EFFECT OF SEQUENCING STRENGTH AND ENDURANCE

TRAINING IN YOUNG MALE SOCCER PLAYERS

ISSAM MAKHLOUF,1,2 CARLO CASTAGNA,3,4 VINCENZO MANZI,5 LOUIS LAURENCELLE,6
DAVID G. BEHM,7 AND ANIS CHAOUACHI1,8
1
Tunisian Research Laboratory Sport Performance Optimisation, National Center of Medicine and Science in Sports (CNMSS),
Tunis, Tunisia; 2University of Garthage, Faculty of Sciences of Bizerte, Jarzouna, Bizerte; 3Football Training and Biomechanics
Laboratory, Italian Football Federation (FIGC), Technical Department, Coverciano (Florence), Italy; 4University of Rome Tor
Vergata, Rome, Italy; 5Italian Space Agency (ASI), Roma, Italy; 6Department of Physical Activity Sciences, University of Quebec
at Trois-Rivieres, Canada; 7School of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. Johns
Newfoundland, Canada; and 8AUT University, Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand

ABSTRACT be considered as an effective and safe training method for the

Makhlouf, I, Castagna, C, Manzi, V, Laurencelle, L, Behm, DG,
and Chaouachi, A. Effect of sequencing strength and endur-
ance training in young male soccer players. J Strength Cond
Res 30(3): 841850, 2016This study examined the effects of
strength and endurance training sequence (strength before or
development of the prospective soccer player.
KEY WORDS squat, vertical jump, horizontal jump, Yo-Yo
intermittent recovery test
INTRODUCTION

after endurance) on relevant fitness variables in youth soccer
players. Fifty-seven young elite-level male field soccer players
(13.7 6 0.5 years; 164 6 8.3 cm; 53.5 6 8.6 kg; body fat;
15.6 6 3.9%) were randomly assigned to a control (n = 14,
CG) and 3 experimental training groups (twice a week for
12 weeks) strength before (SE, n = 15), after (ES, n = 14)
or on alternate days (ASE, n = 14) with endurance training. A
significant (p = 0.001) intervention main effect was detected.
There were only trivial training sequence differences (ES vs.
SE) for all variables (p . 0.05). The CG showed large squat 1
repetition maximum (1RM) and medium sprint, change of direc-
tion ability, and jump improvements. ASE demonstrated a trivial
difference in endurance performance with ES and SE (p .
0.05). Large to medium greater improvements for SE and ES
were reported compared with ASE for sprinting over 10 and
30 m (p , 0.02). The SE squat 1RM was higher than in ASE
(moderate, p , 0.02). Postintervention differences between
ES and SE with CG fitness variables were small to medium
(p # 0.05) except for a large SE advantage with the Yo-Yo
intermittent recovery test (p , 0.001, large). This study
showed no effect of intrasession training sequence on soccer
fitness-relevant variables. However, combining strength and
endurance within a single training session provided superior
results vs. training on alternate days. Concurrent training may
Address correspondence to Carlo Castagna, castagnac@libero.it.
30(3)/841850
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
2015 National Strength and Conditioning Association
T
he literature regarding concurrent training, which
involves combining strength and endurance train-
ing into individual training sessions (2,8,20,25) has
revealed conflicting results. It has been reported
that training strength and endurance simultaneously can
interfere with the optimal training adaptations of either
parameter (strength or endurance) individually (2,25,29).
The specific training adaptations for strength and endurance
can induce antagonistic intracellular signaling mechanisms
(2,25). Putnam et al. (26) found attenuated type I muscle
hypertrophy with strength and endurance training vs.
strength training alone in young adults. Short-term concur-
rent training (4 sessions) showed conflicting results between
bench press and squats. Reed et al. (29) reported that the
inclusion of cycle ergometry before either bench press or
squats vs. the resistance exercise performed alone resulted
in impaired back squat performance but no effect on bench
press performance with young resistance-trained adult men.
Longer-term training (816 weeks) failed to show interfer-
ence effects at 8 weeks with untrained middle-aged men but
did show lower maximal leg strength development with
concurrent training after 16 weeks (19). A number of other
researchers have also found mixed results. Schumann et al.
(31) reported that endurance before strength training main-
tained strength but decreased testosterone sex hormone
binding globulin with recreationally trained males.
In contrast, there was no evidence of muscle strength,
hypertrophy, or neural activation training impairments with
concurrently trained young adult men over 10 weeks
(3 d$wk21) (20). Concurrent training has also been shown
to be effective for promoting strength and endurance

VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2016 | 841

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Concurrent Training in Youth Soccer
improvements in male professional soccer players
(15,16,32,38). Interestingly, the reported improvements were
in line with those found for separate training interventions
supporting the common practice of concurrent training in
soccer (15,16,21,35,37,38). It must be noted that all the afore-
mentioned studies used young adults, and the effect of con-
current training on youth is an important population to
consider. This consideration is especially true, as youth tend
to participate more in multiple sports with differing physio-
logical and metabolic attributes and training practices. Youth
also exhibit less fatigue, faster recovery periods, and less
maximal anaerobic capacities than adults (24), which may
affect their response to concurrent training.
The sequence of concurrent strength and endurance
training may play a role with training facilitation vs.
interference. The sequencing of strength and endurance
training resulted in no group changes in strength, endurance,
or hypertrophy but a decrement in neural adaptations with
endurance before strength in adult males (11). Similar mixed
results were reported by Hakkinen et al. (13) who showed
similar improvements in isometric and dynamic strength and
hypertrophy with strength and endurance vs. strength train-
ing alone but found concurrent training-related deficits in
explosive strength. Chtara et al. (8) showed that training
sequence may affect endurance performance when circuit
strength training was performed after intermittent-
endurance training in male sport students. However, training
sequence had no effect on maximal and explosive strength
variables, and the associated results were lower than in the
strength-only condition (9). Conversely, McGawley and An-
dersson (21) studying male professional adult soccer players
with a semiexperimental design (i.e., no control group), re-
ported no effect of strength and endurance training interven-
tion sequence on performance relevant variables. These
contrasting results may suggest a population- or training-
specific effect of concurrent training with a possible influence
of players fitness status and training on the outcome varia-
bles (8,9,21). Indeed, in soccer, it is common for concurrent
training to be performed in parallel with technical-tactical
training constituting an additional training stimulus (32).
Hence, based on the conflicts in the literature, the lack of
concurrent training research on trained youth, the dearth of
studies examining the sequencing of strength, and endurance
activities within a training session, it is important to examine
these variables. Population-specific differences would be of
great interest as strength and endurance performance are
considered relevant variables for talent development in soccer
(33). Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the effect
of concurrent training and strength and endurance interven-
tions sequencing in elite male young soccer players in conjunc-
tion with technical tactical soccer training. Training strength
and endurance interventions were considered as intraday and
interday sequences. It was hypothesized that there would be
a superior effect of concurrent training with no sequence influ-
ence on physical performance variables (15,16,21).
the TM
842 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
As youth athletes are often involved in multiple sports,
school, homework, family responsibilities, social activities
with friends, and other activities, there is limited time to
engage in additional strength and endurance training pro-
grams outside the practice. Hence, the goal of this study was
to examine whether concurrent training within single
training sessions provided comparable training gains as
alternate day training for strength and endurance. In this
study, a short-term (12 weeks) randomized-parallel fully
controlled with pre-to-post measurements design was
employed. The intervention groups trained according to
exercise intensities and strategies suggested by Wong et al.
(38). Training sequence interventions involved (a) strength
before endurance in a single training session (SE), (b) endur-
ance before strength in a single training session (ES), and (c)
strength and endurance training on alternate days (ASE).
Training interventions were performed 2 and 4 times a week
for intrasession (SE and ES) and ASE conditions, respec-
tively. The ASE group performed endurance training the
day before strength training. During the remaining weekly
training sessions, players performed mainly technical-tactical
drills for individual and team skill development. In this
regard, the soccer technical-tactical skills development train-
ing was performed before the fitness interventions according
to Wong et al. (38). In the ES and SE groups, this was
performed on the 2 remaining days. Efforts were made to
equate the total soccer training time across the experimental
groups. All players were pre-to-post intervention tested for
endurance, change of direction ability (CODA), lower and
upper limbs explosive-power, and maximal strength using
soccer-relevant tests (1,7,27,32). The testing procedures were
performed over 3 consecutive days at least 24 hours apart
both before and after the training intervention. All the tests
were performed at the same time of the day to avoid circa-
dian effect on performance. The assessments took place
during the hours usually considered for soccer training
(i.e., 1719 PM). Players internal training-load was monitored
using the Session-Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE) method
(17). In order to respect the training setup usually adopted in
male youth soccer teams, no single endurance or strength
training group was considered in this study (32).
Subjects
Fifty-seven male elite-level field soccer players, members of
a first division Tunisian soccer club (13.7 6 0.5 years; 164 6
8.3 cm; body 53.5 6 8.6 kg; body fat; 15.6 6 3.9%), volun-
teered for this study. Players were randomly allocated into
a control group (n = 14, only soccer training, CG) and
3 experimental groups that differed for sequencing strength
before (SE, n = 15) or after (ES, n = 14) endurance training
within a training session (intrasession) and performing
strength and endurance training on alternate days (ASE,
n = 14). All players trained 4 times a week with a match
 TABLE 1. Details of the training procedures used in this study across the 12 weeks of training.*

Session 1 Session 2

Endurance Strength Endurance Strength

Week Interval % MAS Exercise Repetition Sets L1 L2 L3 L4 Interval % MAS Exercise Repetition Set s L1 L2 L3 L4

1 10 110 Bent over row 10 3 20 20 25 25 10 110 Front half squat 10 3 10 10 15 15

2 10 115 Forward lunge 10z 3 20 20 20 20 10 115 Sit up 15 3 W W W W
3 10 120 Upright row 10 3 10 10 15 15 10 120 Biceps curl 10 3 7.5 7.5 10 10
4 10 120 Supine leg raise 10 3 W W 2 2 10 120 Supine leg lateral twist 10z 3 2 2 3 3
Push up 10 3 W W W W Front raise 10z 3 5 5 7.5 7.5

Interval % MAS Exercise Repetition Set s L5 L6 L7 L8 Interval % MAS Exercise Repetition Set s L5 L6 L7 L8

5 12 120 Back half squat 6 3 20 20 25 25 12 120 Stiff leg deadlift 6 3 15 15 20 20

6 12 120 Bent over row 6 3 20 20 20 20 12 120 Sit up 15 3 1 1 2 2
7 14 120 Upright row 6 3 10 10 15 15 14 120 Weighted forward lunge 6z 3 5 5 7.5 7.5
8 14 120 Push up 10 3 W W W W 14 120 Supine leg raise 10 3 3 3 3 3

% Set % Set

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

the
Interval MAS Exercise Repetition s L9 L10 L11 L12 Interval MAS Exercise Repetition s L9 L10 L11 L12

9 16 120 Power clean 5 3 15 15 20 20 16 120 Plyometric (depth) 5 3 W W W W

push up
10 16 120 High pull 5 3 15 15 20 20 16 120 Doubleleg lateral hop 8z 3 W W W W
11 16 120 Weighted squat 5 3 15 15 20 20 16 120 over hurdles
jump
VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2016 |

12 16 120 Singleleg hop over 8z 3 W W W W 16 120 Plyometric sit up 10 3 2 2 3 3

hurdles

*L = load (in kilograms) of training for 12 week; and W = body weight.

b = exercises using weight bag.
za = repetition of each side.
m = exercises using medicine ball.

