doi:10.3900/fpj.3.5.272.e
EISSN 1676-5133
The frequency of weekly training
in the development of an abdominal
strength resistance
Original Article
Antonio de Carvalho Nogueira
Laboratório de Biociências da Motricidade Humana UCB -- LABIMH / RJ
[email protected]
Mauro Cesar Gurgel de Alencar Carvalho
FAMATH, titular do Colégio Pedro II - UESC III
JODOjô ( Grupo de Estudos e Pesquisa do Judô)
PEC— COPPE—UFRJ
[email protected]
Nelson Dias de Carvalho Junior
Laboratório de Biociências da Motricidade Humana UCB – LABIMH / RJ
[email protected]
Pablo Teixeira Salomão
PROCIMH – Universidade Castelo Branco / RJ - Brasil
LABIMH – UCB / RJ
[email protected]
Renata Oliveira da Silva
Laboratório de Biociências da Motricidade Humana UCB – LABIMH / RJ
[email protected]
Estélio Henrique Martin Dantas
Professor titular do programa de pós-graduação Stricto Sensu em Ciência da Motricidade Humana- UCB-RJ
Laboratório de Biociências da Motricidade Humana UCB –LABIMH /RJ
[email protected]
Ivani Peruci de Assis
Laboratório de Biociências da Motricidade Humana UCB – LABIMH / RJ
[email protected]
NOGUEIRA, A.C.; JUNIOR, N.D.C.; SILVA, R.O.; ASSIS, I.P.; CARVALHO, M.C.G.A.; SALOMÃO, P.T.; DANTAS, E.H.M. The frequency of
weekly training in the development of an abdominal strength resistance. Fitness & Performance Journal. v.3, n.5, p. 272-277, 2004.
Abstract: The present study aims to compare the 3 times a week training gains with 5 times for abdominal endurance-strength.
26 volunteers have participated in this research, divided in two groups, where 12 subjects have trained 3 times a week and 14 have
trained 5 times a week. Their ages varied between 17 and 30 years. They must have joined a resistance training for 6 months at
least before this study and had scored no positive answer on the Par-Q. A 30 repetitions maximum test was taken and the measured
work loads were maintained during a 6 weeks period, performing three sets of 30 repetitions with the same load. At the end, the
percentage of gains was evaluated through a re-test. After 6 weeks of training significant improvements (p < 0,05) were found
for all subjects and for each group separately. While comparing the percentage of gains between the group who trained 3 times a
week with the other, no significant difference was observed (p < 0,05). Though this study concludes that endurance-strength training for the abdominal muscles produces significant gains, although no significant differences were found while comparing these
two frequencies of training. So, increasing the frequency for endurance-strength training seemed to provoke no greater benefits for
abdominal muscles.
Keywords - resistance of strength, crunch, weekly frequency, training
Correspondence to:
Estrada do Lameirão, 665 casa 3 – Santíssimo – RJ
Submitted: July / 2004
Accepted: August / 2004
Copyright© 2008 por Colégio Brasileiro de Atividade Física, Saúde e Esporte
272
Fit Perf J
Rio de Janeiro
3
5
272-277
Sep/Oct 2004
RESUMO
RESUMEN
O aumento da frequência de treinamento semanal não aumenta o
desenvolvimento da resistência de força abdominal
El aumento de la frecuencia de entrenamiento semanal, no aumenta
el desarrollo de la resistencia de fuerza abdominal
O presente estudo se propõe a comparar os ganhos do treinamento de três e
cinco vezes por semana em resistência de força abdominal. Participaram da
pesquisa dois grupos, num total de 26 voluntários (12 indivíduos, 3x/semana e
14, 5x/ semana), com idades variando entre 17 e 30, praticantes de musculação
há pelo menos seis meses e sem resposta positiva no Par-Q. Realizou-se um teste
de 30 repetições máximas e as cargas foram mantidas durante seis semanas,
treinando com três séries de 30 repetições. Ao final, o re-teste permitiu avaliar
os ganhos percentuais em relação ao teste. O treinamento provocou melhoras
significativas (p < 0,05) no geral e em ambos os grupos isoladamente. Entretanto,
os percentuais de ganhos entre teste e re-teste do grupo que treinou três vezes
por semana não diferiram significativamente do grupo que treinou cinco vezes.
