training.
Other adapt.ations that occur in-fiber
1yn..s and metabolic and hormonal systems were' not reviewed,
as-
these were not Olemed to be as directly rel-evant to this
Strength Adaptations
Stone et df ., (2000) found increases" in ,squat 1
'RM
of
14-20.5 kg or 9・ 0%-13.4を increase after twelve weeks of
res■ stance tra■
n■
ngo
They also uemonstrated that the type
of per■ odization scheme used・ mttght determ■ ne strength
ga■ nso
Strength ga■ ns were demonstrated ttn as little as
seven weeks by
Weiss′ Coney′ and clark (1999)′ who
comphr9d thre9 different tra■
n■
ng groups tO a no― exerc■ se
control group in previously untrained young men.
All
groups except the control sign■ ficantly increased squat l
RM.
In addition′ the group that trained with 3-5 RM
■ncreased
sign■ ficantly more than all Other tra■
n■ ng・
groups
12
(tOthl grOup gain: +75 kg).
The group trattning at a 13-15
RM increased significant■ y more than the 23-25 RM group
(tOtal grOup gain: +51 kg)。
They concluded that seven
weeks was a suffttc■ ent amount.of time to eliC■ t strength‐
ga■ ns ■n
prev■ ously untra■ ned young men.
They also noted
・
that using resistance Of 85% - 90t of l・ RM and repetitiOns
1
`_■ n
the‐
3-5 range produced greater
■mprov9mentS ■n
than lesser load and httgher repOtitttons.
strength
It should be
noted that strength improvements w■ th tra■ iュ ng Vary great■ y
by ttndiv■ dual age′ Oender′ tra■ ning age′ and genetic′
enVttrOnmental′ nutritibnal′ pharmacologttcQl′ hOrmOna■ ′and、
psychottogical factors.
AccOrdingly′
conc■ us■ ons based on J
the results of any particular group mey be potentia■
ly
misleading (A■ way′ Grumbt′ Stray― Gundersen′ t Gonyea′ ・
匹
1992).
:Neuromuscu■ ar RespOns皇
豊
.皇
ヨO
Adュ ⊇tatiOns
Neuromuscular RespOnses
・
Thさ
motor un■ t is the functttonal un■ t of the
ヽ
1
neuromuScular system′ and is comprised of one motOr neuron
ヽ
and multiple muscle fibers lnnervated by that motor n9uron
(MCCOmas′ 1996).
Durttng exercise′ neural activation and
assocユ ated electromyographic (EMG)activttty incr‐ ease′
■eading
ヽ
to greater muscle force producttton′ ip response tO
greater loads imposed on the body (Newton′
Hakkttnen′ Humphries′ & Murhpy′
1996).
′
13
Kraemer′
At loadS gieateヒ
than 80% oF l RM durttng concentric actttons and 100-120% of
l RM durttng eccentric actionS′
integrated EMG activity
dramatically increases (Hakkinen′ Allen′ & Komi′ 1985)。
,.'
'A hierarchy exists wherein the smaI.l-est motor unitd
are' recruited before l'arger motor units (Go11nicki
Karl-ss'on, Pieh1, & SaItin ,
Lg74;^ McComas,
' Pl-outz-Snlder, Ystrom, Castro' & DudIey,
19g6; Tesch,
1998)
.
T.h"
exception to this occurs with high-force eccentric
contraction
when
large motor units uooul. to be recruited
preferentially and may proceed recruitment of =rnulJ-.. motor'
units (Nardone, Romano, & Schieppati, 1989).
t
NeurOmuscu■ ar Adaptations
Neural inhibition appears to decrease concurreht witrr
strength gains induced by resist.in'ce trainir{g.
Aagaard et'
-
dI., (2000) found that after 14 weeks'of resistance
training, neural inhibition of the quadriceps was decreased
or completely
in 15 mal-e
\ "rO!ects
El-ect.romyographic (EMG) activity increased by
remov'ed
76-52%
while
strength gains increased 8-17%. A muscle may alsb bd
inhibited from ful-l- contraction potential by propri-oceptors
(
in the muscular and connective tissues. rn particular,
\'.I
14
golgi tendon organs are thought to .p1ay a signif icant rol-e
in this mechanism (Catozzo, Perrine, & Edgerton,
Many experts
believe tha€ golgi disinhibition is
7981)
.
a
significant adaptation to resistance traininQ that
aLl-ows
greater force output (Kraemer, Deschenes, & FIeck, 1988).
Sale (1986) found that neural- adaptations to
resistanbe training include increased motor unit
recruitment and/or increased firing rate of motor units,
which can both lead to greater force 'production.
Zetsiorsliy (1995) stated that neural factors affecting
^\
force include intramuscul-ar and intermuscular coordination.
Intermuscufar coordination increases force'production
through increased coorciination' of mu1tiple muscle qroups
working together to iperform a given movement (Zatsiorsky,.
1995)
. Intrainuscular coordj-nation invoJves the development
of force within a particular *,-,""f".
Force output can,be
l.
increased via three methods: increased coordinatioh of
motor unit recruitment (i.e.,
synchronization), motor unit
firing rate increase (i.e., rate coding) , and/or increased
' number of" motor units recruited (Enoka, 1988; Zatsiorsky,
199s).
Electromyographlc (EMG) research has shown improved
motor unit. activation j-n voluntary contract.ions after'
￢
●
=Ⅲ
● ■― ●
●
―
‐
￨
.T
「
15
strength training (Moritani & DeVries′
strength ga■ ns dur■ ng four―
s■ x
1979)。
"
Initttal
weeks of res■ stance tra■ n■ ng
in beg■ nnerb are usually attributed to nё ural ・
improvements
(Fleck & Kraerfler, 2004; Mayhew, Rothstein, Finacdne,
Lamb, 1995; Narici. e Kayser, 1995) .
&
Exercj-ses util-iztng
complex, lower body movements take longer for neural
adapta,tion to occur than exercises invol-ving sma1l and/or
isolated muscfe movements (Chil-ibeck, Calder, SaIe,
&
Webber, 1998).
Subjects can gain strength without increased muscle
、
、
・size (KOm主 ′Viitasalo′ Rauramaa′ vihko′
Hulten′ Dobeln′ Kar■ sson′ 1976)。
ま
1973, Thorstenssgn′
Strengせ 与 gains during the
first eight weeks of res■ stance、 tra■ n■ ng are lttkely to b9
netrolog■ cally based′ with further gains resulting from
hypertrophy (Komi′ 1986).
HoweVer′ ra two― year study of
heavy res■ stance tra■ n■ ng shbwed that strength ga■
ns can
contttnuO With little contribution from hypertrophic
adaptations (Hakkinen′
r.
Pakarinen′ Allen′ Kauhanen′ & Komi′
1988). This helps validate what is often anecdotall-y
,'
portrayed in Olymplc weightlifters who may'contlnue to
increaSe in sti..,gtn while maintaining constant bodyweight.
Heavy resistance
training (<6 RM) is said to
preferentially lead to neural' adaptations (Kraemer et df. ,
・
1"6
1996)
. Previous research shows that the nature of
adaptation" is specific to the loading parameters imposed
(Berger
, 7964; Costil-l-, Col-e, Fink, Lesmes, & Wltzmann,
7919; Haar Romeny, Denier Van Der Gon, & Gielen, L982;
MacDouqall, SaIe, lvloroz, EIder, & Sutton,
Hikida, & Hagerman, L916; Sal-e
1,97
9; .Prince,
& McDougall, 1981; Staron
. dI., 1990, l99L). For exampfe, high-force training
et
l-eads
to preferential- adaptation in force production. "Training
within parameters conducive to high-power. output- produces
preferential adaptation in power
development..
Using training parameters for both strength and
I
p-ower
produced adaptations in both strength and power (Harris,
Stone, O'Bryant, Proutrx, & Johnson, 2000). Individual-s that.
train in a specific manner wil't demonstrate a qreater
change in performance when tested in that manner than wheit
tested'non-specifically (Higbie et al., "L996; McCafferty'&
Horvath, 7911) . This suggests that the neuial -adaptation
m'ay
be specif ic to the imposed demands.
Muscul-ar Hypertrophic Adaptations
Fiber- Hypertrophy
Muscular strength and cross-sectional_ area are
linearly rel-ated as maxima] strength increases with greater
muscl-e cross-sectional- ar'ea
(Ikai & Fukunaga,
1968 ;
r
Maughanr. Watson, &
Jorgensen,
&.
i't
Weir, I9B3; Nygaard, Houston, Suzuki,
Saltin) fgg3; Schantz, Randalf-Fox,
Hutchinsoh, Tyden, e Astrand, 1983; Young, Stokes, Ro'und,
&
I
Edwards, 1983; Close, 1912) .
ft is widely agreed that
cross-sdctional- area increases as a result -of resistance
training (MacDougall, Sale, Alway, & Sutton,
sarcopJ-asmic
Lg84)
. This
protein synthesis within exercise stimutated-
fi.bers (Goldberg, Etlinger, Goldspink, c Jablecki,
7975;
MacDougafl et dI., 1.984; MacDougall, Sale, Elder,l e Sutton,
L9B2; McDonagh & Davies, 7984) .
Zatsiorsky (1995, p.
63)
defined sarcoplasmic hypertrophy as '...the growth .;
sarcoplasm (semifluid j-nterfibrillar substance) and
noncontractile proteins that do not directl-y contribute to
the productibn of muscle force".
Narici et df . , ttg,gll
found j-ncreased cross-section of the quadriceps after six
months of training without an increase in the cross-section
of the individual-
muscl-e' f ibers.
This may support tiie idea
of sarcoplasmic hypertroi:hy. Another alternative
explanation is that hyperplasia occurred as wil-l- be defi'ned
iater in this chapter.
Zatsiorsky (.1995, p. 63) defined
myofibril-rar hypertrophy as "...an enlargement of the muscl-e
fiber as it gains more myofibrils and,. corresfondingly,
r
1B
more actin and myosin fil-aments. He stated that thq former
type.of hypertrophy decreases myofibril filament area
density
(MFAD), while'
the latter type increases MFAD.
Some
have suggested that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy typiSalf-y
occurs in. bodybuil'ders, whil.e myofibril1ar hypertrophy
typicalJ-y occurs in el-ite weight ,lifters (.Siff , 2.OOO, p.
65-69; Zatsiorsky, 1'995, p. 63). . Bompa (1999) suggested
'similar variants of hypertrophy and their prevalence in
different: weightlifting populations. He termed
sarcoplasmic hypertrophy as short-term hypertrophy and
myofibril-Iar hypertrophy as long-term hypertrophy
1*
Taylor and Kandarian (1994) compared the effects of
atrophy caused by either detraining or denervation in rats.
They found that atrophy from both causes resulted in
(
decreased j-soriretric force output normalized for*crosssё
i
ctional area (N/cm2)′ lower MFAD′ and higher interstitial
.f■ u■ d
dens■ ty.
They suggesied that force producttton
factor'of MFAD′ and not simply cross―
■s
seCtiOna■ area.
a
.
Kandarian and white (1990)had previously found that crobsニ
sectional area does not fully correlate w■ th increased
force productiop.
Additttσ nally′
、
Chalmers′ Roy′ and
Edgerton (1992)found a dramatttc increase in muscle ce■ l
vblume (十 100%)in cats after、 training without ttncreaSe in
-
protein regulation or
ATP
uti1ization.
19,
While these'studie3
and the opinions of various researchers suggest hypdrtrophy
\
subc.l-asslfication into sarcol-ema and myofibrillar,
concl-usive data in human subjects is not wel-1 documented.
Further study is needed to establish the presence. and/or
mechanism
of such phenomenon. r
Whil.e many
studies demonstrate hypertrophy'gains
occurring after Otoro.,n.d resistance training, it is also
known
that a single sessj-on of heavy resi-stance training
can increase protein synthbsis for up to 24 hours (Chesley,
MacDouqal-.1-,
Tarnopolsky, Atkinson,'& Smith, 7992). With the
aid of sophisticated techniques such as nuclear magneti'c
resonance "iiraging, researchers have measured hypertrophy in
thg fi.rst eight weeks of training (Narici, Roi,
La'ndoni,
Mj-netti-, & Ceretelli, 1989). Other techni-ques, such
computed
axiat tomography also
shows promise
as
in detecting
short-term hypertrophic adaptations to training (Cureton,
Col1ins, Hill
.
FasC
& McEl-hannon, 1988).
twitch muscle fibers
may be more predisposed to
fiber hypertrophy than s.Iower twitch fibers,
thouqj'h
fibers have the potentiaL for hypertrophy iHather,
alI
Tesch,
Buchanan, & Dudley, 1991) . Training for muscular strength
and power better targets the growth of fast twitch fibers,
\
20
while resistance training'for muscle endurance is
more
I..ikely to resul-t in the growth of slow twitch fibers
(Staron et df., 1991; Tesch & Karlsson, 1985). Increases
■n
muscle cross― seCtiOnal area are typically connected・ to
hypertrophy Of the.type II fibers (MacDougall′
Moroz′ Sutton′ 1980, MacDougal■
et al.′ 1979′ MacDouga■ l′
Ward′ Sale′ ` sutton′ 1977′ Prince et a■
a■
.′
1990′ 1991).
Elder′ SO■ e′
.′
1976′ Staron et
In other wordb′ selective muscle fiber
hypertrophy may occuro Staron et ali′
(1990)repOrted a 40%
increase in size of fast twitch iiberS but onュ y a 17を
■ncrease ■n slow tw■
resistance trainingo
tch fiber area
■n/
MacDougall et a■
the effects of a 22-26 week per■
omen after heavy
.′
(1979)examined
od of res■ stance tra■ n■ ng
_and found signitttcant inCreases in type I (+27-31を )and
type II (+33,39七 )muSCle fiber areas in the triceps
brachii.
It appears that training adaptations differ with
var■ ous exerc■ se parameters and are spec■
fic to the
■mposed
demands′ an observation that is often termed tre sAID
principle (Specttfttc adaptations to impo3ed demands) (Stt ff′
2000). r
public sentttment often suggests that res■ stance
tra■ n■ ng
ttmpose, attfferent adaptations baoed on gender.
27
However; males and females seem to exhibit tfr" same
I
rel-ative muscfe hypertroptiy folrowing strength training.
.
Men have
.larger amounts of muscl-e initia]ly
which accounts
for their higher absol-ute hypertrophy making
noticeab]e (Cureton et d1.,
1988)
changes-more
.
Training status is also a factor in the adaptations
resulting from resistance training as beginners make
significantly'greater relative gains in .strength and
hypertrophy than experienced individuals (A1way et df.,
tgg2; Hakkinen, Komi, A11en, & Kauhanen, IgBl; Hakkj-nen,.
Pakarinen, Newton, & Kraemer, 1998). Nonlinear increases in
,
p./trormance in the power cl-ean, bench press, and squat
exercises have been observed with the rate of change
decreasing -and training ekperience increasing (Mi11er,
White, Kinley, Congleton, & C1ark,
2OO2) .
Typical resistance training programs consist of
3-6
sets of 2-12 repetitions, with rest periods of 1-5 min
and
a training frequency of 3-5 days per week (po1iquifl, 19gg).
;
rn an attempt'to combat decreasing gains with increasing
experience, coaches have- used
when
training.
Two common
many .programmed varj-at-ibns
types of training periodization
utirized are the l-inear arld unduiating (i. e. ,i wave-rike)
models. rn the'linear moder, training progresses from high
volume and l-ow intensity to l-ow vo]ume and high inte'nsity
22
t,
in a linear fashion. In the undul-ating mode], ,olrr*.
follows the same high to row progression and intensity
fol1ows the same fow tb hiqh progression, with the
exception that the progression is undulating and/or
.wavelike rether than l-inear. Linear periodization
continues to be a popular method of training with strength
coaches. However, it has been shown that dn undulating
model is superior for the development of strength (Rhea,
Bal-I, Phillj-ps, & Burkett, Z\OZ; Rhea et df .,
2OO3;
),. while
reverse l-inear periodizat j-on (i. e. , volume increas j-ng and
intensity decreasing) has been show to more effective at
increas j-ng muscul-ar endurance (Rhea et df . , 2003)
.
Fib'er Hyperpl-asia
_It
is tradltionally belieVed that we are born with
set number of
muscl-e
fibers, and that this number of
a
muscle
fibers does not change from birth to death (Go11nick,
Parsons, Riedy, & Moore, 1983; Gol--l-nick, Timsonl Moore,
Riedy, 1961).
Some
hyperplasia, or
\,
&
researchers have speculated that
new muscle
cel] growth, fray occur (Antonio
& Gonyea, 1993 , 7994a, Lgg4b; Gonyea, 1980; Gonyea ,
Erikson, & Bonde-Peterson ,
Christensen, & Martin,
79'7'l
L973)'
; MacDougall, 1986;
. Hyperplasia
So1a,
may occur
in
two
\
possible ways, fiber splitting ^(Antonio 'e Gonyea , 1994a,
!994b,' Ho et dl., 1980; Tamaki, Uchiyama, e ttakano, 7992)
and
'satel-l-ite cel-l- prolif eration (Bischof f , 1990; Darr
Schul-tz
, !987; Winchester, Davis, A1way, Gonyea ,
Winchester & Gonyea, 1992) .
&
7997;
Hyperplasia' was repeatedly
demonst::ated in bird.s, rats, and cat.s (A1way, Winchester,
Davis, & Gonyea, \989; Antonio & Gonyea, 7993,
L994a,
1.994b; Giddings & conyea, 1992; Gonyea, 1980; Gonyea
Er j-cson
, L916; Gonyea, a l{ifesfy, 1986; Tamaki et dI.
,
7992; Yamada, Buffinger, Dimario, & Strohmanr 1989) but
increases in human fiber number as a resul-t of an 'exercise
stimul-us have been more difficuLt
to quantify.
Bodybuilders, powerlifters, and/or weightlifters have
greater cross-sectional- area than non-resistance trained
:
controls, yet sometimes no difference is found in
muscle
fiber size of the groups (Larsson & Tesch, 7986; Nygaard
&
Niel-sen, L97_8; Yamada et df ., 1989) . Since these findings
are irom cross-sectionat data and not controlled
experimentation, it might be argued as either evidence for
hyperplasia, or that bodybuilders are simply born with
higher t.han normal amounts of muscle fibers per crossquadriceps cross-section
■
，
十︶ Ｗ
ｅ ′
sectional area. Narici
al.′
(1996) found increased
thout a corresponding crossi
23
24
sectttonal s■ ze
may s■ mply be
■ncrease
■ncreased
■n
■ndiv■ dual
muscle fibers.
cellular storage of nutr■
as glycogen′ creatine′ trttg■ ycer■ des or water.
This
・
ents such .
This has
bben t9rmed SarcOplasmic hypertrophy by zatsiorski (1995).
=The,ρ ounter argument is that it may also be ev■
hyperplastta.
Total fiber count was nOt measured′ however′
PO thttS iS StthRly spec,latiOni
evidence for
Thus′
hyperお las■ a has been demonstrated in an■
■ndirect
dence:for
ev■ dence suggests hyperp■
as■ a
ma■
mode■ s but on■ y
may occur
■n
humans
(Anton主 o′ 2000)。
Resistance Trai-ning Mbthods
Eree Weight _Training
Some
of the benefits of free weight resistance
training are whole-body training whiie working large
muscles, .promotion of bo'ne mineraiization, and i-mprovement
of both j-nter- and intra-muscular coordination
(Harman,
2000). Various types of free weight equipment exist
and
though similar, each has distinct characteristics that can
1
affbct- the training effect., Typica]ly, various types of
barbel-ls,'dumbberfs and throwing imprements are used in
free weight training.
Free weight methods ere subject to changes in reverage
whi]-e moving through a rangeL of motion. one consequence or
｀
25
this
■s
that for every exerc■
se there
■sス
a pos■ tiOn iOf
mechan■ cal disadvantage′ common■ y referred t9 as a stttCkttng
pOキ nt
(ZatsiQrsky′ 1995). The StiCking point
■imttts the
maX・ mum weight one can lift through the range of mot■
oO′
altiOugh an athlete may be capable of greater force
prOduction at other joint angles.
rema■ ns
Although the｀
load
constant throughout the full range of´ motion w■ th
free welghtヽ exercisesr the fOFCe and Velocity during the
tmovement vary depending on the effort applied and the
Chang・ lg
meChanical challenge fOr each j9int angleo
free weight exerc■
ses′
With
changing mechan■ cal advantage
ヽ
1
generally results in peak forcё
occurring near the
beginning of the c9ncentric movement′
resulting in less
than peak 10ading fOr the remainder of the movement.
｀
As meChanical advantage increases′
occurs。
decelerattton
・
During a 'l RM bench press th9 bar may deCelerate
for the fina1 24% of the range of mottton.
During a
１
１
１
Submaximal effort at 81を of l RM′ dece■ eration may occur as
１
■
ト
early as thさ fina1 52お .6f the range of motion (Elliott &
Wilson′ 1989).
