Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318280cc26

TITLE: Concurrent training in elite male runners: The influence of strength versus
muscular endurance training on performance outcomes
RUNNING HEAD: Strength training in endurance runners.
Silvia Sedano 1, Pedro J. Marín1,2, Gonzalo Cuadrado3, Juan Carlos Redondo 3

1
Laboratory of Physiology. European University Miguel de Cervantes, Valladolid,
Spain.
2
Research Center on Physical Disability, ASPAYM Castilla y León, Spain.
3
Faculty of Sports Sciences, Department of Movement and Sport Sciences, University
of Leon, Spain.

D
Addresses

TE
Pedro J. Marín/ European University Miguel de Cervantes, C/Padre Julio Chevalier,

2.47012, Valladolid (Spain).

Gonzalo Cuadrado / University of León. Faculty of Sports Sciences. Campus de

Vegazana s/n, 24071. León. (Spain).

EP
Juan Carlos Redondo/ University of León. Faculty of Sports Sciences. Campus de

Vegazana s/n, 24071. León. (Spain).

Corresponding author: Silvia Sedano, Ph.D.

C

Address: European University Miguel de Cervantes, C/Padre Julio Chevalier, 2.47012,

Valladolid (Spain).
C

Telephone: +34616797322

Fax number: +34983278958

A

Email: [email protected]

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength training in endurance runners. 2

ABSTRACT

Much recent attention has been given to the compatibility of combined aerobic and

anaerobic training modalities. However few of these studies have reported data related to

D
well-trained runners, which is a potential limitation. Therefore, due to the limited evidence

available for this population, the main aim was to determine which mode of concurrent

TE
strength-endurance training might be the most effective at improving running performance in

highly-trained runners. Eighteen well-trained male runners (age 23.7± 1.2 yr) with a maximal

oxygen consumption (VO2max) higher than 65 mL.kg-1.min-1 were randomly assigned into one
EP
of the three groups: Endurance-only Group (EG; n=6), who continued their usual training,

which included general strength training with Thera-band latex-free exercise bands and

endurance training; Strength Group (SG; n=6) who performed combined resistance and

plyometric exercises and endurance training; Endurance-Strength Group (ESG; n=6) who
C

performed endurance-strength training with loads of 40% and endurance training.. The study

comprised 12 weeks of training in which runners trained 8 times a week (6 endurance

C

sessions and 2 strength sessions) and 5 weeks of detraining. The subjects were tested on three

different occasions (counter movement jump height, hopping test average height, one-
A

repetition-maximum, running economy, VO2max, maximal heart rate (HRmax), peak velocity,

rating of perceived exertion and 3-km time trial were measured). Findings revealed significant

time x group interaction effects for all almost tests (p <0.05). We can conclude that

concurrent training (CT) for both SG and ESG groups led to improved maximal strength,

running economy and peak velocity with no significant effects on the VO2 kinetics pattern.

The SG group also seems to show improvements in 3-km time trial tests.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength training in endurance runners. 3

Key words: Concurrent effect; muscle strength; interference; exercise; power.

D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength training in endurance runners. 4

INTRODUCTION

Distance running success is dependent on physiological attributes such as a high

maximal oxygen uptake, especially in novice and young athletes (1,2). However, VO2max is

not a good predictor of distance running performance in elite athletes since neuromuscular

and anaerobic characteristics might also be significant determinants of running performance

(1,3,4,5). In highly trained athletes, variables such as peak treadmill running velocity during a

D
maximal aerobic power test are better predictors of endurance performance, because they are

influenced not only by aerobic power but also by these neuromuscular and anaerobic

TE
characteristics (4). In fact, an improvement in race time would be the true indicator of

improved performance (6); however, few studies include a time trial to assess improvements

in this area (2,3,4). On the other hand, running economy (RE), which has been defined as
EP
oxygen uptake required at a given submaximal velocity (7), could also be considered as a

determinant factor in running performance.

There are some neuromuscular characteristics associated with RE such as muscle force
C

and stiffness, fiber type distribution, elasticity, or neural input (8). These factors could also be

improved by strength training (6,9,10), increasing the muscle work efficiency and permitting
C

aerobic activity at a lower oxygen consumption at submaximal intensities (3,7,10, 11,12).

Highly economic runners present lower energetic costs at submaximal speeds and,
A

consequently, tend to run faster over a given distance or to run longer at a constant speed.

(8,13). Therefore, targeting running economy provides a strong justification for the inclusion

of strength training in distance runners’ training program, as resistance training may improve

mechanical efficiency, muscle coordination, and motor recruitment patterns and reduce

relative intensity (3,6,9,14,15,16).

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength training in endurance runners. 5

Many competitive endurance athletes perform concurrent strength and endurance

training (CT) in order to improve their specific endurance performance. However, combining

strength and endurance training is difficult because of the conflicting demands of each type of

activity (12,17,18,19,20). Moreover, many endurance runners refrain from CT to avoid gains

in muscle mass (21) including either very little or no resistance training and focusing on

aerobic exercises. Nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that CT can elevate maximal muscle

D
strength without muscle hypertrophy, which could also result in enhanced endurance

performance in highly trained endurance athletes (3,8,10,17,21,22,23,24). However, few of

TE
these studies have reported data related to highly-trained runners (8,23). Athletes participating

in these studies could not be considered as absolute top-level endurance athletes because of

their VO2max. Consequently, it might be difficult to transfer the results to elite athletes where

the trainability of VO2max is limited (6,9), and improvements in running performance could be
EP
related to neuromuscular characteristics and RE (6).

