ffects of artner s improvisational esistance raining on dancers … · 2012. 12. 4. · dancers...

EFFECTS OF PARTNER’S IMPROVISATIONALRESISTANCE TRAINING ON DANCERS’MUSCULAR STRENGTHRHEBA E. VETTER1 AND SANDOR DORGO2

1Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance Department, Northwest Missouri State University, Maryville,Missouri; and 2Department of Kinesiology, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas

ABSTRACT

Vetter, RE, and Dorgo, S. Effects of partner’s improvisational

resistance training on dancers’ muscular strength. J Strength

Cond Res 23(3): 718–728, 2009—The purpose of this study

was to observe the effects of Partner’s Improvisational Resis-

tance Training (PIRT) on muscular strength, body circumfer-

ence, and body fat percentage in 10 female college-age dancers

in comparison with 8 female dancers in a control group. The

PIRT program, based on the concepts of manual resistance

training, is the application of contact improvisation in a system-

atic strength development program, which proposes a way of

contextualizing muscular strength development within the

dance class. The program lasted 8 weeks, meeting 3 times

weekly for 60-minute sessions. The muscular strength pre- and

posttests included 1-repetition maximum (1RM) for leg exten-

sion, leg flexion, leg press, bench press, lat pulldown, back

extension, and modified sit-up. Hydrostatic weighing for body

composition and circumference measures on the waist, hip,

shoulder, upper arm, and thigh were made pre- and posttest

analyses. There were no significant pretest differences between

the groups for age, height, body weight, body fat percentage,

any of the circumference measures, or 5 of the 7 muscular

strength measures. At posttest, neither group showed signifi-

cant changes in total body weight, body fat percentage, or lean

body weight. The experimental group showed significant

decrements in the waist and hip circumference measures,

and all other body circumference changes were nonsignificant.

The experimental group showed significant changes from

pretest to posttest for all seven 1RM strength measures and

greater absolute and relative strength improvements in 5 mea-

sures compared with the control group. Thus, the 8-week PIRT

program for female dancers was found effective in improving

overall muscular strength and decreasing circumference in the

waist-hip region, but it did not elicit significant changes in body

composition.

KEY WORDS contact improvisation, manual resistance training,

partner’s improvisational resistance training, resistance training

modalities

INTRODUCTION

Today, to meet the choreographic demands of manyprofessional modern dance companies and collegedance major programs, training must preparedancers to meet the physical requirements neces-

sary to accomplish artistic intent. Dancers often support eachother’s body weight, perform flips, and do many forms ofcartwheels and gymnastic-like movements with and withoutequipment. A dancer’s legs may be likened to those ofa basketball player in that jumping, leaping, hopping,galloping, skipping, and sliding are often modes of locomo-tion, propelling the mover into the air at various speeds andheights. Their arms, like those of gymnasts, must be strongenough to catch or carry another person who is 100 lb ormore; catching and carrying another dancer are some of theactivities in dance ‘‘partnering.’’ Therefore, similar to mostsports where muscular strength and power are key elementsof athletic performance, dancers today greatly benefit fromcarefully designed fitness programs implemented in combi-nation with their dance-specific training (2,13,14). Further-more, because the physical demands of dance increase therisk of injury, conditioning programs that attend to injury-prevention measures are recommended (26).

Although muscular strength is generally recognized asa fitness component necessary for high levels of athleticperformance and injury prevention, dance training tradition-ally lacks the application of carefully designed strengthprograms. A general misconception is that dance techniqueclasses meet all physical needs of the dancers (6); traditionaldance technique classes employ specificity training. Thus,traditional dance training technique classes routinely andexclusively use the dancer’s body weight to perform typicaldance movements, which, over time, may not provide

Address correspondence to Rheba E. Vetter, [email protected].

23(3)/718–728

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research� 2009 National Strength and Conditioning Association

718 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Researchthe TM

Copyright © . N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited

enough of an overload to increase muscular strength to meetthe demands of choreography in performance situations.However, studies of dancers using structured strengthtraining programs in addition to their traditional dancetraining technique classes report strength gains and improvedperformance (14,24).