Este estudo conclui que o treinamento de resistência de força provoca ganhos
significativos para a musculatura abdominal, porém, treinar cinco vezes por
semana não apresenta vantagem em relação ao treinamento de três vezes.
El presente estudio se plantea comparar las ganancias del entrenamiento de tres
a cinco veces por semana, respecto a la resistencia de fuerza abdominal. Dos
grupos participaron en la investigación, totalizando 26 voluntarios, (12 individuos
3 veces por semana y 14 5 veces por semana), con edades entre 17 y 30 años,
practicantes de musculación desde hace por lo menos seis meses, sin respuesta
positiva en el Par-Q. Se ha realizado una prueba de 30 repeticiones máximas
y se han mantenido las cargas durante seis semanas, entrenándose con tres
series de 30 repeticiones. Al final, la re-prueba permitió evaluar las ganancias
porcentuales con relación a la prueba. El entrenamiento ha proporcionado mejoras significativas (p < 0,05) en lo general y en ambos grupos aisladamente.
Sin embargo, los porcentuales de ganancia entre la prueba y la re-prueba del
grupo que entrenó tres veces por semana no presentaron diferencias significativas con relación al grupo que entrenó cinco veces por semana. Este estudio
concluye que el entrenamiento de resistencia de fuerza proporciona ganancias
significativas para la musculatura abdominal, pero entrenar cinco veces por
semana no presenta ventaja con relación a entrenar tres veces.
Palavras chave - resistência de força, abdominais, freqüência semanal,
treinamento.
Palabras clave - resistencia de fuerza, abdominales, frecuencia semanal,
entrenamiento.
INTRODUCTION
Exercises using weights (EUW) is an effective method to improve the
neuromuscular fitness for the development of maximum strength,
rapid strength and localized muscular resistance. This aims both
obtaining greater body mass and preventing and rehabilitation
of locomotor problems (Simão; Monteiro; Araújo, 2001a). More
recently, EUW has been recommended as a way to increase the
functional capacity and improve life quality (Pollock et al., 2000;
ACSM, 2002). EUW have also been used regularly to improve
sports in general.
In the quantification of EUW, there are three major factors: volume,
intensity and frequency. Training volume is the measure of the
total quantity of work, performed during a weekly training session.
It is important to point out that training frequency, which is our
problematics as regards this study and the duration (quantity of
series and repetitions), is intimately related to the training volume
(Hather et al., 1992; Stone et al, 1982).
The intensity, considered the level of imposed tension to the muscle
(McDougall et al., 1980), may be applied using the percentage of
1 RM or any RM for exercises (McDonagh e Davies, 1984).
For the training frequency, it is necessary more in-depth studies,
for the specific literature evidences a series of divergences on the
subject matter. Pollock (1987) recommends “for cardiac patient
a frequency of two or three times a week”.
Henderson (1970) affirms that “three weekly training sessions
are better than two”. However, a little bit before, Berger (1965)
concluded that “two weekly training sessions are better than three
to bring some strength increase”. Whereas Dantas (2003) affirms
Fit Perf J, Rio de Janeiro, 3, 5, 273, Sep/Oct 2004
that the ideal frequency of training goes from three to three weekly
sessions. In another study, Gilliam (1981) compared between one,
two, three, four and five times a week. The study showed that “five
training sessions were more effective for obtaining some 1RM
increase for bench press, and that five weekly training sessions
were better than two”. Conversely, the comparisons made in 1985
showed that a four-day consecutive training was better than three
alternated days, for the strength increase (Hunter, 1985). However,
according to Zatsiorsky (1999), the recovery time should abide
by the rating presented in the CHART I:
It is observed that this author does not specify the quantity of days
of weekly training as better or worse. The very author is based on
the intensity of training workload, hence it is possible to establish
a better frequency.
However, a recent study of review, Simão, Castro & Lemos (2001b)
took into consideration that: “The training frequency might be
based on the individual’s capacity of recovery, and will vary depending on the stage of individual training, workload intensity,
ingested diet and hours of sleeping”.