One unresolved question is the influence of different types of strength training on certain

endurance related variables, because the training-induced adaptations in the neuromuscular

C

system differ according to the specific mode of exercise used for strength training (25). Some

authors have reported improvements in endurance performance with explosive strength

C

training (3,8,16) heavy resistance strength training (13,14,17,21) or circuit training (26). They

have verified significant improvements in endurance performance after training; however,

A

only two studies have been conducted to compare different strength training modes when they

are combined with endurance training (3,8), leading to opposite conclusions. On the other

hand, detraining may be defined as the provisional or permanent reduction or withdrawal of a

training stimulus which may result a decrease in athletic performance. The knowledge of the

detraining phenomenon will provide coaches with useful information for developing exercise

strategies. Whereas some studies show the effects of detraining adaptations after strength

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength training in endurance runners. 6

training or after endurance training in older adults (27, 28) and in young men (29), no

research has been conducted on this topic with regard to different CT modes in highly trained

athletes.

Owing to the limited evidence available for highly-trained runners, the main purpose of

this study was to determine which mode of CT training might be the most effective at

improving running performance and running economy in highly-trained runners. Moreover,

D
another aim was to compare the influence of different CT modes on the detraining adaptations

in these highly-trained runners. The present study is consistent with the hypothesis that adding

TE
explosive and strength-endurance training to the usual endurance training of highly-trained

runners can improve running performance.

METHODS
EP
Experimental approach to the problem

Eighteen well-trained male runners (3000-5000 m) with a VO2max higher than 65

mL.kg-1.min-1 and an average training history of at least four years participated in the study.
C

They were randomized divided into 3 groups according to their training programs: the

Endurance-only Group (EG) who continued their usual training, which included general
C

strength training and endurance training; the Strength Group (SG) and the Endurance-
A

Strength Group (ESG) who performed explosive or endurance-strength training, respectively,

instead of general strength training. The independent variable was the treatment effect of three

different 12-week concurrent training programs. The dependent variables were fat mass,

counter movement jump (CMJ) height, hopping jump test average height, maximal strength

(1-RM), 3-km time trial, running economy and peak velocity, maximal heart rate and

maximal oxygen consumption in a treadmill running test. Each variable was measured on 3

occasions: 1 week before the start of the training program, after 12 weeks of training and 5

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength training in endurance runners. 7

weeks after the end of the program (detraining period). Two-way ANOVA with repeated

measures and Bonferroni post-hoc tests were conducted to assess the effects.

Subjects

Eighteen well-trained male runners (3000-5000 m) volunteered for the study. The study

was approved by the Ethical Committee of the European University Miguel de Cervantes

(Spain). Subjects were made fully notified aware of the possible risks and signed an informed

D
consent form before participation. The selection criterions were that the subjects were well-

trained runners with a VO2max higher than 65 mL.kg-1.min-1 and had an average training

TE
history of at least four years. All of them were competing at Spanish national level. Their

subjects’ characteristics and anthropometric data are shown in Table 1.

EP
****TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE****

Procedures

The total duration of the study was 12 weeks and it was completed during the specific
C

phase of the periodization (January, February and March), after 10 weeks of general training

(October, November and December), where runners practiced the same strength exercises that
C

they would further perform during the intervention, in order to familiarize them. During the

study, runners were not allowed to perform any other training that might influence the results
A

and they were previously informed about hydration, rest and nutrition patterns. The subjects

were tested on three different occasions with identical protocols as shown in the figure 1.

****FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE****

Testing

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength training in endurance runners. 8

The participants were familiarized with the testing procedures, having been tested

regularly as part of their training program. All participants were required to attend three trial

sessions. In the first, anthropometric profile, and explosive and maximal strength were

assessed. Two days later, in the second session, running tests at the treadmill were performed.

Finally, in the third session, 48 hours apart, they carried out track running tests. Runners were

instructed to refrain from intense exercise on the day preceding a test and to consume the

D
same type of meal before testing. They were not allowed to consume products containing

caffeine in the 4 h immediately before a test. All the tests (except track running tests) were

TE
performed at the same time of day in a climate-controlled (18-20º) laboratory. All the

measurements were highly reliable, with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) ranging

from 0.94 to 0.99 in anthropometric tests, from 0.92 to 0.94 in strength tests, from 0.96 to

0.97 in treadmill running tests and from 0.95 to 0.97 in track running tests.
EP
Anthropometric data

Body mass and height were measured with a Holtain Stadiometer (British Indicators
C

Ltd., Pembrokeshire, UK) (95-190 cm, accurate to 0.1 cm) and a SECA Tanita BC-418MA

electronic scale (Tanita Corporation of America, Inc. Illinois, USA) (0-150 kg, accurate to 0.1
C

kg). Body composition was assessed with the skinfold technique. The same ISAK level II

anthropometrist obtained all anthropometric measurements in standardized order on the right

A

side of the subject’s body. Skinfold thickness was obtained with an AW610 Holtain (British

Indicators Ltd., Pembrokeshire, UK) limiting caliper (0-48 mm, accurate to 0.2 mm). 6

skinfolds were measured (triceps, subscapular, suprailial, abdomen, front thigh and medial

calf) and the subsequent fat mass percentage was calculated using the formula of Faulkner

(30).

Explosive and maximal strength

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength training in endurance runners. 9

Before the start of the strength tests, participants went through a standardized 20-minute

warm-up. To assess explosive strength, runners performed three trials of counter movement

jump (CMJ) on a jumping mat (SportJUMP 2 System; DSD, León, Spain) and the best result

was used for the statistical analysis. The rest between trials was 60 seconds. After a 5-minute

rest period runners carried out a hopping test in which maximal vertical rebounds on both legs

were executed from a standing position for 25 s. Subjects were instructed to rebound to the

D
highest possible point with the smallest ground contact time and to keep hands on hips

throughout the hops. Average height was recorded.

