Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2004, 18(1), 48–52

q 2004 National Strength & Conditioning Association

MAXIMAL STRENGTH AND POWER ASSESSMENT IN

NOVICE WEIGHT TRAINERS
JOHN B. CRONIN AND MELANIE E. HENDERSON
Sport Performance Research Centre, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.

ABSTRACT. Cronin, J., and M. Henderson. Maximal strength of power (1). However, whether power is as easily
and power assessment in novice weight trainers. J. Strength changed as maximal strength in novice trainers is not
Cond. Res. 18(1):48–52. 2004.—The purpose of this study was to well documented. Given the propensity of research to use
investigate whether changes in maximal strength and power novice trainers to study how various training programs
output occurred over time in the absence of strength and power
training in novice weight trainers. It also investigated whether
affect strength and power, it may be useful to investigate
differences existed between upper- and lower-body assessments the stability of these strength and power measures. The
and unilateral and bilateral assessments. The power output and purpose of this study, therefore, is to investigate whether
maximal strength (1 repetition maximum [1RM]) of 10 male nov- changes in maximal strength and power output occurred
ice subjects were measured on 4 occasions, each assessment 7– over time in the absence of strength and power training
10 days apart. The exercises used to measure the upper- and in novice weight trainers. It also investigates whether dif-
lower-body strength and power outputs were the bench press ferences exist between upper- and lower-body and unilat-
and supine squat, respectively. Significant (p , 0.05) changes in eral and bilateral assessments. We hypothesized that
unilateral (9.8–16.8%) and bilateral 1RM (6.8–15.0%) leg strength and power measures would not change between
strength were found, the first assessment being significantly dif-
assessments.
ferent from all other assessments and assessment 2 significantly
different from assessment 4. Changes in the upper body (10–
13.6%) were also observed. The only significant difference was
METHODS
between assessment 1 and the other testing occasions. No dif- Experimental Approach to the Problem
ferences in power output were observed for both the upper and
lower body during the study. It would seem that considerable Upper- and lower-body maximal strength (1RM) using a
changes in maximal strength occur rapidly and in the absence bench press and supine squat were determined for each
of any formal strength training program in novice weight train- subject. Power outputs that used a load of 40% 1RM were
ers. also determined using the same equipment. The same
KEY WORDS. reliability, bench press, squat
maximal strength assessment procedures were replicated
for 3 subsequent testing occasions. Thereafter, the 1RM
and power outputs were statistically analyzed.
INTRODUCTION
Subjects
aximal strength is usually defined as the

M heaviest load that can be lifted for 1 repe-

tition maximum (1RM). The test-retest re-
liability of 1RM measurements is high (r 5
0.92–0.98) among experienced male and fe-
male lifters (17). However, the reliability of 1RM mea-
Ten men volunteered to participate in this research. The
subjects mean 6 SD age and body mass were 21.0 6 2.7
years and 78.7 6 13.4 kg, respectively. All subjects were
of an athletic background (rugby, soccer, and hockey play-
ers) and had not weight trained 6 months before the
surement for novice weight trainers is less clear. Ploutz- study and were instructed not to partake in any weight
Snyder and Giamis (15) found the number of sessions training throughout the period of the research. The Hu-
needed to achieve ‘‘absolute’’ consistency for a bilateral man Subject Ethics Committee of the Auckland Univer-
knee 1RM assessment in female novice athletes differed sity of Technology approved all the procedures undertak-
for older (8–9 sessions) compared with younger (3–4 ses- en, and all subjects signed an informed consent before
sions) subjects. Hakkinen (9) stated that increases in participating in the research.
muscular strength among novice trainers are easily at-
Equipment
tained, with initial increases of 10% or more obtained af-
ter only 2 weeks of intense training. Furthermore, it has Supine Squat Machine. Assessment of leg strength and
been suggested that initial strength increases for novice power was performed on a supine squat machine (Figure
athletes will occur with almost any training method and 1). The supine squat machine was custom built (Fitness
will occur rapidly (8, 9, 16, 22). Such results suggest that Works, Auckland, New Zealand) and used a 300-kg, pin-
1RM strength changes rapidly and as such may be a less loaded weight stack attached to a sled to assess the sub-
reliable measure of strength changes in novice trainers. jects. A linear transducer (P-80A, Unimeasure, Corvallis,
Many studies have reported changes in 1RM strength us- Oregon; average sensitivity, 0.499 mV·V·mm21; linearity,
ing novice trainers and made conclusions as to the effec- 0.05% full scale) was attached to the weight stack and
tiveness of their training programs. However, the efficacy measured vertical displacement relative to the ground
of these training programs may in fact be compromised with an accuracy of 0.1 cm. These data were sampled at
by the reliability of 1RM as a strength measure and/or 1,000 Hz by a computer-based data acquisition and anal-
the trainability of the novice subjects. ysis program.
Currently, there is much interest in the measurement The supine squat machine was designed to allow nov-

