CHANGES IN MAXIMAL STRENGTH, VELOCITY,
POWER AFTER 8 WEEKS OF TRAINING WITH
PNEUMATIC OR FREE WEIGHT RESISTANCE
DAVID M. FROST,1 STEFANIE BRONSON,1 JOHN B. CRONIN,2,3
1
Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 2School of Sport and
Recreation, Sport Performance Research Institute New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand; and 3School of Exercise and Health
Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia
ABSTRACT
Frost, DM, Bronson, S, Cronin, JB, and Newton, RU. Changes
in maximal strength, velocity, and power after 8 weeks of
training with pneumatic or free weight resistance. J Strength
Cond Res 30(4): 934–944, 2016—Because free weight (FW)
and pneumatic (PN) resistance are characterized by different
inertial properties, training with either resistance could afford
unique strength, velocity, and power adaptations. Eighteen
resistance-trained men completed baseline tests to determine
their FW and PN bench press 1 repetition maximum (1RM).
During the FW session, 4 explosive repetitions were performed
at loads of 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90% 1RM to assess force,
velocity, and power. Participants were then assigned to a FW
or PN training group, which involved three 90-minute sessions
per week for 8 weeks. Both intervention groups completed
identical periodized programs with the exception of the resis-
tance used to perform all bench press movements. Free weight
participants significantly increased their FW and PN 1RM
(10.4 and 9.4%), and maximum (any load) force (9.8%), veloc-
ity (11.6%), and power (22.5%). Pneumatic-trained partici-
pants also exhibited increases in FW and PN 1RM (11.6 and
17.5%), and maximum force (8.4%), velocity (13.6%), and
power (33.4%). Both interventions improved peak barbell
velocity at loads of 15 and 30% 1RM; however, only the
PN-trained individuals displayed improvements in peak force
and power at these same loads. Training with PN resistance
may offer advantages if attempting to improve power at lighter
relative loads by affording an opportunity to consistently
achieve higher accelerations and velocities (F = ma), in com-
parison with FW. Exploiting the inertial properties of the resis-
tance, whether mass, elastic or PN, could afford an opportunity
to develop mixed-method training strategies and/or elicit
Address correspondence to David M. Frost, d.frost@utoronto.ca.
30(4)/934–944
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2015 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
934 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
AND
AND ROBERT U. NEWTON3
unique neuromuscular adaptations to suit the specific needs
of athletes from sports characterized by varying demands.
KEY WORDS air resistance, athlete, bench press, force,
periodization
INTRODUCTION
T
he physical preparation of any athlete requires an
appreciation for the loads, speeds, and movement
patterns fundamental to their sport. As such, there
may be value in knowing how or why a particular
mode of resistance (e.g., mass, elastic, and pneumatic [PN])
could afford an adaptation that would otherwise be impos-
sible, or at least difficult to achieve with another modality
(13). Simply because mass reflects the type of resistance an
athlete moves on a day-to-day basis (i.e., their bodyweight),
does not imply that it should be the only method of loading
used during training. For example, dissimilar inertial proper-
ties between free weight (FW) and PN resistance dictate that
each resistance will offer a unique stimulus (11) and, there-
fore, may be more suitable to achieve a particular response
or adaptation to training.
As an athlete progresses from phase to phase through
a periodized program, coaches will modify repetitions, sets,
loads, speeds, rest periods, and/or movement patterns in
a linear or nonlinear fashion (4,24,26,27). However, rarely is
there consideration given to changing the mode of resistance,
despite the fact that transfer of training could be limited by the
inertial properties of the loads being used. Free weight resis-
tance, which comprises only mass, exhibits momentum once
in motion; hence, the reason we are able to leave the ground
when jumping. But this is also the reason why athletes are
pulled from the bench when performing a FW bench press as
quickly as possible. Once sufficient forces are applied to initi-
ate motion, the mass gains momentum, which reduces the
muscular effort required to complete the repetition over the
range of movement (11). Furthermore, if the load is not
thrown, the performer may need to actively decelerate the
barbell during the latter half of the pressing phase (i.e., pro-
duce a force in opposition to the direction of travel (25)).

