Authors:

David E. Fish, MD, MPH

Brian J. Krabak, MD
Doug Johnson-Greene, PhD, ABPP Exercise
Barbara J. deLateur, MD, MS

Affiliations:
From the Department of Physical Research Article
Medicine and Rehabilitation, Johns
Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore,
Maryland.

Presented as a poster at the American

Academy of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation National Conference,
New Orleans, Louisiana, September Optimal Resistance Training
14 –17, 2001.
Comparison of DeLorme with Oxford
Correspondence: Techniques
All correspondence and requests for
reprints should be addressed to David
ABSTRACT
E. Fish, MD, MPH, Department of
Orthopaedic Surgery, UCLA School of Fish DE, Krabak BJ, Johnson-Greene D, deLateur BJ: Optimal resistance
Medicine, 200 UCLA Medical Plaza, training: Comparison of DeLorme with Oxford techniques. Am J Phys
Suite 140, Los Angeles, CA
Med Rehabil 2003;82:903–909.
90095-1749.
Objective: Progressive resistive exercises, such as the DeLorme or Ox-
0894-9115/03/8212-0903/0
ford techniques, improve strength by adding weights to arrive at the ten-
American Journal of Physical
Medicine & Rehabilitation repetition maximum (10RM; DeLorme) or by starting at the 10RM and
Copyright © 2003 by Lippincott removing weight (Oxford). The goal of this study was to examine the
Williams & Wilkins efficacy of each training method.
DOI: 10.1097/01.PHM.0000098505.57264.DB Design: In this randomized, prospective, group design, evaluator-blind
clinical trial, 50 subjects performed either the Oxford or DeLorme weight-
training techniques. Three times a week for 9 wks, subjects completed
three sets of ten-repetition knee extensions based on the 10RM measured
weekly. Incremental or decremental changes in training weight were utilized in
training sessions based on the protocol randomly assigned to each subject.
Results: The mean 10RM increase was 71.9 kg for the DeLorme group
and 67.5 kg for the Oxford group, which was not significantly different.
Examination with repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance revealed
no significant difference between the two groups for 10RM increase, and no
significant sex differences were found. Percentage change scores were not
significantly different for 1RM and 10RM for both protocols and sexes.
Conclusion: Both protocol groups were able to complete their lifting
assignments and progressed similarly in weekly 10RM weight lifted. It can
be concluded that both the DeLorme and Oxford protocols improve
strength with equivalent efficacy. Further studies involving a larger sample
size are needed to address potential sex-specific changes in strength
improvement in response to the protocols.
Key Words: Exercise, Conditioning, Rehabilitation

