Content uploaded by Cauê V. La Scala Teixeira
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Cauê V. La Scala Teixeira on Jul 24, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
©Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2017) 16, 343-349
http://www.jssm.org
Received: 09 December 2016 / Accepted: 21 June 2017 / Published (online): 01 September 2017
`
Manual Resistance versus Conventional Resistance Training: Impact on
Strength and Muscular Endurance in Recreationally Trained Men
Iván Chulvi-Medrano 1,2, Tamara Rial 3, Juan M. Cortell-Tormo 1, Yasser Alakhdar 4, Caue V. La
Scala Teixeira 5,6, Laura Masiá-Tortosa 2 and Sandor Dorgo 7
1 Department of General and Specific Didactics, University of Alicante, Alicante. Spain; 2 Benestar Wellness Center; 3
International Hypopressive & Physical Therapy Institute, Vigo, Spain; 4 Department of Physical Therapy, University of
Valencia. Valencia; Spain; 5 Department of Biosciences, Federal University of São Paulo, Santos, Brazil; 6 Faculty of
Physical Education, Praia Grande College, Praia Grande, Brazil; 7 Department of Kinesiology, University of Texas at El
Paso, El Paso, TX, USA
Abstract
Manual resistance training (MRT) has been widely used in the
field of physical therapy. It has also been used as a strength
training method due to the accommodating resistance nature of
this modality. The aim of the present study was to compare the
effects of an 8-week MRT program on maximum strength and
muscular endurance in comparison to conventional resistance
training in recreationally trained men. Twenty healthy recrea-
tionally trained male subjects were recruited and divided into a
MRT training group and a conventional training (CT) group. CT
group performed bench press and lat pull-down exercises, and
the MRT group performed similar movements with resistance
provided by a personal trainer. Both groups completed similar
training protocol and training load: 2 training sessions weekly
for 3 sets of 8 repetitions at an intensity of 8 to 10 on the per-
ceived exertion scale of 0-10. Initial maximum strength differ-
ences were not significant between the groups. Neither group
showed significant changes in muscular strength or endurance.
Despite the statistically non-significant pre- to post differences,
a trend for improvement was observed and effect size (ES)
calculations indicated greater magnitude of effects for strength
and endurance changes in the MRT group in lat pulldown
(g=0.84) compared to CT group. Effectiveness of MRT is simi-
lar to CT for improving muscular strength and endurance. MRT
can be used as a supplemental or alternative strength training
modality for recreationally trained subjects, or be considered by
personal trainers especially in low equipped facility conditions.
Key words: Strength training, bench press, lat pull-down, max-
imum strength.
Introduction
Training to increase muscular strength has been shown to
be effective in increasing athletic performance (McGui-
gan et al., 2012) as well as improving general health
(Garber et al., 2011; Pollock, et al., 2000). In fact, recent
scientific literature demonstrates that the adaptations
obtained through resistance training can include im-
provements in health related parameters, such as the neu-
romuscular system (increasing the transversal section of
skeletal muscle as well as its contractile capacity), the
skeletal system (increasing bone mineral density), the
cardiovascular system (assisting in the regulation of lipid
profiles as well as improving the cardiovascular system),
metabolic profile (improving muscular sensitivity and
increasing glucose consumption, as well as increasing
insulin response) and psychosocial well-being (Garber et
al., 2011; Pollock et al., 2000).
Conventional resistance training (CT) is typically
carried out by using external resistance that may come
from the use of dumbbells, barbells, inertial resistance or
hydraulic resistance (Chulvi-Medrano, 2012). Manual
resistance is a type of external resistance which requires a
partner or a trainer to provide and control the amount of
applied resistance throughout the entire range of move-
ment (Chulvi-Medrano, 2012; Teixeira, 2011; Williams,
2010). This training modality can be of great help to per-
sonal trainers, given that it is an economical type of train-
ing and allows for versatility and personalization of train-
ing loads, especially for professionals who work outside
of training facilities (ACSM, 2013; Teixeira, 2013). It has
been suggested that a major advantage of the MRT mo-
dality over CT is the accommodating nature of the applied
resistance as opposed to the constant external resistance
seen with the use of weights and machines (Dorgo et al.,
2009a). Accommodating resistance approaches (also
referred to as semi-isokinetic resistance) aim to control
the speed of movement through the full range of motion
(Haff and Triplett, 2016). This action, theoretically, com-
bats the changing mechanical advantages of joint move-
ments typically seen in constant external resistance exer-
cises by challenging the involved muscles for maximum
force exertion throughout the entire movement. However,
research has been sparse and inconclusive on accommo-
dating resistance training, and particularly scarce on the
MRT modality.