The popularity of band and PN resistance stems largely
from the fact that each modality offers a load comprising-
minimal mass and therefore less inertia and momentum in
comparison with that of FW (13). Instead, the external loads
are created through band tension or air resistance, respec-
tively, which may afford an opportunity to elicit unique
training adaptations. For instance, higher accelerations can
be achieved with external loads comprising less mass if the
same force is produced (i.e., F = ma), which suggests that
either modality could offer unique velocity-specific adapta-
tions to training, or provide a means by which a particular
coaching objective could be achieved in a safer simpler fash-
ion. However, there may also be instances where FW resis-
tance does afford an ideal stimulus and perhaps should be
viewed as the most appropriate method of external loading
(e.g., increasing 1 repetition maximum [1RM] strength).
Against this backdrop, our primary objective was to examine
the strength, velocity, and power adaptations exhibited by
resistance-trained men in response to 2 eight-week perio-
dized exercise programs, differing only in the type of resis-
tance (FW or PN) used to perform heavy and explosive
bench press efforts. It was hypothesized that training with
PN resistance would elicit larger improvements in peak
velocity and power at light loads, whereas training with
FW resistance would be more conducive to increasing peak
force and maximal strength.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
Resistance-trained men (3–15 years of experience) com-
pleted 2 baseline tests to determine their FW and PN bench
press 1RM. During the FW testing session, participants also
performed sets of 4 explosive bench press repetitions at loads
of 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90% 1RM. A force plate and linear
potentiometer were used to measure ground reaction force
and barbell displacement, respectively. On completing the
baseline tests, participants were assigned to one of the 2
training groups (FW or PN), each matched for 1RM
strength. Individuals attended three 90-minute whole-body
resistance training sessions each week over a 2-phase 8-week
period. Each phase comprised of a strength (80–95% 1RM)
and power (30–45% 1RM) component. Both intervention
groups completed identical training programs with the
exception of the type of resistance used to perform all bench
press movements. Once the 8-week training program was
completed, the baseline tests were repeated. Participants’
FW and PN 1RM, and peak force, velocity, and power at
each submaximal load were computed before and after
training.
Subjects
Eighteen men with at least 3 years of resistance training
experience and a maximum bench press greater than their
body weight volunteered to participate in this investigation.
To detect a 10% difference with 80% power and a significance
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
level of 95%, it was estimated that 16 participants would be
needed (8 in each group). At the time of testing, all men
reported their resistance training frequency to be a minimum
of 2 times per week. Their mean (6SD) age, height, body
mass, and resistance training experience were 23.9 (64.1)
years, 1.79 (60.07) m, 79.8 (611.8) kg, and 5.0 (63.8) years,
respectively. The University’s Office of Research Ethics
approved the investigation, and all participants gave their
informed consent before data collection began. The study
conforms to the Code of Ethics of the World Medical Asso-
ciation (approved by the ethics advisory board of Swansea
University) and required players to provide informed consent
before participation.
Instrumentation
Free weight testing was performed inside a standard power
rack. A bench was secured to the center of a portable force
plate (Quattro Jump Model 9290AD, Kistler, Switzerland)
using a customized steel bracket. Foot pegs extending
horizontally from the end of the bracket were used to
accommodate various foot positions; therefore, participants
were not obliged to place their feet on the bench or the floor.
Before each testing session, the force plate was calibrated
with known weights and then zeroed with the weight of the
participant and bench. A linear position transducer (PT5A-
150, Celesco, Chatsworth, CA, USA) with a signal sensitivity
of 0.244 mV$V21 per millimeter was secured to a wood
plank and positioned approximately 1.5 m directly above
the center of the barbell. The vertical position of the barbell
was zeroed before each repetition, and the initial displacement
was recorded as 0.000 m. Displacement and force data were
A/D converted using a 16-bit data acquisition board (PCI-
6220; National Instruments, Sydney, NSW, Australia) and
sampled simultaneously at 2,000 Hz. Labview software (Ver-
sion 8.1; National Instruments, Austin, TX, USA) was used to
acquire, display, and store all data for further analyses.
A squat rack instrumented with PN technology (Keiser,
Fresno, CA, USA) was used for all PN testing and training
purposes. Resistance was generated through an air compres-
sor (Keiser) and adjusted by pressing foot pedals located at the
base of the rack. The rack permitted a traditional bench press
to be performed with a PN load while maintaining all 6
permissible movement directions. Resistance was applied by
way of cables that extended from a pulley system free to move
in the horizontal direction along tracks at the base of the rack.
The cables were then attached to a lightweight 2.5 kg barbell
(Keiser), designed specifically for use with the PN squat rack.
The grip diameter was identical to that of a standard Olympic
barbell. A digital screen displayed the PN load (in pounds) as
calculated by software within the system. Through pilot
testing, it was determined that the PN load could be
accurately and reliably set at a predetermined resistance
(e.g., 588N equals 60 kg) such that comparisons could be
made with a FW load. This was confirmed for all testing trials
through force plate data.
VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2016 | 935
 Training With Pneumatic or Free Weight Resistance
Experimental Protocol
Each participant attended 1 familiarization session and 2
testing sessions separated by a minimum of 72 hours. The
familiarization protocol consisted of 6 sets of 4 repetitions
with PN resistance using loads of 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70%
of an estimated FW 1RM, followed by 3 sets of 4 explosive
FW efforts using absolute loads of 20, 40, and 60 kg; each
separated by 3 minutes. Participants were allowed to self-
select their grip and foot width; however, the distances were
measured so that they could be used throughout testing.
During the FW testing session, participants completed
a 1RM test and 6 sets of 4 repetitions at loads equating to
15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90% of the previously determined
1RM. Participants were able to complete all repetitions.
Ten minutes of rest was given between the 1RM test and
commencement of submaximal load testing. Three to seven
days after the FW testing protocol, participants returned to
determine their PN 1RM.
Each participant’s 1RM was determined using a protocol
similar to that described by Doan et al. (10). Participants
were asked to perform 4 repetitions at 60% of their estimated
1RM, 3 repetitions at 70% 1RM, 2 repetitions at 80% 1RM,
and 1 repetition at 90% 1RM. These 4 sets were followed by
a maximum of 5 attempts to identify their actual 1RM.
Three minutes’ rest was given between each set. All 1RM
testing was conducted using a stretch shortening cycle (SSC)
movement; however, in cases where the barbell contacted
the chest or failed to come within 0.05 m of the chest, it was
disregarded and repeated after an additional 3 minutes. Sub-
jects were encouraged to move the barbell as quickly as
possible but required to keep their hips and back on the
bench and their feet on the floor (force plate). The PN
1RM was determined using the same protocol; however,
the PN load was recorded to reflect the total resistance as
displayed on the digital indicator and the mass of the light-
weight barbell and collars (3 kg). Recorded loads were com-
pared with the force plate data to ensure accuracy. All PN
loads were set at a rack height of 0.64 or 0.74 m (distance
from the pulley to the bottom of the cable attachment) by
increasing the resistance, as unpublished work from our lab-
oratory has shown that this setup increases the degree of
linearity for progressively heavier loads. After 10 minutes
of passive recovery, participants were asked to perform 2
single repetitions with the lightweight barbell (Keiser) to
establish a maximum barbell velocity.
After the FW 1RM test, 4 single repetitions, separated by
1 minute, were performed as explosively as possible at loads
of 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90% 1RM. Loads were assigned in
an ascending order, each separated by 3 minutes’ rest, so
that a systematic comparison could be made across partic-
ipants. Any repetition that contacted the chest or failed to
come within 0.05 m of the chest was disregarded and
repeated after an additional 1 minute. Participants were
required to keep their hips and back on the bench and feet
on the floor.
the TM
936 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
On completion of baseline testing, each participant was
assigned to a FW or PN training group, each matched for
height, body mass, and FW 1RM. The intervention consisted
of an 8-week periodized resistance training program designed
to improve whole-body strength and power. An emphasis
was placed on whole-body exercise for 2 reasons: (a) to
accommodate the needs/interests of the participants so that
they did not feel inclined to perform additional training
outside of the study setting and (b) to control all resistance
training exposures over the 8-week period. Participants
attended three 90-minute sessions (including warm-up and
cool down) each week and were coached by a National
Strength and Conditioning Association–accredited strength
and conditioning specialist. With the exception of the resis-
tance used to perform the bench press, both training groups
completed identical programs. The 8 weeks were separated
into 2 phases, each including a strength (80–95% 1RM) and
power (30–45% 1RM) component (Table 1). For example, in
phase 1, participants performed a heavy bench press on day 1
(4 3 4 repetitions at approximately 90% 1RM) and an explo-
sive bench press on day 2 (6 3 3 repetitions at approximately
35% 1RM). Participants in the FW group used ballistic repe-
titions (i.e., the barbell was thrown at the end of the ascent
phase) to perform their power efforts. These repetitions were
performed inside a standard power rack instrumented with
a magnetic brake (Fitness Technology, Adelaide, Australia)
that prevented any downward motion of the barbell after
the point of release. However, all ballistic bench press repeti-
tions did include an eccentric phase before being thrown (i.e.,
countermovement) so that all participants could make use of
the SSC. Individuals in the PN group used the specialized rack
and were instructed to move the load as fast as possible.
During weeks 4 and 8, the training volume was reduced to
provide participants with a period of active recovery. Details
of the training program are outlined in Table 1. Participants
were required to attend a minimum of 20/24 training sessions
to complete the FW and PN posttests, which began within 1
week of the final training session. The new FW 1RM was
used to assign loads for the submaximal posttests so that
pre-post comparisons could be used to assess whether expo-
sure to PN resistance altered the force-, velocity-, power-load
relationship. However, it must also be noted that several fac-
tors such as nutrition, sleep, and time of day may have influ-
enced the determination of participants’ posttraining 1RM.
For the duration of testing and training, participants were
asked to refrain from performing any formal resistance exer-
cise on their own or making changes to their nutritional
intake.
Data Analyses
The raw displacement data were filtered with a fourth-order,
zero-phase low-pass Butterworth filter (10 Hz) and differ-
entiated to calculate barbell velocity. Force data were filtered
at 100 Hz to remove any high-frequency noise. Initiation of
the descent phase was defined as the first instance of
 TABLE 1. The 8-week training program completed by all participants.*

