Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Sprint start training, progressive resistance training and the ability to accelerate to maximum velocity Morrish, William Angus 1979

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1979_A7_5 M67.pdf [ 4.71MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0077124.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0077124-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0077124-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0077124-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0077124-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0077124-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0077124-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0077124-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0077124.ris

Full Text

SPRINT START TRAINING, PROGRESSIVE RESISTANCE TRAINING AND THE ABILITY TO. ACCELERATE TO MAXIMUM VELOCITY by WILLIAM ANGUS MORRISH B.P.E., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1972 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF PHYSICAL .EDUCATION IN THE FACULT¥-_OE GRADUATE.STUDIES (SCHOOL OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND RECREATION) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH" COLUMBIA January 19 79 (c)GEORGE WILLIAM JOHNSON, 1975 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. I t i s understood that p u b l i c a t i o n , i n part or i n whole, or the copying of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. William Angus Morrish School of Physical Education and Recreation The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver V6T 1W5, Canada ABSTRACT The purpose of t h i s study was to investigate the e f f e c t progressive resistance t r a i n i n g has on the a b i l i t y to accelerate to maximum v e l o c i t y from an orthodox s p r i n t s t a r t p o s i t i o n . 32 subjects were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups: Group I (Control, n = 9), Group II (Progressive Resistance Training, n = 8), Group III (Sprint Start Training, n = 10), Group IV (Combination Progressive Resistance and Sprint Start Training, n = 5). Groups II and IV met three times a week for six weeks to weight t r a i n using the Universal Machine and b a r b e l l s . The subjects involved i n orthodox s p r i n t s t a r t t r a i n i n g met three times per week and accelerated a dis.tance of 50 meters for each t r i a l . Each subject performed a t o t a l of 20 t r i a l s per session. Testing for the s p r i n t performances occurred at the pre and post tests ( f i r s t and seventh week). Acceleration and v e l o c i t y maintenance time i n running 50 meters was recorded, with times taken at 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, and 50 meter i n t e r v a l s . The subjects were tested one week a f t e r the t r a i n i n g had ceased (seventh week) to allow them to recover from the f a t i g u i n g e f f e c t s of t r a i n i n g . The Nissen Leg Dynamometer Test for leg extension strength was administered at the end of the t h i r d and seventh weeks. The remainder of the t e s t s , Margaria Power Test, Hamstring strength t e s t and Running Machine Test, were administered three times during the experimental period: during the f i r s t week, at the end of the t h i r d week and at the end of the seventh week. Analysis of variance yielded no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the various treatment conditions i n s p r i n t i n g , power and strength performance. No one t r e a t -ment group improved more than the other. However, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t t r i a l s e f f e c t i n s p r i n t , power and strength performance, for the four treatment groups, showing that there was a s i g n i f i c a n t change i n performance by a l l four treatment groups over the t r i a l period. The re s u l t s of th i s study tend to support those researchers who found no s i g n i f i c a n t improvement i n sp r i n t i n g performance with the use of supplementary program of progressive resistance t r a i n i n g . However, the c o n f l i c t between the conclusions of t h i s study, and other s i m i l a r studies that found a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between progressive resistance t r a i n i n g and s p r i n t i n g performance, indicate that there i s a great deal yet to be learned about t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p . Experiments that deal with the a p p l i -cation of more s p e c i f i c types of strength t r a i n i n g to the ar t of s p r i n t i n g , and experiments that investigate the mechanism l i m i t i n g the rate of leg movement are needed. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS i v LIST OF TABLES . . . v i i LIST OF FIGURES. v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i x Chapter I. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM 1 Problem 3 Hypotheses 3 Limitations 4 Significance 5 I I . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 6 Introduction . . . 6 S p e c i f i c i t y and Generality i n Motor Learning 7 Progressive Resistance Training i n Relation to Speed of Movement of a Single Limb 9 Progressive Resistance Training i n Relation to Speed of Movement i n a Gross Motor A c t i v i t y 13 Chapter Page The E f f e c t of Various St a r t i n g Positions on Speed of Movement 17 Summary of Studies 19 II I . METHODS AND PROCEDURES 24 Subjects. 24 Experimental Design 25 Apparatus 2 8 Procedure 32 S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis 43 IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 44 Results 44 Analysis of Variance 44 Discussion 55 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 62 Problem 6 3 Limitations/Delimitations 6 3 Subjects 64 Methods and Procedures. . 64 Analysis of Data. 68 Results and Discussion 69 Conclusions 71 v i Chapter Page REFERENCES . 7 3 APPENDIX A - INSTRUCTIONS TO STUDENTS 79 APPENDIX B - RAW SCORES 81 APPENDIX C - ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLES . 96 APPENDIX D - CORRELATION OF COEFFICIENTS FOR LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN GROUPS 10 3 v i i LIST OF TABLES Table Page I. . Mean Velocit y Scores Obtained From the Test of Sprinting Performance for T r i a l Periods 1 and 3 45 II . Mean Power Scores Obtained from the Margaria Power Test for T r i a l Periods 1, 2, and 3 46 I I I . Mean Vel o c i t y Scores Obtained from the Margaria Power Test for T r i a l Periods 1, 2, and 3 46 IV. Mean Scores Obtained from the Hamstring Strength Test for T r i a l Periods 1, 2, and 3 47 V. Mean Scores Obtained from the Nissen Leg Dynamometer Test for T r i a l Periods 2, and 3 47 VI. Mean Scores Obtained from the Running Machine Test for T r i a l Periods. 1, 2, and 3 48 VII. Mean 50 Meter F i n a l Time for Treatment Groups Obtained from the Test of Sprinting Performance for T r i a l Periods 1, and 3. . . 58 v i i i LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. 4 x 2 F a c t o r i a l Design 26 2. 4 x 3 F a c t o r i a l Design 27 3. Design Layout of the Retrieval of the Acceleration times i n the 50 Meter Sprint. . 30 4. Mean Sprinting Performance i n Ve l o c i t y for the Four Treatment Conditions during T r i a l Periods 1, and 3 50 5. Mean Strength Performance i n Nissen Leg Dynamometer for the Four Treatment Conditions during T r i a l Periods 2, and 3 . . 51 6. Mean Power Performance for the Four Treatment Conditions during T r i a l Periods 1, 2, and 3 52 7. Mean Strength Performance on the Butkus Running Machine for the Four Treatment Conditions during T r i a l Periods 1, 2, and 3 53 8. Mean Strength Performance on the Hydraulic Hamstring Machine for the Four Treatment Conditions during T r i a l Periods 1, and 2, and 3. 54 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author would l i k e to thank a l l of those persons who have helped i n the preparation of t h i s t h e s i s : the thesis committee for i t s support and assistance, the subjects for p a r t i c i p a t i n g , Mrs. B e l l for typing, and Laurie Morrish for her encouragement. The author would e s p e c i a l l y l i k e to thank Mr. L. Pugh for a l l of the help and patience which he has extended as advisor to thi s t h e s i s , and Dr. R. W. Schutz for his continued support throughout the author 1 graduate program. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM Since the Second World War research into progressive resistance t r a i n i n g for strength gains, by such men as Delorme (1946), Houts, Parrish and Hellebrandt (1946), Capen (1950) and Berger (1962), has become accepted as a l o g i c a l , methodical and s c i e n t i f i c approach. A "generality" hypothesis stemming from t h i s research has been accepted by coaches, t r a i n e r s and many researchers; Clark (1950),. Morehouse and Cooper (19 6 7) , Marlow and Watts (19 70) and Dintiman (1971). This hypothesis states that weight t r a i n i n g produces strength gains which w i l l improve the performance i n a p a r t i c u l a r s k i l l . Normally, locomotion of the human body or i t s segments w i l l occur when muscular force i s applied. Newton's Second Law of Motion (Law of Acceleration) states that the rate of change of momentum i s proportional to the impressed force, and the actual change takes place i n the d i r e c t i o n in which the force acts. A body or i t s segment(s) accelerates only i n proportion to the magnitude of the impressed force. Normally then, force must be applied before movement can occur. For most p r a c t i c a l purposes, as far as human locomotion i s concerned, the impressed force i s always muscular. Thus, i t would appear l o g i c a l to suggest that while performing progressive resistance exercises using the extensors of the lower limbs, and thereby increasing the muscle's capacity to exert force, that propulsive force can be increased and thus running speed. Relevant to the question of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between progressive resistance t r a i n i n g for increased capacity to exert force and the capacity of speed of movement, Clarke (1950) states that, speed also depends upon strength. This i s merely another way of saying that a strong man can l i f t more than a weak one, or that the strength of a motor l i m i t s the speed of an automobile, that i s , a l l other things being equal, the stronger the i n d i v i d u a l , the faster he can run. Morehouse and Cooper (1950) point out that the importance of strength i n accelerating the limbs at high speed i s well recog-nized and determines, to a c e r t a i n extent, the speed of running. Dintiman (19 74) points out that i t has become apparent that the strength of the muscles involved i n the s p r i n t i n g action determines, to some extent, the maximum running speed of an i n d i v i d u a l and states that weight t r a i n i n g exercises have constituted the most successful supplementary program i n developing the strength of muscles involved i n s p r i n t i n g action, and ultimately i n s p r i n t i n g speed. The use of weight t r a i n i n g following the p r i n c i p l e s of progressive resistance t r a i n i n g , as a supplemental program to s p r i n t t r a i n i n g , has become accepted as part of s p r i n t t r a i n i n g programs. There are two basic factors that control s p r i n t i n g performance, they are: rate of leg movement or str i d e s per second, and drive or s t r i d e length. Weight t r a i n i n g improves the strength of the extensors of the lower limbs. This improved strength i s thought by some a u t h o r i t i e s , Marlow and Watts (1970), Dintiman (1971) to r e s u l t i n an increase i n s t r i d e length. The rationale given by these a u t h o r i t i e s for using t h i s method for strength gains i s that i f s t r i d e length i s increased and the rate of leg movement can be maintained, then s p r i n t i n g performance w i l l be improved. However, a review of the l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d to the topic of the ap p l i c a t i o n of progressive resistance and i t s e f f e c t on s p r i n t i n g speed provides contradictory information. The majority of the studies reviewed appear to support a s p e c i f i c i t y hypothesis. This hypothesis states that to improve the performance of a p a r t i c u l a r s k i l l , p r actise of that s k i l l w i l l be the most b e n e f i c i a l . Problem The purpose of this i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s to determine the e f f e c t , over a six week t r a i n i n g period, of progressive resistance t r a i n i n g on the a b i l i t y to accelerate to maximum v e l o c i t y , from an orthodox s p r i n t s t a r t i n g p o s i t i o n . Hypotheses In l i g h t of the present evidence r e l a t i n g to the problem, the following hypotheses were proposed: (i) No s i g n i f i c a n t difference exists between the s p r i n t s t a r t t r a i n i n g group (Group III) and the progressive resistance plus s p r i n t s t a r t t r a i n i n g group (Group IV) i n the v e l o c i t y curve aft e r a six week t r a i n i n g period ( i i ) No s i g n i f i c a n t difference e x i s t s between the control (Group I) and the progressive resistance t r a i n i n g group (Group II) i n the v e l o c i t y curve a f t e r a six week t r a i n i n g period. Limitations This i n v e s t i g a t i o n was l i m i t e d by the sample size of 41 subjects. A more complete in v e s t i g a t i o n into the various methods and e f f e c t s "strength t r a i n i n g " has on acceleration from a s p r i n t s t a r t i n g p o s i t i o n might have been undertaken. However, due to the small population size a v a i l a b l e , i t was f e l t best to thoroughly investigate one method of strength t r a i n i n g . This study was further l i m i t e d by a change of progressive resistance t r a i n i n g a c t i v i t y modes, due to machinery malfunction from the Universal gym to b a r b e l l s and weights, during the t h i r d week of the experiment. This change of apparatus resulted i n a change i n the evaluation technique of maximal leg extension strength from the Universal gym to the Nissen leg dynamometer. This study was also l i m i t e d by the change of clock counters used to measure the performance i n the Margaria Power t e s t for the second (middle) t e s t i n g period. The change of clock counters meant that there was no second t e s t i n g period for the 50 meter s p r i n t . Significance Many track and f i e l d coaches throughout the world advocate progressive resistance t r a i n i n g using apparatus for the purpose of improving strength which they f e e l w i l l improve the athletes' a b i l i t y to s p r i n t f a s t e r . There has been a great deal of research into the degree of generality or s p e c i f i c i t y that exists between the strength gained i n pro-gressive resistance t r a i n i n g and the e f f e c t t h i s improved strength has on the performance of a p a r t i c u l a r s k i l l , i . e . , accelerating to maximum v e l o c i t y from a s p r i n t s t a r t i n g p o s i t i o n . The res u l t s of t h i s research are not c l e a r . This study w i l l attempt to c l a r i f y the r e l a t i o n s h i p between one form of progressive resistance t r a i n i n g and the a b i l i t y to accelerate, and reach maximum v e l o c i t y from an orthodox s p r i n t s t a r t i n g p o s i t i o n . 