Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1993, 76, 1131-1138.

O Perceptual and Motor Skills 1993

EFFECTS O F A 12-WEEK RESISTIVE TRAINING PROGRAM IN

T H E H O M E USING T H E BODY BAR O N DYNAMIC A N D
ABSOLUTE STRENGTH O F MIDDLE-AGE WOMEN '

ROSEMARIE MORTELL AND LARRY TUCKER

Brigham Young Universily

Summary .-Guidelines published by the American College of Sports Medicine in-

dicate that resistive training should be an integral part of an adult fitness program.
Most adults will find i t difficult to train resistively regularly unless they train in their
own homes using simple, inexpensive equipment. The purpose of this study was to ex-
amine the extent to which participation in a 12-week resistive training program using
the Body Bar, a simple, inexpensive resistive training device, in the home improves dy-
namic and absolute strength of middle-age women compared to similar women engaged
in a walking program. A pretest-midtest-posttest design was employed with subjects
randomly assigned to either a resistive (n = 30) or a walking (control) group (n = 30).
All subjects were tested on measures of dynamic and absolute strength. Resistive train-
ers performed significantly better than the controls across the 12-week training period
on all strength variables even with statistical control for potential confounders. Num-
ber of workouts performed and average intensity of each workout were both signifi-
cant predictors of strength improvements among the resistive trainers.

It is estimated that 80% of adults in the United States do not exercise

at a level considered beneficial to their health (13), so their musculoskeletal
systems tend to be poorly conditioned and lack dynamic and absolute
strength. Other problems associated with poor muscular fitness are decreased
strength of muscle and connective tissue, reduced lean body mass, decreased
bone density, and increased risk of joint injuries and low back pain (12, 14).
The American College of Sports Medicine indicated recently that resis-
tance exercise of moderate intensity, sufficient to develop and maintain fat-
free weight, should be an integral part of an adult fitness program. One set
of eight to twelve repetitions of eight to ten exercises that condition the
major muscle groups at least two days per week is the recommended mini-
mum (2).
Considerable research has been conducted regarding the response of
women to resistive exercise training (6, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16). Gains in dy-
namic and absolute strength help women maintain higher levels of musculo-
skeletal fitness and enhance a b h t y to perform everyday tasks such as climb-
ing stairs and carrying groceries.
As convenience increases, adherence to exercise programs tend to in-
- -

crease commensurately (8). Thus, to promote training levels comparable to

ACSM guidelines regarding regular resistive exercise, it seems advantageous

'Address correspondence to Larry Tucker, Ph.D., 237 Smith Fieldhouse, Provo, UT 84602
1132 R. M O R T E L L & L. TUCKER

to develop a resistive training program that could be implemented in the

home.
To date, virtually all resistive training research has been conducted in
clinical and regimented settings. Few studies have been published in which
subjects have performed resistive exercises in their own homes, mainly be-
cause resistive equipment tends to be too expensive and cumbersome.
However, there is resistive equipment that is relatively simple and inex-
pensive. We chose a commercially available apparatus called the Body Bar to
study the extent to which participation in a 12-week home exercise program
could improve dynamic and absolute strength in previously sedentary, non-
obese middle-age women compared to similar women engaged in a walking
program.
METI-IOD
Subjects
A total of 60 sedentary, nonobese women between 35 and 49 years of age were selected
from individuals who responded to an advertisement in a local newspaper. Each subject com-
pleted a me&cal screening questionnaire and an informed consent form.
Procedure
The volunteers who responded to the advertisement were contacted and asked to attend a
meeting which discussed the study. The women were told there would be two exercise groups-
one performing resistive training exercises, the other walking.
At a second meeting a week later, subjects were pretested on dynamic and absolute
strength. After the pretests, subjects were randomly assigned to the experimental or control
group using a stratified randomization technique.
Control training program.-At a third meeting, subjects in the control group were presented
an explicit walking program. Subjects were instructed to walk 3 times per week covering a dis-
tance of one mile per session during the first 3 weeks, two miles per workout during Weeks 4
through 8, and two and a half miles per session for the remaining 4 weeks of the study. Sub-
jects were asked to work at an intensity of 65% of theit maximum heart rate for the first 3
weeks of the program and then increase to 70% for the next 5 weeks, and then increase to
80% for the remaining 4 weeks of the training period. During this meeting, control subjects
were trained to self-assess exercise heart rate.
Experimentd training program.-In a meeting for the experimental group only, women
were given a demonstration and trained in the exercises they would be required to execute in
their regular workouts. All of the subjects in the experimental group were given a Body Bar to
use during the study.
T h e women were given a written resistive training program to follow. The complete pro-
gram consisted of warm-up exercises to be performed prior to the training session, the number
of sets and repetitions chat should be performed for each exercise, the order of the exercises,
the rest between sets, and the intensity of the workout.
The workout consisted of six resistive training exercises: bench press, military press, arm
curl, seated rowing, squat, and abdominal curl ups. Three sets of 10 repetition maximums were
to be performed for each exercise, except during the first 2 weeks of training (six workouts),
when 10 mild to moderate repetitions were to be for each exercise with the Body
Bar. The women were instructed to 5 to 20 abdominal curl ups per set, depending on
their fitness level.
Intensity of each set was determined by the number of repetitions subjects felt they could
 RESISTIVE TRAINING AT H O M E 1133

