This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]

On: 21 November 2013, At: 12:45

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Research Quarterly. American

Association for Health, Physical
Education and Recreation
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe17

Effect of Varied Weight Training

Programs on Strength
a
Richard Berger
a
University of Illinois , Urbana , Illinois , USA
Published online: 17 Mar 2013.

To cite this article: Richard Berger (1962) Effect of Varied Weight Training Programs
on Strength, Research Quarterly. American Association for Health, Physical Education
and Recreation, 33:2, 168-181

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10671188.1962.10613188

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
 sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 12:45 21 November 2013
 Varied Weight Training
Programs on Strengthi
RICHARD BERGER
University of Illinois
Urbana, Illinois
Abstract
Nine different weight training programs were compared to determine which were more
effective in improving strength. The experimcnt was conducted with the bench press lift
for a period of 12 weeks with approximately 20 subjects in each weight training program.
Subjects were tested for the 1 KM on the bench press lift at the beginning of training
and at three-week intervals. Training took place three times weekly with thc variations
in programs involving one, two, and three sets, and two, six, and ten repetitions per set.
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 12:45 21 November 2013

The results showed that three sets and six repetitions per set were best for improving
strength.

HUMAN STRENGTH, the ability to exert muscular force, has been of interest
since antiquity and many accounts of superhuman ability to lift stupendous
weights have been recorded. Presumably this ability was developed by prac-
ticing with increasingly heavier weights but with one exception the training
methods were not sufficiently unusual to be recorded. The exception was Milo
of Crotona who, according to Gardiner, trained “on scientific principles” (1).
Milo reputedly developed sufficient strength to carry a full grown bull twice
around the stadium at the Olympic Games in the sixth century B.C. by carry-
ing a bull calf every day from its birth to maturity. The scientific principle
of increasing the load or resistance against which the muscles worked as
strength increased has been called progressive resistance exercise and has
been employed extensively in modern times by individuals interested in com-
petitive weight lifting and general strength development for improving ath-
letic performance. Still more recently, the principle has gained wide use in
rehabilitating individuals physically weakened by disease or injury.
Review of t h e Literature
Although much empirical evidence and many research studies have demonstrated that
human strength or muscular force exerted externally could be increased by progressive
resistance exercise, the training program which would produce the quickest strength gains
has not been determined. Progressive resistance exercise programs have differed in the
number of sets, the repetitions per set, the proportion (in general) of the 10 RM used
in all sets, and the order of different proportions of the 10 RM used in successive sets.
These four variables provided many combinations. Some experimenters sought to deter-
mine whether some combination of these variables produced significant gains within a
group ( 2 , 4 ) . Other studies compared the effects of two or three different combinations of
these variables (3, 6 ) . Some of the more systematic studies held three variables constant
and determined the effect of the independent variable at two or more levels. For example,
Walters compared a group trained with 10-12 RM with a group trained with 20-22 RM
(8). Krusen compared a program using five repetitions in each set and 25. 50, and 75
percent of the 5 RM in successive sets with a program in which the subjects performed
5 RM in the first set and attempted 125 and 150 percent of the 5 RM in the second and
third sets ( 5 ) . McMorris and Elkins held the number of sets, repetitions, and proportions

1This study was directed by Alfred W. Hubbard, University of Illinois.

168
 V a r k d Weight Training Programs 169

of the 10 RM constant but had one group train with 100, 75, and 50 percent of the 10
RM in successive sets and the other group train with the percentages reversed (7). In
general, all of these studies showed significant gains in strength within the groups but did
not show that one program of progressive resistance exercise was superior to another.
Previous studies, limited generally to a comparison of two or three programs and often
based on very small samples, have had insufficient comhinations of sets and repetitions to
determine whether some optimum combination of sets and repetitions might exist and
whether strength increased most rapidly with heavier loads and few repetitions, lighter
loads and more repetitions, or some intermediate combination. Systematic variation of
sets and repetitions in these combinations was also necessary to dctermine the independ-
ent effect of sets and repetitions.