6 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction The s c i e n t i f i c p r i n c i p l e of. increasing strength by increasing the load or resistance against which the muscles work, has been, employed extensively by i n d i v i d u a l s interested i n competitive weight l i f t i n g . I t has also been used for general strength development i n improving a t h l e t i c perfor-mance, as well as i n r e h a b i l i t a t i n g i n d i v i d u a l s p h y s i c a l l y weakened by disease or i n j u r y . Delorme (19 46), using a method of heavy resistance and low r e p e t i t i o n exercises, found that subjects increased t h e i r muscular strength. Houts, Parrish and Hallebrandt (19 46) also studied progressive resistance a c t i v i t i e s using heavy resistance and low r e p e t i t i o n exercises and found that strength may more than double i n four weeks of systematic t r a i n i n g . Varying types of progressive resistance t r a i n i n g methods have been used to assess i t s c a p a b i l i t y i n developing strength. Morant (19 70), using i s o k i n e t i c , isometric and i s o t o n i c t r a i n i n g programs i n increasing strength, found that a l l methods improved strength. Bergeron (1966) and Bates (1967) studied the e f f e c t on the a c q u i s i t i o n of strength of 7 s t a t i c and dynamic exercises i n various positions of a bench press movement. They found a l l strength t r a i n i n g methods improved muscular strength s i g n i f i c a n t l y . Berger (1962a, 1962b, 1965) investigated strength gains involving v a r i a t i o n i n r e p e t i t i o n and set number, as well as weight load l i f t e d with free weights. He came to some int e r e s t i n g conclusions that were incorporated into t h i s experiment. Berger (1962a) investigated the e f f e c t of varied weight tr a i n i n g programs on strength i n a bench press movement for a period of 12 weeks. He found that 3 sets and 6 r e p e t i t i o n s were best for improving strength. In two further studies Berger (1962b, 1965) found that t r a i n i n g with submaximal loads was just as e f f e c t i v e for improving strength as t r a i n i n g with maximum loads. Berger (1962b), over a period of 12 weeks, used a bench press movement for te s t i n g strength gains. He found that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the 90% maximal l i f t group i n performing 10 r e p e t i t i o n s . Berger (1965) compared 66%, 80%, 90% and maximal e f f o r t l i f t s on strength gains. He found that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between each group a f t e r a 6 week t e s t i n g period. A squat l i f t i n g movement was used as the strength t e s t . Berger's r e s u l t s are s i g n i f i c a n t , for they show a minimum amount of e f f o r t required to increase strength. S p e c i f i c i t y and Generality i n Motor Learning Henry and Nelson (19 56) stated that i n d i v i d u a l s have many s p e c i f i c a b i l i t i e s , rather than a large general factor. One of the major predictions i s that i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among apparently s i m i l a r motor tasks, w i l l be very low, i n d i c a t i n g that there i s no common factor upon which the tasks depend. Individual differences i n a b i l i t y to p r o f i t by pra c t i s e are s p e c i f i c to that s k i l l and d e f i n i t e l y do not pre d i c t the a b i l i t y to improve by practise i n some other s k i l l . Bachman (1961) also concluded that motor learning i s remarkably task s p e c i f i c , a f t e r experimenting with two large muscle balancing a c t i v i t i e s . Oxendine's (1966) in v e s t i g a t i o n u t i l i z i n g both a discrete and a gross motor s k i l l , generally supported the concept of a s p e c i f i c i t y i n the learning and performance of s k i l l s . The concept of task s p e c i f i c i t y i s widely understood and accepted i n regard to motor learning. The coach, whether he i s the volunteer club coach who at times follows his i n t u i t i o n in applying t r a i n i n g methods, or whether he i s the physical education s p e c i a l i s t who one would hope would apply the p r i n c i p l e s of motor learning, understands that one does not have athletes t r a i n to be sprinters by running large amounts of long, slow running. Nor would the coach have the distance runner t r a i n as the weight man does, spending long hours l i f t i n g prodigious poundages. To perform a task well, one must practise that task. However, controversy e x i s t s regarding the strength gains derived from supplementary ac-t i v i t y of progressive resistance t r a i n i n g , and the a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s a d d i t i o n a l strength to a s p e c i f i c s k i l l . 9 Progressive Resistance Training in Relation to Speed of  Movement of a Single Limb Several studies during the past few years have presented data which reveal the s p e c i f i c nature of muscular neuro-motor a c t i v i t i e s . Wilkins (1952) found in his study that t r a i n i n g with heavy exercise of the resistance type decreased speed of movement and resulted i n a decrease i n f l e x i b i l i t y . A semester program of weight t r a i n i n g does not increase speed of movement more than a semester of beginning swimming or g o l f . Masley et a l . (1953), i n studies on strength t r a i n i n g and speed of arm movement, found that increased strength, gained through a program of weight t r a i n i n g where moderate poundages and i n -creased r e p e t i t i o n s were practised, apparently bore some association with increased coordination and speed, although i t was not demonstrated that increased strength produced better coordination or more rapid movement. Henry and Whitley (19 59) in t h e i r study on the rela t i o n s h i p s between i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r -ences i n strength, speed and mass i n an arm movement, found that the r e s u l t s agree with the concept that strength as o r d i n a r i l y measured i s determined by a neuro-motor coordina-tion pattern rather than the ultimate p h y s i o l o g i c a l capacity of the muscle. The neuro-motor pattern energizing the muscle i s d i f f e r e n t during movement. Lotter (1960) has reported that i n the case of a standardized arm movement made with maximal speed, there i s 36% general arm speed a b i l i t y and 64% speed a b i l i t y that i s s p e c i f i c to the r i g h t or l e f t arm. There i s also a large amount of b i l a t e r a l neuro-motor spe c i -10 f i c i t y i n the speed of leg movements. Clarke and Henry (19 61), using weight t r a i n i n g for strength increases in a single limb, found that there was no c o r r e l a t i o n between i n d i v i d u a l differences i n speed and strength mass r a t i o , but changes in the r a t i o correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y (r=.405) with i n d i v i d u a l changes in speed. Pierson and Rasch (1964) used a four week weight t r a i n i n g program to determine the e f f e c t s of general arm strength on reaction time (RT) and speed of arm extension, movement time (MT). They found that the product moment cor r e l a t i o n , of RT and MT, was r e l a t i v e l y unchanged by four weeks of weight t r a i n i n g (r=.4 7 before and .37 a f t e r t r a i n i n g ) . I t may be assumed that increases i n general arm strength do not a f f e c t the speed of reaction or arm extension. Colgate (1966) studied arm strength related to arm speed. He used four groups; speed of movement, speed of movement against resistance, strength and contr o l . The a c t i v i t i e s i n the three groups were the same; horizontal adduction, h o r i z o n t a l abduc-tion , extension from v e r t i c a l and f l e x i o n from h o r i z o n t a l . He found that there was c o n f l i c t i n g evidence. He found that there i s evidence that a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between gains i n speed of movement and gains i n speed of movement against a resistance, but i t i s not conclusive i n his study. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between gains i n strength and gains i n speed against a resistance i s not c l e a r l y established i n his study because some groups had negative c o r r e l a t i o n s and some had s i g n i f i c a n t (.05 level) p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s . Mendryk (1966) studied the e f f e c t that strength t r a i n i n g , using isometric and i s o t o n i c , as well as s p e c i f i c speed conditioning, had upon hip fle x i o n and extension movement time. He concluded that the results of a covariance analysis indicated that s i g n i f i c a n t increases in hip f l e x i o n strength are not accompanied by corresponding s i g n i f i c a n t increases i n speed of hip f l e x i o n movement. Practise of the maximal hip f l e x i o n movement by the speed of movement group did not s i g n i f i c a n t l y improve leg reaction time or the speed with which the leg could be moved. Smith (1969) reports that the findings of his study support the theory of s p e c i f i c i t y i n that i n d i v i d u a l differences i n the speed of a limb, involving a single j o i n t , are predomi-nantly independent of strength measures associated with the limb and j o i n t . There have been a number of studies showing p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s of strength t r a i n i n g on the speed of movement of a single limb; Zorbas (1950), Chui (1964), Bergeron (1966), and Bates (1967). Zorbas (1950) i n his study on the e f f e c t of weight l i f t i n g upon the speed of muscular contraction of weight l i f t e r s and non-weight l i f t e r s , found that the weight l i f t i n g group was faster i n t h e i r muscular contraction of rotary motions of the arm than the n o n - l i f t e r s . Chui (1964) studied the e f f e c t s of isometric and dynamic weight t r a i n i n g exercises upon strength and speed of movement. He found that gains i n strength exerted i n performing a movement are accompanied by gains i n the speed of execution of that move-ment, against no resistance and against resistance. Gains i n strength and gains i n speed of movement, against no resistance 12 and against resistance, made by the use of the one method are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater (p=.05) than gains made by the use of the other method. In his study, Chui used the same six a c t i v i t i e s i n t r a i n i n g and i n te s t i n g for strength and speed of movement. These a c t i v i t i e s were; press (right arm), c u r l (right arm), supine press (right arm), trunk extension ( s t i f f leg dead l i f t ) , squat and s i t - u p . Bergeron (1966) and Bates (1967) both investigated the e f f e c t of s t a t i c strength t r a i n -ing at various positions, and dynamic strength t r a i n i n g through a f u l l range of motion i n strength, speed of movement and power. They found that an increase i n strength of the muscles involved i n a movement produces a s i g n i f i c a n t increase i n the speed of that movement. The method of developing strength, whether by resistance applied throughout the e n t i r e movement or isometric exercises at the beginning and/or end of the movement, apparently i s not a major fa c t o r . Both Bergeron and Bates, i n t h e i r study, used strength t r a i n i n g procedures that involved the bench press movement. Bergeron tested his speed of move-ment using the bench press motion. However, his subjects were i n a standing p o s i t i o n . The majority of studies reviewed suggest the p o s s i b i l i t y of s p e c i f i c i t y i n the a b i l i t y to exert force with a p a r t i c u l a r muscle group i n d i f f e r e n t tasks. P o s i t i v e e f f e c t s of strength t r a i n i n g on the speed of movement have appeared e i t h e r when the group superior i n the speed of movement has been from a se l e c t sample, as i n Zorbas (1950), rather than a random sample, or they have prac t i s e d the desired speed of movement 13 motion i n t h e i r strength t r a i n i n g , which i s in i t s e l f s peci-f i c i t y of t r a i n i n g . There may indeed be l i t t l e or no r e l a t i o n between strength i n action, as measured by an i n d i v i d u a l ' s a b i l i t y to accelerate the mass of a limb and move i t with v e l o c i t y , and the strength of the involved muscles as measured s t a t i c a l l y with a dynamometer during a strength t e s t . I t i s a highly debatable question open to conjecture. Henry and Whitley (1959) state that such an absence of r e l a t i o n s h i p would re-quire considerable r e v i s i o n of current ideas concerning the structure of motor a b i l i t i e s . Progressive Resistance Training i n Relation to Speed of  Movement i n a Gross Motor A c t i v i t y There appears to be a difference of opinion by researchers on the r e l a t i o n s h i p of strength t r a i n i n g to speed of movement in a gross motor a c t i v i t y (sprint running) . Meisel (1957) , Woodall (1960), Hellixon (1961), Sweeting (1963), Blucker (1965), Cummings (1965), Dintiman (1965), Winningham (1965), Schultz (1967) and Morant (1970) have found l i t t l e or no c o r r e l a t i o n between strength t r a i n i n g and speed of movement. There i s a smaller group of researchers who have found a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between strength t r a i n i n g and speed of movement; Capen (1950), Chui (1950), Fishbain (1961), O'Shea (1968) and Barnes (1968). Meisel (1957) found that progressive weight resistance exercises caused a s i g n i f i c a n t loss of speed i n running a distance of 10 yards. Woodall (1960), i n his study on weight t r a i n i n g of the arms and upper body and i t s e f f e c t upon speed of high school boys i n the 100 yard dash, found that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t speed increases following the weight t r a i n i n g program. Hellixon (1961) studied the e f f e c t s of progressive heavy resistance exercise, using near maximum weights, on the running and jumping a b i l i t y of f i r s t year high school track performers. He found that the proposed t r a i n i n g program did not produce a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t upon the performance of the experimental group i n running a 100 yard dash, as compared to the control group during the experimental period. Sweeting (1963) found that a systematic program of running can improve spr i n t i n g speed for a distance of 30 yards, s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than a program of weight t r a i n i n g or no t r a i n i n g outside the te s t i n g period. Blucker (1965) found that a four week program designed to increase leg strength had no s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t i s t i -c a l e f f e c t on the v e r t i c a l jumping a b i l i t y and running speed of a 20 yard run by college women. Cummings (1965), i n his study, found that increased hip f l e x i o n strength did not pro-vide a s i g n i f i c a n t improvement i n running speed over a 100 yard distance. Dintiman (1965), i n his study to determine whether a f l e x i b i l i t y t r a i n i n g program and a weight t r a i n i n g program would a f f e c t the speed of running 50 yards, found that the weight t r a i n i n g program, used as a supplement to s p r i n t t r a i n -ing, did not improve running speed s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than the s p r i n t t r a i n i n g alone. However, a difference i n adjusted means of only .01 prevented s i g n i f i c a n c e at the .05 l e v e l . Winningham (1965) studied the e f f e c t of t r a i n i n g with ankle 15 weights on running s k i l l , and found that t r a i n i n g with 2 and 5 pound weights reduced 100 yard times. Schultz (196 7) studied the r e l a t i v e effectiveness of six intensive t r a i n i n g programs on the development of four selected s k i l l s ; 60 yard dash, standing long jump, zig-zag run and 12 pound shot. He found i n his study that the s u p e r i o r i t y of weight t r a i n i n g i n the improvement of motor a c t i v i t i e s was not correlated when i t was compared with the intensive t r a i n i n g methods. Over the nine week period, the average improvement for the r e p e t i t i o n s p r i n t group i n the 60 yard dash was .31 seconds and for the weight t r a i n i n g r e p e t i t i v e s p r i n t group the average improve-ment was .33 seconds. The differences between these and the least e f f e c t i v e group, weight t r a i n i n g , which improved .05 seconds, indicate a need for further study. Morant (19 70), i n his study on a comparison of exer-genic, isometric and i s o t o n i c t r a i n i n g programs on selected components of motor a b i l i t y , found that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the pre and post t r a i n i n g t e s t r e s u l t s for power over a twelve week t r a i n i n g period. Morant used a 30 yard timed run as his speed of movement te s t . Capen (1950) has been misinterpreted by a u t h o r i t i e s that have reviewed his study. He investigated the e f f e c t of systematic weight t r a i n i n g on power, strength and endurance, involving a Sargent running jump, standing long jump, 8 and 12 pound shot put from a standing p o s i t i o n and a 300 yard dash. Two groups were used; one involving weight t r a i n