TM
| www.nsca.com
843

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 844

Concurrent Training in Youth Soccer

TABLE 2. Between groups pretopost intervention changes in fitness variables.*

Endurance-strength (n = 14) Strength-endurance (n = 15)

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the

Variable Test Difference (95% CI) h2 Test Difference (95% CI) h2

VAM (km$h21) Before 14.61 6 1.02 0.79 (0.36 to 1.21) 0.20 14.80 6 1.11 0.70 (0.28 to 1.11) 0.177
After 15.39 6 1.00 15.50 6 1.24
Yo-Yo IR1 (m) Before 931 6 177 731 (590 to 872) 0.67 1,034 6 308 608 (471 to 744) 0.601
After 1,663 6 219 1,642 6 339
10m sprint (s) Before 2.07 6 0.09 20.12 (20.17 to 20.06) 0.25 2.08 6 0.09 20.09 (20.15 to 20.04) 0.184
After 1.95 6 0.10 1.99 6 0.12
30m sprint (s) Before 4.94 6 0.21 20.13 (20.22 to 20.04) 0.13 5.02 6 0.28 20.16 (20.25 to 20.07) 0.202
After 4.81 6 0.24 4.86 6 0.23
Agility-15m (s) Before 3.74 6 0.17 20.16 (20.25 to 20.06) 0.18 3.70 6 0.21 20.06 (20.15 to 0.03) 0.029
After 3.58 6 0.18 3.64 6 0.22
Ball-15m (s) Before 4.99 6 0.25 20.13 (20.29 to 0.03) 0.05 5.15 6 0.41 20.32 (20.48 to 20.17) 0.25
After 4.86 6 0.17 4.83 6 0.26
5jumps test (cm) Before 10.28 6 0.69 0.29 (20.02 to 0.60) 0.06 10.33 6 0.71 0.03 (20.28 to 0.33) 0.001
TM

After 10.57 6 0.88 10.36 6 0.79

H SJ (cm) Before 35.28 6 4.60 1.57 (20.28 to 3.42) 0.05 33.76 6 4.17 3.53 (1.75 to 5.32) 0.229
After 36.85 6 4.39 37.29 6 2.97
H CMJ (cm) Before 38.06 6 4.65 0.95 (20.68 to 2.58) 0.03 36.60 6 3.79 2.67 (1.09 to 4.24) 0.178
After 39.01 6 4.42 39.27 6 3.02
MBT 3 kg (cm) Before 3.71 6 0.45 0.26 (0.66 to 0.47) 0.12 3.81 6 0.40 0.20 (0.01 to 0.39) 0.08
After 3.97 6 0.56 4.01 6 0.59
1RM bench press (kg) Before 36.43 6 11.55 17.50 (11.76 to 23.24) 0.41 36.67 6 9.43 13.00 (7.46 to 18.54) 0.295
After 53.93 6 21.41 49.67 6 14.57
1RM squat (kg) Before 88.93 6 17.89 42.00 (33.36 to 50.64) 0.64 95.40 6 17.78 38.66 (30.32 to 47.01) 0.62
After 130.93 6 29.93 134.07 6 29.15

Strength-endurance alternated (n = 14) Control group (n = 14)

Variable Test Difference (95% CI) h2 Test Difference (95% CI) h2

VAM (km$h21) 15.00 6 0.90 0.61 (0.18 to 1.04) 0.132 14.36 6 0.89 20.14 (20.57 to 0.29) 0.008
15.61 6 0.90 14.21 6 1.16
Yo-Yo IR1 (m) 974 6 273 531 (390 to 672) 0.518 945 6 260 400 (258 to 541) 0.378
1,505 6 306 1,234 6 330
10m sprint (s) 2.19 6 0.09 20.15 (20.20 to 20.09) 0.34 2.11 6 0.12 20.04 (20.10 to 0.01) 0.038
2.04 6 0.08 2.07 6 0.11
30m sprint (s) 5.24 6 0.21 20.30 (20.39 to 20.21) 0.45 5.09 6 0.29 20.12 (20.21 to 20.03) 0.112
4.94 6 0.20 5.06 6 0.25
Agility-15m (s) 3.88 6 0.19 20.22 (20.32 to 20.13) 0.296 3.91 6 0.27 20.12 (20.21 to 20.02) 0.108
3.66 6 0.11 3.80 6 0.25

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

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

played during the weekend over the entire intervention

period (12 weeks). Study inclusion criteria for players were

*CI = confidence interval; 1RM = one repetition maximum; YoYo IR1 = YoYo intermittent recovery test level 1; MBT = medicine ball throw; SJ = squat jump; CMJ =
0.018