Statement of the Problem

Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 12:45 21 November 2013

The present study was undertaken to determine whether strength would de-
velop faster with fewer repetitions and heavier loads or with more repetitions
and lighter loads and whether fewer or more sets were better. An associated
problem was to determine whether there was an optimum combination of sets
and repetitions for increasing strength most rapidly.
Method
The subjects were 177 freshmen and sophomore male students in nine
weight-lifting classes at the University of Illinois. Besides their regular pro-
gram, each class trained on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for 12 weeks on
the bench press lift with a different combination of sets and repetitions. Since
the training programs were more easily administered with all subjects in the
same class following identical training programs and since transfer of students
from one class to another was not feasible to equate groups, the nine groups
were not equated before training began. However, registration in a class de-
pended on the student’s available time and presumably was not a selective
factor seriously biasing the results.
The maximum strength of a subject on the bench press exercise was deter-
mined at the beginning and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 weeks of training. The bench
press lift was performed with the subject supine on a bench. A barbell was
placed on the chest with the hands grasping the bar shoulder width apart,
palms facine upward. The bar was raised vertically until the arms were fully
extended. This lift was chosen because its execution could be easily standard-
ized and did not require any particular skill. The maximum load a subject
could lift in this manner, the one repetition maximum or 1 RM, was deter-
mined by increasing the load by ten pounds after each successful lift unti! tlie
load became difficult to raise. Then the load was increased by five pounds
until the maximum was obtained. Each subject rested two to three minutes
between attempts.
Each of the nine groups foIIowed a different program of PRE with varia-
tions in sets and repetitions. Sets were designated with Roman numerals and
repetitions with Arabic numerals, so the groups were designated according to
their procrams as 1-2, 1-6. 1-10. 11-2, 11-6. IT-10, IIT-2, 111-6, 111-10. When-
ever a subject was able to perform one more repetition than the numher desig-
nated for his group, the weisht of the barbell was increased so that the pre-
m i b e d number was performed. If a subject were unable to perform voluntarily
the specified number of repetitions per set, he was given minimum assistance
 170 The Research Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 2

by a spotter to complete the repetitions. The loads were always intended to

elicit maximum effort for a given number of repetitions.
Statistical Analysis
Within Group Comparison. The t test for paired observations was used
to determine whether strength improved significantly in each group after
3 weeks of training, and from 3 to 6, 6 to 9, and 9 to 12 weeks of training.
Standard deviations in each group at 3, 6, 9, and 12 weeks were analyzed to
determine whether the differences between subjects in any one group in-
creased from one testing period to another or whether they were consistent
throughout. Coefficients of correlation were computed to determine whether
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 12:45 21 November 2013

the training program of each group tended to have a similar effect on all
subjects from test to test. A high correlation indicated the effect was similar.
Between Group Comparison. Analysis of covariance was used to deter-
mine whether the nine programs of training produced significantly differ-
ent improvements in strength at 3, 6, 9, and 12 weeks of training. Although
the groups were not matched initially, analysis of covariance adjusted the
initial means to a common mean and made corresponding adjustments in
the means at each test period so that valid comparisons were possible be-
tween groups which could not be equated initially.
Differences between Sets and Repetitions. Analysis of covariance was used
to determine whether strength improvements resulting from training with
one, two, and three sets differed significantly at 3, 6, 9, and 12 weeks of
training. The same analysis was used to determine whether improvements
resulting from two, six, and ten repetitions per set differed significantly at
each test period. These comparisons were made between the results of train-
ing with one, two, and three sets by combining groups according to the
number of sets trained each session. Groups 1-2, 1-6, and 1-10 were com-
bined to form Group I (groups training with one set) ; Groups 11-3. 11-6,
and 11-10 formed Group I1 (two sets) ; and Groups 111-2, JTI-6, and 111-10
formed Group 111 (three sets). Comparisons were also made between the
results of training with two, six, and ten repetitions per set by combining
croups according to the number of repetitions they trained per set. Groups
1-2, 11-2, and 111-2 combined to form Group 2; Groups 1-6, IT-6, and 111-6
formed Group 6; and groups 1-10, 11-10, and 111-10 formed Group 10. The
significance of interaction was also determined at all periods of traininp by
analysis of covarianre. Significant interaction would indicate that the effec-
tiveness of a particular number of sets depended upon systematic relation-
ship with the number of repetitions per set.
Whenever analvqiq of covarianre showed Significant differences between
P ~ O I I D S ,the mean difference to be significant at the 5 percent level was wed
to determine whirh m o m s differed simifirantlv. 'If the mean difference he-
tween two groiins was erruaI to or greater than the Ieaqt mean difference, the
two Prouns differed simificantly. T h e least siEnificant mean difference was
equal to the prodwt of the t ratio at the 5 nercent level and the standard
error of the difference between two means. Since the initial means were not
matehed, comparisons between actual means were not justified. Therefore,
 Varied Weight Training Programs 171