i n g and the other involving conditioning a c t i v i t i e s of a c a l i s t h e n i c 16 nature. Weight t r a i n i n g did not improve running speed as has been reported by Dintiman (1974). The conditioning group improved s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t h e i r 300 yard run times; more so than the weight t r a i n i n g group. Chui (1950) investigated the e f f e c t of systematic weight t r a i n i n g and a t h l e t i c power as related to jumping, the shot put and s p r i n t i n g a 60 yard dash. He found that improvement i n running speed was only s l i g h t . However, there was a p o s s i b i l i t y that running speed could be aided through systematic weight t r a i n i n g . Fishbain (1961) studied the e f f e c t weight t r a i n i n g programs had upon perform-ance i n the 35 yard dash, standing long jump and 20 foot rope climb during a 9 week t r a i n i n g period. He found that the experimental group increased s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than the control group i n the 35 yard dash and long jump. O'Shea (1968) studied the e f f e c t s of weight t r a i n i n g on the 400 meter run. He used an 8 week t r a i n i n g period consisting of heavy resistance and low r e p e t i t i o n s , with three groups using four sets for the bench press, seated dumbell c u r l and squat. A l l three groups improved s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n both strength and the 400 meter dash (4.4 seconds mean improvement). There was no control group. Barnes (196 8) used a 14 week t r a i n i n g program to determine the e f f e c t of weight t r a i n i n g on 100 yard perform-ances of boys (grade 9). One group received 14 weeks of physical education involving basketball, tumbling, v o l l e y b a l l and dodge b a l l , while the other group spent equal time i n progressive weight t r a i n i n g using 3 sets of 8 r e p e t i t i o n s on half-squat, cur l s and f u l l knee bends. Both groups weekly ran two .100 yard dashes f o r a time, with 15 minutes re s t between t r i a l s . The weight t r a i n i n g group increased s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the pre-test (13.4 seconds) to the post-test (12.7 seconds), showing a mean improvement of .7 seconds. In the control group, one subject ran slower and 6 showed no improve-ment. The E f f e c t s of Various Starting Positions on Speed of  Movement During the f i r s t f i v e decades of t h i s century, the investigators of various track s t a r t i n g p o s i t i o n s , Hayden and Walker (1933), Dickson (1934) and K i s t l e r (1934), dealt primarily with lo n g i t u d i n a l block spacing; elongated 24 to 28 inches, medium 14 to 18 inches and bunch 8 to 11 inches, and i t s e f f e c t on running speed. No conclusive facts were put forth by these investigators as to the best s t a r t i n g p o s i t i o n . In the l a s t two decades there has been an increased amount of study on other variables a f f e c t i n g speed of movement from a track s t a r t i n g p o s i t i o n . The variables of force a p p l i c a t i o n of front and rear leg, hip height, knee j o i n t angles, distance from the s t a r t i n g l i n e and hand spacing distances have been investigated by Henry and Trafton (1951), Henry (1952), Stock (1962), Menly and Rosemeri (1968), Jackson and Cooper (1971). Henry and Trafton (1951), i n an early study, investigated the v e l o c i t y curve of s p r i n t running. Twenty-five physical education majors accelerated from s t a r t i n g blocks using a longitudinal toe to toe distance of 18 inches. They ran a distance of 50 yards, with timing devices located at f i v e yard i n t e r v a l s . They found that s p r i n t i n g was a two dimensional a b i l i t y , consisting of an acceleration and v e l o c i t y component. Most of the acceleration occurred quite early i n the dash; 90 percent of the maximum v e l o c i t y was reached by 15 yards and 95 percent by 22 yards. I t was found that the acceleration factor was an important determiner of speed for the f i r s t 5 or 10 yards, but not thereafter; whereas the curve constant for the v e l o c i t y component was important at a l l distances greater than 5 yards and the only important factor a f t e r 20 yards. Henry (1952) studied the force/time factors of the s p r i n t s t a r t . In th i s study Henry was primarily concerned with the e f f e c t that foot placement, i . e . distance between feet, had upon 4 t r i a l s of a 50 yard run. Of the 4 l o n g i t u d i n a l toe to toe spacings of 11, 16, 21 and 26 inches, he found that the highest proportion of best runs and smallest proportion of poorest runs resulted from s t a r t i n g with a 16 inch stance. A 21 inch stance was nearly as good. Reaction time was un-influenced by block spacings, and did not correlate with speed i n s p r i n t s . Leg length was not important i n determining the best block spacing and was unrelated to 50 yard s p r i n t i n g a b i l i t y . Net times for the 18 subjects using 16 and 21 inch distances i n the s t a r t , i n s p r i n t i n g 10 yard and 50 yard distances, were superior to the other s t a r t i n g distances. Stock (1962) reported, that by using a medium block spacing (16 inches) and elevating the hips by increasing the angle of the rear knee j o i n t to 165 degrees f l e x i o n , s p r i n t times at 50 19 yards were s i g n i f i c a n t l y improved. At the 20 yard mark, the bunch s t a r t (11 inches) and the medium s t a r t distance (16 inches) with a high hip p o s i t i o n , produced s i g n i f i c a n t l y f a s t e r times. Menly and Rosemeir (196 8) reported s i g n i f i -cantly f a s t e r s p r i n t times at 10 yards and 30 yards with a medium toe to toe spacing when the hands and the front foot were placed as close to the s t a r t i n g l i n e as f e a s i b l e . Jackson and Cooper (1971) investigated the e f f i c i e n c y of the s p r i n t e r ' s s t a r t by systematically a l t e r i n g the width of the hand p o s i -tion and angle of the rear knee j o i n t i n the set p o s i t i o n . The two hand positions with spacings of 8 and 20 inches between thumbs, and three rear knee positions with angles of 90, 135 and 180 degrees were examined. Th e . c r i t e r i o n measures included the 0 to 10 yard distance, 10 to 30 yard distance and the 0 to 30 yard distance. They found that the data offered evidence to support the use of the narrow hand spacing. The 90 and 135 degree rear knee j o i n t angles did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n r e s u l t s , but were superior to the 180 degree knee j o i n t angle. Summary of Studies A l l the studies dealing with weight t r a i n i n g and i t s influence upon speed of movement i n a gross motor a c t i v i t y , dealt with the subjects running various timed distances, from 10 yards to 100 yards. These studies found that weight t r a i n i n g programs did not increase running speed, and were found to decrease running speed i n the studies done by Meisel, 20 Sweeting and Winningham. The studies that showed a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between weight t r a i n i n g and speed of movement also had the subjects run various distances, from 35 yards to 400 yards. One important point to remember when considering the e f f e c t of weight t r a i n i n g on the speed of movement (sprinting) i s the control of the athlete's s t a r t i n g p o s i t i o n . Henry and Trafton (1951) have shown that s p r i n t i n g a b i l i t y i s made up of two dimensions: p o s i t i v e acceleration and v e l o c i t y . None of the studies mentioned i n the review of l i t e r a t u r e looked at the e f f e c t weight t r a i n i n g had upon e i t h e r of these two factors. If the studies were i n v e s t i g a t i n g the e f f e c t weight t r a i n i n g had upon acceleration, then consideration of the many important components of a s p r i n t s t a r t i n g p o s i t i o n such as the distance, the feet are apart or the angle of the front and rear knee i n the set p o s i t i o n , etc., would have to be given. If the studies were in v e s t i g a t i n g the e f f e c t weight t r a i n i n g had upon v e l o c i t y , then consideration of running fundamentals, i . e . , good s p r i n t i n g form and the a b i l i t y to maintain v e l o c i t y a f t e r 6 seconds, the distance Henry has theorized that i s required to reach optimum v e l o c i t y , would have to be studied. Schultz does not mention how the subjects started when they ran 60 yards. Dintiman used a running s t a r t then timed the i n d i v i d -uals for 50 yards. He did not state the distance used i n the running s t a r t . Morant used a 10 yard running s t a r t , then timed the subjects for 30 yards. Blucker and Fishbain allowed t h e i r subjects to s t a r t using any method they preferred. They had a 30 foot running s t a r t before they were timed for 20 yards. Sweeting and O'Shea used a standing s t a r t with subjects s t a r t i n g when they were ready. Hellixon, Fishbain, Chui and Meisel allowed t h e i r subjects to assume any s t a r t i n g p o s i t i o n . They did not specify the type of p o s i t i o n . Woodall and Barnes allowed t h e i r subjects to choose t h e i r own crouch s t a r t p o s i t i o n and then a s t a r t i n g s i g n a l was given. Cummings used an unspecified length running s t a r t when timing his subjects over 100 yards. Winningham used s t a r t i n g blocks i n his study allowing the subjects to assume a semi-crouch po s i t i o n . He does not elaborate further on the s t a r t i n g p o s i -ti o n . Because the studies mentioned i n the review of l i t e r a -ture did not consider the importance of the factors a f f e c t i n g e i t h e r acceleration or v e l o c i t y t h e i r r e s u l t s should be looked upon c r i t i c a l l y . A l l of the studies dealing with various track s t a r t i n g positions on speed of movement have dealt with the subject running 50 yards from various s t a r t i n g p o s i t i o n s . Henry and Trafton (1951) c o n t r o l l e d only one toe-to-toe distance; 18 inches. Henry (1952) con t r o l l e d only toe-to-toe distances of 11, 16, 21 and 26 inches, finding the 16 inch spacing to produce the best r e s u l t s . Stock (1962) c o n t r o l l e d l o n g i t u d i n a l block spacing and rear knee angle and found the 16 inch spacing with a rear knee angle of 165° produced the best r e s u l t s at 50 yards. Jackson and Cooper (1971) c o n t r o l l e d the toe-to-toe distance of 16 inches, rear knee j o i n t angle and hand width distance. They found that a shoulder width spacing of the 22 hands, with rear knee angles of 90° and 135° to produce the best results at 50 yards. It would appear that best r e s u l t s in a s p r i n t s t a r t p o s i t i o n would come from a medium block spacing (16 inches), a rear knee j o i n t angle less than 180° and a shoulder width spacing of the hands. However, not a l l of the variables associated with the s t a r t i n g p o s i t i o n have been considered. A shoulder width spacing of the hands was found to be most e f f e c t i v e , but what of the angle formed between the trunk and the arms when looking at a p r o f i l e of the runner i n the set position? Tricker and Tricker (1967) found that during a s p r i n t the height of the runner's center of gravity i s an index of his rate of movement. In the set p o s i t i o n i n a track s t a r t i n g p o s i t i o n the p o s i t i o n of the runner's center of gravity i n r e l a t i o n to his dr i v i n g force; muscles of the lower limbs i s c r i t i c a l . If the center of gravity i s too f a r forward of the accelerating force, that i s a low center of gravity, the runner i s too unbalanced and w i l l rotate forward in a s a g i t a l plane around the axis of his feet. If the runner's center of gravity i s too far back over his accelerating force, that i s a high center of gravity, he w i l l have the tendency to rotate backward i n a s a g i t a l plane around the axis of his feet. Therefore, an angle of 90° between the arms and the trunk would be one i n which the weight of the runner i s balanced between the four points i n contact with the ground. By c o n t r o l l i n g the many variables i n a s p r i n t s t a r t , the e f f e c t s of a strength t r a i n i n g program on an i n d i v i d u a l ' s a b i l -i t y to ei t h e r accelerate or maintain v e l o c i t y would become clear e r . What would the e f f e c t of a strength t r a i n i n g program have on the a b i l i t y of a person to run 50 meters from a standardized s t a r t position? Henry (1952) f e e l s that indiv i d u a l s with a large acceleration or a small acceleration component are equally l i k e l y to be good 50 yard s p r i n t runners. Therefore, assuming that a spr i n t e r had the capacity for high v e l o c i t y , could a strength t r a i n i n g program have a po s i t i v e and s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on his a b i l i t y to accelerate? Even i f a runner did not have t h i s high v e l o c i t y capacity, could his acceleration be p o s i t i v e l y affected through a strength t r a i n i n g program? A sprinter's abili'ty to accelerate and maintain v e l o c i t y results from a combination of s t r i d e rate or leg speed, and drive or s t r i d e length. Slater-Hammel (1941) feels that there i s a neuromuscular mechanism l i m i t i n g the rate of leg movement i n sp r i n t i n g . If t h i s neuromuscular l i m i t i n g f a c t o r does not i n h i b i t rate of s t r i d i n g what e f f e c t would a strength t r a i n i n g program have on a sprinter's a b i l i t y to accelerate or maintain v e l o c i t y . The researchers who studied the e f f e c t that progressive resistance t r a i n i n g had on the speed of movement of a gross motor a c t i v i t y measured only the change i n s p r i n t performance time for the complete distance run. Thus, the issue of progressive resistance t r a i n i n g and i t s e f f e c t on acceleration or v e l o c i t y maintenance i s clouded. 24 CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES Subjects A sample of 48 subjects were chosen from volunteers from a un i v e r s i t y a c t i v i t y class i n track and f i e l d . The subjects were randomly assigned to one of four groups i n the manner of 10 males and 2 females to each group, except i n the progressive resistance group, where 3 females were randomly assigned to i t . During the f i r s t 3 weeks of the experimental period, 2 males dropped out of Group I I , pro-gressive resistance t r a i n i n g , and 5 males and 1 female dropped out of Group IV, the combination progressive resistance and s p r i n t s t a r t t r a i n i n g group. The reason given f o r the sub-jects' withdrawal from the experiment was heavy ph y s i c a l t r a i n i n g demanded i n the experiment was detrimental to t h e i r studies. The experiment continued into the f i n a l exam period for the u n i v e r s i t y . One male subject's data from the control group was not analyzed because of his extreme v a r i a b i l i t y i n performance. Only the 32 male subjects' data were s t a t i s t i c a l l y treated i n th i s experiment. The females were excluded because of the large inequality i n number between males and females i n 25 each treatment condition. Group I (control) was comprised of 10 males and 2 females; Group I I , (progressive resistance training) was comprised of 8 males and 3 females; Group I I I , (sprint s t a r t training) was comprised of 10 males and 2 females and Group IV, (combination progressive resistance and sp r i n t s t a r t training) was comprised of 5 males and 1 female. Subjects had a mean age of 20 years. The mean weight and height for males was 72.7 kilograms and 1.79 meters resp e c t i v e l y . Experimental Design The experimental design for t h i s experiment consisted of 4 groups: Group I (control), Group II (progressive resistance t r a i n i n g ) , Group III (sprint s t a r t t r a i n i n g ) , and Group IV (combination progressive resistance and s p r i n t s t a r t t r a i n i n g ) . These 4 groups were to be tested 3 times over the experimental period. However, due to apparatus breakdown some of the dependent,variables were only tested twice. The dependent variables that were tested twice were: 50 meter s p r i n t with v e l o c i t y recorded at distances of 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, and 50 meters. Leg extension strength was also measured twice, at the mid and post te s t i n g periods, on the Nissen Leg Dyna-mometer. The dependent variables that were tested three times (pre, mid, and post) were: Leg extension strength as measured on the Butkus running machine, Hamstring strength as measured 26 P r e t r i a l time 1 P o s t t r i a l time 2 GROUP I GROUP II GROUP IV Males S. 10 Males S. GROUP III Males S. '10 Males S. Dependent Variables: 1. 