Enhancement of muscular strength can be accomplishedthrough a variety of resistance training modalities. Althoughweight-room–based resistance training is the most wide-spread and most researched training modality, the imple-mentation of this type of training in addition to dance classesgenerally poses several difficulties, such as access to gym

facilities and equipment and available time for supplementaltraining. Therefore, resistance training modalities that do notrequire additional facilities or equipment and can be applieddirectly within the dance studio may be more appealing fordance program adaptations and may provide sufficienttraining stimuli to meet dancers’ strength training needs.

Because ‘‘partnering’’ in dance is often performed, a logicalconsideration is to have partners provide external resistanceto one another. The concept of manual resistance training(MRT) where 2 individuals work together using each otherfor the applied resistance has been known for decades(8,20,22). The limited research on MRT indicates various

levels of effectiveness in com-parisons with calisthenics (9)and traditional weight training(10,15). One study examiningthe effects of MRT had 1100male soldiers train for 12 weeksby either MRT or calisthenics(9). The findings of that studyindicate that MRT was moreeffective than calisthenics inincreasing strength as measuredby a hand-grip dynamometer,medicine ball throws, and thenumber of push-ups performedin 2 minutes (9). In anotherstudy (15), improvements instrength and endurance fora group of untrained womenwho completed a 6-monthtraining program comprisingplyometric exercises, calisthen-ics, and MRT were comparedwith improvements for a tradi-tional resistance training group

TABLE 1. Descriptives for age, height, body weight, body fat percentage, fat weight, and lean body weight.

Variable

Control group, n = 10 Experimental group, n = 11

Mean SEM Range Mean SEM Range

Age 21.0 0.6 19.0–23.0 20.1 0.7 18.0–25.0Height (cm) 165.8 2.7 154.9–175.9 164.6 1.2 158.7–171.5W (kg) Pre 59.0 3.5 47.3–79.0 62.3 1.8 55.2–73.6

Post 58.9 3.7 47.5–80.4 62.0 1.6 55.4–72.3BF (%) Pre 18.0 1.4 10.5–22.4 23.1 2.2 13.1–35.2

Post 18.5 2.0 12.5–25.9 21.9 1.8 13.6–30.1LW (kg) Pre 48.3 2.8 41.2–65.5 47.7 1.0 40.0–51.6

Post 47.9 3.1 40.5–68.0 48.3 1.0 42.9–51.5

Body fat percentage is based on hydrostatic weighing values; W = total weight; BF = body fat; LW = lean body weight.

Figure 1. Back extension was performed with 1 person in a prone position while the partner applied resistance tothe person’s upper back. The prone individual then raised the head and shoulders off the ground for the prescribednumber of repetitions.

VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 3 | MAY 2009 | 719

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Researchthe TM

| www.nsca-jscr.org


and an aerobic training group.Manual resistance training wasused to mimic the field trainingprogram most often used bysoldiers without access toequipped training facilities.The authors of that study re-port the greatest improvementsin bench press and squatstrength for the equipment-based traditional resistancetraining group; however, thegroup using MRTexercises alsoshowed moderate strength im-provements during the initialstages of the program (15). Thisstudy, although not applyinga pure MRT program com-pared with weight resistancetraining, concluded on the clearsuperiority of traditional

Figure 2. Abdominal curl was performed by 1 person in a supine position while the partner applied resistance to theshoulders. The supine lying person then lifted the head and shoulders off the ground in a curling motion.

Figure 3. Biceps curl was performed standing with 1 partner’s backagainst the other’s front. The person in the back raised and lowered thepartner; the person in the front allowed the knees to bend and straightenas the partner performed the lifting activity.

Figure 4. Lat pull was executed with partners facing one another, toestouching, holding each other’s wrists with bent elbows. Partnersextended their arms and subsequently pulled the upper arm back andallowed the elbows to flex.