Phase 1 Phase 2

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8

Day 1
1A. Back squat 633@ 633@ 633@ 433@ 633@ 633@ 633@ 433@
(explosive) ;30% + 2 3 ;30% + 2 3 ;35% + 2 ;35% + 1 ;40% + 2 ;40% + 2 ;45% + 2 ;45% + 1
10 @ ;75% 10 @ ;75% 38@ 3 5@ 36@ 36@ 34@ 33@
;80% ;80% ;85% ;85% ;90% ;90%
Rest: 45 s between
1 and 6, 120 s
between 6 and 8
2A. Bench press 434@ 434@ 434@ 233@ 5,4,3,2 @ 85– 5,4,3,2 @ 85– 5,4,3,2 @ 85– 232@
(heavy) ;90% ;90% ;90% ;90% 95% 95% 95% ;92.5%
2B. Romanian deadlift 434@ 434@ 434@ 233@ 433@ 433@ 433@ 232@
;90% ;90% ;90% ;90% ;92.5% ;92.5% ;92.5% ;92.5%
2C. Rotational med 3 3 15 3 3 15 3 3 15 238 3 3 15 3 3 15 3 3 15 238
ball
Rest: 60 s between
exercises, 90 s
between sets
3A. Horizontal pull-up 338 338 338 235 336 336 336 234
3B. Overhead lunge 338 338 338 235 336 336 336 234
3C. Abdominal pike 3 3 12 3 3 12 3 3 12 237 338 338 338 235
Rest: 45 s between