complete beyond the assigned 10 repetitions, zero indicating high intensity, one or two repeti-
tions beyond the assigned 10 indicating medium intensity, and three or more beyond indicating
low intensity. If at any time during an exercise on the Body Bar intensity was too low or too
high, subjects were to change the resistance quickly by twisting the bar to shorten or lengthen
the elastic cords and increase or decrease resistance.
~nshurnentsand Testing
The dependent variables of this study, absolute and dynamic strength, were assessed by
the researcher on a pretest, midtest, and posttest schedule. Absolute strength scores were mea-
sured by recording the maximum amount of weight each woman could lift for one repetition in
the bench press, leg press, military press, and arm curl (3). One repetition maximums were
measured using the "trial-and-error" method (1). "Total absolute strength" was established by
summing the scores of the four lifts, and each Mt was also scored individually. The bench press
and leg press tests were performed on a Universal Gladiator machine and the military and arm
curl tests were assessed using free-weight bar bells.
Dynamic strength scores were determined by recording the maximum number of repeti-
tions completed using 45% of body weight in the bench press and 140% of body weight in the
leg press (3, 10). "Total dynamic strength" was determined by adding the scores of the two ex-
ercises. Each exercise was also scored individually.
Data Analysis
Multivariate analysis of variance with repeated measures was used to ascertain the extent
to which the multiple dynamic and absolute strength variables treated compositely differed be-
tween the resistive group and the controls. To facilitate interpretation of the data, univariate
repeated-measures analysis of variance was employed to assess the extent to which the experi-
mental and control groups differed on the individual dynamic and absolute strength measures
due to the treatment across the pretest, midtest, and posttest. Analysis of covariance using the
multiple regression technique was employed to ascertain the extent to which the potential con-
founding factors of age, body weight, and previous resistive training experience affected the
mean differences between the two groups. Least-squares means analysis was used to estimate the
extent to which specific adjusted group means differed.

RESULTS
As shown in Table 1, there were no significant differences between the
resistive training group and the controls on any of the baseline strength
scores. In addition, there were no significant differences between the two
groups in age, weight, height, marital status, education, or previous resistive
training experience at baseline (Table 1).
From a multivariate perspective, with the two dynamic strength vari-
ables treated as a linear composite (bench press and leg press), repeated
measures indicated that the lifters and the controls differed significantly in
dynamic strength across the 12-week resistive training period-(Wilks' = x
0.77; F,,,, = 4.18, p = .005). Similarly, with the four 1-RM strength measures
viewed as a linear construct (bench press, leg press, military press, and arm
curl), repeated measures showed there was a significant difference in 1-RM
strength between the two groups across the 12-week intervention (Wilks'
X=O.52; F,,,,=5.78, p = .0001).
As shown in Table 2, univariate repeated-measures analyses indicated
1134 R. MORTELL & L. TUCKER

TABLE 1
COMI)IWSON
OF n-IE RESISTIVE
A N D CONTROLGROUPS DEMOGRAPHIC
REGARDING
A N D STRENGTI-I
VARIABLESON TI-IE PRETEST

Variable Controls Resistive F P

M SD M SD
Age, yr.
Height, in.
Weight, Ib.
Total Dynamic Strength"
Dynamic Bench Press
Dynamic Leg Press
Total 1 RM strengthb
1-RM Bench Press
1-RM Leg Press
1-RM M i l i t a ~Press
1-RM Arm Curl
Note 1.-Chi-squared analyses showed no significant pretest differences becween the resistive
group and the controls on marital status ( x 2 = 2.23, p = ,331. education (x2= 3.07, p = .38), or
previous resistive training experience (XZ= 1.96,p = .16).
Note 2.-Data represent all subjects who completed the 12-week intervention (30 controls, 30
resistive).
"ynarnic strength is listed in repetitions
b l -strength
~ ~ is listed in pounds.