Partner’s Improvisational Resistance Training


resistance training for improv-ing muscular strength (15).

Some dancers are familiarwith ‘‘contact improvisation,’’which uses the lifting, carrying,balancing, counterbalancingbetween partners, and the useof falling techniques and mo-mentum found in the martial artAikido (21). Horwitz (12) de-scribes contact improvisation asa combination of wrestling andgymnastics. Partner’s Improvisa-tional Resistance Training(PIRT), based on the conceptsof MRT, is the application ofcontact improvisation in a sys-tematic strength developmentprogram, which proposesa way of contextualizing mus-cular strength developmentwithin the dance class.

A paucity of research has beenconducted in the area of muscu-lar strength development for dancers. In conjunction, there hasbeen a lack of strength training programs designed specificallywith dancers in mind. It was theorized that PIRT would beaccepted by dancers as a training program, and, based on thefindings of previous research on MRT, it would be an effectivetraining modality to improve muscular strength for dancers incomparison with traditional dance programs. Thus, thepurpose of this research was toexamine the changes in muscu-lar strength, body circumference,and body fat percentage amongfemale dancers using 8 weeks ofPIRT in comparison with femaledancers participating in theirtraditional dance classesexclusively.

METHODS

Experimental Approach to the

Problem

This study examined muscularstrength development in femaledancers who used 8 weeks ofPIRT supplementing theirdance technique classes (exper-imental PIRT group) in com-parison with female dancers ina control group who onlyattended their regularly sched-uled dance technique classes.All subjects were tested by

seven 1-repetition maximum (1RM) strength tests beforeand immediately after the 8-week intervention period. Duringthe 8 weeks of program implementation, the PIRTclass met 3times weekly, 1 hour per session. The experimental PIRTgroup performed 2 sets of 10 repetitions for each of the 8assigned PIRT exercises, in addition to the traditional andimprovisational lifts in each session. During the 8 weeks, the

Figure 6. Leg press was executed with 1 person lying in a supine position with flexed hip, feet toward the ceiling,while the partner placed resistance on the supine person’s feet soles using the pelvic girdle region. The supineperson then flexed and extended the knees, thus lifting the partner into the air.

Figure 5. Bench press was performed with 1 person lying in supine position and arms extended toward the ceilingwhile the partner placed resistance on the supine person’s palms. The supine person then flexed and extended theelbows.



| www.nsca-jscr.org


PIRT exercises for the experimental group became pro-gressively more challenging, requiring more force to executethe movements.

Subjects

Nineteen healthy, active, college-age (mean6 SD: 20.5 6 2.0)female dance majors were recruited through the universitycourse catalog and through public verbal solicitation withinballet, modern, and jazz dance classes. All subjects providedwritten informed consent and completed a medical historyquestionnaire before beginning the study. Dancers in thisstudy had little or no prior resistance training experience.Their years of dance experience ranged from 2 to 16 years ofstudy (experimental group mean = 7; control group mean =12). Subjects were instructed concerning the testingprocedures and training protocol; all consented to refrain

from participating in any additional physical activities otherthan regularly scheduled dance technique classes andrehearsals. This study was approved by the human subjectsreview committee of Texas Woman’s University and theinstitutional review board of Weber State University beforecommencement of any data collection.

The experimental group comprised 11 women (n = 11)who voluntarily enrolled in the PIRTclass in addition to theirother dance technique classes. The 8 female subjects (n = 8)in the control group were only involved in their dancetechnique classes. Descriptive data for age, height, bodyweight, and body composition are found in Table 1.

Procedures

All subjects were offered a pretest practice trial day tofamiliarize them with the strength tests and hydrostaticweighing; all subjects declined the practice day because ofscheduling constraints. Data were collected before andimmediately after the 8-week intervention period; the entirebattery of strength, body composition, and circumferencetests was conducted on the same day for each subject. Allstrength testing was conducted using free weights andvariable resistance machines. Body composition was mea-sured by hydrostatic weighing (1). In addition, body circum-ferences were measured for 5 sites (17). All subjects woreswimsuits during the hydrostatic weighing and the circum-ference measures. Hydrostatic weighing was performed usinga tank outfitted with a Revere Transducer computerized loadcell and interfaced with a DOS-based computer; residual lungvolume was measured with a Micro spirometer.