48
 STRENGTH AND POWER IN NOVICE WEIGHT TRAINERS 49

FIGURE 1. Supine squat machine.

FIGURE 2. Double-leg 1 repetition maximum (mean 6 SD)
during 4 testing occasions. * 5 Significant difference of test 1
ice subjects to perform maximal squats or explosive squat to tests 2, 3, and 4. ** 5 Test 2 is significantly different to
jumps, with the back rigidly supported, thus minimizing test 4.
the risk associated with such exercises in an upright po-
sition. The sled lay on top of an undercarriage, which en-
abled the sled to be pegged every 2 cm, allowing start sure maximal strength were replicated during the 3 sub-
angles to be standardized according to the height of the sequent testing occasions, each testing occasion 7–10 days
subjects. The reliability (interclass correlation coefficient apart. Power was only assessed in sessions 1 and 4.
[ICC] 5 0.958–0.988) of this equipment and protocols for
Data Analysis
measuring leg strength and power has been reported pre-
viously (5). The displacement-time data were filtered using a low-
Modified Smith Machine. A modified Smith machine pass Hamming filter with a cutoff frequency of 5 Hz. The
was used to measuring upper-body maximal strength and filtered data were then differentiated using a 5-point de-
power. The Smith machine was instrumented similar to rivative approximation (Lagrange polynomial fourth de-
the supine squat machine in terms of the linear trans- gree about each point) to determine velocity and accel-
ducer and computer-based acquisition and analysis pro- eration data. The force data was determined by multiply-
gram. The reliability (ICC 5 0.85–0.99) of the equipment ing the mass by the acceleration data. Power was calcu-
and protocols for measuring upper-body strength and lated by multiplying the force data by the velocity data.
power has also been reported previously (4). The average of 2 trials was used for analysis. The reli-
ability and validity of the measures under consideration
Determination of Strength and Power Output have been reported previously (5, 6).
Subjects performed a standardized warm-up that was
Statistical Analyses
based on progressively overloading the musculature on
either the supine squat or Smith machine. Body position Paired T-tests were used to determine if velocity, force,
and joint angles were standardized, as were the instruc- and power data changed between sessions 1 and 4. One-
tions for each testing occasion. Subjects rested for 2–3 way repeated-measures analysis of variance with Bonfer-
minutes between each warm-up set during which upper- roni pairwise comparisons that were adjusted for multiple
and lower-body stretches were performed. This warm-up comparisons were used to determine differences in 1RM
was also used to familiarize the subjects with the testing between the 4 testing occasions. An a level of 0.05 was
equipment and the lifting techniques used to measure used for both statistical procedures.
strength and power. Following familiarization, the max-
imal strength of the upper and lower body was performed RESULTS
in the following sequence: unilateral lower body 1RM, bi- Figure 2 shows that double-leg maximal strength
lateral upper body 1RM, and bilateral lower body 1RM. changed over time. Test 2 (6.8%), test 3 (9.9%), and test
To establish each subject’s 1RM, a single repetition to 4 (15.0%) differed significantly (F 5 33.07, p 5 0.000)
failure protocol was used (10). A recovery period of 3 min- from test 1. The only other significant difference was be-
utes between each repetition was used, and if the 1RM tween the second and final testing occasions, where an
was not established within 6 attempts, the subject was 8.5% increase in maximal strength occurred.
invited to return to complete their assessment (1). After The results of the single-leg 1RM assessment were
adequate recovery, bilateral power outputs for the upper similar to the double-leg 1RM assessment. The first test-
and lower body were measured on the Smith and supine ing occasion was significantly different (F 5 11.50, p 5
squat machine, respectively. Subjects were asked to move 0.004) from all other testing occasions (Figure 3). A 9.8%
the sled or the bar as ‘‘explosively’’ as possible. A load of increase was observed between testing occasions 1 and 2.
40% 1RM was used, because loading of this approximate Further maximal strength improvement occurred be-
intensity is thought to maximize the mechanical power tween test 3 (13.8%) and test 4 (16.8%) compared with
output of muscle (12–14). This loading allowed projection test 1. Maximal strength changes between tests 2 and 4
of the bar or the sled (ballistic technique), and therefore were also significantly different.
the acceleration and deceleration profiles associated with The significant differences between testing occasion 1
this type of movement offered greater movement pattern and all other testing occasions observed in the lower body
specificity to everyday activity. The procedures to mea- can also be observed in the upper-body 1RM assessment
50 CRONIN AND HENDERSON

