Forms of Variable
Resistance Training
D. Travis McMaster,1 John Cronin, PhD,1,2 and Michael McGuigan, PhD, CSCS1
1
Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia; and 2AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand
SUMMARY
RESISTANCE TRAINING METHODS
HAVE BEEN BROADLY CLASSIFIED
INTO 3 CATEGORIES: CONSTANT,
ACCOMMODATING, AND
VARIABLE RESISTANCE. VARIABLE
RESISTANCE TRAINING METHODS,
WHICH INCLUDES CAMS AND
LEVERS, CHAINS, AND
RUBBER-BASED RESISTANCE,
WILL BE THE FOCUS OF THIS
ARTICLE. THE KINEMATICS,
KINETICS, AND HUMAN STRENGTH
CURVE CHARACTERISTICS
ASSOCIATED WITH THESE 3
TYPES OF VARIABLE RESISTANCE
ARE DISCUSSED, GIVEN THAT
EACH RESISTANCE TYPE MAY
OFFER A UNIQUE SET OF ME-
CHANICAL STIMULI AND, HENCE,
MUSCULOSKELETAL
ADAPTATIONS. THE PRACTICAL
APPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH EACH FORM
OF VARIABLE RESISTANCE WILL
ALSO BE CONSIDERED.
INTRODUCTION
esistance training, once used by
R a very small group of elite
athletes and weight lifting en-
thusiasts, has grown immensely in
popularity during the past 3 decades
and is currently practiced by a large
number of people within society. There
are many modes of resistance training
and a multitude of variables that can be
manipulated to benefit the musculo-
skeletal system. In terms of the modes
of resistance that can be used to induce
musculoskeletal adaptation, 3 broad
categories typically are used: constant
external resistance, accommodating
Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
50 VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2009
resistance, and variable resistance
(VR). Constant external resistance is
defined as an unchanging external load
throughout the range of motion and is
the most popular form of resistance
training, because many believe it better
simulates real-life activities and pro-
vides a more natural coordination of
the musculature (32,48,56). Accommo-
dating resistance equipment is de-
signed to exert speed controlled or
isokinetic resistance throughout the
full range of motion, more recently
termed semi-isokinetic resistance (60).
Fluid-based resistance remains unde-
fined, because it resembles both ac-
commodating and VR. Hydraulic
(liquid-controlled) and pneumatic
(gas-controlled) equipment are 2 forms
of fluid resistance. VR equipment is
designed to change the external re-
sistive load throughout an exercise’s
range of motion; the different types of
VR equipment include rubber-based
resistance (RBR), chains, and cam and
lever systems.
To assist in understanding some of the
concepts discussed in this article,
a basic knowledge of human strength
curves, kinematics, and kinetics and
their importance in explaining the
adaptive potential of an exercise,
loading scheme, and resistance type
are required because it is the mechan-
ical stimuli that dictate the hormonal
and metabolic responses. Kinematics
describes the change in position of an
object via variables such as position,
displacement, time, velocity, and ac-
celeration (28). Kinetics describes the
forces and their effects on the motion
or kinematics of an object (51). Each
type of resistance can offer a unique
set of kinematics and kinetics and
Copyright Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association
therefore differential musculoskeletal
adaptation.
Human strength curves are based on
movements about single joints using
2-dimensional coordinate systems but
also have been extended to include
multi-joint movements with the use
of 3-dimensional coordinate systems.
Strength curves are classified into 3
categories: ascending, descending, and
bell-shaped, which are determined by
the force-angle (torque) relationship
within the musculoskeletal system
(Figure 1) (24,40,66,67). Multi-joint
strength curves are calculated by
summing the torques of all involved
joints in the exercise movement, which
provides an overall measure (estimate)
of the maximum muscular capability in
the system; for example, during the
traditional squat, a sum of torques
would be determined by adding the
individual torques produced at ankle,
knee, hip, and trunk, respectively. The
percentage of force and torque pro-
duced at each joint may very depend-
ing on the mode of resistance, exercise
movement, velocity of movement, and
the amount of external resistance lifted;
however, further investigation is re-
quired to determine the exact contri-
bution of the involved musculature and
joints (23). Strength curves have been
developed by theoretical and experi-
mental means. Theoretical strength
curves predict the torque capabilities
of the musculoskeletal system through
cadaver dissection where the following
physiological and biomechanical
KEY WORDS:
biomechanics; rubber bands; steel chains;
cams and levers; kinematics; kinetics

Figure 1. Three major strength curves: force production versus joint angle.
properties are measured: muscle cross-
sectional area, fiber lengths, sarcomere
lengths, the arrangement of thin and
thick filaments, the origin and insertion
location points, and corresponding
angles (36). Experimental strength
curves are easier to develop than
theoretical strength curves because live
human subjects and direct strength
measuring devices, such as electromy-
ography, force plates, in vivo force
transducers, ultrasound, and isokinetic
dynamometers are used to calculate
joint torque capability (23,35,36,39,42).
Strength can be measured during iso-
metric, concentric, and eccentric con-
tractions at varying speeds and loading
conditions; the shape of strength
curves are similar when comparing
isometric to concentric or eccentric
isokinetic testing for a specific joint
range of motion (30).
Knowledge of the biomechanical rela-
tionships and the subsequent benefits
and limitations of the different modes
of resistance would seem of great
practical benefit to the practitioner,
strength and conditioning coach, and
clinician. This framework provides the
direction for future discussion of VR
training.
VR TRAINING
VR equipment is designed to alter the
resistance placed on the musculoskel-
etal system throughout the range of
motion, in an attempt to match the
various exercise strength curves (24).
Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Strength curves approximate the tor-
que (relationship between force gener-
ation and joint angle) production
capabilities for specified exercise
movements (37). Strength can be de-
fined as the maximal force and torque
(rotational force) a musculoskeletal
lever system can generate at a given
velocity (18,38). Muscular force gener-
ation and torque production are depen-
dent upon a number of physiological,
biomechanical, and neural factors,
including muscle cross-sectional area,
muscle length, pennation angle, the
radius of the internal and external
moment arms, contraction speed, and
the size, number, and type of motor
units recruited (20,21,40).
Human strength curves of single joint
movements (see Figure 1) are generally
easy to categorize, as movement is
generated via a single muscle or group
of muscles (i.e., biceps brachii, brachia-
lis, and brachioradialis muscles) with
proximal insertion points causing rota-
tion about a single axis (1 degree
of rotational freedom), such as flex-
ion–extension, adduction–abduction,
elevation–depression, or internal rotation–
external rotation. The dumbbell arm
curl can be used to explain the rela-
tionship between internal forces acting
within and external forces acting on
the musculoskeletal system. During the
dumbbell arm curl, the biceps brachii,
brachialis, and brachioradialis muscles
must produce a force and create a
torque that is greater than that created
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org
by the weight of the dumbbell to cause
a concentric contraction and flexion at
the elbow. Biomechanically, the biceps
brachii, brachialis and brachioradialis
muscles generate an internal force that
is transferred through their respective
tendons, creating torque about the
elbow leading to an external endpoint
force that is applied to an external
resistive load (e.g., dumbbell) leading to
rotation about the elbow joint (66).
Multi-joint movements are complex
and more difficult to categorize be-
cause movement occurs about multiple
joints (multiple degrees of rotational
freedom) in multiple planes and must
be represented by 3-dimensional co-
ordinate systems. Torque capabilities
during multi-joint movements are in-
fluenced by a number of physiological
and biomechanical factors, including
the architecture of the involved mus-
culature and joints, the type(s) of
coordinated muscle actions, and the
location of origin and insertion points.