December 2003 DeLorme vs. Oxford Training Techniques 903

D espite the proven effectiveness
of resistance training in building
tended to fatigue the muscle to the
point that interfered with the sub-
ject’s ability to complete the 10RM.1
are capable of hypertrophy and,
therefore, strength gains.
At present it is unclear which
strength, uncertainty still exists as to Instead, these initial lifts were technique, DeLorme or Oxford, is
the most efficient way to train. The thought to be important in prevent- more effective at developing strength.
work of DeLorme and Watkins1–3 in ing muscle soreness and in teaching The goal of our study was to evaluate
the 1940s showed that with training, the patient how to complete the ex- the efficacy of each model of progres-
strength returns more quickly to at- ercises, thereby permitting maximal sive resistive training.
rophied muscles if relatively few rep- exertion by the final set.
etitions are performed at high levels In performing the DeLorme METHODS
of resistance. They observed that the technique, Zinovieff4 had consistent
rate of muscle hypertrophy is propor- difficulties due to fatigue of the quad- Sixty subjects (40 women and 20
tional to the resistance overcome by riceps muscle during the last quarter men) were recruited from an aca-
the muscle;1 thus, they prescribed a of the session.5 Temporary failure of demic hospital staff after sanction
maximum of 20 –30 repetitions, be- the muscle prevented the participant and approval of the study by the hu-
cause performing ⬎30 would require from completing the 10 repetitions at man investigation review committee.
reducing the resistance and slow the the 10RM. As the quality of perfor- Subjects were screened to ensure
rate of muscle hypertrophy.2 mance fell, the full range of motion of that they were free from physical dis-
DeLorme defined the ten-repeti- the joint was compromised. Only the ease and were excluded if they were
tion maximum (10RM) as the weight very athletic or determined individu- currently lifting weights, had knee
an individual could lift only ten times contractures, a history of knee sur-
als could carry out the technique as
before temporary failure of the mus- gery, or chronic knee pain. Subjects
described by DeLorme. Zinovieff
cle occurred. One of DeLorme’s hy- previously engaged in an aerobic ex-
identified another method to
potheses is that the muscle should be ercise routine were asked not to
strengthen muscle, the Oxford tech-
warmed up by the time 10RM is change their exercise routine during
nique, in which heavy resistance and
reached. Therefore, once the 10RM the study period. A consent form was
low repetition was maintained as per
has been established during testing, signed and each volunteer was com-
DeLorme, but the full 10RM was the
the subject begins sets of training by pensated for participating. The sub-
first set and was subsequently re-
performing the first set of ten at 50% jects were given a monetary reim-
duced to 75% and to 50% of the
10RM, the second at 75% 10RM, and bursement for participating in the
10RM in the remaining two sets. It
the third (final) at the 10RM. He sug- study. The funding was given in in-
was thought that this decrement in
gested that progressive resistive exer- crements as the testing unfolded.
resistance would mimic the progres-
cises overloaded a muscle by increas- Each participant was given $50 for
sive increase in muscle fatigue. Each
ing the magnitude of the weight the initial testing, $75 for completion
against which the muscle developed set of repetitions would continue to of the ninth week of training, and
tension. The goal was to lift the exercise the muscle to its maximum finally, $50 for the final day of
heaviest weight; thus, adjustment in capacity, thus preserving the over- testing.
the warm-up repetitions should be load principle. Subjects were prospectively ran-
sought to enable the subject to com- Many authors have suggested domized into the DeLorme or Oxford
plete the 10RM. that the 10RM may not be the most weight-training protocols, 30 sub-
Factors impeding strength as- important goal to reach in weight jects in each protocol with 20 women
sessment include learning factors, training.6 –9 Instead, the key to im- and ten men comprising each group.
such as an inability to exert maximal proving strength involves fatiguing Comparisons of both protocol groups
effort, fear of injury, or an unwilling- the muscle.9 Linnamo et al.10 looked in terms of age, height, and body
ness to endure the discomfort accom- at fatigue and recovery of a muscle weight was done before initial
panying temporary muscle failure. with explosive loading. He found that strength testing, and they were found
For these reasons, DeLorme believed young women fatigued less than to be equivalent.
the initial 10RM was often an inaccu- men. Chilibeck et al.11 studied Pretraining and posttraining
rate reflection of a subject’s strength. women for resistance training and strength of both lower limbs was de-
He noted that it was not unusual with noted that with a short training pe- termined by two methods: isokinetic
training for strength to double within riod, the amount of hypertrophy torque-velocity curve and both a one
the first 1 or 2 mos and then to show was less in women when compared (1RM) and ten (10RM) isotonic dy-
a smaller increase during subsequent with men. Charette et al.12 proved namic effort with a free weight at-
months.1 Warm-up lifts were not in- that the muscles of elderly women tached to the foot by the DeLorme