Chart 1 - Periods of time for recovery in terms of training intensity
Training
Extreme
Big
Substantial
Medium
Small
Hours of Restoration
> 72
48-72
24-48
12-24
<12
273
That being so, this last study, besides corroborating with Zatsiorsky
(1999) as regards the workload intensity or training workload,
places emphasis on the control of other variables for adequate
recovery.
This study aimed to verify the gains of resistance training for
abdominal strength in three or five times a week, for later on to
compare them and observe the best weekly training frequency,
once the results of these studies were published until today are
quite diverging.
PRESENTATION
AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The workloads mean used (after the workload test) was 28.542 kg
strength, for the 3-time-a-week trainings, and 38.071 kg strength,
for the five-time-a-week trainings.
The workloads mean was also greater for the retest, 70.375
kg strength and 84.286 kg strength for the 3-5-time-a-week
trainings, respectively (cf. Table 1). This shows us that the group
who trained five times a week was initially, on average, stronger
in the abdominal muscles than for the other group. Eventually,
we can notice that this mean kept higher. We confirmed then
what Hollman and Hettiger (1983) had already mentioned: “The
greater the existing capacity of performance, the more it should
be the intensity of demand”.
The standard deviation shows us the variability of workloads was
greater for the group who trained five times a week.
The standard error presented explains that there is some probability
of error, of 3.813 % for more or less, in the variability of workloads
for the 3-times-a-week trainings, 3.531 %, for the 5-times-a-week
trainings, therefore, a probability of error was smaller for it.
In confidence interval, there is a probability of 95% of individuals
present results between 20.671 % and 36.412 % in the workload
test of the group which trained three times a week, and 30.785 %
and 45.358 % for the other group five times a week.
In the Table 2, it is shown that both training group obtained great
percental gains, however, it was not expected that these were so
high. As for example, it can be mentioned the five-times-a-week
training group which started with initial maximum workload of
30 repetitions, of 48.5 kg strength after its maximum workload,
for the same number of repetitions, it was 97,5 kg strength, and
thus a gain of 101%. Seeking greater objectivity, for the fourteen
five-times-a-weekly training group, nine participants obtains gains
above 100%. And out of twelve three-times-a-weekly training
participants, ten obtains gains above 100%. Likewise, if it were
observed the results individually, it is possible to notice that a great
variability of results. This is due to the fact that, as regards Fleck e
Kraemer (1999), “it is likely the difference in the initial conditioning
and the degree of familiarity with the exercise tests”.
The Graph 1 shows that the individual 4 obtained a discrepant
gain in relation to the others. This individual began the training
after the 30RM test, weight of 18 kg strength, and at the end of
the training the weight used began to be for the same number
of repetitions overcame 82 kg strength, therefore a gain of more
than 350%. This individual, before beginning the training, would
practice some abdominal exercise without overtraining with series
of 100 repetitions. This fact provided an optimum motor pattern
(inter- and intramuscular coordination). This corroborates with
Bloomer and Ives (2000), “maybe the best way to improve the
strength training it is the development of the nervous system. The
proposal for a training of nervous system is enhance the ability to
use motor units at the high threshold, and improve the inter- and
intramuscular coordination”.
Upon analyzing the distribution of percental data (cf. Table 3), we
observed that the mean of percental, that is, when summed the
gains percentally of a group and it is divided by the number of
participants of the same group, it results in 163.20% on average,
for three-times-a-week training and 149.99 for the five-times-aweek training. This shows a small difference between the groups,
however, this difference is not significant.
The standard deviation presents that the variability of percental
gain was greater than for the group which training five times a
week. This is explained by the difference in the resistance of initial
abdominal strength for each individual and the degree of familiarity with the exercise (Fleck and Kraemer, 1999).
The levels of kurtosis and symmetry, to be considered normal, they
should be in the interval between -2 e +2. (Vincent,1999).