The majority of sport movements, such
as running, kicking, and throwing,
occur in sequential order, where move-
ment is initiated by the larger proximal
muscles and segments, and then trans-
ferred to smaller distal muscles and
segments along the kinetic chain. This
phenomenon is known as the summa-
tion of forces and or the summation of
speed principle (10,28). During many
multi-joint movements, the accumula-
tion of forces generated about each
joint along the kinetic chain results in
an assimilation of joint torques; exer-
cise movement examples include the
bench press, leg press, squat, deadlift,
and power clean (10). When the
segments of these multi-joint move-
ments approach full extension, the
musculoskeletal lever system gains
a mechanical advantage and is able to
bare larger external resistive forces;
theoretically these movements would
be supplemented well by VR equip-
ment that increases in a linear or
curvilinear fashion (66).
Exercises with ascending strength
curves include the squat, deadlift,
bench press, leg press, and shoulder
press. In these exercises, maximum
51
Forms of Variable Resistance Training
strength and force production capabil-
ity occur near the apex of the lift (24).
In a descending strength curve, max-
imum strength is produced at the start
of the lift, examples include bent-over
and upright rows, pull-ups, chin-ups,
and lat pull-downs. Single joint exercise
movements generally have bell-shaped
strength curves (e.g., elbow flexion and
extension and knee flexion and exten-
sion), where maximum strength occurs
around the mid-phase of the lift (24).
The reader needs to be cognizant of
the fact that human strength curves are
generalized to the samples studied, as
biomechanical and physiological dif-
ferences between body segments and
individuals are complex and not always
accounted for.
Current forms of VR equipment in-
clude cams and levers, rubber-based
resistance (RBR), and chains. These
forms of resistance are used through-
out the sport science, strength and
conditioning, rehabilitation, powerlift-
ing, and weightlifting world. In theory,
if the equipment is designed to match
the different human strength curves,
then the contracting muscles would
maximize force production throughout
the range of motion and maximal gains
in strength would be achieved (22).
Whether this is actually the case and
the practical relevance of VR training
modes are not well understood, which
provides the focus of subsequent
discussion.
CAMS AND LEVERS
Lever and cam systems are designed to
change the external moment arm (the
length or radius) of the corresponding
lever or cam to approximate the body’s
changing moment arm (leverage and
mechanical advantage) during the lift,
which forces the muscles to exert near
maximal effort throughout the range of
motion (59). Therefore, the system
attempts to provide resistance changes
to match the musculoskeletal systems
ability to produce torque at various
joint angles along the movement path
(26,32). Mechanical advantage is
a product of the force–joint angle
relationship, where the force exerted
by the muscles will vary with the
Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
52 VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2009
mechanical advantage of the joints
associated with a specific movement
(64). An ‘‘irregular-shaped cam’’ de-
signed by Herz of Vienna in 1901,
allowed for increased resistance at
points where strength was greatest
and decreased the resistance at points
where the strength was lowest, accom-
modating for the musculoskeletal
systems mechanical advantage, sup-
posedly leading to improvements in
strength (37). This design was adapted
by Jones, the inventor of Nautilus, who
in his equipment design used a shell-
shaped cam very similar to that of
Herz. Jones designed his first prototype
in 1948 and then released the first cam
run Nautilus machine onto the market
in 1970 (58). Several years later, in
1972, Ariel designed the ‘‘dynamic
variable resistance’’ machine, which
used an external lever arm to match
the musculoskeletal changing lever
system for numerous of exercise move-
ments (2).
Kinematics and Kinetics of Cams and
Levers. Cam and lever systems create
a varying torque that opposes and
corresponds to the torque production
ability of the different musculoskeletal
lever systems (38). In other words, the
machines resistive torque attempts to
match human torque capabilities for
uniarticular movements, such as leg
extensions, leg curls, bicep curls, and
Figure 2. Moment arm versus relative elbow joint angle. The length of the moment
arm shortens and lengthens in proportion to the decreasing and increasing
joint angles.
pullovers (37). The equation for torque
is as follows:
Torque ¼ ForceðNewtonsÞ3 Length
of Movement Arm ðMetersÞ
From this equation, it can be observed
that torque may be altered by either
changing the amount of external or
internal force acting on or within
a body segment, or by changing the
length of these respective moment
arms. The moment arm is the perpen-
dicular distance from the fulcrum (axis
of rotation) to the point of force
application (external load or tendon
attachment). The length of the mo-
ment arm is proportional to the joint
angle between 2 longitudinal segments
during uniarticular movements, which
is known as a relative joint angle
(shown in Figure 2).
Cam and lever systems have a fixed
resistive load; therefore, the external
resistance is varied by altering the
length of the moment arm or radius
and hence the changing radius of an
‘‘irregular shaped cam’’ (Figure 3). A
cam system’s resistive torque increases
in proportion to the radius of the cam;
therefore, the larger the radius, the
greater the resistance and vice versa
(30). The same can be said for lever
systems, where length changes in the
effective lever increase or decrease
the effective resistance throughout
the exercise movement. Three notable
 Figure 3. Changing radius of a pullover cam machine.

cam shapes with varying moment
arms have been designed by Nautilus,
Universal, and other manufacturers, to
match the machines resistive torque
to human torque capabilities for
specific exercises (Table 1).
The cams changing radius is designed
to minimize the negative effects of
momentum by matching external
resistance to the internal force
and torque generating capabilities
(mechanical advantage) of the muscu-
lature, theoretically causing the work-
ing muscles to exert maximum force
throughout the complete range of
motion. Angular impulse is propor-
tional to the amount of applied torque
produced over time; therefore, angular
impulse should be greater when cam-
based machines are used, as the
working muscles should be producing
near maximal force/torque values over
a longer period of time than constant
external resistance modes. Given that
mass remains constant, the net result of
an increase in angular impulse should
be an increase in average angular
velocity, which is a desirable training
goal for many athletic movements.
Hay and Andrews (34) studied the
biomechanical effects of the Universal
arm curl machine versus barbell arm
curls and found that the machine
provided a VR more consistent with
the working muscles capacity to exert
force throughout the range of motion
than the barbell curl. They found that
the barbell curl was inferior to the
Universal arm curl machine, in terms of
matching the external resistance and
the muscular force capabilities of the
elbow flexors at varying joint angles
(see Figure 4) (59). Johnson et al. (37)
compared human torque capabilities
and machine resistive torque by using 4
Eagle cam-based resistance machines
that included knee extension, knee
flexion, elbow extension, and elbow
flexion. They found that the 4 ma-
chines accommodated the subjects
fairly well by creating machine resistive
torque curves similar to human torque
curves, an example of which can be
observed in Figure 5. It must be noted
that as a result of individual variations
of size and strength, it is difficult to
construct a machine that accommo-
dates everyone’s unique anthropome-
try. Regardless of this inherent
limitation, cam and lever systems have
grown in popularity and are currently
used in many fitness and rehabilitation
centers worldwide. The benefits and

Table 1
Human strength curves for various cam based exercise movements (adapted from Fleck and Kraemer [24])
Strength curve Ascending Descending Bell-shaped

Exercise example Deadlift Seated row Elbow flexion and

Chest press
Squats
Mechanical definition Ability of muscle to produce
force and create torque is
lowest at the start of lift
and increases throughout
the ascent phase due to
an increase in mechanical
advantage.
extension
Lat pull-downs Knee flexion and
extension
Ability of muscle to produce Ability of muscle to
force and create torque is produce force and
greatest in the first quarter create torque is
of the lift and progressively highest during the
decreases throughout the last middle portions of
three-quarters of the lift as the lift and lowest in
the mechanical advantage the first and last
diminishes throughout the lift. quarter of the lift.

Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org 53
Forms of Variable Resistance Training
Figure 4. Comparison of 3 force-angle curves for elbow flexion (adapted from
Smith [58]).
limitations of their use are now
discussed.
Practical Applications of Cams and
Levers. As mentioned previously, the
most notable benefit to using cams is
their ability to create a resistance
system that matches the musculature’s
ability to generate force and produce
torque throughout the entire range of
an exercise. Cam and lever equipment
is suitable for beginner and weak
resistance trainers because it follows
a fixed movement path and requires
less skill, decreased intermuscular co-
ordination, and is less likely to cause
injury compared with other modes of
resistance because it is easier to
maintain control of the load
(26,29,32,33). It allows for unilateral
Figure 5. Machine resistive torque (MRT) versus human torque capability (HTC) for
knee flexion (adapted from Johnson et al. [36]).
Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
54 VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2009
and bilateral training options and no
spotter is required. Furthermore, the
use of such cams is common in the
rehabilitation setting where single joint
(i.e., rotation about a single joint axis)
and multi-joint (i.e., rotation about 2 or
more joint axes) exercise movements
are used in combination for the re-
habilitation of injuries (e.g., anterior
cruciate ligament reconstructions) and
certain pathologies, such as patellofe-
moral pain syndrome (25,45).
Single joint movements (e.g., knee
extension and flexion) have the capa-
bility to isolate specific muscle groups
(e.g., the quadriceps and hamstrings),
which can be beneficial when correct-
ing muscle imbalances. Patellofemoral
pain syndrome (patellar malalignment)
is thought to be caused by a strength
imbalance between the vastus lateralis
and vastus medialis, which can be
remedied by using single-joint move-
ments in combination with multi-joint
movements to increase vastus medialis
strength (16). In general, multi-joint
movements (i.e., traditional squats)
produce greater compressive forces
and single joint movements (i.e., leg
extensions) produce greater shearing
forces on the involved joints (e.g., knee)
and surrounding musculature (43).
Both forms of exercise should be used
in rehabilitation and training programs
to provide varying training stimuli, in
terms of kinematic and kinetic profiles.
Cam and lever resistance may also be
beneficial as a supplement to weight-
bearing exercises in programs for osteo-
porotic and osteoarthritic populations,
as it may provide a safe-controlled
form of resistance that would help
improve bone density and limit deteri-
oration according to the stress–strain
relationship between load and bone
density (19,51,65). Some of the afore-
mentioned benefits also are considered
limiting factors in the development of
certain kinematic and kinetic variables,
which are discussed in the following
section.
Limitations of Cams and Levers. One
major limitation is that the movement
pattern of cam and lever equipment
cannot be manipulated by the lifter to
suit his/her mechanical and physio-
logical needs; instead, the lifter is
required to adapt to the equipment.
During equipment design, torque
changes through the various angles
are based on sample averages (26,29).
A problem arises in the fact that the
equipment is designed for the average
person and may not accommodate
people that have extreme differences
in anthropometry. Force-angle curves
are affected by mechanical variables,
such as limb length, point of tendon
attachment, and velocity of movement
(26). Attempts have been made to
match the machines resistive torque
curves to the 3 types of human strength
curves; however, the efficacy of such an
approach is debatable (11). For exam-
ple, Harman (31) found that Nautilus
machine resistive torque did not cor-
respond to human torque curves for
the following 5 exercises: the chest fly,
knee-flexion, knee-extension, elbow
flexion, and the pullover, because de-
sign flaws were visible; therefore, cam
shapes require much modification to
match machine resistive torque pat-
terns with human torque capabilities.
Nautilus cams are theoretically de-
signed to match the human strength
curves as the joint segment moves
through a controlled path (32). As
a result, ballistic and explosive move-
ments, which are key characteristics in
almost all sports, are difficult to
perform on such equipment and,
therefore, this form of resistance may
not be beneficial as a form of sport-
specific training (29). Furthermore,
because of the fixed movement path
of the exercise equipment, develop-
ment of neuromuscular coordination is
hindered, and the antagonist and
synergist muscles are less active (26).
Other limitations include capital outlay
for equipment cost and thereafter
equipment maintenance (29).
RUBBER-BASED RESISTANCE
RBR has been primarily used by
practitioners and clinicians to help
patients regain strength after injury
(53). This form of resistance has also
become popular in fitness centers and
frequently prescribed by gym staff and
personal trainers. Strength and condi-
tioning coaches have also adopted and
adapted RBR training in an attempt to
improve athletic performance. Bands,
tubing, and bungies are polymer-based
products with varying composition
depending on the type of polymer
(i.e., thermoplastics or elastomers) used
during production. The composition of
these products affects the physical and
mechanical properties, such as stiffness
(stress–strain), density, yield and tensile
strengths (4). The aesthetic differences
between the various RBR products can
be observed in Figure 6 (53). The term
RBR is used throughout this article
because the term elastic resistance can
be misleading, since it does not fully
describe the exact type of resistance
that tubing, bungies, and bands
Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Figure 6. Various elastic resistance products.
provide. That is, all of these products
are viscoelastic, exhibiting nonlinear or
viscous properties in combination with
linear elastic properties. This can be
observed in the diagram below com-
paring the tension and deformation of
various sized rubber bands (Figure 7).
The nonlinear curves observed can be
best fitted with second order polyno-
mials, rather than simple linear func-
tions (64). For a detailed discussion of
viscoelasticity please refer to any good
biomechanical text.
As can be observed from Figure 7,
there is a relatively linear-elastic region
that can be explained using Hooke’s
law if the resistive forces need to be
quantified. That is the tension provided
by the RBR is equal to the stiffness
constant (k) multiplied by the defor-
mation (d):
Tension ¼ kðstiffnessÞ3
dðdeformationÞ
During the elastic region, deformation
increases in direct proportion to the
amount of tension placed on the RBR
product, and this linear relationship
can exist for deformations of up to
300% depending on the composition of
the product (4,28).
The Hygenic Corporation was the first
major producer and distributor of RBR
training products and currently has 7
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org
resistance levels on the market, ranging
from 1.5 to 10.75 Newtons in tension at
twice the bands resting length (53,61).
Today there are a number of manu-
facturers that make a variety of bands
with different tensile properties. RBR
tension can also be increased by
shortening the resting length or by
increasing the number of bands (7).
The various rubber band tensions and
elongation percentages (changes in
deformation) are depicted in Figure 8
(53). RBR products were initially
designed for rehabilitating and restor-
ing muscle and joint functions; today,
they also are used for improving
conditioning and balance and building
strength in all individuals (61).
The way in which tension of RBR is
delivered is dependent on the setup of
the apparatus (64). RBR can be set up
to increase or decrease the resistive
load during the ascent phase of a lift
and decrease or increase the resistive
load during the descent phase.
Deformation-tension curves of RBR
are closely related to the ascending
strength curve; therefore, RBR should
theoretically supplement ascending
strength curve exercises. The equip-
ment can also be set up to help athletes
overcome the initial sticking point in
the bench press and the squat, i.e., RBR
can be attached to the bar and/or
athlete to offer a degree of unloading.
55
Forms of Variable Resistance Training
Figure 7. Deformation versus tension curves for 5 different types of RBR.