904 Fish et al. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. ● Vol. 82, No. 12
boot. Side of training was decided by quired more than three attempts in was unable to perform at least eight
a flip of a coin. deriving the true 10RM. The derived repetitions of the new 10RM, the pre-
An isokinetic force vs. velocity true 10RM was used as the maximum vious 10RM was utilized for the re-
curve was obtained using the Kin- resistance weight for the first day of mainder of the week of training. If
Com dynamometer (Chattex, Chatta- training. the subject was able to perform ⬎12
nooga, TN). For testing on the Kin- Subjects trained their quadriceps repetitions of the new 10RM, another
Com, subjects were placed in the muscle with the aid of DeLorme 2.75 kg was added, and an attempt at
sitting position, hips flexed to 90 de- boots while in a seated position. the new 10RM was made. If the sub-
grees to facilitate testing of the quad- Training position was sitting on a ject easily lifted the new 10RM, a de-
riceps muscle. Range of motion for plinth, which allowed participants to cision by the trainer to substantially
testing was from 90 degrees of knee fully extend the knee and flex the increase the weight was made to en-
flexion to 0 degrees (full knee exten- knee to 90 degrees. There was no sure that a true 10RM was used. A
sion), with the force applied to knee backrest, and subjects were con- rest of 3–5 mins was incorporated
extension using the dynamometer in stantly reminded not to lean back- between lifts to prevent fatigue.1 No
the isokinetic mode and concentric/ ward when executing a lift. The more than three tests of the new
eccentric setting. To prevent hip flex- weight was controlled throughout 10RM were done to ensure that fa-
ion with training and testing, a Vel- the upward and downward portion of tigue would not influence the subse-
cro belt was used to stabilize the the lift. A trainer ensured that the quent training.
knee. weight was not dropped, but slowly At the end of 9 wks of training,
Velocity variables of 30, 60, and lowered and did not pass 90 degrees the same muscle performance tests of
90 degrees/sec served as indices to of knee flexion. A metronome was strength were employed to generate a
estimate the starting 1RM and 10RM utilized to ensure a smooth and con- posttraining torque vs. velocity
quadriceps muscle testing and train- trolled lifting motion, which was set curve. A posttraining 1RM and 10RM
ing with the DeLorme boot. Each to the comfort of the individual were done to determine a gain in
subject had three attempts at the subject. strength. The director of both the
1RM for each speed of the Kin-Com On the days of exercise training prestrength and poststrength testing
selected. Two minutes of rest were (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday), was blinded to the training group and
used to prevent fatigue between each the subjects performed some light side of training for each participant.
speed and 1 min of rest between each stretching and warm-up exercises We computed a net change score
attempt at the 1RM.13 such as a mild walk for 10 –15 mins. by subtracting the initial 1RM and
The torque vs. velocity curve was The DeLorme group started their 10RM scores from the final 1RM and
used to predict a 1RM with free first set of ten repetitions at 50% of 10RM scores. Mean net change scores
weights. Using 60 degrees/sec, the 10RM, the second set of ten at 75% of between protocol groups were then
free weight 1RM was approximated by 10RM, and the third set of ten at compared by using a Student’s t test.
using 90% of the generated peak 10RM. The Oxford group performed The mean weekly 10RM was followed
torque. The participant had no more their sets in the reverse order of over 9 wks and evaluated by a re-
than three attempts to confirm the 10RM, 75% of 10RM, and 50% of peated measures multivariate analy-
free weight 1RM so that fatigue was 10RM. The subject lifted a weight at a sis of variance using protocol type
prevented. comfortable speed set to a metro- (DeLorme and Oxford) and sex as the
The individual’s isotonic dy- nome so that a constant lift pace was independent variables. Lastly, we
namic initial testing 10RM was ex- kept and each lift was smooth to computed percentage change scores
trapolated from the testing of quad- avoid any ballistic and momentum- for the 1RM and 10RM measures by
riceps strength by using 80% of the based efforts. Each lift was controlled dividing the initial and final scores.
free weight 1RM.14 –17 After a 5-min in both concentric extension and ec- For all parametric analysis, we used
rest, the participant performed a centric flexion of the knee corre- an alpha of 0.05.
10RM to clarify the projected 10RM. sponding to the “tock” and “tick” of
If the subject found this weight too the metronome. There was a 1-min
RESULTS
difficult, by not completing the ten rest between each set.
repetitions, or too easy, by perform- At the beginning of the next We recruited 60 subjects, and at-
ing more than ten repetitions, the week of training, a new 10RM was trition was classified as follows: per-
weight was adjusted to a “true” 10RM established by adding 2.75 kg to the sonal reasons unrelated to the study
by the examiner. Two minutes of rest 10RM.4 A 10RM set was attempted to (n ⫽ 5), failure to complete the post-
was given to each subject during this confirm the subject’s ability to per- training strength testing (n ⫽ 4), and
phase of testing. No participant re- form the new 10RM. If the subject onset of new physical symptoms pos-