In the Table 4 and 5, it is observed Kolmogorov-Smirnov’s statistical trial. These trial the hypothesis that the data present, as the
normal distribution, a low value of significance (generally p >
0.05). This indicates that the data distribution differs significantly
from the normal distribution. As there are less than 50 cases
for each group, it is recommended using the Shapiro-Wilk’s
statistical trial. The distribution of % gains for both groups does
not differ significantly from the normal distribution, for the levels
Table 1 - Descriptive analysis of workloads in kg strength
Dependent
Variable
Test (kgf)
Retest (kgf)
274
Weekly
Frequency
3
5
Total
3
5
Total
N
Mean
12
14
26
12
14
26
28.542
38.071
70.375
84.286
-
Standard
deviation
10.31
15.24
13.82
21.108
14.347
18.791
Standard Error
3.813
3.531
5.129
4.749
-
Confidence interval of 95%
Lower limit
Upper limit
20.671
36.412
30.785
45.358
59.789
80.961
74.485
94.087
-
Fit Perf J, Rio de Janeiro, 3, 5, 274, Sep/Oct 2004
Table 2 - Descriptive analysis of all individuals’ data
19/04/01
Test (kg
strength)
23
Re-test
(kg strength)
82.5
25/06/01
08/08/01
48.5
97.5
101.03
21/03/01
03/05/01
29
78.5
170.69
Mo-Fr
16/02/01
30/03/01
18
82.5
358.33
Mo-Fr
21/03/01
03/05/01
57.5
83.5
45.22
5
Mo-Fr
30/05/01
13/07/01
36.5
93.5
156.16
5
Mo-Fr
25/04/01
07/06/01
36.5
87.5
139.73
22
5
Mo-Fr
09/05/01
22/06/01
27
72.5
168.52
30
5
Mo-Fr
14/04/01
28/05/01
59.5
95
59.66
21
5
Mo-Fr
25/06/01
08/08/01
56.5
95.5
69.03
R.C
17
5
Mo-Fr
01/06/01
16/07/01
46.5
89.5
92.47
R.S
23
5
Mo-Fr
23/04/01
05/06/01
20.5
79.5
287.80
R.L
23
5
Mo-Fr
13/06/01
27/07/01
53
99.5
87.74
T.C
18
5
Mo-Fr
09/02/01
23/03/01
21
43
104.76
A.G
21
3
Mo /We /Fr
15/03/01
28/04/01
51
89.5
75.49
C.A
23
3
Mo /We /Fr
12/01/01
26/02/01
30
52
73.33
D.C
18
3
Mo /We /Fr
16/05/01
29/06/01
34.5
97.5
182.61
F.M
21
3
Mo /We /Fr
31/01/01
14/03/01
26
63.5
144.23
F.L
23
3
Mo /We /Fr
05/02/01
19/03/01
31
105
238.71
G.S
18
3
Mo /We /Fr
15/06/01
08/08/01
32.5
66.5
104.62
L.L
18
3
Mo /We /Fr
12/01/01
26/02/01
30
88
193.33
M.Z
22
3
Mo /We /Fr
14/05/01
27/06/01
30
62.5
108.33
P.T
18
3
Mo /We /Fr
06/04/01
21/05/01
29
58.5
101.72
R.B
22
3
Mo /We /Fr
29/01/01
12/03/01
13
52
300.00
R.G
24
3
Mo /We /Fr
04/07/01
17/08/01
25.5
75.5
196.08
V.B
19
3
Mo /We /Fr
29/01/01
12/03/01
10
34
240.00
Name
Age
Frequency
Days
Start
End
B.L
19
5
Mo-Fr
07/03/01
E.M
21
5
Mo-Fr
F.C
21
5
Mo-Fr
G.M
18
5
J.P
19
5
L.V
19
L.L
19
L.P
M.A
P.S
Gains%
258.70
Table 3 - Descriptive analysis of percental gains between three and five times a week
Mean
5x/semana
3x/semana
149.99
163.20
Standard error
24.86
21.15
Average
122.24
163.42
Standard deviation
93.01
73.26
Sample’s variance
8649.97
5366.41
0.49
-0.86
Kurtosis
Asymmetry
1.10
0.42
313.12
226.67
Minimum
45.22
73.33
Maximum
358.33
300
Summation
2099.84
1958.46
14
12
53.70
46.54
Normal distribution
Interval
Count
Level of confidence (95,0%)
Asymmetry and kurtosis are between -2 and +2
Table 4 - Tests of Normalcy for % of gains 3 times a week
Gains%
Statistics
.190
Kolmogorov-Smirnov(a)
gl
12
P
.200(*)
Statistics
.934
Shapiro-Wilk
Gl
12
p
.442
* This is the inferior limit of truth signficance.