For this to occur, the bands are attached
to the top of a power rack, to provide
assistance when the active muscles in
movements, such as the bench press
and squat are at maximal lengths, where
the mechanical advantage is least.
Kinematics and Kinetics of RBR. RBR
is proportional to the amount of
deformation multiplied by the stiffness
constant during the elastic region of
the deformation–tension curve. Rubber
bands allow for variable resisted move-
ment in a multiple of planes, such as
the sagittal, frontal, transverse, or
a combination (oblique) of planes
while maintaining consistent resistive
properties in all planes, unlike gravity
dependent modes. Most gravity-de-
pendent modes of training (e.g., free
weights and chains) offer the greatest
amount of resistance with movements
Figure 8. Tension of rubber bands at different percentages of elongation (adapted
from Page and Ellenbecker [52]).
Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
56 VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2009
in the vertical (frontal and sagittal)
plane only. A comparison between the
direction of external resistance of RBR
and free weights is shown in Figure 9.
The curvilinear deformation–tension
properties of RBR allow for increased
acceleration in the initial, less-resisted
positive phase of a lift; as a result,
velocity of the exercise movement
increases. During the ascent phase of
an ascending strength curve lift, the
musculoskeletal system gains a me-
chanical advantage and force produc-
tion decreases (6,17,24,66). This area is
one in which the added band tension
has the potential to increase muscle
stimulation, motor unit recruitment,
and firing rates and in turn prevent
a decrease in muscular force produc-
tion throughout the last quarter of the
lift (17). The use of RBR in training has
been shown to increase strength in
recreational athletes by 10–30% over 6-
to 12-week training periods; however,
similar gains also have been reported
with most other modes of resistance
when used properly; therefore, further
research is needed to determine whether
one mode is superior to the other (53).
A study by Damush and Damush (15)
found that older adult women in-
creased strength during an 8-week
RBR training program. The program
consisted of 2 training sessions per
week. Seven 1-set exercises were
performed at each session, each exer-
cise was performed until a level of 4
was reached on the Borg Perceived
Exertion Scale. The 7 exercises in-
cluded seated lat. pulldown, seated
single leg press, seated chest press,
seated single toe press, standing tricep
press, standing bicep curls, and seated
leg extension. Strength improvements
occurred in 3 major muscle groups;
the latissimus dorsi (19.7 6 10.3%), the
quadriceps (27.7 6 17.6%), and the
pectoralis major (16.5 6 11.2%); where
the subjects 3 repetition maximums
were measured on the seated lat pull
down, seated leg extension, and seated
chest press, respectively.
When bands are added to free weight
exercises, such as the squat, dead-lift,
and bench press, the added tension
towards the end of the positive con-
centric phase may trigger an increase in
muscular force generation and peak
power production (64). Wallace et al.
(64) reported increases in peak force
(16%) and peak power (24%) were
 Figure 9. (a) Rubber based resistance (collinear to the movement) versus (b) free weight resistance (perpendicular to the
movement).
greater during the back squat when
rubber bands were used in combina-
tion with free weights compared with
the use of free weights only. These
variables (peak force and peak power)
were recorded at a frequency of 500 Hz
using a Quattro Jump force plate and
assessed with Quattro software. It
may be speculated that RBR allowed
the lower-extremity muscles of the
subjects to produce greater peak force
at the position where the mechanical
advantage of the segment lever system
was greatest (near full extension) due
to the curvilinear tensile properties of
RBR and ascending strength curve
properties of the squat. Another study
by Cronin et al. (14) compared the
kinematics, kinetics, and EMG of
ballistic squats with and without rubber
bungies and a nonballistic squat; all
movements were performed with a su-
pine squat machine. They found that
when loads were equated that there
was greater EMG activity of the vastus
lateralis during the eccentric contrac-
tion of the rubber bungie supine squat,
and greater peak velocities were found
for both ballistic squats (14). Improve-
ments in peak velocity, force, and
power in the lower extremities may
be beneficial to athletes participating in
contact sports, such as rugby, all
disciplines of football, ice hockey, as
well explosive track and field events
(sprinting, shot putt, hammer throw,
high jump and long jump).
In summary, the addition of RBR to
a constant external resisted movement
alters the biomechanical profiles, as
RBR products allow for greater
Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
accelerations to be produced in the
initial phases of a movement compared
to a constant external resisted move-
ment with an equivalent load. How-
ever, the force required to elicit
movement will increase proportionally
with the displacement and changing
deformation–tension of the RBR; and
the greatest forces will be required at
maximal displacement or end range of
movement. Thereafter, greater accel-
erations occur earlier in the eccentric
phase, which should result in increased
eccentric forces and potentially greater
SSC enhancement. It has been sug-
gested that the benefits of RBR are
most apparent when combined with
free weights, so that the inherent
shortcomings of either resistance type
compensate for one another (7,64).
That is, free weights provide greatest
mechanical overload at the beginning
or inner range of the concentric phase
and the bands provide overload at the
end or outer range of the concentric
phase for ascending strength curve
movements. The opposite is true of
the eccentric phase in terms of the
mechanical overload; therefore, the
combination of both resistance modes
may compliment each other through-
out the entire concentric and eccentric
phases for most multi-joint movements.
Practical Applications of RBR. RBR is
prescribed and used in many rehabil-
itation programs because it is a portable
and a relatively inexpensive low-impact,
momentum-controlled resistance used
for multiplanar training unaffected by
gravitational forces. It also promotes
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org
neuromuscular coordination and sta-
bilization, which are all important
factors in postinjury rehabilitation
(52). RBR training may be used to
benefit many different components of
the musculoskeletal system, including
increases in muscle mass, power and
endurance, decreased body fat, and
improved balance, gait, and mobility
(53). Exercises performed in the trans-
verse plane would benefit from RBR
because the resistance supplied by the
rubber bands is collinear to the move-
ment. Rotator cuff rehabilitation pro-
grams use rubber bands for this very
reason, as internal and external rota-
tions about the shoulder are performed
in the transverse plane. Many baseball
pitchers use RBR training after re-
constructive surgery of torn rotator
cuffs initially to increase strength of the
internal and external rotators and to
the increase range of motion about the
glenohumeral joint (47,54,63). Reha-
bilitation programs that use RBR
training include stroke patients, osteo-
arthritic patients, elderly populations,
contracture patients, and other patho-
logical groups. Through supplemented
RBR training programs, stroke, osteo-
arthritic, and elderly patients have
demonstrated improvements in strength,
gait, balance, and function, leading to
improved quality of life and the pre-
vention of falls (13,41,50,52,55). Manor
et al. (44) also found that rubber bands
were a valid and reliable means to assess
upper extremity strength in older adults.
It is inferred that RBR training can be
used effectively in exercises with as-
cending strength curves because of the
57
Forms of Variable Resistance Training

similarities between the deformation–

tension relationship of RBR and the
force-joint angle relationship of an
ascending strength curve. When com-
bining bands with free weights, it is
recommended that RBR comprises
20–35% the total resistance and free
weights comprise the remaining 65–
80%, with a total load of 60% or 80–
85% of the athletes 1-repetition max-
imum (1RM) to improve peak power
and peak force outputs, respectively,
for the back squat and possibly other
ascending strength curve exercises
(49,57,64). Anderson et al. (1) com-
pared a free weight training group to
a combined training group (free-
weight plus RBR) with similar baseline
measurements. They found that sup-
plemented RBR training improve-
ments during the back squat and
bench press were significantly greater
than that of the free weight-only
training group. 1RM performance
was 3 times greater for the back squat
(16.47 6 5.67% kg vs. 6.84 6 4.42 % kg)
and 2 times greater for the bench press
(6.68 6 3.41% kg vs. 3.34 6 2.67% kg)
with the supplemented RBR training
(1). The back squat and bench press
supplemented with RBR may be help-
ful in training athletes who could
benefit from increased strength, aver-
age and peak power, and peak force, as
found in studies by Anderson et al. (1)
and Wallace et al. (64). These increases
may translate into improvements in
maximum strength, vertical jump, bal-
listic ability, and enhanced sport per-
formance, but investigations have yet
to fully demonstrate these adaptations.
