HEALTH & FITNESS A TO Z

THE EVOLUTION OF THE SCIENCE OF

RESISTANCE TRAINING
The Early Pioneers of Progress
by William J. Kraemer, Ph.D., FACSM

T
he evolution of the science of resistance training has
been influenced by the anecdotal insights of individ-
uals involved with the various sports using resistance
training (e.g., Olympic weightlifting), commercial product de-
velopment, and the progressive advances in the technological
and analytical capabilities available in exercise science labo-
ratories around the world. Scientists who studied strength
training were therefore interested from different perspectives
resulting in a continuum from basic to more applied research
studies. The early evolution of the science of resistance train-
ing started at the more applied aspects of understanding how
programs affected end point outcomes in patients and indi-
viduals interested in strength fitness. Through time, the search
for greater understanding of the underlying mechanisms of
adaptation pushed the study of resistance training into the hands
of many different laboratories because of its prolific adaptive
characteristics. The early evolution of the science of resis-
tance training in the United States offers some subtle insights
into its worldwide impact for the field of resistance training re-
search. Therefore, the purpose of this brief review is to provide
a narrow perspective on part of the history that shaped the sci-
ence in the field of resistance training. For an extensive view of
resistance training history and physical culture, I direct your
attention to the University of Texas and the Stark Center for
Physical Culture and Sport, directed by Drs. Janice and Terry
Todd (Figure 1).
to provide an understanding of how skeletal muscle con-
tracts. Research in the laboratories of Huxley and Niedergerke
(10,11) from the University of Cambridge in England and
Huxley and Hanson (12) from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology in the United States were both defining the con-
cept ultimately called the Sliding Filament Theory. Thus, the con-
text for the early study of resistance training was devoid of any
real molecular insights on how skeletal muscle functioned to
produce force.
INSIGHTS AND CLINICAL NEEDS FOR
RESISTANCE TRAINING
One notable investigator who pushed the modality into the
mainstream was Dr. Thomas L. DeLorme. In an eloquent and
extensive historical perspective of this man, Todd et al. (16) from
the University of Texas’ Stark Center for Physical Culture and
Sport delved into the many permutations of a man who clearly
impacted the field of resistance training as much as anyone
Figure 1. Drs. Terry and Janice Todd, codirectors of The
H.J. Lutcher Stark Center for Physical Culture and Sports and
professors in the Department of Kinesiology and Health
Education at the University of Texas at Austin, the world's best
resource for the study of resistance training history and
physical culture.

MUSCLE FUNCTION
At the core of resistance training was the fascination with skele-
tal muscle in both its morphology and function, most notably,
strength. Isolated studies on these aspects were observed from
Photo courtesy of Drs. Todd.

the late 1800s through the 1930s. Work by the Nobel Laureate,
English physiologist Archibald Vivian (A.V.) Hill developed the
fundamental principles in biophysics that would be used by
other investigators interested in the study of muscle mechanics
and function needed for applications of resistance training to
various populations for the development of strength (7–9). Dur-
ing the 1950s, the study of muscle function was just starting
10 ACSM’s Health & Fitness Journal ® September/October 2016

Copyright © 2016 American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Figure 2. Dr. Thomas L. DeLorme was an avid weightlifter
who trained with progressive heavy resistance himself. Here, he is
lifting a very heavy load in the dead lift on a short bar in his
younger days.
medical and public views of resistance training started to change
(5). Again, adapting to the lower function of his patents
starting a program, the core of his rehabilitation program
was based on a 10 repetition maximum (RM) rather than a 1
RM resistance. In essence, he used multiple sets at various per-
centages (e.g., 50% of 10 RM, 66% of 10 RM, and 10% of 10
RM) to stimulate strength gains in his patients. Thus, the con-
cept of an RM higher than a 1 RM was entered into the resis-
tance training vernacular, meaning a resistance that would
allow only x number of repetitions.
The term progressive resistance training also became an ac-
cepted concept and was the term first coined by DeLorme,
arising from a dinner conversation with his wife who came
up with the name for his rehabilitation programs (16). Through
time, in the late 1940s and 1950s, his research entered the
consciousness of the public because of his status as a respected
orthopedic and rehabilitation physician (Figure 3). DeLorme's

The term progressive resistance training also

Photo courtesy of Drs. Todd.

became an accepted concept and was the term

first coined by DeLorme, arising from a dinner
conversation with his wife who came up with the
name for his rehabilitation programs (16).