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

the
exercises, 60 s
between sets
Day 2
1A. Bench press 633@ 633@ 633@ 433@ 633@ 633@ 633@ 433@
(explosive) ;30% + 2 3 ;30% + 2 3 ;35% + 2 ;35% + 1 ;40% + 2 ;40% + 2 ;45% + 2 ;45% + 1
10 @ ;75% 10 @ ;75% 38@ 3 5@ 36@ 36@ 34@ 33@
;80% ;80% ;85% ;85% ;90% ;90%
VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2016 |

Rest: 45 s between
1 and 6, 120 s
between 6 and 8
2A. Wide pull-up 434@ 434@ 434@ 233@ 5,4,3,2 @ 85– 5,4,3,2 @ 85– 5,4,3,2 @ 85– 232@
(heavy) ;90% ;90% ;90% ;90% 95% 95% 95% ;92.5%
2B. Hamstring curl 438 438 438 235 4 3 10 4 3 10 4 3 10 236
2C. Dynamic side 3 3 12 3 3 12 3 3 12 237 3 3 12 3 3 12 3 3 12 237
bridge
(continued on next page)

TM
| www.nsca.com
937

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 938

Training With Pneumatic or Free Weight Resistance

Rest: 60 s between
exercises, 90 s
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

between sets
the

3A. Single leg squat 336 336 336 234 338 338 338 235
3B. 1 Arm standing 336 336 336 234 338 338 338 235
press
3C. Med ball crunch 3 3 15 3 3 15 3 3 15 238 3 3 15 3 3 15 3 3 15 238
Rest: 45 s between
exercises 60 s
between sets
Day 3
1A. Neutral pull-up 633@ 633@ 633@ 433@ 633@ 633@ 633@ 433@
(explosive) ;75% + 2 3 ;75% + 2 3 ;75% + 2 ;75% + 1 ;75% + 2 ;75% + 2 ;75% + 2 ;75% + 1
10 @ ;75% 10 @ ;75% 38@ 35@ 36@ 36@ 34@ 33@
;80% ;80% ;85% ;85% ;90% ;90%
Rest: 45 s between
1 and 6, 120 s
between 6 and 8
434@ 434@ 434@ 233@ 232@
TM

2A. Front squat 5,4,3,2 @ 85– 5,4,3,2 @ 85– 5,4,3,2 @ 85–

(heavy) ;90% ;90% ;90% ;90% 95% 95% 95% ;92.5%
2B. Push-up 436 436 436 234 434 434 434 233
(weighted)
2C. AIS hip flexor 338 338 338 238 338 338 338 238
stretch
Rest: 60 s between
exercises, 90 s
between sets
3A. 1 arm rotational 338 338 338 235 336 336 336 234
press
3B. 1 arm 1 leg 338 338 338 235 336 336 336 234
dumbbell row
3C. Hanging leg raise 3 3 12 3 3 12 3 3 12 237 3 3 15 3 3 15 3 3 15 238
Rest: 45 s between
exercises, 60 s
between sets

*The pneumatic group used a specialized rack to perform the heavy and explosive bench press. The free weight group’s explosive bench press was performed ballistically inside
a rack equipped with a magnetic brake. Exercises described by the same number (e.g., 1) and different letters (A, B, or C) were performed in sequence. For example, on day 1, the
bench press (2A), Romanian deadlift (2B), and med ball throw (2C) were performed in succession (e.g., 1 set of each before beginning set 2).

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

TABLE 2. The pretraining and posttraining mean (SD) FW and PN 1 repetition maximum (kg), and maximum dynamic
force, velocity, and power for individuals participating in the FW and PN intervention.*†

1 Rep maximum (kg) Maximum

Group Test Free weight PN Force (N) Velocity (m$s21) Power (W)

FW Pre 111.5 (20.0) 106.7 (15.7) 1,259 (300) 4.23 (0.71) 1,291 (396)
Post 123.1 (18.0) 116.7 (15.6) 1,382 (258) 4.72 (0.38) 1,582 (535)
p 0.001 0.029 0.009 0.129 0.046
Effect size 0.61 0.63 0.44 0.87 0.62
PN Pre 102.2 (18.4) 97.9 (16.7) 1,166 (209) 4.06 (0.88) 1,005 (257)
Post 114.0 (22.6) 115.0 (20.8) 1,249 (259) 4.60 (0.48) 1,341 (359)
p 0.001 ,0.001 0.024 0.019 0.040
Effect size 0.57 0.91 0.35 0.77 1.08
FW/PN Inference Possibly trivial Likely PN Possibly FW Possibly trivial Possibly PN

*FW = free weight; PN = pneumatic.