TE
After a 10-minute rest period, a one-repetition-maximum (1-RM) test, following the

protocol established by the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA), was

performed to measure the maximal strength. First, runners were instructed to warm up with a
EP
light resistance that easily allowed 5-10 repetitions. After a 1-minute rest period, we estimated

a warm-up load that would allow them to complete 3-5 repetitions by adding 10-20%. After a

2-minute rest period, we estimated a near-maximum load that would allow for 2-3 repetitions

by adding 10-20% again. Then, we introduced a 3-min rest prior to consecutive load increases
C

of 10-20 % until the runner could complete only one repetition with a proper exercise

technique. The 1-RM test was calculated for the same exercises used in the training program
C

in SG and ESG, which were always carried out in the same order: barbell squat (90º), lying

leg curl, seated calf raises and leg extension. A 5-minute rest was taken between exercises.
A

Running economy

Before the start of the RE test participants performed a 10-minute warm-up on the

treadmill at 8 km.h-1. After that, running economy (RE) was determined by means of a

discontinuous protocol similar to that described by Cole et al. (2). Runners ran at three

different speeds (12 km.h-1, 14 km.h-1 and 16 km.h-1) with a constant grade of 0% for 6

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength training in endurance runners. 10

minutes. The average VO2 over the last minute at each of the running speeds was used as a

measure of RE for a given speed, provided the difference between VO2 values was lower than

2.0 ml.kg-1.min-1. In instances where VO2 differences were greater than 2.0 mL.kg-1.min-1,

VO2 measurements over the last 90 s were used. At the conclusion of each 6-minute period,

the treadmill speed was reduced to 4 km.h-1 for 2- minute.

Treadmill running test

D
After a 30-minute rest period, VO2max, HRmax, peak velocity (PV) and rating of perceived

TE
exertion (RPE) were determined with an incremental test to exhaustion on a Technogym MD

500 treadmill (Technogym Wellness Company, Gambettola, Italy). First, they performed a

10-minute warm-up at 8 km.h-1. The test started at 12 km.h-1 and the initial velocity was

progressively increased by 0.25 km.h-1 every 30 s until exhaustion, with a constant grade of
EP
1%. Throughout the test, expired air was continuously sampled on a breath-by-breath basis

with a SensorMedics 2900Z zirconium 02 and infrared CO2 analyzer (SensorMedics, Yorba

Linda, CA, USA). O2 and CO2 analyzers, interfaced to a personal computer, were calibrated
C

before, and verified after each test. Heart rate was recorded at 5-s intervals by the S210 (Polar

Electro, Kempele, Finland) and RPE was obtained with the 15-category Borg Rating of
C

Perceived Exertion Scale. The maximal test was considered valid if it meet two of the

following criteria: failure to continue the exercise stage despite strong verbal encouragement
A

(volitional fatigue), a respiratory exchange ratio greater than 1.15 and a heart rate within 10

beats of the age-predicted maximum, 207-0.7 x age (31). The mean of the 5 highest VO2

values obtained during the test was defined as the VO2max and PV was taken as the highest

speed maintained for 30 s during the running. The second ventilatory threshold and its

correspondent heart rate (HRVT) were also assessed in order to establish the intensity of

endurance training.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength training in endurance runners. 11

Track running tests

After a 20-minute warm up, runners were randomly divided into two groups of nine

subjects to perform a 3 km time trial on a 400-m outdoor track. The split times were given to

athletes during the 3km (every 500 m). Total time employed was registered for each subject.

Training

D
During the intervention program, runners trained 8 times a week (6 endurance sessions

and 2 strength sessions). Endurance sessions were performed individually and strength

TE
sessions in groups of 6 athletes. They were always supervised by at least 1 experienced

personal trainer with careful attention to proper exercise technique. Subjects recorded all

training activities in a training log, which was reviewed and analyzed by an experienced
EP
researcher. During the study, players were not allowed to perform any other training that

would impact the results. A more detailed description of the 12-week training program is

presented in Table 2. After the intervention all the groups continued with their usual strength

training program which was similar to that employed in the EG during the intervention.
C

****TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE****

C

Endurance training

Endurance training consisted primarily of cross-country or road running for 0.5-1.5

A

hours, Fartlek for 0.5-1.5 h and interval training. During training, exercise heart-rates were

continuously monitored using heart rate monitors in order to divide the exercise into three HR

zones using the HRVT obtained in the maximal incremental test: (1) 75-85%, (2) 85-95%, (3)

95-100% of the HRVT. The total time spent on endurance training and the distribution of this

training within the training zones were the same among groups.

Strength training

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength training in endurance runners. 12

In addition to the endurance training, runners performed a strength training program

twice a week, which was different for each group. These training programs were focused on

lower-limb muscles: quadriceps, hamstrings and calf muscles. At the start of each strength

training session, runners performed a 10-min warm up at self-selected intensity on a treadmill

followed by specific muscle stretching and a specific warm-up, with 1 set of 25 repetitions

with very light loads for the lower body exercises. A percentage of each subject’s 1RM for

D
each exercise was used to determine the intensity each week. The intensity and number of

repetitions performed for each exercise were changed progressively every two weeks, and

TE
were adjusted for new 1RM measured at the midpoint (week 7) of training.

- EG: During the intervention this group performed general strength training as they usually

carried out in this period of the season. This training included a circuit of 4 exercises
EP
focused on lower-limb muscles, where external resistance was provided by means of blue

Thera-Band latex-free exercise bands (The Hygienic Corporation, Akron, OH, USA).

Each circuit was repeated three times with 25 repetitions per exercise. Rest periods lasted

25-s between exercises and 5-minute between series.

C

- SG: Their training program included combined resistance and plyometric exercises.

Sessions included barbell squat (range between 0 to 90º knee flexion), lying leg curl,
C

seated calf raises and leg extension performed with 3 sets of 7 repetitions with 70% of the
A

maximal load. Each resistance exercise was combined with a plyometric exercise focused

on lower limbs and performed on a hard synthetic surface. The rests between sets and

between exercises lasted 5-minute.

- ESG: Their training program included the same resistance exercises as SG, performed

with 3 sets of 20 repetitions with 40 % of the maximal load. The rest period between

series was of 60-s and between exercises was of 5-minute.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength training in endurance runners. 13

On days when both strength and endurance training were scheduled, the runners were

required to perform strength training in the first training session of the day and endurance

training in the second session, at least 5-h apart. A minimum of 24 hours separated each

strength training session. Tables 2 and 3 show the general training regimen during the study

and the strength training details respectively.

****TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE****

D
Statistical Analyses

TE
Normality of distribution was tested by means of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.

Standard statistical methods were used for the calculation of the means and SD. One-way

ANOVA was carried out to determine differences among the 3 groups’ values at baseline in
EP
all variables analyzed. Training-related effects were assessed using two-way ANOVA with

repeated measures (group x time). When a significant F-value was achieved by means of

Wilks’s Lambda, Bonferroni post hoc procedures were performed to locate the pairwise

differences. Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons was applied. Magnitude of

C

treatment effects within groups were estimated with Cohen’s (32) effect size (ES). The

within-group ES is defined as the difference between posttest mean and pretest mean, divided
C

by pretest SD. Rhea (33) classified ESs as “trivial” (<0.25), “small” (0.25-0.50), moderate

(0.50-1.0) and “large” (>1.0). In addition, the reliability of measurements was calculated
A

using intraclass correlation coeficients (ICC). The P <0.05 criterion was used for establishing

statistical significance.

RESULTS

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test suggested that all variables were distributed normally (P

>0.05). Results of comparative analysis (one-way ANOVA) among EG, SG and ESG at

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength training in endurance runners. 14

baseline revealed that there were no statistically significant differences before the start of the

training program.

Anthropometric features

Results did not reveal interaction effects for body mass or body fat percentage.

Explosive and maximal strength

D
Results revealed significant time x group interaction effects both for explosive and

maximal strength variables (Table 4). Bonferroni post-hoc tests identified the differences

TE
between T1 and T2 (P =0.002, P =0.001) and between T1 and T3 (P =0.001, P =0.007) both

for CMJ and hopping test in SG. On the other hand, Bonferroni post-hoc tests found the

differences between T1 and T2 (P <0.05) and T1 and T3 (P <0.05) in all the variables
EP
analyzed for both SG and ESG.

****TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE****

Treadmill running tests

C

In the running economy test, results revealed significant time x group interaction effects
C

for VO2 at 12 km.h-1 and VO2 at 16 km.h-1, but not for VO2 at 14 km.h-1 . In VO2 at 12 km.h-1.

Bonferroni post-hoc tests identified the differences between T1 and T2 and between T1 and
A

T3 both for SG and ESG (Figure 2). On the other hand, differences in VO2 at 16 km.h-1

appeared between T1 & T2, and T1 & T3, only in the SG group (Figure 3).

****FIGURES 2 AND 3 ABOUT HERE****

In the incremental test to exhaustion, results showed significant time x group interaction

effects for both PV and RPE, but not for VO2max or HR max (Table 5). In RPE differences were

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength training in endurance runners. 15

located between T1 and T2 (P =0.001) and T1 and T3 (P =0.001) in SG. In PV differences

were identified between T1 and T2 (P =0.001, P =0.003), and between T1 and T3 (P =0.001;

P =0.001) for both SG and ESG.

****TABLE 5 ABOUT HERE****

Track running test

D
Results revealed significant time x group interaction effects in 3 km time trial.

Differences were located between T1 & T2 and T1 & T3 for SG (Figure 4).

TE
****FIGURE 4 ABOUT HERE****

DISCUSSION
EP
To our knowledge, this is the first study which focuses on the comparison of the

influence of different concurrent training modes on running performance in highly-trained

runners and on the detraining adaptations of these concurrent training modes. The rationale

for this study was based on the hypothesis that endurance performance is influenced not only
C

by central factors but also by peripheral factors relating to neuromuscular characteristics

(1,3,4,5). The major finding of this study was that adding both explosive and strength-
C

endurance training to the usual endurance training of highly-trained runners resulted in

increased running performance in terms of peak velocity and running economy without
A

changes in variables such as VO2max or HRmax. Explosive strength training also resulted in

improvements in time trial in a 3km track running test, which can be considered as a true

indicator of improved performance.

Explosive and maximal strength

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength training in endurance runners. 16

The current results revealed that there was a gain in maximal strength (i.e. 1 RM) both

in SG and in ESG whereas there were no changes during the intervention in EG. Those

improvements were maintained during the detraining period. Studies developed in untrained

middle-aged men (25) and in well- trained triathletes (22) also found gains in maximal

strength with CT. These improvements can be achieved with no increase in body weight

(11,13,21) which seems to be a concern among runners.

D
Balabinis et al. (19) stated that vertical jump performance could be improved without

any specific jump training due to exercises such as squat. However in the current study, only

TE
the group that included plyometric training improved explosive strength in terms of jumping

ability. Another study, which did not include plyometric exercises, did not report significant

improvements in vertical jump with concurrent training (34). The divergent findings
EP
concerning vertical jump can, however, be attributed to varying methodologies among study

training protocols.

Treadmill running tests

C

Research in the literature focused predominantly on the impact of endurance training on

strength performance and not on the effects of resistance training on endurance performance.
C

Moreover, the scientific literature is equivocal concerning the impact of resistance training on

endurance performance. Over the past decades, one of the most popular beliefs in exercise
A

physiology has been that endurance performance is limited by central factors such as VO2max

or HRmax. However, it has been observed that some endurance athletes are unable to perform

well in a given sport event, although their oxygen transport and utilization capacity are high.

Furthermore, results obtained in the current study revealed that both SG and ESG improved

VO2 at 12 km.h.-1 and peak velocity without significant changes in VO2max or HRmax. SG also

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength training in endurance runners. 17

improved running economy at 16 km.h.-1 and RPE ratings. All those changes were maintained

during the detraining period.

In line with the current study, studies of endurance athletes have shown that replacing

some aerobic training with strength training improves aerobic performance without producing

changes in variables such as VO2max or HRmax (3,11,12,15,22), especially when trained

subjects are involved. Conversely, some authors reported significant improvements in VO2max

D
with resistance training (19,25). However, these could also be related with the low initial level

of aerobic capacity in the samples employed. The principle of training specificity predicts that

TE
endurance training alone should produce a greater increase in VO2max than concurrent

training. Our data did not support this principle, however, probably owing to the initial high

level of the aerobic capacity of the subjects, with limited trainability. The addition of strength
EP
training did not negatively affect the development of VO2max which is in line with other

studies (11,15, 19, 24, 35). This indicates that neuromuscular and anaerobic characteristics of

muscles contribute to running performance and that the central factors are not the only

determinants of performance (4,11) especially when variables such as VO2max are held
C

constant, which is the case in well-trained athletes (6). These results collectively demonstrate

compatibility rather than interference between strength and endurance training in athletes,
C

supporting the concept of an “additive effect” (11).

