Comparing Machine-based Weight Training And Functional Training Programs On Selected Parameters Of Strength And Performance

Abstract

PURPOSE The purpose was to investigate the effects of a 12-week training program when comparing traditional weight machine exercise emphasizing simple nonweightbearing movements in the frontal and sagittal planes with functional exercises stressing weightbearing multi-segmental movements, using all planes of motion. METHODS Fifteen healthy subjects (6 males and 10 females) were recruited from an advanced conditioning class. The traditional training group (TTG) (N=8, age=18.14, SD=0.37) performed standard weight training exercise on Cybex Eagle selectorized equipment whereas the functional training group (FTG) (N=8, age=18.28, SD=0.76) performed a series of resistance exercises emphasizing balance/stability, rotation, and multiple joint motion. Each training protocol was performed 3 times/week (1 set to failure) for the 12-week period. At week seven, TTG increased intensity by increasing weight, whereas FTG increased the complexity of movement. Pre- and post-testing measures consisted of a battery of strength tests (ST) as well as functional tests (FT). ST included a 1RM for the bench press, arm curl, leg press, and leg curl. The FT included a 2-leg vertical jump (VJ), 1-leg VJ, timed lateral lunge, seated medicine ball toss, posterior medial rotational lunge, posterior medial rotational reach, and spider drill. RESULTS Independent t-tests revealed that of the fourteen testing measures, thirteen elicited no significant difference between the group means for pre-testing measures with the exception of the rotational lunge. A 2 × 2 ANOVA (2 training program × 2 time) with repeated measures was used with the thirteen similar means and a 2 × 2 ANCOVA (2 training program × 2 time) with repeated measures using the pre-test scores as the covariate for the measure with pre-test difference. The main effect of training program produced no significant difference between TTG or FTG (p<.05). The main effect of time yielded significant difference in the ST for all variables in the TTG and in only the lower body tests in the FTG. However, for FT tests of agility and lunging, the FTG demonstrated significant differences (p<.05) in all testing variables whereas the TTG did not. In the area of power, both groups demonstrated significant increases (p<.05) whereas in the area of functional flexibility neither group demonstrated significant increases. CONCLUSIONS We conclude that traditional training is more effective for improving upper body strength; both programs improve lower body strength and power, functional training improves agility and neither program had an effect on rotational balance reach.