To date only a few studies have provided analysis
of manual resistance training within the literature. Studies
have demonstrated that manual resistance training (MRT)
is effective in increasing strength and muscular endurance
in the general untrained population (Teixeira, 2011;
Teixeira, 2013), and in special populations such as those
with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (Bohannon and Jones
1986), orthopedic therapy patients (Paine and Voight,
2013), elderly (Tokumaru et al., 2011), untrained adults
(Dorgo et al., 2009a) and youth (Dorgo et al., 2009b).
Nonetheless, there are few studies that compare the
efficacy of manual resistance training in relation to con-
ventional resistance training, and no existing studies have
Research article
Manual vs. conventional resistance training
344
used recreationally trained subjects for such comparison.
For this reason, the present study aimed to compare the
effects of manual resistance training and conventional
resistance training in trained men on maximum strength
and muscular endurance. Our initial hypothesis was that
an identical 8-week MRT and CT training program would
result in similar training adaptations.
Methods
Approach to the problem
The study was designed as a single training location,
longitudinal training intervention, in which recreationally
active and resistance-trained males participated in a 2
day/week MRT or CT program for 8 weeks. Muscular
strength and muscular endurance were assessed before
and immediately after the 8-week intervention, using
strength and endurance field tests.
Subjects
Twenty healthy, young, and recreationally trained men
with at least 1 year of resistance training experience were
recruited for the study. All subjects provided written in-
formed consent, which explained the experimental proce-
dures of the study approved by the Ethics Committee of
the University of Alicante. Subjects were also surveyed to
determine if they had sufficient experience in performing
the target exercises (minimum 1 year of systematic re-
sistance training). A software (AleatorMetod.xls
www4.ujaen.es/~mramos/EPIP/AleatorMetod.xls) was
used to randomly divide subjects into two groups: manual
resistance training (MRT) (n = 10; mean ± SD: age, 23.60
± 2.06 years; height, 1.84 ± 0.09 m; body mass, 75.20 ±
10.86 kg; Body Mass Index (BMI), 22.47 ± 4.74; strength
training experience, 3.05 ± 1.56 years) and conventional
resistance training (CT) (n = 10; age, 24.20 ± 1.95 years;
height, 1.80 ± 0.05 m; body mass, 76.00 ± 16.40 kg; BMI,
23.25 ± 4.44; strength training experience, 3.30 ± 1.70
years). All subjects were free of any cardiovascular dis-
ease or orthopedic problems. Subjects were instructed to
continue with their usual resistance training regimen but
were asked to exclude any push or pull upper-body exer-
cises. Subjects were further instructed to maintain their
normal dietary habits throughout the study and were
asked not to use performance enhancing substances or
ergogenic aids.
Maximum muscular strength
All tests were carried out at the same time of day (approx-
imately 10:00 AM). All subjects were instructed to ab-
stain from exercise 48 hours prior to the tests, as well as
from ingestion of stimulant substances. After a standard-
ized warm up of 5 minutes including light jogging and
dynamic stretching exercises for the upper limbs, muscu-
lar strength was assessed by the 1 Repetition Maximum
(1RM) test for the target exercises. The order of exercise
tests was randomized among subjects. Maximal strength
was tested for the bench press and lat pull-down exercises
according to the procedures described by the National
Strength and Conditioning Association (Baechle and
Earle, 2007).
After a standard warm-up subjects were asked to
complete 5-10 repetitions with a light-to-moderate load.