The correction of significance by Lilliefors
Fit Perf J, Rio de Janeiro, 3, 5, 275, Sep/Oct 2004
275
Table 5 - Tests of Normalcy for % de gains 5 times a week
Gains%
Statistics
.198
Kolmogorov-Smirnov(a)
gl
14
P
.143
Shapiro-Wilk
Gl
14
Statistics
.889
p
.085
The correction of signficance by Lilliefors
Table 6 - t Test - t for both paired samples for medians
Mean
Variance
Observations
Mean difference Hypothesis
all
all
3 times/weekly
3 times/weekly
5 times/weekly
5 times/weekly
Test (kgf)
33.67
191.00
26
Retest (kgf)
77,87
353,09
26
Test(kgf)
28.54
106.29
12
Retest(kgf)
70.38
445.55
12
Test (kgf)
38.07
232.23
14
Retest (kgf)
0.05
0.05
0.05
25.00
11.00
-9.00
13.00
-13.94
dl
Stat t
Percentage gains
-15.97
P(T<=t) unicaudal
0.00000
t critical unicaudal
P(T<=t) bicaudal
t critical bicaudal
231,2
1.71
0.00000
2.06
of significance are greater than 0.05 (p = 0.442 e p = 0.085,
respectively).
Because the % of gains for both group present distributions within the standards of Normalcy, it can be adopted a parametric
statistical test, once there are two groups of data with normal
distributions, it can be adopted the t Student test (cf. Table 6).
This is used to compare the gain between both groups and verify
whether the difference is significant or not.
The training brought some significant improvements in all comparisons.
246.6
0.00000
1.80
0.00000
2.20
84.29
205.84
14
221.4
0.00000
1.77
0.00000
2.16
16 people), a group that trained two times per week (with 17
people) and a forth group, that trained three times per week (with
15 people). In the trunk rotation movement, the objective of the
study was to determine the best training frequency. This same
study showed that there is no significant difference between two
or three times per week for the strength improvement and that
two times per week showed a better level of adherence. This fact
reinforces our study when we affirm that more days per week do
not mean greater strength gains and, moreover, abdication or
abandonment of the training may occur.
In the context of the present study, we can conclude that:
We recommend more studies regarding the subject developed
here, studies that relate quantities of training days per week, not
only in the abdominal muscles, but also in other muscular groups,
looking for important contributions in the population context and
for the scientific community.
Six weeks of abdominal training have proved to be higly effective
to improve de strength resistance for both groups.
Graph 1 - Median, quartile, confidence interval and discrepant
score
CONCLUSION
Despite the difference (13, 31%), higher for the ones who trained
three times a week, the statistic treatment given have shown that
this difference is not significant, therefore, to increase the resistance of the abdominal strength, regarding the quantity of days
per week, three or five times present very similar results.
A Barham’s study (1960), has shown that five and three sessions of training per week have led to a significant increase of
strength. However, there was not difference between them but
other aspects must be observed, for instance, the adherence to
the training.
More times per week may withdraw people from training. This
statement may be affirmed based on a study by Demichele et
al. (1997), in which there was a comparison between a control
group of 10 individuals, a group that trained once a week (with
276
Fit Perf J, Rio de Janeiro, 3, 5, 276, Sep/Oct 2004
REFERENCES
American College of Sports Medicine. Position stand on progression models in resistance
training for healthy adults. Medicine Science Sports Exercise. V.34, N.2, p. 364-380,
2002.
BAILEY, G. Zur Terminologie Und Struktur Phisischer Leitungsfaktore Und motorischer Fahigkeiten Leistungssport. 7, P. 339-362, 1976.
BARHAM, J.N. A comparison of the effectiveness of isometric and isotonic exercise when
performed at different frequencies per week. PhD dies. Louisiana, State University.
1960.
BERGER, R.A. Application of research findings in progressive resistance exercises to
physical therapy. Journal of the Association of Physical and Mental Rehabilitation.
19: p. 200-203,1965.
BLOOMER,R.J.; IVES, J.C. Varyng neural and hypertrophic influences in a strength program.
National Strength & Conditioning Association, v.22, n.2, p.30-35, 2000.
DANTAS, ESTÉLIO H. M. A Prática da Preparação Física. 5ª ed. Rio de Janeiro:Shape,
2003.