Figure 3. Dr. Thomas L. DeLorme was an orthopedic surgeon

historically (Figure 2). Thomas DeLorme was a newly minted at Massachusetts General Hospital and a specialist in
first lieutenant and physician in the U.S. Army who, in 1944, rehabilitation medicine and one of the first advocates of
on facing the multitude of wounded soldiers in the orthopedic progressive resistance training in the medical communities.
department at Gardiner General Army Hospital in Chicago,
was inspired to do more to help them in their rehabilitation pro-
grams. This inspiration arose from his own passionate use of re-
sistance training and weightlifting in his own life. He knew from
his own experiences, including recovery from rheumatic fever,
that improvements in strength and muscle size could be derived
from lifting weights. However, to convince the medical world at
the time of its efficacy would require a major paradigm shift in
the value of resistance training and its therapeutic use in medical
applications (4).
Ultimately, he convinced both the medical and lay commu-
nities that improvement in strength may be the key factor
involved in the successful recovery from injury or surgical inter-
ventions. However, different from his own training regimes using
heavy weights, he realized that a more conservative starting ap-
Photo courtesy of Drs. Todd.

proach to program design had to be taken with the patient pop-

ulations he worked with. To achieve his clinical goals for his
patients, he went so far as to make the rehabilitation unit of the
hospital look like a weight room of the time with all types of equip-
ment to overload the various muscles of the body (4). Through
time, success in his medical research with improved and more
rapid clinical outcomes in his patients using his programs the
Volume 20 | Number 5 www.acsm-healthfitness.org 11

Copyright © 2016 American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
HEALTH & FITNESS A TO Z

writings and research with colleagues at the Massachusetts Gen-
eral Hospital, in Boston, MA, also supported the use of resis-
tance training for both general fitness and sport preparation
(6). A lifelong advocate of resistance training and lifter himself,
he helped lay the foundation for the scientific basis for resis-
tance training from both the clinical and practical program
perspectives.
Interestingly, his own impressive strength was developed by
the rigorous training regimes he performed in his own basement
gym with more than 3,000 lbs of weights. As his son Charles
recalled, he even challenged the York Barbell founder Bob
Hoffman to a one-arm overhead “bent press” contest (16).
One must then connect the dots and see that Dr. DeLorme
was influenced from his youth onward by the anecdotal evidence
and lay publications of the time produced by Bob Hoffman.
One of the highest-profile practitioners of the time in the
fields of weightlifting and bodybuilding, Bob Hoffman, the foun-
der of York Barbell Company in 1932, promoted resistance
training. The York Barbell Company sold barbells, dumbbells,
and weight equipment while promoting the use of resistance
training in pamphlets, books, and publications. The publication
of the magazine Strength and Health and other lay publications
produced by the York Barbell Company had an important in-
fluence that would resonate through the years in providing a
program paradigm for the scientific study of resistance training.
Importantly, this became a thread that would run through many
practical experiences of the scientists who would go on and
study resistance training in their scientific careers. Thus, anec-
dotal insights were gained from the lifting communities as well
as their own involvement in resistance training, which allowed
them to see things, as they say, from being “under the bar” as
lifters themselves.
CONVINCING THE SKEPTICS
Professor Peter Karpovich of Springfield College, in Springfield,
MA was one of the icons of his time in the field of physical edu-
cation and physical fitness. One of the founders of the American
College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), also famous for his feuds
with Dr. Thomas Cureton, another physical fitness icon during
this time at the University of Illinois, Professor Karpovich made
Springfield College an epicenter for physical education and
would help mold many concepts in physical fitness in the
1950s and 1960s. In 1940, one concept he did not believe in
was resistance training. He had noted that the men who pro-
moted lifting were no better than quacks and faddists. But in
1940, a student at Springfield College found this to be inconsis-
tent with what he knew from reading the publications from Bob
middle of their shoulder blades to show how inflexible they
were. When the famous bodybuilder of his time John Grimek
and famous weightlifter John Davis did so easily, Dr. Karpovich
was stunned as the myth dissolved in front of everyone's eyes.
Following up with demonstrations of feats of strength and power,
the students and Dr. Karpovich also were left speechless. After an
extensive set of demonstrations of flexibility, strength, and power
by the athletes Bob Hoffman brought to Springfield College that
day in 1940, the world saw the conversion of one of the biggest
icons and skeptics about resistance training change his mind.
Dr. Karpovich went on to do survey and experimental research
projects to debunk the myths of the time that resistance training
would be unhealthy for the heart, would make you slow, is done
by men of lower intelligence, and that weight training was dan-
gerous. In essence, he provided a core scientific validation for the
study of resistance training and even more importantly, the use
of it for development of physical fitness. Here again, Bob
Hoffman's influence played a role in promoting the modality
as well as resistance training research.
SETS AND REPS AND MAXIMAL STRENGTH
Examining the paradigm of the number of sets and repetitions
was first engrained into the fabric of resistance training studies by
another pioneer in the science of strength training, Dr. Richard
A. Berger (18) (Figure 4). He had served in the Marine Corps
and played football at Michigan State University for a few years
and then continued and received his master's degree in 1956.
Figure 4. Dr. Richard A. Berger’s career was dedicated to
understanding the program design elements of the sets and reps
that lead to optimal strength development. An avid weightlifter
himself, he was inspired by the benefits that he himself saw.
Photo courtesy of Drs. Todd.