RBR also can be used to magnify the
stretch load and enhance the eccentric
phase during plyometric training (see
Figure 10). In this exercise, the athlete
begins the movement with the RBR on
stretch, which increases the accelera-
tion and subsequent medio-lateral
ground reaction forces to the athlete
when they step inwards (14). RBR is
also applied to other sport-specific
training programs, including the vari-
ous tennis strokes and catcher-specific
movements in baseball, but there is no
empirical evidence related to the
Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
58 VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2009
Figure 10. Bungie plyometric training.
efficacy of these programs (6,22). For
the various tennis strokes, tubing may
promote the development of speed and
strength, an important combination in
developing a superior tennis stroke.
Initially, resistance in the tubing is low,
allowing for an increase in limb
velocity and, as the athlete moves
through the range of motion, resistance
progressively increases, providing
overload to the involved musculature
(6,7). If resistance is too low initially,
dumbbells can be supplemented with
rubber bands and tubing to provide an
increase in resistance (7). For catchers,
once the ball is caught, it is important
to ascend quickly into the throwing
position. This is done by exploding out
of the squat position while simulta-
neously rotating the hips and feet into
the correct throwing stance. A harness
and RBR bands are attached to the
athlete and as the athlete explodes out
of the squat position resistance is
increased, training the athlete to gener-
ate greater speed and power through
the quadriceps, hamstrings, gluteals, hip,
and torso musculature (22). It must be
noted that adding RBR to sport-specific
movements may change the natural
coordination of the movement and
result in performance decrement if
used as the main source of resistance
training; therefore, the use of RBR in
combination with sport-specific free
weight and body weight movements
may prove to be the most beneficial
form of training.
Limitations of RBR. The lack of re-
search and scientific evidence to sup-
port the practical benefits of RBR is
a major limitation to the efficacy of
RBR training. Some clinicians think
that the limitations of RBR training
outweigh the benefits, such as the
inability to quantify resistive load and
prescribe specific loading patterns, due
to the viscoelastic properties of rubber.
It should also be noted that RBR
products have stretch maximums
known as yield and fracture points,
where the rubber begins to break down
and eventually fail, which may pose
a problem for movements with sig-
nificant displacements, such as the
squat, standing shoulder press and push
press (57).
It may be that the use of RBR is limited
to a specific group of ascending
strength curve exercises and may not
be suitable for exercises with bell-
shaped and descending strength curves
because it could be detrimental to the
development of strength and other
kinematic and kinetic variables.
However, this is dependent upon the
equipment set-up and goal of the
movement. For example, because of
contradicting deformation–tension re-
lationship of RBR and the force–joint
angle relationship of the musculoskel-
etal lever system, RBR may be in-
adequate for certain resistance training
exercises, because the contracting
muscle(s) would be improperly over-
loaded (22,28,46,51). Wallace et al. (64)
found that peak power during the back
squat decreased by 13% using RBR at
a substituted 35% of the total load
when compared with RBR at 20%.
Another study on the back squat by
Ebben and Jensen (17) found no
significant differences for integrated
electromyography and mean ground
reaction forces when using RBR at
a substituted 10% of the total load
compared to traditional constant ex-
ternal resistance squats.
Given these findings, it may be that
supplemented RBR training is bene-
ficial to a very narrow range of
constant resistance loads on the
loading spectrum. Future research
should be conducted on measuring
the kinematic and kinetic variables
during varying intensities of RBR
training for exercises with ascending
strength curves. The long-term effi-
cacy of RBR training on force and
power output needs to be investigated
and compared with other modes of
resistance training. Also, charts con-
verting or equating the deformation–
tension relationships of RBR bands to
mass in pounds and kilograms should
be readily available to assist clinicians
Figure 11. Resistive curves of; (a) rubber-based resistance (5 different bands), and (b) chain resistance (5 different chain widths).
Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
and practitioners in prescribing spe-
cific loading intensities (62).
CHAINS
Chain and RBR properties are similar
in that resistance increases throughout
the range of motion; however, one
resistance type increases in a linear
(chains) and the other in a curvilinear
(RBR) fashion (Figure 11). The 2 forms
differ in terms of their physical and
mechanical properties; rubber bands
are composed of hydrocarbon poly-
mers and chains are composed of steel,
which is a combination of iron and
carbon. RBR is dependent on the
stress–strain or deformation–tension
relationship, whereas chain resistance
is dependent on vertical displacement
and gravitational force.
Chains can be added to free weights to
vary the loading pattern (external re-
sistance) and training stimulus. Chains,
although an unconventional training
technique, have become popular
among some high-level power and
weightlifters (12,57). In a research
study on chains, Coker et al. (12)
observed that time of applied force,
initial acceleration, and the recruitment
and activity of stabilizing and synergist
muscles are increased via chain train-
ing. Members of the powerlifting
community also have used chains in
their training because it is believed that
this is an effective resistance mode for
developing speed, acceleration, and
absolute strength. However, little sci-
entific evidence exists to support these
claims, and future research is required
to validate such contentions (57).
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org
Kinematics and Kinetics Chains. Me-
chanically, adding chains to the ends of
a barbell has a similar net effect as RBR
in the vertical direction; as the bar
moves upward, resistance progres-
sively increases because the chains
are lifted off the ground, and as the
bar is lowered the resistance decreases
(9). Chain structure, density, length,
and diameter are determinants of chain
weight and must be known to prescribe
specific loading intensities. Berning
et al. (9) developed charts matching
chain link diameter and length to mass
that could prove to be of practical
benefit, as chain weight increases and
decreases in proportion to the number
of links that leave the floor. An example
is displayed below in table form based
on chain sets (two chains of equal
diameter and length) (Table 2) (9).
Chains should be a minimum of 2½
meters in length, as some powerlifting
and weightlifting movements have
a large range of bar displacements
depending on the exercise-lift and
height of the athlete-lifter. The addi-
tional chain length is needed because it
is important to keep a portion of the
chain in contact with the floor at all
times to prevent injury and limit
excessive oscillation and sway (9).
The weight of the chain is calculated
by multiplying the mass (kg) of the
chain links leaving the floor by gravity
(~9.81 m/s2). Because of the gravita-
tional dependent properties of chains,
movements should be performed in the
vertical plane for maximal chain re-
sistance and optimal training benefits.