0.002

0.045

0.008

0.122

0.062

0.248
as per Castagna et al. (6). The procedures used in this study
were familiar to all players as part of their usual seasonal
fitness assessment. Written informed consent was obtained
from each player and their guardian/parents before the com-

20.26 (20.46 to 20.07)

5.36 (20.38 to 11.09)

mencement of this study. The Ethics Committee of the Tu-
20.08 (20.24 to 0.08)

0.05 (20.26 to 0.37)

1.46 (20.39 to 3.30)

0.52 (21.11 to 2.15)

18.00 (9.36 to 26.64)

nisian National Centre of Medicine and Science in Sports
approved the study.
Procedures
Endurance performance was tested using the Yo-Yo inter-
mittent recovery test level 1 (Yo-Yo IR1) and a progressive
maximal field test (Vam-eval, VAM) (3,27,38). Maximal
strength was assessed with squat and bench press players
heaviest weight lifted (1 repetition maximum [1RM]) (36).
Lower-limb explosiveness was assessed using no-arm coun-
16.44
13.98

termovement jump (CMJ) and squat jump (SJ) and the 5-

0.41
0.47
0.72
0.44
3.32
3.11
3.34
3.73
0.41
0.46
6.39
9.84

jump test for distance (5JT) (1,7,36). The CMJ and SJ height
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

was assessed using a force platform (Kistler 9281 C; Kistler,

104.50
5.28
5.20
9.76
9.81
33.06
34.51
36.06
36.59

33.21
38.57
86.50
3.91
3.65

Winterthur, Switzerland). The medicine ball throw for dis-

tance (3 kg, MBT) was used for upper-limb explosiveness
assessment (34).
Players sprinting performance (time) was assessed using
10- and 30-m sprints (10,32). Change of direction abilities
0.045

0.017

0.285

0.177

0.146
0.18

0.52

were assessed with the 15-m run with and without the ball
(Agility-15 m and Ball-15 m, respectively) according to Mu-
jika et al. (23). All the tests were timed with photocells gates
(Brower Timing Systems, Salt Lake City, USA) placed 0.4 m
32.64 (24.00 to 41.28)
20.13 (20.29 to 0.03)

0.15 (20.16 to 0.46)

8.61 (2.87 to 14.34)

above the ground and with players standing start 0.5 m

4.23 (2.38 to 6.08)

2.78 (1.14 to 4.41)

0.33 (0.13 to 0.52)

behind the first timing gate. Players performed 2 trials of

each test (2 minutes between trial passive recovery) with
the best measure used for calculations. All the testing pro-
cedures were performed carefully controlling the food intake
and hydration status of the players to warrant a proper car-
bohydrate and fluid assumption across the testing sessions.
Training Program
The ES and SE groups performed both the endurance and
10.45

18.78

strength training programs in a single session (Tuesday and

10.60
4.43

4.25

0.46
0.25
0.28
0.65
0.54
2.05

2.12

0.41

7.35

Thursday). The only difference between the 2 training

groups was the order in which they executed the training,
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

either endurance training before strength or strength training

114.14
5.03
4.91

31.02
35.25
34.80
37.58
9.76
9.91

3.53
3.86
31.96
40.57
81.50

Significant pre-to-post differences.

before endurance. A 15-minute recovery period separated

the training sessions. The ASE performed endurance only
on Tuesday and Thursday and strength only on Wednesday
and Friday.
1RM bench press (kg)

countermovement jump.

For 12 weeks, the experimental groups followed an

1RM squat (kg)

interval training program with 2 sessions per week of high-

5jumps test (cm)

MBT 3 kg (cm)

intensity intermittent-running exercises without interruption.

Ball-15m (s)

H CMJ (cm)

The intensity of the proposed intermittent runs was individ-

H SJ (cm)

ualized according to the peak speed attained at the end of

the VAM test (MAS) for each player. They consisted of 2
series of 1216 intermittent runs of 15 seconds at velocities
ranging in intensity from 110 to 120% of peak speed attained
during the VAM test alternated with 15 seconds of passive

VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2016 | 845

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 846

Concurrent Training in Youth Soccer

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the

TABLE 3. Within groups pre-to-post intervention changes in fitness variables.*

Variable ES vs. SE h2 ES vs. ASE h2 ES vs. CG h2

VAM (km$h21) 20.15 (20.86 to 0.56) 0.00 20.30 (21.03 to 0.42) 0.01 0.71 (20.01 to 1.44)z 0.07
Yo-Yo IR1 (m) 241 (2226 to 143) 0.00 57 (2130 to 245) 0.01 262 (74 to 450) 0.13
10-m sprint (s) 20.03 (20.09 to 0.04) 0.01 20.11 (20.17 to 20.04) 0.16 20.09 (20.15 to 20.02) 0.11
30-m sprint (s) 20.06 (20.24 to 0.11) 0.01 20.22 (20.39 to 20.04)z 0.10 20.24 (20.42 to 20.06) 0.12
Agility-15m (s) 20.01 (20.15 to 0.13) 0.00 20.11 (20.25 to 0.03) 0.04 20.19 (20.34 to 20.05) 0.13
Ball-15m (s) 20.07 (20.28 to 0.15) 0.01 20.05 (20.27 to 0.17) 0.00 20.32 (20.54 to 20.10) 0.14
H SJ (cm) 0.54 (21.92 to 2.99) 0.00 2.93 (0.42 to 5.43)z 0.09 2.28 (20.22 to 4.79) 0.06
H CMJ (cm) 0.61 (21.95 to 3.16) 0.00 2.35 (20.25 to 4.95) 0.06 2.21 (20.38 to 4.81) 0.05
20.07
TM