Hoffman and the York Barbell Company. He sent a letter to

Bob Hoffman asking him to come and present in a formal forum
at the college the attributes of weight training. To his surprise,
Bob Hoffman came to Springfield College and brought some
famous weightlifters and bodybuilders along with him. Myths
as to being muscle-bound and inflexible were dismissed roundly
as Dr. Karpovich asked each athlete to scratch their back in the
12 ACSM’s Health & Fitness Journal ® September/October 2016

Copyright © 2016 American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
He was an accomplished weightlifter in his own right and placed
fourth at the Nationals in 1962. Interestingly, he did his doctoral
work at the University of Illinois where Dr. Cureton headed up
the laboratory program. His dissertation examined resistance
training and was entitled “The Effect of Varied Weight Train-
ing Programs,” a research topic that would characterize his
work for many years as a faculty member at Texas Tech and
Temple University (1). Ironically, in some way, his model of
studying resistance training still reflects the designs used in the
studies of today where different programs using sets and reps com-
binations are examined. His research really started to differenti-
ate what combination of sets and reps resulted in the best
response with a training program. His seminal research using
untrained college students, observed that three sets of six reps
lifted at maximal intensity produced the greatest response to
short-term training durations (2). This finding has stood as a
benchmark for loading in the science of resistance training for
decades. His involvement in the American Alliance of Health
and Physical Education in leadership roles along with his publi-
cations on resistance training programs and their effects on
1RM strength set the stage for the study of resistance training
that persists today (18). The research challenges that were evi-
dent in the 1960s and 1970s such as short-term time frames
for the resistance training intervention (e.g., 6–8 weeks), training
levels of subjects, methods of variation of program variables,
and how to use realistic whole-body programs in highly moti-
vated subjects or athletes remain today.
An avid weight trainer and training theorist who pushed the
concepts of resistance training with his books and research was
Dr. Patrick O'Shea (17). His 1996 book Quantum Strength Fitness
II: Gaining the Winning Edge stands as a must-read for anyone in-
volved in resistance training. Again, a product of the 1950s
and a weightlifting enthusiast, he used his position as a faculty
member at Oregon State University to promote lifting and its
use in athletics and for the general population interested in fit-
ness (14,15). Interestingly, he was one of the first to study the ef-
fects of anabolic steroids in men who were performing resistance
training programs showing what athletes had known for some
time, that heavy resistance training, higher protein intakes,
and anabolic steroids improve gains in muscular size and perfor-
mance to a greater extent than heavy resistance training alone.
It was published in the journal SCIENCE in 1969 as the world
of sports medicine was just starting to learn about anabolic ste-
roid use by athletes (13). He also turned his attention to the pos-
itive effects that weight training could have in women, acting as
the strength coach at Oregon State along with his faculty teach-
ing and research responsibilities. He established in his research
and practical work in the weight room that the squat was the
cornerstone lift for both men and women in a strength training
program. The efficacy of weight training for women and espe-
cially athletes was later supported in a study by Dr. Jack Wilmore,
a future icon in the field of exercise physiology and a past
president of ACSM. In his laboratory in 1974, Dr. Wilmore mon-
itored women athletes in their weight training programs at
Volume 20 | Number 5
Copyright © 2016 American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the university and showed that improvement in strength and
body composition resulted with real-life progressive heavy re-
sistance training programs as characterized decades before by
Dr. DeLorme (3).
THE NEXT PHASE OF SCIENTIFIC EVOLUTION
As with any field, the 1950s and 1960s leading into the early
1970s were filled with different investigations around the world
and within the United States (Figure 4). What was obvious in the
early phases of the evolution of resistance training research was
the fact that no scientists who were women were principal inves-
tigators on this topic. It most undoubtedly was because of the
belief that resistance training for women was thought to not be
appropriate. Thus, most of the data were derived from men
who were college age and relatively untrained (Figure 5).
What was obvious in the early phases of the
evolution of resistance training research was
the fact that no scientists who were women
were principal investigators on this topic. It
most undoubtedly was because of the belief