After a 2.5-minute rest period, a load of 70% of the esti-
mated 1RM was utilized to perform three to five repeti-
tions. Subsequently, subjects were asked to complete their
first 1RM attempt. The load was gradually increased
between attempts and a 2.5-minute rest period was pro-
vided between each successful lift. All subjects’ 1RM was
successfully measured within five testing attempts. The
technical execution of each exercise was standardized
using NSCA’s proper technique guide (Baechle and Earle,
2007), and was continually monitored by the researchers
to ensure consistency in the testing protocol. For the
bench press, after assuming a supine five-point body
contact position on a bench, subjects grasped the bar with
a pronated grip. The downward movement was consid-
ered successful if the bar touched the chest at approxi-
mately nipple level. For the upward movement full exten-
sion of the elbows was required for a successful lift. For
the lat pull-down exercise proper technique began with
grasping the bar in a shoulder-width position with a pro-
nated grip. Only a slight backward lean was allowed and
subjects were required to pull the bar down toward the
upper chest, touching the sternum with the bar before
extending the elbows to starting position. 1RM for each
exercise was recorded for the heaviest weight subjects
were able to lift with correct form for one full repetition.
Fifteen minutes of rest was allowed between exercises to
allow full recovery. During testing the researchers provid-
ed verbal motivation for the subjects.
Muscular endurance
Muscular endurance was assessed for each subject using
the pull-up and push-up tests according to the American
College of Sports Medicine protocols (ACSM, 2008),
recording the maximum number of repetitions performed
consecutively without rest. For the push-up exercise, the
position was personalized by locating the hands just be-
low the shoulders (biacromial distance). Hand position
was determined prior to the push-up attempt with a mark
on the floor. A correct repetition was recorded as long as
the subject’s chin touched the floor while maintaining the
rest of their body in the correct position. For the pull-up
exercise, the subjects were instructed to grab the bar with
palms pronated at the biacromial distance that was previ-
ously recorded. The chin of the subject was required to
reach above the bar to be considered a full repetition.
Perceived exertion
The level of perceived exertion was evaluated by applying
a pictogram with descriptions of intensity (0 = no effort;
10 = maximum effort), known as OMNI-RES (Robertson
et al., 2003). Upon completing each training set, subjects
were asked to indicate the level of intensity they were
experiencing, referencing the scale. For both groups the
goal was to maintain a perceived exertion of 8 during all
sets and training sessions, a value equivalent to an exer-
cise with “hard” effort, which has been suggested appro-
priate for improving muscular fitness (Lagally et al.,
2009). This protocol has been used in previous studies
(Lagally et al., 2009; Naclerio et al., 2011).
Chulvi-Medrano et al.
345
Training protocol
Training for both groups was carried out 2 days per week
over the course of 8 weeks, based on the training protocol
used in a similar study by Staron et al. (1994) suggesting
that such protocol sufficiently elicited skeletal muscle
adaptations to observe strength gains in both men and
women. Training frequency and program duration rec-
ommendations from Tan (1999) were also taken into
consideration when designing the intervention protocol.
Each session began with a standardized warm-up
identical to the warm-up protocol of the testing sessions.
Training for the CT group consisted of the bench press
and lat pull-down exercises completing 3 sets of 8 repeti-
tions performed with a controlled intensity of level 8
(“hard”) on the 0-10 perceived exertion scale. A 60-
second rest interval was given between sets for passive
recovery. Exercise cadence was controlled using a metro-
nome programmed for 2-second concentric and 2-second
eccentric phases. The MRT group performed the same
movements with the same cadence and the same
set/repetition/rest time scheme, but with an experienced
and certified personal trainer applying manual resistance
(Figures 1 and 2). This protocol was similar to that carried
out by Vetter and Dorgo (2009) with highly fit dancers.
The perceived exertion for the MRT group also targeted 8
on the 0-10 scale. In both groups, the resistance was ad-
justed if the level of perceived exertion was below or
above 8.
Figure1. Lat pull-down exercise with a personal trainer
applying manual resistance.
