Strength Training: The Experienced VS the

Inexperienced

Team MerleAnthony Robbins, Charlene Logan, Valerie Nielson, Danielle Harrison

Abstract

There are many health benefits to strength training, but it may be difficult to

obtain the wanted muscle hypertrophy in a strength training regimen based on prior

experience. To determine whether there is a difference between experienced (EXP) and

inexperienced (INEXP) strength trainers in muscle hypertrophy, 70 students, both male

and female between the ages of 18 and 26 years of age from Brigham Young University

Idaho (BYU-I), were placed into two groups: EXP and INEXP based on whether they

had previously participated in a strength training program for at least three consecutive

months. The participants performed seven different exercises for this study (Squat, Bench

Press, Bicep Curl, Leg Extension, Leg Curl, Lat Pulls, and Triceps). The maximum rep

weight was recorded pre-workout regimen, six weeks into the workout regimen, and 12

weeks into the workout regimen. The difference in the maximum weight rep was

measured at pre-workout regimen and at 12 weeks into the regimen. A t-test was done for

each exercise performed. When the separate data groups were evaluated, significant p-

values were found in the Bench Press (p-value of 0.007333), Leg Extension (p-value of

0.014628), and Leg Curl (p-value of 0.037935) exercises. Based on the results of the t-

test, there is no difference between the average change of weight lifted for EXP and

INEXP participants and there is no difference in muscular hypertrophy amongst EXP and

INEXP.

Introduction

Strength training is an essential part to a healthy balanced workout. Benefits from

a strength-training program include: increased bone density, disease prevention, energy

boost, and improvements in mood (Seguin, R., & Nelson, M. E. (2003).

It is not as easy to observe the results in a strength-training program as compared

to an endurance-training program. In a study of 19 healthy adult women, they measured

their muscular hypertrophy in a strength-training program that included 12 types of

exercises for seven muscle groups. Significant changes in muscle mass were not observed

until week six of their training (Yamaji, S., Demura, S., Watanabe, N., & Uchiyama, M.

(2010). In endurance training, health improvements can start to be observed within the

first week of exercising (Paton, C., Hopkins, W.G., 2004). Therefore with strength

training programs, there are lower retention rates. In one study there was as great as a

75% drop out rate due to the length and intensity of the exercises (Cyarto, E. V., Brown,

W. J., & Marshall, A. L. (2006).

To help increase retention and adherence rates in a strength-training regimen,

many studies have been conducted to find a technique that would allow for the greatest

rate of improvement. One factor measured was age. Over a 12-week period, a group of

various aged young adults were involved in a study where their non-dominant arm was

strengthened and measured. At the end of the testing period, within the young adult

category, there was no significant difference between the rate of muscular hypertrophy

and their age (Lowndes,J., Carpenter, R.L., Zoeller, R.F., Seip, R.L, Moyna, N.M., Price,

T.B., Angelopulos, T.J., 2009).

Another study was conducted comparing periodic resistance training with

continuous resistance training. The results were similar with no significant difference,

though there was a slight increase in muscle hypertrophy found in periodic resistance

training (Ogasawara, R., Yasuda, T., Ishii, N., & Abe, T. (2013). One study, however, did

find that with high intensity workouts, one could start seeing skeletal muscular growth

within three to four weeks of their training program. (DeFreitas, J., Beck,T., Stock, M.,

Dillion, M., & Kasishke, P., 2011).

In another study, the researchers were able to see results earlier, if the participant

was actively training and previously experienced. They saw muscular increase as early

as week two with these participants. However, these results are not consistent. Another

study was conducted comparing experienced (EXP) individuals and inexperienced

(INEXP) individuals. After eight weeks of training both groups had the same muscular

gains.

EXP participants and athletes often hit a max threshold of muscular development

with very acute muscular architectural changes in a continuous resistance training

regimen (Reardon et al., 2014). Therefore in our study, we want to know in resistance

training, would an EXP participant have greater muscular hypertrophy as opposed to an

INEXP participant. As EXP and INEXP participants are assessed with three different

workout regimens over a 12-week period, we hypothesize that the INEXP participants

will see greater muscular hypertrophy.

Methods

Subjects

A group of 70 Brigham Young University-Idaho (BYU-I) students, ranging from

the ages of 18 to 26, volunteered to participate in a 12 week weight training program. In

order to qualify for this study, the participants were not to be involved in any previous

weight training program for more than two weeks within a six month period prior to this

study. Before beginning the study, participants filled out and signed multiple consent

forms and health questionnaires, which informed them what the study was about and also

assessed their health. Two participants were eventually excluded from the study, as they

were unable to fulfill the study’s requirements as well as one participant who was a

statistical outlier. The data used for the pre-said study was originally collected by a group

of exercise physiology students at BYU-I.