Tests

Muscular strength was assessed by determining the 1RM forleg extension, leg flexion, leg press, bench press, lat pulldown,back extension, and a modified sit-up. Tests were sequencedso that upper- and lower-body testing alternated to givemuscle groups sufficient rest periods between exercises. Awarm-up using low intensities and approximately 10–15repetitions preceded each exercise. One minute separatedeach trial for each test. The leg press, leg extension, leg flexion,bench press, lat pulldown, and back extension tests wereconducted using variable-resistance selectorized or plate-loaded machines. The sit-up test was performed using freeweights.

Circumference tests for waist, hip, shoulder, arm, and thighwere conducted using a Dritz retractable tape measure. Aminimum of 3 trials were performed until a measure wasreplicated at the site. Measuring procedures followed thosegiven by Lohman et al. (17).

Hydrostatic weighing was performed with the subjectsitting in a suspended chair in the water. The individual leanedforward to be completely submerged underwater. Then, theair was forcefully exhaled out of the lungs. Once no more airbubbles were seen, the weight was recorded by thecomputerized load cell. A minimum of 3 trials perperson were performed, or until 2 of the recorded values

Figure 7. Inverted military press was done with 1 person performinga handstand while the partner acted as the spotter. The handstandindividual then flexed and extended the elbows while the spotter assistedby holding the person’s hips, thighs, or feet.




were within 0.1 kg of each other. Hydrostatic weighing andcircumference measures were performed after the strengthtests to minimize transition times for changing clothesbetween tests.

Training Program

The PIRT exercises were conducted during the first half ofeach dance class period. Eight exercises formed the core ofthe basic program (Figures 1–8), and each exercise wasperformed with 2 sets of 10 repetitions; exercises includedback extension, abdominal curl, biceps curl, lat pull, benchpress, leg press, leg curl, and inverted military press (Table 2).In addition, traditional and improvisational lifts betweenpartners were explored each class period after the previous 8

exercises. Subjects were in-structed to alternate upper-and lower-body exercises.Training was progressive andrepetitious during the 8-weekintervention period; as individ-uals became stronger, theyperformed lifts that requiredgreater force and balance toachieve. Partners were notmatched in any manner; theywere allowed to select theirown partner each class, andmost paired up as they arrivedfor class. As participants’strength increased, exerciseswere modified and additionalexercises were added (see Fig-ure 9 for one example).

Statistical Analyses

All statistical analyses wereperformed using SAS version

9.1.3 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) software package. Pre-and posttraining data for the anthropometric data, muscularstrength, and body circumference measures were analyzedusing a univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) to evaluatethe mean differences between the experimental and controlgroups. Analysis of variance also was used to assess pre- andposttraining body composition data obtained from thehydrostatic weighing measures. Because of the difference ingroup sizes, the homogeneity of variance was checked in allANOVA tests with the Levene test. The assumption forhomogeneity of variance (p . 0.05) was met in all analyses.The 1RM was defined as the greatest weight moved throughthe full range of motion (1 repetition) for the leg extension,leg flexion, leg press, bench press, lateral pulldown, backextension, and modified sit-up exercises. The criterion alphalevel for significance was set at p # 0.05 for all analyses.

RESULTS

Ten of the 11 experimental group participants completed the8-week intervention program; 1 student dropped out becauseof injuries sustained outside of class. No drop-out occurred inthe control group, and thus posttest data were collected on all8 subjects. The average number of hours that experimentalgroup subjects spent with their combined dance techniqueclasses and PIRT training was 8.4 (PIRT = 2.6 and danceclasses = 5.8 6 3.8) hours weekly. Control group subjectsattended an average of 7.2 6 2.5 hours of dance techniqueclasses weekly. All subjects complied with the study’sprotocol; responding to a posttest questionnaire, no subjectsreported exercising outside the experimental and the controldance classes.