that resistance training for women was thought
to not be appropriate.
Undoubtedly, the evolution of the science of resistance train-
ing in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s in the United States was fostered
by men who had been avid participants themselves in weight-
lifting, derived from their practical interest and readings at the
time in the world of resistance training, and who took it to the
next level of study. The seeds had been planted for further devel-
opment in the study of this modality as from the 1970s forward,
Figure 5. Tracking the clusters of investigations though the web of
science, it was obvious that a linkage arose from A.V. Hill to Thomas
DeLorme and to Richard Berger. The trends of such early work by these
investigators set the stage for more work in the 1970s and beyond in
the study of resistance training.
www.acsm-healthfitness.org 13
HEALTH & FITNESS A TO Z
people started to show an increased interest in the pursuit of un-
derstanding. Yet, a long road to efficacy and acceptance still
remained. The 1970s and 1980s would produce the next gener-
ation of investigators attempting to push the knowledge base
ahead and again see the proliferation of corporate interest and
influence on practices and programs. The cellular science was
waiting to take advantage of the modality as a prolific stimulus
to physiological systems but would result in a drift in the exper-
imental designs away from the practical application of the mo-
dality. Nevertheless, a few of the early pioneers in the field
covered in this brief review had dramatic influence on the use
of resistance training and its future study. From the past to the
future, the evolution of our study of resistance training continues
because of the visceral attraction of humans to muscle and
strength. Despite and amidst the angst and conflict of solidifying
scientific concepts and principles with scientific experimentation
from the basic to practical continuum of understanding, our
pursuit continues. Stay tuned for more.
1. Berger R. Effect of varied weight training programs on strength. Res Q. 1962;33
(2):168–81.
2. Berger R. Optimum repetitions for developing strength. Res Q. 1962;33(3):334–8.
3. Brown CH, Wilmore JH. The effects of maximal resistance training on the strength
and body composition of women athletes. Med Sci Sports. 1974;6(3):174–7.
4. DeLorme TL, Watkins AL. Technics of progressive resistance exercise. Arch Phys
Med Rehabil. 1948;29(5):263–73.
5. DeLorme TL, West FE, Shriber WJ. Influence of progressive resistance exercises
on knee function following femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1950;
32 A(4):910–24.
6. Gallagher JR, De LT. The use of the technique of progressive-resistance exercise in
adolescence. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1949;31A(4):847–58.
7. Hill AV. Length of muscle, and the heat and tension developed in an isometric
contraction. J Physiol. 1925;60(4):237–63.
14 ACSM’s Health & Fitness Journal ®
Copyright © 2016 American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
8. Hill AV. Muscular activity and carbohydrate metabolism. Science. 1924;60(1562):
505–14.
9. Hill AV, Long CN, Lupton H. The effect of fatigue on the relation between work and
speed, in contraction of human arm muscles. J Physiol. 1924;58(4–5):334–7.
10. Huxley AF, Niedergerke R. Measurement of muscle striations in stretch and
contraction. J Physiol. 1954;124(2):46–7P.
11. Huxley AF, Niedergerke R. Structural changes in muscle during contraction;
interference microscopy of living muscle fibres. Nature. 1954;173(4412):971–3.
12. Huxley H, Hanson J. Changes in the cross-striations of muscle during contraction
and stretch and their structural interpretation. Nature. 1954;173(4412):973–6.
13. Johnson LC, O'Shea JP. Anabolic steroid: effects on strength development.
Science. 1969(3882);164:957–9.
14. O'Shea JP. Effects of selected weight training programs on the development of
strength and muscle hypertrophy. Res Q. 1966;37(1):95–102.
15. O'Shea JP. Effects of varied, short term weight training programs on improving
performances in the 400-meter run. Res Q. 1969;40(1):248–50.
16. Todd JS, Shurley JP, Todd TC. Thomas L. DeLorme and the science of progressive
resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(11):2913–23.
17. Todd T, Todd J. Dr. Patrick O'Shea: a man for all seasons. J Strength Cond Res.
2001;15(4):401–4.
18. Todd TC, Todd JS. Pioneers of strength research: the legacy of Dr. Richard A.
Berger. J Strength Cond Res. 2001;15(3):275–8.
Disclosure: The author declares no conflict of interest and does not have any
financial disclosures.
William J. Kraemer, Ph.D., FACSM, is a full pro-
fessor in the Department of Human Sciences at The
Ohio State University in Columbus, OH. His re-
search has focused on neuromuscular physiology of
resistance training and the underlying mechanisms
mediating adaptation and recovery. He has pub-
lished more than 450 peer-reviewed articles in the
scientific literature and 12 books in the areas of resis-
tance training and exercise physiology.
September/October 2016