Statistical analyses
Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS statistical
package (IBM SPSS Statistics 20). A Shapiro–Wilk test
was used to confirm normal distribution and a Mauchley
test of sphericity to verify homogeneity of variance. A
two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on group (MRT
and CT) and time (baseline and post) was applied. When
a significant F-value was detected, pairwise comparisons
were performed using the DMS post-hoc procedure. Sta-
tistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Effect size was
estimated with Hedges g (Cooper et al., 2009). The fol-
lowing scale was used to categorize the magnitude of
effect: < 0.2 = trivial; 0.2-0.5 = small; 0.5-0.8 = medium;
0.8-1.3 = large, and > 1.3 = very large. All variables are
reported as mean ± Standard Deviation (SD).
Figure 2. Bench press exercise with a personal trainer apply-
ing manual resistance.
Results
Data analysis of pre- and post-test data did not show sig-
nificant differences for any of the outcome variables (p >
0.05). Table 1 summarizes the changes in strength and
muscular endurance performance between the MRT and
CT groups. Figure 3 describes percent improvements after
the 8-week intervention for each testing variable for the
two groups. The magnitude of effect for the MRT group
was small for the 1RM bench press (g=0.41) test and the
push-up muscular endurance test (g=0.39). The effect size
for the lat pull-down strength (g=0.84) was large and for
the pull-up muscular endurance was moderate (g=0.59).
On the other hand, small effect sizes were observed for
the CT group for both strength measures (g=0.28) and the
push-up endurance test (g=0.21), while a moderate effect
size for the pull-up muscular endurance test (g=0.56)
(table 1).
Discussion
Past studies have shown that MRT is effective in improv-
ing muscular strength and endurance in different popula-
tions. The effectiveness of MRT in therapeutic popula-
tions was noted by Bohannon and Jones (1986), with a
single case study carried out on a person affected by Du-
chenne muscular dystrophy. In their study, MRT was
applied to muscle groups in the lower limbs 3 days per
Manual vs. conventional resistance training
346
Table 1. Mean (±standard deviation) values for maximum strength and muscular endurance before and after the 8-weeks
training intervention.
Effect Size
Test
Group
Pre
95% CI
Post
95% CI
P-value
g
Magnitude
BP
1RM (kg)
MRT
79.00 (13.49)
69.34 - 88.65
84.50 (11.65)
76.16 - 92.84
0.368
0.41
Small
CT
77.50 (1637)
65.79 - 89.21
82.00 (14.18)
71.85 - 92.14
0.253
0.28
Small
LP-D
1RM (kg)
MRT
73.50 (7.83)
67.89 - 79.10
80.50 (7.97)
74.79 - 86.21
0.135
0.84
Large
CT
76.50 (13.55)
66.81 - 86.19
81.00 (11.25)
72.95 - 89.05
0.334
0.34
Small
PusU
(reps)
MRT
21.90 (6.04)
17.57 - 26.22
24.60 (7.16)
19.47 - 29.73
0.370
0.39
Small
CT
21.90 (7.89)
16.25 - 27.54
23.40 (6.14)
19.00 - 27.79
0.618
0.21
Small
PullU
(reps)
MRT
7.60 (3.53)
5.07 - 10.13
9.60 (2.87)
7.54 - 11.66
0.165
0.59
Medium
CT
6.50 (2.83)
4.46 - 8.53
8.40 (3.56)
5.85 - 10.95
0.187
0.56
Medium
CI =Confidence Interval; MRT = manual resistance training group (n = 10); CT = conventional strength training group (n = 10); BP
= Bench Press; LP-D = Lat pull-down; PusU = Push-up; PullU = Pull-ups.
Figure 3. Percent of improvements after the 8-week intervention for each exercise. MRT = manual resistance training group
(n = 10); CT = Conventional strength training group (n = 10); BP = Bench Press; LP-D = Lat pull-down; PusU = Push-up; PullU = Pull-ups.
week for 12 weeks, obtaining an increased capacity
of 32.7% for the left leg and 28.5% for the right leg to
generate isometric extension force (Bohannon and Jones,
1986). MRT has also been extrapolated to the elderly
population in the study by Tokumaru et al. (2011) where
MRT was applied for 24 weeks, with one session per
week during the first 12 weeks and two sessions per week
in the last 12 weeks. During this period, older adult sub-
jects performed MRT consisting of one set of 10 repeti-
tions of leg extension. Each repetition consisted of a 7-
second concentric phase and a 6- to 8-second eccentric
phase, with resistance adjusted to accommodate at all
times. The results showed an increase in maximum volun-
tary contraction for leg extension of 13.2% and 29% after
12 and 24 weeks, respectively (Tokumaru et al., 2011).