Figure 8. Leg curl was performed with 1 individual lying in a prone position while the partner placed resistanceagainst the prone person’s ankle area using the hands. The prone partner flexed and extended the knee joint.

TABLE 2. Partner’s Improvisational ResistanceTraining (PIRT) experimental program coreexercises.

PIRT exerciseApplied

sets 3 reps

Back extension 2 3 10Abdominal curl 2 3 10Biceps curl 2 3 10Lat pull 2 3 10Bench press 2 3 10Leg press 2 3 10Inverted military press 2 3 10Leg curl 2 3 10



| www.nsca-jscr.org


Pretest measures showed no significant differences betweenthe experimental and control groups for age, height, weight,body fat percentage, lean body weight, or any of the bodycircumference measures (p. 0.10). There were no significantdifferences between the groups at pretest for the 1RMstrength measures, except for leg flexion (p , 0.034) and latpulldown (p , 0.01) strength. After the 8-week interventionprogram, neither group showed significant changes in totalbody weight (p . 0.44), body fat percentage (p . 0.36), orlean body weight (p . 0.48), and differences between thegroups remained nonsignificant (p . 0.38) for thesemeasures. The experimental group showed significantdecrements in the waist (p , 0.029) and hip circumference

measures (p , 0.015), butchanges were not significant forthe other 3 circumference meas-ures. No significant changeswere observed in the controlgroup for any of the circumfer-ence measurements (p . 0.19).

Compared with baseline val-ues, the experimental groupmade greater absolute and rel-ative strength improvementsthan the control group in allstrength measures, with theexception of leg flexion and latpulldown strength (Table 3).Results of the univariate analy-sis indicated significant changesfrom pretest to posttest for allseven 1RM strength measuresin the experimental group; theirresponses to training from pre-to posttest are presented inFigures 10–16. Strength im-

provements occurred in the leg extension (p , 0.0001), legflexion (p, 0.0001), leg press (p, 0.0001), bench press (p,0.002), lat pulldown (p, 0.003), back extension (p, 0.0001),and sit-up (p , 0.001) measures. The control group alsoshowed significant improvements in leg flexion (p, 0.0001),lat pulldown (p , 0.0008), and back extension (p , 0.026)strength, but no significant improvement was observed forthe leg extension (p . 0.17), leg press (p . 0.07), bench press(p . 0.62), or sit-up (p . 0.108) measures. The experimentalgroup was stronger at posttest than the control group in allseven 1RM strength measures; this difference was significantfor the leg extension (p , 0.023), leg press (p , 0.004), andbench press (p , 0.049) measures.

Figure 9. Advanced exercise variation example for pushup.

TABLE 3. Mean (6 SEM) muscular strength values in kilograms at baseline and after the 8-week training program for theexperimental (Partner’s Improvisational Resistance Training) group and the control group.

Variable

Experimental group Control group

Baseline PosttrainingAbsolutechange

Percentchange Baseline Posttraining

Absolutechange

Percentchange

Leg extension 45.7 6 2.5 55.7 6 3.6 10.0 21.9 41.9 6 4.0 44.9 6 2.3 2.9 7.0Leg flexion 39.8 6 2.4 48.5 6 2.1 8.7 21.8 30.9 6 3.0 40.0 6 3.3 9.1 29.4Leg press 163.6 6 12.8 225.5 6 11.0 61.8 37.8 170.5 6 10.4 188.6 6 9.1 18.2 10.7Bench press 36.6 6 4.5 45.2 6 4.8 8.5 23.3 31.6 6 4.7 32.9 6 2.2 1.3 3.9Lat pulldown 30.2 6 1.7 33.6 6 1.7 3.3 11.1 23.7 6 1.3 28.1 6 1.6 4.4 18.7Back extension 82.9 6 3.6 96.7 6 2.1 13.8 16.6 76.5 6 6.6 83.4 6 6.0 6.8 8.9Sit-up 6.6 6 2.3 13.0 6 3.1 6.5 98.5 8.5 6 2.2 11.4 6 3.3 2.8 33.3




Figures 10. Pre- to posttest changes in leg extension strength for theexperimental group subjects.