before valid comparisons could be made, all means were adjusted by regres-
sion to a common initial mean. The adjusted mean equaled the actual mean
minus the product of the regression coefficient (sum xy/sum x2) and the
difference between the inilia1 group mean and initial common mean of all
groups.
Reliability. The coe5cient of reliability for strength on the bench press
lift was determined with college freshmen and sophomore students who were
not in any of the nine experimental groups by the test-retest method with
one day intervening between tests. The subjects were aware of their maxi-
mum lift on the first test; however, on the second test the subjects did not
know the weight of the barbell until the completion of the testing. This was
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 12:45 21 November 2013

done to prevent the second test score from being influenced by knowledge of
the first test score. At both testing periods the subjects were encouraged to
do their best. The coefficient of reliability was .97 which indicated a high
reliability.
Results
Comparison within Groups. Actual and adjusted means, standard devia-
tions, coefficients of correlation and t ratios between successive periods of
training are presented in Table 1. The adjusted means, in parentheses in
Table 1 and presented graphically in Figure I, showed that all groups in-
GROUPS

16C

152
/""
15C

141
I
fr
-I
14C

135

I3C

12:

3 6 9 12
Weeks o f Training

FIGURE
I. Improvement in strength from nine differ-
ent programs of weight training.
 Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 12:45 21 November 2013

TABLE 1.-SUMMARY STATISTICS

~ ~~ ~~ ~

0 wks. 3 wks. 6 wks. 9 wks.

Group No. Act. Adj. Act. Adj. Act. Adj. Act. Adj. Act. Adi.
1-2" 19 X 126.3 (124.5)" 137.6 (135.9) 143.4 (141.7) 145.8 (144.1) 151.1 (149.4 )
SD 21.33 19.67 19.37 20.97 21.57
r .934 .966 .978 .984
t 6.47 4.95 2.28 5.95
1-6 22 x 127.5 (124.5) 139.1 (136.3) 145.9 (143.2) 151.8 (149.1) 159.1 (156.3)
SD 27.59 28.06 29.06 28.26 28.10
r .975 .984 .988 .976
t 7.96 6.14 6.14 5.52
1-10 19 X 124.7 (124.5) 131.1 (130.9) 138.4 (138.2) 146.6 (146.4) 151.6 (151.4)
SD 15.32 14.68 14.82 15.73 17.56
r 385 .889 .905 .966
t 3.81 4.62 5.29 4.63
11-2 18 X 127.5 (124.5) 136.7 (133.9) 14Q.6 (137.8) 145.0 (142.2) 148.9 (146.1)
SD 18.65 19.48 18.30 17.15 17.95
r .903 .983 .979 .979
t 4.61 4.49 4.95 4.48
11-6 20 x 124.0 (124.5) 132.3 (132.8) 141.8 (142.3) 148.0 (148.5) 152.5 (153.0)
SD 23.09 21.37 23.07 23.31 23.08
r .957 .958 .978 .981
t 5.47 6.38 5.74 4.44
11-10 21 x 123.1 ( 124.5 133.3 (134.6) 142.9 ( 144.2) 148.8 (150.1) 154.5 (155.8)
SD 21.99 22.82 24.93 24.84 26.59
I .945 .945 .979 .966
t 6.27 5.33 5.35 3.78
111-2 18 X 121.1 (124.5) 131.9 (134.5) 140.8 (146.4) 146.1 (148.7) 151.1 (153.7)
SD 19.63 21.84 22.31 23.11 23.55
r .935 .968 .%2 .981
t 5.60 6.72 3.55 4.64
111-6 21 x 122.1 (124.5) 135.0 (137.2) 145.7 (147.9) 152.9 (155.1) 159.0 (161.3)
SD 20.95 21.21 20.45 19.21 21.54
r .945 .919 .975 .971
t 8.42 5.83 7.11 5.23
111-10 19 X 123.1 (124.5) 133.2 (133.7) 142.4 (142.9) 148.7 (149.2) 152.6 (153.1)
SD 22.33 18.50 20.57 24.31 24.17
r .950 .961 .962 .977
t 5.36 6.89 3.82 3.31
'Roman numerals indicate sets and Arabic numbers indicate repetitions per set.
bMeans in parentheses were adjusted by regression to B common beginning level.
 Varied Weight Training Programs 173