Recently, La Scala Teixeira et al. (2016) has shown MRT
is a viable and safe alternative for application in hyperten-
sive men, reducing the need for expensive equipment.
However, there is a lack of information on the ef-
fects that MRT can have in younger populations and those
with recreational training experience, which is why the
aim of the present study was to compare the effects be-
tween manual resistance and conventional resistance-
training on maximum strength and muscular endurance in
young recreationally trained men. The main results of the
present study show that there were no significant im-
provements in either group, neither for maximum strength
nor muscular endurance, despite a tendency towards im-
provement in the MRT group. This is contrary to the
results demonstrated by Dorgo et al. (2009b), who ob-
served significant improvements in muscular endurance in
a group of 67 high school students. The discrepancy in the
results may be attributed primarily to two parameters:
first, the age and training status of the selected subjects;
while non-trained high school students were selected for
Dorgo’s study (2009b), our study involved young adults
with several years of strength training experience. Sec-
ondly, our study lasted 8 weeks while Dorgo’s interven-
tion was for 18 weeks. In another study led by the same
researcher (Dorgo et al., 2009a), it was observed that
MRT with a frequency of 3 days per week for 14 weeks,
with a range of 8-12 repetitions and a cadence of 3-second
eccentric and 3-second concentric movement resulted in
significant improvements of 7.37% for the 1RM bench
6.33 6.49
13.64
25
6.49
9.59
6.58
33.33
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
BP LP-D PusU PullU
% change
MRT CT
Chulvi-Medrano et al.
347
press test. The authors also included a maximum squat
strength test, where they observed more pronounced re-
sults of 20.55% improvement for the MRT group. Alt-
hough the MRT group obtained improvements in these
tests similar to the conventional training group, there were
no significant differences between the groups (Dorgo et
al., 2009a).
In the same study, the effects of MRT on muscular
endurance were measured (Dorgo et al., 2009a); unlike
our study, which evaluated this parameter with the total
number of repetitions in calisthenic exercises, these au-
thors opted to record the maximum number of repetitions
for the bench press and back squat with a load of 70%
1RM. In this case, authors also observed significant im-
provements, recording an increase of 43.14% for the
bench press, without finding statistical difference from
conventional training. Again, the importance of training
volume (duration and training frequency) in obtaining
improvements in the studied parameters is clear; while
our experimental design included 2 sessions per week for
8 weeks, Dorgo’s studies included 3 sessions per week for
14 weeks. It appears that MRT may be effective in trained
subjects only through a higher training frequency and
longer duration intervention.
In addition, the number of exercises included can
be considered a limitation in our study, given that we
selected two exercises, while in Dorgo’s studies six to
nine exercises were included for the major muscle groups
(Dorgo et al., 2009a; 2009b). Finally, a highly influential
variable is the experience of the subjects, since observed
improvements are more pronounced in subjects with little
strength training experience, as in the case of the study of
Vetter and Dorgo (2009), in which 10 dance athletes with
little or no experience in strength training obtained signif-
icant improvements in the 1RM test for bench press and
lat pull-down, with increases of 8.5% and 3.3%, respec-
tively. In the current study, the MRT group showed a
change of small to moderate ES in all variables, which
leads us to believe that the short duration of the interven-
tion did not allow significant differences.