50 meters (times taken at 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, and 50 meters. 2. Nissen Leg Extension Dynamometer. Figure 1 4 x 2 F a c t o r i a l Design 27 P r e t r i a l time 1 M i d t r i a l time 2 P o s t t r i a l time 3 GROUP I GROUP II GROUP III GROUP IV Males S. '10 Males S. Males S. '10 Males S. Dependent Variables: 1. Margaria Power Test (measured i n Kilogram.meters per second) 2. Leg extension strength (as measured by the Hamstring Machine, and Running Machine) Figure 2 4 x 3 F a c t o r i a l Design 28 on the Hydraulic Hamstring machine, and Anaerobic Power as measured on the Margaria Power Test. Figure 1 and 2 i l l u s t r a t e the experimental design layout. Apparatus 50 Meter Sprint. The equipment used i n the 50 meter run from a standard track s t a r t i n g p o s i t i o n was as follows: 1 set of G i l l Model 95 s t a r t i n g blocks 4 standard laboratory goniometers - used to measure the angles at the shoulders, between the trunk and arms and the angles of the front and rear legs at the knees. These measurements were taken on the mid-line of the limbs. 7 Armaco photo-electric c e l l systems - located at 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 and 50 meter distances from the s t a r t l i n e during the two test periods. 2 Lafayette clock/counters 2 Hunter timers 2 Healy Microswitches The two Lafayette clock/counters were to be used for three te s t i n g periods: pre, mid and post. The Lafayette D i g i t a l Clocks were not available for the mid or post tests and two Hunter timers were used as a l t e r n a t i v e clocks. During the pre test, the two Lafayette clock/counters were connected to the 7 sets of photo-e l e c t r i c c e l l s i n such a way that the release of pressure on the microswitches started clock 1. When the subject broke the ph o t o - e l e c t r i c c e l l 1, clock 1 stopped and clock 2 started. As the subject pro-gressed down the 50 meters he continued to break the beams of the photo-electric c e l l . This breaking of the beams a l t e r -nately stopped and started each clock. When a subject had completed his run, clock 1 had an accumulated time of distances 0 to 5, 10 to 15, 20 to 30 and 40 to 50 meters. Clock 2 had an accumulated time of distances 5 to 10, 15 to 20 and 30 to 40 meters. (See Figure 3). A l l of the times taken to run between the photo-electric c e l l s were recorded for each i n d i v i d u a l on each t r i a l . The recorder for clock 1 recorded the time taken from 0 to 5, 10 to 15, 20 to 30 and 40 to 50. Another recorder recorded the clock 2 times for the distances of 5 to 10, 15 to 20 and 30 to 40 meters. During the post t r i a l the same 7 sets of Armaco Photo-E l e c t r i c C e l l s were used, but two Hunter timers were s u b s t i -tuted for the Lafayette clock/counters. The Hunter timer required 3 relays to energize and de-energize each clock as the subject broke the beams of the photo-electric c e l l s . The times taken by the subjects were recorded on each clock i n the same manner as the times on the Lafayette clock/counters. Margaria Power Test. The apparatus used for the Margaria Power Test was as follows: 2 sets of Armaco Photo-Electric C e l l Systems 1 Lafayette clock/counter 1 Hunter timer The pre, mid and post tests were completed using the same two sets of Armaco Photo-Electric C e l l Systems. The Lafayette 30 CLOCK 2 10 1 set of Micro switches 15 20 30 40 50 meters Armaco Photo E l e c t r i c C e l l s CLOCK 1 Figure 3 Design Layout of the Retrieval of the Acceleration times i n the 50 Meter Sprint clock/counter was used i n the pre and mid t e s t s . The Hunter timer was used for the post t e s t . Running Machine. The Butkus Running Machine 19 72 was used for t h i s t e s t . Resistance to a running motion while the subject was i n a prone p o s i t i o n , was supplied by a f r i c t i o n brake. The amount of f r i c t i o n could be c o n t r o l l e d and was measured i n pounds pressure. A Hanhart Mechanical S p l i t -Hand Stop Watch was used to time the work i n t e r v a l s . Hamstring Machine. A Universal Goliath Hydraulic Hamstring Machine was used to test the strength of each subject's ham-st r i n g muscle group. The hydraulic machine applied a constant force against which the hamstring worked. Resistance could be controlled by adjusting the pressure i n the hydraulic c y l i n d e r . Resistance was read i n pounds per square inch. A Hanhart Mechanical Split-Hand Stop Watch was used to time the work i n t e r v a l . Universal Machine. The Universal Spartacus Model 9500 was used to t e s t leg and ankle extension strength i n the pre-test. Resistance could be c o n t r o l l e d i n t h i s pulley operated machine. The resistance was read i n pounds. Nissen Leg Dynamometer. The Nissen Leg Dynamometer Model 750 was used to t e s t leg extension strength i n the mid and post te s t s . Force a p p l i c a t i o n was read i n pounds p u l l x 10. Barbells and Discs. The u n i v e r s i t y set of Weider b a r b e l l s and discs was used to t r a i n i n the squat motion and i n ankle extension. The amount of resistance was c o n t r o l l e d by using a heavier poundage of b a r b e l l s . The poundages ranged from 50 to 250 pounds. Procedure The progressive resistance t r a i n i n g that was followed by the respective groups was i n two forms. The o r i g i n a l design of the study was to use the Universal Machine, the Butkus Running Machine and the Hamstring Machine. A t o t a l of four progressive resistance t r a i n i n g exercises were performed on these machines. The exercises consisted of exercises that would strengthen the flexors and extensors of the lower limbs: (i) Leg and ankle extension performed on the upper pedals of the Universal Machine and performed from a s t a r t i n g p o s i t i o n of 90° at the knee and ankle. ( i i ) Leg extension performed on the lower pedal of the Universal Machine from a s t a r t i n g p o s i t i o n of 90° at the knee and ankle. ( i i i ) Extension and f l e x i o n of the lower limbs, performed on the Butkus Running Machine, with the subject resting his chest, at a 30° prone p o s i t i o n . He placed h i s feet i n s t i r r u p s and a l t e r n a t e l y brought his legs through a running motion of f l e x i o n and extension. Resistance was con t r o l l e d . (iv) Hamstring exercise performed on the Hydraulic Hamstring Machine. At the s t a r t of the t h i r d week of t r a i n i n g the Universal Machine broke down. This predicament necessitated a change to another form of progressive resistance t r a i n i n g ; weight t r a i n -ing with barbells and discs. The b a r b e l l and d i s c weights were used for only two a c t i v i t i e s : (i) squat l i f t performed with the weight supported on the shoulders. The subject then performed a s i t t i n g action u n t i l his upper and lower legs formed a 90° angle at the knee. The heels were supported on a 3 inch piece of wood to provide s t a b i l i t y throughout the movement. ( i i ) ankle extension performed with the weight supported on the shoulders. The subject placed the front portion of each foot (ball) on an elevated (3 inches) piece of wood. The subject then s h i f t e d h is weight by extending his ankle so that i n the f i n a l p o s i t i o n of t h i s exercise he stood upon the piece of wood on his toes only. These two a c t i v i t i e s replaced the a c t i v i t i e s performed on the Universal Machine. Training Program. The s t a r t t r a i n i n g program progressive followed by resistance t r a i n i n g and s p r i n t the subjects was organized i n 34 following fashion: (i) Period I ( F i r s t , second and t h i r d week) (a) 3 workouts per week for the progressive resistance t r a i n i n g group (Preparation Phase, consisting of 3 sets with 12 re p e t i t i o n s and 3 sets of 15 r e p e t i t i o n s ) . (b) 3 workouts per week for the s p r i n t s t a r t t r a i n i n g groups (consisting of twenty 50 meter accelerations). (c) 6 workouts per week for the combination group (consisting of progressive resistance and sp r i n t s t a r t t r a i n i n g ) . ( i i ) Period II (Fourth, f i f t h and s i x t h week) (a) 3 workouts per week for the progressive resistance t r a i n i n g group (heavy l i f t i n g , pyramid system, 3 sets with 6 r e p e t i t i o n s , 3 sets with 6 repetitions and 3 sets with 6 re p e t i t i o n s , increasing the load s h i f t e d i n each s e t ) . (b) 3 workouts per week for the s p r i n t s t a r t t r a i n i n g group (consisting of twenty 50 meter acce l e r a t i o n s ) . (c) 6 workouts per week for the combination group. The two groups, progressive resistance and the combination group, met three times a week to weight t r a i n . The s i x week tr a i n i n g period was divided into two sections of three weeks 35 each. The f i r s t three weeks were a preparation phase con-s i s t i n g of r e l a t i v e l y l i g h t loads and high r e p e t i t i o n s and sets, i . e . 3 sets of 12 r e p e t i t i o n s at one weight and 3 sets of 15 repetitions at a heavier weight (3 x 12 and 3 x 15). This period was to be used as an a c c l i m a t i z a t i o n period for the subjects, as the majority of those subjects that par-t i c i p a t e d i n the study had no experience with weight t r a i n i n g . During the t h i r d week the subjects increased the weight in, both the 3 x 12 and 3 x 15 progressive resistance sets by 40 pounds i n the squat l i f t and 20 pounds i n the ankle extension. The strength of the subjects had increased enough, and thereby t h e i r acclimatization to hard muscular work, to move into the second phase of the study. I t was at t h i s time that the Universal Machine broke and progressive resistance t r a i n i n g with the b a r b e l l s and discs was employed. Proper technique for performing a squat l i f t and ankle extension with free weights was taught. Supervision of the subjects during t r a i n i n g was done to insure that good technique was employed to prevent i n j u r y . The r e s u l t s of Berger's (1962a, 1962b, 1965) studies were used as the basis for the progressive resistance t r a i n i n g done in t h i s experiment. I t was f e l t that Berger's r e s u l t s would be used as the basis for progressive resistance t r a i n i n g be-cause the University's b a r b e l l weights did not t o t a l to a heavy enough poundage to t r a i n at over 80% of maximal strength. The pyramid system used i n t h i s study consisted of 3 sets of 6 r e p e t i t i o n s . Each subject started with a weight 36 appropriate to the completion of 6 re p e t i t i o n s such that the l a s t 2 repetitions were quite d i f f i c u l t . The weight was increased for the next s i x rep e t i t i o n s and the l a s t s i x repe t i t i o n s , following the same procedure. To safeguard against injury increments of only 20 pounds were used from one set to the next. The progressive resistance t r a i n i n g and combination group did not do t h e i r progressive resistance t r a i n i n g to-gether. I t was f e l t that i f they did t r a i n together then the performance of the subjects i n each group would have a d e t r i -mental influence on each other's performance i n t r a i n i n g . The s p r i n t s t a r t and combination t r a i n i n g groups did not do th e i r s p r i n t s t a r t t r a i n i n g together for the same reason. In the s p r i n t s t a r t t r a i n i n g the following variables i n the set po s i t i o n were co n t r o l l e d during each t r i a l run for each i n d i v i d u a l : (i) Hand-to-hand distance ( l a t e r a l l y ) . Each i n d i v i d u a l had the distance measured for them. This marked d i s -tance was placed on the ground. I t was the distance between thumbs when the arms were d i r e c t l y under the shoulders. ( i i ) A 90° angle between trunk and arms taken on the midline of the arms and trunk. ( i i i ) The toe-to-toe l o n g i t u d i n a l spacing of 16 inches for each i n d i v i d u a l . 37 (iv) Front knee j o i n t angle of 90°. (v) Rear leg knee j o i n t angle of 120°. Both rear and front leg knee j o i n t angles were taken on the midline of the upper and lower leg. The subjects wore f l a t s to perform each t r i a l . Each subject performed a t o t a l of 20 t r i a l s per session. Enough rest, 15 minutes, was given to ensure r e l i a b i l i t y of performance. Each i n d i v i d u a l was urged to make each t r i a l a maximum. The subjects involved i n s p r i n t s t a r t t r a i n i n g met three times per week and ran a distance of 50 meters for each t r i a l . The variables that were co n t r o l l e d i n the orthodox s p r i n t s t a r t p o s i t i o n were the ones considered most important by the researchers as l a i d out i n the review of l i t e r a t u r e section. The measuring of the various angles for each subject was car-r i e d out by other subjects. A l l subjects were taught the proper techniques of measurement and were supervised throughout the study. Each subject assumed the set p o s i t i o n when they were ready. The measurements of the angles at both knees and at the shoulders were taken. The subject was given the command "good" i f a l l the angles were a l l r i g h t , i . e . front knee at 90°, rear knee at 120° and trunk at 90°. I f the subject did not assume the desired p o s i t i o n he was given verbal cues such as "up, forward, down, back," etc. to a s s i s t i n assuming the proper p o s i t i o n . Once the subject had assumed t h i s p o s i t i o n he held the po s i t i o n for prac t i s e purposes to acquire a f e e l 38 for the various positions of the front and rear legs and trunk. He then went down to the "on your marks" p o s i t i o n to rest his fingers, and when ready he assumed the set po s i t i o n again. I f the angles at the knees and shoulders were correct he i n i t i a t e d running on his own response. This procedure worked very well. It was found that a f t e r the second week of tra i n i n g , the subjects assumed the set p o s i t i o n with very few adjustments of body angles. There was no t r a i n i n g for the control group. They were to l d not to change t h e i r l i f e s t y l e d r a s t i c a l l y during the six week t r a i n i n g period, as t h i s would a f f e c t t h e i r t e s t scores. Testing. The t e s t which was chosen to be used i n thi s study to evaluate the eff e c t s of progressive resistance t r a i n i n g on the a b i l i t y to s p r i n t 50 meters from an orthodox s p r i n t s t a r t -ing p o s i t i o n , was running 50 meters from an orthodox s p r i n t s t a r t i n g p o s i t i o n , with times taken at 4, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 and 50 meters. Testing occurred at the beginning of the experimental period and at the end ( f i r s t week and seventh week). The subjects were tested one week a f t e r the t r a i n i n g had ceased (seventh week) to allow them to recover from the fatiguing e f f e c t s of t r a i n i n g . The Nissen Leg Dynamometer Test for leg extension strength was used at the end of the t h i r d and seventh week. The remainder of the tests, Margaria S t a i r Run, Hamstring Strength and the Running Machine, were administered three times during the experimental period; during the f i r s t week, at the end of the t h i r d week and at the end of the seventh week. A l l testing was c a r r i e d out at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Upon a r r i v a l at the testing s i t e , one hour before the t e s t i n g , each subject was asked to rest for 15 minutes and read the instructions for t e s t i n g procedure (See Appendix A) . The maximum strength of each subject was assessed on the Universal Machine by using the one maximum r e p e t i t i o n test . This procedure consisted of having the subject warmed up for maximum e f f o r t and then performing an extension movement against the heaviest resistance that the subject could move i n one maximum e f f o r t . The