Jo ot hpi Spon ence Reseach 1350 Yume 4 Homer pp. 7682 The Effects of Self-selection for Frequency of Training in a Winter Conditioning Program for Football Jay R. Hoffman!, William J. Kraemer?, Andrew C. Fry?, Michael Deschenes! and Michael Kemp! 4Muman Performance Laboratory Exercise Science Program University of Connecticut Storrs, Connecticut 06269 2Center for Sports Medicine ‘The Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pennsylvania 16802 ABSTRACT Information concerning frequency of training for resistance trained individuals is relatively unknown. Problems in designing training programs for student ‘atbletes are frequently encountered due to differential time constraints placed upon them. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of self-selection of resistance training frequency on muscular strengtb. Sixty-one members of an NCAA Division IAA football team participated in a 10-week winter conditioning program. Each subject was given the option of ‘choosing from a three-day (3d, n=12), four-day (4d, n=15), five-day (Sd, n=23) or six-day (6d, ne1D) per week resistance training program. in addition to the strength training, the subjects participated in a football conditioning program 1wice a week. Testing was conducted before and after the 10-week training Program. Field tests common to football off-season conditioning programs were utilized to evaluate strength (1 RM squat and bench press), speed (40-yard sprind), endurance (two-mile run), vertical jump and anthropometric measurements. Posttests revealed significant changes for tbe 3d group in decreased time for the two-mile run (2mi), decreased sum of skinfolds (SF) and an increased chest girth (CH). The 4d program revealed significant decreases in body weight, 2mi, SE and increases in 1 RM squat, CH and thigh gintbs (TH). The 5d group significantly decreased 2mi, Journal of Applied Sport Science Research, Volume 3, Number 4,1990 76 and SF, and increased both 1 RM squat and bench press and CH and TH. The 6d group revealed significant decreases in 2m, and SF, and an increase in T RM squat. Of the total variables measured, 4d and 5d frequency groups revealed the greatest amount of improvement. In conclusion, when resistance training frequency is self-selected by atbletes (i.e. college football players) it appears that four or five day's per week are the optimal choices for developing sirengtb, endurance and muscle mass KEY WORDS: Resistance training, frequency of exercise, strength. Introduction Training variables such as frequency, intensity and volume are all manipulated in the attempt to obtain al training effects (16). One of the major ‘variables that can be manipulated in resistance training is frequency (6, 9). It has been observed that heavy resistance training performed five days per week results in significantly greater strength increases than fewer training frequencies per week (6). Still, significant improvement has been shown to occur fewer training days per week (.e,. three, four days per week) (6). Thus, it has been hypothesized that the frequency of training influences the amount ofimprovement observed (5). It should be noted that previous studies comparing frequency of training have used relatively untrained individuals and exercise training protocols not appropriate or practical for athletic populations. Thus, information concerning frequency of training for athletes is relatively limited. ‘When investigating frequency of training for the athlete, training the same exercise (e.g., bench press) on consecutive days is not considered appropriate (5). Because of this, exercises that are termed assistance exercises are incorporated into the resistance training program on the days between the core exercises (5) Core exercises are typically multi-joint exercises (e.g., squat, bench press) that exercise large muscle groups. Assistance exercises train the muscle group at different angles (e.g., bench press versus incline bench press as an assistance exercise), and provide an added training stimulus to the muscle group without performing the identical exercise. Linle information exists concerning frequency of training when viewed from this more practical perspective, ‘A problem arca that has been encountered by some strength and conditioning professionals is comy of the athletes with structured off-season training regimens (10, 14). Differential time constraints on the student-athlete can create problems in designing resistance training programs. To solve this applied sport problem of differential scheduling for the student-athlete, it has been proposed that athletes train at whatever frequency they can implement into their schedule. Thus, the primary purpose of this study was to examine the effects of self-selection of resistance training frequency on muscular strength. ‘Methods Sixty-one members of an NCAA Division IAA football team (ie., scholarship players) voluntarily participated in a 10-week winter conditioning program, Descriptive data for all the subjects can be found in Table 1. Each player was given the option of choosing from a three-day Gd), four-day (4a), five-day (Gd) or six-day (6d) per week resistance training program (see Tables 2, 3 and 4 for a description of the program). In addition to the resistance training program, players also participated in a two-day per week football conditioning program consisting of flexibility, agility, endurance, speed training and plyometrics (Fable 5). All programs and workouts were monitored by the research team. The 3d group utilized