Figure 11. Pre- to posttest changes in leg flexion strength for theexperimental group subjects.

Figure 12. Pre- to posttest changes in leg press strength for theexperimental group subjects.

Figure 13. Pre- to posttest changes in bench press strength for theexperimental group subjects.

Figure 15. Pre- to posttest changes in back extension strength for theexperimental group subjects.

Figure 14. Pre- to posttest changes in lat pull strength for theexperimental group subjects.



| www.nsca-jscr.org


DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of an8-week PIRT program on dancers’ muscular strength andbody composition with a control group that did notparticipate in the PIRT program. The PIRT program is basedon the concepts of MRT and refers to the application ofcontact improvisation in a systematic strength developmentprogram, which proposes a way of contextualizing muscularstrength development within the dance class. The PIRTclasses for the experimental group met 3 times weekly for1 hour each session; these classes were in addition to theirregular schedule of dance technique classes. The controlgroup participated only in their regular schedule of dancetechnique classes, with no additional resistance trainingprograms.

From baseline to posttest, muscular strength increasedsignificantly in the experimental group for the leg extension(21.9%), leg flexion (21.8%), leg press (37.8%), bench press(23.3%), lat pulldown (11.1%), back extension (16.6%), and sit-up (98.5%) tests. The control group, which only performeddance training and no structured resistance training, alsoshowed significant improvements on 3 strength tests andnonsignificant, modest improvements on the remaining4 strength measures. For 5 of the 7 measures, the improve-ments in the experimental group were greater than that of thecontrol group, both in absolute and relative terms. For the legflexion and lat pulldown measures, the control group achievedslightly greater absolute and relative strength improvementsthan the experimental group. However, a significant differ-ence was observed between the 2 groups at baseline for thesemeasures, where the experimental group was stronger thanthe control group. Consequently, the control group seemed tohave a greater potential for strength adaptation for thesemeasures, which may explain the greater relative strengthimprovement.

The increased muscular strength as a result of the 8-weekPIRT intervention program was not surprising. Historically,various strength training programs have elicited muscularstrength gains (3,4,11). More specifically, strength gainsamong dancers were observed after resistance trainingprograms (14,23,27). Also, MRT programs have been shownto result in muscular strength gains (10,22,15). Thus, theresults of the PIRT intervention, which combined theconcepts of MRT with the lifting, carrying, balancing, andcounterbalancing used in contact improvisation, organized ina systematic strength training protocol using sets andrepetitions, supported our initial hypothesis and elicitedincreases in muscular strength. These data suggest thata short-term PIRT program can elicit improvements inmuscular strength among dancers with limited or noresistance training background. However, the long-termapplicability and effectiveness of the PIRT modality requiresfurther investigation. Also, the effectiveness of PIRT usingsubjects with extensive experience in resistance training orthose who already have experienced substantial neuromus-cular adaptations may require further examination.

A limitation of the study that might have affected the resultswas the fact that subjects in both groups declined a practicetrial day for familiarization with the tests. Thus, a learningeffect could have caused differences in the posttest results. Asa matter of fact, although subjects in the control group did notperform any structured resistance training or any otheractivities outside the scheduled dance classes, modeststrength improvements were still observed. Likely, an exerciselearning effect of the strength tests, as well as minimalneuromuscular adaptations elicited by the dance practices,might have contributed to this phenomenon. Of greaterinterest was the fact that the experimental group’s trainingexercises resembled most of the strength test situations andmight have given them an advantage to produce better results.The improvements in the experimental group might beattributable to the concept of training specificity. Matchingthe movement training to the desired test outcomes wasimportant when designing PIRT and selecting appropriatetests to measure the outcomes (7,25).

