The study examined the differences in muscle hypertrophy between experienced (EXP) and inexperienced (INEXP) strength trainers over 12 weeks. 70 college students were divided into EXP and INEXP groups. Participants performed exercises 3 days/week and maximum weight lifted was measured at weeks 0, 6, and 12. For the bench press, leg extension, and leg curl exercises, some groups saw significant differences between EXP and INEXP participants. For the bench press, Group 1-1 saw EXP lift 9.2 lbs more than INEXP from weeks 0-6. For the leg extension, Group 1-1 saw INEXP lift 14.8 lbs more than EXP from weeks 0-6, and Group 3

1. Strength Training: The Experienced
VS the Inexperienced
Team Merle
Anthony Robbins, Charlene Logan,
Valerie Nielson, Danielle Harrison

2. 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.

3. 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).

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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-values
Week 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-values
Week 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-values
Week 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

9. 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-values
Week 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 *0.032616
Group 1-3 0.467207 0.360547 0.324925 0.32635 0.158252 0.143789
Group 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-values
Week 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 0.417631
Group 1-3 0.097261 0.0716 0.19452 0.169105 *0.037935 *0.040454
Group 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

10. 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.

11. 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 0.007
Leg Extension Group 1-1 Real Change Week 0-6 14.80303 lbs 0.005196
Leg Extension Group 1-1 Percent Change Week 0-6 21.23% 0.002677
Leg Extension Group 1-1 Percent Change Week 0-12 16.79% 0.032616
Leg Extension Group 3-3 Real Change Week 0-6 19.02778 lbs 0.049181
Leg 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 0.037935
Leg 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).

12. Discussion

13. 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.

14. 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)

15. 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.