the same training protocol each session, including the core exercises. In this study the core exercises were operationally defined as the bench press (upper body) and the squat ower body). The 4d group trained core exercises twice a week, alternating between two different training protocols. The Sd group trained the core exercises three times per week and performed assistance exercises twice a week. The 6d group utilized three training protocols, core exercises were performed twice a week and assistance exercises were performed during the other four training sessions. ‘Table 1. Characteristics of Subjects Yarlable ad “a sa 6a 8 2 5 B n (op, mB, BWR 2 7 8 1 da, 75 ° 7 9 1 (OL, DD 9 1 6 9 Ages) 19.7 £14 204 £15 204 £14 197 £14 Height 181.0% 57 18248 47 196.22 58 186.8% 81 ce Experience 39 #25 34219 22 410 30 22 oro) DB = defensive back, RB = ruaning back, QB ~ quarterback, WR = wide receiver, K = kicker, LB ~ linebacker, TE = tight end, OL offensive line, DL = defensive tine ‘Table 2. Resistance Training Programs Frequency Days Body Parts Max No. Exercises Sd/weck MW enti body 3 per body part Adiweck —MTH_—_ ches, shoulders, wiceps, neck 3 per TP legs, back, biceps, body part forearm Sa/week — MWF chest, wiceps, legs, neck 3 per body pare TTA ack, shoulders, biceps, forearms Gdiweek —-M'TH chest, iceps, TF legs, shoulders, neck 4 per body part WSA back, biceps, Torearms 77 Jouenal of Applied Spont Science Research, Volume 3, Number 4, 1990In this study, tests common to football off-season programs were utilized because of coach/player acceptability, prior experience with testing procedures and good test-retest reliability (¢ s > 0.90): Reliability coefficients were determined within this investigation. Testing was conducted before and after a 10-week training period. All subjects were familiarized and experienced with each testing protocol. Practice attempts were allowed before all tests were performed. Field tests were utilized to evaluate strength, speed, endurance, vertical jump and anthropometric measurements. One repetition maximum (1 RM) was performed in the bench press and squat exercises. The bench press and squat were performed to determine upper and lower body strength, respectively (11). Bench press exercise was performed in the standard supine position. The subject lowered an olympic weightlifting bar with maximal weight to mid-chest and then lifted the weight until his arms were fully extended. The squat exercise required the subjects to rest an olympic weightlifting bar at a location across the trapezius. This location was determined by individual preference. The squat exercise was performed to the parallel position as determined by the greater trochanter being lowered to the same level as the knee. The subject then would thrust upward until the knees were extended. All exercises were performed in an identical fashion from pre- to posttesting, In this study, speed was determined by a 40-yard sprint, Times were determined using hand-held stop watches. Timing began on the subject's movement out of a three-point stance. The best time of two attempts ‘was recorded as the subject's time. ‘Aerobic endurance of each subject was determined by a maximal effort two-mile run. This has been described previously by Mello et al. (12). Vertical jump was determined by methods previously described by Baumgartner and Jackson (1), Briefly, each subject placed a chalk mark on a wall afier an extended reach with feet flat on the floor. ‘Then without taking a step, the subject slightly dipped and thrust upward, placing a second chalk mark on the wall. The distance between the two marks was measured to determine the vertical jump height (em), ‘The best result of two attempts was recorded. Anthropometric assessments included height, body weight, skinfold thickness and circumference measurements. Body weight was assessed on a Toledo scale (Toledo Scale Corp., Toledo, Ohio). All subcutaneous skinfolds were measured with a constant pressure skinfold caliber (Holtain LTD, Crymyck U.K.) fon the right side of the body for three trials at the following sites: tricep, bicep, chest, suprailiac, subscapular, thigh, calf and abdomen (13). ‘The sum of the eight sites was recorded. Circumference measurements were performed at the chest and dominant thigh site, as previously described (13). Experience level was determined by the subjects’ self-evaluation of the number of years they performed ‘all epeuiions performed at 100% ‘of the required RM Table 3. Exercises, Sets and Repetitions for Resistance Training Program Chest: bench press", dumbbell bench, incline bench press, dumbbel, incline ys, variable resistance machine Ns, variable resistance machine decline press Shoulders: push press behind neck press, miliary press, upright rows, dumbbell press, dumbbell ase (side, font, variable Fesistnce machine lateral false, variable resistance machine overhead press Telceps: tricep pushdown, dumbbell extension, ing ticep extension, close-grip bench press, dips, kickbacks Necks variable resistance 4-way neck machine Leys squats, lunges’, leg press, hack squat, leg extension, feg cu, calf rise Back: dead lif, power clean’, lat pulldown, low cable sows, bent over rows, dumbbell rows, variable resistance machine pllover, pullups Bleeps and Forearms: ez curl, dumbbell and barbell curls, wrist and reverse curls ‘equired core exercise Weeks 14 Weeks 5.8 Weeks 9-10 Core Exerciacs axe 5x6 1x10 1x8 1x6 1x4 1x2 ‘Assistance Exercises 3x10 3x10 3x10 Jour of Applied Spon Science Research, Volume 3, Number 4, 1990 ”