A.N. Belegov¹
Dr.Hab. I.P. Sivokhin²
PhD, Professor V.F. Skotnikov³
A.I. Fedorov⁴
M. Tapsir⁵
A.P. Kalashnikov⁶
Master, doctoral student O.Y. Komarov^7
1Akhmet Baitursunov Kostanay State University, Kostanay
²Kostanay State Pedagogical Institute, Kostanay
³Russian State University of Physical Education, Sport, Youth and Tourism (GTSOLIFK), Moscow
⁴South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk
⁵Directorate of National Teams of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Astana
⁶Kostanay branch of Chelyabinsk State University, Kostanay
⁷Kazakh Academy of Sports and Tourism, Almaty

Keywords: strength building, weight, individualised training model, explosive strength.

Background. Strength building is ranked among the most important components of the modern athletic training systems at every mastery stage since the strength qualities are critical for dynamic factors and efficiency of every physical movement; and it is natural that most of the modern sports give a high priority to the strength building training tools [1, 4, 3]. Modern sport science has accumulated profound knowledge and experience in the neuromuscular physiology with concern to strength qualities and their development processes [6, 5, 2]. The knowledgebase includes extensive materials on assessments of different strength building methods and tools classified by strength mechanisms and factors [6, 2] in application to different sport disciplines [3].

Special research literature, however, is still in need of the studies to rate benefits of different strength building methods and tools individualised to athletes’ muscular structures, with the ratios of the fast and slow muscle fibres being ranked among the key criteria for the training method design [4, 6, 5, 2]. Presently it is the relevant microsurgical (biopsy) tests that are used for direct measurements of the fast-to-slow muscle fibre ratios. Indirect measurements of the fast-to-slow muscular fibre ratios may be made by explosive strength rating tests including special jump tests [6].

Objective of the study was to provide experimental data to assess practical benefits of the strength building varied-weight-lifting practices customizable to the trainees’ individual traits.

Methods and structure of the study. Subject to the study were 36 young people of 18-22 years of age not engaged in professional sports. The subjects’ pre-experimental strength was tested by standing long jump tests, with the test data applied to split up the sample into two groups of 18 people each. Group 1 and Group 2 were composed of the subjects with low and high jump test rates, respectively. The study was based on the assumption that slow and fast muscular fibres dominated in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively.    

The test data were processed with mean arithmetic values  being computed for analyses. The study lasted three months to rate benefits of different muscular strength building (В-factor) methods in application to junior athletic training systems, with the trainees’ progress in explosive strength building (A-factor) being tested by the standing long jump tests. For the purposes of the study, we planned a two-factor experiment with A-factor (trainees’ explosive strength test rate generated by the standing long jump test) classified into low and high explosive strength classes. В-factor included three muscular strength building methods dominated by the following squat practices with varied weights: Level 1: back squats with weight rated at 85-100% of the individual maximum with 1-2 repetitions in 4-5 attempts; Level 2: back squats with weight rated at 75-90% of the maximum with 3-6 repetitions in 4-5 attempts; and Level 3: back squats with weight rated at 60-80% of the maximum with 7-12 repetitions in 4-5 attempts. The trainings were scheduled three times a week with day breaks. The subjects’ pre- and post-experimental strength test rates (in kg) were generated by the above back squat tests to obtain the strength building progress data for both of the groups: see Table 1.

The experimental data were analysed by a two-factor dispersion analysis with the meaning of each factor and joint contribution of the two factors to the strength building progress in the training process rated with application of Fisher’s F-criterion. Significance of the intergroup differences was rated by the Tukey’s multiple comparisons method with multiple confidence intervals.

Study results and discussion. The three-stage strength-building back squat practices with weights rated at 65-80%, 75-90% and 85-100% of the individual maximum were found beneficial as verified by the group progress rates: see Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1. Two-factor experimental data for Levels 2 and 3 for 6 subgroups of 6 people: subjects’ progress rates in the back squat tests, kg

Statistical significance rates of the intergroup strength building progress data classified by the training methods and rated by F-criterion are given in Table 2. The test data analyses failed to find any meaningful effects of B-factor (training methods) on the trainees’ progress. We applied the Tukey’s multiple comparisons method to find significant differences between the averages for three levels of B-factor.

Table 2. Degrees of freedom, sums of squares, mean squares, F-computed and F-critical for different-significance levels in the two-factor experiment

I – A-factor levels; J – B-factor levels

Calculation data given in Table 3 show that the confidence intervals for ₃- ₁ , ₂- ₃  и ₂- ₁ equal 0 and, hence, the differences are statistically insignificant that means that neither of the three strength building tools was better than the others. Strength growth rates classified by the three training tools (net of A-factor) were virtually the same. Given in Table 2 are the data calculated using the Fisher’s F-criterion to show statistical significance of the group-specific strength building effects tested by the standing long jump tests. The data show that A-factor (muscular structure) was tested to have a significant effect on the strength building process.

Table 3. Multiple confidence intervals for inter-pair differences generated by Tukey’s method

The A-factor influence on the explosive strength building by the varied-intensity weight-lifting practices was found significant. The study data given in Table 1 demonstrate that the weight-lifting practices with 60-80% of the maximum and high repetitions were the most effective for strength building in the trainees tested with domination of slow muscle fibres (SMF); followed by the weight-lifting practices with 85-100% weights that were also effective; and the least effective were the weight-lifting practices with 75-90% weights.