December 2003 DeLorme vs. Oxford Training Techniques 905

 TABLE 1
One-repetition maximum (1RM) and ten-repetition maximum (10RM) strength gains (in
pounds) by sex for the DeLorme and Oxford protocols
DeLorme Oxford
Protocol Men (6) Women (18) Men (6) Women (20)
Initial 1RM, kg 53.7 (SD ⫽ 11.2) 40.0 (SD ⫽ 7.7)a
56.2 (SD ⫽ 14.8) 48.8 (SD ⫽ 12.7)a
1RM change 71.0 (SD ⫽ 7.0) 24.0 (SD ⫽ 9.7) 65.0 (SD ⫽ 22.9) 23.7 (SD ⫽ 10.3)
Percentage change 133 60 115 48
Initial 10RM, kg 45.3 (SD ⫽ 8.1) 32.9 (SD ⫽ 5.1)a 48.7 (SD ⫽ 12.5) 43.1 (SD ⫽ 10.7)a
10RM change 59.9 (SD ⫽ 9.4) 26.0 (SD ⫽ 9.1) 52.0 (SD ⫽ 15.2) 24.3 (SD ⫽ 12.0)
Percentage change 132 79 107 56
a
P ⬍ 0.05.

sibly related to the protocol (n ⫽ 1). 13.6), respectively, and for the De- cantly different (t ⫽ 2.37, P ⫽ 0.05).
Of the ten subjects who failed to com- Lorme group, 35 yrs (SD ⫽ 8.5), with The mean initial female 10RM was
plete the study, four were from the a range of 23– 44, 175.3 cm (SD ⫽ significantly different (P ⫽ 0.008),
Oxford group and six were from the 5.0), and 83.6 kg (SD ⫽ 10.3), respec- with the DeLorme protocol starting
DeLorme group, suggesting that tively. The only significant difference at 72 kg (SD ⫽ 11) and the Oxford
there was not a selective attrition be- was in the weight of the women (P ⫽ protocol at 95 kg (SD ⫽ 23). For
tween the two protocols. The final 0.04). men, the initial 1RM for the DeLorme
number of participants was 38 All of the participants increased and Oxford groups was 118 kg (SD ⫽
women and 12 men who performed the amount of weight lifted in both 25) and 124 kg (SD ⫽ 32), respec-
either the Oxford (n ⫽ 26, six men) the 1RM and the 10RM testing after 9 tively, which was not significantly dif-
or DeLorme (n ⫽ 24, six men) wks of training. All subjects for both ferent (t ⫽ 0.33, P ⫽ 0.78). The ini-
techniques. protocols were able to complete the tial male 10RM for the DeLorme and
The power analysis revealed that lifting assignments during the train- Oxford group was 100 kg (SD ⫽ 18)
the standard deviation in the current ing sessions, and the compliance for and 107 kg (SD ⫽ 28), respectively,
study averaged 17 and 28 kg for the subject attendance was ⬎95%. At which was not significantly different
DeLorme and Oxford groups, respec- each session of training, each partic- (t ⫽ 0.55, P ⫽ 0.58).
tively. An average standard deviation ipant always reached the 10RM calcu- Although participants were ran-
for the cells would be 22.5. Assuming lated for that week. For the number domly assigned to each of the two
a moderate effect size (0.25) and a of attempts to set the new 10RM, 50% groups, analysis of the 1RM and
power of 0.80, the study would need of subjects required one attempt to 10RM scores revealed group differ-
a cell size of n ⫽ 65 (total of 130 reach the new 10RM, whereas 36% ences. In Figure 1, the initial 1RM of
subjects) for primary data analysis required two attempts and 14% re- the DeLorme group was 94 kg (SD ⫽
comparing the two techniques with quired three attempts. Although par- 23.3), and the Oxford group started at
a repeated measures multivariate ticipants progressed in 10RM lifted 111 kg (SD ⫽ 29.5), which was a
analysis of variance. over the 9 wks, final testing of the significant difference (t ⫽ 2.1, P ⬍
The average age, height, and 10RM was smaller in two individuals, 0.05). The mean 1RM increase in
weight of participants for the women one man and one woman. Final 10RM strength after 9 wks of training (Fig.
in the Oxford group was 38.8 yrs (SD was taken as the higher of 10RM at- 4) was 87 kg (SD ⫽ 50) for the De-
⫽ 10.4), with a range of 24 –55 yrs, tained at week 9 of training or final Lorme group and 74 kg (SD ⫽ 50) for
144.5 cm (SD ⫽ 6.8), and 90.4 kg (SD 10RM testing. the Oxford group, which was not sig-
⫽ 25). The DeLorme group was 42.9 Sex evaluation (Table 1) revealed nificantly different (t ⫽ 0.88; P ⬍
yrs (SD ⫽ 10.1), with a range of that the initial 1RM and 10RM differ- 0.4). The overall percentage change
30 –56 yrs, 140.8 cm (SD ⫽ 5.5), and ences between the two protocols were scores of the 1RM for the DeLorme
70.72 kg (SD ⫽ 16.0). The average mainly due to the female subjects. and Oxford groups were 92% and
age, height, and weight for the men The mean initial 1RM for women in 66.5%, respectively.
in the Oxford group was 37 yrs (SD ⫽ the DeLorme and Oxford groups was In Figure 2, the initial mean
12), with a range of 22–51 yrs, 180.3 88 kg (SD ⫽ 17) and 107 kg (SD ⫽ 10RM weight for the DeLorme and
cm (SD ⫽ 3.0), and 82.6 kg (SD ⫽ 28), respectively, which was signifi- Oxford protocols (Fig. 2) was 79.2 kg