It is important to note that the repetition protocol
used in this study was not performed until concentric
failure (perceived exertion of 8 on the 0-10 scale). Previ-
ously it was suggested that execution until concentric
failure is an essential condition for promoting adaptations
in trained subjects (Nóbrega and Libardi, 2016), although
some disagreements can also be found in the literature
(Davies et al., 2016). When using a perceived exertion
scale of 0-10, a recent study suggested that rating 8 repre-
sents the subject’s ability to complete about two more
repetitions to complete failure (Zourdos et al., 2016). It is
probable that with trained subjects repetitions to complete
failure (perceived rating of 10) are necessary to achieve
significant changes in muscular strength and endurance
and also that perceived exertion feedback should be solic-
ited from subjects during the completion of a given set.
Therefore, our study may have not presented a high
enough intensity protocol to elicit strength and endurance
adaptations from the trained subjects with a perceived
exertion rating of 8.
Resistance training with external variable re-
sistance (e.g. elastic bands and chains) can be beneficial
to increase strength when added to conventional external
resistance, therefore allows an adaptation to human
strength curves (McMaster et al., 2009). This situation
can be produced during MRT. It can be argued that if the
external resistance is correctly applied, with the appropri-
ate intensity provided by an experienced partner, varying
it according to the different mechanics of force production
over the trainee’s range of movement, it could have ad-
vantages over the conventional resistance training meth-
ods (constant external resistance training). In the present
study, although the results did not show significant differ-
ences between the two modalities, the ES was higher in
MRT than CT for all variables except number of repeti-
tions in pull-ups. Thus MRT offers a cost-effective, not
location-dependent tool for increasing muscular fitness.
These findings have practical implications for fitness
professionals such as personal trainers who offer at-home
training services. It appears that muscular fitness for both
trained and untrained clients may be improved using
MRT without the need for expensive fitness equipment.
Comparing the results of the present study with
previous studies, we can outline certain limitations to
keep in mind. One important limitation of the present
study is the duration of the intervention. It is possible that
future study protocols need to be longer than 8 weeks,
particularly when working with trained subjects. Also, for
this population the volume and frequency of training must
be higher. Another limitation was the performance of
repetitions not to failure, whereas execution until the
concentric failure is well recommended for subjects with
resistance training experience. Also, a limitation is the
dependence of MRT on the experience and strength of the
partner (trainer) providing the external resistance. Lack-
ing a partner with appropriate skills and level of strength
to properly challenge the trainee, effects of MRT might be
minimized, particularly for trained subjects. Nevertheless,
the results allow us to conclude that MRT and CT can
have statistically similar results when the volume and
intensity are similar. Future research is needed to quantify
the contribution of the partner (trainer) in the musculo-
skeletal adaptation providing resistance load, which could
be executed with studies applying manually held dyna-
mometers to determine the applied external resistance.
Also, related future studies should use longer training
interventions (> 8weeks) for trained subjects and monitor
the perceived exertion of the subjects for each repetition
until complete failure.
Conclusion
In conclusion, neither training modality showed signifi-
cant changes in the strength and muscular endurance
variables, but the ES analysis showed trends for im-
provement. The ES was higher for MRT than CT for the
lat pulldown and similar for the bench press, push-ups and
pull-ups, suggesting that MRT can be a viable alternative
for personal training in recreationally trained men.
Collectively, these findings provide information
Manual vs. conventional resistance training
348
for personal trainers or physical therapists, who could
apply MRT as an alternative tool to maintain levels of
maximum strength and muscular endurance in basic push-
ing and pulling movements. The results suggest that ap-
plying MRT in men with strength training experience may
be a viable tool. This information is relevant for personal
trainers who give training sessions at locations with a lack
of equipment or even based on the characteristics of the
target population. Additionally, a previous study (Teixei-
ra, 2013) noted that the acceptance of MRT modality
among personal trainer professionals was between “good”
and “very good” for 84% of trainers and their clients.
Consequently, MRT can be a simple and effective tool to
use for recreationally trained clients.
Acknowledgements
The training intervention and data collection procedures represented in
the current manuscript comply with the current laws of the country in
which they were performed. No funding was received for the current
study. No conflict of interest declared for any of the authors.
References
American College of Sports Medicine (2008) Health-Related Physical
Fitness Assessment Manual. 2nd edition. Baltimore: Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins.
American College of Sports Medicine (2013) ACSM's resources for the
personal trainer. 4th edition. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams &
Wilkins.