Group 2 tested with domination of the fast muscle fibres (FMF) showed the highest training effect in the weight-lifting practices with 75-90% weights with 3-6 repetitions; followed by somewhat less effective practices with 85-100% weights; and the least effective for this group were the weight-lifting practices with the weights rated at 60-80% of the maximum.

This finding shows that strength building tools and methods shall be selected, designed and managed on a muscular-structure-specific basis i.e. differently for the FMF- and SMF-dominated groups of trainees with a special focus on the applied weights and repetitions in every attempt. Furthermore, the two-factor analytical data given in Table 2 also show the statistically significant correlations of A- and B-factors in terms of the FMV vs. SMF and strength building tools correlations.

Strength building weight-lifting practices with weights rated at 85-100% and 60-80% of the maximum were found the most effective for the group tested with domination of SMF; while the group tested with domination of FMF showed the highest success in strength building by the weight-lifting practices with weights rated at 85-100% and 75-90% of the maximum. Red and blue lines on the diagram are non-parallel and this means that the factors are in significant correlation.

The experimental data show that the strength building weight-lifting practices with weights rated at 85-100% of the maximum were the most effective for the SMF-dominance tested group and less effective for the FMF-dominance tested group. The study data demonstrate that the strength building process in this case is mostly driven by the nervous system activation (as verified by the motor neurons impulse frequency rates in the fast muscular fibres) with less expressed effects on changes in the muscular structures as a result of the myofibrilla mass accumulation process [3, 6, 5]. Faster strength building rates in Group 1 are explainable not only by the growing role of the nervous factor but also by the increasing role of the muscular factor. Strength building process in Group 2 was dominated by the growing role of the nervous factor, with the muscular factor role being lower than in Group 1. This may be due to the fact that the weight-lifting loads for Group 2 were insufficient to effectively mobilise the myofibril mass accumulation processes in the muscle fibres [3]. There are reasons to assume that the training process effect in this group may be increased if the trainings with the same weights are increased to 2-3 a day and 5-6 a week to facilitate the nervous and muscular factors being summated for success.

Training effects of the strength building weight-lifting practices with weights rated at 75-90% of the individual maximum are believed to be due mostly to the muscular factor effects i.e. the myofibril mass accumulation processes [3]. Group 2 tested with the FMF domination showed the highest strength building rates in the training process – due to the fact that the FMF are genetically predisposed to the fast myofibril mass accumulation processes and, hence, it is normal for Group 2 to show faster progress versus Group 1.

Training effects of the strength building weight-lifting practices with weights rated at 60-80% of the individual maximum are due mostly to the increased physiological loads on the SMF. Group 1 tested with dominance of SMF showed the highest progress in strength building due to the myofibril mass accumulation processes in the slow muscle fibres. These processes shall be taken into account when explaining the contradictory effects of the weight-lifting practices on this group in our experiment. The experimental data reported herein is recommended for application in the training process modelling and management processes with a top priority given to the strength building tools being duly individualised i.e. customised to the natural individual variations of the muscular structures that are critical for success of the relevant training practices.    

Conclusion. The study data and analyses showed the strength building back squat practices being highly beneficial provided that the training process is duly customised to individual muscular structures and relevant explosive strength development predispositions and the weight-lifting practices are duly designed and managed.

References

1. Verkhoshanskiy Y.V. Osnovy spetsialnoy fizicheskoy podgotovki sportsmenov [Fundamentals of special physical training for athletes]. Moscow: Fizkultura i sport publ., 1988, 331 p.
2. Seluyanov V.N. Podgotovka beguna na srednie distantsii [Middle distance runner training]. Moscow: SportAkademPress publ., 2001, 103 p.
3. Hartman J., Tunnerman H. Sovremennaya silovaya podgotovka [Strength training today]. Berlin: Sportferlag publ., 1988, 335 p.
4. Kots Y.M. Fiziologiya myshechnoy deyatelnosti. Uchebnik dlya institutov fizkultury [Physiology of muscular work. Textbook for institutes of physical culture]. Moscow: Fizkultura i sport publ., 1982, 444 p.
5. Gurfinkel V.S., Levik Y.S. Skeletnaya myshtsa: struktura i funktsiya [Skeletal muscle: structure and function]. Moscow: Nauka publ., 1985, 141 p.
6. Hakkinen K., Komi P.V., Tesch P. Effect of combined concentric and eccentric strength training and detraining on force-time, muscle fibre, and metabolic characteristic of leg extensor muscles. Scandinavian journal of Sports Sciences, 1981, 3.2, pp. 50-58.

Corresponding author: fizkult@teoriya.ru

Abstract

Objective of the study was to provide experimental data to assess practical benefits of the strength building techniques with application of variable weights customizable to the trainees’ individual natural traits. Subject to the study were 36 young people of 18-22 years of age not engaged in professional sports. The study data and findings may be applied to design efficient individualized strength building models with a special focus on the key muscle groups employed in the practices.

The study data showed significant training benefits of the special strength building tools including back squat practices; albeit the latter must be prudently individualised and differentiated to effectively develop the explosive strength in the relevant muscle groups by the relevant weight-lifting practice design and management procedures.