906 Fish et al. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. ● Vol. 82, No. 12
 strength, as demonstrated by the
weekly 1RM and 10RM gains over 9
wks of training. Subjects from each
protocol were able to maintain atten-
dance and compliance with required
lifting assignments.
The percentage change scores for
the 1RM and 10RM show equivalent
increases for both protocols. Al-
though there was no significant dif-
ference between the two protocols, it
should be noted that the DeLorme
group started with significantly lower
1RM and 10RM scores. In addition,
the DeLorme group had larger per-
centage change scores than scores
from the Oxford protocol, but these
Figure 1: Comparison of DeLorme with Oxford one-repetition maximum were not significantly different. No
(1RM) strength after 9 wks of training. There was a significant difference significant sex differences were found
between pre-training mean 1RM for Delorme vs. Oxford. *P ⬍ 0.05. for either protocol in regard to
strength gains over the 9-wk training
(⫾17.3) and 98 kg (⫾25), respec- Repeated measures examination program.
tively, which was significantly differ- using 1RM and 10RM (Fig. 3) data The purpose of the present study
ent (P ⫽ 0.004). The mean 10RM from each of the 9 wks of training was to determine the optimal method
increase after 9 wks of training (Fig. showed no significant difference by of developing muscle strength.
4) was 76 kg (⫾38.5) for the De- protocol (F ⫽ 1.828, P ⫽ 0.183) with Strength development is a goal of
Lorme group and 67.5 kg (⫾38) for the DeLorme and Oxford groups many exercise programs. For patients
the Oxford group, which was not sig- gaining a mean of 127 and 139 kg, whose muscles have atrophied be-
nificantly different (t ⫽ 0.76, P ⬍ respectively. cause of disuse associated with injury
0.65). The overall percentage change and in healthy individuals planning a
DISCUSSION lifelong exercise routine for them-
scores of the 10RM for the DeLorme
and Oxford groups were 96% and Both the DeLorme and Oxford selves, building strength has been
69%, respectively. protocol subjects improved muscle shown to give many important bene-
fits. Poor muscular fitness can be as-
sociated with reduced muscle and
connective tissue strength, reduced
lean body mass, and reduced bone
density. Together, these conditions
increase the risk of falls, injuries, and
low back pain. In the older popula-
tion, age-related muscle atrophy is
the main reason for impaired muscle
function.18,19 Therefore, determining
the best method for building strength
is relevant to individuals of all ages
and health levels.
From the results of the present
study, it seems that both the De-
Lorme and Oxford protocols can de-
velop strength in healthy men and
women. Optimal strength develop-
ment can occur when a muscle con-
Figure 2: Comparison of DeLorme with Oxford mean strength gains after 9 tracts against a degree of resistance
wks of training (P ⬍ 0.05). RM, repetition maximum. high enough to reach maximal or