Baechle, T.R. and Earle, R.W. (2007) Essential of strength training and
conditioning. 2nd edition. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Bohannon, R.W., and Jones, P.L. (1986) Results of manual resistance
exercise on a manifesting carrier of Duchenne Muscular Dys-
trophy: A case report. Physical Therapy 66, 973-975.
Chulvi-Medrano, I. (2012) Biomechanic basis of devices for resistance
training. A review. Scientia 16, 26-39.
Cooper H., Hedges L., Valentine J. (2009). The handbook of research
synthesis and meta-analysis. New York. Russell Sage Founda-
tion.
Davies, T., Orr, R., Halaki, M., and Hackett, D. (2016) Effect of training
leading to repetition failure on muscular strength. A systematic
review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine 46, 487-502.
Dorgo, S., King, G.A., and Rice, C.A. (2009a) The Effects of Manual
Resistance Training on Improving Muscular Strength and En-
durance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 23,
293-303.
Dorgo, S., King, G.A., Candelaria, N., Bader, J.O., Brickey, G.D., and
Adams, C.E. (2009b) Effects of Manual Resistance Training on
Fitness in Adolescents. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research 23, 2287-2294.
Garber, C.E., Blissmer, B., Deschenes, M., Franklin, B.A., Lamonte,
M.J., Lee, I.M., Nieman, D.C., and Swain, D.P. (2011) Quanti-
ty and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardi-
orespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in appar-
ently healthy adults: guidance for prescribing exercise. Medi-
cine and Science in Sports and Exercise 43, 1334-1359.
Haff, G.G. and Triplett, T. (2016) Essentials of Strength Training and
Conditioning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Lagally, K.M., Amorose, A.J., and Rock, B. (2009) Selection of re-
sistance exercise intensity using rating of perceived exertion
from the OMNI-Res. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 108, 573-86.
La Scala Teixeira, C.V., Ferreira, S.E., Azevedo, P.H., Chulvi-Medrano,
I., Dorgo, S., DE Salles, B.F., Simao, R., and Gomes, R.J.
(2016) Effects of manual resistance training and free weight re-
sistance training on post-exercise blood pressure in hyperten-
sive men: a pilot study. The Journal of Sports Medicine and
Physical Fitness, Epub ahead of print.
Lins-Filho Ode, L., Robertson, R.J., Farah, B.Q., Rodrigues, S.L.,
Cyrino, E.S., and Ritti-Dias, R.M. (2012). Effects of exercise
intensity on rating of perceived exertion during a multiple-set
resistance exercise session. Journal of Strength and Condition-
ing Research, 26, 466-472.
McGuigan, M.R., Wright, G.A., and Fleck, S.J. (2012) Strength training
for athletes: does it really help sports performance? Interna-
tional Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 7, 2-5.
McMaster, D.T., Cronin, J., and McGuigan, M. (2009) Forms of varia-
ble resistance training. Strength and Conditioning Journal 31,
50-64.
Naclerio F, Rodriguez-Romo G, Barriopededro-Moro MI, Jiménez A,
Alvar BA, Triplett NT. (2011). Control of resistance training
intensity by the OMNI perceived exertion scale. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 25, 1879-1888.
Nóbrega, S.R. and Libardi, C.A. (2016). Is resistance training to muscu-
lar failure necessary? Frontiers in Physiology 7, 10.
Paine, R., and Voight, M.L. (2013). The role of the scapula. Internation-
al Journal of Sports Physical Therapy 8, 617-629.
Pollock, M.L., Franklin, B.A., Balady, G.J., Chaitman, B.L., Fleg, J.L.,
Fletcher, B., Limacher, M., Pina, I.L., Stein, R.A., Williams,
M., and Bazzarre, T. (2000) Resistance exercise in individuals
with and without cardiovascular disease: Benefits, rationale,
safety, and prescription an advisory from the committee on ex-
ercise, rehabilitation, and prevention, council on clinical cardi-
ology, American Heart Association. Circulation 101, 828-833.