59
Forms of Variable Resistance Training

Table 2
Chain mass, length and diameter

cm in cm in cm in cm in cm in
Length
Diameter (cm) 10 4 50 20 100 40 150 59 200 79
Mm Inches Mass kg lbs kg lbs kg lbs kg lbs kg lbs
(kg)
6.4 ¼ 0.3 0.6 1.3 2.8 2.5 5.5 3.8 8.3 5.0 11.0
9.5 3/8 0.4 0.8 1.9 4.1 3.7 8.1 5.6 12.2 7.4 16.3
12.7 ½ 0.7 1.6 3.7 8.1 7.4 16.3 11.1 24.4 14.8 32.6
19.1 G 1.4 3.1 7.0 15.4 14.0 30.8 21.0 46.2 28.0 61.6
22.2 7/8 2.2 4.8 10.8 23.8 21.6 47.5 32.4 71.3 43.2 95.0
25.4 1 2.8 6.2 14.0 30.8 28.0 61.6 42.0 92.4 56.0 123.0

The multi-joint movements in power-
lifting (e.g., bench press, deadlift, and
squat) and specific phases (assistance
lifts) of weightlifting (e.g., snatch, clean
and jerk) have ascending strength
curves and are performed primarily in
the vertical planes (sagittal and frontal),
as illustrated in Figure 12. With
ascending strength curve exercises,
the musculoskeletal system gains a me-
chanical advantage as the working
muscles extend the involved joint seg-
ments. Varying the resistance through-
out the lift alters the kinetic (e.g., force,
work, and power) and kinematic (e.g.,
time, velocity, and acceleration) varia-
bles. Theoretically, adding chains to
powerlifting movements and assistance
lifts (e.g., first pull in the clean and the
snatch, and the jerk phase in the clean
and jerk) in weightlifting with ascend-
ing strength curves, should allow for
enhanced acceleration during the ini-
tial phase of the lifts. At the base of the
lift, the chains’ external resistance and
human torque capabilities are low; and
progressively increase throughout the
range of motion to match the muscu-
loskeletal system’s increased ability to
produce force and create torque (9).
During these multi-joint movements
the musculoskeletal system’s ability to
handle greater external forces (loads)
increases as the involved joints extend
and reach a position of single joint
configuration i.e. the involved joints
have reached full extension and the
external load is applying a compressive
Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
60 VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2009
force (65). It has been proposed that
using chains with powerlifting and
various assistant weightlifting move-
ments may promote the development
of power, acceleration, motor control,
stabilization and enhanced neurologi-
cal adaptation (9,12,27). In terms of
power development, this makes sense,
as there is an initial increase in
movement velocity and latter increase
in muscular force requirement, caused
by the progressively increasing external
resistive load of the chains. However, it
should be remembered that most of the
aforementioned claims are anecdotal.
Practical Applications of Chains. The
use of chains alone and in combination
with free weight training is becoming
more frequently used by strength and
conditioning practitioners as a method
of training. It has been suggested that
chains improve strength and power,
extend the duration of the acceleration
phase and subsequently increase ve-
locity during the positive (concentric)
phase of the lift (e.g., bench press).
Whether this is actually true is yet to be
determined and the reader needs to be
cognizant of this limitation when
reading the literature in this area.
One practitioner has suggested that
optimal strength gains are achieved
using 1RM loads of 80–100% com-
posed of a chain resistance of 10–15%
of the total load with the remaining
85–90% of the load comprised of free
weight resistance (5,57). On the basis of
the overload principle, muscular force
production may be increased towards
the end range of the lift, as the
musculoskeletal system must adapt to
the increasing external load of the
chains (24,27). Athletes could possibly
increase absolute strength, as supple-
menting free-weights with chains will
result in a greater maximum load
compared with free-weight only train-
ing, due to the reduction and change in
position of the sticking point for
ascending strength curve movements.
For example, if an athlete has a maxi-
mum bench press of 100 kg, he/she
should be able to bench press a total
load greater than that of his of her
maximum, due to the change (rise) in
position of the sticking point. One
practitioner suggested using a lighter
free weight load (e.g., 90 kg) and attach
additional chain resistance (e.g., 15 kg)
to the bar, resulting in a total apex load
greater than the athletes 1RM (105 kg),
possibly leading to increases in maxi-
mal strength (17,57). As for optimal
gains in power, another practitioner
suggested that a lighter total resistance
between 60 to 90 % of the athletes
1RM be used, with 80–85% of the
percentage load coming from free
weight resistance and 15–20% from
chains; as this changes the kinetics of
a strength exercise into a power exer-
cise allowing for greater acceleration
throughout the range of motion (5). All
of these practical benefits may poten-
tially lead to a stronger more explosive
 Figure 12. The deadlift supplemented with chains, illustrating a collinear movement with respect to gravity.
athlete and could possibly be applied to
sport specific training programs. Ath-
letes who must overcome large exter-
nal resistances (e.g., American football,
rugby, wrestling, and mixed martial
arts) may benefit from strength and
power training programs supple-
mented with chains.
Chains may be a useful supplement to
free-weight resistance in that they add
a variable training stimulus to a training
program, which would be otherwise
unavailable (57). The oscillating chains
provide a predictable, but varying
movement path, as a result of the
applied force. Practitioners claim that
the oscillating chains may promote
improved motor control, increased
activation and recruitment of stabiliz-
ing and synergist muscles, and en-
hanced neurological adaptation; but
these claims are not scientifically
supported and may merely be a result
of performing free weight resistance
(9,12). It may be speculated that chains
offer a changing external resistance
proportional to the mechanical advan-
tage gained by the musculoskeletal
lever system as the joints extend and
flex throughout positive-concentric
and negative-eccentric phases. How-
ever, the benefits of training with
Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
chains are not well documented and
current claims lack scientific support;
therefore, some of the contentions
must be viewed with caution.
Limitations of Chains. One distinct
limitation in chain training is the lack
of scientific research performed in this
area; most claims are anecdotal and
until conclusive evidence is presented,
the proposed benefits remain hypo-
thetical. Two studies, one by Coker
et al. (12) and the other by Berning
et al. (8), found that lifting with chains
versus lifting without chains did not
cause any changes in the kinematic and
kinetic variables of the lifter during the
snatch; which may have been due to
the a low chain load (5% of the total
load) used. In addition, only a limited
number of kinematic and kinetic var-
iables were measured in these studies,
none of which truly reflected the
technique of the lifters, giving sports
scientists another reason to be skeptical
of chain training. Because chain load
varies with position and, therefore,
time, position- and time-dependent
variables should be considered in
future research (e.g., time to peak force
and peak power, position of peak force,
peak power, and maximum velocity).
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org
There is limited information on the
relationship between chain diameter
and length to weight ratios (9). The
length, diameter, and density of the
chain, as well as the selected exercise,
segment length, and height of the lifter,
dictates how much weight the lifter
will be moving throughout the range of
motion (9). All of these factors must be
taken into consideration when calcu-
lating the exact load of the correspond-
ing chain. In this process, the chance of
calculation error would increase as the
number of factors considered increases.
The average external chain load and
length to weight ratios over the entire
range of motion should be measured
and calculated to allow practitioners to
prescribe specific and precise loading
patterns for the desired lift and in-
dividual. These measures need to be
validated and published in a standard-
ized chart, as none currently exist. The
following measures should be in-
cluded; chain diameter to weight ratios
and chain length to weight ratios
ranging from 1 to 250 centimeters in
length as the ranges in displacements
(range of motion) vary largely from
exercise to exercise.
In terms of the strength curves, because
chain weight increases in a positive
61
Forms of Variable Resistance Training
linear fashion, exercises with descend-
ing and bell-shaped strength curves
may not be properly overloaded with
chains. For optimal benefits, chain
training may be limited to ascending
strength curve exercises. The gap
between scientific data and anecdotal
claims is a clear indication that future
research is required if chains are to
become a valid mode of training for
enhancing power, strength and athletic
performance (12).
