Research Quarterly.

American Association for Health,

Physical Education and Recreation

ISSN: 1067-1188 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe17

Effect of Maximum Loads for Each of Ten

Repetitions on Strength Improvement

Richard A. Berger & Billy Hardage

To cite this article: Richard A. Berger & Billy Hardage (1967) Effect of Maximum Loads for Each
of Ten Repetitions on Strength Improvement, Research Quarterly. American Association for
Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 38:4, 715-718

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10671188.1967.10616517

Published online: 17 Mar 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 9

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=urqe17

Download by: [University of Sussex Library] Date: 11 May 2016, At: 13:43
 Notes
Effect of maximum loads for each of ten
repetitions on strength improvement
Richard A. Berger
Texas Technological College
Lubbock, Texas
Billy Hardage
Wayland BaptistCollege
Plainview. Texas
This study was conducted to determine whether weight training with maximum or near
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 13:43 11 May 2016

maximum loads for each of 10 repetitions of a set was more effective for increasing
strength than performing 10 repetitions with the 100RM load.

Review of Literature
Several studies have compared the effect of various weight trarmng programs on
strength improvement. These programs have varied in number of sets and repetitions
performed (1, 4, 2, 6), the proportion of the 10·RM (the load permitting only ten
repetitions using maximum muscular exertion) used in training (3, 5), and the training
sequence with different proportions of the IO-RM (7,8). One study combined various sets
and repetitions per set to determine whether a specific combination had interacting elects
most conducive to increasing strength (1). These studies were common in that the loads
lifted remained the same for a designated number of repetitions. No previous research in
weight training has determined whether varying the loads after each repetition to
maintain a maximum load for each repetition is more effective for increasing strength
than training with the same load for all repetitions of a set.

Procedures
Male college students (N=50) with no previous weight training experience were
employed as subjects. Each of two classes was randomly assigned to one of the two
experimental treatments. The third class was arbitrarily divided into two sub-groups with
each assigned to one of the treatments. The subjects were considerd representative of the
population of college males at Texas Technological College. The average height and
weight of the subjects were 70.25 in. and 163.74 lb., respectively.
The groups and experimental treatments were as follows:
Group I (N=24) performed 10 repetitions with the 10·RM for one set.
Group II (N=26) performed 10 repetitions for one set, but each repetition required a
maximum or near maximum elort. This was achieved by reducing the load gradually
commencing with the I·RM load for the first repetition. The loads at each repetion were
commensurate to a subject's strength and fatigue.
Both groups trained for one set each training session, three times weekly, for 8 weeks.
The time interval between repetitions was similar for both groups and amounted to I to 2
sec. At least one day intervened between training sessions.
Subjects were tested for I·RM (the load permitting only one lift using maximum
muscular exertion) bench press strength before and after an 8-week training period. The
initial test was given after all subjects had trained with the bench press lift for two
sessions in one week. Consequently, the subjects were familiar with the lift and knew
715
 Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 13:43 11 May 2016

-.l
~
01

TABLE 1. GROUP MEANS, STANDARD ERRORS, AND t RATIOS WITHIN GROUPS ON STRENGTH

T1 Tt
Group Actual Adjusted Actual Adjusted S.E.

I (N - 24) 155.00 lb. 160.40 lb. 176.66 lb. 182.17 lb. 1.70 12.70" ~
II (N - 26) 165.38 lb. 160.40 lb. 195.19 lb. 190.11 lb. 2.31 12.90" "';::.;,
" Sipifieant beyond the .01 level. a
..."'Q
('\
;:,-
-c
!i...
...1\
~
TABLE 2. ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE ON STRENGTH
"":::
Sum of squares c
l"-
of errors of
Source of variation estimate df Mean square F .g;
Total 6589 48 <:
!:l
Within (error) Ii848 47 124.42 Ii.95-
~

Adjusted between 741 741.00

"8\gDifieant beyond the .05 level.
 Notes 717

their approximate I-RM. This permitted fewer trials in the determination of the I-RM
and greatly reduced the effect of fatigue on the resultant I-RM. In most instances only
four to five trials were needed to ascertain the I-RM. At least a 1.5-min. rest was taken
between trials. The load increments were 10 lb. until the I-RM was approached, and then
they were decreased to 5 lb. The lift began at the chest and was completed when the arms
were fully extended above the chest. Before testing, all subjects warmed up by performing
10 repetitions with a load which was approximately 50 percent of the estimated I·RM.
The same testing procedure was followed at the completion of the study, The bench press
lift was chosen because of the minimum skill required to perform it correctly and the
high reliability of the test. A reliability coefficient of .98 was determined by the test-retest
procedures with one day intervening between tests.
The equipment used to test for I-RM and train the subjects was the Universal Gym.'
This equipment was used because it afforded a reduction in load between repetitions in a
minimum of time.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 13:43 11 May 2016

When, in the opinion of the investigator, the 10-RM load in Group I or the I-RM load
for the first repetition in Group II was less than maximum, the load was increased by 5
lb. In Group II, each load was usually lifted for one repetition, and sometimes the same
load was lifted for two repetitions, in order to elicit a maximum or near maximum effort
for each repetition. Prior to the lifting of each training session, subjects performed 10
repetitions as a warm-up with a load which was approximately one-half the I-RM. The
training loads were lifted about 1.5 to 2 min. after the warm-up.
The t test within groups was used to determine whether significant improvements in
strength occurred after the training period of 8 weeks. Analysis of covariance was used to
determine whether significant differences in strength improvemnt occurred between
groups. Since the groups were not matched initially, analysis of covariance adjusted the
initial means to a common mean and made corresponding adjustments in the final means.
This permitted valid comparisons between groups which were not equated initially.