A

Results related to RE are in line with those of Paavolainen et al. (3) in trained male

distance runners, Jonhston et al. (13) in female distance runners, Millet et al. (11) in triathletes

and Hoff et al. (15) in cross-country skiers who indicated that athletes who all performed

combined strength and endurance training had a superior movement economy that the athletes

who merely continued their regular endurance training lacked. Conversely, Millet et al. (11)

in well-trained triathletes and Levin et al. (23) in well-trained cyclists did not find

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength training in endurance runners. 18

improvements in RE, relating this lack of improvements to the fact that they were highly-

trained athletes, who have a narrow margin of improvement. However, our results revealed

improvements in RE in highly-trained athletes, which is in line with other findings in well-

trained cyclists (10).

The improvements in RE could be partially related to the improvements in maximal

strength, as muscle fiber tension developed in each running movement would decrease to a

D
lower percentage of the maximal values (15,20,21,36). This might also contribute to a

reduced degree of muscle fiber exhaustion. According to the size principle of muscle fiber

TE
type recruitment this would allow reduced reliance on type II muscle fibers for the same

submaximal load, improving economy and reducing overall muscle fatigue (11,35). On the

other hand, strength training programs might result in better muscular coordination and
EP
therefore better mechanical efficiency of running style, which reduces oxygen consumption

for the same submaximal intensity (3, 13, 15, 37). This is particularly the case with the group

that performed explosive training, as they improved economy even in higher velocities of

running. Moreover, Cadore et al. (35) pointed out that in most studies in which strength
C

training improves economy, the type of training carried out includes explosive strength

training.
C

Contrary to the results obtained in the current study, some authors have pointed out
A

that RE could be improved using heavy weight strength training but not with explosive

strength training (8, 21). However, the samples employed by these authors did not present

previous experience with a resistive training protocol, and this could have contributed to their

improvement levels. Jonhston et al. (13) and Ronnestad et al. (24) also found that traditional

resistance training improves endurance performance in both trained and untrained individuals.

Conversely, Spurrs et al. (38) and Turner et al. (39) have shown that 6-week plyometric

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength training in endurance runners. 19

training led to improvements in RE as this type of training has the potential to increase

activation of the motor units and to increase the stiffness of the muscle-tendon system, which

allow the body to store and utilize elastic energy more effectively. Our results confirm those

results since demonstrated that not only an explosive but also a low-resistance training

program are effective to improve endurance performance. Balabinis et al. (19) reported that a

low-resistance training program combined with plyometrics was not effective in improving

D
aerobic capacity in basketball players. The concept of movement specificity suggests that the

type of resistance training used should closely model the movement that will be performed in

TE
competition (6). Consequently, Paavolainen et al. (3) and Jones and Bampouras (16) stated

that explosive training, mimicking the eccentric phase of running, is most likely to improve

the use of stored elastic energy and motor unit synchronization which increases the ability of

the lower-limb joints to act stiffer on ground contact. Moreover, Millet et al. (11) stated that
EP
explosive-strength training leads to different muscular adaptations than does typical heavy

weight training; for example, a greater increase in the rate of activation of the motor units.

Yamamoto et al. (37) also stated that explosive training benefits the performance of trained
C

cyclists.

On the other hand, peak treadmill running performance is a good predictor of track
C

running performance (3). The increased time to exhaustion in SG and ESG might be a result

of the superior improvement in running economy as it could lead to a reduction in VO2,

A

depletion of energy stores, delayed accumulation of metabolites and an attenuated increase in

core body temperature (24). RPE is a subjective indirect measure of performance, and it can

be used as a sensitive predictor of time to exhaustion during exercise. Interestingly, at the

post-intervention test, athletes in SG reported significant lower RPE rates during the treadmill

running test whereas there was no change in ESG or EG. These results are comparable with

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength training in endurance runners. 20

those registered in cyclists (36). In contrast, Hausswirth et al. (22) did not find variations in

perceived exertion after 5 weeks of concurrent training in well trained triathletes.

Track running tests

Our results revealed that there was a significant gain in 3-km time trial with explosive

strength training, which might be a true indicator of improved performance (6, 40). This

improvement was also maintained during the detraining period, although Cole et al. (2) stated

D
that muscle strength and power were not significantly related to 5-km race time in adolescent

TE
male cross-country runners. Paavolainen et al. (3) also showed improvements in 5-km running

performance of well-trained male endurance athletes with concurrent training that included

explosive strength training. They related these improvements to neuromuscular characteristics

and to improvements in running economy.

EP
PRACTICAL APLICATIONS

Although, well-trained runners still refrain from strength training for fear that it will

increase their muscle mass and consequently decrease their performance capacity, this paper
C

contains information about the beneficial effects of CT in runners performance. Based on the

results, we can conclude that CT, including both explosive and endurance-strength training,
C

led to improved maximal strength, running economy and peak velocity with no significant
A

effects on the VO2 kinetics pattern. Therefore, its inclusion in the training program of well-

trained endurance athletes is recommended for coaches. Moreover, explosive strength training

also led to improvements in time trial, which is especially significant for a distance runner, as

it could be considered as a true indicator of running performance. On the other hand, the fact

that achievements can subsequently be maintained with normal endurance training is also

important for practitioners. Moreover, coaches must take into account that regular endurance

training can maintain the gains for several weeks after the 12-week program.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength training in endurance runners. 21

Finally it may be concluded that CT should be an integral component of well-trained

athletes’ practice regimen, because of its potential to improve the performance. However, it

must be taken into consideration that our sample is not as wide as to claim that results

previously mentioned could easily be extrapolated. Therefore, further studies with a greater

sample must be developed.