†p values and effect sizes are listed for each within-group pre-post comparison. The qualitative inference provided for each variable
describes the likelihood of a between-group intervention effect (possibly, 40–75%, likely, .75%).

negative displacement, whereas the end of the ascent phase
was defined as the point at which the force became zero or
maximum barbell displacement. Using peak displacement
alone to define the end of the ascent phase will underesti-
mate the mean force and power for submaximal loads if
a period of negative work exists (12). Only the ascent phase
was analyzed. Peak velocity, force, and power (force 3
velocity) were computed using the average of 4 repetitions.
Pilot testing was performed to determine whether the “best”
repetition or average measurement should be included in the
analyses. Because the data were highly variable (i.e., the
fastest rep was not the same in every instance), the average
of 4 trials was thought to offer a much more stable and true
representation of the actual change posttraining. The peak
barbell velocity and maximum dynamic force were defined
as the peak velocity from the two 2.5 kg explosive repetitions
and peak force from the FW 1RM, respectively. Data from
the ascent phase were also expressed as a percentage of the
total barbell displacement so that the pretraining and post-
training power-displacement profiles could be compared.
Statistical Analyses
Participants’ FW and PN 1RM, maximum (any load) dynamic
force, barbell velocity and power, and peak velocity, force, and
power at each submaximal FW load were computed. A
2-factor mixed-model analysis of variance was used to exam-
ine the independent effects of group (FW and PN) and time
(pre and post) on each dependent measure. Holm-Sidak post
hoc comparisons were used to examine the differences. Sta-
tistical significance was set at an alpha level of p # 0.05. Effect
sizes (ESs) were also computed to describe the pre-post differ-
ences in each dependent measure for both training groups.
The strength of the ES was interpreted using the general
guidelines offered by Cohen (8), whereby magnitudes of 0.2,
0.5, and 0.8 corresponded to small, moderate, and large
changes, respectively. The pre-post changes exhibited by each
group were compared using magnitude-based inferences
derived from the p-values and effect statistics of an indepen-
dent t-test (15). Qualitative descriptions of each inference
were based on the scale recommended by Hopkins (15): most
unlikely, ,0.5%; unlikely, 5–25%; possibly, 25–75%; likely, 75–
95%; very likely, 95–99.5%; most likely, .99.5%.
RESULTS
Four participants (3 FW, 1 PN) failed to meet the attendance
requirements and were removed from the analyses. Given
the potential influence of dissimilar 1RMs at baseline,
between-group comparisons are described using mechanistic
inferences only.
Free-Weight Trained
After 8 weeks of training, participants increased (p # 0.05)
their FW and PN 1RM by 11.6 kg (10.4%, ES = 0.61) and 10
kg (9.4%, ES = 0.63), respectively (Table 2). Significant in-
creases were also seen in maximum dynamic force (9.8%,
ES = 0.44), peak barbell velocity (11.6%, ES = 0.87), and
peak power (22.5%, ES = 0.62).
Although participants improved their FW and PN 1RM, the
FW training did not produce an increase in peak force at any
submaximal load between 15 and 90% 1RM (Figure 1). Peak
velocity significantly increased at 15% and 30% 1RM (ES
.1.15); however, at 60% 1RM, it was found to be lower post-
training (ES = 1.65) (Figure 1). A significant increase in peak
power was only noted at 45% 1RM (ES = 0.69) (Figure 1).
Pneumatic Trained
Participants who performed 8 weeks of bench press training
with PN resistance exhibited significant increases of 11.8 kg

VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2016 | 939

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Training With Pneumatic or Free Weight Resistance

Figure 1. The peak force (A), velocity (B), and power (C) exhibited by participants who trained with FW or PN resistance. Data are presented for relative loads
of 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90% 1RM before and after the 8-week interventions. The superscript letters above each load denote a significant (p # 0.05)
posttraining change (FW; PN). Asterisks (*) reflect the size of the effect (*an effect size between 0.5 and 0.8, whereas **an effect size above 0.8). The qualitative
inference listed above each load comparison describes the likelihood of a between-group intervention effect (possibly, 40–75%, likely, .75%). FW = free
weight; PN = pneumatic; 1RM = 1 repetition maximum.

the TM

940 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

Figure 2. Pretraining and posttraining power-displacement profiles for the strongest pneumatic (left side) and free weight (right side) trained participant at
loads of 15, 30, and 45% 1RM. The data presented reflect the average of 4 repetitions performed at that load. 1RM = 1 repetition maximum.