Our findings regarding body circumference changes repre-sent an important aspect of the present study. Of concern todancers is the myth that strength training causes excessiveincreases for muscular girth. The art form of dance requiresa lean, muscled appearance without the bulk similar to powerlifters. The reason for apprehension is unfounded. Capen et al.(5) found no significant increases in hypertrophy aftera 10-week resistance training program. Massey and Chaudet(18) found girth increases in the biceps (2 cm), chest (2.5 cm),and thigh (0.2 cm) among men after 2 semesters of weighttraining. Wilmore (28) found girth increases and decreasesfor men and women after a 10-week weight training class; noincrease for either gender was greater than 1.2 cm, and thedecreases up to 0.4 cm were largely attributable to fat weightdecreases.

Figure 16. Pre- to posttest changes in sit-up strength for theexperimental group subjects.




Fat weight decreases should be viewed positively bydancers. Decreases in fat weight with resistance training haveoccurred after 12- and 9-week resistance training programs(14,19). In the present study, although no significantdifferences were observed from baseline to posttest for bodycomposition in either group, the experimental group showeda tendency for a decrement in body fat percentage and anincrease in lean body weight. Conversely, the control groupshowed a slight increase in body fat percentage anda decrease in lean body weight. These data indicate thatthe 8-week PIRT program initiated positive changes in thesubjects’ appearance.

Furthermore, body circumference measures in the PIRTexperimental group showed changes beneficial for dancers.Four of the 5 body circumference measures were lower atposttest compared with baseline, and this decrement wassignificant for the waist and hip circumferences. In light of thereduced body fat percentage in the experimental group, it isreasonable to assume that significant decrements in the waistand hip circumferences were attributable to fat loss from thesebody regions. Thus, of importance to dancers is the realitythat large girth increases do not necessarily occur with allresistance training programs and that such programs mayactually contribute to fat loss and improvement in bodyappearance. Dancers desiring to lose weight for aestheticreasons may consider a program such as PIRT to achievea lean appearance.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

The current study demonstrates that PIRT is effective inproducing muscular strength increases. Dancers can meetsome of the physiological demands placed on them duringchoreographed and improvisational situations using the PIRTprogram in the classroom; no additional equipment orfacilities are necessary. Such demands often include the lifting,carrying, and balancing of partners, which require coordina-tion and strength (16). These activities use a complexkinesphere requiring level and direction changes in space.Systematic strength training programs are needed for dancersas preventive measures against potential injuries that mightoccur while performing such complex maneuvers. The PIRTis specificity training for dancers using a carefully designedstrength training protocol within the classroom that enablesdancers to increase strength, which facilitates responses tothe physical demands of dance.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the numerous Weber State Universitystudents who were involved with my study. Also, I express myappreciation to Alisha Jones and Travis Tryon who assistedwith the photography for the current article.

REFERENCES

1. American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM’s Guidelines for ExerciseTesting and Prescription. Philadelphia: Williams & Wilkins, 1999.

2. Annino, G, Padua, E, Castagna, C, Di Salvo, V, Minichella, S,Tsarpela, O, Manzi, V, and D’Ottavio, S. Effect of whole bodyvibration training on lower limb performance in selected high-levelballet students. J Strength Cond Res 21: 1072–1076, 2007.

3. Berger, RA. Effect of varied weight training programs on strength.Res Q 33: 168–181, 1962.

4. Berger, RA and Hardage, B. Effects of maximum loads for eachof ten repetitions on strength improvement. Res Q 38: 715–718,1967.

5. Capen, E, Bright, J, and Line, P. The effects of weight training onstrength, power, muscular endurance and anthropometric meas-urements on a select group of college women. J Assoc Phys MentRehabil 15: 169–173, 1961.

6. Carver, MS. Resistance training: a review of the pertinent literaturewith an application towards dance. Master’s thesis, University ofUtah, Salt Lake City, 1989.

7. Chatfield, SC. Concerns of validity and reliability in dance-scienceresearch. Kinesiol Med Dance 14: 44–56, 1991.

8. Diange, J. Manual resistance exercises: incorporated during both thein-season and off-season, this program will help athletes develop andmaintain strength. Athl J 62: 14–19, 1982.