J
ヽ
jo主 nts
Deceleration is necessary tO protect the
｀
of the body fiom exOessive forこ e at the terminal
point in the range (Siff′ 2000), HOWeザ ler′ because of
dё celeratiOn′・ resultant
potor unit recruitment′ vざ 10city′
and force output decrease during an exercise
"
,
(Newton
7
Humphries, Murphy, WiIson, & Kraemer, 1995).
exercj-ses"invofving vertical- lifting
when
DurJ-ng
of a mass, this obcurs
the upward force produced by the body is decreased
which alIows gravity to decelerate the mass
(Harman
,
2000).
Most resistance traini_ng programs invol-ve some form .of
free-weight training.
However, attempts to produce
VR
exercise that more closely match the human force production
curve through a range of motion are common. Additional
equipment is often required to produce this variabl-e
resi-stance ef fect.
.
Yariable Resistance Training
Many have'tried to increase the amount of force output
-and motor
unit abtivation during'heavy resj-stance exercise.
These methods include
variable leverage machines utilizing
eams, isokinetic machj-nes, compensatory acceleration
training (CAT), and combined resistance (CR) methods
i
(Behm,
1988; Hatfield, 7982, 7989; Jones, Hunter, Fleisig,
EscamilIa., & Lemak, 7996,' Lander, Bates, Sawhi11,
1985; Siff ,
Gorman,
2OOO; Simmons,
& .Hami f
7996, 7999; Tate , 2OO7; Te'Ile
I,
&
1985). True isokinetib hachines (e.g., Cybex) arei
a separate class of
VR equipment
that provides a
VR
effect
by keeping the speed of motion constant during an exercise.
21
These .devices
are very expensive and their use and function
*
and are beyond the scope of this review.
. FrlaStic material may'be used to successfully vary f'oad.
, during resistance exercises. Elastic resist.ance increases
)\
= linearly in proportion to the eladtic deformation iccording
to Hboke′ s LaW: (FR =
res■ stancq′ k tts the coeffic■ ent of elastttc■
mater■ al′ and
△x ■s
・
k・ △x)′ wherё FR iS the force of
the change
■n
/
'
ty for the
pOs■ tiOn due to
defOrmation (1.e.′ X― X。 ′Where X。 = resting length and x =
deformed
■ёngth)
res■ stance ■s
(Serway & Faughn′
affected by the
of the elastic mater■ a■
.′
2003).
■n■ tial
Therefore′
the
longth and stttffness
A number of home gym and
physical therapy products utilize.e■ astic resistancё (e.g.′
Bow Flex′ b01oFlex′ 」umpstretch Ёands′ Theraband′
'These devices are often
MediCordz, surgj-caI tubing) .
simple to use, inexpensive, and may serve as convenient
means
of exercising while traveling.
utilizing
However, exercise
only el-astic resistance provi-des Iit.tle to
no
resistance at the beginning of a movement yet ends with
very hiqh resistance and adjusting resistance is difficult
unless multiple bands with varying properties are
(Harman, 2000).
aVai-l-abl-e
,
・
2B
.
Resistance training machines have many benefits that
are largely applicabl-e to an untrained or novice
population. ' Safety (reduced need for spotting, and
l-ess
skill required to perform exercise), design flexibility
allowing for numerous angles of resistance exercises,
and
ease of tise (may encourage more novice use of resistance
training) .are just a few of these benefits (Harman, 2000).
Traditionally, machine manufacturers. have been major
developers of VR equipment. These machines achieVe
VR
through a range of motion by altering torque resistance
using cams and levers.'
Manufacturer's have mdrketed their products with the
argumeht that the-se machj-nes provide greater strength gains
thdn free wej-ghts (Universal Athletic Sales,
1.914).
Contrary to these adverti"sements, free weight resistance
training (box'squats) produced an equal increase in static
strength gains, ds measured by knee extensj-on and hip
extension dynamometers, when compared to training with
ej-ther of two popul-ar
VR machines
(Silvester et dl.,
1981)
However, the same study found that free weight resistance
training increased vertical jump significantly more than
training with either type of
VR
(IEMG) evidence suggested that.
machine. Integrated
EMG
free weight bench press
.
prOduces more muscle actttvity than a corresponding machine
bendh press (MccaW & Frttday′ 1994)。
benefits from VR may be・
■nfer■ or
we■ ghts
nu■
_
29
ThuS′ potential
lified as
■ndicated
by genera■ ly
ヽ
,
outcomes obta■ ned w■ th machines
‐ompared
(」 eSSe′ McGee′ Gibson′ Stone′ & Willttams′
to free
1988).
There has also been concern that many of these machines
fail to match normal himan tOrque patterns (Harman′
1983′
ノ
」ohnson′
Colodny′ & Jackson′ 1990)。
Force output is a■ so affected by the effort applied to
the movement (Behm & Sale′ 1993′
Hatfiё ld′ 1982′ 1989′
Stt ff′
」ones
2002)。
et al.′ 1996′
For many free weight
exercises, this generally results in a peaking of
maximum
tension near the beginning o.f the movement at a position of.
inferior leverage (i.e.,' the sticking point) . The load is
then dece'Ierated throughout much of t.he remainder of the
movement
by decreasing the force output against the load,
thus allowing gravity to sl-ow acceleration. Acceleration
usually-decreases as rn".f,u.,i"rf advaltage increases, due,to
increased torque, which requires Iess force production to
l-if t' the weight.
If one vol-untarily exerts more force on a
submaximal-
Ioad than is necessary, the resul-tant force output is
greater due to greater accel-eration (Jones et dI.,
T996;
30
Hatfield, 1982, I989) . Under submaximai loading,, one can..
exert just'enough effort to overcome the load, or ole
can'
exert maximal effort against the submaximal l-oad. If
maximal effort is exerted, the body automatically
accbmmodat.es
the force output to the specific joint
po'sition (Siff , 2002). This results in a greater
mean
force output t.han when only hpplying the minimum .f,orce
needed
to complete the movement. This is easily
*achieved
through the use of throwing implements such as med bal.Is
\
and is the basis for CAT. This method can al-so be used
with any resistance-training.device (i.e., cam, Iever,
and
p*u1Iey machines, barbel.l-s, ciumbbel-ls, med ba11s, etc. ) .
exercises invol-ving barbells or dumbbell-s, it
.with
is difficult to maximize this effect due to the need to
However,
decel-erate the bar, which might. otherwise prescint a safety
hazard. Using el-astic bands in combination with free
weight resistance may overcome this problem and aIIow
CAT
to be done with free weights
Co'mbined ReFistance
"
r
Training
Many researchers _and
IT
strength practitioners
hqve
dabbled with various means of combining variable and free
weight rbsistance methods. However, there is a dearth of
rigorous bcientific l-iterature demonstrating the benefits
31
Of c氏 。 The iiterature rev■
ewed in this section
■s largel'y
,abstracts from conference proceedings′ non― peer revieWOd
research′ anecdotal exper■ mentattton and untestざ d
. ypotheses.
provュ de
a
One of the gOa■ s of the present stugy is,tO
nformattton about the effects of
ri06r and factual ェ
CR tra■ n■ ng.
A pOssttb■ O so■ ution to gaining the beneftttS Of free
wettghts′ V耳 ′ and
CAT is the use of CR。
'Greater mean force
output can be obtained by increasing the resiOtance as
^meChanical advantagc increases during an exercise (Behm′
1988′ Siff′ 2000)。
Given the nature of force production
occurr■ ng w■ th free wettght res■ stance exerc■ se and the
nature of elastiC res■
stance′ these two methods ofJtra■
n■ ng
may co,plemeit each other aS many have specu■ ated (Bepm′
1988′
Berry, Matic′ ′& Lassa′ 2002り Newton et a■
Simmons′ 1996′ _1999′ Tate′
2001).
.′
2002′
Behm (1988)publiShed
his hypothestts with surg■ cal tubing attached to free we■ ght
barbell exercises while Simmons (1996′
1999)& Tate (2001)
attempted free weight etterc■ se w■ th gttant e■ astic bandsT and
alsb. free we■ ght plus large Chains hang■ ng from the
barbello
Berry has developed a system speciflcally for CR
using bungee dords attaghed to barbell´ 、free weight
exercises (BNS Bungee System′ www.bttg― n― strongocom).
32
However, whil-e these reports are J-nnovative, and the
findings promising, their efforts l-ack scientific rigor
further study is
Ebben and
and
needed
」ensen
(2002)compared vertttcal ground
reaction forces and IEMG activttty of the quadriceps and
hamstrings during three different barbel■ .ack squat
conditions. Group l performed a 5 RM set
a 5 RM sё t with 10% of the barbe■
apprOximately 10t of、 the
hang■ ng from the bar‐
.
■oad
■
GrOup 2 performed
weight removed and
replaced with large chさ ins
Group 3 performed a 5 RM set with
10%`of the barbell weight removed and approximately 10% of
thq loOd replaced with large e■ astiO bands attachedfto both
the bar and the ground.
They found no s■ gnificaht
differences in the ground reacttton force (GRF)or IEMG
results' for eccentri・ c and concentric portions of the squat
(
in any condtttiono
They concluded that there may be little
use for cR tra■ n■ ng methOds.
In contrast to this study, Newton et dl.,
(2002)
presented preliminary findings j-n abstract f6rm that the
force, veloci.ty, and power ou.tput during the back squat
wefe al-tered si_gnificantly using CR. .They found that
greater velocity and power were'produced over the
phase of the exercise..
l_ower
33
Cronin, McNair, and Marshal-l- (2003) contrasted the
.
effects of free weight supine squat machine training,
CR
supl-ne squat machine training using bungee cord resistarice
in addition to the
meichines
weight stack, and jump squat
training using the supine squat machine. After 10 weeks of
training, there was no significant difference in supine
squat machine 1 RM: .However,
,., there was
was a si-gnificant
difference in the EMG results during the l-as.t phase of the
eccentric'motion for the
RM
CR
group. They al-so tested for
in the lunge exercise and found that the
1
CR group
\
iniproved.
this
significantly more than the other two groups in
"measure
.
:
Siff (2000) experimented with
CR
using chains,
cords, and giant Lubber baiids. He reported that
training. resulted in greater
mean
bungee
CR
resistance lifted while
acceferation remained near constant for a longer portion of
the movement. The result is .a much higher ,mean ,force
output foi CR than traditional- free weight resistance
alone. This Study was not published in a peer-reviewed
journal but does provide
findings.
some
interesting preliminary
Siff (2000', p. 4L2l proposeci that
CR
duling
a
box squat resulted in:
1.
A greater mean and peak force produced throughout
the range of movement-.
2.
'
34^'
Thg descent onto t.he box tended to be accelerated
aborre the normal gravitational raLe of 9.Bm/sec2, so
, that greater eccentric force had to be generated to
control the downward motion..
3. The strongel eccentric loading and the brief
transition period invdtved whil-e sitting before'
expioding upwards provided neuromuscul-ar stimulation
which approxi-mates that usually encountered in
.
popular plyometric training
4. The force generated during the Later stageb
increased, in strong contrast to the situation of
normaf squatting in which force production tends to
decrease, signif icantly
Depending bn
the loading of the bar and the elastic
resistance, 1it is possibJ-e to reach supramaximal loads at
the top of a
movement
with CR. Anecdotal evidence from
Simmons (1,996, L9991 and
Tate (200L) indicate great
potential for force output and report high l-evels of
success using
CR may
CR.
not be suitable for all exercise
movements.
Zatsiorsky (personal communication, 79 September,
2OO2)
suggested that CR is best suited for movements that have an
ascending joj-nt:force relationship (i.e.,
pushing
movements
such as bench press and back squat).
In addition to elastic bands,
Simmons' (1 996,. Lggg) and
Tate (2001) have used large chains attached to a
l-oaded
35
barbel■ . Thtts prov■ des an ever―
joint angle ttncreases.
■ncreas■
ng res■ stance as
Chains are hung from the barbell′
which accumu■ ate on the ground as the bar
are
■ifted
off the ground as the bar is
■s ■owered
■ifted.
and
These
puthors suggested that chattns and elastic bands might
■mprove
neurological response and force outputし
Whttch they
feel is due to less deceleration and greater res■
stance at
the mechanttcally advantageous parts of the motiOn (S主
imons′
1996′ 1999′ Tate′ 2001)。
Berry′ Matic′ and Lassa (2001)have used bungee cords
attached to free weights during resistance.ettercises with
success.
In a non― poer reviewed study available online′
they compared CAT to what they termed dynam■
resistance training (DART).
c accentuated
The DART method is the CAT
method With the addittton of cRo
They found sign■
greater mean force output and・
bar volocity for the DART
grOup than the cAT group (Berry et al.′
2002).
ficantly
Telle and
Gorman (1985)advoCated for the use of a combinatiOn Of
free wdights and hydraulics.
(2002)′
■oad
Similar to Newton et al.′
they found when using CR there was an lncrease in
and less deceleration throughout a range ofimottton but
the addbd resistance・ is only present during the concentric
phase of the mOVement.
"The'majority of researcii and theory surrounding
I .
36
CR
indiCatbs its use for incre-ase-d mean force production
through a. range of motion. There have been limited
efforts, in a non-l-aboratory setting, to use this method t.o
increase the rate of force develbpment (RED)
199'6, 7999; Tate, 200I).
These studies involved attering
mpLs
this effect.
(Simmons,
to achieve
Increasing efastic to free weight ratio
,
a
shoul-d al-l-ow for greater acceleration at the bottom of
a
range of motion without worrying about losing control of
a
barbelt at a]u end of a movement, due to the increasing
tensi'on
The findings of Newton et df.,
latter theory and found that
CR
(2002) support this
allowed great.. .rr.orn.
acceleration than free weight resistance alone. This' was
due in part, to the el-astic resistance being less ih
t.he
bottom position of the squat exer.cj-se where mechanicaladvantage is at a minj-mum (i.e.,
the stickihg point) during
this type of. free weight exercise. They found Iess
need
for decEleration due to the increasing band resistance,
and
suggested that using CR on ,a squat exercise'may have more
transfer to bal-l-istic exercises such as the vertical
jump.
f r
31
In sporting movements, force is' generally produced'in
a concentrated, explosive effort (Zatsiorsky, 1995)'. With
VR
tr'aining, near
maximum
force is produced over- the'
majority of the range of motion. However, it 'is generally
' hot a natural- movement in sport to-produce maximum force
,.
throughout the ful-l- range of motion (Zatsiorsky, 1995) .
*,
when using
elastic resistance,
Cwo
effects can be achieved
depending on how the el-astic and free weight components are
combined. The greater the percentage of resistance'from
the eIast,ic, the greater the contrast in loading which results in greater accel-eration near the beginning of, a
movement
with most of the force output occurring'near the
end of the reinge of motion. However, using a l-'esser
percentage bf resistance from-eiastic resistance results in
a smaller alteration of the force-velocity curve. This
variability
in combined resistance methods i-s
many coaches
pres<
=n't,
t
in
!
training methods and may each affect the
trainlng stimulus differently,
though no research has
I
.
tested this theory
Many
strength practitioners currently use variati5ns
I
' of CR, and some researchers, have suggested that
CR may b'e
beneficial in the development of strength, although
knowledge about CR lacks scientific
rigor.
Given the
t
3B
nature of force production obcurring with. free weight
resj-stance training and the nature of- el-astic resistance,
these two methods logica}ly complement each other.
Simmary
lt has been shown that strength gains can occur in as
litt■ e as seven,veeks′
ye, indiVidual response to
reSistanCeitraining is highly deiDendent on numerOus factors
including age′ training httslory′ Sex′ biology′ and tra■ ning
regimeno
Strength ga■ ns are dependё nt on both musc■ e
cross― sectional and neurOmuscular adaptations to res■
tra■ n■ ngo
stance
Some ev■ dence also suggests that hyperplasキ a of
muscle fibers may ex■ st′ but this
■s
likely m■ n■ mal and
very difficult to measure。
Scttentists′ cOaches′ and equipment manufacturers have
exper■ mented w■ th var■ ous forms of res■ stance dё vices.
Numerous dev■ ces have been utilttzed in attempts to
reproduce benefits of free we■ ght exercise while
* eliminating the negative aspects.
"CR
is
an-
attempt' to
r)
utilize properties of variabl-6 elastic resistance with
isotonic free weight resistan,ce. The anecdotal reports are
intriguing, yet lack scientific rigor.
The goal of the
.
r
ヽCHAPTER
3
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
In this study′ the effects of combined elastttc and.
■soton■ c free wettght res■ stance tra■
power′
and lean bOdy mass were
chapter outlines thё
ヽ
study.
n■
ng.upon strength′
■nvestttgated.
The folュ ow■ ng
methods and procedures used in this
Thtts chapter is dividё d into the following
sections:
1.
2.
.Selection of Subjects
Testing Procedures
3.
Training Program Procedures
4.
Treatment of Data
Selection of Subjects
Prior to :this study, the
Human
Subjects Review.
Committee at fthaca CoIlege reviewed and approved the
present study (see Appendix A). Subjects were volunteers
not required to participate.
Thr-is
research was conducted
March through May of 2002, during the off-season when these
athl-etes were al-l-owed to focus on strength traini-ng.
During'this time, the athletes had fewer physical
demands
on their time that coul-d interfere with participation in
t
this study
39
Fort.y-four young (20!7 yrs), resistance trained (4t2
yrs experience) subjects, 22 males and 22-females,
recrulted from men's basketball, wrestlinq,
40
were
women's
basketball, and women's hockey teams at Cornel-l- University.
OnIy subjects with at feast two consecutive years of
resistance training experience were considered. AII
subjects read and signed the informed consent form
(Appendix B) and received medicaf cfearance from their
respective team athletic trainer prlor to the study
(Appendix C) .
In addition, a team physician had previously
cleared subjects for participation in sportr dS wel-l- as
conditi-oning and strength training for the 2007-2002
academic year. Approval was obtained from CorneII
University to recruit their student athletes as subjects
and to use thej-r facilities
for testing and training
(Appendix D) .
The researcher conducted a functional- assessment
each subject's ability
verticaf
of,
to perform a countermovement
jump (CVJ) off two feet, bench press, and paralleI
back squat through a fuff range of motion.
alfowed to participate
A candidate
was
in the study if they were apparently
healthy, possessing no orthopedlc fimitations,
the functional assessment.
and passed
41
Some
subjects could only perform upper body or l-ower body
teHting procedures. In this case, they participated only
in the section of testing for which t.hey were-cleared.
To
measure training adherence, attendance was taken at every
training session (see Appendix E).
Testing Procedure's
Testing procedures are divided into the following
.subsections:
1.
Design
2.
Dependent Variables
i. Str"r,gth
b.
Measures
Power Measures
c. Body Composition ttibasures
Posbible Confounding Vari'ab1es
3.
Design
Forty― four subjects were dttvided using a s,ratttfied
ヽ
random aSsttgnment′ according to their respective teams‐ 。 .
Each team.member was randomly assttgned to the control .(C,
n〒 22)or
experimental group (E′
in=22)。
ThiS assignment'
procedure attempted to achieve: d)equ,l numbers of
subjects from each sport in both groups′
and b)equざ
numbers of males and females in ea9h group.
ヽ
l
Some subjects
with pre― existing ttnjurttes to their lower extremitttds were
onl-y'cleared to participate in upper body training
:
testing.
n:71
1
, E;
42.
and
This resul-ted differenL humbers of subjects
n72'2)
(C;
for average power, peak power, and bdck squat
RM.
This study cons■ sted of pre― tra■ n■ ng testing′ seven
weeks of res■ stance tra■ n■ ng′ and post― tra■ n■ ng teStttna。
The study began approximately
■our
webks after the
・
conclus■ on oiE Competitive ath■ etic seasons′ a■ ■ow■ ng for
recovery from the demands of in― seOsqn competit主 o, and
trainttngo All・ subjects took one Week off from all tra・ nttng
folloWing their competitiVe season.
Foユ ■owing this rest
subjects resistance trained fOr approximate■ y three
week′
weeks as a team pr■ Or to pre■ tia■ n■ ng testing for the
study.
Pre― training testing ana post― training testing
procedures for all dependenti var■ ables was compiled
same manier・ and on the same scheduled timeline.
ュn
the
Two days
of testing were c9nducted pr■ or to and after the seven― week
training period.
The following testing SChedule was
fol-lowed by aII subjects:
Testing Day One
o
Countermovement
vertical:
jump
o Administration of.pre-training questionnaire
o Paral-Ie] back squat 1-3 RM
43
There was approximately 30 min between the vertical
jump
and squat measures to al-l-'ow for adequate recovery and to
t
complete the pre-training questionnaire.
Testing .Day Two
0 ,ё dy CbmpOsition
●
Bench Press l-3 RM
Testing Day One and Testing Day Two were separated by 48
hotrrs of rest (ioe。
′ Wednesday
and Frttday).
Dependent variables
Strё ngth
Thё
、
Measures
experttmenta■
(independent)variable was the usё・ δf
combinedFe■ astic― free weight resistance (cR)durttng
tra■ n■ ngo
Measured dependent var■
ables
‐
■nc■ uded
countermovement vertttcal jump (CV」 )Off tWO feet′ a l-3 RM
for back squat″ and a l-3 RM for the bench_press.