(11.6%, ES = 0.57) and 17.1 kg (17.5%, ES = 0.91) in their
FW and PN 1RM, respectively (Table 2). Similar to their
FW counterparts, significant increases were also seen in
their maximum dynamic force (8.4%, ES = 0.35), peak
barbell velocity (13.6%, ES = 0.77), and peak power
(33.4%, ES = 1.08).
In comparison with the baseline tests, the peak force–achieved
posttraining was significantly higher (ES = 0.92) when using the
15% 1RM FW load (Figure 1). Similar to the FW trained group,
peak velocity was significantly higher at 15 and 30% 1RM (ES
.0.58) and was also found to decrease (ES = 1.47) at 60% 1RM
(Figure 1). Peak power was significantly higher posttraining at
each load between 15 and 45% 1RM (ES .0.83) (Figure 1).
Between-Group Comparisons
No between-group differences were noted in the pre-post
improvement in FW 1RM or peak barbell velocity (possibly
trivial, .37%). Training with PN resistance may have afforded
a superior opportunity to improve PN 1RM (likely, 87%) and
peak power (possibly, 40%), whereas the FW program may
have provided a better stimulus to increase maximum
dynamic force (possibly, 68%). However, with the light loads,
the PN intervention may have been a superior training stim-
ulus to improve peak force (e.g., 85% likely to see superior
benefit of PN resistance with a load of 15% 1RM; Figure 1).
Eight weeks of PN training may have also provided a better
opportunity to improve peak power, although the advantage
seems limited to the lightest loads tests. Above 60% 1RM, the
FW intervention may have been better suited to improve peak
power (Figure 1). A group effect was also seen with velocity—
PN training may have provided an advantage with the light
loads, but the FW program seems to have been abler to
improve peak velocity with loads above 60% 1RM.

VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2016 | 941

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Training With Pneumatic or Free Weight Resistance

Figure 3. Pretraining and posttraining power-displacement profiles for the strongest pneumatic (left side) and free weight (right side) trained participant at
loads of 60, 75, and 90% 1RM. The data presented reflect the average of 4 repetitions performed at that load. 1RM = 1 repetition maximum.

Representative power-displacement profiles for the PN and
FW participants are presented in Figures 2 and 3. Because
subtle differences in the shape of participants’ profiles would
mask the effect of training (i.e., the maximums and minimums
did not align when normalized by barbell displacement), the
pretraining and posttraining data for the strongest participant
from the FW (pre and post FW 1RM of 140 and 150 kg) and
PN (pre and post FW 1RM of 132.5 and 155 kg) groups are
presented. The PN trained individual exhibited substantial
changes during the first half of the ascent phase with loads
of 15, 30, and 45% 1RM but failed to display similar improve-
ments when the load was further increased. In contrast, the
most substantial adaptations exhibited by the FW trained par-
ticipant appeared during the latter half of the ascent phase,
the
and to a much greater extent than his PN counterpart when
performing with the 3 highest loads.
DISCUSSION
The primary objective of this longitudinal training study was
to examine the strength, velocity, and power adaptations
exhibited by resistance-trained men in response to 8 weeks
of exercise using either FW or PN resistance. Interestingly,
despite performing all bench press movements with one type
of resistance throughout training, participants in both groups
significantly increased their FW (10.4 and 11.6% for FW and
PN groups) and PN 1RM (9.4 and 17.5%) posttraining.
Limiting participants’ exposure to a particular type of resis-
tance did not seem to impede the potential strength-oriented
TM