D
References

TE
1. Jones, AM, and Carter, H. The effect of endurance training on parameters of aerobic

fitness. Sports Med 29: 373-386, 2000.

2. Cole, AS, Woodruff, ME, Horn, MP, and Mahon, AD. Strength, power and aerobic
EP
exercise correlates of 5-km cross-country running performance in adolescent runners.

Pediatric Exercise Science 18: 374-384, 2006.

3. Paavolainen, LM, Hakkinen, K, Hamalainen, I, Nummela, A, and Rusko H.

Explosive-strength training improves 5-km running time by improving running

C

economy and muscle power. J Appl Physiol 86: 1527-1533, 1999.

4. Paavolainen, LM, Nummela, AT, and Rusko, H. Neuromuscular characteristics and

C

muscle power as determinants of 5-km running performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc

31: 124-130, 1999.

A

5. Bassett DR, and Howley, ET. Limiting factors for maximum oxygen uptake and

determinants of endurance performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32: 70-84, 2000.

6. Jung, AP. The impact of resistance training on distance running performance. Sports

Med 33: 539-552, 2003.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength training in endurance runners. 22

7. Ferrauti, A, Bergermann, M, and Fernández-Fernández, J. Effects of a concurrent

strength and endurance training on running performance and running economy in

recreational marathon runners. J Strength Cond Res 24: 2770-2778, 2010.

8. Guglielmo, LGA, Greco, CC, and Denadai, BS. Effects of strength training on

running economy. Int J Sports Med 30: 27-32, 2009.

9. Laursen, PB, Chiswell, SE, and Callaghan, JA. Should endurance athletes supplement

D
their training program with resistance training to improve performance? National

Strength and Conditioning Association 27: 50-55, 2005.

TE
10. Sunde, A, Storen, O, Bjerkass, M, Larsen, MH, Hoff, J, and Helgerud J. Maximal

strength training improves cycling economy in competitive cyclists. J Strength Cond

Res 24: 2157-2165, 2010.

11. Millet, GP, Jaouen, B, Borrani, F, and Candau, R. Effects of concurrent endurance and
EP
strength training on running economy and VO2 kinetics. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34:

1351-9, 2002.

12. Taipale, RS, Mikkola, J, Nummela, A, Vesterinen, V, Capostagno, B, Walker, S,

C

Gitonga, D, Kraemer, WJ, and Hakkinen, K. Strength training in endurance runners.

Int J Sports Med 31:468-476, 2010.

C

13. Johnston, RE, Quinn, TJ, Kertzer, R, and Vroman, NB. Strength training in female

distance runners: Impact on running economy. J Strength Cond Res 11: 224-229,
A

1997.

14. Millet, GP, Millet, GY, Hoffman, MD, and Candau, RB. Alterations in running

economy and mechanics after maximal cycling in thriatletes: Influence of performance

level. Int. J Sports Med 21: 127-132, 2000.

15. Hoff, J, Gran, A, and Helgerud, J. Maximal strength training improves aerobic

endurance performance. Scand J Med Sci Sports 12: 288-295, 2002.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength training in endurance runners. 23

16. Jones, P, and Bampouras, TM. Resistance training for distance running: A brief

update. National Strength and Conditioning Association 29: 28-35, 2007.

17. Sale, DG, Jacobs, I, Macdougall, JD, and Garner, S. Comparison of two regimens of

concurrent strength and endurance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 22: 348-356, 1990.

18. Leveritt, M, Abernethy, PJ, Barry, BK, and Logan, PA. Concurrent strength and

endurance training. Sports Med 28: 413-427, 1999.

D
19. Balabinis, CP, Psarakis, CH, Moukas, M, Vassiliou, MP, and Behrakis, PK. Early

phase changes by concurrent endurance and strength training. J Strength Cond Res

TE
17:393-401, 2003.

20. Cadore, EL, Pinto, RS, Lhullier, FLR, Correa, CS, Alberton, CL, Pinto, SS, Almeida,

APV, Tartaruga, MP, Silva, EM, and Kruel, LFM. Physiological effects of concurrent

training in elderly men. Int J Sports Med 31: 689-697, 2010.

EP
21. Aagaard, P, and Andersen, JL. Effects of strength training on endurance capacity in

top-level endurance athletes. Scand J Med Sci Sports 20:3 9-47, 2010.

22. Hausswirth, C, Argentin, S, Bieuzen, F, Le Meur, Y, Coturier, A, and Brisswalter, J.

C

Endurance and strength training effects on physiological and muscular parameters

during prolonged cycling. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 20: 330-

C

339, 2010.

23. Levin, GT, McGuigan, MR, and Laursen, PB. Effect of concurrent resistance and
A

endurance training on physiologic and performance parameters of well-trained

endurance cyclists. J Strength Cond Res 23: 2280-2286, 2009.

24. Ronnestad, BR, Hansen, EA, and Raastad, T. In-season strength maintenance training

increases well-trained cyclists’ performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 110: 1269-1282,

2010.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength training in endurance runners. 24

25. Hakkinen, K, Alen, M, Kraemer, WJ, Gorostiaga, E, Izquierdo, M, Rusko, H,

Mikkola, J, Hakkinen, A, Valkeinen, H, Kaarakainen, E, Romu, S, Erola, V,

Ahtiainen, J, and Paavolainen, LM. Neuromuscular adaptations during concurrent

strength and endurance training versus strength training. Eur J Appl Physiol 89: 42-52,

2003.

26. Haikkonen, H, Yrjama, M, and Siljander, E. The effect of heart rate controlled low

D
resistance circuit weight training and endurance on maximal aerobic power in

sedentary adults. Scand J Med Sci Sports 10: 211-5, 2000.

TE
27. Fatouros, IG, Jamurtas, AZ, Villiotou, V, Pouliopoulo, S, Fotinakis, P, Taxildaris, K,

and Deliconstantinos, G. Oxidative stress responses in older men during endurance

training and detraining. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 2065-2072, 2004.