procedure followed to determine the maximum resistance for each subject was as follows: (i) Resistance was set at 600 pounds for males and 300 pounds for females, i n the upper pedal leg extension p o s i t i o n . ( i i ) Resistance for ankle extension was set at 550 pounds for males and 250 pounds for females. The subjects were allowed 3 increases or decreases from the above poundages to determine maximum resistance. If the subject could not complete extension, the resistance was reduced by 20 pound segments u n t i l the resistance could be moved. If the resistance was too l i g h t , 20 pound segments were added u n t i l maximum e f f o r t was required to move the resistance. The res t between maximum r e p e t i t i o n e f f o r t s was 40 15 minutes. This time allowed for recovery. If the subject could not f i n d the resistance that required maximum e f f o r t i n 3 t r i a l s they returned the following day. For the Nissen Leg Dynamometer Test the subjects wore a webbed b e l t that had addit i o n a l towelling placed between i t and the subject. The b e l t had a hook that was located i n the front. The subject stood on a bench with his back f l a t against the wall. His shoulders were forced against the wall by other subjects. The subject assumed a crouching p o s i t i o n with his back f l a t against the wall. A chain was attached to the hook i n the b e l t . The slack was taken up. The angle at his knees was measured at 120°. When the subject was ready he applied maximum e f f o r t into standing up (extending his l e g s ) . The force that was being applied by the subject against the chain was recorded. When the subject could no longer apply an increasing amount of force he was t o l d to relax. Each subject performed one t r i a l at the mid and post t e s t i n g periods of the experiment. The t e s t for Hamstring strength was performed on the Hydraulic Hamstring Machine. Resistance was co n t r o l l e d by hydraulic pressure. The subject assumed a prone p o s i t i o n hooking his heels under a padded bar. When the subject was ready he applied maximum e f f o r t i n f l e x i n g h i s lower legs to a 90° angle at the knees. I n i t i a l resistance was set at 11 pounds/square inch for males and 10 pounds/square inch for females. The subject was timed during his t r i a l and i f the time for maximum e f f o r t took longer than 10 seconds, the t r i a l 41 was terminated. The subject was allowed only 2 t r i a l s to e s t a b l i s h maximum resistance with a time of 15 minutes between each t r i a l . If maximum resistance could not be established, the subject returned the next day. The procedure followed for the 50 meter run was the same as outlined i n the s p r i n t s t a r t t r a i n i n g section. The only difference during the t e s t was that i n the set p o s i t i o n the subjects depressed two microswitches, one with each thumb. When the runner i n i t i a t e d forward running motion, he released the two microswitches and started the clock running. Each subject performed three t r i a l s , with the best t r i a l recorded taken as being representative of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s best e f f o r t . The subject was given 10 minutes rest between . t r i a l s . The Margaria S t a i r Run i s a test of leg power. The sub-jects were instructed to run at top speed up ordinary s t a i r s , two steps (17.5 cm. each) at a time. The time employed to cover an even number of steps was measured with an e l e c t r o n i c clock s e n s i t i v e to .01 seconds, driven by two p h o t o - e l e c t r i c c e l l s . The l i g h t beams ran p a r a l l e l to the steps and were interrupted by the running subject. The reason for an even number of steps was to have the subject intercept the beam of l i g h t while i n the same phase of the movement. The v e r t i c a l component of the speed was e a s i l y calculated by knowing the v e r t i c a l and horizontal dimensions of the step. For the measurement of the power, the time taken from the fourth to si x t h jump (70 cm. height) was recorded. The procedure followed was the same as outlined by Margaria (1968) . Each subject was 42 given three t r i a l s and t o l d to run them at maximum speed. There was a 10 minute re s t between t r i a l s . The best e f f o r t (time) was used as being the i n d i v i d u a l ' s best e f f o r t . The maximum number of leg extensions and flexions during a 10 second t r i a l was the basis for the running machine test. The resistance for the males was constant at 260 pounds; the resistance for the females was 170 pounds. These resistances were arrived at through previous t e s t i n g of students that were p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a fi t n e s s program. They were a group of physical education students, male and female, at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. I t was f e l t that the resistance used on these subjects was adequate for the subjects i n the experiment. The subjects rested t h e i r chests on a support (30° angle). The subjects could s l i d e t h e i r chests up or down on the support. They were shown where to pos i t i o n themselves for each t r i a l so that during f l e x i o n of each leg, an angle of 90° was formed between the trunk and the f l e x i n g leg. To count one r e p e t i t i o n the subject had to perform complete extension and f l e x i o n with one leg. Each subject performed three t r i a l s , with the best t r i a l recorded taken as being representative of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s best e f f o r t . Testing Parameters. The three experimental t e s t i n g periods measured the following parameters of strength, power and speed: (i) Total time taken to run 50 meters from an orthodox track s t a r t i n g p o s i t i o n , ( i i ) Acceleration and v e l o c i t y maintenance time i n running 50 meters. ( i i i ) Maximum anaerobic power as measured by the Margaria Power Test. (iv) Maximal leg extension strength as measured i n a one maximum r e p e t i t i o n on the Nissen Leg Dynamometer. (v) Maximal hamstring strength as measured on the Hydraulic Machine during a 10 second i n t e r v a l . (vi) Maximal number of leg extensions and flex i o n s during a 10 second t r i a l on the Butkus Running Machine. S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis The mean scores from the f i v e dependent variables were subjected to an analysis of variance i n ei t h e r a 4 x 2 or 4 x 3 f a c t o r i a l design. An analysis of variance tested the v a l i d i t y of Hypotheses 1 and 2. The s i g n i f i c a n c e for the difference between correlations was computed using Fisher's Z Transformations. C r i t i c a l values of the c o r r e l a t i o n co-e f f i c i e n t s were also computed to determine the l e v e l of si g n i f i c a n c e . 44 CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results The results of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , regarding the e f f e c t progressive resistance t r a i n i n g has on the a b i l i t y to acceler-ate to maximum v e l o c i t y from an orthodox s p r i n t s t a r t are presented i n t h i s chapter. The i n i t i a l phase of the analysis examined the raw scores compiled from a l l subjects observed during the six week t e s t i n g period (see Appendix B). The mean scores of the four groups on the f i v e tests (50 meter s p r i n t , Margaria Power Test, Hamstring Test, Leg Dynamometer Test and Running Machine Test), were calculated for the three t e s t i n g periods and are presented i n Tables 1 to 6. Analysis of Variance The data was then subjected to an analysis of variance with a separate ANOVA being performed for each of the f i v e dependent variables (see Appendix C). The s p r i n t i n g performance for the four treatment con-dit i o n s showed a marked improvement from t r i a l 1 to t r i a l 2. This difference i s shown i n the t r i a l s main e f f e c t (F = 9.20, TABLE I Mean Velocit y Scores Obtained From the Test of Sprinting Performance for T r i a l Periods 1 and 3 (Measured in m./sec.) T r i a l 1 5 m. 10 m. 15 m. 20 m. 30 m. 40 m. 50 m. Ave. Vel. 50 m Time Group I (Control) 3.46 6.73 7.20 7.61 8.00 8.01 7.69 6.81 7. 34 Group II (Progressive Resistance) 3.43 6.68 7.19 7.55 8.01 7.81 7.54 6 . 71 7.45 Group III (Sprint Start) 3.56 6.95 7.38 7. 86 8.19 8.03 7.69 6.94 7.21 Group IV (Combination) 3.46 6. 80 7.33 7.45 7.78 7.87 7. 76 6. 75 7.41 Average Velocity Over Groups 6.80 Average 50 m. F i n a l Time Over Groups 7.35 T r i a l 3 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 Ave. 50 m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. Vel. Time Group I 3.52 6.63 7.24 7. 79 8.06 8.12 7.67 6. 84 7.31 Group II 3.53 7.19 7.52 7.54 7.84 7.88 7. 79 6 . 84 7.31 Group III 3. 75 7.14 7.53 7.89 8.30 8.21 7.91 7.09 7.05 Group IV 3.58 6.95 7.10 7.25 8.05 7.90 7. 72 6 . 82 7.33 ^ Average Velocity Over Groups 6.90 Average 50 m. Fi n a l Time Over Groups 7.25 46 TABLE II Mean Power Scores Obtained from the Margaria Power Test for T r i a l Periods 1, 2, and 3 (measured i n kilogram.meters per second) T r i a l 1 T r i a l 2 T r i a l 3 Group 1 114.01 125.60 114.13 Group 2 109.97 120 .65 111.26 Group 3 115.82 119.19 119.94 Group 4 123.73 133.62 131.35 TABLE III Mean Velocit y Scores Obtained from the Margaria Pov/er Test for T r i a l Periods 1, 2, and 3 (measured i n meters/sec.) T r i a l 1 T r i a l 2 T r i a l 3 Group 1 1. 45 1.67 1.51 Group 2 1. 50 1.65 1. 52 Group 3 1.60 1.64 1.65 Group 4 1. 50 1.62 1.60 Mean Scores Obtained from the Hamstring Strength Test 47 TABLE IV for T r i a l Periods I, 2, and 3 (measured i n pounds per square inch) T r i a l 1 T r i a l 2 T r i a l 3 Group 1 11.00 12.40 12.60 Group 2 11.75 12.63 12.88 Group 3 11.20 12.60 12.90 Group 4 11.60 12.60 12.80 TABLE V Mean Scores Obtained from the Nissen Leg Dynamometer Test for T r i a l Periods 2, and 3 (measured i n pounds pull) T r i a l 1 T r i a l 2 T r i a l 3 Group 1 1,10 2.0 1,196.0 Group 2 941.3 1,086 .0 Group 3 1,021.0 1,074.0 Group 4 1,09 8.0 1,166.0 48 TABLE VI Mean Scores Obtained from the Running Machine Test for T r i a l Periods 1, 2, and 3 (measured i n Leg Extensions per 10 seconds) T r i a l 1 T r i a l 2 T r i a l 3 Group 1 13.00 14.50 15.00 Group 2 13.00 15.00 16.00 Group 3 13.50 14.00 15.00 Group 4 13.00 15.00 15.00 p<.01) and can be observed i n Figure 4. However, no one group following any one method of t r a i n i n g improved more than any other group. A s i g n i f i c a n t t r i a l s e f f e c t was also shown for the Leg Dynamometer Test (F = 8.90, p<.01), Margaria Power Test (F = 8.69, p<.01), Running Machine Test (F = 16.74, p<.01), and Hamstring Machine Test (F = 55.80, p'<.01) and can be observed i n Figures 5 to 8, respectively. The s i g n i f i c a n t t r i a l s e f f e c t shows that there was a s i g n i f i c a n t change i n performance by a l l four treatment groups over the t r i a l periods. The type of progressive resistance t r a i n i n g done, and the procedures followed i n doing the t r a i n i n g support Berger's (1965) method of progressive resistance t r a i n i n g , i . e . , t r a i n i n g at sub-maximal loads. The condition and the t r i a l s by condition e f f e c t s were non s i g n i f i c a n t for a l l dependent varia b l e s . This shows that there were no differences among the four groups i n average performance, and also that the change over t r i a l s was the same for each group. The data was then subjected to a test of s i g n i f i c a n c e between two c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s for independent samples. This test was performed to determine whether the c o r r e l a t i o n between two variables within one group was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from th i s c o r r e l a t i o n for another group. The s i g n i -ficance of the difference between cor r e l a t i o n s was computed using Fisher's Z Transformations. A d i r e c t comparison of cor r e l a t i o n s between groups revealed that the differences be-50 Distance i n Meters Figure 4 Mean Sprinting Performance i n V e l o c i t y for the Four Treatment Conditions during t r i a l periods 1 and 3 51 <3> T r i a l Periods Figure 5 Mean Strength Performance i n Nissen Leg Dynamometer for the Four Treatment Conditions During T r i a l Periods 2 and 3 52 Figure 6 Mean Power Performance for the Four Treatment Conditions during T r i a l Periods 1, 2, and 3 53 T r i a l Periods Figure 7 Mean Strength Performance on the Butkus Running Machine for the Four Treatment Conditions during T r i a l Periods 1, 2, and 3 54 T r i a l Periods Figure 8 Mean Strength Performance on the Hydraulic Hamstring Machine for the Four Treatment Conditions during during T r i a l Periods 1, 2, and 3 tween correlations were not s i g n i f i c a n t . When comparing the correlations between variables, from one group to another, i t was shown that none of them d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y when using a two t a i l e d test (Z score <2.58, p. 01) (see Appendix D). Discussion Before a discussion of the re s u l t s of t h i s experiment i s undertaken, i t i s most important to discuss the major l i m i t a -tions of t h i s study. The f i r s t factor l i m i t i n g the degree to which one can generalize from the r e s u l t s to larger populations i s the matter dealing with the timer recording error that occurred in T r i a l 3 of the 50 meter run. A malfunction of the Hunter timers occurred during the post t r i a l period i n the 50 meter run. The timers i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y recorded the performance times i n tenths of a second at various distances, rather than in hundredths of a second, during the 50 meter run. Not a l l performers, or performance times were effecte d . A recording error of the performances i n tenths of a second occurring during the 5 meter distances of 5, 10, 15, and 20 meters, could r e s u l t i n an error i n v e l o c i t y measurement of up to 1.08 meters/second. A recording error i n tenths of a second occurring during the 10 meter distances of 30, 40 and 50 meters, could r e s u l t i n an error i n v e l o c i t y measurement of up to .58 meters/second. The e f f e c t the timer recording error had on the v e l o c i t i e s of the effected performance times when recorded i n tenths of a second meant that the performer had a f a s t e r v e l o c i t y at the effected distances. However, there was no s t a t i s t i c a l difference i n the v e l o c i t y curve between the treatment con-diti o n s i n the 50 meter run. Therefore, the timer recording error was f e l t not to have negated the res u l t s of the experiment. The second factor l i m i t i n g the degree to which one can generalize from the res u l t s to larger populations i s the matter dealing with the change i n progressive resistance t r a i n i n g apparatus and the type of strength t e s t s . I n i t i a l l y the Universal Machine v/as used as both the progressive resistance t r a i n i n g apparatus and the apparatus used to test maximal leg extension strength. Once the Universal Machine malfunctioned, during the t h i r d week of t r a i n i n g , a change to bar b e l l s and discs was necessitated. The same progressive resistance t r a i n i n g procedures were followed but the t e s t i n g of leg strength was done on the Nissen Leg Dynamometer, as there was not s u f f i c i e n t weight to test maximal leg strength i n the males using free bar b e l l s . This change i n apparatus for progressive resistance t r a i n i n g i n t e r f e r e d with the number of strength tests a v a i l a b l e to assess the r e l a t i o n s h i p of progressive resistance t r a i n i n g to s p r i n t i n g speed. It was f e l t , however, that the number of tests available to assess leg strength and power were adequate for t h i s study.. Analysis showed that there was no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i -cant difference between treatment conditions. The two Hypotheses were supported, and can be accepted on the basis 57 of the r e s u l t s . The hypotheses are: (i) No s i g n i f i c a n t difference e x i s t s between the s p r i n t s t a r t t r a i n i n g group, (Group III) and the progressive resistance plus s p r i n t s t a r t t r a i n i n g group (Group IV) i n the v e l o c i t y curve a f t e r a six week t r a i n i n g period. ( i i ) No s i g n i f i c a n t difference e x i s t s