The dangers of‐ max■ mum strength testing us■ ng free
we■ ghts
may pe minimizod′
provided there tts proper
spotting′ superv■ s■ on′ and correct exerc■ se technique
employed (Wathan′ 1994).
■s
It haS been shown that l-3
repetitttons that occur between 90% and 100% of max■ mum are
more reliab■ e for predicting l RM than higher repettttion
tests (Morales & Sobonya′ 1996)。
All subjects wore baCk
support belts for the sqvat teSt and used gym chalk for
44
both the squat and、 bench press testingo
No knee wraps′
elbow wraps, wrist wraps, squat suits, or bench shirts were
allowed. Thbse procedures were fo11owed for both pretraining testing and post-training testing.
A11 sribjects
were proficient in each exercise technique, as weltr as
spotting techniques, and two or more certified strength
'conditioning specialists
(NSCA-CSCS)
monitored aIl- testing.
for the bench press & back squat, the conversion
'equation described .by Wathan (L994). *": used to estimate
RM
from multiple repetitio.," l(See Appendix F for a sample
cafcul-atj-on) t1
x repsJ)i.
RM
: 100 x rep wt / (48.8 +53.8 x expt'-.075
This equation was shown 'to be the most reliabl-e
i,
..
L,
of the seven most
common
equations for predicting
11
1 RM in
bench press and squat exercises (LeSuer, McCormick, Mayhew,
. Wasberstein, & Arnold,
7gg1)
. A 1-3
RM
was achieved in
aPProximate1y3-6attempts,with3-5minutesrestbetween
attempts. This procedure 3Il,ows for adequate
warm-up
without inducing excessive fatigue (Harman, Garhammer,
Pandorf,_ 2000; F1eck & Kraemer, 2004) .
A standard
techhique was employed similar to guidel-ines found in
Harman; et al-. 2000, with no maximum fatiguing efforts
intentionally p'erformed before the test.
RM
Prior to the
1-3
attempt, subjects warmed-up with the following protocol:
,,
r:
45
50% of 1 RM x .3 repetiti-ons
.
'."
60%
of 1 RM x 3 repetitions,
10%
of 1 RM x 3 repetitions
80%
of 1 RM x 1 repetition
\
\
t:Olects then continued to increase the weight using
approximatety five to ten'percent increases i-n weight unti-.l
reaching their 1 RM.
Some
subjects chose to attempt
multiple consecutive repetitions at this weight, hence the
1-3 RM, while others attempted a greater l-oad. Experienced
strength & conditioning coaches assisted in the selection
of load to increase the probability that the testing was a'
true 1-3 RM
(1985)
. Strict testing criteria similar to Gotshal-k
were fol-Iowed to ensure uniform. testing procedure for al--l-
subjects. The back squat was performed to paralle1, which was defined as the-depth where
with the knee joint.
A
the hip joint is para1leI
NSCA-CSCS
visually judged the depth
of each squat. R'epetitions not meeting the paralle1
requirement were not counted. Stance was shoulder width or
slightly wider in a (par.ilIe1) version of a full Olympic
./
squat. Ultra wide Iow bar powerlifting' style squat
technique was not used.
)
46
Fof the bench press, the bar must have touched the
subject's chest, and the arms must have reached ful-I
extension (lockout) to complete one repetition.
" bouncing oif the chest r or lifting
No
the hips off the
bench
,is alIowed. Any grip where the hand was placed between
1
the outer rings and inner edge of the bar knurling'was
!_
accepted. Eor the barbells used, the distance between the
outer rings
measured
-81
cm and
the distance between the
inner edge.of the bar knurl.ing was AZ cm' (standard Olympic
barbe11).
Power Measures
A CVJ off two feet (!o lead in Jtepl was measured both
pre-training and post-training as a measure of lower
body
power. Eul-L arm movement was. allowed during t.he jumps.
The CVJ is a quick and easy test {or lower body power,
has been used to predict speed and power in athletes
(Mascaro, Seaver, & Swanson, 1992;, Stone, Byrd, Tew,
Wood, l-980-).
l
and
&
AII jumps were perforined using a Vertec
(Sports fmports., Col-umbus, OH) for height measurement.
. Subject's standing reach val-ues were measured with
both toes against a wall, feet togetherr. reaching out wlth
the reach hand as far as possible.
Reach values were
subtracted from subjects' absofute height during a CVJ as
47
measured on the Vertec′ which resulted in theirち ump
height. These values were then used to calculate both
peak
power output (PP) (Harman, Rosenstein, Frykman, Rosenstein,'
& Kraemer, L9?1) and average power
output (AP) (Eox &
Mathews, 198i) .
using thb formula:
pP (w):
61.
9
tjump
PP was ca1cul-ated
height
(cm) l +36.0
AP"was calculated using
Ap (wl= 21.2[jump height
[body mass (]!g) t -1,822
the formufa:
(cm) ]+23.Q
[body mass (kg) ]-1,393
These formufas are shown to be a good prbdictor of peak'
power outpyt and a fair predictor of avelage power outptit.
Both.measures were found to be more accurate than the
widely used Lewis formula (Harman, 1995)
-
Body Composition Measures
Body .mass and
skinfolds yrere measured at the
saine time
.for both pre- and post-training testing to minimi.ze '
variance due to time of day. Measurements were always
taken between 3:45 pm and 5:45 pm and prior t-o any phys+ca+
activity.
Body mass was measured usiqg
cerlified digital
scales to the nearest .1 kg. Skinfotds were.measurea'r"i-r,g
John BuIl- skinfold calipers (British Indicators, LTD.,
England, UK) to note changeb in lean Uoay mass and body fat
mass. American College of Sports ytbdicine
(ACSM)
guidelines f6r skinfold' testing were'used with
measurements
: 48
at the triceps, subscapula, chest, mid-axi1.1a, suprail-Iiac
(a1ong'the anterior ax111ary Iine), umbilicus, and thi96'.
It is i-mportant to
a
ma.rgr-n
remember
or error of *
that skinfold,measurement has
-^,^^^t,
2000)
3.5%(ACSM;
a
'
. An intiatester '
,=
t.
\
reliability
analysis was conducted on one sqbject with
measurements
three times in the morni-ng, three times at
noon, and three times in the late afternoon. Test-retest
reliability
was >.'95 for the tester.
A-generalized seven-
site formula for college-aged males (Jackson & Pol1ock,
1978) and the corresponding formula for college-ag.e.O
!
femaies (Jackson, PolJ-ock, & Ward, 1980) was use'd in
q
conjunction with body mass to estimate 1ean body maSS for
each subject..
..
Height was a possible confounding variable'because
tal-Ier subjects f; the experimehtel group would displace
ヽv
more elastic during a squat and therefore have different
loading patterns' than shorter athletes-. This would resul-t
in .greater overload at the top of the movement and less
overload at the bottom than shorter subjects. To account
for height, elastic band tension
was
modified by subject
described in the subsequent section on elastic resistance
procedures.
'
as
49
Total- work done by each subject could afso confound
the.resuits of this study. Because of individual
differences in barbell- displacement during a bench press or
back squat, due to limb !-ength differences, the work done
in both the concentric and eccentric
moveme'nts are
different .for'each subject. Individual body mechanj-cs
create indiv"iduat capabilit.y' for accel-eration during each
lift.
In addltion, there are individual- variances in
acqeleratiol from set to set, repetition to repetition,
even.
dnd
during a repetition due to body 'mechanics,
psycholo$icaI, and/or emotional factors.
However, whil-e
this confounding variabl-e was recognized, it was not ful-ly
controlled. Calculating the amount of work done by
each
subjbct and making each group do equal amounts of work
would be very tedioris and beyond the scope of this study.
However, the average tension rblative to e"ach subjects'
RM
1
and the volume of training completed by each subject
(sets x ?epetitions) was'carefully controlled.
A sport-specific effect on the force output curve may
have presented another confounding variabl-e tnat affected
subject response and adapt,ation to training.
An attempt to
control for this effect was made by 'ensurj-ng equal numbers
of subjects from each sport were in each group. This
was
accompl-ish:d by stratifying
sampfing,
occurred..
'
subjects by team before
sg,
random
'
! Subjects were also asked before training if they had
taken any creatine in t.he past month (prior to the study)
,
and after training whether they had taken any duripg the
study (see Appendix G) . 'Creatine has been .shown to
increase power, strength, and lean body mass in subjects
(Kirksey, Stone, Warren, Johnson, Stone, Haff, et aI.,
1999)
creatine '
. Subjects were al-so asked not to
"consume'
'!
for the dqration of the study. Data of subjects
who
admitted to using creatj-ne in the month prior or during the
study were. not in'cl-uded in the statistical
analyseS.
Training age may also be a\confounding. variable.
While all subjects had at ieast two years of consecutive
resistance training experience, lraining age variability
necessitated categori ztng subj"ects on a cont j-nuum from
- intermediate
to advanced resistance trainees. A pre-
training questionnaire asked subj'ects to quantify the
nr.imber
of years they had resistance trained conSecutively
for at l-east three days per week (see Appendix G) .
Tra■ n■ ng=Program
Procedures
51
The following section is divided into these subsections:
1. Elastic Resistance Procedures
2. Training Program and P'eriodization
Elastic Resistance Procedures
In traditional free-weight training, the top, bottom,
and averaqe resistance (toad) are the same for any given
exercise. Thus, average resistance for free-weight
exerciseS is equal to the weight of the bar plus plates
added. However, combining an elastic implement (e.g.,
bands, bungee cords, surgical tubing) with free weight
exercises varies the resistance at the top and bottom of
a
movement. Combining resistance methods in this manner
resul-ts in a redistribution of the l-oad as compared 'to bar
and plate weight alone. With traditional- iree-weight
loading, the'loading remains constant throughout the ful-lrange of motion. Compared with traditional
lo'ading, the
CR
free-weight
setup resulted in approximately
than"the average resistance at the bottom of a
10% l-ess
movement,
and approximat.ely 10% more than the average resistance at
the top for all subjects. Because resistance in
CR
by position, the term average resistance was used to
determine the toad for .each exercise.
vdries
52
Averaqe resistance for CR is defined as the
average
elastic tension plus the free weight resistance (load).
Av6rage el-astic tension is defined as the avetage'of the
elastic tension at the top of a range of motion and the
:r
elastic tension at the bottom of
Theref ore,
Rurg : RBar & prate weight +
a ',ranqe
%
of motion.
(R"l.stic bottom * Relastic top)
.
To apply similar loading parameters across different
subjects the elastj-c tension was adjusted for each subject.
This provided the same average resistance for all subjects
in the, gxperimental qroup regardless of different bar
displacements during the squat and bench press -
I
Using bands of different thickness and muttiple
attachment points to vary the length of'the band a1lbwed
for lhe average resistance to be standardized for each
subject based on 'their individual pre-training 1 RM. The
CR system used
involved large bungee cords, with
'carabineers on the ends that were attached to a d-ring
hook
at the bottom of a power rack, and at the top to a d-ring
attached to the bar
(BNS Bungee System,. (www.big-n-
strong.com). Three sizes were used to achj-eve the aesire[
elastic tensions. Elastic tension was measured using a
Hanson Archery 100
Shubuta, MI).
rb spring Scal-e tHj.=o. Archery,
Taking multiple measures of tension at
53
dif,fereht lengths of displacement allowed fbr graphing of
tensi-on as a function of displacement. SubjecLs were
both the bench press and back squat to
t
obtain maximum and minimum hbight variab l-es during each
measured performing
exercis'e to determine their individual bar di'splacement
each 1ift.
Ln
Equations predicting the average band. tdnsion
ior.subjects of different heights were then calculdted.
giving a set amount of elastig te"nsi.on for each subject in
the experimental grouP.
The average elastic resistance forteach subject was
.19%(t3.2gZ) of their back squat 1
RM
and 2O%G2'.622) of
their bench press 1 RM. These values were chosen
because
;these were the amount of elastic tension being used. in
anecdotal reports (Berry, et dI. ,, 2002,' Tate , 2007)
many
'
Elastic tensioh remained cohstant throughout the training
period for subjects in the experimental- group. This
ensured two things: 1), subjects in tfr" ."p"rimenlal grciup
had the same ratio of elastj-c / free-weight Sesistance,
2l subjects in thg experimental
Iifted the
same averaqe
a.nd
'and
control- groups each
resistance', as a'percentage of
their 1 RM, for each repetition during the trainiffg perio-d'
In other words, tf one subject in the experimental group
and another subject in the control- group had the same 1
RM,
-\
then the average CR resistance (6ar .weight plus average
elastic tension) for the experimental- subje6t was eqrla1 to
54
・
the'bar we=ght of the contr9■ subject.
Trqining Program and Periodization
The t.raining program fol-l-owed a two-day upper body / 'foiuer
body split,
lifting
alternating workouts on a three day per-week
schedule (Mon) Wed, Fri) . Periodization fol-l-owed
a
tr
wave-Iike progression with varying set and repetition
schemes (See Appendix
H). The exercj-ses completed
and
their order for ,each session was as fo]]ows: Workout 1: B'bck Squat, Powei- Shrug, Romanian Deadlift (RDL) 7 Walking
\..
Iuhge, Dumbbell (DB) Curl Press. Workout 2z Bench Pres-s,
One-Arm DB Row,
Tricep Extensionj Lat Pul-Idown,
Cuban
Piess. , Rest periods were approximately 2-3 minutes betweeh
-
sets and exercises, with the workout lasting 45-60 minutes.
after a dynamic five minute warm-up. Both groups performed
all exerciies with a controlled eccentric, no pause,
explosive concentric --tempo, wi-th a brief i'nter-repetition
pause of・ less than one
second.
If the programmOd
'repetitj-ons could not be compl-eted, the subjects
used thё
"rest-pause" method. This required the subjects to perform
every programmed repetition by themselves. A iubject
was
allowed to rest for 5-10 seconds between. repetitionst if
J`
1
t
55
this was needed to complete the set. This ensured. that
' each subject completed a]1
programmed number of
repetitions, even during very heavy sets. All subjects
were ins.tructed in the manner .of spotting that. required the
subject to complete each repetition without assistance from
Spotters were only used to ensure safety during
a spotter.
the lift,
not to aid in the completlon of repetitions.
This t'ecfrnique ensured that all subjects performed the same
number -of repetitions at the same reiativb load. For more
L-
detail- of the workout or periodization, refer to Appendix
H.
Treatment of Data
x
with
repeated measures
,
,2 x 2 ANOVA
on the time variable (i.e., before and after seven weeks of
O
(Group
Time)
training), was employed to detect statistically
sigr{iticant
. 1p<.05) dj-fferences for all dependent variables (i.e., back
iguat 1 RM, bench press l- RM, CVJ peak power, CVJ average
power, and LBM). Data were ,l-isted according to subject ID,
and l-abeled according to group number (i.e.,
exp.erimental-
control or
) and time factor (i . e. , pre-training
training) and orgar,-ir"a in Miirosoft ExceI
XP
vs
. pos't-
before belng
imported into SPSS 72.01 for data arialysis. Tukey Post-hoc
analyses were done using Microsoft Excel- XP.
-\
ChaPter
'
ANALYSIS OF
4
RESULTS .
This study was undertaken to determine 1f
combined
elastic and free weight resistance training providesdifferent adaptations than free weight resistance't4aining
'al-one
in .experienced athletes. Prior to and after seven
weeks of training, subjects were tested for upper body and
lower'body strength, lower body peak and average
porrier
output, .and LBM (raw data appear in Appendix I). This
chapter describes the subjects and the statistical analyses
of data and is divided into the following
1
i
suni ect-
subheadi'ngs:
Characteristics
il
2) Lean Body Mass
3) Peak Power
OutPut.
4) Average Power OutPut
,5
) Back Squat 1
RM
6) Bench Press 1
RM
,
Table 1 provides detailed subject characteristics(For more i-n-depth subject characteristics see Appendix J)
Due to-non-tiaining
related injurie-s and failure to
posttest, six subjects were no! inc1uded in the statistical'analysis (see Appendix K) . This resulted in control- (c;
56
.
57
Tabl-e
1
Subject Characteristics
A11 Subjects
(n:44
Height
(qm)
Experimental
)
(n=23
)
774.41 ftL2.1e) 173'.58 fttt.to)
Age (yrs) ' ,o .0, (+1.18)
20
.22
fti..
iB)
Control (n:2!)
!15.44
rn.
Training
Age (yrs)
3 .68 ftt. as)
3 .l4 ftt. gt)
-deviation)
Ncjte. 'Val-ues are mean (+ standard
3
fti-4.64)
t-u ft. st-).
.62 ftt'. tt)
-58
n=17) and experimental (E; n:22) for average power, peak
power, and back'sluat 1 RM. The size of the Bench press
RM
froups remained the
1
same
Lean Body Mass
A2x 2
ANOVA (Group
x Time), with repeated
measures
on ther timd variable-,(i.e., pre-trainin.g testing and post-
training testing), was employed to detect sLatistically
significant differences in LBM.after seven weeks of
training between the contro1 group and the experimental
group:
Means
are -il-l-ustrated in Figure 1 and data in Table
2 indicate no significant Group x Time interaction for
values (F:l
. SS
(f ) ; P:0 . 255)
exper■ mental groups
. Both the ''control
■ncreased
and
LBM sign■ ficant■ y from pre―
tra■ niing testing to post― tra■ n■ ng testttng as ev■
the time mattn effect (p=0.024)。
■mproved
LBM
denced by
However′ neither group
sign■ ficantly more than the other′ and no
signttfttcance was found for the group main effect (p=o。
Mauch■ y′ s test of spher■
c■
ty cr■ ter■ on was met.
914)
59
０こ︶り∽”Ｓ﹄、■Ｏｍ Ｅ“ｏヨ ﹂
︵
Pre― 丁est
Post-Test
Control Group
.
n=21
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Experimental Group
n=23
'Eigure:1
"
for pre-training testing and
'testing
post-training
of LBM for control- and e'xperimental'
groups. A11 subjects improVed pre- to post-training (*
p<.05) . No significant group main effect or int.eraction
Mean"and standard deviatio'n
was found
60
tabte
2'
Lean Body lMass ANOVA Summar
SS
Tablё
MS
DF
Time
4.78
1
4.78
5.52
0.024★
Time*Group
1.16
1
1.16_
1.33
0。
Error
36.38
42
0.87
Group
4.44
1
4.44
15725。 57
42
374.42
ErrorSubi
ects
Note。
★
255
0.01
.914
1034.50
1
387337.33
387337.33
p<. 05; Contro.I (n=21)′ Experimental (n=23)
0.000
Peak Power
A2x 2
ANOVA (Group
x
Time)
, with repeated
measures
on the time variable (i.e., pre-training testing and.post-
training.,testing) ,
was' employed
to det6ct statistically
6L
signlficant differences in peak power (PP) output during
CVJ.
Means
a-
are ill-ustrated in Eigure 2', and data in-Tabl-e
3 did not indicate a significant Group x Time interaction
(
'(F:3.085 (1); P:0.087) .
A significant time main effect
was
found for al-l- subjects (p:0.000), but no significant group
mdin effect was observed (p:0.947). Both the experimental
group and cohtrol group significantly
increased their
PP
output during a CVi over the course of the study 1p<.05).
Mauchlyl
s test of sphericity critelrion was met
Average Power
A 2 x 2 ANOVA (Group x Time)′
With repeated measures
on the time varttable (1.e.′ pre― trainttng testing and post―
trdinttng testing)′ waS employed to detect statistica■ ly
siむ nifttcant
differences in average pOwer (AP)output during
b
a CV」 .
Means are i・ ■lustrated in Figure
Table'4 indicate a significant Group x
AP
3, and data in
Time interaction for
values (F:4.092(7); P:0.050). A Tukey post-hoc analyses
reveal-ed a cri-tical difference of 41,.324 with a harmonic
62
．
側
側
︹
∽〓”饉‘﹄留５ｏ﹂ 〓“ｏ﹂
Pretest
ContЮ I Group
(n=17)
Posttest
Pretest
Posttest
Erperimental Group
(n=22),
Figure 2 ,
_
i
Mean and standard dev■ ation for pre― and post― tra■ n■ ng
"testing of peak power us■ ng a CV」 ′ for control and
experttmentalち groups. All subjё cts improved over time (★
pく .05)。
was found.
No signttficant group main effect or interaction
63
Table 3.
Peak Power Output ANOVA Summary Tabl-e
SS
Time
DF
MS
F
274119.53
1
274119.53
14.78
57222.93
1
57222.93
3.09・
P
0.000★
Ti-me*
Group
Error
686318.20
37
18549。
0.087
14
Group
8692.67
1
8692.67
`Error
72414474.96
37
1957147.97'
Subjects 1445819880.00
1
1445819880。 10
Note. * p<.05; Control (n:17), Experimental
0.00
0。 947
738.74
0.000
(n:221
.
64
→“焉〓 ︶﹂ｏ３ ｏ﹂ ｏｏ”﹄●ンく
1600
1400
Posttest
PostteSt
Pretest
)
Experimental Group
Eigure 3
!
