This article was downloaded by: [University of Otago]

On: 24 December 2014, At: 16:15

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

Optimum Repetitions for the

Development of Strength
a
Richard A. Berger
a
Texas Technological College , Lubbock , Texas ,
USA
Published online: 17 Mar 2013.

To cite this article: Richard A. Berger (1962) Optimum Repetitions for the
Development of Strength, Research Quarterly. American Association for Health,
Physical Education and Recreation, 33:3, 334-338

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10671188.1962.10616460

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 [University of Otago] at 16:15 24 December 2014
 Optimum Repetitions for the
Development of Strength
RICHARD A. BERGER
Texas Technological College
Lubbock, Texas
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to determine the optimum number of repetitions with
which to train for quickest strength improvement. Nine groups, consisting of a total of
199 male college students, were tested before and after 12 weeks of progressive resist-
ance exercise. Each group trained differently in repetitions per set. Resistances employed
were 2 RM, 4 RM, 6 RM, 8 RM, 10 RM, and 12 RM for one set. The optimum number
of repetitions was found to be between 3 and 9.
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 16:15 24 December 2014

PROGRESSIVE RESISTANCE exercise programs employed today have all

produced increases in strength even though training has varied from 1 to 20
repetitions per set and from 1 to 10 sets. Although several controlled experi-
ments have been conducted for comparative purposes, only one study has
shown conclusively that progressive resistance exercise programs vary in
ability to increase strength.
Review of the Literature
Krusen ( 7 ) compared two groups training with different progressive resistance exer-
cise programs. One group trained with 25 percent, 50 percent, and 75 percent of the 5
RM for the first, second, and third sets, respectively. The other group trained with the
5 RM for the first set, 125 percent and 150 percent of the 5 RM for the second and third
sets respectively. The groups did not diiTer significantly in strength at the completion
of the training program.
Henry ( 6 ) , with one subject, compared the DeLorme (3) and McCloy programs of
progressive resistance exercise. DeLorme’s program involves training with one-half of
the 10 RM for the first set, three-fourths of the 10 RM for the second set, and the 10
RM for the third set. McCloy’s program employed the 10 RM for the first and second
sets, and three-fourths of the 10 RM for the third set for as many repetitions as possible.
After eight weeks of training there were no significant differences in strength improve-
ment between the two programs.
McGovern and Luscombe (8) compared the differential effects of three programs of
progressive resistance exercise. One group performed five repetitions with one-half of the
10 RM for the first set and the 10 RM for the second set. The second group trained
with the 10 RM for the first set, three-fourths of the 10 RM for the second set, and
one-half of the 10 RM for the third set. The third group trained with DeLorme’s method.
After three weeks of training there were no significant differences in strength between
the three groups.
McMorris and Elkins (9) compared the DeLorme method to the modified Oxford
technique of progressive resistance exercise. The modified Oxford technique involved the
same number of sets and repetitions as the DeLorme technique, but the order of per.
formance waa reversed. After 12 weeks of training the groups did not difier significantly
 Repetitions for Strength Development 335

in strength. Hellebrandt and Houtz ( 5 ) also compared the DeLorme and the Oxford
techniques with some modifications. Training took place on the Kelso-Hellebrandt mod-
ification of the Mosso ergograph. After 14 days af training no differences in strength
produced by the two techniques were noted.
Berger (1) compared strength improvements between three groups, each trained dif-
ferently. One group performed 2 RM, the second group 6 RM and the third group 10
RM. All groups performed three sets each training session. There were no significant
differences in strength between groups after five weeks of training. Another study by
Berger (2) compared nine different weight training programs to determine which were
more effective in improving strength. The experiment was conducted with the bench
press lift for a period of 12 weeks with approximately 20 subjects in each weight-train-
ing program. Subjects were tested for the 1 RM on the bench press lift at the beginning
and end of each training. Training took place three times weekly with the variations
in programs involving one, two, and three sets, and 2, 6, and 10 repetitions per set. The
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 16:15 24 December 2014

results showed that three sets and six repetitions per set were best for improving strength.
These studies have shown that strength can be increased by progressive resistance
exercise programs which may vary in sets, repetitions per set, and the order of different
proportions of the 10 RM used in successive sets. Only Berger’s study (2) has shown
that the optimum number of repetitions per set to improve strength was between 2 RM
and 10 RM.

Sfatement of the Problem

The problem in this study was to determine the optimum number of repeti-
tions per set to perform in order to produce the greatest gain in strength.
Although Berger (2) found 6 repetitions to be nearer the optimum than 2 or
10 repetitions, the effects of 4 and 8 repetitions per set were not considered in
his study. The present study examined the effects of 4 and 8 repetitions on
strength as well as 2, 6, 10, and 12 repetitions.

Method
The subjects were 199 freshman and sophomore male students in six
weight-lifting classes at the University of Illinois. Each class trained with a
different number of repetitions per set on the bench press lift. Training was
on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for a period of 12 weeks. Since the
training programs were more easily administered with all subjects in the
same class following identical training programs and since transfer of stu-
dents from one class to another to equate groups was not feasible, the six
groups were not equated initially. However, registration in a class depended
on the student’s available time and presumably was not a selective factor
seriously biasing the results.
Maximum strength (1 RM) on the bench press lift was determined at the
beginning and at the end of the 12-week training program. The bench press
lift was performed with the subject supine on a bench. A bar bell was placed
on the chest with the hands grasping the bar shoulder width apart, palms
facing upward. The bar was raised vertically until the arms were fully ex-
tended. The 1 RM was determined by increasing the load by ten pounds
after each successful lift until the load became difficult to raise. Then the load
 336 The Research Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 3

I - RM
160r

140 I
2-RM 4-RM 6-RM 8-RM 10-RM 12-RM
N:33 N:35 N:34 N-34 Nr32 N-31
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 16:15 24 December 2014