DEMICHELE, P. L.; POLLOCK, M. L.; GRAVES, J. E.; FOSTER, D. N.; CARPENTER, D.; GARZARELLA, L.; BRECHUE, W.; FULTON, M. Isometric torso rotation Strength: effect training
on its development. Arch. Phys. Méd. Rehabil. 78: p.64-9,1997.
AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION, 2002
FLECK, S. J.; KRAEMER, J., Fundamentos do treinamento de força muscular. 2 ed.
Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas, p. 34, 1999.
FREY, D.A.; SHEPARD,R.J, MIRWALD, R.L. Validation of a self administered home test for
cardio-respiratory fitness. Can. J. Appl. Sport. Sci. 1: p. 67-78,1976.
GILLIAM, G. M. Effects of frequency of weight training on muscle strength enhancement.
Journal of Sports Medicine. 21: p. 432-36,1981.
HATHER, B. M.; TESCH, B.A.; BUCHANAN, P.; and Dudley, G. A. Influence of excentric
actions on skeletal muscle adaptation to resistance training. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica. 143: p.177-85,1992.
HENDERSON, J.M. The effects of weight loadings and repetitions frequency of exercise
and knowledge of theorical principles of weight training on changes in muscular strength.
Dissertation Abstracts International. 31A:p. 320,1992.
Fit Perf J, Rio de Janeiro, 3, 5, 277, Sep/Oct 2004
HOLLMANN, W.; HETTINGER, T. H. Medicina do esporte. São Paulo: Manole. 1993.
HUNTER, G. R. Changes in body composition body build and performance associated
with different weight training frequency in males and females. National Strength and
Conditioning Association Journal 7: P.26-28,1985.
MCDOUGALL, J. D. et al.: Muscle ultrastrutural characteristics of the elite powerlifters and
body builds. Med. Sci. Sports, 2: p.131, 1980.
MCDONAGH, M. J. N. and DAVIS, C. T. M. Adaptative responses of Malian skeletal
muscle to exercises with high loads. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 52:
p.139-55,1984.
MONTEIRO, W. D. Medida de força muscular, aspectos metodológicos e aplicações. Núcleos do Instituto de Ciências da Atividade Física da Aeronáutica. Rio de Janeiro;
V. 3(1): p.38-51,1998.
POLLOCK, M. L. et al. Resistance exercises in individuals with and without cardiovascular
disease. Circulation, 101, p.828-883, 2000.
POLLOCK, M. L.; Graves, J. E.; Swart, D. L.; Lowental, D. T. Exercise training and prescription
for the elderly. South Med. J. p.588-595, 1987.
SALE, D. G. Neural adaptation to strength training. Strength and power in sport. Ed.P.V.
Komi: Oxford Blackwell Scientific. p.249-65,1992.
SIMÃO, R.; MONTEIRO, W. D.; ARAÚJO, C. G. S. Fidedignidade inter e intra dias de um
teste de potência muscular. Ver. Bras. Med. Desportiva; 3(7): p.80-85, 2001a.
SIMÃO, R.; CASTRO, L. E. V.; LEMOS, A. Treinamento de força, adaptações neurais e
hipertróficas. Revista Baiana de Educação Física, Volume 2, Número 2, 2001b.
STARON, R. S.; KARAPONDO, D. L.; KRAEMER, W. J.; FRY, A. C.; GORDON, S. E.; FALKEL,
J.E.; HAGERMAN, F. C.; and HIKIDA, R, S. Skeletal muscle adaptations during the early
phase of heavy- resistance training in men and women. Journal of Applied Physiology
76:p. 1247-55,1994.
STONE, M. H.; O´BRYANT, H.; GARHLAMMER, J. G.; MCMILLIAN, J.; and ROZENEK, R.
Theorical model for strength training. National Strength Conditioning Association
Journal. 4:p.134-39, 1982.
VINCENT, W. J. Statistics in kinesiology. 2 ed. Human Kinetics, p. 83, 1999.
WEINECK, J. Treinamento Ideal. 9 ed. São Paulo: Manole, 1999, p. 620. 1999.
ZATSIORKY, M. V. Ciência e prática do treinamento de força, São Paulo: Phorte,
1999, p.155.
277