Average Power means and standard deviation for pre- and
post-training testing for control and experimental groups.
A11 subjects improved over tir6e and a significant time.x
group j-nteraction was found (* p<.05) . Tukey"post hoi
analysis showed the experimental- group to have
significantly greater AP post-training than the control
group though no differences existed between.groups pretraining.
'
"
65
Table
4'
Average Power Output
ANOVA Summary
SS
MS
Time
41092.866
1
41092.1866
Time x Group
9816.757
1
9816.757
88758.149
37
2398.869
Error
7354.761
Group
, Error
、 ,
DF
Table
14973393.404
Subject0
177635296.100
1
37
7354.761
F
P
17.130 0.000★
4.092
σ.050★
.
0.018 0.893
404686.308
1 177635296.120
438.946 0。 000
Note。 ★p<.05, Contrё l (n=17)′ Experimental (n=22)
ヽ
I
mean
・
of N being 19.18. Comparison of pre- and post-training
val-ues for the control- group showed a significant change
ヤ
!66
(p<.05) in CVJ-AP. Comparing pre-and post val-ues fot the
experimental- group also reveal-ed a significant differenbe
However, comparing preltraining control- :vaIr.res"
(p<.05) .
with pre-training experimental values did not revealsignificant difference
1p>.05)
a
. Therefore no dlfferences
bxisted between groups pre-training and the experimental
,,
group had significantly greater AP post-training than the
control group 1p<.05). In fact, the mean AP for- the
experimental $roup was 42.21 watts greater
than the
Mauchly'
mean AP
(3%
greater)
for the .o.,t.ol- group after training.
s te'st of sphericity criterion was met.
Back Squat 1 RM
A2x 2
ANOVA
,..
(Group'x Time), with repeated measures on the
time variable (i.e.] pt"-training testing and post-traini-ng'
.^
testing), was e$ployed,to -detect statistically significant
differences in back squat 1 RM. Back squat 1 RM means are
il-lustrated in Figure a! and the
ANOVA
tabl-e (Table
indicates a significent Group x Time interaction
5)
k
67
５ ５
２ ０
０〓︶一
︵
”コげ０〓０”ロ
POSt‐ Test
Pre― Test
Figure
4
Pre― 丁est
Post-Test
Control Group
匡xperimenta:Group
(n=17)
.(n=21)
Mean and standard deviation for pre-and post-training
testing of back squat 1 RM for control and experimental- 'A
groups. A11 subjects significantly improved over time.
siQnificant time x group interaction was .found (* p<.05).
Tukey post hoc analysis showed the experimehtal group to
have significantly greater back squat 1 RM post-training
than the control group though no differences existed
between groups pre-training:
タ
68
Tab■ e‐ 5
Back Squat l RM・ ANOVA Summary Table
SS
Titte
2605.905
/
MS
195。 341 0.000☆
33.3.06 0.000★
1
444.311
Error
493.591
37
13.34
_
69.697
1
_
2504.178
Subjects
Note. *
p<. 05;
P
2605。 905
444.311
Elror
F
1′
Time x Group
Gr‐ ouO,・
・
DF
37
69.697
.028 0。
868
2604.840
972083.991
1 972083.991 388.185 0.000★
Control (n:17 ),, Experimental" (n:22)
'u69
for back squat '1 RM values (F:33.31
(1)
; P:0.000) . Mauchly's
test of bphericity criterj-on was met.
ey post-hoc analyses for t,he interactiori detected
in back
sqU-at 1 RM means revealed
a critical- difference of
3.7121 with a harmonic mean of N being 19.18. A comparison
of the pre-and post-training va]ues for the control
'group
found a significant time effect 1p<.05). Comparing pie-and
post-training experimental group
means al-so reveaLed a
significant difference 1p<.05). Comparing pre-training
control- batk squat f RM values with pre:training
expertmental- values did not reveal a significdnt pre-
training difference between groups (p>-05).
comparison of post-tiaining control- group means with
poSt-training exper-imental group
m6ans however,
did stiow a
significant difference between groups after training
1p<.05). The mean increase in back squat 1 RM for the
contro1 group was 6.58 kg, a
6eo
i-ncrease.
after training.
The mean increase in back squat lRM for the experimental
group was L6.47 kg, a
16%
j-ncrease after training.
Both
the experimental group and coritrol- group significantly
increased their back squat 1 RM over the course of the
study (p<.05), however, the experimental group experienced
a greater improvement wit.h training than the control- group.
Table.6 shows the resufts of a Pearson .or."tutio.
finding
nci significant correfations- between changes in back squat
RM
and changes in back squat 1
RM
and changes in LBM or
i
changes i-n bench press 1 RM and changes in body
Bench Press 1
'mass
RM
on the time variable (i.e., pre-training testing and post-
training testing), was employed to detect statisticatly
significant differeiices in bench press 1 RM, after
seven
weeks of resistance traihing between the control- and
experimental groups. Bench press 1
RM means
are
illustrated in'Eigure 5, anci the data in Table 7 indicate
a
significant Group x Time interaction for bench press 1 RM
vafues (E=\2.896
(1)
; p:0.001) .
.Comparing pre-trainJ-ng
control bench press 1 RM val-ues with pre-training
experimental val-ues did not reveal a significant pre-
training differenCe betweeh g'roups (p>.05) .
post-ttaining control group
means
Compa'rison of
with post-training
.exper'imental group means however, did show a signlficant
difference between groups after training 1p<.05). Thb mean
increase in bench press I
kg, i
4eo
RM
for the contro1 group was 3.34
increase after training.
71
\
Table $
'
r
Co{relation
(n:39)
Back Squat
1 RM A & LBM A
R:- .268
P- .099
(n:22
)
R:-. -334
P- .r29
(n:17
R:-.
P-
)
197
.447
i
,..
105
ｏｏ２ ﹂ 〓げＥＯ臥ヽ
，
０ ５
９ ．
７
０こ 〓ビ
︵
Pretest
ControlGroup
Eigure
5
Posttest
Pretest
Posttest
Experimental Grodp
deviation for pre*and post-tralning
testing of bench press 1 RM for control and experimental
groups. AII- subjects significantly improved over time. 4,
significant €ime x group interaction was found (* p<.05).
Tu"key post hoc analysis showed the experimental group to
have significantly'greater bench. press 1 RM post-training
than the cont"rol- group ttiougti no differences existed
between groups pre-training.
Mean and standard
1)
73
Table 7
Bench Press l RM ANOVA Summary Table
SS
Time
Time x Group
551.263
611199
DF
MS
1´
1
F,
551.263
61.199‐
Error
199。 315
42
4.746
Group
36.227
1
8.630
Ettror
98836。 938
42
2353.260
SubjectO
・610618.910
1 610618.910
P
116.163
0.000★
12.896
0.001★
0.000
0。 952
259.4・ 78 0.000★
Note. * p<.05; Control (n:21), Experimental (n:23)
ITHACA CbTMEE
LIBRARY
74
The mean increase ttn bench press lRM for the experimental
gFOup WaS｀ 6.68 kg′ an 8そ increase after trainingo
ana■ yses
Tukey
l l
Of tli9 interactttons showed that the exper■ menta■
grOup was sign■ ficantly greater than the control group
post― tra■ n■ ng′
though no differenge bltieen groups e挙 土sted
→
pre― tra■ nェ ng。
Table 8 shows the results of a Pearson corre■ iation
finding no sign■ ficant Oorrelations between changes
■n
_
bench press l RM and changes in LBM or changes in bengh
press l RM and chargё s .n body mass.
Summary ,
.
Prior to ahd after seven'weeks of training, sudjects
were tested for upper body and lower -body Strength, lower'
body peak and'_average power output, and LBM. AII- medsured
1 variabl-es
showed
a Significant increase .after training
:
(p<.05). However, measures for average power (AP), back
squat.lRM and bench press
1RM
revealed a s.ignificant
interaction (p<.05) between groups after seven weeks of
training.
fn these measures the group training with
combined free weight pl-us blastic resistance experienced'
greater improvements than the group using free weights
alone.
￨‐
.
‐
・
・
―
.
75
Tabl-e 8
Bench Press 1 RM & Change
Correlations
in Lean Body Mass (LBM)
A11 Subjects
Correlation
(n=44)
Bench Press
l RM△ & LBM△
R= .194
P= .206
Experimental(n=23)
R≡ ―.053
P= .810
Control
(n=21)
R= .121
P= .644
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSS]ON OF RESULTS
Strength and power. gains. can occur in seven
weeks
lWeiss et dl. , 7999) and the present study corroborated
-
these findings as many strength & power measures increased
significantly over the ttaining period. The present study'
also found a significantly qreater improvemenL in upper
body and Iower body strength measuresr ds well- aS average
power output, for the experj-mental- group when compared to
the control g.orp. Accordingly, training with
combined
free-weight and elastic resisCance (CR) may be better for
developing Strength and power than t-raining that .does not
t.ake advantage of CR. To elaborate on these findings,
CR
training and related practical considerations are discussed
in this chaptet.
Possible Mechanisms for Perfoimance Improvement
The greater increase iri strength observed in the
CR
group must be a resu.l-t of either muscle or neurological
adaptation. It-is unclear to what extent increases in
f,BM
affected the gains in strength and power observed. While
LBM was
not significantly different between groups, both
qroups did significantly
t-
increase their
LBM
over the course
of the study. It would,be simplistic to suggest that
t6
LBM
︱
∫
︱
﹃ ・・´
-,J
11
adaptation did not account for the outcome"of the CR &
)_.\
control groups. While their LBM gains were the same, the
pre-sent study did not measure for specific fiber
adaptation. Force output ,Quring resistance training is
dependent ori the load being Iifted and the acceleration'of
thbt load-and
found in-
CR may
humans.
alter these parameters. Type'I fibers
have been shown to produce lower specific
tension co_mpared to Tlpe II fibers, ds well as possessfng a
sfower maximum conLraction velocity.
Type IIa and IIx
+r'
!
fibers hdve been shown to produce greater specific tension
and faster maximum contraction velocity, with IIx being tHe
greater of the two. In addition, type fI fibers possess
greatei amounts of
ATPase which a1low
for greater
amounts
of high velocity and higher tehsibn activity than type I
fibers (Powers & Hiiwley,
.
2OO4)
.
Traihing adaptations di ffer with various exercise
,
parAmeters and.are specific to the imposed demands,
drl
't.
observation"known as the principle of specific adaptations
to
impo'Sed demands
the
SAID
(SAID) (Siff , 2000) .
principle,'selective
In accordance with
fiber hypertrophy has
demohstrated inlresponse to ,rr.iorr" imposed
been
demands
(Berger, L964;- Costil-l- et df ., 7919; Haar Romeny et" a1".,
',''
78
1982′ MacDσ ugall et al。 ′ 1979′
McDoЧ gall′ 1981, Staron et al.′
adaptat土 ons
■n
Prince 、et al.′ 1976′ Sale &
1990′
1991)。
TherefOre′
both the CR group and contro■ grOup ShOuld
be spec■ fttc to the spec■ fttc stimulus that each type of
ヽ
provides
,training
.' ft is possible that
amount.
CR
training recruited a greater
of type fra or rrx. fibers than the control- group did
dur"ihg flee weight olly training.
If this were the case,
then the group with the greatest increasd in type fI
)
fibers,'palticularly
the Ifx fibers, would experience the
gredtest increase in force ,output after
this" study cannot directly support this idea, it is
,possible that CR training rbcruited a greater number of'
type I-I fibers than free weight resistance a1one, which
would allow-fbr increased force production. If
pref,erenti-at type f f fiber recruitment did.occur with
CR
trainin$ it may account for the performance differences
observed between groups. Hoilrever, any mechanism expraining
preferential recruitment is unc]ear. observations of
t"raining that were
cR
during the training portion of the
present scudy may provide a btarting point for furt.her
made
.lg
(
re6earch to determine whether increases in force output are
the result of specific fiber type adaptation.
,ff more force per repetition were performed by the
-group, it i" po""ible that more high intensity work
CR
was
performbd over the course of the training period, which
may
\
have resulted in preierential- adaptation of type II fibers.
In the literature,
Ostrowski, Wil-son, Weatherby, Murphy,
and Littl-e (L997) were unable to determine the effect that
',c. 't.aini-ng has ol
.strength' improvement. They compared different groups using
.different. set and repetition programs. However, their
subjects, only resistance trained twice per week. Thls
may
limit the appticability of their findings to a program that.
utilizes four Qry" of re.sistance training per week such as
the present study. It is unclear whether simply performing
a greater volume of work
woul-d
resul-t in different fiber
type adaptation. ft may be possible that
CR
training \
!
results in not only a greater" volume of work being
pbrfolmed, but also different recruitment patterns than
traditional free weight trainlng
During training, the
,diffi;u1t_V
CR
group appeared to have
J-ess
completing the programmed repetitions at high
、
80
percentages of 1 RM (>95%) than the contro1 group.
The
better distribution of the load over t.he range{ of motion
with
CR
"
allowed for all- repe.titions at high O".".r,aun." of
1 RM to be completdd. The control group had more
difficulty
needed
at these higher percentages and occasionally
to rest for 5-10 seconds between repetitions to
complete a set'. It is possible that the- CR allowed for
better distribution of load with respect to 'ttre individual
subject's mechanical leverage as wel-I as preferentialrecru.itment of 'the type II fibers, resulting in allsubjects completing these high load repetitions.
Berry et aI. (2002) and Newton et al-. (2002)
speculated, that CR training may have a positive i-mpact'on
\
lower nbay'power. They fel-t that CR training may stimul-ate
a greater stretch reflex than free weight squatting aIone.
They bel-ieved that this was due to the el-astic tension
forcing the bar
downward
at a greater rate than with free
weight resistance afone. rie' findings of Cronin et dl.,
greater
(2003) indicated a significantly
during the eccentric.portion of
CR
IEMG
activity
machine squat jumping
than machine squatting or machi-ne squat jumping. fncreased'
IEMG
activity suggests a greater
amounL
of neuromuscular
J
81
activity and this may contribute to the signifiiant
improvement of the CR group in strength and power *".=rtL=
through CR specific fiber type adaptations. Additional
data -measuring
IEMG
with
CR
trainin'g j-s needed tg address
this matter
If there were no difference Uetween groups in fiber
adaptation after
CR
training, then another possibility
may
be that improvements in strength measures "resul-ted from
neurological- adaptation. It has been shown that strength
ga'ins may occur without hypertrdphy during prolonged
a
,|
training t(Hakkinё n et al.′ 1988).
Neural- adaptations mqy
occur in the golgi apparatus, muscfe spindle, or as
a
result of improved mot6r unit synchronization. Since there
was not a significant group difference for post-training
LBM
vaiues, neural adaptations are an important
consideration. Ho'wever, these
mechanisms were
not explored
in this -study and further spectrtration is beyond the
scope
of this dj-scussion. The prciblem with such conjecture is
that it is based on LBM calculated from skinfold
It is important to
remember
margin 9f error of
±
error makes
■t
that skinfold
3.5% (ACSM′ 2000).
measures.
measurement has a
ThttS margin of
difficult to therefore extrapolato that
82
strength changes were neurologttca■
■nto
this question′
r based.
Further analysis
us■ ng correlation revealed no
sign■ ficant findings when compar■
ng changes
■n
″
e■ ther back
squat or'bench・ press l RM chざ nges and LBM changqs.
sens■ tive ana■ ys■ s of body compos■ tion changes w■
More
th
"
training (eog.′ MRI′ DEXA′ Bod Pod′ hydrostatttc weighing)
■s
requ■ red to better exam■ ne the change ■n LBM that occurs
w■ th
CR tra■ n■ ng.
Furthermore′ exam■ n■ ng neuro■ ogical
adaptations w■ th CR tra■ n■ ng is― alSo recOmmended.
crOnin et al。
“
.
(2003)主 ndicated a significantly greater
IEMG activity during the eccentric portion of CR machlne
squat jumping than machine squatting or machine squat
」
jump■ ngo
The present study did not measure IEMG・
Replication of the. present study using
measurement may
IEMG
and
or,GRF.
'
GRF
allow for detection of neurological
adaptation due to CR training
CR
traihlng al]ows a,n athlete to uti1ize more of their
availabl-e strength due to the gradual increase in elastic
t'ension as range of motion increases. This
may
"result in
each repetitioh being cfoser to momentary faiture than
during free weight lifting
aIone. According to
Hennemann's
ted initially
in
B3
-
submaximal-
contractionr, with Type II fibers being recruited.
as needed depending upon the intensity .of the contraction.
Repetitions cfoser to maximum momentary failure are
,
required to recruit Type fI fibers (Zatsiorsky, 1995, pp
I
11-82). If, in fhct,
cfoser to
maximum,
CR
results in repetitions that are
then it may be possible'that
CR
increases neural activation, -and in turn possibly-recr.uits
fast twitch fibers'to a greater extent than using free
i
' weights onIy.
r
One ,subjecti-ve
observation made during this study
was
tnat subjects in the CR group appeared to "work harder"
-,
during a session. With traditional- free weight training,
the barbell is accelerated' until- the "sticking spot".,
Once
this position of minimal- leverage has been overcome, tess
-,
force production is needed to comllete the repetilion, and
the barbel-l- naturally decele'rates. Therefore, the l-ast
hatf of each repetition is submaximal-. One study has
shown
that the effort to accelerate a load rather than the actual
velocity is a key component to strength gains
1993)
. With
CR
t
(Behm & Sale,"
the subject does not deceferate the barbell
as much as with free weights alone, due to'the increasing
el-astic resistance, and wil-l- like1y produce greater total
,
84
、
ヽ
force through a range of motion than w■ th free wettdhtS'い ・
This results in each repetition‐ being pOrformed
alone.
closer to max■ mum momentary fa.■ ure than dur■ ng free weight
‐
tra■ n■ nり 。
＾ 、
¨
・
Other CR Studies
- Jensen & Ebben (2002) have suggeste.d that ,CR training
is not b useful too.l- for the training of athl-etes, alA that
it-may be difficult
athletes.
to implement with large numbers of
In contrast to their conclusions, tl. results of
this .study indicated that using CR resul-ted in: greaterr
l-ower body strength, average power outprit during .a CVJ,, and
upper body pressing strength than free weight training.
In
.x'
addition, the el-astic bunqee system used in the present
study. posed' no. problems in setup' or execution. In
'+
agreement with the present study, Berry. et aI. (2OO>) and
Neivton
et al. (20021 spebulated that
particularly useful
when
CR
training
may
'
be
training for lower body power.
They felt that CR training may stimulate a greater stretch
reflex than free weight squatting_ alone. The orily pegrrevj-ewed research measuring
strength improvement
was
published by Cronin et aI. (2003), and found that- Iunge
\
performance wqs significantly
qreater after ten weeks of
CR
ど
85
machi-ne squat jumping when compared
to machine squattlng or
jumping. Whife this is promising, the
machine .squat
present study did not measure lunge performance, and only
the qeneral speculation that overall leg strength J-mproved
as measured by. the lunge may correl-ate to improved back
squat performance.
i
Anecdotal evidence indicates that using CR is
beneficial tool in the development of
The present study provides the first
maximum
a
strength.
support for this claj-m
\
from -rigorous, controlled research. Anecdotal findings
CR
on
from Simmons-(1996, L999) and Tate (2001) reported
dramatic improvements in the back squat anci bench press
exercises j-n athletes using
CR
methods. Their observations'
were of elite level.power lifters
who had extensive
experience with resistance training.
This differed from
the subjects in.the present study in that Tdte (2001)
onl.1r ma]d
subjects, most of
who weighed
used
over 200 lbs, had
extensive experience with resistance training, and
whose
training program consj-sted of resistancb training only. In,
contrast to this, hal-f of tfrJ sufjects in the present sttidy'
\
were mal-e and half were femdle, weighing between 100 and
2OO
lbs, and with intermediate resistance training
86
.hese subjects also had a more diverse
experiё nce。
ath■ etttc
and training backgFOund whttch consisted of
res■ stance tra■
n■ ng′
aerobic and anaerobic condition■
ng′
jump trainttng′ and sport specific training (during the
study′ how9Ver′ lon■ y
It is also
resistance training was`perforhed)。
■mporぜ ant to Fea■
ttzё
that the l RM for back
squat and bench pr9ss welё near■ y 2-3 times greater for・ the
subjects of Tate (2001)than the present study′
and were t
like■ y closer to their maximum strength potentia■
Typttca■ ly as an
becomes
■ndiv■ dua■
■ncreas■ ngly
.
increases the■ r strength′
土t
difficult to achieve_ urther strength
gains (31way et al.′ 1992′ Hakkinen et a■
et al.′ 1998, Miller et al.′ 2002)。
.′
1988′ ■akkinen
Accordingly′ the
subjects in the preSent study may have had greater
Ⅲ
ヽ
potential to increase thettr strength thOn the subjects of
Tate (2001)。
With these exceptions
■n,m■ nd′
both studies reported
● dramatic improvement in bench press and back squht l RM
．
剛ｔ
(2901)repOrted a 5を ihcrease in bOth bench press
and back squat l RM after three months usttng cR.