that the subjects who exercised in their homes using the Body Bar per-
formed significantly better than the controls across the 12-week training
period in total dynamic strength and both of the dynamic strength measures
considered individually, bench press and leg press. Also, the resistive training
group showed significantly better performance than the controls across the
12-week intervention in total 1-RM strength and each of the four 1-RM lifts
treated individually, bench press, leg press, military press, and arm curl.
Specifically, subjects in the resistive group improved 2.8 times more
than the controls in total dynamic strength, 2.8 times more in bench-press
dynamic strength, and 2.9 times more than the controls in leg-press dynamic
strength. Further, subjects in the resistive group improved 3.1 times more
than the controls in total 1-RM strength, and showed 5.9, 2.5, 4.1, and 4.8
times greater strength improvements than the controls in 1-RM bench press,
leg press, military press, and arm curl, respectively.
Statistical control for the ~ o t e n t i a l confounding variables had little
effect on the strength differences between the lifters and the controls.
Specifically, statistical control for age, body weight, and previous resistive
training experience, considered individually, reduced differences in dynamic
strength gains between the Lifters and controls by only 4.0%, 11.8%, and
13.3%, respectively. Similarly, statistical adjustment for age and body
weight decreased differences in 1-RM strength gains between the two groups
by 5.4% and > . I % , respectively. Statistical adjustment for previous resistive
 TABLE 2
STRENGTHDIFFERENCES
BETWEEN
THE R E S I S ~ V E CONTROL
AND GROUPSACROSSTIIE 12-WEEK INTERVENTION

Strength Variables Pretest Midtest Posttest F* P c

Control Resistive Control Resistive Control Resistive z
V1
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD -1
Dynamic (Repetitions)
Total
Bench Press
Leg Press
1-RM (Pounds)
Total
Bench Press
Leg Press
Military
Arm Curl
Note.-This table includes data of subjects who completed at least 29 of the possible 36 workouts (n = 54).
'This F ratio reflects the repeated measures time by treatment effect across the 12-week intervention.
1136 R. MORTELL & L. TUCKER

training experience increased differences in 1-RM strength gains between the

two groups by 1.1%. I n all cases, differences between the lifters and the
controls remained statistically significant after adjustment for the potential
confounders.
Improvements in total dynamic strength among the resistive training
subjects were strongly and positively associated with the total number of
workouts performed by the lifters during the 12-week training period, ac-
counting for 25.6% of the variance in the total dynamic-strength gain scores
(F,,,, = 9.6, p = ,002). Improvements in total I-RM strength among the lifters
was also directly related to the number of workouts performed during the
12-week intervention (R2= ,092; F,,,, = 2.84, p = .05). The average number of
workouts for all subjects in the resistive training group throughout the 12-
week training intervention was 31.6 (SD = 4.3) of a possible 36 workouts.
Workout intensity also played a role in strength gains among the resis-
tive training subjects. Improvements in total dynamic strength were directly
related to the average intensity of each set of 10 repetitions performed by
the lifters with 15.9% shared variance (F,,,, = 5.30, p = .O3). Gains in total
I-RM strength were not associated with workout intensity (R2= ,002; F,,,, =
0.09, p = .77). The average intensity of each set for all subjects in the resis-
tive training group was 2.1 (SD = .30) on a scale in which three equaled high
intensity, two represented medium intensity, and one denoted low intensity.
There were no significant differences in total dynamic strength (F,,,, =
0.11, p = .74) or total 1-RM strength (F,,>, = 0.79, p = .38) improvements by
the lifters between the first six weeks and the last six weeks of the 12-week
training intervention. Regarding total dynamic strength, in the first six weeks
the resistive group improved an average of 4.6 repetitions (SD = 4.7) and
during the last six weeks they improved an average of 4.0 repetitions (SD =
5.2) for a total increase of 145.8%. For total 1-RM strength, in the first six
weeks the resistive group improved an average of 16.8 lb. (SD = 14.6) and
during the last six weeks they improved an average of 21.4 Ib. (SD = 14.1)
for a total increase of 11.5%.
The top 30% of the subjects with the greatest strength gains in the re-
sistive group improved 15 repetitions (SD = 3.5) in total dynamic strength
and 53.7 lb. (SD=9.2) in total 1-RM strength during the 12-week training
period compared to the resistive group as a whole who improved 8.5 repeti-
tions (SD = 5.9) and 38.2 Ib. (SD = 14.1), respectively. Hence, the best per-
forming subjects in the resistive group improved 1 . 8 times more than the re-
sistive group as a whole in total dynamic strength and 1.4 times more in total
1-RM strength.
DISCUSSION
The present results suggest that resistive training for 12-weeks using the
Body Bar in the home produces significant gains in muscular strength, dy-
namic and absolute (1 RM) in middle-age women.
 RESISTIVE TRAINING AT HOME 1137

