Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2001, 15(2), 172–177
q 2001 National Strength & Conditioning Association
The Effects of an In-Season of Concurrent
Training on the Maintenance of Maximal
Strength and Power in Professional and College-
Aged Rugby League Football Players
DANIEL BAKER
School of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Sunshine Coast, QLD, Australia
ABSTRACT
Fourteen professional (NRL) and 15 college-aged (SRL) rug-
by league players were observed during a lengthy in-season
period to monitor the possible interfering effects of concur-
rent resistance and energy-system conditioning on maxi-
mum strength and power levels. All subjects performed con-
current training aimed at increasing strength, power, speed,
and energy-system fitness, as well as skill and team practice
sessions, before and during the in-season period. The SRL
group significantly improved 1 repetition maximum bench
press (1RM BP) strength, but not bench throw (BT Pmax) or
jump squat maximum power (JS Pmax) over their 19-week
in-season. The results for the NRL group remained un-
changed in all tests across their 29-week in-season. The fact
that no reductions in any tests for either group occurred may
be due to the prioritization, sequencing, and timing of train-
ing sessions, as well as the overall periodization of the total
training volume. Having athletes better conditioned to per-
form concurrent training may also aid in reducing the pos-
sible interfering effects of concurrent training. Correlations
between changes in 1RM BP and BT Pmax suggest differ-
ences in the mechanisms to increase power between stron-
ger, more experienced and less strong and experienced ath-
letes.
Key Words: bench press, bench throw, jump squat, en-
durance
Reference Data: Baker, D. The effects of an in-season
of concurrent training on the maintenance of maximal
strength and power in professional and college-aged
rugby league football players. J. Strength Cond. Res.
15(2):172–177. 2001.
Introduction
A merican and rugby-style football both require a
high degree of strength and power for successful
competition. Although strength and power may be rel-
atively easily developed during off- and preseason
172
training periods, there is some disagreement as to
whether preseason levels of strength and power can
be maintained during the long in-season playing pe-
riods, especially when a large amount of energy-sys-
tem (aerobic and anaerobic) conditioning or lengthy
team practices are performed (2, 7, 9, 17, 24).
For example, it has been demonstrated that an
acute decrease in strength and high-speed torque oc-
curred when resistance training was preceded by a re-
gime of 25 minutes of mixed, high-intensity aerobic
and anaerobic conditioning (18). This finding would
be of consequence to strength and conditioning coach-
es of sporting teams where resistance training and a
large amount of conditioning and/or team practice
(e.g., football and rugby) must be performed.
A number of studies have investigated whether
strength could be maintained across a sporting season
in football-type sports despite the increased game/
practice and/or conditioning demands. Fleck and
Kraemer (9) and Baker (2) reported that strength could
be maintained 14–16 weeks into the in-season in col-
lege and professional rugby-style football players, re-
spectively. However, Schneider et al. (24) and dos Re-
medios et al. (7) reported significant losses in strength
13–14 weeks into the in-season in college football play-
ers. More recently, Legg and Burnham (17) reported
losses in shoulder strength by as much as 25% over the
course of a 10-week in-season period in college-aged
football players. It was thought that the energy-system
demands of practice and games may partly be respon-
sible for reduced strength levels listed in the studies
above. Conflicting neural patterns, fiber recruitment,
and hormonal outputs that arise from high-volume en-
ergy-system training may also be detrimental to
strength and power development (8, 11, 13–16).
These studies have only investigated strength,
whereas Kraemer et al. (16) have shown that muscle
power is more susceptible to interference from a pro-
longed period of concurrent resistance and condition-
 Effects of Concurrent Training on Maintenance Strength and Power 173
ing training. To date no studies have examined the
effect of concurrent training or the demands of an in-
season of playing and practice on muscle power in
football-type athletes.
The purpose of this paper is to report on maximum
strength and power levels in professional and college-
aged rugby league football players throughout an en-
tire in-season period. This in-season period would en-
tail the concurrent training of energy-system condi-
tioning, strength and power, and numerous skill and
team practice sessions.
Methods
Subjects
Fourteen professional national rugby league (NRL)
and 15 college-aged rugby (SRL) league football play-
ers agreed to participate and were tested as part of
their regular strength and conditioning program re-
quirements for their sport. The mean 6 SD age, height,
and body mass were 24.5 6 3.5 years, 182.3 6 7.4 cm,
and 93.7 6 10.1 kg, and 18.2 6 1.0 years, 186.3 6 4.6
cm, and 95.1 6 7.5 kg, respectively, for the NRL and
SRL players.