and 2 in any of the velocity, force, and power measures

(Table 1). Similarly, nonsignificant differences were ob-
served for the assessment of the upper-body measures.

DISCUSSION
Both unilateral (16.8%) and bilateral (15.0%) 1RM leg
strength changed during the study in the absence of any
formal strength training program. Testing occasion 1 was
found to be significantly different from all other testing
occasions, and testing occasion 2 was found to be signif-
icantly different from testing occasion 4 for both unilat-
eral and bilateral assessment of the legs. In terms of the
upper body, testing occasion 1 was only significantly dif-
FIGURE 3. Single-leg 1 repetition maximum (mean 6 SD) ferent from all other testing occasions. In the subjects of
during 4 testing occasions. * 5 Significant difference of test 1 this study, improvement in 1RM strength in the absence
to tests 2, 3, and 4. ** 5 Test 2 is significantly different to of any formal strength training program may be ex-
test 4. plained in a number of ways. The methods used in this
study may have poor reliability. That is, the familiariza-
tion and procedures used for 1RM assessment may not
have had high test-retest reliability. However, the
strength assessment was performed according to pre-
scribed procedures (1, 10), and the reliability of these pro-
cedures has been reported previously (5, 6). If the tech-
niques used to establish 1RM were unreliable, the results
of a great deal of research in this area would appear ques-
tionable.
Assuming reliability is not an issue, other factors,
such as the trainability of novice weight trainers, may
explain the increases in strength. Hakkinen (9) stated
that increases in muscular strength among novice train-
ers are easily attained, with initial increases of 10% or
more obtained after only 2 weeks of intense training. This
study found increases of 6.8–10% within 1 week of the
initial assessment, 9.9–13.8% within 2 weeks, and 13.6–
FIGURE 4. Upper-body 1 repetition maximum (mean 6 SD)
16.8% within 3 weeks. These increases were found in the
during 4 testing occasions. * 5 Significant difference of test 1
to tests 2, 3, and 4. absence of any formal strength training program. It may
be that the 1RM assessments themselves could be inter-
preted as a form of training, and therefore training once
(Figure 4). Test 1 was found to differ significantly (F 5 a week moving high loads for 1 or 2 repetitions is enough
16.5, p 5 0.001) from test 2 (10%), test 3 (13.6%), and test of a training stimulus to induce the changes in novice
4 (13.6%). However, there was no significance difference weight trainers observed in this study. This would sup-
among any other testing occasions. port the earlier suggestion that initial strength increases
In terms of bilateral assessment of the legs, no signif- for novice trainers will occur with almost any training
icant differences were found between testing occasions 1 method and will occur rapidly (8, 16, 22).