Robertson, R.J., Goss, F.L., Rutkowski, J., Lenz, B., Dixon, C., Timmer,
J., Frazee, K., Dube, J., and Andreacci, J. (2003) Concurrent
Validation of the OMNI Perceived exertion scale for resistance
exercise. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 35, 333-
341.
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. (1994) Skeletal
muscle adaptations during early phase of heavy-resistance train-
ing in men and women. Journal of Applied Physiology 76,
1247-1255.
Tan, B. (1999) Manipulating resistance training program variables to
optimize maximum strength in men: A review. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research 13, 289-304.
Teixeira, C.V.L.S. (2011) Manual resistance training: strength training
without equipment. São Paulo: Phorte.
Teixeira, C.V.L.S. (2013) Manual resistance training: application and
acceptance in personal training. Brazilian Journal of Exercise
Physiology 12, 98-102. (In Portuguese).
Tokumaru, K., Taniguchi, C., Morikawa, S., Yamasaki, Y., and Shimada
T. (2011). The effects of manual resistance on improving mus-
cle strength of the lower extremities of the community dwelling
elderly. A clinical intervention study with a control group.
Journal of Physical Therapy Science 23, 237-242.
Vetter, R.E. and Dorgo, S. (2009) Effects of Partner’s Improvisational
Resistance Training on Dancers’ Muscular Strength. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research 23, 718-728.
Williams C. (2010) Manual resistance training. NSCA’s Performance
Training Journal 11, 10-11.
Zourdos, M.C., Klemp, A., Dolan, C., Quiles, J.M., Schau, K.A., Jo, E.,
Helms, E., Esgro, B., Duncan, S., Garcia Merino, S., and Blan-
co, R. (2016) Novel resistance training-specific rating of per-
ceived scale measuring repetition in reserve Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research 30, 267-275.
Key points
• Resistance training promotes improvement in mus-
cular strength and endurance
• MRT is an effective alternative form of resistance
training for recreationally trained men.
• MRT can be effective to improve muscular
strength and endurance
in recreationally trained
men.
• MRT should be considered as alternative form of
resistance training by personal trainers and coach-
es.
Chulvi-Medrano et al.
349
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Iván CHULVI-MEDRANO
Employment
Associate professor, Department of
General and Specific Didactics, Univer-
sity of Alicante, Alicante, Spain
Degree
PhD; CSCS; NSCA-CPT
Research interests
Resistance training physiology, exercise
physiology, clinical exercise
E-mail: ivan.chulvi@ua.es
Tamara RIAL
Employment
Director International Hypopressive &
Physical Therapy Institute (Spain)
Degree
PhD
Research interests
Resistance training; women´s health
E-mail: rialtamara@gmail.com
Juan Manuel CORTELL-TORMO
Employment
Full time Professor, Department of
General and Specific Didactics. Univer-
sity of Alicante, Spain.
Degree
PhD
Research interests
Strength and conditioning, measure-
ment and evaluation.
E-mail: jm.cortell@ua.es
Yasser ALAKHDAR
Employment
Professor of the Faculty of Physiother-
apy University of Valencia, Valencia,
Spain.
Degree
PhD
Research interests
Tendons and genetic. ultrasound and
muscle changes.
E-mail: yasser@uv.es
Caue V. La Scala Teixeira
Employment
Professor of the Faculty of Physical
Education at Praia Grande College, and
Coordinator of the Physical Evaluation
Laboratory at County of Santos, Brazil.
Degree
MSc
Research interests
Resistance training; functional training
E-mail: contato@caueteixeira.com.br
Laura MASIÁ-TORTOSA
Employment
Benestar Wellness Center
Degree
MSc
Research interests
Resistance training physiology, exercise
physiology
E-mail: lauramasiatortosa@gmail.com
Sandor DORGO
Employment
Department of Kinesiology. University
of Texas at El Paso
Degree
PhD, CSCS, D*
Research interests
Resistance training, strength and condi-
tioning, aging and exercise
E-mail: sdorgo@utep.edu
Sandor Dorgo
Department of Kinesiology, University of Texas at El Paso,
1851 Wiggins St., El Paso, TX 79968, USA