Testing
Maximal strength was assessed using the 1 repetition
maximum bench press (1RM BP) using the methods
previously outlined (6). The maximal average power
output (Pmax) was assessed utilizing the plyometric
power system, which has been described previously (3,
4). Lower-body power was assessed during jump
squats (JS Pmax) with resistances of 40, 60, 80, and
100 kg using the methods described previously (3, 4).
Upper-body power output (BT Pmax) was assessed
during flat bench press throws with resistances of 40,
50, 60, 70, and 80 kg using the methods used previ-
ously described (5).
Testing conducted at the completion of the presea-
son training period (Pre) served as the base level for
further comparison. Throughout the in-season period
the SRL group were tested on 2 more occasions, at
week 9 and week 19. However, due to minor game-
related lower-body injuries, JS Pmax data for all 3 test
occasions can only be reported for 11 of the subjects.
For the NRL group, upper-body testing of strength
and power was performed an additional 3 times
(weeks 8, 17, and 29). Due to a small number of game-
related lower-body injuries, the JS Pmax data for the
NRL group will be reported for the Pre test and week
29 test only. Only 13 of the subjects completed both of
these lower-body testing sessions.
This testing at different periods provided data per-
tinent to whether strength and power could be main-
tained at the peak levels recorded at the completion of
the preseason training cycle throughout the lengthy in-
season period.
Table 1. Example of a weekly in-season training plan for
the professional rugby league (NRL) group (game on Sun-
day).
Mon- Wednes- Thurs- Fri-
day Tuesday day day day Saturday
Morning AR* WT Condit. WT — TP
— SK SK/TP SK — —
After- — Condit. — Condit. — —
noon — TP — TP — —
* AR 5 active recovery; WT 5 strength and power train-
ing; SK 5 Skill training; Condit. 5 energy system condition-
ing; TP 5 team practice.
Training
Prior to the Pre testing, which occurred at the begin-
ning of the competitive season, the subjects had com-
pleted a minimum of 16 (SRL) and 8 weeks (NRL) of
a periodized cycle of concurrent resistance and con-
ditioning training. This entailed 4 resistance-training
sessions (2 upper and lower body), 3 high-intensity
running sessions (45–60 minutes each), and 3 skill and
team practice sessions (45–60 minutes each) per week.
The professional NRL group also performed 2 condi-
tioning sessions for the upper body (e.g., swimming,
boxing, wrestling, arm cranking, and rowing, 20–45
minutes each).
All of the subjects from both groups attained or
bettered previous personal bests on the 1RM BP at the
Pre test, indicating a high training status at the start
of the investigation. These results and the lengthy pre-
season training period and training age of the subjects
would tend to preclude any changes in strength or
power during the ensuing in-season period being be-
cause of a simple neural or learning effect (10, 20).
During the in-season investigation period, resis-
tance training was reduced to 2 whole-body sessions
per week using the methods previously outlined (1, 2).
Conditioning was reduced to 2–3 high-intensity, 20–30
minute sessions per week. Skill and team practice ses-
sions, which also have an inherently high degree of
energy-system conditioning stimulus, were usually
carried out 3–5 times per week for approximately 60
minutes each. The NRL group also performed 1 upper-
body conditioning session per week for the first 8
weeks of the in-season. An example of the in-season
weekly training plan for the NRL group is detailed in
Table 1.
Training volume and intensities during the in-sea-
son period were periodized in 3–4 week cycles accord-
ing to the methods outlined (2). Consequently, high-
volume, lower-intensity resistance-training weeks
were aligned to high-volume, lower-intensity energy-
system conditioning training weeks and low-volume,
high-intensity resistance-training weeks were aligned
174 Baker

Table 2. The maintenance of different measures of the preseason levels across the entire season. Lower-
strength and power by professional rugby league (NRL) body maximal power (JS Pmax) was also unchanged
players across a 29-week in-season period (Mean 6 SD). between the preseason and week 29 tests. For the SRL
group, 1RM BP improved significantly by 4.9% from
1RM BP* BT Pmax JS Pmax the Pre test maximum to the week 9 testing occasion.
It then remained unchanged until the week 19 test. JS
Pre 137.9 6 13.3 621 6 80 1723 6 261
Week 8 135.8 6 11.9 609 6 77 —
Pmax was unchanged between each test occasion for
Week 17 137.4 6 12.2 602 6 91 — the SRL group.