MBT 3 kg (cm) (20.40 to 0.26) 0.00 0.15 (20.19 to 0.48) 0.02 0.06 (20.28 to 0.39) 0.02
1RM bench press (kg) 2.01 (26.17 to 10.20) 0.01 8.91 (0.58 to 17.24)z 0.08 9.29 (0.96 to 17.61)z 0.09
1RM 1/2 squat (kg) 24.80 (218.79 to 9.19) 0.09 12.11 (22.12 to 26.34) 0.05 14.43 (0.20 to 28.66)z 0.07

Variable SE vs. ASE h2 SE vs. CG ASE vs. CG h2

VAM (km$h21) 20.15 (20.87 to 0.56) 0.00 0.86 (0.15 to 1.58)z 0.10 1.02 (0.29 to 1.74) 0.13
Yo-Yo IR1 (m) 98 (286 to 283) 0.02 304 (119 to 489) 0.17 205 (17 to 393)z 0.08
10-m sprint (s) 20.08 (20.15 to 20.01)z 0.10 20.06 (20.13 to 0.01) 0.06 0.02 (20.05 to 0.09) 0.01
30-m sprint (s) 20.15 (20.33 to 0.03) 0.05 20.17 (20.35 to 0.00)z 0.07 20.03 (20.20 to 0.15) 0.00
Agility-15m (s) 20.10 (20.24 to 0.04) 0.04 20.19 (20.33 to 20.05) 0.12 20.09 (20.23 to 0.05) 0.03
Ball-15m (s) 0.02 (20.20 to 0.24) 0.00 20.25 (20.47 to 20.03)z 0.09 20.27 (20.49 to 20.05)z 0.10
H SJ (cm) 2.39 (20.07 to 4.85) 0.07 1.74 (20.72 to 4.20) 0.04 20.65 (23.15 to 1.85) 0.01
H CMJ (cm) 1.74 (20.81 to 4.30) 0.03 1.61 (20.95 to 4.16) 0.03 20.14 (22.73 to 2.46) 0.00
MBT 3 kg (cm) 0.22 (20.11 to 0.55) 0.03 0.13 (20.20 to 0.46) 0.01 20.09 (20.42 to 0.25) 0.01
1RM bench press (kg) 6.89 (21.29 to 15.08) 0.05 7.27 (20.91 to 15.46) 0.06 0.375 (27.95 to 8.70) 0.00
1RM 1/2 squat (kg) 16.91 (2.92 to 30.90)z 0.10 19.23 (5.24 to 33.22) 0.13 2.32 (211.91 to 16.55) 0.00

*h2 = partial eta squared; 1RM = one repetition maximum; MBT = medicine ball throw; SJ = squat jump; CMJ = countermovement jump.
Mean difference (95% confidence interval).
zSignificance at 0.05.
Significance at 0.01.