１
Tate、
T卜 e
preseOt study found an 8% 土ncrease in the bench pre,p l
RM
87
and a 16t increase ln the back squat l RM in only seven
weeks.
"
One specu■ ation′ about the difference found ttn the
back squat percent improvement′ is that the
weight ratio used effected the tra■
using CRo
n■ ng
ёlastic
to free
adaptations when
Average elastic resistance (AER)is defrned as
the average of′ the elastic tens■ on at the top of the.・
movement and the elastic tenstton at the bottom of the
movement.
Since elastic tens■ on ■s not constant´ throuOhout
a range of motion′ this represents the average res■ stance
durttng a lift.
The present study uЁ ёd 20% of l RM in 3ER
for both the back squat and bench press with 8t and・
improvement′ respectivelyl.
16%
Tate (2001)utiliZed 30% of l
RM ttn AER for the back squat and 20% of l RM in AER for the
bench pFess′ With 5% and 8t respectively.
utilttzed in bothistudies was the same′
resu■ ts.
The AER
and both had s■
m■ lar
However′ the AER used dur■ ng the back squat waS=
muC, greater (30を vs. 20%)and accordingly′ the resu■ ts
were also much different (8を
vs. 16t improvement).
Tate (2007) has speculated that using greater'el-astic
to free weight ratios would a.l-low for greater speed to
generated at the beginning of a movement, and that such
be
88
training would be beneficial- *n.., 1r," tiaining
goa1.
is
peak
power output. A pilot studY performed in conjunction with
the present study using
j-mprovement
.
30%
oflRMin
in Strength measures, but
AER
found l-ess
much greater
improvement in peak and average power measure than the
group in the present study. OtHer studies using
as Ebben & Jensen
Cronin et aI.,
(20021
, used
(2003) utilized'a
10%
CR
CR, -such
of 1 RM in AER, whil-e
constant'l-eve-l- of AER for
afl- subjects regardless of their I RM. Research to
determine different training adaptations when using
different elas.tic to free weight would'have is
needed.
Other Considerations
The present studY did show that AP can be incredsed
more effectively using CR than free weights alone after
seven weeks' of :training .
One explanation
rel-ated to the dramati'c improvement the
in the back squat. The increased
J-eg
for this
CR
may be
group exhibited
strength may have
\
accounted for the iniprovemeht in lower body AP. fn future
studies, ;a inore accurate method of determining lower body
power output, such as measuring GRF's on a force platform,
I
may
proviae netter data for analysis.
89
Variable resistance machines have been
shown to
produce simil-ar gains in static strength as free weight
exercise, but inferior gains i-n vertical- jump power
(Sylvester et dI., 1981). The present study however,
indicates that dsing vari,abl-e resistance 1n the form of
may le‐ ad
CR
to greater ga■ ns than on■ y free weight exercュ sesヽ 「
in benCh press and back squat strength aS Well as APっ
in the
‐
vertical jump.
In addition to these promising performance findttngs′
´
other secondary observations were made that may serve as
topiご s
for further researcho
Subjects in ,tho experimental
CR,group anecdota■ ly reported ■ess jottnt pain than
typ■ c,lly
eXperienced during traditiona■
training.
free we■ ght
cR Subjedts a■ so suggested that the exercise
requttred mOre effort than undё r tradtttional ■ifting
technique,P
They also repbrted that the
｀
｀
stickttng spot″ was
either absent or diminished
McCafferty and Horvath (1917) have shown that
individuals that train in a specific manner will
demonstrate a'greater change in performance when tested in
that.manner than those who train differently.
A11 subjects
in this study were tested'using free weights with
no
,
t
?
90
elastic iesistance. The CR subjects
better improvements
h'ad
may have Shown'even
they been tested in the back squat
and'bench press using elastic resistance as.they did-during"
This speculation, whil-e reasonable, was not
training.
' c6nfi-rmed'.
One
final- consideration is that strength improvements
observed'may simply be the result of a change in training
routine. However, the'training program utilized
different enough from subjects' previous training
was"-
programs
that both groups should have beinefited 'from a change in
their trainin$ routi-ne. In addition, the
CR and
control
"groi)ps trained separately to minimize any favorltj-sm sensed
by the use of CR. This is, howbver; always a lingerj-ng
'
r-'""
concern with this tYPe of studY.
Practical Considelat:-ons
\
The results of the present study indicatd that
athletes
may
benefit from using CR training
method=..
Future research shoul-d consider how CR shorlld be cycled in
a training regimen. Anecdotal reports ,cIaim that CR
training is mord taxing on the neurologi'cal system and
,a
therefore should not be implemented continuously,.
However,
the observatiohs during this study .were that Cn training
r
91
ng
was more tax■ ng on the neuromuscular system and less tax■
on the joints′ tendons′ and「 1主 gaments than fFee weight
tra■ n■ ng
alone.
This may be exp■
distr■ butioni of load thaビ
m■ n■ m■
a■
ned by the betler
zes the
｀
lk tttCking spot″
.
Thtts should result in force production produced over a w■ de
range of motiOn as opposed to a concentrated amount of
force bettng piOduced at a spec■ fttc po■ nt ttn the range ofノ
motion.
A progress■ on from free weight tra■ n■ ng′ then CR
training With 10% of l RM in AЁ
of l RM in AER′
R′
then CR trattning wit1 20%
fo1lowed by CR training Wttth 30% AERι may
be a′ usefЧ l Way to cycle this type of tra■
n■
ngo
option may be to use a smal■ amount of AER (e.g。
RM)for Strength exer9iseS (e.g.′ > 85% of lヽ
Another
′ 10t
R14)、
Of l:
and
、
greater amounts of A口 R (20% - 30% of・ l RM)and lighter.fFe9
weight resistance for exp■ osive exercises (e.g。
squats′
speed bench press).
′ jump
ThiS might be a OucceSSful
of AER wё u■ d
method Of utiliZing CR since a lesser amounぜ
help redistr■ bute the load evenfy over a range of motion
w■
th regard to the
■ncreas■ ng
leverageo
.
When us■ ng greater
amounts ofl AER′ most of the load is dttstr■ buted at the end
of the range of motttono
Sttnce ●the beginn■ ng of the
F
exerc■ se ■s a light load′
the high load at the end 9f the
+92
range of .motion al.l-ows for explosive tempos without losing
control- of the bar. Each of these suggested resist.ance
exercise modifications with Cit are logical but await
further study to verify their val-ue
\
rt is like1y that cycling CR training is importAnt, 3"
cycling oth'er valiables of training is also important. .The
principle of variety in training is important to
CR
training provides variety
remember.
when perfbrming pushing
exercis'es such as various angles of "bench press and
shoulder presses, various forms of squattingr'es well
deadlifting.
as
Exactly how CR best fits into the well-
prescribed, periodized program, of various types of athletes
is a qubsti'on worthy of future examination.
Summafy
This .study supports anecdot.al- evidence claiming that
combined
elastic and free weight resistance is a highly
effective tool-. in'the development of strength and power. in
athl-etes. These resul-ts indicate that training with
CR may
I
o
be better for developing lower body strength, upper body
pressing strength, and average power than simply using free
weight training alone. It was speculated that
t.he
improvements in strength and power measures may be the
l
93
result of gieater fast twitbh fiber adaptation and/oi
neurological adaptations. Further research was recommended
to -address these speculations. In addition, furtfrer
investigation was recommended to find the optimum method
for applying
CR
as wetl- as possible periodization of
into a yearly training
Program.
CR
CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY′ CONCLUSIONS′
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Eorty-four young (20!l yrs), resistance trained (4t2 yr3
ti l
experience) subjects, 22 males and 22 females,
recruj-ted from men's basketbal-I, wrestling,
were
women's
basketball, and women's hoikey teams at Cornel1. University.
Subjects were divided using stratified
random assignment
according to their iespective teams to either the contro]
(C; n:27) or expeLimental- group (E; n:23). Prior to
and
after 7 weeks of resisLance training, subiects were tested
- for lean body mass (LBM) using skinfold measures, I rep
max
back squat (BSi and bench press (BP), and peak (PP) and
.
average power (AP) caiculated from a countermovement
ヽ
vertical- jump. Both C and E groups performed identicalworkouts (i:e.,
exercises, sets,' reps,
%
of 1 RM) with the
exception that the experimental group used CR for the
and
BP
rwhile the control group used EW alone.
BS
CR was
performed using an elastic bungee cord attached to
a
standard barbel-1 l-oaded with weight plates. Elastic tension
was accounted for in an attempt to equalize the t.otal- work
done by each group. ANOVA (2x2, repeated measures). revealed
signif icant interact'ions and "Tukey post-hoc analyses found
significant differences between groups aft.er training
94
-in
ii
95
al-f measures excep!
LBM
and PP. Improvement for the
E
group, when compared to improvement in the C group, wa,s
-neirly three times qreater for BS 1 RM (16.47!5.61 kg vs.
4
6.84t-4.42 kg increase), two t.imes greater for BP 1
(6.68± 3141 kg vs. 3.34± 2.67 kg increase)′
and nearly thFee
84.35 watt vs. 23.66±
times greater for AP (68.55±
RM
摯
40.56 watt
.
ユnCrehSe)。
Concl-usions
evidence
ThttS Study strongly supports the anecdota■
claiming combined elastlc
and free-weight resistance
(Cn1 to be highly effective.
training
``
indicate that'training with
CR may
These results
be better for devetoping
lower body strength, upper body strength, and l-ower body !
power than using
EW
training alone ih .esi-stance trained
indirridual-s. Long-tbrm. ef fects are uncl-ear but
makes
CR
training
a meaningful contribution in the short term to
performance adaptations of experienced athleJes
Recommendations
The following recommendations for further .study were
made af
1.
ter the completion of lnr" invest.igation:
Wfry
OiA tfre CR groups increase their strength and power
*.u"r."'" more than the control- group, when both
ヽ
incrё ased their LBM to the same extent?
Further study
groups
i
d'
9δ
土nveStttgatttng
whether CR training results in different
fiberi type adaptations than free weight trattning・ a19ne¨・
may provide answers to this questiOn.
Usttng technttques
such as muscle biopsy in addtttion to a rep■ ication of
the cuirrent study would be a good starting point in thib:
、
research。
.
スフ ι
︶
Anoth‐ er ■dea
questtton
■s
・
that wou■ d poss■ bly answer the prev■
to search・ for the poss■
bi■ ity
ous
of
neuro■ ogical adaptatio■ s frOm CR tra■ n■ ng.
Us■ ng a more
sensitive measure Of LBM′ (e.g.′ MRI′ DEXA′ Bod Pё d′ or
hydrostatic
weighing)may provide data that are mOre
●
1
ヽ
‐
｀
accurate to rule out a contrttbution from hypertroph■ c
adaptatiOno
、
ln addition′ using more COmplex te9hniques
such as「 MRI′ IEMG′ and bttop。 主es may he■ p clarttfy what
ノ
role neuro■ ogica■ adaptations may play in strength ga.ns
found using CR training。
、
This study evaluated on■ y one ratio of e■ astic to free―
weight resiStance (1ヴ を - 20% of subjects l RM in elastttc
resttstance)。
Further study should investttgate the
contr■ bution that the ratio of e■
res■ stance
astic to free― weight
plays on the tra■ n■ ng effecto
lt has been
suggested ih the anecdotal lttterature that greater
elastic to free― wettght ratios would favor power
｀
g1
development, and using fess elastic and more free-weight
resistance favors strength development.
4.
Further,study using a s.imiI.ar protocol with athl-etes
from different sporting backgroun-ds woul-d strengthen the
generalizability of these findings.
5。
Some.researchers have suggested taking multiple days of
testing to achieve. true 1 RM measures
may provide more
accurate resul-ts. Euture study using 'CR may f ind this
to be a more accurate means of testing free weight
exerCises. In addition, using a force platform to
measure'qround reaction forces would provide more
accurate data than conversion from a vertical- jump.
6.
Incor:porate additional testing und.er the
Same
training
parameters as the present study. For example, testing
could be done on both free weight exercises aS wel-l-
aS
cR exercises. Also, static strength coul-d be tested and
bar velocity could be measured.
Studies of longer duratj-on are needed to determine the
approprj-ate means of cycling CR trainihg into a yearly
or mul-ti-year training
8.
Program.
The rol-e gender and experience plays in CR needs to be
investigated more thoroughlY.
\
REFERENCES
Aagaard, 8., Simonsen, 8., Andersen, J. L., Magnusson,
S.P., Halkjer-kristensen, J.', & Dyhre-Poulsen, P.
(2000) . NeuraI inhibition during maximal- eccentrj.c and
concentric quadriceps contraction: Effects of
resistance training. Jou'rnal of Applied. PhysioT'ogy,
89 (6)
,
2249-2257
.
ACSM。 (2000)。 ACSM′ s Guide■ ines for Lズ ercise
Testing and
PrescriptiOn′ 6th Edtttion. Phi■ adelphia′ PA:
Lttppincott′ Wi■ ■ianS′ & Wttlkins.
A■ way′
1
“
｀
S. E.′ Winchester′ P. K.′ Davis′ M. E.′ & Gonyea′ W.
」。(1989)。 Regttonalized aoaptat■ ons and musc■ e fiber
streぜch― ■nduced. n■ argement。
of App立 二ёd Pね ysiο ュοgy′ 66(2)′ 77■ -781.
proliferation
A■ way′
■n
S. E.′ Grumbt′ W. H。
W.
」。 (1992)。
′ Stray― Gundersen′
」.′
Effects of resistance training
」ο12rn a■
& Gonyea,
on{ el-tiow
￨
flexors of hrghly cOmpetitive bodybu■ lders. JournalAppユ ied`Pわ ysiο lο gy′ ヽ72′ 1512-1521.
of
Antonio, J. & Gonyea, W. J. (1993.i . Progressive stretch
overload of avian muscle results in muscle fiber
hypertrophy prior to fiber hyperplasia. JournaJ- of
AppTied Physiotogy, 75 (3), 1263.7217.
Antonio, J. & Gonyea, W. J. (1994a). Muscle fiber splitting
in stretch-enlarged avian muscLe. Medicine & Science
in Sports & Exercise, 26(8), 973-911.
'
' 98
,
99
Antonio, J. & Gonyba, W. q. ,1994b) . Ring fibers express
ventricular myosin in stretch overl-oaded quai_l muscle.
A;:cta
PhysioTogicit Scandinavica, 752,t 429-430.
Antonio, J. (2000). Nonuniform response of skeletal_ muscLe
to heavy resistahce training:. Can bodybuilders induce
regional muscle hypertrophy? JournaL of Strength &
Conditioning Research, 74(7) | LO2-113.
D. G. (1988) . 'Surgicat tubing for sport and vel-ocity
specif ic training. NSCA JournaT, I0 (4) , 66-'7 0 .
Behm,"
,
G., & Sale, D. G." (1993) . fntended rather" than
actual. movement velocity determj-nes velocity-specific
training response . Journal of Applied Physiorcg), 74,
Behm, D.
359-368.
Berger, R. A. (L964) . Comparison of the effect of various
weight training loads on strength. Resistance
Quarterly, 36 (2) , L47-1.46.
:
Berry, M., Matic, T.,"& Lassa, S. (2002). The Effects of
Dynamic Accentuated Resistance Training and
Compensatory Acceleration Training on Lower-Body and
Upper-Boily Strength and Power in Fire Cadets
Subsequent to Traditionaf Training. neirieved, 2002,
March, http : / /www. strengthcats. com/dart. htm
Bischoff, R. (1990) .' Interaction betwee.n satei-Iite cells
and skeletaf musc1e fibers. Development, LOg, 943-952.
'Bompa,
T. O. (t999) . Periodization Trdining for Sports:
Programs for peak strength in 35 sports. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics
100
Catozzo, V. J.t Perrine, J. J., & Edgerton, V. R. (1981).
Training-induced al-terations of the in vivo force' vel-ocity relationship of human muscle . JournaT of
Applied ehysiobg): Resprra lory, Environmental and
Exercise Physiology, 51, 750-754.
Chalmers, G. n.l noy, R. R., & Edgerton, V. R. (Lgg2) .
. Vaf iation and l-imitations in fiber enzymatic and si-ze
,
responses in hypertrophied muscle. Journal of Applied
PhysioTogyr 13(2), ' 631-647
Chesley, A., MacDougall, J. D., Tarnopolsky, M. A.,
Atkinson, S. A., & Smith, K.. (Lgg2l . Changes in human
mus,cle protein synthesis after resistance exercise.
Journal of Applied Physiology, 13, 1383-1388.
Chilibeck P. D., Cal-der, A. W., Sal-e, D. G., & Webb*er, C.
E. (1998) . A comparison of strength and .muscl-e.mass
increases during resistance training in young women.
European Journal- of AppTied Physiotogy & Occupationaf
.
PhysioTogy, 17.(t-21 , 7f0-175.
Cl-ose, R. 'f . (L972) . Dynamic -properties of mammal-ian
' skel-etaf muscle. PhysiologicaT Review, 52, I2g-1g1 .
J
101
Costill-, D. L., Coyle, E., Fink, W., Lesmes, G., g
Witzmann, E. (7979).. Adaptations in skel-etal- muscle
following strength training. Journal- of AppTied
PhysioTogy, 46 (71 , 96-99..
a
, J., McNair, P. J,, &'Marshail, R. N. (2003) . The
effects of bungy weight training on muscle function
and functional performance. Jou'rnaL of Sports Science,
2L (1.) , 59'-71.
Cronin
, K. J., Co1lins, M. A., Hil-I, D. W., & McEl-hdnnon,
' F. M. (1-988) . Muscl-e hypertrophy in men and women
Med.icine & Science in Sports "& Exercise, 20, 338.344.
Curet$n
Darr, K'. C. & Schul-tz, E. (19'87 ) . dxercise induced
satellite ce11 activation in growing and matuie
r
skeletal muscle. Journal of AppTied PhysioTogy, 63,
1
1816-182r.
Ebben, W. P- & Jensen, R. L. (2002). Electromyographic and
kinetic analysis of traditional, chai-n, and el-astic
'band squats . Journal- of Strength & Conditioning
,
Research, 76(4), 547-550-
\.
El-Iiott, B. C. & Wilson, G. J. (1989) . A biomechanical
analysis of the sticking region in the bench, press.
'
Medicine & Scienc" )in Sports & E*ercise, 27, 450-462'\-
Enoka, R. M. (1988) . Neuromechanic.aL Basrs of Kinesiology.
ChamplainT IL: Human Kinetics
,
r
'i
j
LoZ
Fl-eck, S. J., & Kraemer, W. J. (2004) . Designinq Resrstance
Training Programs, 3'd Edition. Champaign, it t Human
Kinetics.
,: Fox, E^., & Mathews, D. (1.981) . The.phybi"oTogicaL basjs of
physical education and athTetics (3rd ed- )'.
PhitadelPhia: Saunders-
:
Giddings, -C. J. c Gonyea, W. J. (L992). Morphologica.l
o6servations supporti-ng mirscle fiber hypelplasia
fol-.Iowing weight-lifting exercise in cats . An'atomical'' Record, 233, 178-195.
Goldberg′ A. L。
′ Et■
inger′
」. D。 ′.GoldSp■ nk′
D. F。
′
&
C. 、(1975). Mechanism of work-lnduced
ypertrophy of skeletal musc■ e. Medicine ´ Science in
」ablecki′
´
・
Spο rts tt EXercise′
Gollnick′ Po D。
7′
′ KarlsSon′
185-198.
Piehl′ K.′ & Saltinヽ 。 (1974).
」.′
Selective glycogen depletion in skeletal musc■ e fibers
of man follow■ ng susta■ ned contraction。 」Ourna■ Of
Physiο ユοgy′ 241′ 59T67.
::
Gbllnick′
｀
D。
′
Parsons′
D.′
Riedy′
M.″
&Moore;Ro L.
1ノ
(1983). Fttber number and sュ ze in oVerloaded chicken
anter■ or latiss■ mus. ors■ musc■ e. 」Ourna、 οf App■ ied
'。
Physi Oヱ OgY′ 40′
1292-1297.
ヽ
.
103
, Timson, B. E.,, Moore, R. L..., & Riedy, M.
(1981),. Muscul-ar enlargement and numbers of fibers in
skeletal musc1es of rats . Journal- of Applied
Go1lnick, P .
D.
Physiology, 50, 936-943.
r
Gofiyea, W. J. (1980). Role of exercise in inducing
incleases in skeletal muscle fiber number. JournaT of.
AppTied Physiology, 48 (3), 42L-426.
Gonyea, W. J. & Erikson, G. C. (1976). An experimentat
for the study of exercise-induced muscle
hypertrophy. Journal- of Applied Physiology, 40,
model-
630-
bJJ.
Gonyea, W. J.i Erikson, G. C., &-'Bonde-Petersont E. (Lg77).
Skel-etal- muscl-e fiber splitting enduced by weightlifting exercise in cats. Acta PhysioTogica
Scandinavica, 54, 1032-1038.