creased in mean strength throughout the training period, but the mean gains
for all groups between successive training periors became progressively
smaller: 9.92, G.46, 5.45, and 4.64 pounds, respectively.
Standard deviations in each group varied relatively little from one testing
period to the next. The smallest difference in standard deviation between
the various 3-week testing periods in one group was 1.47 and occurred in
Group -6 and the greatest difference was 5.81 in Group 111-10. Although
the training programs differed they did not tend to accentuate differences
between subjects in any one group. The coefficients of correlation, which
ranged from .885 to 998 between successive tests, indicated that the different
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 12:45 21 November 2013

training programs had a similar effect on all subjects in the same group
from test to test.
Although the mean gains for all groups between successive training peri-
ods became progressively smaller as training continued, the t’s between suc-
cessive test periods (Table 1) were significant at the 1 percent level, except
for Group 1-2 where the gain was significant at the 5 percent level from
weeks 6 to 9. Consequently, progressive resistance exercise programs differ-
ing rather widely in the combination of repetitions and sets all produced
significant gains in strength during each three weeks of the 12-week train-
ing period.
Cornparison between Groups. Mean differences between groups became
progressively greater during succeeding periods of training as indicated by
the divergence of lines in Figure I, apparently due to the differential effects
of the nine training programs. Analysis of covariance, which compen-
sated for the inability to equate the groups at the beginning of the study,
was employed to determine whether these differential effects were significant
at 3, 6, 9, and 12 weeks. The sums of squares and cross products required
for the analysis of covariance at 3, 6, and 12 weeks are presented in Table
2. The analysis of covariance for these periods is presented in Table 3. The
F ratios increased systematically with training and were significant at the
5 percent level after 6, 9, and 12 weeks of training, but not at 3 weeks. This
indicated that something other than chance, presumably the differentiated
effects of the training programs, produced the mean differences.
To determine specifically which groups differed significantly at 6, 9, and
12 weeks, the mean difference between groups to be significant at the 5 per-
cent level was calculated for each testing period. The least significant mean
differences were 5.65, 6.30, and 6.73 pounds at 6, 9, and 12 weeks, respec-
tively. The results of these comparisons for each period of training are pre-
sented in Table 4.
The results indicated that more sets, more repetitions per set, and more
total repetitions each training session resulted in greater improvement in
strength. Since more than three sets and more than ten repetitions per set
were not used in the present study, the effect of further increases in sets and
repetitions was problematical. However, evidence indicated that repetitions
per set higher than ten might possibly further reduce the rate of gain in
strength.
 Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 12:45 21 November 2013