MEANS 146.56 154.52 151.96 155.69 148.29 149.74

FIGURE
1. Mean strength of six weight training programs.

was increased five pounds until the maximum (1 RM) was obtained. Sub-
jects rested two to three minutes between attempts.
Each of the groups performed a different number of repetitions but all
performed only one set. More sets were not employed because of the possible
interaction with repetitions to such an extent that it would be difficult to de-
termine only the effects of repetitions on strength improvement. Whenever
a subject was able to perform one more repetition than the number desig-
nated for his group, the weight of the barbell was increased. If a subject was
unable to perform voluntarily the specified number of repetitions per set, he
was given minimum assistance by a spotter to complete the repetitions. The
loads were always such as to elicit maximum effort for a given number of
repetitions.
Analysis of covariance (10) was used to determine whether the nine pro-
grams of training produced significantly different improvements in strength
after 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 final means so that valid comparisons
were possible between groups.
When analysis of covariance showed significant differences between groups,
the mean difference significant at the 5 percent level was used. If the mean
difference between two groups was equal to or greater than the least mean
difference, the two groups differed significantly (10). Since the initial means
were not matched, comparisons between actual means were not justified.
Therefore, before valid comparisons could be made, all initial means were
adjusted by regression (10) to a common initial mean and corresponding
changes made in the final means. The coefficient of reliability (4) for strength
on the bench press lift was determined by the test-retest method with college
 Repetitions for Strength Development 337

TABLE 1.-ANALYSIS O F COVARIANCE BETWEEN SIX DIFFERENT

TRAINING PROGRAMS
Source of
variation I df I Z x2
Between
Within
Total
5
193

Sum of Squares of
Errors of Estimate df
I- 3,749
117,050
120,799

Total 25,561 197 1-I

Within
Between
23,368
2.193 19; 1 2
l :: 1 3.603"
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 16:15 24 December 2014

* Significant beyond the .01 level.

TABLE 2.-GROUPS DIFFERING SIGNIFICANTLY AFTER 12 WEEKS

O F TRAINING
Group
Mean
(Ibs.)
I 1 1 I 1 1
8-RM
155.69
4-RM
154.52
6-RM
151.96
12-RM
149.74
10-RM
148.29
2-RM
146.56

Groups differing a t the 5 percent level, or by 5.33 pounds, are separated by dashes.
&RM 4-Rhl 6-RM 2-RM
8-RM 4-RM 10-RM 2-RM
8-RM 12-RM 10-RM 2-RM

freshmen and sophomore students who were not in any of the experimental
groups. The coefficient of reliability was .97 which indicated a high reli-
ability.
Results and Conclusions
The final group means, adjusted by regression, are presented in Figure 1
along with the number of subjects in each group. The adjusted means were
146.56 lbs., 154.52 lbs., 151.96 lbs., 155.69 lbs., 148.29 lbs., and 149.74 lbs.
for the groups trained with 2, 4, G, 8, 10, and 12 repetitions per set, respec-
tively. The smaller final means occurred in groups trained with high and
low repetitions. This indicated that the optimum number for improving
strength was between these extremes. These differences were substantiated
by the analysis of covariance which showed significant differences between
the groups beyond the .01 level (Table 1 ) . The least significant mean was
calculated to be 5.33 lbs. at the .05 level and used to determine which groups
differed significantly from each other. The group means were presented in
Table 2. In this table groups were ranked in descending order from left to
 338 The Research Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 3

right according to adjusted mean strength. Below these means the groups
differing significantly from each other were separated by dashes.
Groups that performed 2, 10, and 12 repetitions had smaller mean gains
than groups trained with 4, 6, and 8 repetitions. This indicated that train-
ing between 3 and 9 repetitions for one set encompasses the optimum n u m
ber of repetitions for improving strength. Training with less than 2 repe-
titions and more than 10 repetitions will not improve strength as rapidly as
training with 4, 6, and 8 repetitions when training is carried out for one set
three times weekly for 12 weeks.

References
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 16:15 24 December 2014

1. BERGER,RICHARDA. The ejects of selected progressive resistance exercise pro-

grams on strength, hypertrophy and strength decrement. Unpublished master’s
thesis, Michigan State University, 1956.
2. BERGER, RICHARD A. The eflect of varied weight training programs on strength and
endurance. Microfilm, University of Illinois, 1960.
3. DELORME, THOMAS L., and WATKINS,A. L. Progressive resistance exercise: technic
and medical application. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1951.
4. EDWARDS, A. L. Statistical analysis. New York: Rinehart and Co., Inc., 1946.
5. HELLEBRANDT, F. A.; Houm, S, J.; and EURBANK, R. N. Influence of alternate and
reciprocal exercise on work capacity. Arch. Phys. Med. 32:766-76, 1951.
G. HENRY,C. G. A comparison of the ejectiveness of two methods for the develop.
ment of muscular strength. Unpublished master’s thesis, State University of Iowa,
1949.
7. KRUSEN,E. M. Functional improvement produced by resistance exercise of quadri-
ceps muscles affected by poliomyelitis. Arch. Phys. Med. 30:271-78, 1949.
8. MCGOVERN, R. E., and LUSCOMBE, H. B. Useful modifications of progressive re-
sistance exercise technique. Arch. Phys. Med. 34:475-79, 1953.
9. MCMORRIS,R. 0. and ELKINS,E. C. A study of production and evaluation of mus-
cular hypertrophy. Arch. of Phys. Med. 35:420-26, 1954.
10. SNEDECOR, G. W. Statistical methods applied to experiments in agriculture and
biology. Ames, Iowa: Collegiate Press, 1946.

I (Submitted October 30, 1961)