Testing Protocol

Before testing, each participant underwent a three-session familiarization period.

During these sessions, participants became accustomed to the movement and technique of

the lifts before adding additional weight. To record squat depth accurately, surgical

tubing was used to mark receptive depth once the participant’s thigh was parallel with the

ground. At the beginning of weeks zero, six, and 12, the participant’s one rep max (1

RM) was measured on seven required exercises: squat, bench press, bicep curl, leg

extension, leg curl, lat pulls, and tricep extension. At week zero, 1 RM assessments were

performed twice—each test performed at least 48 hours apart. Between the two tests, the

higher 1 RM was used for statistical purposes in the study.

Groups

Participants were placed in two groups according to experience: Experienced

(EXP) and Inexperienced (INEXP), which consisted of 30 and 37 participants

respectively. Participants who were placed in the EXP group were those who had

previously performed in at least three consecutive months of a weight training regimen.

The INEXP group consisted of participants who had performed in less than three

consecutive months of a previous weight training regimen. The participants in these

groups were then additionally spilt up into three other groups: 1-set (n=20), 1-3 set

(n=22) and 3-set (n=25). Participants in the 1-set group completed one set of each lift

three days per week for 12 weeks. The 1-3 set group completed one set for three days per

week for the first six weeks and then for the final six weeks completed three sets of each

lift three days a week. The 3-set group completed three sets of each lift three days per

week for all 12 weeks.

Training Program

Each participant performed seven different exercises: squat, bench press, bicep

curl, leg extension, leg curl, lat pulls, and tricep extension. These exercises were

performed three days per week for 12 weeks. The participants lifted 82 percent of their 1

RM for weeks one, two, seven, and eight; 87 percent for weeks three, four, nine, and 10;

and 93 percent for weeks five, six, 11, and 12. This periodization of weight lifting was

used to focus on the improvement of the 1 RM. Participants who were placed in the 3-set

group and the 1-3 set group were given a two to three minute resting period in between

each set.

Analysis

Changes in pounds lifted in 1 RM between EXP and INEXP groups were

recorded as real differences (RD). Percent differences (PD) were calculated afterwards.

The collective data was separated into testing groups to control for variation in exercise,

week of record, regimen intensity, and type of difference. Testing groups did not control

for EXP and INEXP. Variances for RD and PD of the EXP and the INEXP participants

were measured using Microsoft Excel 2013’s VAR.S formula for each testing group. If

the smaller variation multiplied by four was less than the larger variation a

heteroscedastic t-test was performed to find the p-value of the results. If the smaller

variation multiplied by four was greater than the larger variation, a homoscedastic t-test

was performed. Significance for both t-tests was set at p < 0.05. For this study there were

a total of 91 t-tests performed. The average real change (ARC) and average percent

change (APC) was also found for EXP and INEXP in each testing group. The first test

will be a t-test for APC that controls for variations in the training period and will look for

a significant difference in the APC of EXP and INEXP for all of the exercises performed

and exercise groups at the 0-12 Week Difference. Due to a lack of data involving some of

participants in the study and statistical outliers, only five of the seven exercises were

tested.

Results

When the separate data groups were evaluated no significant difference was found

in the squat (see Table 1) and bicep curl exercises (see Table 2). Significant results were

found in the bench press (see Table 3), leg extension (see Table 4), and leg curl (see

Table 5) exercises. There were eight significant results from the t-tests performed. One of

these results was in the upper body area and the other seven were in the lower body area.

This seems to indicate that muscle growth variation is most apparent in lower body

muscle groups.

Table 1: P-values of the real change and percent change for Squat exercise at 0-6 weeks, 6-12 weeks, and 0-12 weeks.

Squat p-valuesWeek 0-6 DIF 6-12 DIF 0-12 DIF

Type of Change

Real Change

Percent Change

Real Change

Percent Change

Real Change

Percent Change

Group 1-1

0.891311 0.458824 0.113387 0.33681 0.23058 0.973864

Group 1-3

0.360602 0.102519 0.145851 0.338176 0.921301 0.426549

Group 3-3

0.081229 0.15431 0.495041 0.50759 0.218955 0.542086

Table 2: P-values of the real change and percent change for Bicep Curl exercise at 0-6 weeks, 6-12 weeks, and 0-12 weeks.

Table 3: P-values of the real change and percent change for Bench Press exercise at 0-6 weeks, 6-12 weeks, and 0-12 weeks.