Results and Discussion

Actual and adjusted group means, standard errors, and t ratios within groups are
presented in Table 1. Groups I and II increased significantly in bench press strength after
8 weeks of training. This was expected since most weight training studies have shown
significant improvements in strength. As mentioned previously, the group means were
adjusted by the analysis of covariance to permit valid comparisons between groups which
could not be equated initially.
The analysis of covariance in Table 2 showed that the means of the two groups were
significantly different, with Group II having the higher mean (p <.05). Apparently, the
greater muscular force repeatedly elicited by subjects in Group II resulted in the
significantly greater increase in strength than occurred in Group I. This occurred even
though the initial mean (155 lb.) in Group I was less than the mean in Group II
(165.38 lb.) and the rate of improvement would, therefore, tend to favor Group I.
The difference in strength improvement between the groups did not seem to be due to the
total amount of work performed each training session, since the mean ft./lb. were found
lJl be approximately 3100 and 2990, respectively, in Groups I and II.

Conclusion
The weight training program employing maximum or near maximum loads for each of
10 repetitions is more effective for increasing strength than a program involving the
performance of 10 repetitions with the 10·RM, among lifters with no previous lifting
experience and when training is three times weekly for 8 weeks.

References
1. BERGER, RICHARD A. Effect of varied weight training programs on strength. Res.
Quart. 33:168-81, 1962.

I Manufactured by the Universal Athletic Sales Co., Fresno, California.

 718 The Research Qoorterly, Vol. 38, No.4

2. Optimum repetitions for the development of strength. Res. Quart. 33 :334-38,

1962.
3. Comparison between resistance load and strength improvement. Res. Quart.
33:637, 1962-
4. - - - . Comparative effects of three weight training programs. Res. Quart. 34:396-98,
1963.
5. - - - . Comparison of the effect of various weight training loads on strength. Res.
Quart. 36:14146, 1965.
6. CAPEN, EDWARD K. The effect of systematic weight training on power, strength, and
endurance. Res. Quart. 21:83·93, 1950.
7. KRUSEN. E. M. Functional improvement produced by resistance exercise of quadriceps
muscles affected by poliomyelitis. Arch. phrs. Med. & ReluJbilit. 30:271-77, 1949.
8. McGOVERN, R. E., and LUSCOMBE, H. B. Useful modifications of progressive resistance
exercise technique. Arch. phrs. Med. & Rehabilit. 34:475·77, 1953.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 13:43 11 May 2016

(Submitted Mar 23,1966)

STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP-RESEARCH QUARTERLY

STATEMENT REQUIRED BY THE ACT OF OCTOBER 28, 1962: SEOTION 4869, TITLE
89, UNITED STATES OODE SHOWING THE OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT, AND OIROU·
LATION OF THE RESEAROH QUARTERLY, PUBLISHED FOUR TIMES A YEAR:
MAROH, MAY, OCTOBER, DEOEMBER. PUBLISHED AT MONUMENTAL PRINTING 00.,
32nd St. and Elm Ave., Baltimo~. Md. 21211. The general business offices of the publisher are
located at 1201 16th St., N.W., washington, D. O. 20036.
The names and addresses of the publisher and managinlt editor are as foliows: Publisher,
American Association for Health. Physical Education, and Recreation. 1201 16th St .. N.W.,
Washington, D. C. 20036; Managine Editor. Nancy Rosenberg. AAHPER. 1201 16th St., N.W.
WashinlttOn, D. C. 20086.
Tho owner is: American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 1201
16th St., N.W., Washington, D. C. Names and addresses of stockholders ownine or hold-
ing 1 percent or more of total amount of stock: none. Known bondholders, moneagees, and
other security holders owning or holding 1 percent or more of total amount of bonds, mortgages,
Or other securities: none.
The average number of copies each issue during the preceding' 12 months are: (A) Total
number copies printed (net press run): 17,624; (B) Paid circulation: (1) to term subscriber.
by mail, carrier delivery, or by other means: 14,000; (2) sales through agente, news dealers, or
otherwise: none; (C) Free distribution (including samples) by mail, carrier delivery or by
other means: 1,000; (D) Total number of copies distributed: 15,000. The number of copies of
single Issue nearest to filing date are: (A) Total number of copies printed (net pr..s run):
18.000; ( B) Paid circulation: (1) to term subscribers by mail. carrier delivery or by other
means: 14,500; (2) sales through agents, news dealers, or otherwise: none; (0) Free distribu-
tion (Including samples) by mail, carrier delivery, or by other means: 1,000; (D) Total number
of cople. distributed: 15,500.
I certify that the statements made by me above are correct and complete.
(Signed) Nancy Rosenberg
Manaeine Editor