Gonyea, W. J., Sale, D. G., Gonyea, F. B., & Mikesky, A.
(1986).. Exercise induced increases in muscle fiber,
number. European Journal- of Applied PhysioTogy) 55,
-
i37-L4t.
Gotshal-k, L. (1985) . Disciptine and strj-ctness in testing
and training. NSCA JournaJ-, 'l (5) , '72-13.
!
Haar Romeny, B. M., Denier Van Der Gon, J. J., c Gielen,
C.
C. A. M. (7982). Changes in recruitment order of motor
units in the human biceps muscle. Experimental
NeuroTogy, 18, 3 60.-368 .
!04
. Changes i.,
P. V.
isometrj-c force-and relaxation-time, electromyographic
and muscl-e fiber characteristics of human skeleta,l
muscle during strength training and detraining. Acta
Hakkinen
, K., A]Ien , M.,
& Komi,
(1985)
Physiologica Scandinavica, 1-25, 573-585.
I
Hakkinen K., Komi, P. V., Al-en , M., & Kauhanen, H. (1987) .
EMG, musclei, f ibre and force p'roduction characteristics
during a 1 year training period in el-ite weight'lifters. European Journal of AppJied PhysioTogy and
OccupationaL PhysioTogy, 56 (4 ), 4L9-42'l -
Hakkinen, K., ,PakArinen, A., Al1en, M-, Kauhanen, H., &
Komi, P. V. (1988). Neuromuscufar and hormonaladaptations in ai.frtetes .to strength tralning in two
years,. .Journaf of Applied. PhysioTogy, 65, 240-2412
-
Hakkinen, K.: Pakarinen, A, Newton, R. U-, & Kraemer, W- J(1998). Acute hormone responses to heavy resistance
lower and upper extremity exercise in young versus old
. men. European Journaf of Occ.upational- PhysioTogy,
il G) , 240-24L2.
E. (1995). The Measurement of Human Mechanical
iower. In Maud, P. J. e Foster, C。 (Eds。 ).
PhysioTogical Assessment of Humai Fi tness。 (pp. lo8)
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Harman,
E. (1983). Resistive torque analysis of 5 Nautilus
exercise machi-nes . Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise, 15Q) ,113.
Harman,
I
"
105
Harman, E. (2000) . The Biomechanics of Resistance Exercis'e.
In Baechle, T.- R. & Earl , R. W. - (Eds. ) . Ess6ntiaLs of
Strength Training And Conditioning. (pp . 44-47'l .
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
| & Pandorf , C. (2000) .
Administration," Scori-ng, and Interpretation of
Selected Tests . In Babchl-e, T . R. , & EarI, R. W .
(Eds.). EssentiaTs of Strength Training and
Conditioning. (pp. 288-289) - Champaign, 'IL: Huriran
Harman, 8..^, Garhammer, J.
'
Ki-netics.
8., Rosenstein, M. T., Frykman, P-, Rosenstein, R-'
& Kraemer, W.J. (l-991) . Estimation of human power
output from maximal vertical jump and body mass'Journal of AppTied Sport Science Research, 5 (3) , 116"
l2o.
,
,
a
Harman,
,
Harris, G. R., Stone, M. H., O'Bryant, H- S-, Prou]x, C.
. M., & Johnson, R. L. (2000) . Short-Term Performance
Effects of High Power, Hiqh Forcer or Combined WeightTraining Methods . The Journal of Stten'gth &
Conditioning, L4(I), 1'4-20.
Hatfiel-d, F. C. (7982). Getting the most from your training
f eps. aisca JournaL, 4 (5.1 , 28-29 .
Hatfield, E. C; (1989). Power: A Scientific Approach.
Chicago, IL: Contemporary Books
i
106
Hather′ B. M.′ Tesch′ P. A.′ BuChanan′ P.′ & Dud■ ey′ G._A.
(1991). Influence of eccentric actions on Skeletal
muscle adaptations to resユ stance. Actb Pね ysttο ユοg二 Cr
Scandinavica′
Higbie′ E.
」.′
143′ 177-185.
Cureton′ Ko J.′
Warren′ G. L.′ III′ &
Pri6rF Bo M。 (1996)。 Effects of concentric and
,eccentr■ c tra■ n■ ng on musc■
_aroa′
」οurnal
and neura■ actiVation。
Physiο ttOgy′ 81(5)′ 2173-218■
'
strength′ cross― sectional
ё
of App二
二ed
.
Ho, K. W., Roy, R. R., Tweedle, C- D., Heusner:, W' W', Van
Huss, W. D.t & Carrow, R.,E. .(1980)- Ske1etal musi1e
fiber spritting with weight-J-ifting exercise in rats.
.
American Journal of Anatomy, L57, 433-440'
lkai, M. & Eukunaga, T. (1968) . CaLculation of
strength per unit. cross-sectional- area of
by means of ultraSonic measurements '
ArbeitsPhYsiofogy, 2, 26-32
muscl-e
human muscle
Jackson, A. S., Pol]ock, M- L. (1978). Generalized
equati-ons for predicting body density of men. British
Journal- of Nutrition, 40 (30). !97-504'
」ackson′
Ao S.′ POl10Ck′ M. L.′ & Ward′
A。 (■ 980)。
Generalttzed equatiOns for predttσ tttng body density of
women. Medicine and S9ier2Ce in Spο rts and Exercise′
12(3)。
175-181.
107
Jes"sei-C., McGee, D., Gibson, J.,'Stone, M.′ &,Wi■ liams, 」
(1.988). A comparison of Nauti1us and free weight _
'
training. Journal of Applied Sports Science′ 3(2)′ 59.
.
Johnson, J. H., Colodny, S., & Jackson, D. (1990). Human
-. torque capability versus machine resistive torque .for
. four Eagle resistance maihines. JournaL of, Applied
/,
Sport Science rn Rese-alch, 4'(31 , 83-87.
Jones, 5-., Hunter, G., Fleisig, G., Escamilla, R., & Lemak,
'
L; (1996). The effbcts of compensatory acceferat-ion on"
upper :body strength and power. Journal- of Strength &
Conditioning Research, IO (4) , 281 .
,_
Kandarian, S. C., & White, T. P. (1990). Mechanical deficit
persists during long-term muscl-e hypertrophy. Journal
.
of AppJied Physiology,69(3), 861-867.
,.
Kirksey, 8., Stone, M. H., Warren, B. q., Johnson, R. L.,",
stone, M., & Haff , q. G., et al. (1-999) . The effects
' of 6 weeks:of ,creatine,monohydrate supplementation on
performance measures arid body composition in
coilegiate track and f iel-d athl-etes. JournaL of *
Strength & Conditioning Research , 12 (2) , 148-15.
,
Komi, P. V. (1986). How important is neural drive for
-skeletal
strength and power deve.l-opment in human
muscle? In Saltin, B. (Ed. ) Biochemi_stry of
Exercise. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
108
｀
・
Rauramaa′ R.′ &由 Vihko′ V.
(1978). Effect of isometric strength「 rattning on
Komi′ P. V。 ′ Viitasalo′
」. T.′
mechan■ ca■ ′ e■ ectr■ cal′ and metabolic aspects of
musCle functtton.
ュ
W。
Of Appユ ied PhysiOユ Ogy′
40′
・
45-55。
KFaemer′
」Ourna■
」.′
Deschenes′ M. R.′ & F■ eck′ S. J。 (1988)。
Phys主 。lbgical
adaptations to res■ stance exerc■ se:
Imp■ ユCations
fbr athletic conditioningo Sports
Medicine′
246-256.
6′
、
Kraemer″ W。 」.′ Fleck′ S. J。 ′ & Evans′ Wo J。 (1996).
Strength and power tra■ n■ ng: Phys■ o■ ogica■ mechan■ sm。
。f
adaptationo Exercise
´ .Spο rt
science irl RevicW′
24′ i
337398.
Lander, J. 8., Bates, B. T., Sawhil], J. A., & Hami11, J.
(1985). A comparison between free-weight and isokinetic bench pressing.' Medicine & Science in Sports
'
&
Exercise, L7, 344-353.
Larsson, L. & Tesch, P. A'. (1986). Motor unit fibre density
ih'extremely hypertrophied skel-etat muscles in rhan.
European Jou'rna7 of Applied PhysioTogy, 55, 130-136.
I
LeSuer, D. A., McCormick, J. H., Mayhew, J. L. I
Wasserstein, R. L., & Arnol-d, M. D. (1,991). The
accuracy of predictioh equations for estimatlng 1-RM
. perfoimance in the bench press, squat and deadlift.
Journal- of Strength e Conditioning.Research, 7'(4),
)
2tt-2r3.
r
.
ノ
"
'
MacDOigall′
R。
」. D.′
109
Elder′ G. D. B.′ Sale′ Do G.′ MorOZ′
J・
′& Sutton′ 」。R。 (1980). Ёffects of Strength
trainttng and immobi■ ttzation on human muscle fibers.´
´
European
MacDougall′
」Ourial
」. D.′
of Appユ ニed PhysiOヱ Ogy′ ´43′ 25-34.
Sale′
・
D。
・
G。
′ Alway′
S. E.′ Sutton′ J. R.
(1984)。 MusCle fiber number in biceps brachii in
lec
bodybuilders and cOntrol subjectS. 」οuinal οf Appユ ニ
i
Physiο ユOgy′ 57′ .1399-1403.
MacDougall′
」. D.′
Sale′ D. G.′ Elder′ G. C. B.′ & Sutton′
J. R。 (1982)。 MusC■ e ultrastructure characteristttcs of
elttte power lifters and bodybu■ lders. European 」Ournal
」
οf
Appttied Pね ysiOユ οgy′ 48′ 117-126.
MacDougall′
B.′
」。D.′ Sal・ e′
& Sutton′
」。R。
Do G.′ Moroz′ J. R.′ Elder′ Eo C.
(1979)。 MtttOChondrial vOlume
density in human ske10ta■ muscle fo1lowing heavy
res■ stance tra■ n■ ng. Medicine ´ sむ ience in Spο rts
,
´
Exercise′ 11′ 164-16.
・
MacDougall′
R。
_
^
￨
」. D。 ′ Ward′
G. R.′ Sale′ D. G。
′&
Sutton′ J.
(1977). BttOChemiCal adaptatiOn of human skeletal
l muscle to heavy resistance training and
immob土 上土zation。 」οurnal ο√ Appユ ied Pね ysiο ユOgy′
700-703.
Mascaro′ T.′ Seaver′ B. L.′ & Swanson′
L。
43′
(1992)。
Prediction of skatttng speed w■ th off― ■ce testing in
profesbional hockey pュ ayers。
Spο rts
」ourna1
0f Ortわ οpedic
Physical Therapy′ 15(2)′ 92-98.
11.0
S. , & Weir, J. (1983) . St.rength
and cross-sectional- area of human skel-etal- muscl-e
Journaf of PhYsioTogY, 338, 31-49-
.
Maughan, R. J. I Watson, J.
i
T. P., Rothstein, J. M., Finucaner'S. D-., Lamb, R.
L. (1995) . Muscular adaptation to concentric and
eccentric exercise at equal power level-s. Medicine &
Science in'Sports & Exercise, 27 (6), 868-73-
Mayhew
McCafferty, W. 8., Horvath, S. M - Lgl1- Specificity of
Exercise and specificity. of Training: A subcelluar
Review. Resr stance QuartetTy, 48 (2), 358-371.
'Oggq)
. A Comparison of Muscle
S. T., Friday, J. J.
Activity Between a Free Weight and"Machine Bench
Press. JournaT of strength e conditioning Research,
g (4),, 2s9-264.
'McCaw,
,
t
'
A. J. (i996). Motor units. In Skeletal- MuscLe=iormand Function. (pp. 183-203). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Mccomas,
McDonagh′
M.
」 .′
& DaVieS′
CL To M。
(1984)。
Adaptive
respOnse Of mammalian Pkeletal muscle to exercise wttth
high loads. European 」οurnal οtt Appユ ied Pね ySiο ユοgy′
139-155.
52′ ´
tt
111
Mil,l-er, T. A., White, E. D., Kinleyi x. A., Congelton, J.
J., e Clark, M. J. (2002) . The effects of Training
history, player position, and body compositionr QD
exercise performance in collegiate footbal-l- players.
JournaL of Strength & Conditioning Research, 16(t),
Mora1es, J., & Sobonya, S-. (1996) . Use of
submaxj-mal-
repetition .tests for predicting 1-RM strength j-n c-l-ass
athletes. Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 10 (3), 18-189.
Moritani, !., & DeVries, H. A. (7979) - Neural- factbrs
versus hlpertrophy in the time course of muscl-e
strength gain. American JournaL of Physical- I'Iediciie,
58, 115-130.
Nardone, A.,-Romano, C., & Schieppati, M. (1989) . Selective
recruitments of high-threshold human motor units
during voluntary isotonic-Iengthening of active
muscles. JournaL of PhysioTogy, 409, 45L-41INarici- M. V., Hoppe1er, H., Kayser, B., Landoni, L-,
Claassen, H.t Gavardi, C., et al-. (1996) . Human
quadriceps cross-sectional- area, torque and neuta1
activation during 6 months strength training. Acta
Physiologica Scandinavica, 1151 (2), 175-86.
i
ヽ
112
Narici′ M. V。
′
Kayser′
(1995)。 Hypertrophttc response of
B。
human skeletal muscld to strё ngth training ttn hypoxra
hnd nOrmoxttao European 」Ournai of 4pp■ ied Pね ysiOヱ 03Y
Pね ysiOユ Ogy′ 70(3)′
and Occupationaヱ
213-219.
Narici′ M. V.′ Roi′ Go S.′ Landoni′ L.′ Minё tt土 ′ A. E.′ &
ヽCerretelli′
(1989)。 Changeo in force′
P.。
sectttonal area and neural activation dur■
cross―
ng strength
training and detralning Of the human quadriceps. .
=urOpean
」οurna■ οf Appttied Pね ySiο iogy′
NewtOn′ R. U.′ Humphries′
・B.′
59′
310-319.
Murphy′ A.′ Wi■ son′ G.
」.′
(1995). BttOmechanics and neural
Activattton r■ ng fast pench press movements:
Kraemer′ W.
」。
ImplicatiOnS fOr power troiningo Abstracto cloふ rnal of
｀
stie」 g亡 ね
浅
COnd二
亡二Oning
NeWtOn′ R. U.′ Kraemer′ W。
」。′ Murphy′ A。
Research′ 9(3)′ 195.
」 .′
HaК kinen′ K.′ Humphむ ies′ B.
(1996). Kinematics′ Kinetttcs′ and‐
muscle actttvatiOn during exp10Sive upper body
.
'
movements.
」οurna1
0f Appユ ied Bttο mechanics′
12′
31-43.
Newton, R. U., Robertson, M., Dugan, 8., Has'son, C., Ceci1,
J., & Gerber, A.,-et al- . (2002, Jul-y) . Heavy efastic
. bands alter force, velocity and power'output during
back squat lift'. Abstract. Presented at the National
Strength and Conditioning Association Conference, Las
Vegas, NV.
＼
113
Nygaard, E.., Houston, M., Suzuki, Y., Jorgensen, K. | &
Saltin, B. (1983). Morphology of the brachial- biceps
-muscle and elbow flexion in man - Acta PhysioTica
Scandinavica, L77, 281 -2g2 Nygaard, 8., & Niel-sen, E. . (1978) . Skeletal muscle fj-ber
capillarization with extreme endurance training in
min. In Eriksson B, Furberg ,B- (Eds. ) . Swinning
Medicine rv (vo7. 6) . (pp: ZgZt-Zgl) - Bal-timore, MD:
UniversitY Park Press.
ostrowski′ K.′
Wttl son′ G。
」 .′
t
Weatherby′ R.′ Murphy′ Po W、
′
The eFfect of we■ ght training
volume on hormonal output and muscular s■ ze and
｀
function. 」Ourna1 0f Strength ´ Cο ndi tiOning
、D。 (1997).
yttle′ ハ
& 二
Research′ 11′ 148-154.
Poliquin, C. (1988). Five steps to increasing the
effecti-veness of your strength training program.
JournaL, 10 (3) , 34-39.
AISdA
Powers, S. K., & How1ey, E. T. (2OO4i - Exercise PhysioTogy:
Theory and'Application to .Fitness and Performancet sth
Edition. (pp. 146-151). New York, NY: McGraw-HiII.
Prince′ Fo P.′ Kikiga′ .Ro S.′ & Hagerman′ F. 'C. (1976)。
liuman muscle fiber types
■n
powerlifters′
distance
runners′ and untrained subjects. Pfiugers Archive′
19-26.
、
33′
114
Lo N.
A Comparison of Linear and Dai■ y Undtlatttng
Rhea′ M. R.′ Bal■ ′ S. D.′ Phil■ ips′ W. T.′ Burkett′
・
(2002)。
Perttodized Programs with Equated Volume and lntenSttty
for Strength。 」。urna1 0f Strength tt COnditttο ning
‐
・
´
Rさ search′ 16(2)′ 250-255。
Rhea′ M. R.′ Phttllips′ W. T。 ′ Burkett′ Lo N。
.Stσ ne′ W。
」L′
A
comparison of Lttnear and Daily undulatttng PerttodiZed
Ball′ S. D。
_
l
.
,′
B. A.′ et' al。 (2003)。
′ Alvar′
ProgramS｀ With Equated Vo■ ume and lntenSity for Loca■
Muscular Endurance. 」οurnaユ οf Strengtth and
_
'
｀
Cο nditiο ning Research′
17(1)82-87.
Neural adaptations in strength and power
training. In'McCartney N. L. & McComas′ A. 」。 (Eds。 )′
Shle′ D.G。 (1986)。
Human Musc■ e P070r。 (pp. 289-307‐
)。
Champaign′ IL:
' Human Ktthetttcs.
´
Sale′ Do G.′ & MCDougall夕
q. D. (1981)。
SpeCi[iCity in
、
、
strengthrtFa■ n■ ng: A reVieW fOr coach and athlete.
Canadian 」οurnal οf Appユ ニed Sport Science′ 6′ 87■ 92.
schantz′ P.′ Randa■
l― Fox′
E.′
｀
Hutchinson′
W。 ′ Tydё n′ A.′
&
Astrand′ P. 0。 (1983)。 MusCle fttber dttstribution′
musclё cross― sectional area and maX■ mal voluntary
strength ttn humans. Acta Phy,二
117′
οヱοgiCa
Scandinavica′
219-226.
ヽ
Serway′ RIキ A. & Faughn′
Edition。
(P. 391)。
」. S。
(2003)。 COユ lege Pね ysics′
BrOOkS / Cole Publttshing。
σとね
、
5亡 ね EditiOn. Denver′
Siff′ M. C。 (2000)。 Supertraining′
115
CO:
Supertrainttng lnstitute。
Si■ vester′
:
だ
L.
」 .′
Stigg■ ns′ C.′ Mcgown′ C.′ & Bryce′ Go Rイ
(1981). The EfFect Of Variable Resistance and Free―
Wettght Tra■ n■ ng Programs on Strength and Verぜ ical
」ump.
NatiOnai Strength Cο aches Assο ciation Jο urnal′
3(6)′
30-33.
´
Simmons′ L。 (1996). Chain reactions: Accommodatttng
leverages. Pο rerittftting
υSA′
19(12)′ 26-27.
Simmons′ L。 (1999). BandS and chains. Pο veriifting
υSA′
22(6)′ 26… 27.
!
Martin, A. W- (1973) .
Hlzpertrophy and hyperplasia of adult chicken anterior
l-atiSsimus dorsi muscl-es following stretch with and
.without denervation. Experimantal- NeutoTogy, 47,16-
Sol-a, O. M.; Christensen, D. L.,
&
100;
Staron, R. S., Leonardi, M. J.t Darapondo, D. L., Malicky,
E. S'. , Fa1ke1, J. E. , & Hagerman, E. C. , et aI.
(1991) . Strength and skeletal-'muscle adaptations in
heavy-resistance-trained women . European JournaL of
Applied Physiology, 60, 77-79.
「
・
■16
staron′ Ro S.′ Ma■ ttC
Eo S.′ Leonardi′ Do L.′ Falkel′
C., & Dud1ey, G. A. (1990) 。 Muscle
ky′
」
.
E., Haqerman, E.
trypertrophy and fast fiber type cohversions ■n heavy
resistance-trained women . European JournaT of Appユ ニed
PhysioTogy occupational Physiology, 60 (1)', 71-9.
Stone, M., ;., Byrd, R., Tew, J., & Wood, M. (1980) .
Relationship between anaerobic power and Olympicweightlifting performance. Journal of Sports Medicine,
20,
99-'1.02.
i'
Stone, M. H., Potteiger, J. A-,, Pierce, K- C., Proirlx,
C.
& 」bhnsOn′ R. L.′ et al. (2000)。
compar■ son of the effects of three different wettght―
tra■ n■ ng pr9gramS On the one´ repetition mattimum squat.