between the control, (Group I) and the progressive resistance t r a i n i n g group (Group II) i n the v e l o c i t y curve a f t e r a s i x week tr a i n i n g period. The difference i n average performance for 50 meter f i n a l time for the four treatment groups, over the six week t r a i n i n g period, provide i n t e r e s t i n g quantitative information. This information, although not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , i s considered important at a coaching l e v e l and i s provided i n Table 7. An average improvement of .15 seconds i n the 50 meter run would be considered a s i g n i f i c a n t improvement to a coach. The sp r i n t s t a r t t r a i n i n g group recorded an average improvement of .16 seconds. The progressive resistance t r a i n i n g group recorded an average improvement of .13 seconds. The combination group which did both s p r i n t s t a r t t r a i n i n g and progressive resistance t r a i n i n g did not improve i n t h e i r average performance time for the 50 meter run as much as the other two groups. I t would appear that s p r i n t s t a r t t r a i n i n g , or progressive resistance t r a i n i n g done separately would produce the best r e s u l t s i n improving the performance times over 50 meters. It was f e l t that of these two methods that s p r i n t s t a r t t r a i n i n g would be considered the most b e n e f i c i a l type of t r a i n i n g 58 because of the larger improvement i n average performance i n the 50 meter run. TABLE VII Mean 50 Meter F i n a l Time for Treatment Groups Obtained from The Test of Sprinting Performance for T r i a l Periods 1 and 3 Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 T r i a l 1 7.34 7.45 7.21 7.42 T r i a l 3 7.31 7.32 7.05 7.33 Difference +.03 +.13 +.16 -+.09 A degree of caution should be taken when i n t e r p r e t i n g the information on the improvement of the 50 meter f i n a l time for the four treatment groups. Due to the procedural changes and mechanical breakdowns which occurred i n t h i s experiment, i t was f e l t that a detailed analysis of the r e s u l t s would be of no value. There were no s t a t i s t i c a l differences between the four treatment conditions i n t h e i r performance times for the 50 meter run. Three very important questions a r i s e when observing the s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s of t h i s study: (i) Why did the control group improve t h e i r s p r i n t 59 performance to the same extent as the other three groups, when they did no training? ( i i ) Why did the progressive resistance t r a i n i n g group improve t h e i r performance to the same extent as the two groups that did s p r i n t s t a r t training? ( i i i ) Why did the combination t r a i n i n g group not have s i g n i f i c a n t l y f a s t e r s p r i n t times than the other three groups? The improvement of the control group i n t h e i r s p r i n t performance as much as the other three treatment conditions was interpreted as being the r e s u l t of one, or a combination of factors. The f i r s t factor to be considered was the timer recording error, which could mean an improvement of perform-ance times i n the v e l o c i t y curve.. The second factor to be considered was that the procedural changes due to apparatus breakdown, did not allow for a large enough t r a i n i n g e f f e c t i n the other three treatment groups. Another factor that might also explain the control group's improvement i n performance i s that they might have p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a c t i v i t i e s that had a pos i t i v e e f f e c t on t h e i r a b i l i t y to accelerate to maximum v e l o c i t y , even though they were t o l d not to change t h e i r l i f e s t y l e over the experimental period. Two other factors that might also explain why the control group improved i n t h e i r s p r i n t performance could be that, the experiment was too b r i e f to allow the t r a i n i n g e f f e c t i n the other three groups to become apparent, or that the basic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the sub-60 jects i n the control group was such that they could improve t h e i r s p r i n t performance without the benefit of t r a i n i n g , although t h i s i s u n l i k e l y . The reason for the control group's improvement i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to accelerate to maximum v e l o c i t y i s unclear. It was f e l t that the answers to the other two questions asked above, dealing with the 4 treatment groups l i e i n a mechanism l i m i t i n g the rate of leg movement, which was thought to l i m i t s p r i n t performances. A s i g n i f i c a n t t r i a l s by distance by condition i n t e r a c t i o n would be shown i f the t r a i n -ing, s p r i n t s t a r t and progressive resistance t r a i n i n g , done over the experimental period, was s i g n i f i c a n t . In other words, because no one t r a i n i n g procedure caused s i g n i f i c a n t speed improvement, there would appear to be a mechanism l i m i t i n g the rate of leg movement. This rate of leg movement theory was put forward by Slater-Hammel (1941). He found that there i s a neuromuscular mechanism l i m i t i n g the rate of leg movement i n spr i n t i n g . The variable, rate of leg movement or s t r i d e s per second, i s one that track and f i e l d a u t h o r i t i e s throughout the world have accepted as being one ha l f of a formula. This variable cannot be improved upon more than f r a c t i o n a l l y . The other h a l f of t h i s formula i s drive, or s t r i d e length. If a sprin t e r were to improve his s t r i d e length and maintain his rate of leg movement, he would increase his body v e l o c i t y i n sp r i n t i n g . This study was designed to increase the i n d i v i -dual's lower limb strength and to assess the generality of t h i s strength i n improving drive, and thereby body v e l o c i t y , i n s p r i n t i n g . It would appear that to s i g n i f i c a n t l y improve the s t r i d e length, and thereby s p r i n t i n g speed, that pro-gressive resistance t r a i n i n g using the Universal Machine, and barbells and discs, i s not a productive method. There w i l l be strength gains but these gains do not appear to be transferred to the s i g n i f i c a n t improvement of drive, or s t r i d e length. Only productive strength s p r i n t practises might be of value. The r e s u l t s of t h i s study although clouded with procedur-a l and mechanical errors, has t r i e d to c l a r i f y the e f f e c t that progressive resistance t r a i n i n g has on the a b i l i t y to acceler-ate to maximum v e l o c i t y . Dintiman (19 74), a renowned authority on improving s p r i n t speed, stated that weight t r a i n i n g exercises have constituted the most successful•supplementary program i n evaluating the strength of muscles involved i n s p r i n t i n g action, and ultimately i n s p r i n t i n g speed. The r e s u l t s of t h i s study do not support Dintiman's statement. 62 CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Progressive resistance t r a i n i n g for strength gains has become accepted as a l o g i c a l , methodical and s c i e n t i f i c approach. A "generality" hypothesis, stemming from pro-gressive resistance t r a i n i n g , has been accepted by coaches, trainers and many researchers. This hypothesis states that weight t r a i n i n g produces strength gains, which w i l l improve the performance i n a p a r t i c u l a r s k i l l . Many track and f i e l d coaches throughout the world advocate progressive resistance t r a i n i n g , using apparatus.for the purpose of improving strength, which they f e e l w i l l im-prove the athlete's a b i l i t y to s p r i n t f a s t e r . There has been a great deal of research into the degree of generality or s p e c i f i c i t y that exists between the strength gained i n pro-gressive resistance t r a i n i n g and the e f f e c t t h i s improved strength has on the performance of a p a r t i c u l a r s k i l l . The l i t e r a t u r e on the e f f e c t weight t r a i n i n g has on the speed of movement i n a gross motor a c t i v i t y i s not very c l e a r and tends to support a " s p e c i f i c i t y " hypothesis. This hypothesis states that to improve the performance of a p a r t i c u l a r s k i l l , prac-t i s e of that s k i l l w i l l be the most b e n e f i c i a l . 63 Problem This study was designed to further investigate over a six week t r a i n i n g period, the e f f e c t progressive resistance t r a i n i n g has on the a b i l i t y to accelerate to maximum v e l o c i t y , from an orthodox s p r i n t s t a r t p o s i t i o n . The hypotheses under inv e s t i g a t i o n were: (i) No s i g n i f i c a n t difference exists between the s p r i n t s t a r t t r a i n i n g group, and the progressive r e s i s t -ance plus s p r i n t s t a r t t r a i n i n g group i n the velo-c i t y curve a f t e r a six week t r a i n i n g period. ( i i ) No s i g n i f i c a n t difference e x i s t s between control and the progressive resistance t r a i n i n g group i n the v e l o c i t y curve a f t e r a s i x week t r a i n i n g period. Limitations/Delimitations This study was l i m i t e d to the Universal Machine and bar-b e l l s and discs for the progressive resistance t r a i n i n g . A further l i m i t a t i o n was the change from the Universal Machine to barbells and discs during the t h i r d week of progressive resistance t r a i n i n g r e s u l t i n g only i n measurement of maximum leg extension strength. This was measured on the Nissen Leg Dynamometer. The study was also l i m i t e d by using only the 50 meter distance as a gauge for s p r i n t i n g performance. This study was also l i m i t e d by the change of clock counters used to measure the performance i n the Margaria Power Test for the second t e s t i n g (middle) period. The change of 64 clock counters meant that there was no second testing period for the 50 meter run. Subjects Forty-one students from a u n i v e r s i t y a c t i v i t y class i n track and f i e l d volunteered as subjects. Methods and Procedures Each of the forty-one subjects was randomly assigned to one of four groups: co n t r o l , progressive resistance t r a i n i n g , s p r i n t s t a r t t r a i n i n g and combination s p r i n t s t a r t and pro-gressive resistance t r a i n i n g . However, only the 32 male subject's data was s t a t i s t i c a l l y treated. The females were excluded because of the large inequality i n number between males and females i n each treatment group. Group I (control) was comprised of 10 males and 2 females; Group II (progressive resistance training) was comprised of 8 males and 3 females; Group III (sprint s t a r t training) was comprised of 10 males and 2 females; Group IV (combination progressive resistance and s p r i n t s t a r t training) was comprised of 5 males and 1 female. The two groups, progressive resistance and the combination group, met three times a week to weight t r a i n . The s i x week tr a i n i n g period was divided into two sections of three weeks each. The f i r s t three weeks were a preparation phase consist-ing of r e l a t i v e l y l i g h t loads and high r e p e t i t i o n s and sets, i . e . , 3 sets of 12 r e p e t i t i o n s at one weight and 3 sets of 15 65 re p e t i t i o n s at a heavier weight (3 x 12 and 3 x 15). This period was to be used as an acclimatization period for the subjects, as the majority of those subjects that p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the study had no experience with weight t r a i n i n g . During the t h i r d week each subject had increased the weight l i f t e d i n both the 3 x 12 and 3 x 15 progressive resistance sets, by 40 pounds i n the squat l i f t and 20 pounds i n the ankle exten-sion. The strength of the subjects had increased enough, and thereby t h e i r a cclimatization to hard muscular work, to move into the second phase of the study. It was at t h i s time that the Universal Machine broke down and an alternate method, progressive resistance t r a i n i n g with barbells and discs was employed. Proper technique for per-forming a squat l i f t and ankle extension with free weights was taught. • Supervision of the subjects during t r a i n i n g was undertaken to ensure that good technique was employed, to prevent injury. The pyramid system of progressive resistance t r a i n i n g was used i n the second phase of the experiment. The pyramid system used consisted of re p e t i t i o n s and sets of 3 sets of 6 re p e t i t i o n s . Each subject was t o l d to s t a r t with a weight that they could complete 6 rep e t i t i o n s such that the l a s t 2 repetitions were quite d i f f i c u l t . The subjects then increased the weight for the next 6 re p e t i t i o n s and the l a s t 6 r e p e t i -tions, following the same procedure. To safeguard against injury, increments of only 20 pounds were used from one set to the next. The progressive resistance t r a i n i n g and combination group did t h e i r t r a i n i n g independently so that the performance for the subjects i n each group would not have a detrimental i n -fluence on each other. The s p r i n t s t a r t and combination tr a i n i n g groups did not do t h e i r s p r i n t t r a i n i n g together for the same reason. The subjects involved i n s p r i n t s t a r t t r a i n i n g met three times per week and accelerated a distance of 50 meters for each t r i a l . Each subject performed a t o t a l of 20 t r i a l s per session. Enough rest, 15 minutes, was given to ensure r e l i a b i l i t y of performance. Each i n d i v i d u a l was urged to make each t r i a l a maximum. The following variables i n the set p o s i t i o n were cont r o l l e d during each t r i a l run for each i n d i v i d u a l : (i) Hand-to-hand distance ( l a t e r a l l y ) . Each i n d i v i d u a l had the distance measured for them. This marked distance was placed on the ground. I t was the distance between thumbs when the arms were d i r e c t l y under the shoulders. ( i i ) A 90° angle between trunk and arms taken on the midline of the arms and trunk. ( i i i ) The toe-to-toe l o n g i t u d i n a l spacing of 16 inches for each i n d i v i d u a l . (iv) Front knee j o i n t angle of 90°. (v) Rear leg knee j o i n t angle of 120°. 