9. Dombroski, RT and Henderson, JM. Partner resistance exercisesversus calisthenics for upper body strength improvement. In: ThirdAnnual Meeting of American Medical Society of Sports Medicine. RanchMirage, Calif, 1994.

10. Dorgo, S, King, GA, and Rice, CA. The effects of manual resistancetraining on improving muscular strength and endurance. J StrengthCond Res 23: 293–303, 2009.

11. Holloway, JB and Baechle, TR. Strength training for female athletes:a review of selected aspects. Sports Med 9: 216–228, 1990.

12. Horwitz, CA. Challenging dominant gender ideology throughdance: contact improvisation. Doctoral dissertation, University ofIowa, 1995.

13. Koutedakis, Y, Hukam, H, Metsios, G, Nevill, A, Giakas, G,Jamurtas, A, and Myszkewycz, L. The effects of three months ofaerobic and strength training on selected performance andfitness-related parameters in modern dance students. J StrengthCond Res 21: 808–812, 2007.

14. Koutedakis, Y and Sharp, NC. Thigh-muscles strength training,dance exercise, dynamometry, and anthropometry in professionalballerinas. J Strength Cond Res 18: 714–718, 2004.

15. Kraemer, WJ, Mazzetti, SA, Nindl, BC, Gotshalk, LA, Volek, JS,Bush, JA, Marx, JO, Dohi, K, Gomez, AL, Miles, M, Fleck, SJ,Newton, RU, and Häkkinen, K. Effect of resistance training onwomen’s strength/power and occupational performances. Med SciSports Exerc 33: 1011–1025, 2001.

16. Laws, K, Briel, K, Donnalley, J, Platz, K, and Zarrielo, J. Lifts inpartnered dance. Kinesiol Med Dance 13: 10–21, 1991.

17. Lohman, TG, Roche, AF, and Martorell, R. AnthropometricStandardization Reference Manual. Champaign: Human Kinetics,1991.

18. Massey, BH and Chaudet, NL. Effects of systematic, heavy resistiveexercise on range of joint movement in young male adults. Res Q 27:41–51, 1956.

19. Mayhew, JL and Gross, PM. Body composition changes in youngwomen with high resistance weight training. Res Q 45: 433–440,1974.

20. Munson, WW and Pettigrew, FE. Cooperative strength training:a method for preadolescents. J Phys Educ Recreation Dance 59: 61–72,1988.

21. Novak, CJ. Contact improvisation. Drama Rev 32: 120–134, 1988.



| www.nsca-jscr.org


22. Riley, DP. Maximum Muscular Fitness: How to Develop StrengthWithout Equipment. West Point: Leisure Press, 1982.

23. Stalder, M. The effects of a supplemental weight training programon female ballet dancers. Kinesiol Dance 10: 9–11, 1987.

24. Stalder, MA, Noble, BJ, and Wilkinson, JG. The effects ofsupplemental weight training for ballet dancers. J Appl Sport Sci Res4: 95–102, 1990.

25. Thomas, JR, Lochbaum, MR, Landers, DM, and He, C. Planningsignificant and meaningful research in exercise science: estimatingsample size. Res Q Exerc Sport 68: 33–43, 1997.

26. Vetter, RE. Effects of a partnering class on dancers’ muscular

strength, flexibility, and body composition. Doctoral dissertation,

Texas Woman’s University, Denton, 2000.

27. Welsh, TM, Jones, GP III, Lucker, KD, and Weaver, BC. Back

strengthening for dancers: a within-subject experimental analysis.

J Dance Med Sci 2: 141–148, 1998.

28. Wilmore, JH. Alterations in strength, body composition

and anthropometric measurements consequent to a

10-week training program. Med Sci Sports 6: 133–138, 1974.




ffects of artner s improvisational esistance raining on dancers … · 2012. 12. 4. · dancers...

Documents