CONCLUSION
After reviewing the different forms of
VR training, we hope that a better
understanding and appreciation of the
kinematics and kinetics, practical ap-
plications, and limitations has been
acquired. Cam and lever systems are
designed to accommodate exercises
with ascending, descending and bell-
shaped strength curves purportedly
enabling greater specificity in terms
of overloading the working muscles,
but there is contradictory evidence in
the literature. The systems resistive
torque is designed to match human
torque capabilities, increasing resis-
tance at points where strength is
greatest and decreasing the resistance
at points where the strength is lowest;
but again there is much debate over the
validity and effectiveness of cam and
lever systems as a mode of resistance
training. Cams and levers also are used
widely in the rehabilitation setting to
correct muscle imbalances and certain
pathologies; where single joint-
designed machines allow clients to
isolate a specific group of muscles. A
major limitation to cam and lever sys-
tems is that the movement must travel
a fixed path and may not accommo-
date for the biomechanical and phys-
iological variations of the individual. A
fixed movement path may also hinder
development of intramuscular and
intermuscular coordination. Even with
these limitations, cam and lever sys-
tems can still be utilized effectively in
resistance training programs.
RBR is viscoelastic and its tension is
determined by its stiffness properties,
where its curvilinear deformation-
tension relationship is better fitted by
Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
62 VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2009
a second order polynomial, rather than
a first order-linear function polynomial,
as rubber is not purely elastic. RBR
may be used in a multiple of planes (e.g.
sagittal, frontal, transverse, and obli-
que), as the resistance is collinear to
and directly opposes most exercise
movements. For this reason, RBR is
used widely in the rehabilitation setting
for many pathologies (e.g., contrac-
tures, patellofemoral pain, stroke,
elderly, and osteoarthritis) and sport
specific training (e.g. sprint, rotator
cuff rehabilitation, racket sports).
RBR provides a low-load resistance
for initial rehabilitation, and when used
in conjunction with constant external
resistance, it can gradually and pro-
gressively increase strength in weak
atrophied muscles. RBR used in com-
bination with free weight resistance has
been beneficial in improving various
kinematic and kinetic variables over
a narrow range of loading intensities.
Limitations arise, as RBR has visco-
elastic properties where tension in-
creases in a curvilinear fashion and may
not compensate exercises with de-
scending and bell-shaped strength
curves. The lack of scientific support
for RBR training and the limited
research quantifying its viscoelastic
properties (deformation-tension rela-
tionship), provides further constraints
to RBR training, hence the need for
future research.
Chain resistance increases linearly with
displacement and can be represented
by a basic linear function (first order
polynomial), as chain resistance is
gravity dependent and determined by
the density, diameter and length of the
chain; therefore, chain resistance
would appear best suited for training
exercises with ascending strength
curves, such as the squat, dead-lift,
bench press and shoulder press. Vari-
ous reputed practitioners have claimed
improvements in the kinematic and
kinetic variables of the lifter, as well as
increased activation of stabilizing
muscles and enhanced neurological
adaptations; but a lack of scientific
evidence has led many to be skeptical
of chain training. Limitations to chain
training also include the lack of
standardization in regards to the type
and quality of steel used for resistance
training. Another inherent limitation is
that chain weight to displacement
ratios have not been properly quanti-
fied over a large displacement range.
Future biomechanical research is re-
quired in the area of VR training
modes, in order to bridge the gap
between the practitioner and scientist.
Ariel (3) once said that ‘‘the equipment
should adapt to the user rather than
the user adapt to the equipment.’’
Following along with this line of logic
when implementing resistance training
programs, the kinematic and kinetic
profiles associated with the various
modes of resistance should be consid-
ered and prescribed appropriately to
match the varying human strength
curves and mechanical advantage of
the different musculoskeletal lever
systems; as well as the sport and
athlete specific training goals (2,3).
Travis
McMaster is
a Master of
Sports Science
student specializ-
ing in biome-
chanics at Edith
Cowan Univer-
sity, Western
Australia.
John Cronin is
an Associate
Professor at Edith
Cowan University.
Michael
McGuigan is
a Senior Lecturer
at Edith Cowan
University and
a strength and
conditioning
specialist.
REFERENCES
1. Anderson C, Sforzo G, and Sigg J. The
effects of combining elastic and free weight
resistance on strength and power in athletes.
J Strength Cond Res 22: 567–574, 2008.
2. Ariel G. Variable resistance vs. standard
resistance training. Schol Coach 46:
58–69, 1976.
3. Ariel G. Symposium on Olympic sports
medicine. Clin Sports Med 2: 55–69, 1983.
4. Ashby M and Jones D. Engineering Materials
2: An Introduction to Microstructures,
Processing and Design. Oxford:
Butterworth and Heinemann, 2006. pp. 352.
5. Baker D and Newton RU. Methods to
increase the effectiveness of maximal
power training for the upper body. Strength
Cond J 27: 24–32, 2005.
6. Behm DG. A kinesiological analysis of the
tennis service. Natl Strength Cond Assoc J
10: 4–14, 1988.
7. Behm DG. Surgical tubing for sport and
velocity specific training. Natl Strength
Cond Assoc J 10: 66–67, 1988.
8. Berning J, Coker A, and Briggs D. The
biomechanical and perceptual influence of
chain resistance on the performance of the
Olympic clean. J Strength Cond Res 22:
390–395, 2008.
9. Berning JM, Coker CA, and Adams KJ.
Using chains for strength and conditioning.
Strength Cond J 26: 80–84, 2004.
10. Blazevich A. Kinetic chain. In: Sports
Biomechanics, The Basics: Optimising
Human Performance. London: A & C
Black, 2007. pp. 184–193.
11. Cabell L and Zebas CJ. Resistive torque
validation of nautilus multi-biceps machine.
J Strength Cond Res 13: 20–23, 1999.
12. Coker CA, Berning JM, and Briggs DL. A
preliminary investigation of the
biomechanical and perceptual influence of
chain resistance on the performance of the
snatch. J Strength Cond Res 20:
887–891, 2006.
13. Cress ME, Buchner D, Prohaska T, Rimmer
J, Brown M, Macera C, DePietro L, and
Chodzko-Zajko W. Physical activity
programs and behavior counseling in older
adult populations. Med Sci Sports Exerc
36: 1997–2003, 2004.
14. Cronin J, McNair PJ, and Marshall RN. The
effects of bungy weight training on muscle
function and functional performance.
J Sports Sci 21: 59–71, 2003.
15. Damush TM and Damush JG. The effects of
strength training on strength and health-
related quality of life in older adult women.
Geriatrics 39: 705–710, 1999.
Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
16. Dursun N, Dursun E, and Kilic Z.
Electromyographic biofeedback controlled
exercise versus conservative care for
patellofemoral pain syndrome. Arch Phys
Med Rehabil 82: 1692–1695,
2001.
17. Ebben W and Jensen R. Electromyographic
and kinematic analysis of traditional, chain,
and elastic band squats. J Strength Cond
Res 16: 547–550, 2002.
18. Edman P. Contractile performance of
skeletal muscle fibres. In: Strength and
Power in Sport (2nd ed.). P. V. Komi ed.
Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2003.
pp. 119–123.
19. Enoka R. Neuromechanical Basis of
Kinesiology. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, 1994. pp. 480.
20. Enoka RM. Neural adaptations with chronic
physical activity. J Biomech 30: 447–455,
1997.
21. Enoka RM and Fuglevand AJ. Motor unit
physiology: some unresolved issues. Musc
Nerve 24: 4–17, 2001.
22. Findley BW. Training with rubber bands.
Natl Strength Cond Assoc J 26: 68–69,
2004.
23. Flanagan SP and Salem GJ. Lower
extremity joint kinetic responses to external
resistance variations. J Appl Biomech 24:
58–68, 2008.