67 Both rear and front leg knee j o i n t angles were taken on the midline of the upper and lower leg. Each subject assumed the set position when they were ready. The measurements of the angles at both knees and at the shoulders were taken. The subject was given the command "good" i f a l l angles were a l l ri g h t , i . e . , front knee at 90°, rear knee at 120° and trunk at 90°. I f the subject did not assume the desired p o s i t i o n he was given verbal cues such as "up, forward, down, back," etc. to a s s i s t i n assuming the proper p o s i t i o n . Once the subject had assumed t h i s p o s i t i o n he held the p o s i t i o n for practise purposes to acquire a f e e l for the various positions of the front and rear legs and trunk. He then went down to the on your marks po s i t i o n to rest his fingers, and when ready he assumed the get set po s i t i o n again. If the angles at the knees and shoulders were correct he i n i t i a t e d running on his own response. This procedure worked very w e l l . It was found that after the second week of t r a i n i n g , the subjects assumed the set pos i t i o n with very few adjustments of body angles. Three testing periods measured the following parameters of strength, power and speed: (i) Acceleration and v e l o c i t y maintenance time i n running 50 meters, with times taken at 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 and 50 meters. ( i i ) Maximum anaerobic power as measured by the Margaria Power Test. ( i i i ) Maximal hamstring strength as measured on the Hy-68 d r a u l i c Machine during a 10 second i n t e r v a l . (iv) Maximum leg extension strength as measured i n a one maximum r e p e t i t i o n on the Nissen Leg Dyna-mometer . (v) Maximum number of leg extensions and flexions during a 10 second t r i a l on the Butkus Running Machine. Testing for the s p r i n t performances occurred at the beginning of the experimental period and at the end, i . e . , ( f i r s t week and seventh week). The subjects were tested one week af t e r the t r a i n i n g had ceased (seventh week) to allow them to recover from the fat i g u i n g e f f e c t s of t r a i n i n g . The Nissen Leg Dynamometer Test for leg extension strength was done at the end of the t h i r d and seventh week. The rest of the tests, Margaria Power Test, Hamstring Strength Test and Running Machine Test, were done three times during the experimental period: during the f i r s t week, at the end of the t h i r d week and at the end of the seventh week. Analysis of Data The data was analyzed with a two way ANOVA to test the e f f e c t s of the exercise treatment over the s i x week t r a i n i n g period. These calc u l a t i o n s were c a r r i e d out by a UBC computer program, BMD P2V, which provided a repeated measures analysis of variance, with an orthogonal breakdown of each source of v a r i a t i o n to test for trend. The data was also subjected to an analysis of c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s , to t e s t for the 69 r e l a t i o n s h i p among the exercise treatments. The UBC computer program UBC SIMCORT was used i n t h i s procedure. Results and Discussion Analysis of variance yielded no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the various treatment conditions i n s p r i n t -ing performance. No one treatment group improved more than the other. A l l four treatment conditions s i g n i f i c a n t l y improved t h e i r s p r i n t i n g performance. The analysis of variance done on the strength and power measures yielded s i g n i f i c a n t strength improvement on the strength t e s t s : Leg Dynamometer, Running Machine and Hamstring Machine, and s i g n i f i c a n t power improvement on the Margaria Power Test. A s i g n i f i c a n t improvement i n performance occurred over the six week t r a i n i n g period for a l l four treatment groups, A l l of these strength and power re l a t i o n s h i p s are expressed graphically i n Figures 5 to 8. The major l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s study which l i m i t the degree to which one can generalize from the r e s u l t s to larger populations are, the timer recording error, the change i n progressive resistance t r a i n i n g apparatus, and the type of strength t e s t s . The malfunction of the Hunter timers occurred during the post t r i a l period i n the 50 meter run. The timers i n d i s -criminately recorded the performance times i n tenths of a second at various distances rather than in hundredths of a second, during the 50 meter run. Not a l l performers, or 70 performance times were effected. The e f f e c t the timer record-ing error had on the v e l o c i t i e s of the effected performance times when recorded i n tenths of a second meant that the performer had a faster v e l o c i t y at the effected distances. However, there was no s t a t i s t i c a l difference in the v e l o c i t y curve between the treatment conditions i n the 50 meter run. Therefore, the timer recording error was f e l t not to have negated the results of the experiment. I n i t i a l l y the Universal Machine was used as both the progressive resistance t r a i n i n g apparatus and the apparatus used to test maximal leg extension strength. Once the Univer-s a l Machine malfunctioned, during the t h i r d week of t r a i n i n g , a change to barbells and discs was necessitated. The same progressive resistance t r a i n i n g procedures were followed but the testing of leg strength was done on the Nissen Leg Dynamometer, as there was not s u f f i c i e n t weight to test maxi-mal leg strength i n the males using free b a r b e l l s . The change i n apparatus for progressive resistance t r a i n i n g i n t e r -fered with the number of strength tests a v a i l a b l e to assess the r e l a t i o n s h i p of progressive resistance t r a i n i n g to s p r i n t i n g speed. It was f e l t , however, that the number of tests available to assess leg strength and power were adequate for t h i s study. The differences between the 50 meter f i n a l times for the four treatment groups were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . However, these differences could be important on a coaching l e v e l . The s p r i n t s t a r t t r a i n i n g group recorded an average 71 improvement of . 16 seconds, and the progressive resistance t r a i n i n g group recorded an average improvement of .13 seconds i n the 50 meter f i n a l time. This improvement i n s p r i n t i n g performance over a r e l a t i v e l y short t r a i n i n g period of time could be meaningful to a coach. However, a degree of caution should be taken when i n t e r p r e t i n g the information on the improvement of the 50 meter f i n a l time for the four treatment groups. Due to the procedural changes and mechanical break-downs which occurred i n thi s experiment, i t was f e l t that a detailed analysis of the res u l t s would be of no value. There were no s t a t i s t i c a l differences between the four treatment conditions i n t h e i r performance times for the 50 meter run. . Conclusions On the basis of the re s u l t s obtained i n t h i s study, the two hypotheses are accepted: (i) No s i g n i f i c a n t difference e x i s t s between the s p r i n t s t a r t t r a i n i n g group, and the progressive resistance plus s p r i n t s t a r t t r a i n i n g group i n the v e l o c i t y curve a f t e r a s i x week t r a i n i n g period. ( i i ) No s i g n i f i c a n t difference e x i s t s between control and the progressive resistance t r a i n i n g group in'the v e l o c i t y curve a f t e r a s i x week t r a i n i n g period. Many national and i n t e r n a t i o n a l coaches and researchers Marlow (1967), Marlow and Watts (1970), Dintiman (1971), and Paish (19 76) advocate progressive resistance t r a i n i n g using 72 Universal Machines or barbells and disc s , i n a supplementary program to s p r i n t t r a i n i n g . The re s u l t s of th i s study ques-tion this p r a c t i s e . The results of t h i s study tend to support those research-ers who found no improvement i n s p r i n t i n g performance with the use of a supplementary program of progressive resistance t r a i n i n g . However, the inconsistency between the re s u l t s and conclusions of t h i s study, and other s i m i l a r studies that found a s i g n i f i c a n t improvement i n s p r i n t i n g performance through the use of a supplementary program of progressive resistance t r a i n i n g , indicate that there i s a great deal yet to be learned about th i s r e l a t i o n s h i p . The mechanism l i m i t i n g the rate of leg movement, theorized by Slater-Hammel (1941), may i n some way l i m i t the application of strength gains to sprint i n g performance. Experiments that deal with more s p e c i f i c types of strength t r a i n i n g to the art of s p r i n t i n g , and experiments that investigate the mechanism l i m i t i n g the rate of leg movement are needed. 73 REFERENCES Bachman, J. C. " S p e c i f i c i t y vs. Generality i n Learning and Performing Two Large Muscle.Motor Tasks," Research  Quarterly. 32:3-11, 1961. Barnes, R. "The E f f e c t of Weight Training on Speed i n the 100 Yard Dash." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Arkansas State College, 1961. Bates, J. "The E f f e c t of S t a t i c and Dynamic Strength Training and Position of Exercise on the A c q u i s i t i o n of Strength, Speed of Movement, Reaction Time and Endurance." Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Louisiana State University, 1967. Berger, R. A. "E f f e c t of Varied Weight Training Programs on Strength," Research Quarterly. 33:168-181, 1962. . "Effects of Dynamic and S t a t i c Training on V e r t i c a l Jumping A b i l i t y , " Research Quarterly. 34:419-424, 1962. •_. "Comparison Between Resistance Load and Strength Improvement," Research Quarterly. 33:637, 19 63. . "Comparison of the E f f e c t of Various Weight Training Loads on Strength," Research Quarterly. 36:141-146, 1965. . and Blaschke, L. A. "Comparison of Relationships between Motor A b i l i t y and S t a t i c and Dynamic Strength," Research Quarterly. 38:144-146, 1966. Berger, R. A. and Hardage, B. " E f f e c t of Maximum Loads for Each of Ten Repetitions on Strength Improvement," Research Quarterly. 38:715-718, 1967. Bergeron, P. "The E f f e c t s of S t a t i c Strength Training at Various Positions and Dynamic Strength Training Through a F u l l Range of Motion on Strength, Speed of Movement and Power." Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Louisiana State University, 1966. Blucker, J. A. "A Study of the E f f e c t s of Leg Strengthening Exercises on the V e r t i c a l Jumping and Speed of Running of College Women." Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of North Carolina, 1965. Boarman, M. "The E f f e c t s of Strength Training on Speed of Movement." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 1967. 74 Capen, E. K. " E f f e c t of Systematic Weight Training on Power, Strength and Endurance," Research Quarterly. 21:83-93, 1950. Chui, E. F. "The E f f e c t of Systematic Weight Training on A t h l e t i c Power," Research Quarterly. 21:188-194, 1950. . "Effects of Isometric and Dynamic Weight Training Exercises Upon Strength and Speed of Movement," Research  Quarterly. 35:246-257, 1964. Clarke, H. H. Application of Measurement to Health and Physical Education. New Jersey: Prentice H a l l Inc., 1950 . Clarke, D. H. and Henry, F. M. "Neuromotor S p e c i f i c i t y and Increased Speed from Strength Development," Research  Quarterly. 32:315-325, 1961. Colgate, J. A. "Arm Strength Relative to Arm Speed," Research  Quarterly. 37:14-22, 1966. C o s t i l l , D. L., M i l l e r , S. J., Meyers, W. C , Keltoe, F. M. and Hoffman, W. M. "Relationship Among Selected Tasks of Explosive Leg Strength and Power," Research Quarterly. 37:785-787, 1968. Cummings, G. C. "The E f f e c t of Weight Training on the Speed of Running." Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of C a l i f o r n i a , 1965. Delorme, T. L. "Heavy Resistance Exercises," Archives of  Physical Medicine. 607-630, 1946. Dickinson, H. D. "The E f f e c t of Foot Spacing on the Starting Time and Speed i n Sprinting and the Relationship Between the Size of the Man and Position of the Feet." Unpub-li s h e d Master's Thesis, University of Iowa, 1934. Dintiman, G.B. "Effects of Various Training Programs i n Running Speed," Research Quarterly. 35:456-463, 1965. " . Sprinting Speed: Its Improvement for Major Sports Competition. S p r i n g f i e l d : Charles C. Thomas, 1971. _. What Research T e l l s the Coach About Sprinting. Washington: American A l l i a n c e for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 19 74. Dyson, G. The Mechanics of A t h l e t i c s . London: University of London Press, 19 73. 75 Ferguson, G. S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis i n Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw H i l l Book Company, 19 71. Fishbain, J. "The E f f e c t s of a Nine Week Training Program Upon Measures of Dynamic Strength of Adolescent Males." Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1961. Hayden, T. C. and Walker, G. H. "A Comparison of the Starting Time of Runners Using Holes i n Track and Starting Blocks," Research Quarterly. IV:117-123, 1933. Hellixon, P. "The E f f e c t s of Progressive Heavy Resistance Exercises Using Near Maximum Weight on the Running and Jumping A b i l i t y of the F i r s t Year High School Track Performances." Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1961. Henry, F. M. "Force-Time C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Sprint Start," Research Quarterly. 17:301-318, 1952. and Nelson, L. A. "Age Differences and Inter-Relationships Between S k i l l and Learning i n Gross Motor Performance of Ten and F i f t e e n Year Old Boys," Research  Quarterly. 27:162-175, 1956. and Trafton, T. R. "The V e l o c i t y Curve of Sprint Running," Research Quarterly. 14:409-422, 1951. and Whitley, J. D. "Relationships Between Individual Differences i n Strength, Speed and Mass i n Arm Movements," Research Quarterly. 31:24-33, 1959. Houts, L. J., Parrish, A. M. and Hallebrandt, F. A. "The Influence of Heavy Resistance Exercise on Strength," The Physiotherapy Review. XXVI:299-304, 1946. Jackson, A. S. and Baumgartner, T. A. "Measurement Schedules of Sprint Running," Research Quarterly. 40:708-711, 1969. and Cooper, J. M. " E f f e c t of Hand Spacing and Rear Knee Angle i n the Sprinters Start," Research Quarterly. 41:378-382, 1971. K i s t l e r , J. W. "A Study of the D i s t r i b u t i o n of the Force Exerted Upon the Blocks i n S t a r t i n g the Sprint from Various Starting Positions." Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Iowa, 1934. Kusinitz, I. and Keeney, C. E. "Effects of Progressive Weight Training on Health and Physical Fitness of Adolescent Boys," Research Quarterly. 29:294-301, x958. 76 Laycoe, R. R. and Marteniuk, R. G. "Learning and Tension as Factors i n S t a t i c Strength Gains Produced by S t a t i c and Eccentric Training," Research Quarterly. 42:299-306, 1971. Lotter, W. S. "Interrelationships Among Reaction Times and Speed of Movement in D i f f e r e n t Limbs," Research Quarter-l y . 31:147-155, 1960. Margaria, R. Aghemo, P. E. and R a v e l l i , E. "Measurement of Muscular Power (Anaerobic) i n Man," Journal of Applied  Physiology. 21:1662-1664, 1968. Marlow, B. Sprinting and Relay Racing. London: Amateur A t h l e t i c Association, 1967. and Watts, D. Track A t h l e t i c s . London: Pelham Books Ltd.,19 70. Masley, J. W., Hairabedon, A. and Donaldson, W. D. "Weight Training i n Relation to Strength, Speed and Coordina-t i o n , " Research Quarterly. 24:309-315, 1953. Meisel, G. S. "Effects of Weight Training on Speed of Running." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 1957. Mendryk, F. "Effects of Isometric, Isotonic and Speed Conditioning Programs on Speed of Movement, Reaction Time and Strength of College Men." Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Alberta, 1966. Menly, R. C. and Rosemier, R. A. "Effectiveness of Four Track Starting Positions on Acceleration," Research  Quarterly. 55:378-382, 1968. Morant, C. "A Comparison of Exer-Genic, Isometric and Iso-tonic Training Programs on Selected Components of Motor A b i l i t y . " Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, F l o r i d a State University, 1970. Morehouse, L. E. and Cooper, J. M. Kinesiology. New Jersey: Prentice H a l l , 1967. O'Shea, J. P. "Effects of Varied, Short Term Weight Training Programs on Improving Performances i n the 400 Meter Run," Research Quarterly. 40:248-250, 1968. Oxendine, J. B. "Generality and S p e c i f i c i t y i n the Learning of Fine and Gross Motor S k i l l s , " Research Quarterly. 38:87-94, 1966. 77 Pierson, W. R. and Rasch, P. J. "Strength and Speed," Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s . 14:144, 1962. Pipes, T. V. and Wilmore, J. H. "Isokinetic Versus Isotonic Strength Training i n Adult Men," Medicine and Science  i n Sports. 7:262-274, 1975. Rasch, P. J. "Relationship of Arm Strength, Weight and Length to Speed of Arm Movement," Research Quarterly. 28:328-332, 1954. Robichaux, W. A. "Relationship Between Demonstrated S k i l l i n Performing Sports A c t i v i t i e s and Learning New Gross Motor S k i l l . " Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Southern C a l i f o r n i a , 1960. Rodgers, K. L. and Berger, R. A. "Motor Unit Involvement and Tension During Maximum Voluntary Concentric, Eccentric and Isometric Contractions of the Elbow Flexors," Medicine and Science i n Sports. 6:253-259, 1974. Schultz, G. W. "The E f f e c t s of Direct Practice Repetitive Sprinting and Weight Training on Selected Motor Perform-ance Tests," Research Quarterly. 30:108-118, 1967. Smith, L. E. " S p e c i f i c i t y of Individual Differences of Relationships Between Forearm Strength and Speed of Forearm Flexion," Research Quarterly. 40:191-197, 1969. Stock, M. "Influence of Various'Track S t a r t i n g Positions on Speed," Research Quarterly. 33:607-614, 1962. Sweeting, R. L. "Effects of Various Running and Weight Train-ing Programs on Sprinting Speed." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 1963. Walker, G. A. and Hayden, T. C. "The Optimum Time for Holding a Sprinter Between the Set and the Stimulus (Gunshot)," Research Quarterly. 4:124-130, 1933. Whitley, J. D. and Smith, L. E. "Velocity Curves and S t a t i c Strength-Action Strength Correlations i n Relation to the Mass Moved by the Arm," Research Quarterly. 