TABLE 2.-SUM OF SQUARES AND CROSS PRODUCTS

Sum of
Squares of
Source of Errors of
Week Variation d. f. sum x2 Sum xy Sum p Estimate d. f.
-~
Total 176 79164 73412 77434 9356 175
Between Groups 8 737 690 1246
Sets 2 40 275 230
Repetitions 2 48 113 345
Interaction 4 289 302 67 1
3 Within Groups
(error) 168 78427 72722 76188 8756 167
Between Groups 600 8
Between Sets
+ error 170 78827 72997 76418 8820 169
Between Repetitions
+ error 170 78475 72835 76533 8933 169
Interaction error
+ 172 78716 73024 76859 9115 171
Total 176 79164 72878 82056 14965 175
Between Groups 8 737 58 937
Sets 2 4.00 -52 56
Repetitions 2 48 23 387
Interaction 4 289 87 494
6 Within Groups
(error) 168 78427 72820 81119 13505 167
Between Groups 1460 8
Between Sets
+ error 170 78827 72768 81175 14.0ooO 169
Between Repetitions
+ error 170 78475 72843 81506 13891 169
Interaction +error 172 78716 72907 81613 14Q86 171
 Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 12:45 21 November 2013

TABLE 2. (Continued)
Sum of
Squares of
Source of Errors of
Week Variation d.f. sum x2 Sum xy Sum y2 Estimate d.f.
Total 176 79164 72692 85083 18341 175
Between Groups 8 737 -170 1176
Sets 2 400 -141 120
Repetitions 2 48 -74 836
Interaction 4 289 45 220
9 Within Groups
(error) 168 78424 72862 83907 16215 167
BrTween Groups 2126 8
Between Sets
+ error 170 78827 72721 8427 16939 169
Between Repetitions
+ error 170 78475 72788 84743 17230 169
Interaction+ error 172 78716 72907 84127 16601 171
Total 176 79164 74512 91547 21413 175
Between Groups 8 737 -139 2058
Sets 2 4 0 -60 195
Repetitions 2 48 -77 1321
Interaction 4 289 -2 542
12 Within Groups
(error) 168 78427 74651 89489 18432 167
Between Groups 2981 8
Between Sets
+ error 170 78827 74591 89684 19107 169
Between Repetitions
+ error 170 78475 74574 90810 19943 169
In-eraction error
+ 172 78716 74699 90031 19238 171
 176 The Research Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 2

TABLE 3.-ANALYSIS O F COVARIANCE BETWEEN NINE GROUPS AT 3, 6, 9,

AND 12 WEEKS
Sum of
Squares of
Source of Errors of Mean
Week Variation Estimate d. f. Square F
--
Total 9356 175
3 Within groups (error) 8756 167
_.
52.43
Adjusted between groups 600 8 75.00 1.43
~

Total 14965 175

6 Within groups (error) 13505 167
- 80.87
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 12:45 21 November 2013

__
Adjusted between groups 1460 8 182.50 2.25"
Total 18341 175
Within groups (error) 16215 167
- 97.00
Adjusted between groups 2126 8 265.75 2.74b
21413 175
Within groups (error) 18432 167 110.37
Adiusted between ErouDs 2981 8 372.62 3.37b
"Significant beyond the 5 percent level
bsignificant beyond the 1 percent level

6 Weeks 9 weeks 12 Weeks

Groups Mean Sig. Diff. Groups Mean Sig. Diff. 111- 6 Meau Sig. Diff.
-- -___ --
111- 6 147.9 111- 6 111- 6 155.1 111- G Groups 161.- 111- 6
111- 2 146.4 I 111- 2 11-10 150.1 I 11-10 I- 6 156.3 I 1-6
11-10 144.2 I TI-10 111-10 149.2 I 111-1C 11-10 155.8 I I 11-10
I- 6 143.2 I I 111- 2 149.1 I I- 6 111- 2 153.7 111- 2 I 111- 2
111-10 142.9 I 1 111- 2 148.7 111- 2 111- 2 111-10 153.1 111-10 I 111-10
11- 6 142.3 11- 6 I 11- 6 148.5 11- 6 11- 6 11- 6 153.0 11- 6 1 11- 6
I- 2 141.7 I- 2 1 1-10 146.4 1-10 I 1-10 151.4 1-10 I I
1-10 138.2 1-10 1-10 I- 2 144.1 I- 2 I I- 2 149.4 I- 2 1-2 I
11- 2 137.8 11-10 IT- 2 11- 2 142.2 11- 2 11- 2 11- 2 146.1 11- 2 11-2 11- 2
SGroups differing at the .05 level are separated by dashes.