M.′ 0′
pryant′ Ho S.′
」οirnal οf
Strength
´ Cο nd二 七二Oning
Rさ search′ 14(3)′
332-337.
, T. , Uchiyama, S., & Nakano, S. (L992) . A weight
Iifting exercise model,for inducing hypertropfr/ in the
hind l-imb muscles of rats . I4edicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise | 24 (8) , 881-886'.
Tamaki
,
Resistance
use bands and chains to increase your max ]ifts.
Testosterone Magazine, t2l. Retrieved from
Tate, D. (octoter, 2001)
Accommodating
How
tb
http : / /www. testosterone. net/htm1/body_127resist. html.
Taflor, J. A., & Kandarian, S. C. (7994). Advantage of
,normalizing force production to myofibrill-ar protein
in skeletal muscl-e cross-sectional area . JournaJ- of
Applied PhysioTogy, 1 6 (2) , 97 4-918.
7L1
Tell-e, J.' R. , Gorman, I. J,. (l-985) . Combining free weights
with hydraulics. NSCA JournaT, 1 (l), 66-68.
Tesch, P. A., E Karlsonn, J. (1985) . Muscle fiber types and
'size in trained and untrained muscl-es of el-ite
athletes. JoutnaT of AppTied- Physiol-ogy', 59, 1,11,6L]20.
Tesch, P. A., Ploutz-Snyder, L. L. I Yvstrom, L., Castro, M.
J. | &'Dudley, G; A. (1998) . Skeleta1 muscle glycdgen
l-oss evoked by resistance exercise. JournaT of
Strength & Conditioning Research, 72, 67-'73.
Thorstensson, A., Hulten, 8., Dobel-n, W. B., & Karlsso!, J.
(1976) . Effect of strength training on enzyme
activiti-es and fibre characteristics in human skeletal
muscle. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 96, 392-398.
. Understanding the
Scientific Bases behind our Universal Centurion.
Universal Athletic
IBrochure]
Sal-es
.
(L91 4)
.
Wathan, D. (1994). Load Assignment. fn Baechle, T. R.,
Ear1,, R. W. (Eds. ), Essentials of Strength Training
and Conditioning. (pp. 435-439). Champaign, IL: fluman
Kinetics.
118
Wё iss′
L. W。
′ Coney′
Ho D.′ & C■ ark′ F. C。 (1999)。
Differential functゴ onal adaptations to short― term low―
′ moderate― ′ and httgh― repetition weight trattning.
」οurnaユ
οf
Strength tt COndi亡 互Onirlg Research′ 13.(3)′
23=241.
Winchester, P. K., Davis, M. E, Always, S. E-, & Gonyea, W.
J. (1991). Satel-1ite celI activation of the stretchenlarged anterior latissimus dorsi muscl-e of the adul-t
quail. American Journal- of PhysioTogy, 260, 206-272.
Winchester, 'P. K., & Gonyea, W- J: (t992) - Regional injury
and terminal- differentiation of satellite cell-s in
stretched avian slow tonic muscle - DeveTopmental
BioToqy, l-51 , 459-412.
S., Buffinger, N., Dimario, J-, & Strohman, R- C.
(1989). Fibroblast growth factor is stored in fiber
extracetrlular matrix and pI'ays a role in regulating
muscle hypertrophy . Iuledicine & Science in Spotts &
Exercise, 27(5), 173-180.
Yamada,
Young, A., Stokes, M., Round, J. M., & Edwards, R. H. T(1983). The effebt of high-resistance training on the
-strength and cross-sectional area of the human
quadriceps. Europeah JournaL of CLinicil-
Investigation, 73,
477-4L1
1-1 9
Young, W.,. e Bi1by, W. (1993) . The ef fect of voluntary
effort to infl-uence speed of contraction of strength,
muscu.l-ar power, and hypertrophy development . JournaL
o,f Strength &" Conditioning Research, 1, Ll2-L78.
Zatsiorsky', V. M. (1995). Science and Practice of Strbngth
Training. Mischakoff, (Ed) . Champai$n, .rL: Human
Kinetics
\
ヽ
ヽ
｀
FttPPENDICES
120
リ
1
121
APPENDIX A
ALL― COLLEGE REVIEW BOARD FOR HUMAN SUB」
ECTS RESEARCH
ナ
ALL― COLLEGE
REVIEW BOARD FOR ttAN b■ IBJECTS RESEARCH
122
COVER PAGE
Name:
Corey E. Anderson
Conilact:
Dr. Gary A. Sforzo
Contact:
607-255-8485(w),607-257-7165(h)
t
Thesis
Advisoi:
Department: '
The
Proicct:・
607-274-3359(w).
Exercise & Sport Sciences
Ё 6cts of Combined Elastic― Free Weight ReSiStancttraini■ g
.
(
“
Abstract8
weigtt exercises has recently gttnCd the attention
Adding variablb iesistance from elastic bands to free―
寵 躙
I鰤
縄鵞
響 器
浮鵬
脚
盤駆
&
現it場
輔 and increase in 獅
becau“ mechanicd advantage、 13creaSes tt the top clittle resistance
tension as
is
λ′資夕
sり .Elastic bands howcヤ er,start out with
baη ε
stretched.Byじ ombining a free weight and elasuc bands,the stuectis able to lift more wcightthan
they no■ ...ally wouldo This vanable,sistance effect is similar to that found with many expens市
e t
exettise machines.Hoirever,using bands with free weightt pro宙 des both the bencit,of variable
resistance along with those´ as,ociated with free weight resistance lraining.
The purpose oFthis study is tO compare the adapta● ons Of an eight― week resistance training prOgram
(typiCal tO many collegitte strength&conditioninЁ
added elasic resistancё
ζ
u可
prOgrams)with an identical ttaining pfograln with
r the back sqjat,and bench press exerciscs.This study willinvolve 70-80
tball,hockey,叩 d
“
薄
欄櫛 幌
鯛 灘 iW撤 鮮≒
"tS frOm NCAA Division l men's basketball,wrestling,and women's baskё
irivolving the beich press.The experilnental group will train with added elastic resistancじ
for ten
squat,and ten bench press woikouts.A protocol wil1 6e developed to standardize elastic band use for
SutteCtS With different sttelgth leVels to elicit a similar resistpnce for all participants.SutteCtS Will be
11l a
lre and pOStl,sted fOr a(1-4)repetitiOn max in the Squat and Benth Press.They will pcrfo■
girth
verticaljump lest,belrneasured with skin calipers to assess body composidon,and have bodソ
.Results
of
this
g
′
α
″
′
Jι
α
れ
グ万
り
lneasurements taken to evaluate changes in'muScle mass frigλ
1λ
study may show whcther combining elastic resistance with frec― weight resistance exerciSes is
beneficial for increホ ing strength.This・ infollllation may be useful for strength&cOnditioning
coaches,man,who are already experimenting with this method,by establishittg safc and effective
｀
guidelines for its use.
Pro,osed dtte Ofimpbmentatio■
vestigators:
March ll,2002
C.E.Andcrson,G.A.Sforzo,and T.Dilliplane
GENERAL INFORPIIAT10N
123
FLNDING
rrhe miniinal costs of this study will by funded by thc Department of Exercise and Sport Sciences.
Additional funding will・ be s9ught from Jump StrCtCh,Inc.,a provider of elastiC bands lo be used in thiξ
study.
,_
LOCATION
`
「
ThiS Study Will beconducted in theFriedman Strength&Conditioning Center at Comcll Universily.
TIME PERIOD
・
We hope to begin testing by March ll,2002,and begin the training programs by NIlarch 25,2002.
Traiiling will co― encepn May 10,2002,and post¨ testing will bcgin on May 13,2002. TheitilFllng
for this study is c五 ticd aS the SuЧ ectS Will=haveJustCOⅢ leteご their season,and will have exactly、
eight Weekぎ before the conclusion of school.After this pe五 od,・ thc suttectSiWill leave for the simmer.
When theyretuin,they will be involved‐ in pre― season practice that would interferc with the results of
this study.The HSR will be infolllled if any additional acttvity related to this study takcs place after
the initial phase is complete.
｀
RELATED EXPERIENCE
ANDERSON
M.Anderson is conductingthis study to cornplete his MS thesis at lthaca Collcge.Hc has also been
an assistanぃ trength&Conditioning coach at Comell University for the past year.P五 orto that he was
ence designing and
an´ intem for C6mell Uniヤ ersity,strength｀ &conditioning.He hastwo years expe五
administehng strength&conditioning prograrns,and administe五 ng tests and mcasuresto NCAA
E)ivisiOn l student― athletes. Hc has frequently adlllllniste」 dd the tests and exercises to be used ii the
・
pЮ posed btudy。
SFORZO
Dro Sforzo will seⅣe as the graduate thesis advisor for this study.Hc has been a graduate faculty
mettber supervising thesis rese錮 9h at lthaca College.for eighteen years.Hc has had expejence
coll《 k〕 ting
‐
l
data on adults and has administered the tests being used in the proposed study.
DILLIPLANE
m.DilliplaneFMS,Will assist in the da,colleC● On for thiS study.He is an assistant strcngth&
ёonditioning coaCh at Comell UniverSity.In this capacity;he sewes as Anderson's immediate
supeⅣ isoro PHor to that he was thc director of the Comell university Fitness Centers. Hc has ten
years of expellence designing and adIIllniste五 ng strengthだ 貶conditioning progralns,and administering
tests and measuresto NCAA D市
ision l student― athletes.Hc has frequcntly adIIllnistered the tests and
exercises to be used in the proposed study.
2
124
DESCRIPTION OF ST■ lDY
,@ry
The purpose of this study is to compare the adaptations of combined eladtic-free weight resistance
tiaining in male and female collegiate athletes.
BENEFITS
,, .
'
,
programs.
Many strehgth coaches have contemplated using elastic resistance with their current training
shed light on whether they are beneficial, and also provide a safe hnd effective
This study i,itt t
in .
"tp
method oi application for elastic reSiStance use for varying types of subjects: Improy,ements
of injuries,
strength are generally important for many sports, mainiy in ttre form of reduced occulrence
and increased performance.
SUBJECTS
recruited from the Cornell University men's basketball, wrestling, and women's
Subjects
-basketballwill be
through
teams, hockey, and gymnastics teams. Subjects will include cdrrent freshmen
juniors, with an ug"rurg" oi tg-z+. When the subjectscome in for their usual workout, they will be
giu"n an iniormeJ consJnt to read and sign, they will also.be given a verbal description of the study
iritt ue.given including: the purpose of ttris study, risks involved, potential benefits, confidentiality of
by tlieir
data, ani freedom to Ji*raraw ut -y time (see appendix A). Subjects will be cleared
impairment,
respective athletic trainer for participation in this study (see appendix B). Any orth"opedic
squat,.bench
back
of
the
involving ttre lower back, shoulder, tr khees, which prohibit the execution
or
press, an-cl vertical jump, wilt disqualify the subject from participation. Any other impairments
partic]pation.
from
subject
health risks assessed by the subject's athletic trainer will also disqualify the
ih. ,rr"-.liers will evaluate the subject to ensure correct execution of these exercises is possible, as a
Services for
criterion of participation. All subjects will be cleared by physicians at Gannett Medical
participation in spo.t and training for the 2001-2002 academic year.
RECRUTTMENT
athletes will have completed their official season 2-4 weeks prior
to the siart of the training progrirm, and as such will be considerbd off-season, with limited team
responsibilities and/or piuiti".. The major inducement will be the'potential for increased perfoirirance
following ."uror. Most athletesiontinye their training during the off-season, for this purpose.
All
sub,jdcts
will
be volunteers.
foithe
All
-Any subject wishing to discontinue participation in the study may due so at any time without
consulting iheir respective cdach and without the researcher informing their respective coach.
permissiin was obiined from Cornell officials to use their facilities and recruit their student-athletes
(see appendix C).
∫
125
SUBJECT PARTICIPATION
STRENGTH MEAStIREMENTS
i
Each participant will be tested p五 or to and atthc cnd ofthe training program:Maximum strength will
bc detennined by c6mpleting a onc― four repetition niaximum(1-4RM)effOrt,from which a l―
repetition max(lRM)"ill be cOmputed using a repctition coefflcientご hart.Both the back squat and
bench preξ ζwill bc testcd in this faShiOn. Thc tcsts will bC conducted to failure,using cottct
tOchniqu9。 Spotter,wll be used in all tests andぼ aining to enhance safety.All suttects have、 peffo■ 11ledヽ
tests frequently,叫 d are fa面 liar with their proper execulon.
POWER MEASUREMttNTS
、
or to and at the end Of the training prOgraln.
Each participant will be tested in the verticaljump p五
Maximum verticaljump will be assesSed fЮ m dynamic offtw6-fcet(n01ead― in step),LSing a quick
dip p五 orlojuml.The suttect'S reach will be subtracted from their total.
‐
BODY COMPOS]『ION
Body Composition,will be TseSSed using Lange skin calipers and the ACSM seven site forlnulasゃ
omposition.Sutte6ts will also be measured for leg and ttm girth,to
skin fold measurement of body ё
‐
assess miζ cle
r
mass Changes.Using body composition mettures,body weight,and gitth
measllrelnents,changes in lean body mass will be assessed from pre_test to postite“
.
EXERCISE PROGRAM
鮒築
鮮
椰
鸞
荘
灘
構
鷲瑾
棚
T脚 躍
肌 謂ル
鷲
∫
署
思 胤 e瘍 .lMS
曇摺蹴を
」 凛::路
:範
will follow the salne pejodiz■ on(variation)of tra
Both training prOgralns are idendcal with the following exceptions:
λg“ ″′島 ク ′
あ グ 滋θ οソι θ″ ″JJJ bθ ι αιj4 bο ′
Dの I― S,“ α′ソιなル α′滋ιbο ′
“
“
“
“
ツ
θ
″ι
4′ ル″
″力θ″ げ″θ ο
″sis″ cι ル gλ`“ο
α
Jθ ″
α
ツ
ια
JJ λ
″
″J=″ ″ ″′
ι
だθ
ηθ
`Jα
“
“
“
“ jc κsis協 ″c″ οα οw ttι s“ i`ε rs α
“3α ご5¨ Z"診 ιお イ&8 ИttJJ″ cι
Jα
O ι
tt f‐
″θι
s′
s′ Jε
jッ
4gι
cん α
s'SttrCι
げ ″“
s′
Jι
b」
`“
.
Day 2 - Bench press weight at the bottom of the movement will be equal in both groups, but
experimental group will have added elastic resistance throughout the rest of the movement for"
weel<s l-3.and 5-7. Weeks 4 & 8 will receive no elastic resistance to allow the subjects a
change of resistance.
4
126
ETHた AL ISSUES
sks duc to
Exercise always l,V61Ves some」 sk ofittury tO the particlpant.The l‐ 5 RM testing poscs五
the intensc nature ofthe loading and the near maximal effort requircd.SuttcCtS Will・
be clcared p五 or to
participation in the study so as to be hCalthy and as low五 Sk as possible. SutteCtS Will all have
clearancc fЮ m physicitts at Gannett Medical SeⅣ ices to perfo.11l physical training and competc in
letic trainer
their respectiv5 spOrt fOr the 2001-2002 year,叫 dw,1l bё Clcared by their respectiVe a■
・
during their initial meeting of the study.SutteCtS Will also be screcned by t,e resear9hers for
having at least two academic sernester's、
6ompllanc,With the testing to be perfOrlned.Only suttectも
ng perfollllecall eXercises to
expe五 6nご e with strength&cOnditiOning training as a varsity athlete,ha宙
be・ tsed will be included in the study.This will ensure that all suttectS Will be cxPcdenced with all
eXercises to be performed,and lavσ trained with these exercises on a consistcnt basis.Any suttecr
6r to particip魔 don),that dO nOt
wili OIthOpedic impailllleits(as Certifled by their athletic trainer p五
a1loW the suttedt tO COrrectly perfollll the bench press,back squat,and veHicaljuttp eXercises(boCt
ι
οJαθ
ら肋ι
,Wili nOt be included. Spotters will be used,and
ヽ
“
thrOuLhout the execution of all tests and training.′
sん
proper technique will be stressed
1ladon
All researchtts.testing are trdined in CPR,and twoを e trained in automated electric defib五
techniques CAED)「 A complete emergency evacuation plan is in placc atthe Fricdman Complex,and
c仕 江ners accettЫ e“ 満 yJmg Ⅲぬ狙
血eК 霞 血
認 n
α 誡 息蹴
cbnseltFom,which
“ wili be read and Signed by dl participants.■
AED面 .儒
regarding confldentiality of data.
´
l器
■
■目 ■ ロ ニ
:も
::`υ a
Vυ ::● 9▼
350」 ob Ha‖
lthaca,NY 14850‐ 7012
‐
(607)274‐ 3113
60η
274‐
3064F鶴
7ヽ
Office of ihe Provost and
Vice President lor
Academii Affairs
′
DATE:
March 12,2002
TO:
Corey E.Anderson
Department ofExerctt and Sport Sclences
School of Health Sciences and Human Performanqp
FROM:
Garry L. Brodhead, Associate Provost
All-College Review Board for Human Subjects Research
-,*fr
// pu
--
SUBJECT: The Erects of combined Ehsfic‐ Free weight Resistance Trainihg
Thank you for respolidmg to the stipulations mde by the An‐ Co■ ege Review Board for Human
SubieCtS Resぬ血 ・You are authorized to begh yow p珂 ∝t tt any timeo Lis approval will
rerrlain h e3bct for a pencid ofone year螢oIIn the date ofauthorization.
磐 er
yOu have inished the pnects,pbase complete the encbsed Notte―
and ret― itto my otte for ollrfヨ ds。
Best wishes for a sllccessm mdyダ
加
:Enclosure
′
c Gary A Sfom,Faculty A詢 面
:
o'Completbn Fom
128
APPENDIX B
INFORMED CONSENT
「
ORM
PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY
This study,is being conducted to assess the
in developing strength & power in
'NCAA
Divj-sion" I athletes.
BENEF]TS
I
This. study may identify a method of resistance
training that will- incrbase gains in strength and/or power
when added to a multiple set, periodized resistance
training program. Your participation will- involve yqu in a
high qtiality resistance-training program, with sound
evaluation techniques used at thb beginning and ending of
the program. A11 testing associated with this study wil-I
be free of chargeT and the results will be provided to you
if requested in writing to the foll-owing address:
Corey Anderson
Freidman Strength & Conditioning Complex'
Campus Rd.
Cornell UniversitY
Ithaca, NY 14853
-REQUIREMENTS
First you wil-1 be asked to attend an orientation
meet.ing to fully dxplaln the testing and training programs,
fill out a short survey detailing the amount of past
experience with resistance training, receive your group
assignmbnt, and answer any questions. This meeting wilI
last approximately 30 minutes. During the week of March
11-15, 2002, you wil-l be asked to come attend two tdsting
sessions Iasting approximately one hour each. Body girth
measurements will be taken (right leg, chest, right arm),
body composition measured by skin fol-d calipers. Next you
will perform a vertica.l- jump test,, a I-4 repetition maximum
(1-4 RM) on the back squat and'a !-4 RM on the bench press.
You will be ,randomly assigned to a training group, and
asked to attend three training sessions (Mon., Wed., and
Fri. ) with your group for seven consecutive weeks. Training
one hour (5-10 min. warms'essions wiIl l-ast approximately
'cool-down)
After the
up; 45-50 *i:. lifting, 5 min.
L29
comptetion of training, You will be tested in the
manner as
same'
the pre-testing.
RISK
There is always risk of injury as a result of strength
training. Most injury occurs as a resul-t of improper
executj-on of a lift, and as such, care will be taken to
properly instrubt and-administer the training program- We
hope to minimize risks by only allowing yoy to participate
onty after our, staff and your athletic trbiner have cleared
you. Well-tbained staff will be used to t.est and train you
during all sessions. A11 staff are CPR certified and
ath1etlc tra j-ners are easily accessibl-e.. Minor discomforts
(e.g., muscle soreness) are likeIy to accompany the
initiation of any. new program and you should expect this to
be no exception. This discomfort should pass within a few
days. AI1 exercises performed will- be one's you have
'performed already as a collegi.ate athl-ete.
EURTHER INFORMATION"
Cal-1
with any further questions:
601-255-8485)
601-214-3359)
60't -2ss-B 534 )
Corey Anderson
Gary Sforzo
Toin
Dilliplane
WITHDRAWAL EROM THE STUDY
"
Participation in this study is rioluntary and you may
withdraw at any time if you so choose', without fear of
repercussion from the researcher or your respective a
coaches. You do not need your coach'S approval to withdraw
from the study. withdrawal from this study wiII not be
reported to your coach
CONEIDENT]ALITY
Indi.rid,ral i.,formation gathered during this study will
be kept confidential. only Mr. Anderson, Dy.. sforzo, and
Mr. Dilliplane will have access to this information- AIf
reporting of this information to outside parties will be
done in group form. You and your name will never.be
associated with this information in any f utu're discl-osures '
(
Signature
)
ｄ
ｎ ＾
Ｕ
ａ ｒ■
・
I have read the above"
acknowledge that I am over
parti-cipate in this studY.
understand its contents.
years of age and agree to
(
Date
)
130
APPENDIX C
`
MEDttCAL CLEARANCE FOR PARTICIPATION
:
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects
of combined elastic and free weiSht resistance training in
advanced
athl-etes. This study will be conducted March 1lth
- May 7'l'n,
2002.