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

recovery (3,27,38). During the first 4 weeks, the number of
repetitions per series was set at 10, and then the number of
repetitions was increased to 16. The players were placed in
different corridors according to their MAS. They had to
cover the distance between the 2 extremities in 15 seconds
with 15 seconds of passive recovery before turning back to
perform the successive high-intensity bout. Players were
allowed to stop running within the 3-m distance after the
arrival line. Running paces were given by a manual timer
producing a sound every 15 seconds from the start to the
end of the exercise. The strength training used in the inter-
vention groups was performed according to the procedures
suggested by Wong et al. (37). Details of the used training
protocols are reported in Table 1. The training study was
performed during the first 12 weeks of competitive season.
Statistical Analyses
Data are presented as mean 6 SD with normality verified
using the Shapiro-Wilk W test. A general multivariate linear-
model analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine
intervention effects across time (pre-post) and groups (4 lev-
els). Comparisons between groups session-RPE was per-
formed with one-way ANOVA. Differences were reported
as confidence intervals at 95%. Significance (p value) was set
at p # 0.05. Post hoc analyses were performed using
Bonferroni test. Practical differences were expressed as effect
size (partial h2). The intraclass correlation coefficient of the
variables ranged from 0.89 to 0.94. Significance was set at
p # 0.05.
RESULTS
No baseline between-group differences were found (Table 2).
A significant main effect for time (pre-to-post) was detected
in all the experimental groups (Table 3). The CG showed
significant (p # 0.05) pre-to-post changes in the Yo-Yo IR1
(h2 = large), 30 m (h2 = medium), agility-15 m (h2 =
medium), and squat (h2 = large). With the ES and SE
groups, large pre-post changes were found in the endurance
and strength variables (p , 0.02). In the sprint and jump
tests, the SE and ES showed large to medium changes after
training (p , 0.02). Agility-15m and Ball-15m showed
medium to large changes in all the experimental groups.
Small and medium changes were reported in the sprint,
CODA variables in the CG after the training period. The
MBT performance showed medium changes in all the
groups but ASE (h2 = large). Large (p , 0.02) postinterven-
tion changes were found in ASE for all the variables but Ball-
15m (h2 = small).
Posttraining changes between ES and SE were trivial
(p . 0.05) for all variables. ES demonstrated large (10 m;
p = 0.001) and medium improvements for 30 m, SJ, 5JT,
bench press, and Ball-15m (p = 0.02) vs. ASE (Table 2). SE
showed medium magnitude better results (p = 0.02) than ASE
in 10 m, squat, and 5JT. The Yo-Yo IR1 postintervention per-
formance difference was lower in CG compared with exper-
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
imental groups with medium to large effects (p = 0.03). Lower
posttraining changes were reported for VAM in the CG com-
pared with experimental groups with medium effect (p #
0.05). The posttraining 5JT performance in the CG was sig-
nificantly lower (h2 = medium) than ES and SE.
Weekly session-RPE were 1473 6 181, 1417 6 159,
1570 6 183, and 1296 6 168 arbitrary units for the ES,
SE, ASE, and CG, respectively. Weekly training load was
significantly higher in the ASE compared with CG (p =
0.002, large). No significant and practical (trivial) intragroup
and intergroup differences in body composition and mass
were found pre-to-post intervention.
DISCUSSION
This is the first study that examined the effect of training
sequence in male youth soccer players with a randomized
fully controlled trial under ecological conditions over
a medium-term training period (12 weeks). The results
showed that concurrent training in the form used in this
study was successful in promoting substantial improvements
in fitness variables. Second, there was no effect of changing
the sequence order of strength and endurance on training
improvements. In addition, there was no advantage to
training strength and endurance on separate days vs. within
one session.
Altering the order of the intrasession strength and
endurance exercises generally did not provide additional
performance benefits. These findings are in line with those
reported by McGawley and Andersson (21) that found no
additional effect of strength and endurance intrasession
sequence on fitness performance in adult professional-
soccer players. However, other studies tend to show mixed
results. Changing the sequence of strength and endurance
exercises did not resulted in differing strength, endurance, or
hypertrophy adaptations but did adversely affect neural re-
sponses with endurance before strength in adult males (11).
Inconsistent results associated with strength and endurance
sequencing were also reported by Hakkinen et al. (13) who
showed similar improvements in isometric and dynamic
strength as well as hypertrophy but reported concurrent
training-related deficits in explosive strength. Training
sequence affected endurance performance when circuit
strength training was performed after intermittent-
endurance training in male sport students (8). However,
training sequence had no effect on maximal and explosive
strength variables, and the associated results were lower than
in the strength-only condition (9). In this study, there was
some evidence of mixed results as ES but not SE had signif-
icantly greater training adaptations compared with control
for 10-m sprint, and 1RM bench press. However, both
sequences (ES and SE) shared similar results for 6 of the
8 measures.
The effectiveness of a training protocol should also satisfy
the principle of dose response optimization. This study
resulted in similar gains across the experimental groups
VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2016 | 847
 Concurrent Training in Youth Soccer
responses (i.e., session-RPE) with a large difference only
between ASE and CG. This suggests that independent of the
strength and endurance sequence, the training loads were
perceived as similar.
The lack of interference with concurrent training in this
study contradicts classic literature that tend to report lower
training effects with concurrent training compared with
separate strength and endurance training (35). According
to this literature, endurance and strength development may
follow mutually competitive pathways (2,25). A rationale for
the present results may relate to the age of the population in
this study. The 13-year-old male soccer players trained and
tested in this study were much younger than the typical
young adult cohort used in other concurrent training studies
(8,9,13,21). Children may have a more generalized rather
than specific training response as compared with adults.
For example, Murphy et al. (24) suggested that children
had difficulty in perceiving the difference between maximal
and submaximal intensity contractions. Children also pres-
ent lower levels of fatigue, and thus concurrent training may