942 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

adaptations that could be achieved using either training
modality, as group mean improvements were of a similar
magnitude to those reported previously (22–24,27). In fact,
the largest posttraining FW 1RM improvement was exhibited
by a PN-trained participant (132.5–155 kg), which supports
the notion that the type of resistance used while training may
not be needed to mimic that used during testing to maximize
strength-oriented adaptations (21). As was suggested by An-
derson et al. (1), it is also possible that using a combination of
the 2 resistances would have provided an even more favorable
strength-oriented stimulus in comparison with using either
resistance alone if the potential disadvantages of one resis-
tance type could be accommodated by the advantages of
the other. For example, during a FW bench press sufficient
force must be produced to overcome inertia and accelerate
the barbell upwards; however, this also serves to increase the
barbell’s momentum and reduce the muscular effort required
through the midrange of the motion (20). The use of pneu-
matics (or bands) will negate the influence of momentum and
thus provide an opportunity to engrain a coordination strat-
egy that is better suited to maintaining a consistent muscular
effort throughout the range of motion (13).
Given participants’ posttraining force, velocity, and power
adaptations to each submaximal load, and the unique phys-
ical demands of most sports, there may also be instances
when a specific response would be better achieved by using
a particular resistance. After 8 weeks of training, both groups
improved their 15 and 30% 1RM peak barbell velocity, but
only the PN-trained participants exhibited a corresponding
increase in peak force. Since a similar increase in force was
not exhibited at loads of 45–90% 1RM, this implies that
individuals who trained with PN resistance were able to pro-
duce higher relative forces (% 1RM) posttraining when using
the lighter loads. Furthermore, because the highest forces
during a bench press are typically produced in-between or
immediately after the transition from the descent to ascent
phase when barbell acceleration is highest (7), the observed
increases in peak force could also reflect an improved rate of
force development (RFD). Stevenson et al. (29) proposed
that strength and conditioning professionals should consider
using elastic resistance to improve RFD, which like PN resis-
tance imposes a demand that is not influenced by inertia and
momentum. Having an opportunity to train for 8 weeks with
pneumatics, whereby higher velocities can be achieved con-
sistently in a comparison with an equivalent load with FW
(11), may have been more conducive to improving partici-
pants’ RFD. However, given evidence to suggest that per-
formers’ intent to move quickly may be more important than
their actual movement speed (5,19), additional research is
needed to substantiate this contention.
Lending further support for the notion that the type of
resistance used while training could impact the extent to
which a specific adaptation is achieved at a submaximal load,
only the PN-trained participants exhibited significant in-
creases in peak power at loads of 15–45% 1RM. Although
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
the small sample size of both groups may have biased these
findings, viewed in combination with the dissimilar power-
displacement profiles of the strongest FW- and PN-trained
participants, each resistance may provide a unique training
advantage for specific populations and/or objectives. For
example, the training load(s) needed to maximize power out-
put for the bench press and squat have been studied exten-
sively in an attempt to identify a training stimulus that could
elicit results outside of the weight room environment (i.e.,
transfer to sport performance) (2,3,9,18). However, based on
the findings of this investigation, and those of others e.g.,
(6,11,14,17,29), both the magnitude of performers’ power out-
put and the manner in which it is produced (i.e., coordination)
is likely influenced by the type of resistance used during train-
ing. As such, it may be possible to change the load(s) at which
an individual produces their highest power outputs (16,28),
which could be of particular benefit for athletes who partici-
pate in sports characterized by high speeds and light to mod-
est external loads (e.g., baseball, basketball). In these instances,
it may also be advantageous to first identify the loads and/or
speeds that best characterize the desired adaptations, so that
an appropriate training stimulus (load, speed, and resistance)
can be selected, rather than computing or choosing an “opti-
mal” load for each individual based on their current abilities.
In this study, the strongest PN-trained individual (pre and
post) exhibited posttraining FW adaptations that resembled
what would be expected from someone who had trained with
a resistance characterized by little momentum and inertia;
substantial changes in power output were seen during the first
half of the ascent phase with the light loads (i.e., 15–45%
1RM). In contrast, the strongest FW-trained individual
showed marked improvements during the second half of
the ascent phase with loads of 60–90% 1RM, which highlights
the potential benefit of strategically choosing the resistance
type that best suits the intended adaptation.
The utility of block and undulating periodization models,
whereby the volume and intensity of training are progressed
in a linear and nonlinear manner, respectively, are often
compared when investigating the most favorable training
stimulus to improve strength and power in highly trained
athletes (4,24,26,27). However, the results of this investiga-
tion lend support to the notion that perhaps the type of
resistance used while training should be considered as well.
Pneumatic, band, and FW resistance are each characterized
by unique mechanical properties that will influence the train-
ing stimulus and thus performers’ adaptations. As such, for
the purpose of improving an individual’s speed, strength,
power, endurance, and/or whole-body coordination and
control, there is likely merit in exploring the potential benefit
of acute and long-term training strategies that exploit the
advantages of specific resistance(s).
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
When designing a periodized program to improve athletes’
strength, speed, power, and or whole-body coordination and
VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2016 | 943
 Training With Pneumatic or Free Weight Resistance
control, consideration should be given to the type of resis-
tance(s) that will be used while training. In addition to chang-
ing the reps, sets, loads, speeds, rest periods, and/or
movement patterns to elicit a particular adaptation, exploiting
the mechanical properties of the resistance(s) (e.g., FW, elas-
tic, and PN) could provide an opportunity to impose a stimu-
lus and/or achieve an objective that would otherwise be
