Comparison Of Traditional, Endurance, And Super Slow Weight-training Programs In College-aged Women

Abstract

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of a super slow strength-training program (SS) on various performance measures as compared to a traditional strength-training program (TS) and a traditional muscular endurance-training program (TE). METHODS Thirty-four healthy adult females (21.1 ± 2.7 y) were randomly divided into four groups: control (C), TS, TE, and SS. Workouts consisted of three exercises: leg press (LP), back squat (SQ), and knee extension (KE). Each subject was pre- and post-tested for 1 Repetition Maximum (1-RM), muscular endurance (60% 1-RM), maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max), vertical jump (VJ), and percent body fat (%FAT). After the pre-test, each training group attended a minimum of 16 out of 17 training sessions in which the LP, SQ, and KE were performed (in that order) to fatigue for each of 3 sets. For each training session, TS trained at 6–10 RM (6–10 repetitions to failure) with 1–2 s concentric/1–2 s eccentric; TE trained at 20–30 RM (1–2 s concentric/1–2 s eccentric); and SS trained at 6–10 RM, with 10 s concentric/4 s eccentric. RESULTS Factorial ANOVAs (between-within) were used to analyze each of the variables and one way ANOVAs were utilized to assess the percent change in strength for each exercise with post hoc analyses if significance was found. An alpha level of <0.05 was used for all statistical tests. Essential results from post hoc analyses are as follows: 1) SS increased relative LP, SQ, KE 1-RM, but the percent increase in 1-RM was smaller than TS for LP and KE, and not different from any group in the SQ; 2) For LP 60% 1-RM, SS increased number of repetitions post-test as did TE; 3) For SQ 60% 1-RM, SS had a higher number of repetitions as compared to C post-test, as did the other training groups; and yet SS did not increase from pre- to post-test; 4) For KE 60% 1-RM, SS increased number of repetitions post-test, but did not differ from any other group pre- or post-test; and 5) SS had a lower %FAT than C both pre and post-test, but there was no difference pre- to posttest for SS. CONCLUSIONS Muscular strength improved with SS training, however TS showed a larger improvement as compared to SS. Muscular endurance improved with SS training, however not above what TE or TS demonstrated. There were no changes with SS training in muscular power, VO2max, or %FAT.