be less likely to impose an overtraining burden (24). Youth
recover quicker than adults, and thus the adult difficulties in
handling concurrent training may not apply (12,28). The
faster recovery of children can be attributed to a lower reli-
ance on glycolysis, quicker phosphocreatine resynthesizes,
faster acid base regulation, and increased fatigue resistance
due to a lower power output (12,28,39). Hence, concurrent
training may be more appropriate for a younger vs. more
adult population. Indeed, concurrent training protocols are
usually implemented with success in soccer at elite and sub-
elite levels (15,16,32,38). However, soccer practice could
supplement the endurance stimulus while impairing the
strength stimulus thus resulting in a detrimental competitive
effect (30). Further studies examining the dose response
effect of concurrent training on the training responses of
youth are warranted.
However, there was some evidence of a sequence effect on
specific measures. Only the SE and ASE showed large
changes in vertical jump performances with improvement of
higher magnitude in the SJ than CMJ (10.5, 13.6% and 7.3, 8%,
respectively). These findings are of great practical interest as
they provide evidence of a selective sequence effect (strength
before endurance) on lower-limb explosive strength develop-
ment. It could be speculated that previous endurance training
(ES) and fatigue could have produced a detrimental effect on
neuromuscular activation leading to maladaptation in muscle
firing rate (11,13,30). In this regard, further studies investigat-
ing the selective effect of endurance training on explosive
strength are warranted. The ability to achieve high vertical
jump heights is considered as valid and relevant procedure to
test soccer players lower-limb explosive strength (5,32). The
CMJ and SJ are reported to have construct validity and to
explain variance in squat 1RM in elite soccer (5,32,36). Fur-
thermore, CMJ and SJ were reported as a variable of interest
in soccer talent selection and development.
the TM
848 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
In this study, there was no advantage to training strength
and endurance on separate days vs. within one session. For
example, the experimental groups showed a large training
effect on maximal strength variables with 1RM gains of
+43% and +37% in squat and bench press, respectively. The
reported improvements corresponded to the changes that
are usually found when training strength and endurance sep-
arately (18,32). These 1RM squat findings in the experimen-
tal groups are in line with those previously reported with
adult soccer players (14,15). In the CG, changes were large
only in the squat (+21%) with medium but not significant
changes (+16%) in 1RM bench press.
There was also evidence that the soccer training was as
effective as the concurrent training in promoting training
adaptations in some variables. Although there was a numer-
ically greater improvement in Yo-Yo IR1 performance with
the ES (+79%) vs. SE (+58.8%) and ASE (+54.52%), the
large improvement with the CG (+42%) suggests an effect
of weekly soccer technical-tactical practice on the ability to
perform intermittent high-intensity activity. This informa-
tion is of great practical interest as Yo-Yo IR1 was reported
to possess good reliability and very large ecological validity
in male youth soccer players (4). Furthermore, there were
similar improvements in 30-m sprint performance for both
the intervention groups (+2.56%) and the CG (+2.4%).
Mujika et al. (22) reported that the combination of complex
strength exercise with usual soccer training is effective for
line sprint development in elite young soccer players.
Endurance training studies have also showed that line-
sprint abilities are conserved if high-intensity running or
small-sided games are integrated in the usual soccer-
training setup (14,18). These results suggest the comple-
mentary effect of strength training and soccer practice
(22). Finally, the strength training circuit-involved exercises
deemed to improve upper-limb strength and power that
may lead to enhancements in throw-in ability in soccer
players (32). In contrast to the squat 1RM, bench press
and MTB exhibited medium to large improvements only
in the experimental groups. The CGs 21% improvement in
squat performance suggests the likelihood of a positive
effect of soccer practice on lower-limb explosive and max-
imal strength.
This study showed that when training investments in
strength and endurance are considered in youth soccer,
they may be safely implemented with positive training
consequences sequentially with intrasession or intersession.
However, when the objective is to maximize the training
effect, attention should be paid to strength and endurance
sequence. Indeed, performing endurance before or after
strength training proved to have a greater effect on
intermittent high intensity mainly aerobic performance and
maximal and explosive strength performance, respectively.
In this regard, the crossover effect of instrumental changes in
intrasession sequence warrant future studies for its potential
practical effect.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
A number of training studies that examined concurrent
training with young adults have showed that endurance
training inhibits or interferes with strength development
(35). This study demonstrates that concurrent training pro-
duces similar or greater training advantages than alternate
day training with young soccer players. As there was no
training effect difference in the sequence of exercises for
strength and endurance, coaches can add strength and
endurance exercises to the tactical technical practice sessions
in any sequence and expect training dividends. Training
practices internationally may differ dramatically. Not all
youth have the same access to training facilities outside prac-
tice time compared with other richer nations. Hence, con-
current training within practice time may be the only
alternative in some parts of the world.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The results of the present study do not constitute
endorsement of any products used in training or testing
by the authors or the National Strength and Conditioning
Association.
REFERENCES
1. Arnason, A, Sigurdsson, SB, Gudmundsson, A, Holme, I,
Engebretsen, L, and Bahr, R. Physical fitness, injuries, and team
performance in soccer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 278285, 2004.
2. Baar, K. Training for endurance and strength: Lessons from cell
signaling. Med Sci Sports Exerc 38: 19391944, 2006.
3. Bangsbo, J, Iaia, FM, and Krustrup, P. The Yo-Yo intermittent
recovery test: A useful tool for evaluation of physical performance in
intermittent sports. Sports Med 38: 3751, 2008.
4. Castagna, C, Impellizzeri, F, Cecchini, E, Rampinini, E, and
Alvarez, JC. Effects of intermittent-endurance fitness on match
performance in young male soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 23:
19541959, 2009.
5. Castagna, C and Castellini, E. Vertical jump performance in italian