challenging to accomplish. The results of this study are that
while both FW and PN resistance can be used to increase the
maximal strength, velocity, and power of experienced per-
formers, training with PN resistance may have helped to facil-
itate unique force, velocity, and power adaptations when
performing with the lowest relative loads. Because PN resis-
tance is characterized by minimal mass and momentum, per-
formers can achieve higher velocities while performing with
an equivalent load and will be forced to maintain a consistent
muscular effort throughout the range of motion. However, the
absence of mass and momentum could also make FW (or
a combination of the 2 resistances) a better option to elicit
high force–related adaptations, as was seen by among the free
weight trained participants above loads of 60% 1RM.
In summary, having an appreciation for the potential
advantages and limitations of each resistance type will
provide coaches and researchers with an opportunity to
develop mixed-method training strategies to suit the specific
needs of athletes who participate in sports with different
force-, velocity-, and movement-related demands.
REFERENCES
1. Anderson, CE, Sforzo, GA, and Sigg, JA. The effects of combined
elastic and free weight resistance on strength and power in athletes.
J Strength Cond Res 22: 567–574, 2008.
2. Baker, D, Nance, S, and Moore, M. The load that maximizes the
average mechanical power output during explosive bench press
throws in highly trained athletes. J Strength Cond Res 15: 20–24, 2001.
3. Baker, D, Nance, S, and Moore, M. The load that maximizes the
average mechanical power output during jump squats in power-
trained athletes. J Strength Cond Res 15: 92–97, 2001.
4. Bartolomei, S, Hoffman, JR, Merni, F, and Stout, JR. A comparison
of traditional and block periodized strength training programs in
trained athletes. J Strength Cond Res 28: 990–997, 2014.
5. Behm, DG and Sale, DG. Intended rather than actual movement
velocity determines velocity specific training response. J Appl Physiol
74: 359–368, 1993.
6. Bellar, DM, Muller, MD, Barkley, JE, Kim, CH, Ida, K, Ryan, RJ,
Bliss, MV, and Glickman, EL. The effects of combined elastic- and free-
weight tension vs. free-weight tension on one-repetition maximum
strength in the bench press. J Strength Cond Res 25: 459–463, 2011.
7. Clark, RA, Bryant, AL, and Humphries, B. A comparison of force
curve profiles between the bench press and ballistic bench throws.
J Strength Cond Res 22: 1755–1759, 2008.
8. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd
ed.). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
9. Cormie, P, McCaulley, G, Triplett, N, and McBride, J. Optimal
loading of maximal power output during lower-body resistance
exercises. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39: 340–349, 2007.
10. Doan, BK, Newton, RU, Marsit, JL, Triplett-McBride, NT,
Koziris, LP, Fry, AC, and Kraemer, WJ. Effects of increased
eccentric loading on bench press 1RM. J Strength Cond Res 16: 9–13,
2002.
the TM
944 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
11. Frost, DM, Cronin, JB, and Newton, RU. A comparison of the
kinematics, kinetics and muscle activity between pneumatic and free
weight resistance. Eur J Appl Physiol 104: 937–956, 2008.
12. Frost, DM, Cronin, JB, and Newton, RU. Have we underestimated
the kinematic and kinetic benefit of ballistic motion? Sports Biomech
7: 372–385, 2008.
13. Frost, DM, Cronin, JB, and Newton, RU. A biomechanical
evaluation of resistance: Fundamental concepts for training and
sports performance. Sports Med 40: 303–326, 2010.
14. Garcia-Lopez, D, Hernandez-Sanchez, S, Martin, E, Marin, PJ,
Zarzosa, F, and Herrero, AJ. Free-weight augmentation with elastic
bands improves bench-press kinematics in professional rugby
players. J Strength Cond Res 2014 Jan 19. [Epub Ahead of Print].
15. Hopkins, WG. A spreadsheet for deriving a confidence interval,
mechanistic inference and clinical inference from a p value.
Sportscience 11: 16–20, 2007.
16. Izquierdo, M, Hakkinen, K, Gonzalez-Badillo, JJ, Ibanez, J, and
Gorostiaga, EM. Effects of long term training specificity on maximal
strength and power of the upper and lower extremities in athletes
from different sports. Eur J Appl Physiol 87: 264–271, 2002.
17. Joy, JM, Lowery, RP, de Souza, EO, and Wilson, JM. Elastic bands as
a component of periodized resistance training. J Strength Cond Res
2013 May 9. [Epub Ahead of Print].
18. Kawamori, N and Haff, GG. The optimal training load for the
development of muscular power. J Strength Cond Res 18: 675–684, 2004.
19. Kawamori, N and Newton, RU. Velocity specificity of resistance
training: Actual movement velocity versus intention to move
explosively. Strength Cond J 28: 86–91, 2006.
20. Lander, JE, Bates, BT, Sawhill, JA, and Hamill, J. A comparison
between free-weight and isokinetic bench pressing. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 17: 344–353, 1985.
21. Langford, GA, McCurdy, KW, Ernest, JM, Doscher, MW, and
Walters, SD. Specificity of machine, barbell, and water-filled log
bench press resistance training on measures of strength. J Strength
Cond Res 21: 1061–1066, 2007.
22. Mangine, GT, Ratamess, NA, Hoffman, JR, Faigenbaum, AD,
Kang, J, and Chilakos, A. The effects of combined ballistic and heavy
resistance training on maximal lower- and upper-body strength in
recreationally trained men. J Strength Cond Res 22: 132–139, 2008.
23. Mazzetti, SA, Kraemer, WJ, Volek, JS, Duncan, ND, Ratamess, NA,
Gómez, AL, Newton, RU, Häkkinen, K, and Fleck, SJ. The influence
of direct supervision of resistance training on strength performance.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 32: 1175–1184, 2000.
24. Monteiro, AG, Aoki, MS, Evangelista, AL, Alveno, DA,
Monteiro, GA, Piçarro Ida, C, and Ugrinowitsch, C. Nonlinear
periodization maximizes strength gains in split resistance training
routines. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1321–1326, 2009.
25. Newton, RU, Kraemer, WJ, Hakkinen, K, Humphries, BJ, and
Murphy, AJ. Kinematics, kinetics, and muscle activation during
explosive upper body movements. J Appl Biomech 12: 31–43, 1996.
26. Painter, KB, Haff, GG, Ramsey, MW, McBride, J, Triplett, T,
Sands, WA, Lamont, HS, Stone, ME, and Stone, MH. Strength
gains: Block versus daily undulating periodization weight training
among track and field athletes. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 7: 161–
169, 2012.
27. Prestes, J, Frollini, AB, de Lima, C, Donatto, FF, Foschini, D,
de Cássia Marqueti, R, Figueira, A Jr, and Fleck, SJ. Comparison
between linear and daily undulating periodized resistance training to
increase strength. J Strength Cond Res 23: 2437–2442, 2009.
28. Sayers, SP and Gibson, K. High-speed power training in older
adults: A shift of the external resistance at which peak power is
produced. J Strength Cond Res 28: 616–621, 2014.
29. Stevenson, MW, Warpeha, JM, Dietz, CC, Giveans, RM, and
Erdman, AG. Acute effects of elastic bands during the free-weight
barbell back squat exercise on velocity, power, and force production.
J Strength Cond Res 24: 2944–2954, 2010.