34:379-395, 1963. and Smith, L. E. "Influence of Three D i f f e r e n t Training Programs on Strength and Speed of a Limb Move-ment," Research Quarterly. 37:132, 142, 1965. Wilkin, B. M. "The E f f e c t of Weight Training on Speed of Movement," Research Quarterly. 23:361-369, 1952. 78 Winningham, S. N. " E f f e c t of Training with Ankle Weights on Running S k i l l . " Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Southern C a l i f o r n i a , 1965. Woodall, T. "Weight Training of the Arms and Upper Body and Its E f f e c t Upon Speed of High School Boys i n the 100 Yard Dash." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Colorado State College, 1960. Zorbas, W. "The E f f e c t of Weight L i f t i n g Upon the Speed of Muscular Contractions." Unpublished Master's Thesis, S p r i n g f i e l d College, 1950. APPENDIX A INTRODUCTION TO STUDENTS 80 Appendix A Instructions for Testing Procedures 1. Rest for 15 minutes in a supine p o s i t i o n . 2. Weigh i n . 3. Warm-up 10 minutes of jogging and stre t c h i n g . Sprints - 5 accelerations of 60 meters with a walk back. The speeds of each succeeding acceleration was to increase, u n t i l the sixth acceleration, which was to be of a maximum e f f o r t . Progressive resistance - 2 sets of 4 r e p e t i t i o n s with one hal f body as resistance. 4. Five to eight minute r e s t . 5. Testing Order A. Margaria Power Test - 3 a l l out t r i a l s r e s t i n g 10 minutes between t r i a l s . Rest 10 minutes. B. Sprints - 3 a l l out sprints from a standard s t a r t p o sition r e s t i n g 10 minutes between each t r i a l . Rest 10 minutes. C. Running Machine - 3 a l l out t r i a l s r e s t i n g 10 minutes between t r i a l s . Rest 15 minutes. D. Leg Extension Strength Universal machine and Nissen Leg dynamometer -1 maximal r e p e t i t i o n . APPENDIX B RAW SCORES RAW SCORES FOR SPRINTING PERFORMANCE TRIAL 1 Subject Sprinting Distances Measured i n Meters Per Second Group 1 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 Ave. 50m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. Vel. Time 1 3.52 6.94 7.35 7.81 8.06 7.87 7.41 6.82 7.33 2 3.40 6.58 7.25 7.58 7.87 7.94 8.20 6.35 7.88 3 3.33 6.25 6.67 7.46 7.46 7.41 6.80 7.26 6.89 4 3.70 7.14 7.69 7.94 8.47 8.55 8.26 6.96 7.18 5 3.47 6.85 7.46 8.33 8.06 8.20 7.81 6.85 7.30 6 3.73 6.76 7.25 6.94 7.94 8.06 7.63 6.73 7.43 7 3.23 6.49 7.14 7.81 7.94 8.06 7.87 6.28 7.96 8 3.05 6.58 6.49 7.04 7.41 7.30 7.35 7.00 7.14 9 3.70 6.94 7.46 7.58 8.77 8.70 7.87 7.18 6.96 Subject Group 11 13 3.45 7.04 7.25 7.94 8.77 8.06 7.35 6.96 7.18 14 3.33 6.58 6.85 7.25 7.75 7.81 7.58 6.61 7.57 . 15 3.52 6.85 7.35 7.69 8.20 7.75 7.87 6.89 7.26 16 3.55 6.67 7.46 7.69 8.00 7.87 7.69 6.85 7.30 17 3.38 6.76 7.25 7.81 7.94 7.81 7.30 6.70 7.46 18 3.65 7.25 7.69 8.06 8.62 8.33 8.13 7.23 6.92 19 3.57 6.94 7.14 7.46 8.26 8.40 8.00 7.04 7.10 20 2.98 5.38 6.49 6.49 6.54 6.49 6.37 5.69 8.79 Subject 5 10 15 20 Group 111 in i . m. m. m. 24 3. 42 6 .76 7 .14 7 .69 25 3. 76 6 .85 7 .25 7 .-46 26 3. 40 7 .04 7 .25 7 .25 27 3. 38 6 .85 7 .14 7 .69 28 3. 91 7 .46 7 .81 8 .47 29 3. 57 6 .94 7 .69 7 .58 30 3. 73 6 .94 7 .25 8 .33 31 3. 70 6 .49 7 .46 8 .20 32 3. 29 6 .85 7 .25 7 .94 33 3. 45 7 .35 7 .58 7 .94 Subject Group IV 36 3.52 6.58 7.69 7.69 37 3.57 7.14 7.35 7.69 38 3.52 6.58 7.58 7.25 39 3.52 6.94 7.25 8.06 40 3.18 6.76 6.76 6.58 Ave. 50m. Vel. Time 30 m. 7.81 8.70 8.26 7.81 8.93 8.CO 8.26 8.13 7.75 8.20 40 m. 8.06 8.06 8.00 7.81 8.77 7.75 8.20 7.75 7.46 8.40 50 m. 7.25 7.81 7.63 7.46 8.70 7.35 7.87 7.69 7. 35 7. 81 6.72 7.05 6.82 6.70 7.59 6 . 82 7.09 6.93 6.61 7.11 7.44 7.09 7.33 7.46 6.59 7.33 7.05 7.22 7.56 7.03 7.87 7.94 7.69 8.20 7.19 7.87 8.55 7.58 7. 87 7.41 7.69 8.26 7.41 8.20 7.25 6.83 6.97 6.67 6.98 6. 32 7. 32 7.17 7.50 7.16 7.91 RAW SCORES FOR SPRINTING PERFORMANCE TRIAL 3 Subject Sprinting Distances Measured i n Meters Per Second Group 1 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 Ave. 50m. in i . m. m. m. I B . m. m. Vel. Time 1 3. 38 6 .59 7 .14 8 .06 8 . 33 8 .33 7 .58 6 . 89 7 .26 2 3. 57 6 .25 7 .14 8 .33 8 .33 8 .33 7 .69 6 .94 7 .20 3 3. 47 6 .41 7 .04 7 .35 7 .69 7 .58 7 .19 6 .56 7 .62 4 3. 57 8 .33 8 .33 7 .69 8 .33 8 .33 8 .33 7 .25 6 .90 5 3. 50 6 .76 6 .58 7 .69 8 .20 8 .47 7 .25 6 .79 7 .36 6 3. 47 6 .49 6 .94 7 .58 7 .81 7 .94 7 .46 6 .73 7 .43 7 3. 65 6 .25 7 .35 7 .94 8 .13 8 .47 8 .33 7 .04 7 .10 8 3. 31 5 .59 7 .04 7 .14 7 .81 7 .75 7 .29 6 .49 7 .70 9 3. 79 6 .67 7 .58 7 .69 8 .55 7 .87 7 . 87 7 . 05 7 .09 Subject Group 11 13 3. 57 8 .33 8 .33 8 .33 7 .69 8 . 33 8 . 33 7 .25 6 .90 14 3. 33 7 . 14 7 .14 7 .14 7 .69 7 .70 7 .69 6 .67 7 .50 15 3. 57 8 . 33 8 .33 7 .14 8 .33 7 .70 8 . 33 7 .14 7 .00 16 3. 85 6 .94 7 .25 7 .46 8 .00 7 . 75 7 .87 6 .91 7 .24 17 3. 60 6 .10 6 .94 7 .04 7 .25 7 .94 7 .63 6 .59 7 .59 18 3. 57 8 . 33 8 .33 8 . 33 8 . 33 8 • 3 3 7 .69 7 .25 6 .90 19 3. 76 6 .58 7 .14 8 .33 8 .40 8 . 33 8 .33 7 .19 6 .95 20 2. 96 5 .75 6 .67 6 .58 7 .04 6 .99 6 .49 5 .92 8 .45 Subject 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 Ave. 50m. Group 111 m. m. m. m. m. m. m. Vel. Time 24 3.42 6.94 6.94 7.81 8.13 7.35 7.52 6.70 7.46 25 3.97 6.67 7.35 7.69 8.40 8.55 7.87 7.17 6.97 26 3.85 8.33 8.33 7.14 7.69 7.69 7.69 7.04 7.10 27 3.85 7.14 7.14 7.14 8.33 8.33 7.69 7.04 7.10 28 3.85 8.33 8.33 8.33 9.10 8.33 9.10 7.69 6.50 29 3.94 6.41 7.58 7.46 8.20 7.52 7.81 6.93 7.21 30 3.94 6.85 6.58 8.47 8.47 9.80 8.06 7.36 6.79 31 3.82 6.41 7.58 8.20 8.47 8.47 7.94 7.16 6.98 32 3.33 7.14 7.14 8.33 7.14 8.33 7.14 6.58 7.60 33 3.57 7.14 8.33 8.33 9.10 8.33 8.33 7.35 6.80 Subject Group IV 36 3.36 6.17 7.25 7.14 7.63 7.58 7.46 7.53 7.66 37 3.57 8.33 7.14 7.14 8.33 8.33 8.33 7.14 7.00 38 3.57 7.14 7.14 7.14 8.33 7.69 7.14 6.76 7.40 39 3. 85 7.14 7.14 7.14 8.33 8.33_ 8.33 7.14 7.00 40 3.55 5.95 6.85 7.69 7.63 7.58 7.35 6.57 7.61 RAW SCORES FOR NISSEN LEG DYNAMOMOTER TEST (MEASURED IN POUNDS PULL) Subject T r i a l Periods Group 1 T r i a l 2 T r i a l 3 1 1600 1510 2 1020 940 3 1870 2230 4 1190 1210 5 900 1140 6 530 740 7 900 970 8 1150 1300 9 880 1000 10 980 920 Subject Group 11 13 630 880 14 680 850 15 1320 1350 16 1080 1100 17 1350 1670 18 840 900 19 1070 1380 20 560 560 Subject Group 111 24 1350 1180 25 1060 930 26 760 1120 27 750 800 28 1020 1110 29 1180 1150 30 1310 1110 31 850 920 32 940 1130 33 990 1290 Subject Group IV 36 1140 1430 37 1110 1230 38 800 980 39 1070 890 40 1370 1300 88 RAW SCORES FOR MARGARIA POWER TEST (MEASURED IN KILOGRAM. M/SEC.) Subject Group I T r i a l 1 T r i a l 2 T r i a l 3 1 122.05 116.32 104.23 2 121.95 127.45 121.95 3 128.86 142.23 133.64 4 93.27 97.55 91. 45 5 134.45 149.05 131.32 6 121.91 150.55 124.36 7 99 .27 99 .27 103.73 8 133.36 130.10 127.64 9 105 .00 107.77 109.86 10 102.68 135.73 84.05 Subject Group II 13 130.09 133.36 133 . 36 14 97.18 99.27 82. 73 15 129.36 144.55 120.68 16 111.24 146.36 122.23 17 116.00 125.41 122.86 18 118.55 121.45 124.36 19 116.59 119.32 108.41 20 70.83 75.50 75.50 Subject Group 111 24 115.59 117.82 143.73 25 100.86 100.86 109.86 26 122.23 122 .23 111.77 27 122.23 117.00 122.23 28 117.05 119.95 117.05 29 117.09 135.50 131.77 30 146.36 163.86 142.41 31 111..14 103.64 113.86 32 92.95 103.35 96.86 33 112.73 107.68 109.86 Subj ect Group IV 36 123.95 118.95 118.95 37 109.18 116.91 114.41 38 155.59 163.23 159.41 39 99.45 113.36 118.91 40 130.45 155.64 145.36 RAW SCORES FOR MARGARIA POWER TEST (VELOCITY) (MEASURED IN M/SEC.) Subject Group 1 T r i a l Periods T r i a l 1 T r i a l 2 T r i a l 3 1 1.71 1.63 1.46 2 1.56 1.63 1.56 3 1. 35 1.49 1.40 4 1.52 1.59 1.49 \ 5 1.75 1.94 1.71 6 1.49 1.84 1.52 7 1.56 1.56 1.63 8 1.63 1.59 1.56 9 1.52 1.56 1.59 10 1.43 1.89 1.17 Subject Group 11 13 1.59 1.63 1.63 14 1. 37 1.56 1. 30 15 1.79 2.00 1.67 16 1.52 2.00 1.67 17 1.35 1.46 1.43 18 1.63 1.67 1.71 19 1.71 1.75 1.59 20 1.06 1.13 1.13 Subject Group 111 24 1.56 1.59 1.94 25 1.46 1.46 1.59 26 1.63 1.63 . 1.49 27 1.63 1.56 1.63 28 1.63 1.67 1.63 29 1.59 1. 84 1.79 30 1. 84 2.06 1.79 31 1.63 1.52 1.67 32 1.43 1.59 1.49 33 1. 56 1.49 1.52 Subject Group IV 36 1.49 1.43 1.43 37 1.56 1.67 1.63 38 1.63 1. 71 1.67 39 1.43 1.63 1.71 40 1.40 1.67 1.56 RAW SCORES FOR BUTKUS RUNNING MACHINE TEST (MEASURED IN LEG EXTENSIONS PER 10 SECONDS) Subject T r i a l Periods Group 1 T r i a l 1 T r i a l 2 T r i a l 3 1 15 16 15 2 15 17 20 3 14 17 17 4 9 12 15 5 14 14 16 6 12 12 13 7 12 13 15 8 14 15 16 9 9 16 14 10 14 13 11 Subject Group 11 13 14 17 18 14 14 15 15 15 12 15 18 16 12 17 15 17 14 16 17 18 14 16 16 19 15 15 14 20 10 13 13 Subject Group 111 24 9 12 12 25 15 14 15 26 14 13 15 27 12 16 18 28 14 18 17 29 15 13 14 30 15 17 15 31 12 12 13 32 15 12 14 33 14 15 17 Subject Group IV 36 12 16 17 37 14 14 14 38 15 15 15 39 13 18 17 40 13 13 13 RAW SCORES FOR HYDRAULIC HAMSTRING MACHINE TEST (MEASURED IN POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH) Subject Group 1 T r i a l Periods * — 1 • ——1 . ... — ... . . . .. T r i a l 1 T r i a l 2 T r i a l 3 1 12 12 13 2 11 12 13 3 9 13 13 4 11 12 12 5 12 12 13 6 10 13 12 7 11 12 12 8 11 13 13 9 12 13 12 10 11 12 12 Subject Group 11 13 11 12 13 14 12 13 13 15 11 13 13 16 12 13 14 17 12 13 13 18 12 13 13 19 13 13 13 20 11 11 11 95 Subject Group 111 24 11 13 13 25 12 12 13 26 11 12 13 27 11 13 13 28 12 13 13 29 13 14 14 30 11 13 13 31 10 13 13 32 9 10 11 33 12 13 13 Subject Group IV 36 11 13 13 37 12 12 13 38 12 13 13 39 12 13 13 40 11 12 13 APPENDIX C ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLES Analysis of Variance for Spri n t i n g Performance 97 Source df MS F P Condition 3 .12 . 87 .47 Error 29 .14 T r i a l 1 .07 9 . 20 <.01 T r i a l X Condition 3 .01 1.21 . 32 Error 29 .01 Distance 7 304.29 1008.36 <C.01 Distance X Condition 21 .02 .92 .57 Error 203 .03 T r i a l X Distance 7 .02 .44 . 88 T r i a l X Distance X 21 .00 .96 .52 Condition Error 203 .003 F.01; 1,29 = 7.60 F.01; 7,203 = 2.73 Analysis of Variance For Nissen Leg Dynamomoter Test Source df MS F P Condition 3 71019.31 .41 .75 Error 29 175035.13 T r i a l 1 123428.63 8.90 .01 T r i a l X Condition 6 6744.94 .49 .70 Error 29 13874.62 F.01; 1,29 = 7.60 Trend A n a l y s i s For M a r g a r i a Power, M a r g a r i a V e l o c i t y , H a m s t r i n g Machine, and Running Machine T e s t s M a r g a r i a Power Test MS F P L i n e a r 458.13 2. 18 .15 S t a i r s X C o n d i t i o n 372.82 1.78 .18 E r r o r 210.50 Q u a d r a t i c 4908.96 12.06 C-01 S t a i r s X C o n d i t i o n 590.91 1.45 .25 E r r o r 407 • 08 P.01; 1,29 = 7.60 M a r g a r i a V e l o c i t y T e s t MS F P L i n e a r .05 1.95 .17 S t a i r s X C o n d i t i o n . 004 • 15 • 93 E r r o r .03 Q u a d r a t i c . 22 11.58 c.01 S t a i r s X C o n d i t i o n .04 2. 05 .13 E r r o r .02 P.01; 1,29 = 7.60 H y d r a u l i c H a m s t r i n g T e s t Machine MS F P L i n e a r 30.13 86.63 ^. 01 T r i a l X C o n d i t i o n •33 .96 .40 E r r o r .35 Q u a d r a t i c 4.40 16.24 c.01 T r i a l X C o n d i t i o n .10 • 37 .78 E r r o r .27 F.01; 1,29 = 7.60 99 A n a l y s i s of .Variance For Margaria Power Tests Source df MS F P Condition 3 3725.10 1402. 36 .49 E r r o r 29 4547-98 T r i a l 2 12683-54 8. 69 < . 01 T r i a l X C o n d i t i o n 6 481.86 1. 56 .18 E r r o r 58 308.79 F.01; 2,58 =4.98 A n a l y s i s of.Variance For Margaria Power Tests ( V e l o c i t y ) Source df MS F P Condition 3 .04 56 .65 E r r o r 29 .07 T r i a l 2 .13 6. 10 < . 01 T r i a l X C o n d i t i o n 6' .02 97 .45 E r r o r 58 .02 F.01; 2,58 = 4.98 A n a l y s i s of Variance For Butkus Running Machine Test Source df MS F p C o n d i t i o n 3 2.00 . 28 .84 E r r o r 29 7.07 T r i a l 2 36.32 16. 74 < .01 T r i a l X C o n d i t i o n 6 1.19 • 55 .77 E r r o r 58 2.18 F.01; 2,58 = 4.98 100 Analysis of Variance For Hydraulic Hamstring Machine Test Source df MS F P Condition 3 .86 .67 .58 Error 29 1.28 T r i a l 2 17-27 55.8 . 01 T r i a l X Condition 6 .21 .70 .65 Error 58 • 31 F.Olj 2,58 = 4.98 Trend A n a l y s i s F o r S p r i n t i n g Performance D i s t a n c e MS L i n e a r 77. .67 10756. .63 D i s t a n c e X C o n d i t i o n • 03 .04 .60 E r r o r .07 Q u a d r a t i c 825. .56 11242, • 37 D i s t a n c e X C o n d i t i o n .07 .97 .42 E r r o r • 07 Cubic 245. . 20 10634. . 31 D i s t a n c e X C o n d i t i o n . 02 .94 .43 E r r o r . 02 F.01; 1,29 = 7.60 Trend A n a l y s i s F o r S p r i n t i n g Performance T r i a l X D i s t a n c e MS L i n e a r T r i a l X D i s t a n c e T r i a l X D i s t a n c e X C o n d i t i o n E r r o r Q u a d r a t i c T r i a l X D i s t a n c e T r i a l X D i s t a n c e X C o n d i t i o n E r r o r C u b i c T r i a l X D i s t a n c e T r i a l X D i s t a n c e X C o n d i t i o n E r r o r . 01 . 01 .01 .08 .01 .01 .004 .002 .003 1.86 • 75 12.48 1.57 1.47 • 74 .18 .53 . 01 .22 .24 .54 P.01; 1,29 = 7.60 10 2 Butkus Running Machine Test ' MS F P L i n e a r 66.00 23-40 . 01 Time X C o n d i t i o n 1.19 .40 .74 E r r o r 2.84 Q u a d r a t i c 6.64 4.37 .05 Time X C o n d i t i o n 1.19 .78 .51 E r r o r 1.52 F.01; 1,29 = 7-60 F.05; 1,29 = 4.18 APPENDIX D CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR LEVEL SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN GROUPS 10 4 Comparison of Level of Significance between paired dependent variables for groups 1 and 2 Source Z Score 50m. F i n a l time - Anaerobic power 1. 80 50m. F i n a l time - Sprint distances - 5 1.36 - 10 .12 - 15 . 35 - 20 1.05 - 30 .92 - 40 .22 - 50 -50m. F i n a l time - Hamstring Machine .53 - Running Machine 1.59 - Leg Dynamometer . 36 Anaerobic power - Sprint distances - 5 1.52 - 10 1.13 - 15 1.85 - 20 .64 - 30 1.59 - 40 .08 - 50 1.22 Anaerobic power - Hamstring Machine 1. 87 - Running Machine .61 - Leg Dynamometer .57 Z.01; 12,11 = 2.58 Comparison of Level of Significance between paired dependent variables for groups 1 and 3 Source Z Score 50m. F i n a l time 50m. F i n a l time Anaerobic power Anaerobic power Sprint distances 50m. F i n a l time -Anaerobic Power Hamstring Machine Running Machine Leg Dynamometer Sprint Distances -- Hamstring Machine - Running Machine - Leg Dynamometer 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 28 21 17 72 44 34 81 01 66 05 65 15 08 01 07 26 65 35 66 Z.01; 12,12 = 2.58 Comparison of Level of Sig n i f i c a n c e between paired dependent variables for groups 2 and 3 106 Source Z Score 50m. F i n a l time - Anaerobic power 1. 96 50m. F i n a l time - Sprint Distances - 5 1. 19 - 10 1. 29 - 15 1. 56 - 20 . 62 - 30 1. 04 - 40 11 - 50 24 50m. F i n a l time - Hamstring Machine 1. 31 - Running Machine • 60 - Leg Dynamomoter • 31 Anaerobic power - Sprint distances - 5 1. 47 - 10 1. 76 - 15 1. 70 - 20 • 64 - 30 1. 62 - 40 • 95 - 50 1. 47 Anaerobic power - Hamstring Machine 1. 24 - Running Machine • 89 - Leg Dynamomoter Z.01; 11,12 = 2.58 107 Comparison of Level of Significance '. between paired dependent variables for groups 1 and 4 Source Z Score 50m. F i n a l time - Anaerobic power 1.10 50m. F i n a l time - Sprint Distances - 5 . 34 - 10 . 19 - 15 . 22 - 20 1.92 - 30 .78 - 40 1. 50 - 50 .27 50m. F i n a l time - Hamstring Machine .67 - Running Machine . 55 - Leg Dynamomoter .37 Anaerobic Power - Sprint distances - 5 1.69 - 10 . 69 - 15 .02 - 20 .54 - 30 1.69 - 40 .21 - 50 .40 Anaerobic power - Hamstring Machine . 36 - Running Machine .12 - Leg Dynamomoter . 35 Z.01; 12,6 = 2.58 Comparison of Level of Si g n i f i c a n c e between paired dependent variables for groups 2 and 4 108 Source Z Score 50m. F i n a l time - Anaerobic power .21 50m. F i n a l time - Sprint distances 5 .65 - 10 .28 - 15 .50 - 20 1.15 - 30 .10 - 40 1.68 - 50 .27 50m. F i n a l time - Hamstring Machine .96 - Running Machine .59 - Leg Dynamomoter .63 Anaerobic power - Sprint distances - 5 .55 - 10 .14 - 15 1.35 - 20 .96 - 30 .53 - 40 .30 - 50 .53 Anaerobic power - Hamstring Machine 1.00 - Running Machine .51 - Leg Dynamomoter .07 Z.01; 11,6 = 2.58 Comparison of Level of Sig n i f i c a n c e between paired dependent variables for groups 3 and 4 109 Source Z Score 50m. F i n a l time - Anaerobic power 1 .21 50m. F i n a l time - Sprint distances - 5 .57 - 10 .67 - 15 .63 - 20 .70 - 30 . 86 - 40 .35 - 50 .15 50m. F i n a l time - Hamstring Machine .17 - Running Machine .17 - Leg Dynamomoter .84 Anaerobic power - Sprint distances - 5 1 .63 - 10 1 .15 - 15 .12 - 20 .47 - 30 1 .71 - 40 .98 - 50 .52 Anaerobic power - Hamstring Machine .11 - Running Machine .14 - Leg Dynamomoter .12 Z.01; 12,6 = 2.5 8 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0077124/manifest

Comment

Related Items