Since there were no significant differences between the resistive training

and the control groups on any of the baseline strength scores or any of the
descriptive variables, it appears that random assignment of the subjects to
groups was successful and the two groups commenced equally. However, af-
ter participating in the 12-week resistive training program, subjects who
trained with the Body Bar at home improved more in total dynamic strength,
total 1-RM strength, and in all of the individual lifts compared to control
subjects, supporting the results of clinical resistive training studies involving
women (6, 7, 11, 14, 15, 16). Statistical control for differences in age, body
weight, and previous resistive training experience did not influence the posi-
tive effect that resistive training with the Body Bar had on dynamic and
1-RM strength. It appears that the benefits of training with the Body Bar
can be enjoyed by most women, regardless of age, body weight, and previous
resistive training experience within the ranges lested.
Two variables, total number of workouts during the 12-week training
period and average intensity of the workouts by the resistive trainers, were
significant predictors of dynamic strength improvements. Average intensity of
the workouts of the resistive group was not a significant predictor of 1-RM
strength gains, however, probably partly due to the relatively little variation
among the lifters in absolute strength gains. Also, research has shown that
high intensity-low repetition exercises tend to develop 1-RM strength best
(4, 5 , 9, 12, 14). The emphasis of the present 12-week resistive training pro-
gram was not on high intensity and low repetitions but on moderate intensity
and moderately high (10) repetitions. Thus, gains in 1-RM strength were not
great in the resistive group and differences in training intensity had little
predictive utility.
There were no differences in total dynamic strength or total 1-RM
strength improvements between the first six weeks and the last six weeks of
the 12-week training period. This finding suggests that strength improve-
ments occurred throughout the 12-week training period for those who
trained with the Body Bar and were not concentrated during any one time
period.
In conclusion, research has indicated that the best method to enhance
fitness of the musculoskeletal system, particularly muscular strength, is to en-
gage regularly in resistive exercise training. The American College of Sports
Medicine recently indicated that resistive exercise of a moderate intensity
should be an integral part of an adult fitness program (2, 3). Since training
outside the home affords little privacy and tends to be perceived as inconve-
nient and expensive by many, a resistive training program that can be prac-
ticed in the home with little cost or equipment is needed. Present findings
indicate that resistive training in the home using the Body Bar three sessions
per week is an effective way of significantly increasing dynamic and 1-RM
strength for middle-age women.
 R. MORTELL & L. TUCKER

REFERENCES
1. ALLSEN,P. E., HARRISON, J. M., & VANCE,B. Fitness for life. Dubuque, IA: Brown, 1989.
2. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SI'OKTSMEDICINE.Guidelines for exercise testing and prescription.
(4th ed.) Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger, 1991.
3. AMEMCAN COLLEGE OF SPORTS MEDICINE.The recommended uantity and quality of exer-
cise for developing and maintaining fitness in healthy ad&. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise, 1990, 22, 265-274.
4. BERGER, R. A. Optimum repetitions for the development of strength. Research Quarterly,
1962, 33, 334-338.
5. BERGER,R., & HARDAGE, B. Effects of maximum loads for each of ten repetitions on
strength improvement. Research Quarterly, 1967, 38, 715-718.
6. BROWN,C . H . , & WUMORE,J. H . The effects of maximal resistance training on the
strength and body composicion of women athletes. Medicine and Science in Sports, 1974,
6, 174-177.
7. CURETON, K. J., COLLINS,A,, HILL, D. W., & MCELIIANNON, F. M. Muscle hypertrophy in
men and women. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 1988, 20, 338-343.
8. FELDMAN. R. H. L. The assessment and enhancement of health com~liancein the work-
place.'~nG. S. Everly & R. H . L. Feldman (Eds.), Occupational health promotion. New
York: Wiley, 1985. Pp. 33-46.
9. FLECK,S. J., & KRAEMER, W. J. Designing resistance Paining programs. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics, 1987.
10. HOEGER, W. W. K., & HOPKINS,D. R. Lifetime physicalfitness and wellness: a personalized
program. Englewood, CO: Morton, 1985.
11. OYSTER,N . Effects of a heavy-resistance weight training program on college women ath-
letes. lorrrnal o,f Soorfs
' Medicine. 1979.. 19.. 79-83.
12. POLLOCK,'M. L., & WILMORE,J. H. Exercise in health and disease. Philadelphia, PA: Saun-
ders, 1990. Pp. 202-225.
13. STEPHENS,T., JACOBS,D. R., & WHITE, C. C. A descriptive epidemiology of leisure-time
physical activity. Public Health Reports, 1985, 100, 147-158.
14. STONE,M., & O'BRYANT, H . Weight training: a scientific approach. Minneapolis, M N : Bur-
gess, 1984.
15. TUCKER,L., & MAXWELL,K. Effects of weight training on the emotional well-bein and
body image of females: predictors of greatest benefit. American Journal of ~ e a l t fPro-
motion, 1992, 6 , 338-344.
16. WILMOKE,J. H. Alterations in strength, body composicion and anthro ometric measure-
ments consequent to a 10-week weight training program. Medicine a n j ~ c i e n c ein Sports,
1974, 6, 133-138.

Accepted March 1 7, 1993.