28. Carvalho, MJ, Marques, E, and Mota, J. Training and detraining effects on functional
EP
fitness after a multicomponent training in older women. Gerontology 55: 41-48, 2009.

29. Lo, MS, Lin, LLC, Yao, W, and Ma, MC. Training and detraining effects of the

resistance vs endurance program on body composition, body size and physical

C

performance in young men. J Strength Cond Res 25: 2246-2254, 2011.

30. Faulkner, JA. Physiology of swimming and diving. In: Human Exercise Physiology.
C

Baltimore: Academia Press, 1968.

31. Gellish, RL, Goslin, BR, Olson, RE, McDonald, A, Russi, GD, and Moudgil, VK.
A

Longitudinal modeling of the relationship between age and maximal heart rate. Med

Sci Sports Exerc 39: 822-829, 2007.

32. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,

NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates, 1988.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength training in endurance runners. 25

33. Rhea, MR. Determining the magnitude of treatment effects in strength training

research through the use of the effect size. J Strength Cond Res 18: 918-920, 2004.

34. Glowacki, SP, Martin, SE, Maurer, A, Baek, W, Green, JS, and Crouse, SF. Effects of

resistance, endurance and concurrent exercise on training outcomes in men. Med Sci

Sports Exerc 36: 2119-2127, 2004.

35. Cadore, EL, Pinto, RS, Pinto, SS, Alberton, CL, Correa, CS, Tartaruga, MP, Silva,

D
EM, Almeida, APV, Trindade, GT, and Kruel, LFM. Effects of strength, endurance

and concurrent training on aerobic power and dynamic neuromuscular economy in

TE
elderly men. J Strength Cond Res 25: 758-766, 2011.

36. Ronnestad, BR, Hansen, EA, and Raastad, T. Strength training improves 5-min all-out

performance following 185 min of cycling. Scand J Med Sci Sports 21: 250-259,
EP
2011.

37. Yamamoto, LM, Klau, JF, Casa, DJ, Kraemer, WJ, Armstrong, LE, and Maresh, CM

The effects of resistance training on road cycling performance among highly trained

cyclists: A systematic review. J Strength Cond Res 24: 560-566, 2010.

C

38. Spurrs, RW, Murphy, AJ, and Watsford, ML. The effect of plyometric training on
C

distance running performance. Eur. J Appl Physiol 89: 337-343, 2003.

39. Turner, AM, Owings, M, and Schwane, JA. Improvement in running economy after 6
A

weeks of plyometric training. J Strength Cond Res 17: 60-67, 2003.

40. Yamamoto, LM, Lopez, RM, Klau, JF, Casa, DJ, Kraemer, WJ, and Maresh, CM. The

effects of resistance training on endurance distance running performance among

highly trained runners: A systematic review. J Strength Cond Res 22: 2036-2044,

2008.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength training in endurance runners. 27

Figure legends

Fig. 1.- Testing schedule.

Fig. 2.- VO2 (mL/kg/min) at 12 km.h.-1 for EG, SG and ESG in the three test (T1, T2 and

T3). Significant differences between T1 & T2 (P =0.008, ES=0.90; P =0.001, ES=1.40) and

T1 & T3 (P =0.001, ES= 2.11, P =0.003, ES=1.87) both for SG and ESG

D
Fig. 3.- VO2 (mL/kg/min) at 16 km.h.-1 for EG, SG and ESG in the three test (T1, T2 and

T3). Significant differences between T1 & T2 (P =0.015, ES=1.25) and T1 & T3 (P =0.020,

TE
ES=1.20) for SG.

Fig. 4.- Track running test (3Km) results for EG, SG and ESG in the three test (T1, T2 and

T3). Significant differences between T1 & T2 (P =0.002, ES=0.69) and T1 & T3 (P =0.003,

ES=0.99) for SG.

EP
C
C
A

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Tables
Table 1. Characteristics and anthropometric data of the subjects. (Mean ± SD)

Group Age (y) Height (m) Body mass (kg) Body fat (%)

Endurance-only group (EG) 23.50± 1.21 1.85±0.05 69.50±3.56 8.01±2.26

(n=6)

Strength group (SG) (n=6) 24.10± 0.72 1.81±0.02 68.50±4.73 8.34±2.35

Endurance-Strength group 23.71± 1.81 1.79±0.02 66.41±5.38 9.15±1.36

(ESG) (n=6)

D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Table 2: Training schedule during the intervention for the three groups.

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

Interval Strength Interval training Strength Cross- Interval Rest

training training (Zone 3) training country or training
(Zone 3) road (Zone 3) or
running Fartlek
(0.5-1 h) (0.5-1.5 h)
Cross- Cross-country
(Zone 3) (Zone 1
country or or road
and 2)
road running (0.5-
running 1.5 h) (Zone
(0.5-1.5 h) 1)

D
(Zone 1)

TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Table 3: Strength training details.

Endurance-only group*

Resistance exercise Reps

Squat with band 25 reps

Lying leg curl with band 25 reps

Calf raises with band 25 reps

D
Leg extension with band 25 reps

Squat with band 25 reps

Lying leg curl with band 25 reps

TE
Calf raises with band 25 reps

Leg extension with band 25 reps

*Circuit training. Rest between exercises 25 s/Rest between sets 5 min

Strength group
EP
Combined exercise Sets/reps/load/reps/rest between sets

Barbell squat + Vertical jumps over hurdles (40 cm) 3 sets (7 reps x 70 % 1RM + 10 reps) / 5
minutes

Lying leg curl + Horizontal jumps 3 sets (7 reps x 70 % 1RM + 10 reps) / 5

minutes
C

Seated calf raises + Vertical jumps over hurdles (40 3 sets (7 reps x 70 % 1RM + 10 reps) / 5
cm) minutes
C

Leg extension + Horizontal jumps 3 sets (7 reps x 70 % 1RM + 10 reps) / 5

minutes

Endurance-Strength group
A

Exercises Sets/reps/load/rest between sets

Barbell squat 3 sets x 20 reps x 40% 1RM /60 s

Lying leg curl 3 sets x 20 reps x 40% 1RM /60 s

Seated calf raises 3 sets x 20 reps x 40% 1RM /60 s

Leg extension 3 sets x 20 reps x 40% 1RM /60 s

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Table 4. Descriptive data of explosive and maximal strength variables for the endurance-only group (EG; n=6), the strength group
(SG; n=6) and the endurance strength group (ESG; n=6) each test occasion (mean ± SD).