Table 1. Velocity, force, and power outputs as assessed during 2 testing occasions for the bilateral bench press and supine squat
assessments.
Pretest Posttest
Variable mean (SD) mean (SD) T-test p value
Lower body
Peak velocity (m s21) 1.518 (0.21) 1.513 (0.19) 0.094 0.927
Mean velocity (m s21) 0.781 (0.27) 0.694 (0.006) 0.943 0.370
Peak force (N) 1256.5 (290.2) 1259.6 (274.6) 20.156 0.880
Mean force (N) 1073.4 (290.2) 1108.7 (234.8) 21.272 0.235
Peak power (W) 1546.1 (424.3) 1577.7 (494.2) 20.596 0.566
Mean power (W) 727.5 (231.4) 853.2 (341.4) 21.020 0.334
Upper body
Peak velocity (m s21) 1.26 (0.242) 1.23 (0.225) 0.610 0.557
Mean velocity (m s21) 0.74 (0.173) 0.73 (0.160) 0.488 0.665
Peak force (N) 375.1 (69.82) 372.1 (72.61) 0.854 0.415
Mean force (N) 325.9 (68.01) 331.4 (72.54) 20.833 0.426
Peak power (W) 411.8 (80.3) 383.1 (99.8) 1.222 0.253
Mean power (W) 221.1 (37.7) 221.1 (47.1) 20.005 0.996
 STRENGTH AND POWER IN NOVICE WEIGHT TRAINERS 51