*Significant p-value

result

Bicep Curl p-valuesWeek 0-6 DIF 6-12 DIF 0-12 DIF

Type of Change

Real Change

Percent Change

Real Change

Percent Change

Real Change

Percent Change

Group 1-1

0.871877 0.306218 0.328041 0.770644 0.630375 0.251692

Group 1-3

0.546014 0.342956 0.511406 0.958814 0.919751 0.424339

Group 3-3

0.650629 0.64292 0.463999 0.71412 0.379523 0.83578

Bench Press p-valuesWeek 0-6 DIF 6-12 DIF 0-12 DIF

Type of Change

Real Change

Percent Change

Real Change

Percent Change

Real Change

Percent Change

Group 1-1

0.091609 0.381213 0.195026 0.710018 *0.007333

0.793187

Group 1-3

0.387469 0.639307 0.530058 0.796872 0.204021 0.954183

Group 3-3

0.535336 0.371514 0.540259 0.832061 0.960728 0.644078

Table 4: P-values of the real change and percent change for Leg Extension exercise at 0-6 weeks, 6-12 weeks, and 0-12 weeks.

Leg Extension p-valuesWeek 0-6 DIF 6-12 DIF 0-12 DIF

Type of Change

Real Change

Percent Change

Real Change

Percent Change

Real Change

Percent Change

Group 1-1 *0.005196 *0.002677 0.150725 0.150391 0.495596 *0.032616Group 1-3 0.467207 0.360547 0.324925 0.32635 0.158252 0.143789Group 3-3 *0.049181 0.087677 0.234796 0.89533 *0.014628 0.072213

*Significant p-value result

Table 5: P-values of the real change and percent change for Leg Curl exercise at 0-6 weeks, 6-12 weeks, and 0-12 weeks.

Leg Curl p-valuesWeek 0-6 DIF 6-12 DIF 0-12 DIF

Type of Change

Real Change

Percent Change

Real Change

Percent Change

Real Change

Percent Change

Group 1-1 0.454869 0.614461 0.215408 0.097265 0.636715 0.417631Group 1-3 0.097261 0.0716 0.19452 0.169105 *0.037935 *0.040454Group 3-3 0.777444 0.464765 0.458711 0.455201 0.760229 0.241654

*Significant p-value result

Bench Press Exercise

In the bench press exercise Group 1-1 showed a significant difference between

EXP and INEXP participants at the Week 0 to Week 6 change. The real difference in

weight lifted between EXP participants and INEXP participants was 9.2 lbs., with EXP

participants lifting more. See Table 6.

Leg Extension Exercise

In the leg extension exercise Group 1-1 showed a significant difference between

EXP and INEXP participants at the Week 0 to Week 6 change. The real difference lifted

in weight between EXP participants and INEXP participants was 14.8 lbs., with INEXP

participants lifting more. Group 1-1 showed a significant percent difference between EXP

and INEXP participants at the Week 0 to Week 6 change. The percent difference between

EXP and INEXP participants was 5.6, with EXP participants lifting more. Group 1-1 also

showed a significant percent difference between EXP and INEXP participants at the

Week 0 to Week 12 change. The percent difference between EXP participants and

INEXP participants was 16.8, with INEXP participants lifting more. In the leg extension

exercise Group 3-3 showed a significant real difference between EXP and INEXP

participants at the Week 0 to Week 6 change. The real difference between EXP

participants and INEXP participants was 19.0 lbs., with EXP participants lifting more. In

the leg extension exercise Group 3-3 showed a significant real difference between EXP

and INEXP participants at the Week 0 to Week 12 change. The real difference between

EXP participants and INEXP participants was 8.19 lbs., with INEXP participants lifting

more. See Table 6.

Leg Curl Exercise

In the leg curl exercise Group 1-3 showed a significant real difference between

EXP and INEXP participants at the Week 0 to Week 12 change. The real difference

between EXP participants and INEXP participants was 9.09 lbs., with INEXP

participants lifting more. Group 1-3 also showed a significant percent difference between

EXP and INEXP participants at the Week 0 to Week 12 change. The percent difference

between EXP participants and INEXP participants was 4.27, with INEXP participants

lifting more. See Table 6.

Table 6: Significant differences in Bench Press, Leg Extension, and Leg Curl exercises among EXP and INEXP participants. The differences are divided by exercise group, type of difference (real change or percent change), as well as time measurement.

Exercise Exercise Group

Type of Difference

Time Measurement

Difference between EXP and INEXP

P-value

Bench Press Group 1-1 Real Change Week 0-6 9.196429 lbs 0.007Leg Extension Group 1-1 Real Change Week 0-6 14.80303 lbs 0.005196Leg Extension Group 1-1 Percent Change Week 0-6 21.23% 0.002677Leg Extension Group 1-1 Percent Change Week 0-12 16.79% 0.032616Leg Extension Group 3-3 Real Change Week 0-6 19.02778 lbs 0.049181Leg Extension Group 3-3 Real Change Week 0-12 26.11111 lbs 0.014628

Leg Curl Group 1-3 Real Change Week 0-12 10.77273 lbs 0.037935Leg Curl Group 1-3 Percent Change Week 0-12 15.68% 0.040454

In the first t-test, the researchers were looking for a significant difference between

EXP and INEXP participants at the 0-12 Week difference measurement. EXP participants

had an APC of 30.34 percent and the INEXP participants had an APC of 34.35 percent.