Differences between Sets. The results of training with one, two, and three
sets were compared to determine whether more sets improved strength faster
than fewer sets. The nine groups were combined according to the number
of sets used in training, forming Groups I, 11, and 111. Their average in-
creases in strength every three weeks were, respectively, 7.00, 6.85, and 7.95
pounds. The means of these groups, adjusted by regression, are presented
graphically in Figure I1 A. The greatest difference in rate of improvement
between Group I11 and Groups I and I1 occurred during the second three
weeks of training, but this gradually diminished during the following train-
ing periods until the improvement rates were practically the same during the
last three weeks of training.
 Varied Weight Training Programs 177

GROUPS
'65 I
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 12:45 21 November 2013

0 3 6 9 12
Weeks o f Training
A . GROUPS I TI AND IE G R O'J PS

Weeks of Training
B. GROUPS 2, 6 AND 10
FIGURE
11. Strength improvement.
Analysis of covariance was used to test for significant differences between
the three groups. The F ratios presented in Table 5 for each test period
were based on data in Table 3. The F ratios were significant beyond the
5 percent level at 6, 9, and 12 weeks but not at 3 weeks. This showed that
training with one, two, and three sets had different effects on strength im-
provement at 6, 9, and 12 weeks.
The significant mean difference, calculated at 6, 9, and 1 2 weeks, was
used to determine which groups differed significantly. These least mean dif-
ferences were 3.25, 3.52, and 3.80 pounds at 6, 9, and 12 weeks, respectively.
The adjusted means were 141.2, 141.5, and 144.8 pounds at 6 weeks; 146.6,
147.2, and 151.1 pounds at 9 weeks; and 152.5, 151.9, and 156.3 pounds at
12 weeks for Groups 1, 11, and I11 respectively. At all periods, Group 111
differed significantly from I and 11, but the latter two groups did not differ
from each other. Thus, training with three sets increased strength signifi-
cantly more than training with one or two sets, and training with one or
two sets produced essentially similar improvement.
Differences between Repetitions. Comparisons were made between the re-
sults of training with a different number of repetitions per set to determine
 178 The Research Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 2

TABLE 5,ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE BETWEEN GROUPS I, 11, AND I11 AT

3, 6, 9, AND 12 WEEKS
Sum of
Squares of
Source of Errors of Mean
Week Variation Estimate d. f. Square F
Between sets +
error 8820 169
3 Within groups (error) 8756
64
-
167
2
52.43
.61
Adjusted between groups 32.00
Between sets +
error 14000 169
6 Within groups (error) 13505 167 80.87
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 12:45 21 November 2013

Adjusted between groups 495 2 247.50 3.06O

_~
Between sets +
error 16939 -I
9 Within groups (error) 16215 -
167 97.00
Adjusted between groups 2 362.00 3.73*
Between sets +
error 19107 169
12 Within groups (error) 18432 167
- 110.37
Adiusted between erouus 2 337.50 3.05"
"Siznificant beyond the 5 percent level