December 2003 DeLorme vs. Oxford Training Techniques 907

 factor. The women who might be
considered as weak or deconditioned
by making small strength gains were
able to lift the third set in the De-
Lorme techniques just as readily as
did the Oxford subjects.
This study has several limita-
tions: the small number of subjects,
the small number of male subjects,
and a randomization error in the in-
equality at the start of the study be-
tween the women in terms of body
weight and initial mean 1RM and
10RM scores. Furthermore, the sed-
entary women that were chosen for
Figure 3: Comparison of DeLorme with Oxford mean ten-repetition maximum this study would have been difficult
(10RM) strength after 9 wks of training. There was a significant difference to motivate if it were not for mone-
between pretraining mean 10RM for Delorme vs. Oxford. 夡P ⬍ 0.004. tary reimbursement. This, however,
did not guarantee that each individ-
ual would give his or her best efforts
near maximal effort, which is enough aptations.21 The more complex the during either the training or testing
to fatigue the trained muscle.4,6,7,9,20 exercise, the more learning that must phases. Many women involved with
The rate of this increase is propor- take place and the more important it this study did not give an all out
tional to the resistance relative to the is to train to task.22 effort, and looking at the very low
muscle capacity (i.e., the percentage The reason the Oxford technique weight gains for the weekly 10RM
maximum of voluntary muscle con- was developed was that Zinovieff could easily identify them. This could
traction) and a patient’s initial condi- found that only healthy, well-devel- also account for the large standard
tion, which is an important factor to oped, and motivated individuals deviations.
consider when devising rehabilitation could complete the final 10RM of the The inequality of the initial test-
programs for patients.4,17,20 Strength DeLorme technique. Our study did ing of the women may confuse the
benefits attributable to hypertrophy not find any individual having diffi- findings; because the Oxford group
do not occur immediately on the ini- culty by the third set of lifts with the started at a higher 1RM and 10RM,
tiation of a strength-training regi- DeLorme method. The subjects were one would expect that the DeLorme
men. Rather, early gains in strength given ample time to recover so that group would have more room to
are attributed to nervous system ad- fatigue would not be an inhibiting make gains. In our study, this finding
turned out not to be true as the mean
gains in strength (absolute values) in
the 1RM and 10RM were statistically
the same in both protocols.

CONCLUSION
Both the DeLorme and Oxford
protocols can improve muscle
strength, as demonstrated by the
weekly 10RM and net change in 1RM
and 10RM gains over 9 wks of train-
ing. Because all subjects were able to
complete their lifting assignments
(finish the third set for each session)
and all progressed in weight lifted at
the end of 9 wks, it can be hypothe-
Figure 4: Comparison of DeLorme with Oxford mean ten-repetition maximum sized that both the DeLorme and Ox-
(10RM) per week during 9 wks of training (P ⬍ 0.05). ford protocols can improve strength