The overall p-value of these findings was measured as 0.081 from the PC, therefore the

finding was insignificant at = 0.05. The following figures demonstrate the ARC in

pounds lifted for the EXP and INEXP participants for weeks 0-6, 6-12, and the overall

difference for the squat, bench press, bicep curl, leg extension, and leg curl exercises

(Figure 1).

Discussion

Based on the results of the t-test, we fail to reject the null hypothesis that there is

no difference between the average change of weight lifted for EXP and INEXP

participants. There is no difference in muscular hypertrophy between EXP and INEXP

strength training participants. The results and progression of each participant were

measured the same. This study, amongst other studies that we have reviewed, concluded

to the same results. The different exercise regimens didn’t have an effect on which group

performed better.

This study is important because the duration of the study is three semesters worth

of information, which causes for a strong study with strong data. This study involved all

major muscle groups, all of which were tested and have actual measured mass. The

limitations of this study include outside activities among the involved participants; each

individual’s eating habits and daily schedule may have some effect to the results of each

exercise performed. Also, this study was conducted by a third party, which may have

caused misinterpretations of the data that was collected. Future research needs would be

to have the participants record their weight more often and see when the highest peak of

change is.

In conclusion, knowing that EXP and INEXP individuals show no significant

difference in muscle gain can confirm that muscle strength and endurance training helps

anyone improve with any workout regimen. This can be extremely motivational to those

who have never participated in a strength training regimen to know that success is

attainable.

References

Abe, T., DeHoyos, D. V., Pollock, M. L., & Garzarella, L. (2000). Time course for

strength and muscle thickness changes following upper and lower body resistance

training in men and women. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 81(3), 174-

180. doi:10.1007/s004210050027

Ae-Rim, H., Sang-Min, H., & Yun-A, S. (2014). Effects of Resistance Training on

Muscle Strength, Endurance, and Motor Unit According to Ciliary Neurotrophic

Factor Polymorphism in Male College Students. Journal Of Sports Science &

Medicine, 13(3), 680-688.

Cyarto, E. V., Brown, W. J., & Marshall, A. L. (2006). Retention, adherence and

compliance: Important considerations for home- and group-based resistance

training programs for older adults. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 9(5),

402-412

DeFreitas, J., Beck, T., Stock, M., Dillon, M., & Kasishke, P. (2011). An examination of

the time course of training-induced skeletal muscle hypertrophy. European

Journal of Applied Physiology, 111(11), 2785-2790.

Flann, K. L., LaStayo, P. C., McClain, D. A., Hazel, M., & Lindstedt, S. L. (2011).

Muscle damage and muscle remodeling: No pain, no gain? Journal of

Experimental Biology, 214(4), 674-679.

Fontana, F. E. (2007). The effects of exercise intensity on decision making performance

of experienced and inexperienced soccer players. (Order No. 3270093, University

of Pittsburgh). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 134. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/304839174?accountid=9817. (304839174)

Lowndes, J., Carpenter, R. L., Zoeller, R. F., Seip, R. L., Moyna, N. M., Price, T. B., . . .

Angelopoulos, T. J. (2009). Association of age with muscle size and strength

before and after short-term resistance training in young adults. Journal of

Strength and Conditioning Research / National Strength & Conditioning

Association, 23(7), 1915. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b94b35

Ogasawara, R., Yasuda, T., Ishii, N., & Abe, T. (2013). Comparison of muscle

hypertrophy following 6-month of continuous and periodic strength training.

European Journal of Applied Physiology, 113(4), 975-985. doi:10.1007/s00421-

012-2511-9

Paton, C., Hopkins, W.G., (2004). Effects of High-intensity Training on Performance and

Physiology of Endurance Athletes. Sportscience 8, 25-40.

Reardon, D., Hoffman, J. R., Mangine, G. T., Wells, A. J., Gonzalez, A. M., Jajtner, A.

R., . . . Fukuda, D. H. (2014). Do changes in muscle architecture affect post-

activation potentiation? JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCE AND MEDICINE,

13(3), 483-492.

Seguin, R., & Nelson, M. E. (2003). The benefits of strength training for older adults.

American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 25(3), 141-149.

Yamaji, S., Demura, S., Watanabe, N., & Uchiyama, M. (2010). Slow movement

resistance training in women. Health, 02(10), 1156.