whether high repetitions were better for increasing strength than low repeti-
tions or whether some number between the two was better. Groups were
combined according to the number of repetitions per set used during train-
ing to form Groups 2, 6, and 10. The adjusted means of these groups are
presented graphically in Figure I1 B.
Analysis of covariance (Table 6 ) showed differences significant at the
5 percent level at 9 and 12 weeks, but not at 3 or 6 weeks. The F ratios
summarized in Table 6 were based on data in Table 2. To determine which
groups differed significantly at 9 and 12 weeks, the least mean differences to
be significant at the .05 level were employed and found to be 3.53 and 3.80
pounds at 9 and 12 weeks, respectively. Group means were 145.0, 150.9,
and 148.6 pounds at 9 weeks, and 151.1, 156.8 and 153.5 pounds at 12
weeks for Groups 2, 6, and 10, respectively. At 9 weeks, Groups 6 and 10
both differed significantly from Group 2 but not from each other. At 12
weeks, only Group 6 differed significantly from Group 2. Six repetitions per
set was Significantly better for improving strength than two repetitions per
set but was not significantly superior to traininq with ten reDetitions.
Interaction. Analysis of covariance was used to test for significant inter-
action between sets and repetitions: that is, whether one, two, or three Pets
might be better systematically in combination with two, six. and ten (or
ten. six, and two) repetitions. The F ratio for interaction, based on data in
Table 3, was not significant at any period of traininq (Table 7). One. two.
or three sets training was not significantly more effective with one kind of
repetition training (2, 6, or 10'1 than another in improving strength. Con-
seauentlv. althniierh siwifirnnt d;ffwenrw in strength immovement were e.iri-
dent betwwn the nin? croups. theel: differences appeared due primarily to
 Varied Weight Training Programs 179

TABLE 6.-ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE BETWEEN GROUPS 2, 6, AND 10, AT

Sum of
Squares of
Source of Errors of Mean
Week Variation Estimate d. f. Square F
Between repetitions +
error 8933 169
3 Within groups (error) 8756 167
- 52.43
Adjusted between groups 177 2 88.50 1.68
Between repetitions +
error 13891 169
6 Within groups (error) 13505 167
- 80.87
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 12:45 21 November 2013

Adjusted between groups 386 2 193.00 2.38

Between repetitions +
error 17230 169
9 Within groups (error) 16215 167
- 97.00
Adjusted between groups 1015 2 507.50 5.23"
Between repetitions +
error 19943 169 5 -

12 Within groups (error) 18432 ~

167 110.37
Adjusted between groups 1511 2 755.55 6.84"
'Significant beyonil the 1 percent level

training with three sets and six repetitions per set, which were consistently
more effective than one or two sets and ten or two repetitions, rather than
to interaction.
Discussion
Previous studies, and the present study, have shown that strength can be
increased significantly by progressive weight training programs in which
the number of sets and repetitions per set varied widely. The results of the
present study indicate that the maximum rate of strength development re-
sulted with six repetitions maximum (6 RM) for three sets. On the reason-
able assumption that muscle fibers respond similarly to exercise in both ath-
letes and patients undergoing therapy, the present study indicates that the
best triweekly prescription for optimum strength gains was six repetitions
maximum for three sets. Obviously, the load per lift would have to be ad-
justed for the subject. The present evidence indicates that in large, busy
clinics and in athletic programs where time is limited increasing the num-
ber of repetitions per set beyond this prescription, thus lengthening the
training session, would not produce strength increases proportionate to the
increased work but would probably produce less rapid strength increases
and consequently merely waste training time. Conversely, training with
fewer sets or repetitions per set would probably reduce the rate of increas-
ing strength.
On the other hand, where minimum energy expenditure and consequent
fatigue from weight training are important factors, as in the early acute
stages of poliomyelitis or supplementary weight training by athletes during
the regular competitive season in a sport, weight-training programs with as
few as two repetitions per set for one set could be employed. This abbrevi-
 180 The Research Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 2

TABLE 7.-ANALYSIS OF COVARIAKCE ON THE [NTERACTION OF SETS AND

REF’ETI‘IlON5 AT 3 , 6, 9, A N D 12 WEEKS OF TRAINING
Sum of
Squares of
Source of Errors of Mean
Week Variation Estimate d. f. Square F
Interaction +error 9115 171
3 Within groups (error) 8756 167
__ 52.43
Adjusted between groups 359 4 89.70 1.71
.~ __-
Interaction +error 14Q86 171
6 Within groups (error) 13505 167 80.87
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 12:45 21 November 2013