908 Fish et al. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. ● Vol. 82, No. 12
without over fatiguing the muscles. 7. Berger RA: Effects of maximum loads 15. Sale D, MacDougall D: Specificity in
The inability to complete the 10RM, for each of ten repetitions on strength strength training: A review for the coach
improvement. Res Q 1967;33:334 – 8 and athlete. Can J Appl Sports Sci 1981;
which led to the dissatisfaction with
8. Pincivero DM, Lephart SM, Ka- 6:87–92
the DeLorme protocol by earlier
runakara RG: Effects of rest interval on 16. Sale DG, MacDougall JD, Always SE,
studies, was not seen in the present
isokinetic strength and functional perfor- et al: Voluntary strength and muscle
study. Further research with larger mance after short term high intensity characteristics in untrained men and
sample sizes are needed to determine training. Br J Sports Med 1997;31:229 –34 women and bodybuilders. J Appl Physiol
any sex-specific changes in strength 9. deLateur BJ, Lehmann JF, Stone- 1987;62:1786 –93
improvement in response to these bridge JB, et al: Isotonic versus isometric 17. Sullivan DH, Wall PT, Bariola JR, et
protocols. exercise: A double-shift, transfer-of-train- al: Progressive resistance muscle
ing study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1972; strength training of hospitalized frail el-
53:212–7 derly. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2001;80:
REFERENCES 10. Linnamo V, Hakkinen K, Komi PV: 503–9
1. DeLorme T, Watkins AL: Restoration Neuromuscular fatigue and recovery in 18. Mortell R, Tucker L: Effects of a 12-
of power by heavy-resistance exercises. maximal compared to explosive strength week resistive training program in the
J Bone Joint Surg 1945;27:645– 67 loading. Eur J Appl Physiol 1998;77: home using the body bar on dynamic and
2. DeLorme TL, Watkins AL: Techniques 176 – 81 absolute strength of middle-age women.
of progressive resistance exercises. Arch 11. Chilibeck SL, Calder AW, Sale DG, et Percept Mot Skills 1993;76:1131– 8
Phys Med 1948;29:263–73 al: A comparison of strength and muscle 19. Sale DG, Jacobs I, MacDougall JD, et
3. DeLorme T, Watkins A: Progressive mass increases during resistive training al: Comparison of two regimens of con-
Resistance Exercises. New York, Apple- in young women. Eur J Appl Physiol current strength and endurance training.
ton-Century-Crofts, 1951 1998;77:170 –5 Med Sci Sports Exerc 1990;22:348 –56
4. Zinovieff AN: Heavy resistance 12. Charette SL, McEvoy L, Pyka G, et al: 20. Hostler D: The effectiveness of 0.5-lb
exercises: The “Oxford technique.” Br J Muscle hypertrophy response to resistive increments in progressive resistance ex-
Phys Med 1951;129 –32 training in older women. J Appl Physiol ercise. J Strength Cond Res 2001;15:
1991;70:1912– 6 86 –91
5. Weir JP, Housh DJ, Housh TJ, et al:
The effect of unilateral eccentric weight 13. Parcell AC: Minimum rest period for 21. Knuttgen HG: Neuromuscular Mech-
training and detraining on joint angle strength recovery during a common iso- anisms for Therapeutic and Conditioning
specificity, cross training, and the bilat- kinetic testing protocol. Med Sci Sports Exercises. Baltimore, University Park
eral deficit. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Exerc 2002;34:1018 –22 Press, 1976, pp 97–118
1995;22:207–15 14. Rooney KJ, Herbert RD, Balnave RJ: 22. Anderson T, Kearney JT: Effects of
6. Berger RA: Optimum repetitions for Fatigue contributes to the strength train- three resistance programs on muscular
the development of strength. Res Q 1962; ing stimulus. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1994; strength and absolute and relative endur-
33:334 – 8 26:1160 – 4 ance. Res Q 1982;53:1–7

Announcement
New Rapid Communication
The American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation is committed to publishing important research
and scientific discussion as quickly as possible. Therefore, a new category of manuscript submission has been
developed to expedite publication of timely research articles and other vital scientific communications. This new
category of submission will be referred to as “Rapid Communication.” Submissions considered by the editors to
be extremely timely or of vital importance to the readers will receive an expedited peer-review process and upon
acceptance will be published in the next available issue of the Journal. Authors may request that the editors
consider a particular manuscript submission for expedited review and publication as a “Rapid Communication.”
Each research paper selected as a “Rapid Communication” will also receive simultaneous early publication on
the Journal’s web site at www.amjphysmedrehab.com

December 2003 909