24. Fleck SJ and Kraemer J. Designing
Resistance Training Programs (3rd ed.).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2004.
pp. 31
25. Fleming BC. Open or closed-kinetic chain
exercise after anterior cruciate ligament
reconstructions. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 33:
134–140, 2005.
26. Foran B. Advantages and disadvantages of
isokinetics, variable resistance, and free
weights. Natl Strength Cond Assoc J
February-March: 24–25, 1985.
27. Goss KA. A closer look at BFS chains
(chain research). Big Fast Strong Fall:
54–58, 2003.
28. Grimshaw P, Lees A, Fowler N, and Burden
A. Sport and Exercise Biomechanics. New
York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2006. pp.
11, 27, 28, 223–227.
29. Haff GG. Roundtable discussion:
Machines versus free weights. Strength
Cond J 22: 18–30, 2000.
30. Harman E. Resistive torque analysis of 5
nautilus exercise machines. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 15: 113, 1983.
31. Harman E. Biomechanical factors in human
strength. Natl Strength Cond Assoc J 16:
46–52, 1994.
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org
32. Harman E. Resistance training modes:
a biomechanical perspective. Natl Strength
Cond Assoc J 16: 59–65, 1994.
33. Harman E. Biomechanics of resistance
exercise. In: Essentials of Strength Training
and Conditioning (2nd ed.). T. R. Baechle
and R. W. Earle, eds. Champaign, IL
Human Kinetics, 25–55, 2000.
34. Hay JG, Andrews JG, and Vaughan CL.
Effects of lifting rate on elbow torques
exerted during arm curl exercise. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 15: 63–71, 1983.
35. Herbert RD and Gandevia SC. Changes in
pennation with joint angle and muscle torque:
in vivo measurements in human brachialis
muscle. J Physiol 484: 523–532, 1995.
36. Herzog W, Hasler E, and Abrahamse SK. A
comparison of knee extensor strength
curves obtained theoretically and
experimentally. Med Sci Sports Exerc 23:
108–114, 1991.
37. Johnson JH, Colodny S, and Jackson D. Human
torque capability versus machine resistive
torque for four eagle resistance machines.
J Appl Sport Sci Res 4: 83–87, 1990.
38. Knuttgen HG and Kraemer WJ. Terminology
and measurement in exercise performance.
J Appl Sport Sci Res 1: 1–10, 1987.
39. Koo TK and Mak AF. Feasibility of using
EMG driven neuromusculoskeletal model
for prediction of dynamic movement of the
elbow. J Electro Kin 15: 12–26, 2005.
40. Kulig K, Andrews J, and Hay J. Human
strength curves. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 12:
417–466, 1984.
41. Lai SM, Studenski S, Richards L, Perera S,
Reker D, Rigler S, and Duncan PW.
Therapeutic exercise and depressive
symptoms after stroke. J Am Geriat Soc
54: 240–247, 2006.
42. Landjerit B, Maton B, and Peres G. In vivo
muscular force analysis during the
isometric flexion on a monkey’s elbow.
J Biomech 21: 577–584, 1988.
43. Lutz GE, Palmitier RA, An KN, and Chao
EY. Comparison of tibiofemoral joint forces
during open-kinetic-chain and closed-
kinetic-chain exercises. J Bone Joint Surg
Am 75: 732–739, 1993.
44. Manor B, Topp R, and Page P. Validity and
reliability of measurements of elbow flexion
strength obtained form older adults using
elastic bands. J Geriat Phys Ther 29: 16–
19, 2006.
45. Mayer F, Schlumberger A, Van Cingel R,
Henrotin Y, Laube W, and Schmidtbleicher
D. Training and testing in open versus
closed kinetic chain. Iso Exerc Sci 11:
181–187, 2003.
63
Forms of Variable Resistance Training
46. McArdle WD, Katch FI, and Katch VL.
Exercise Physiology: Energy, Nutrition and
Human Performance. Baltimore: Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins, 2007. pp. 365–386.
47. McCann PD, Wootten ME, Kadaba MP,
and Bigliani LU. A kinematic and
electromyographic study of shoulder
rehabilitation exercises. Clin Orthop Rel
Res 288: 179–188, 1993.
48. Millar PD. Fitness Programming and
Physical Disability. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, 1995, pp. 222.
49. Newton R, Robertson M., Dugan E, Hasson
C, Cecil J, Gerber A, Hill J, Kenn J, and
Peterson M. Heavy elastic bands alter
force, velocity and power output during the
back squat lift (Abstract). J Strength Cond
Res 16: 1–18, 2002.
50. Olney SJ, Nymark J, Brouwer B, Culham E,
Day A, Heard J, Henderson M, and
Parvataneni K. A randomized controlled
trial of supervised versus unsupervised
exercise programs for ambulatory stroke
survivors. Stroke 37: 476–481, 2006.
51. Ozkaya N and Nordin M. Fundamentals of
Biomechanics: Equilibrium, Motion and
Deformation. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold, 1991. pp. 393.
52. Page P and Developing resistive exercise
programs using Thera-band elastic
bands & tubing. In: Thera-band
Academy. Akron: Hygenic Corporation,
2006. pp. 1–5.
53. Page P and Ellenbecker T. Strength Band
Training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,
2005. pp. 206.
54. Page P, Lamberth J, Abadie B, Boling R,
Collins R, and Linton R. Posterior rotator
cuff strengthening using TherabandÒ in
a functional diagonal pattern in collegiate
baseball pitchers. J Ath Train 28: 346,
348–350, 352–354, 1993.
55. Pang MY, Harris JE, and Eng JJ. A
community-based upper-extremity group
exercise program improves motor function
and performance of functional activities in
chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil 87: 1–9, 2006.
Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
64 VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2009
56. Pipes TV. Variable resistance versus
constant resistance strength training in
adult males. Eur J Appl Phys Occup Phys
39: 27–35, 1978.
57. Simmons LP. Bands and chains. Pow USA
22: 26–27, 1999.
58. Smith D and Bruce-Low S. Strength
training methods and the work of Arthur
Jones. J Exerc Phys 7: 52–68, 2004.
59. Smith F. Dynamic variable resistance and
the universal system. Natl Strength Cond
Assoc J August-September: 14–19, 1982.
60. Stone M, Plisk S, and Collins, D. Training
principles: evaluation of modes and
methods of resistance training—a coaching
perspective. Sports Biomech 1: 79–103,
2002.
61. Theraband. Theraband Company and
Overview. Akron: Hygenic Corporation,
2006.
62. Thomas M, Muller T, and Busse MW.
Quantification of tension in Thera–band
and cando tubing at different strains and
starting lengths. J Sports Med Phys Fit 45:
188–198, 2005.
63. Treiber FA, Lott J, Duncan J, Slavens G,
and Davis H. Effects of Theraband and
lightweight dumbbell training on shoulder
rotation torque and serve performance in
college tennis players. Am J Sports Med
26: 510–515, 1998.
64. Wallace BJ, Winchester JB, and McGuigan
MR. Effects of elastic bands on force and
power characteristics during the back
squat exercise. J Strength Cond Res 20:
268–272, 2006.
65. Wolff J. The Law of Bone Remodelling.
New York: Springer, 1986.
66. Zatsiorsky VM. Biomechanics of strength
and strength training. In: Strength and
Power in Sport (2nd ed.). P. V. Komi.
Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. pp. 439–487.
67. Zatsiorsky VM and Kraemer WJ. Science
and Practice of Strength Training. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics, 1995. pp. 243.