The rapid increase in strength of the novice trainers sessment (smaller muscle groups) compared with the su-
can probably be attributed to a number of neural factors. pine squat assessment. Furthermore, the greater com-
A full treatise of these factors is outside the scope of this plexity (moving entire body plus load) and heavier loads
article, but the factors that may better explain the results that were associated with the supine squat assessment
of this study will be briefly described. It has been reported could potentially result in greater uncertainty and inhi-
that normally active individuals find it difficult to elicit bition during this assessment task. Hence, reduced coac-
maximum force during a maximum voluntary contraction tivation and disinhibition, as discussed previously, could
(7). This difference between voluntary maximum force play a greater role during the supine squat assessment.
and the absolute maximum capacity of the neuromuscu- Since the supine squat movement is considerably more
lar system has been termed the strength deficit. Strength complex and involves substantially greater muscle mass
deficits of 30–45% have been reported in untrained indi- to perform the lifting task, it is possible that the ‘‘learn-
viduals, whereas the strength deficits in elite athletes ing’’ of this task took longer than the more simpler bench
have been calculated to be 5% or less (18, 21). This dis- press movement. As a result, there is the potential for
parity suggests that elite athletes are able to use a great- greater fixator and synergistic contribution during this
er proportion of their total strength reserves. It is thought task over a longer course, hence the results of this study.
that by continually exposing the muscles to high levels of Interestingly, there were no significant changes in ve-
tension, the sensitivity of inhibitory mechanisms, such as locity, force, or power between testing occasions for both
the Golgi tendon organs, may be reduced through a pro- the upper- and lower-body assessments. Given the con-
cess known as disinhibition (20). This process improves siderable increases in maximal strength during the study,
neural drive to the agonist muscle and as such allows the one would assume increases in power also, since power is
individual to get closer to the absolute maximum force- the product of force and velocity. However, this was not
producing capacity of muscle. There is no doubt that the the case. This could suggest that maximal strength and
1RM assessments produced high tension within the work- power are unrelated; however, research suggests that this
ing muscle. Whether the frequency and volume of high- is not the case (19). If the strength testing occasions were
tension loads, however, were sufficient to result in dis- viewed as a training stimulus, it may be that this type of
inhibition may be questionable (11). training produced adaptations of a single factor (i.e., in-
Another candidate mechanism for explaining the re- creased strength). According to the principle of specificity,
sults of this study is an improvement in the coordination for the power measures to improve moving loads similar
among the muscles involved in the strength assessment. to the assessment task would be most beneficial. Another
It has been suggested that a large part of the improve- possible explanation for the absence of change in the pow-
ment in the ability to lift weights was due to an increased er results in terms of the maximal strength changes may
ability to coordinate other muscle groups involved in the involve contraction force specificity and movement spec-
movement task (16). This may take the form of improved ificity during the assessment task. Because the loads that
synergistic or fixator contribution or reduced coactivation were used to assess power output were lighter (40% 1RM)
of the antagonist. It could be that during this study the and involved throwing of the bar during the bench press
subjects ‘‘learned’’ to activate the synergistic and fixator or jumping during the supine squat, the movements as-
muscles to better affect changes in total 1RM strength. sociated with the assessment tasks were similar to move-
Coactivation refers to the interaction between agonist ment patterns used in everyday activity. Assuming great-
and antagonist muscles to produce muscle torque around er familiarity with such movement patterns and a lighter
a joint. To maximize muscle torque, it is necessary to min- loading intensity, it may be that the influence of inhibi-
imize the amount of coactivation. Carolan and Cafarelli tion, coactivation, and synergistic-fixator contribution
(3) found that an increase in the strength of the knee may be less in such assessment tasks.
extensors during an 8-week training program was asso-
ciated with a marked reduction in the level of coactivation PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
of the knee flexor muscles. Curiously, most of the decline
in coactivation was observed in the first week of training. It would seem that considerable changes in maximal
Coactivation appears to be a default strategy used by the strength occur rapidly and in the absence of any formal
nervous system when there is uncertainty about the task strength training program in novice weight trainers. The
(3). Due to the novice status of the subjects, it may be course of the changes appears dependent on the size of
assumed that there is a degree of uncertainty associated the musculature used and the complexity of the move-
with the 1RM assessment. Furthermore, the greatest ment used in the assessment task. Power assessment us-
gains in 1RM strength for both upper- and lower-body ing lighter loads appears less variable over time. These
assessments were observed in the first week of this study. findings suggest that determining a maximal strength
Reduced coactivation may partly explain the strength value for a novice subject is inherently difficult, because
changes observed in this study. the strength assessment in itself may serve as a strength
In terms of the legs, 1RM strength seemed to be in- training stimulus. Hence, strength assessment for novice
creasing throughout the study, whereas the increase in subjects needs to occur over multiple occasions to ensure
upper-body strength appeared to have plateaued as ob- reliability. Consequently, making conclusions as to the ef-
served in no difference between testing occasions 2–3 fectiveness of various training programs based on maxi-
(13.6%) and 3–4 (13.6%). This difference between the up- mal strength changes in novice trainers, without attend-
per and lower body may be attributed to the size of the ing to this issue of reliability, seems highly questionable.
musculature involved or the complexity of the lifting tech- With this in mind, one should remain cognizant of the
nique. It has been suggested that the ability to maximally limitations that exist in the interpretation of available
activate muscle varies across muscles (2). It may be that research data in this field when novice trainers are used
the strength deficit was less during the bench press as- as subjects.
52 CRONIN AND HENDERSON