Time

Variable Group T1 T2 T3 Group Time Group x T1-T2 T1-T3

Time

F (p) F (p) F (p) d d

CMJ (m) EG 0.32±0.02 0.33±0.02 0.32±0.03 34.265 (0.001)* 0.779 (0.477) 11.393 0.05 -0.06
(0.001)*

D
SG 0.30±0.03a 0.33±0.03b 0.33±0.03 b 0.80 0.74

ESG 0.31±0.04 0.31±0.04 0.31±0.04 0.14 0.18

TE
Hopping test EG 0.26±0.02 0.26±0.03 0.26±0.02 93.054 (0.001)* 0.603 (0.560) 8.527 0.04 0.22
(m) (0.001)*
SG 0.26±0.02a 0.27±0.02b 0.27±0.02 b 0.87 0.60

ESG 0.25±0.04 0.26±0.03 0.26±0.04 0.33 0.25

1RM Leg EG 56.33±4.80 58.83±4.79 60.50±4.80 295.579 (0.001)* 1.000 (0.391) 17.257 0.52 0.86
Extension (Kg) (0.001)*

EP
SG 52.16±7.16a 57.50 ± 6.89b 58.66 ± 6.59b 0.74 0.90

ESG 54.66±6.05a 62.66±5.78b 65.50±6.09 c 1.32 1.80

1RM Seated EG 115.00±7.69 116.33±8.21 116.50±7.71 89.300 (0.001)* 1.003 (0.390) 8.341 0.17 0.19
Calf Raises (0.001)*
(Kg) SG 102.16±10.10a 120.00 ± 9.57b 119.50±10.48b 1.76 1.71

ESG

EG
C
101.66±6.85a

43.16±3.06
123.83±7.44b

44.00±3.68
125.50±7.17b

44.16±3.76
3.23

0.27
3.48

0.32
C
1RM Lying SG 41.16±3.76a 46.33 ± 3.50b 47.16 ± 3.54b 154.993 (0.001)* 4.071 (0.039) * 15.852 1.37 1.60
leg curl (Kg) (0.001)*
ESG 38.66±2.33a 47.66±2.42b 48.33±2.42 b 3.86 4.15
A

EG 206.60±17.66 210.55±15.79 210.83±14.48 0.22 0.24

1RM Barbell SG 202.51±16.35a 222.00 ± 17.05b 219.24 ± 14.50b 159.762 (0.001)* 0.022 (0.978) 13.495 1.20 1.02
Squat (Kg) (0.001)*
ESG 194.83±6.64a 215.52±7.55b 214.35±8.09b 3.11 2.93

* P <0.05. Means in the same row for the same variable having the same subscript are not significantly different at P <0.05. d: Effect size

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Table 5. Descriptive data of PV, RPE, VO2max, HRmax and VO2 14 km.h-1 for the endurance-only group (EG; n=6), the strength
group (SG; n=6) and the endurance strength group (ESG; n=6) each test occasion (mean ± SD).
Time

Variable Group T1 T2 T3 Group Time Group x T1-T2 T1-T3

Time

F (p) F (p) F (p) d d

PV (km.h-1) EG 21.95±1.21 22.12±1.02 22.04±1.08 87.533 (0.001)* 1.033 (0.380) 10.598 0.14 0.07
(0.001)*

D
SG 20.91± 0.90a 21.70 ± 0.78b 21.87 ± 0.81b 0.87 1.06

ESG 21.45±1.67a 22.45±1.69b 22.66±1.58b 0.61 0.72

TE
RPE EG 17.25±0.41 17.58±0.49 17.16±0.40 44.885 (0.001)* 0.600 (0.561) 8.995 0.81 0.21
(0.001)*
SG 17.58±0.49a 16.66 ± 0.51b 16.75 ± 0.61b 1.87 1.69

ESG 17.83±0.51 16.91±0.73 16.75±0.75 1.80 2.11

VO2max EG 68.80±1.83 69.20±2.05 69.11±1.86 26.782 (0.001)* 1.030 (0.381) 2.948 0.21 0.17
(ml.kg.min-1) (0.075)

EP
SG 68.83±1.94 69.51±1.98 69.48±1.85 0.35 0.33

ESG 70.73±2.88 71.45±1.76 71.73±2.70 0.25 0.35

HRmax EG 201.16±0.98 202.67±1.36 201.71±1.36 2.386 (0.128) 0.138 (0.872) 0.261 1.54 0.56
(beat.min-1) (0.901)
SG 199.52±1.51 200.01±2.00 199.78±1.52 0.32 0.17

VO2 14 km.h-1
ESG

EG
C
198.72±2.07

46.95±2.82
199.33±1.36

46.88±2.14
199.04±1.67

47.05±2.92 11.544 (0.001)* 17.706 (0.001)* 1.697

0.29

0.02
0.15

0.04
(ml.kg.min-1) (0.217)
C
SG 44.80±1.11 42.48±1.05 42.65±0.97 2.09 1.93

ESG 45.40±1.09 44.30±1.19 44.68±1.01 1.01 0.66

A

*P <0.05. Means in the same row for the same variable having the same subscript are not significantly different at P <0.05. d: Effect size

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Fig. 1.

D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Fig. 2.

D
EED
PTT
EEP
CC
CC
AA

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Fig. 3.

D
EED
PTT
EEP
CC
CC
AA

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Fig. 4.

D
EED
PTT
EEP
CC
CC
AA

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.