Participation in this study j-s voluntary. Subjects
participating in this study are oft-season" athletes that
are not required to partici-pate in this study. coaches
will not be informed,if a subject withdraws from
, participation. Gannett Medical Services have cleared al-I
subjects for sport participation bnd training for the
current academic year (2001-2002) '
As the athletic trainer for
with Cornell SPort's Medicine,
I certify that
■
S
apparently healthy, and free from any orthopedic
impairments or iircumstances that would contraindicate
participation in this studY.
Name &
Credential-s (print)
Signature
Cornell- Spbrts Medicine
Date
、 131
APPENDIX D
APPROVAL FOR THE USE OF CORNELL、
￨
/
‐
2
‐
UNIVERSITY FACILITIES
CORNELL
132
U N I V E R S I T Y
Physical Education and Athletics
Teagle Hall′
lthaca′
Campus Road
N Y 14853-6501
Telephone:607255-5220
Fax:
15 February 2002
607255‐ 9791 or
607257-5182
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of combined elastic and free weight resistance training
in advanced athletes. This study will be conducted March 1lth - May 17th, 2002. Comell University
Athletic Department, Cornell Sports Medicine, and Cornell Strength & Conditioning give full consent and
support of the following points:
1.
The Cornell University Athletic Department, Athletic Training Department, and Strength &
Conditioning Departmenl giv"e full approval and support for the use of the Friedman Center at
Cornell University for the tesiing, t?aining,-dfril"collection of data for this thesis study. They
also give full approval, conserit,lqn^d supqq5! forrCornell student-athletes to participate in this
'-""
studY.
' .' i- - "
:
"r
2.
3.
4.
5.
棚
`岬
. `l｀
.
計
&‰
出
露
野
躙
響
「
彎 町
ザ 甲岬
、
.
.′
Assistant Athletic Director
享
一
こ
〒
4ξ::言:1′::J`:::F孟 」
丁 百
こ戸
「
「
C° mell SpOrtS MediCinC DirectOr
ヽ
'こ
Corllell Head Strength&Conditioning Coach
Cornell Assistant Strength & Conditioning Coach
Tom Dilliplane,
｀
133 1
APPENDIX E
Ｎ 銀 ぃ ｏ ∩ 一
Ｈ 四 、 “ ∩
Ｏ Ｎ ゝ ｏ ∩
い Ｈ ゝ ‘ ∩
∞ Ｈ ゝ ω ∩
一
ト ロ ヽ 何∩
(
X′ X X X X X X X X X X X X X'X
x: x
x x
x
'x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x'
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x'
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
'x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
xx
x
x
1
x
x
x
x x x x x x x x
x x x x x" x x
i
x x x x x x x x
x x x
x x xABx
x x x x x x x
'*
x x x x x x x x
x x x x x' x x x
x
x x x x x x'x
x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x! x x
x x x x x x 'x x
x x x x x x x x
x x x X' x x
x-x
x x x x x x x x
x x x\ x x x
x I
xxx
xxx
xx
x x x x x x x x
x x x x
x x x-x
x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x
x x x
x AB x x-x
x x x x x x- x x
xx-xxxx
xx
x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x
x x' x x x x x x
x x- x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x
x x x ' -*- .
i
:
*=
* * * * *' "
* *'absent
i i * ,' * * *AB:
ffient,
じ Ｈ 、 Ｃ ∩
崎 日 、 “ ∩
ｏ Ｈ ゝ ‘ ∩
¨ 一 一 ¨ ¨
一
x x X X X X X X
x x x X X X X
. 3 x x x x x x x x x x
x x x
xxx
xXx
-4x
5xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
t
6 x x x x x i- x x x x
'l x x x. x. x x x x x x
x x x x x x
xix
' 8 x i
x x x
9 x x x x x-ABx
10 x x x x x x x x x x
* x x x x x x x
.11-x-T
72 x x. x x x x x x x x
x x xABx
x x x*x
13x
x x x x x
x
x
x x
14x
x x x x x
x
x
x x
15x
-x
x x x x x
x
x x x
16
x x x x x x x x x
L'lx
L8 X X. x x x X x x x x
x x x x x x
- 19 x x * i
x x x x x
x x x'x
2Ox
'21 x x x x x x I x x x
x x x x x x x x x
25x
x
26 x x x x x x x x x
xx'x
x
x x x xx
21x
x x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
28x
x x x x x x x x x
2gx
30 x x x x x x x x x x
31 x x x x x x x x x x
32 * x x x x x{, x x x x
x x x *' x x x x
33 x -x
''I
34 x x x x x x x x x x
x
35 x x x )i x x x x'x
x
x
x
x
36 x x x x x x
x
x
x
31 x x x x x x x
x
x
38 x f x x x x x x
xxx
39xxxxxx
x x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
40 x
4l x x x x x. x x x x x
43 'x x x ;.X x x x x x x
44 x x x x x x x x x .x
x* x x x x x x x x
45.,x
46 x x x x x x x x -x x
4'7 x x x x x x x x x x
n,
Ｈ Ｈ ゝ ‘ ∩
Ｏ Ｈ ＞ 可 ∩
０ ゝ ‘∩
∞ ゝ ‘ ∩
卜 ゝ “ ∩
ｎ 、 Ｃ∩
￨‐
ヾ ゝ ‘∩
０ 、 “∩
∝ ゝ “∩
Ｈ ゝ 。∩
幸 ∩ Ｈ
l X X X X tt X X
=2 X X X X X X X
一ｏ ゝ “ ∩
suB」 ECT TRAINING ATTENDANCE
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x x
"
x x x
x x x
x x x
x x x
x x x
x x x
x
x'5x
x x x'
x x x
x x x
x x x
x x x
x x x
x' x x
x x x
x x x
xxxl
x x x
x x x
x
x 'x
x x 'x
x x x
x x x
x x x
x x x
x x' x
x x x
x x x
xxx
x x x
x x x
x x x
x x' x
x x x
x x x
x
* " * -*: :" '*:
'
-'
(
134
APPENDIX F
SAMPLE CALCULAT工 ONS
l RM From Multiple RepetitiQns Equation (Wathan′
F
・
1994)
.
(l RM = 100′ x rep wt /(48。 8 +53.8 x eXp[一 .075.x reps])
e.g。
r
120 kg fOr three repetitions = approximately a 131 kg one
repettttion max■ mum.
Ettample of Average Band Tension calculation
tach subject ttn the experimental group waS assigned a
speciLic band and setup that correlated to approximately 19t of
their l RM for that exercttseo
The subjects then used this
elaStttc tension throughout the remainder of the training period.
For example′
kg′
主f
a Subject卜 ad a l RM on the bhck squat of
■00
he would be Ossigned a band setup that Would give him
app■ oxユ mately
19 pounds of elastic tension。
工f
the training for
the day consisted of 5 sets of 4 reps at 85t l RM (85 kg)then
he would be using 66‐ lbs. of free wbight resistancё and an
average Of lう ■bS・ of elastic reslstancё .
If the subjects were
assigned 5 sets of 2 reps at 953 1 RM (95 kg)then he would be
using 76 kg of｀ free weight resistance and an average of 19 kg of
elastttc res■ stance.
135
‐
APPENDIX G
PRE― AND POST―
・
TRAINING QUESTIONAIRES
ヽ
Pre-Training Questionnaire
Please answer the following questions to'the best of your
ab111ty
1.
For how many.years have you resistance trained (Iifted
weights) consistently for at least three days.per week?
(Training exPerience)
Years
ピ
2。
Have tou used creatine monohyarate in the past month?
□
Yes
□
No
Post― Tra■ n■ ng QueStiOnna■ re
PleasO answer the fO110Wing question to the best of your
ability:
。
ユ
‐
HaVe you eVer use Creatine mo■ ohydrate during the course of
the seven― Week training peFiOd?
□
Yeb
□
No
、
`
/
136
APPENDIX H
STUDY PROGRAM AND PERIODIZATION
lable A-1
. Study workout periodization
VVeek l
for the seven-week training period
VVeek 3
VVeek 2
ｙ ｂ
Day 6
Day 2
Day 3
Mon
Wed
Fn
Mcln
3Apr‐ 02
8_Aor02
1二
UB
LB
l Apr‐ 02
3‐Apr‐
02
UB
Ｂ
﹂ “
Day l
Day 4
Squat
Bench
Squat
85%
85%
93%
93%
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
4
4
4
¨
呻晰
4
3
3
4
4
On← Am
One Am
One Am
DB Row
70%
Pmr
OneAm
4
8
4
8.
8
詭師４８
3
10
THcep
RDL
E翅 h
RDL
4
4
4
I
8
6
: Lat
Walkng
Pu‖ down
iets
3
4
3
4
4
tepg
8
8
t0
8
10
DB
Cuban
cud Prss
,Press
Lat
3
r^i'l
.
Walking"
Lunge
Pu‖
d―
Day 13
MOn
・
cuban
0B
Curl Press
Press
Ctt PrOSS
3
3
3
12
t0
DB.
Day 14
85%
8296
90%
90%
6
4
6
4
6
4
3
4
4-
8
.4
5
4
6
Cubm
Day 15
Wod
F“
29‐ Apr 02 1■ ay 02 釧 ayK12
16
Mm
Day
DeaiClifl
5
4
10
4
Lat
Walking
Lat
DB
Lmg6
Pu!:down
Stepups
VVattng
Lunge
Pu‖ down
I
3
4
12
10
'to
8
DB
3
3
12'
Day 19
Mon i
13■ HavI12
Day 20
Wed
LB
uB
LB
UB
LB
UB
#15
#16
■17
#18
#19
#20
ixercise
Squal
、Bonch
ntensity
98%
ntensity
Squat
Bench
Squat
Bench
90%
94%
94%
82%
82%
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
High Pull
DB Row
Fn"n FloG
DB Row
90%
90%
86%
86%
82%
8296
78%
78%
6
4
6
3
6
3
6
3
3
5
3
5
3
5
iets
3
leps
15
DBI
:xeGsg
Stepups
Hanbing
l(neo-Ups
3
15
Lat
Pu‖ down
. DBI
StepUps
Hanging
Knoo」
ps
3
15
High Puリ
、
Hanghg
Knee Ups
2
12
One‐
呻
ｍ２８
lGeeUps
4
詭師３８
High PJ:
Froln F!け
One Am
DB Row
3
Lat
0B
Lat
Step‐ Ups
Pu‖ down
StePUps
PulldM
0B
iets
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
leps
t0
10
10
't0
8
8
8
I
DB
Rear Delt
Flyes
DB
Rear Den
DB
Rear Delt
Curl Press
Rear Delt
Flyes
DB
Curl Pmss
Cud Press
Flyes
Cu‖ Press
Fly6s
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
10'
12
1'
10
10
tn
:xercise
Sets
2
't0
Rear De!t
Flyes
3
3
3
3
12
12
12
VVeek 8
Day 21
F"
Post‐
Training Tesung WOOk
Mcln
2r― v″
TESTING
,ヮ Juav412
V」 ump
Body Comp
Suwey
Bench
Am
One Am
FrcmFltr
Hanging
:xercise
Am
DB Row
詭諭３８
leps
Bench
90%
日
¨
３
呻
３
８
師
;ets
Sqr-uat
9896
0ne‐
DB
Curl PtBss
REST
UB
High Pull
Frcm Floa
Cuban
`Press
17■ Ⅵay 02
#14
lercise
DB
15■ Ⅵay 02
LB
て
Curl Press
VVeek 7
Fri
4
3
3
6-Mav-{D Etlev-A2 lo-Mav@
Lat
Pu‖ down
10
#13
l.6ps
4
4
7Vorkom
ists
5
12
12
10
DaY 18
DB Row
Doadlift
4
Cd Press
17
Wed
諭
5
Press
Oay
,
T"cep
Deadlft
VVeek 6
VVeek 5
)ay
Lunge
DB Row
87%
mm bOx.
85%
One‐
﹄３つ
輌
wanOng
Lunge
DB Row
High Pull
from box
80%
DB Row
3
High Pull
ftom box
High Pu‖
師′
詭
´８
80%
Am
Bench・
.3
３
師
詭
DB Row
80%
OneAm
０
０
日
¨
３
呻
４
飾
１
︲
ShrW
4
iets
#11
90%
10
*erclsg
UB
#10
Bench
leps
:
LB
約
∞%
iets
:xffiise
UB
r8
Squat
i
4
8
LB
17
84%
5
leps
UB
F百
6Aort12
Bench
leps
4
24_AD「 02
02
u%
6
iets
,,Aor 02
19‐ Apr
Day 12
'squat
iets
RDL
Wod
77%
7296
:xeGse
LB
Mon
面
B●“
Bonch
72%
ntensity
lL11軋
Day ll
F百
77%
squat
ntsnsity
Sh叩
70%
12 Aor 02
Day 10
Squat
:Xercise
Power
￨
#5
Ivorkout
:xercise
F‖
Week 4
Day 9
Squt
Wed
TESTING
.
131
APPENDIX
H
(CONT.
STU.DY PROGRAM A(ID PERIODIZATION
95%
' Intensity
-VOIume
-
０“ＯＨ〓︼Ｏ〓
75%
55%
3
5
7
9 11 13 15 17 19
Workout
workout session
Workout volume as a percenta.ge of the maximum
seven weeks of
volume, and average intensity of core f.ifts over
resistance. trai-ning'
138
APPENDIX I
ID#
RAW DATA
Peak CV」 Power
Post
Pre
5241
5084
LBM (KG)
Pre
POSt
63
63
1
Avq. CV」 POWer
Post
Pre
1768
1714
87
85
3
パ 90
91
5823
´6059
2326
240'7
4
94
62
72
57
54
58
60
3633
4154
3462
3600
3590
t276
7349
726L
L225
1300
7376
55
3705
4075
3462
3443
3276
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
91
64
72
62
55
58
59
55
49
49
47
70
46
71
-4242
16
85
17
18
92
65
19
20
21
25
85
92
65
57
56
76
78
63
63
78
77
77
78
77
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
79
78
75
60
52
49
68
78
74
・ 5670
5938
1095
973
749
849
1749
2299
2259
1562
1317
2073
1426
197・ 4
1860
2065
5081
4239
2526
3836
3783
5021
4160
2762
3522
4238
4809
1831
1454
756
1243
1419
1695
3230
2953
2854
5028
5745
- 5499
4553
4205
579L,
4341
5418
5057
60
53
51
68
3198
2953
311- 9
5028
s666
5499
47L0
4L28
519t
',4347
5529
5450
1z0t
1279
■203
952
749
925
1749
2273
｀2259
1615
1290
2073
1426
2022
1995
2167
1814
・1427
837
1136
1570
1678
・
∼
::｀
:￨
:き
:i
::
:!
::::
::
::
::::
:li!
::
:
iil:
:iil
:;:♀
,i!::
、
itit
::::
4442
6086
5381
4049
::!:
l:::
1360
2126
20171
1284
;::
〔
1511
_ 2261
2044
、
1379
139
・
APPENDIX I (｀ CONT。
)
RAW DATA
■｀
1
98‐
2
117
95
89
50
50
38
43
1
1
1
57
55
1
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
、 33
34
35
36
37
38
39
.
40
41
43
44
45
46
47
48
43
1
3
2
2
2
‐
3
3
3
41
45
50
l
1
1
1
1
42ヽ
42
48
50
62
58
55
52
45
45
43
45
143
120
102
148
148
116
1
1
・
・
1
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
_2
3
3
3
2
2
50
62
61
45
1
1
1
3
43
45
2
3
48:
1
1
52
55
150
1
・
1
1
1
1
1
6t3
662
89
82
3
91
48
45
60
58
72
61
60
59
52
52
2
2
・
1
1
ヽ
91
1
Pre
132
132
1
120
116
143
141
107
116
107
107
91
93
.t・
98
84
93
86
93
V
1
1
1
116ヽ
109
136
132
102
111
102
Post
102
114
102
93
55
56
45
reps
Pre
'3
・
sqjat (KG)
Bench Press (kG)
ID♯
125
111
159 .
157
120
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
'77
51
573
84
136
148
L75
159
109
L52
L25
L4L
L02
LO2
727
662
503
682
64
89
100
91
Re
1
1
2
1
3
2
1
'1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
Post
143
143
1
1
73
77 _
91
88
3
2
3
3
89
57
59
84
2
136!
1
159
175
175
114
157
134
161
125
125
139
80
・64
1
3
1
2
91
75
70
70
86
168
2、
116
143
143
184
105
1
1
3
2
3
l・
1
1
1
1
Reps
3=
3
3
1・
1
1
1
1
1‐
1
1
1
1
2
3
84
84
102
107
98
2
105
80
2
3
2
91
84
98
177
130
159
164
211
125
1
3
1
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDttX
140
」
sUB」 ECT DESCRttPTIVE STATISTICS
weight
2
M
C
19
lo1
201
^二
, Cr3atint uPe
=MBB
No
No
98
__
´^^
ヽ″
■
■^
｀
1^
^ヽ
No
No
C 20 5 103 105 198 MBB
M
3
L06 106 206 MBB No No
20 2
M
4
I
'F
C 21, 4' 7B 77 1BO WBB No No
5
6FC20388BB.18!WBBNoNo
TEC203TOTBtB2WBBNoNo
BFC1926868L75WBBNoNo
WHOC No No
7g 61 1'69 'wHoC
C 20 2
F
9
No No
74 76 163
C 21, 3
10 - F
58 7O 1'71 WHOC No No
-1-1 E
C 21 3
60 59 1-60 WHOC No No
C 21 2
-L2 F
urHoc No N'o
44 44 !2!
c 21' 3
'SZ
13 F
WHOC No No
60 59 f
C l-9 2
F
t4
Loz 108 184 wRE No No
c Lg 2
M
is
B0 Bo 199 vrRE No No
c 20 2
1.6 M
72 '13 764 wRE No No
c 20 '1
M
t]
96 95 185 vf,RE No No
C .19 4
18 M
19MC1967576L76WRENoNo
20MC1956051150wRENoNo
66 67 L64 .WRE NO NO
C 2T B
2T M
25MEL948383LB2MBBNoNo
84 84 1,9L MBB NO NO
E Lg 5
26 M
E 1-9 4 "84 85 L96 MBB ' No No
27 M
28Mrf,,]-g28484t92MBBNoNo
2eME24680Bo\?lMBBNoNo
30FE20372721BOWBBNoNo
62 62 L72 wBB No No
E 1,9 2
31 F32EE2036565t69WBBNoNo
84 83 185 WBB NO NO
E '19 '42
33 E
15 75 1'72 WBB No No
E 2L
34 F
60 61' 156 WHOC No No
E 2t
35 E
1
os 67 160 wHoc No No
E 1e 5
i
3;
t;;
6'7 6s 1se wHoc No No
E 1e 2'
;
65 65 1'64 wHoC No No
E 21- 2
38 F
75 75 163 WHOC No No
2
E 2t
39 E
84 85 111 WHOC No' No
3
E, 2t
40 E
83 84 169 wHoc No No
2
;' ,o
E
4t
7O 71' 170 WRE No No
E 23- g
43 M
No
85 86 1'15 WRE No 'No
E 20 6
44 M
No
WRE
70 71 159
E 20 2
45 M
89 8'7 180 WRE No No
E Lg 5
46 M
gl 91 173 WRE No 'No
E 20 'l
47 M
'68
71- -17-o wBE----'Nll----N9
E 22 3
48 M
LXP
Exp
:
WRE
= WrestJ-ing.
5'1
..
yeafs
O V工of =Vresiitance'
r..:l:l?,
nd centimeters;
I::;:",
TTn,:,:::":";^Y::,:s HOCkey′
Basketball, WBB = WOmen′ S Basketball′ WHOC = WOmen′
工■
C・
・
141
APPENDIX K
MISSING DATA
Missing
Data
orl"
ヽ
Grou'
Gender
C
M
MBB
M
MBB
E
F
WBB
10
E
F
WBB
PP
ヽ22
C
M
面RE
All
23
C
M
WRE
A■
C
M
WRE
All
E
M
MBB
Squat, CVJ
E
F
WHOC
All
E
M
WRE
All
E.
M
WRE
All
I Dll
3
Squatr'AP,
PP
squat′ AP′
C・
4
PP
squat′ AP′
9
ヽ
PP
squat′ .AP′
l
R'eason
Pre-existing knee
injury
Pre-existing. knee ''
inj urY
Pre-existing lumbar
inj urY
Pre-existing knee
inj urY
Non-training related
inj urY
Non-training related
a
.in
４ ６
¨
３
２
２ ・ ・
４
ン
j urY
Failed to Post Test
Pre-existing ankle
inj urY
Failed to Post TestNon-training related
９ ０
５
４
■n]ury
Fa■ led
tO POSt Test