REFERENCES 13. NEWTON, R.U., W.J. KRAEMER, K. HAKKINEN, B.J. HUMPHRIES,

AND A.J. MURPHY. Kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation
1. ABERNETHY, P., G. WILSON, AND P. LOGAN. Strength and power during explosive upper body movements. J. Appl. Biomech. 12:
assessment: Issues, controversies and challenges. Sports Med. 31–43. 1996.
19:41–417. 1995. 14. NEWTON, R.U., A.J. MURPHY, B.J. HUMPHRIES, W.J. KRAEMER,
2. BELANGER, A.Y., AND A.J. MCCOMAS. Extent of motor unit ac- AND K. HAKKINEN. Influence of load and stretch shortening cy-
tivation during effort. J. Appl. Physiol. 51:1131–1135. 1981. cle on the kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation that oc-
3. CAROLAN, B., AND E. CAFARELLI. Adaptations in coactivation curs during explosive upper body movements. Eur. J. Appl.
after isometric resistance training. J. Appl. Physiol. 73:911– Physiol. 75:333–342. 1997.
917. 1992. 15. PLOUTZ-SNYDER, L.L., AND E.L. GIAMIS. Orientation and fam-
4. CRONIN, J.B., P.J. MCNAIR, AND R.N. MARSHALL. Developing iliarisation to 1RM strength testing in old and young women.
explosive power: A comparison of technique and training loads. J. Strength Cond. Res. 15:519–523. 2001.
J. Sci. Med. Sport. 4:59–70. 2001. 16. RUTHERFORD, O.M., AND D.A. JONES. The role of learning and
5. CRONIN, J.B., P.J. MCNAIR, AND R.N. MARSHALL. Relationship coordination in strength training. J. Appl. Physiol. 55:100.
between strength qualities and motor skills associated with 1986.
court performance. J. Hum. Movement Stud. 40:207–224. 2001. 17. SALE, D.G. Testing strength and power. In: Physiological Test-
6. CRONIN, J.B., P.J. MCNAIR, AND R.N. MARSHALL. The role of ing of the High Performance Athlete. J.D. MacDougall, H.A.
maximal strength and load on initial power production. Med. Wenger, and H.J. Green, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,
Sci. Sports Exerc. 32:1763–1769. 2000. 1991. pp. 21–106.
7. ENOKA, R.M., AND A.J. FUGLEVAND. Neuromuscular basis of 18. SCHMIDTBLEICHER, D. Strength training (part two): Structural
the maximum voluntary force capacity of muscle. In: Current analysis of motor strength qualities and its application to
Issues in Biomechanics. M.D. Grabiner, ed. Champaign, IL: training. Sci. Per. Res. Tech. Sport. September:1–10. 1985.
Human Kinetics, 1993. pp. 215–235. 19. SCHMIDTBLEICHER, D. Training for power events. In: Strength
8. FLECK, S.J., AND W.J. KRAEMER. Designing Resistance Train- and Power in Sport. P.V. Komi, ed. Boston: Blackwell Scientific
ing Programs (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1997. Publications, 1992. pp. 381–395.
9. HAKKINEN, K. Factors influencing trainability of muscular 20. SCHMIDTBLEICHER, D., A. GOLLHOFER, AND U. FRICK. Effects of
strength during short term and prolonged training. Natl. a stretch-shortening type training of the performance capabil-
Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 7:32–37. 1985. ity and innervation characteristics of leg extensor muscles. In:
10. HEYWARD, V.H. Assessing muscular strength and endurance. Biomechanics XI-A. H. deGroot, ed. Amsterdam: Free Univer-
In: Advanced Fitness Assessment and Exercise Prescription sity Press, 1988. pp. 185–189.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1991. pp. 105–120. 21. TIDOW, G. Aspects of strength training in athletics. N. Stud.
11. HUTTON, R.S., AND S.W. ATWATER. Acute and chronic adapta- Athletics. 1:93–110. 1990.
tions of muscle proprioceptors in response to increased use. 22. WILSON, G. The development of maximal strength: Current
Sports Med. 14:406–421. 1992. and future training strategies. Strength Cond. Coach. 1:3–7.
12. NEWTON, R., AND G. WILSON. The kinetics and kinematics of 1993.
powerful upper body movements: The effect of load. In: XIVth
International Series on Biomechanics, Paris, France. Cham- Address correspondence to Dr. John B. Cronin, john.
paign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1993. pp. 936–937. [email protected].