~- __
Adjusted between groups 581 4 145.25 1.79
+
~~

Interaction error 16601 171

9 Within groups (error) 16215 ~
167 97.0
Adjusted between groups 386 4 96.5 .99
Interaction +error 19238 171
12 Within groups (error) 18432 110.37
Adjusted between groups 806 4 201.50 1.82

ated program with greater load per lift (adjusted to the subject) would pro-
duce appreciable, though less rapid, strength increases with less energy ex-
penditure and fatigue than longer programs. For athletes, the abbreviated
program could be used to correct specific weaknesses without materially
hindering the development of sport skills.
Conclusions
The purpose of the present study was to determine whether progressive
resistance exercise with greater or lighter loads and more or fewer repeti-
tions produced faster gains in strength and to determine the optimum condi-
tions for increasing strength with progressive resistance exercise. Results
are summarized as follows.
1. Progressive resistance exercise involving all possible combinations of
one, two, and three sets and two, six, and ten repetitions per set improved
strength significantly.
2. The groups reacted homogeneously to a wide variety of progressive
resistance exercise programs. The different training programs did not tend
to accentuate differences between subjects in any one group.
3. Training with all combinations of one, two, and three sets and two,
six, and ten repetitions resulted in rates of strength improvement which dif-
fered more as training continued.
4. Training with three sets each session produced a greater improvement
in strength than training with one or two sets at 6, 9, and 12 weeks of train-
ing. One set appeared just as effective in improving strength as two sets.
5. Progressive resistance exercise with six repetitions per set improved
strength more than training with two repetitions per set at 9 and 12 weeks of
training. After nine weeks of training, ten repetitions per set resulted in
greater strength improvement than training with two repetitions. But after
 Varied Weight Training Programs 181

twelve weeks of training, two repetitions per set was as effective as training
with ten repetitions per set.
6. Training with one, two or three sets in discrete combination with two,
six, or ten repetitions per set (interaction) was not systematically more effec-
tive in improving strength than other combinations. The significant differ-
ences in strength improvement appeared due primarily to training with three
sets and six repetitions per set, which were consistently more effective than
one or two sets and ten or two repetitions, rather than to interaction.
7. Strength did not improve consistently faster when heavier loads were
employed for few repetitions (2 RM) or when lighter loads were employed
for higher repetitions (10 RM) . The optimum number of repetitions per set
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 12:45 21 November 2013

for improving strength was somewhere between the two extremes. Training
with 6 RM was the optimum or appeared to be nearer the optimum for im-
proving strength than training with 2 RM or 10 RM. Training with three sets
was nearer the optimum number for improving strength faster than one or
two sets. A combination of 6 RM performed for three sets was more effective
in improving strength than any other combination of sets and repetitions per
set.
References
1. GARDINER, NORMAN E. Athletes o/ thc Ancient World. London: Oxford Press, 1930.
2. GARTH,R. L. A Study of the E f e c t of Weight Training on the Jumping Ability of
Basketball Players. Unpublished master’s thesis. Iowa City: State University of Iowa,
1954.
3. HENRY, C . G . A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Two Methods for the Development
of Muscular Strength. Unpublished master’s thesis. Iowa City: State University of
Iowa, 1949.
4. KELLER,E. P. A Study of the Relationship of Strength and Weight to Ability in the
Running High Jump. Unpublished master’s thesis. Iowa City: State University of
Iowa, 1954.
5. KRUSEN, E. W. JR. “Functional Improvement Produced by Resistive Exercise of Quad-
riceps Muscles Affected by Poliomyelitis.” Archives of Physical Medicine 30:271-77;
May 1949.
6. MCGOVERN, R. E., and LUSCOMBE, 11. B. “Useful modifications of Progressive Resist-
ence Exercise Technique.” Archives of Physical Medicine 34 :475-77; August 1953.
7. MCMORRIS, R. O., and ELKINS,E. C. “A Study of Production and Evaluation of Mus-
cular Hypertrophy.” Archives of Physical Medicine 35:420-26; July 1954.
8. WALTERS, B. R. The Relative Effectiveness of High nnd Low-Repetitions in Weight
Training Exercises on Strength and Endurance of the Arms. Unpublished master’s
thesis. Iowa City: State University of Iowa, 1949.

[Submitted June 2, 1961)