male and female national team soccer players. J Strength Cond Res
27: 11561161, 2013.
6. Castagna, C, Iellamo, F, Impellizzeri, FM, and Manzi, V. Validity and
reliability of the 45-15 test for aerobic fitness in young soccer
players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 9: 525531, 2014.
7. Chamari, K, Chaouachi, A, Hambli, M, Kaouech, F, Wisloff, U, and
Castagna, C. The five-jump test for distance as a field test to assess
lower limb explosive power in soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 22:
944950, 2008.
8. Chtara, M, Chamari, K, Chaouachi, M, Chaouachi, A, Koubaa, D,
Feki, Y, Millet, GP, and Amri, M. Effects of intra-session concurrent
endurance and strength training sequence on aerobic performance
and capacity. Br J Sports Med 39: 555560, 2005.
9. Chtara, M, Chaouachi, A, Levin, GT, Chaouachi, M, Chamari, K,
Amri, M, and Laursen, PB. Effect of concurrent endurance and
circuit resistance training sequence on muscular strength and power
development. J Strength Cond Res 22: 10371045, 2008.
10. Cometti, G, Maffiuletti, NA, Pousson, M, Chatard, JC, and
Maffulli, N. Isokinetic strength and anaerobic power of elite,
subelite and amateur French soccer players. Int J Sports Med 22:
4551, 2001.
11. Eklund, D, Pulverenti, T, Bankers, S, Avela, J, Newton, R,
Schumann, M, and Hakkinen, K. Neuromuscular adaptations to
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
different modes of combined strength and endurance training. Int J
Sports Med 36: 120129, 2015.
12. Falk, B and Dotan, R. Child-adult differences in the recovery from
high-intensity exercise. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 34: 107112, 2006.
13. 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, L. Neuromuscular
adaptations during concurrent strength and endurance training
versus strength training. Eur J Appl Physiol 89: 4252, 2003.
14. Helgerud, J, Engen, LC, Wisloff, U, and Hoff, J. Aerobic endurance
training improves soccer performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33:
19251931, 2001.
15. Helgerud, J, Rodas, G, Kemi, OJ, and Hoff, J. Strength and
endurance in elite football players. Int J Sports Med 32: 677682,
2011.
16. Hoff, J and Helgerud, J. Endurance and strength training for soccer
playersPhysiological considerations. Sports Med 34: 165180,
2004.
17. Impellizzeri, FM, Rampinini, E, Coutts, AJ, Sassi, A, and
Marcora, SM. Use of RPE-based training load in soccer. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 36: 10421047, 2004.
18. Impellizzeri, FM, Marcora, SM, Castagna, C, Reilly, T, Sassi, A,
Iaia, FM, and Rampinini, E. Physiological and performance effects
of generic versus specific aerobic training in soccer players. Int J
Sports Med 27: 483492, 2006.
19. Izquierdo, M, Hakkinen, K, Ibanez, J, Kraemer, WJ, and
Gorostiaga, EM. Effects of combined resistance and cardiovascular
training on strength, power, muscle cross-sectional area, and
endurance markers in middle-aged men. Eur J Appl Physiol 94:
7075, 2005.
20. McCarthy, JP, Pozniak, MA, and Agre, JC. Neuromuscular
adaptations to concurrent strength and endurance training. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 34: 511519, 2002.
21. McGawley, K and Andersson, PI. The order of concurrent training
does not affect soccer-related performance adaptations. Int J Sports
Med 34: 983990, 2013.
22. Mujika, I, Santisteban, J, and Castagna, C. In-season effect of short-
term sprint and power training programs on elite junior soccer
players. J Strength Cond Res 23: 25812587, 2009.
23. Mujika, I, Santisteban, J, Impellizzeri, FM, and Castagna, C. Fitness
determinants of success in mens and womens football. J Sports Sci
27: 107114, 2009.
24. Murphy, JR, Button, DC, Chaouachi, A, and Behm, DG.
Prepubescent males are less susceptible to neuromuscular fatigue
following resistance exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol 114: 825835,
2014.
25. Nader, GA. Concurrent strength and endurance training: From
molecules to man. Med Sci Sports Exerc 38: 19651970, 2006.
26. Putman, CT, Xu, X, Gillies, E, MacLean, IM, and Bell, GJ. Effects of
strength, endurance and combined training on myosin heavy chain
content and fibre-type distribution in humans. Eur J Appl Physiol 92:
376384, 2004.
27. Rampinini, E, Bishop, D, Marcora, SM, Ferrari Bravo, D, Sassi, R,
and Impellizzeri, FM. Validity of simple field tests as indicators of
match-related physical performance in top-level professional soccer
players. Int J Sports Med 28: 228235, 2007.
28. Ratel, S, Duche, P, and Williams, CA. Muscle fatigue during
high-intensity exercise in children. Sports Med 36: 10311065,
2006.
29. Reed, JP, Schilling, BK, and Murlasits, Z. Acute neuromuscular and
metabolic responses to concurrent endurance and resistance
exercise. J Strength Cond Res 27: 793801, 2013.
30. Sale, DG, Jacobs, I, MacDougall, JD, and Garner, S. Comparison of
two regimens of concurrent strength and endurance training. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 22: 348356, 1990.
VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2016 | 849
 Concurrent Training in Youth Soccer
31. Schumann, M, Mykkanen, OP, Doma, K, Mazzolari, R,
Nyman, K, and Hakkinen, K. Effects of endurance training only
versus same-session combined endurance and strength training
on physical performance and serum hormone concentrations
in recreational endurance runners. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 40:
2836, 2015.
32. Stlen, T, Chamari, K, Castagna, C, and Wislff, U. Physiology of
Soccer: An Update. Sports Med 35: 501536, 2005.
33. Vaeyens, R, Malina, RM, Janssens, M, Van Renterghem, B,
Bourgois, J, Vrijens, J, and Philippaerts, RM. A multidisciplinary
selection model for youth soccer: The Ghent youth soccer Project.
Br J Sports Med 40: 928934, 2006.
34. van den Tillaar, R and Marques, MC. Reliability of seated and
standing throwing velocity using differently weighted medicine
balls. J Strength Cond Res 27: 12341238, 2013.
35. Wilson, JM, Marin, PJ, Rhea, MR, Wilson, SM, Loenneke, JP, and
Anderson, JC. Concurrent training: A meta-analysis examining
the TM
850 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
interference of aerobic and resistance exercises. J Strength Cond Res
26: 22932307, 2012.
36. Wisloff, U, Castagna, C, Helgerud, J, Jones, R, and Hoff, J. Strong
correlation of maximal squat strength with sprint performance and
vertical jump height in elite soccer players. Br J Sports Med 38: 285
288, 2004.
37. Wong, P, Chamari, K, and Wislff, U. Effects of 12-week on-field
combined strength and power training on physical performance
among U-14 young soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 24: 544652,
2010.
38. Wong, PL, Chaouachi, A, Chamari, K, Dellal, A, and Wisloff, U.
Effect of preseason concurrent muscular strength and high-intensity
interval training in professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res
24: 653660, 2010.
39. Zafeiridis, A, Dalamitros, A, Dipla, K, Manou, V, Galanis, N, and
Kellis, S. Recovery during high-intensity intermittent anaerobic exercise
in boys, teens, and men. Med Sci Sports Exerc 37: 505512, 2005.