Week 29 136.3 6 11.7 619 6 114 1700 6 264
Discussion
* 1RM BP 5 1 repetition maximum bench press; BT Pmax
5 bench throw maximum power; JS Pmax 5 jump squat The results of this investigation are in line with the
maximum power; Pre 5 preseason training period. results of some previous studies that have examined
the maintenance of different measures of strength
Table 3. The maintenance of different measures of across an in-season period, typically 14–16 weeks (2,
strength and power by college-aged rugby league (SRL) 9). However, the results are at odds with those of
players across a 19-week in-season period (Mean 6 SD). Schneider et al. (24), dos Remedios et al. (7), and Legg
and Burnham (17) who reported significant losses in
1RM BP† BT Pmax JS Pmax strength throughout in-seasons of similar length, de-
spite the continuation of strength training. In the cur-
Pre 110.3 6 17.0 519 6 88 1735 6 172 rent study the college-aged athletes actually signifi-
WK 9 115.7 6 16.8* 529 6 78 1799 6 207 cantly increased strength.
WK 19 114.0 6 14.0* 529 6 64 1805 6 154 Schneider et al. (24), who reported an 8% decrease
in BP strength in Canadian college football players
† 1RM BP 5 1 repetition maximum bench press; BT Pmax
during a 16-week in-season, rationalized that the in-
5 bench throw maximum power; JS Pmax 5 jump squat
maximum power; Pre 5 preseason training period. creased energy-system demands of the Canadian
* Denotes significantly different (p # 0.05) from the Pre test game, as opposed to the American game, may in part
result. explain the differences in their results compared with
Fleck and Kraemer (9). However, rugby league players
cover distances of 5–8 km (19) or more per 80-minute
to low-volume, high-intensity energy-system condi- game, as well as during 3–5 training sessions per
tioning training weeks. This procedure ensured a me- week, yet the college-aged players in this study exhib-
thodical periodization of the total training stress. Thus ited an increase in strength despite this large condi-
the first weeks of a training cycle were high in total tioning workload. Given the results of this study and
volume stress (both energy-system conditioning and previous studies of rugby football players (2), the con-
resistance-training volume), whereas the latter weeks clusion of Schneider et al. (24) may not be totally valid.
were low in the total volume stress. The reasons why the SRL athletes in this study in-
Statistical Analyses creased strength, as opposed to the losses in strength
The results for 1RM BP, BT Pmax, and JS Pmax were reported by Schneider et al. (24), dos Remedios et al.
compared using a repeated measures 1-way analysis (7), and Legg and Burnham (17) may be due to their
of variance (ANOVA) to determine if any of the in- apparent ability to better handle the interfering effects
season tests differed from those of the end of presea- of concurrent training. It has been postulated that ath-
son baseline scores or to each other. If a significant letes who typically perform little energy-system train-
effect of test occasion was found, Fisher post least ing in the preseason and who may possess low aerobic
squares difference post hoc comparisons were per- capacities may experience greater decreases in maxi-
formed to determine which test occasions produced mal strength during the in-season than do athletes
results. Pearson’s moment correlations were used to with a long training history of concurrent strength and
determine the strength of relationships between vari- energy-system training (7). If athletes are better con-
ables. Statistical significance was accepted at an alpha ditioned to perform concurrent resistance and energy-
level of p # 0.05. system training, then the interfering effects of energy-
system training, game and practice demands on
strength development, or maintenance may be re-
Results duced to some degree. In support of this, the subjects
The results for the maintenance of various measures in the Kraemer et al. (16) study also maintained
of strength and power are contained in Tables 2 and strength despite a large amount of concurrent energy-
3. For the NRL group, maximal upper-body strength system and resistance training. Therefore it could be
(1RM BP) and power (BT Pmax) were maintained at argued that the SRL subjects who performed 16 weeks
 Effects of Concurrent Training on Maintenance Strength and Power 175
of concurrent training prior to the Pre testing period
may have become better conditioned to perform con-
current training such that it did not negatively affect
their strength levels during the in-season.
Why the NRL group maintained, but did not gain
strength, as did the SRL group, is most likely due to
their greater strength-training background, which re-
duces the scope for strength improvements (10). Elite
athletes may train for up to 2 years before a 2.5-kg
increase in strength is manifested (12). Similar to the
report of Hakkinen (10), the SRL and NRL groups uti-
lized the same resistance-training programs and all
subjects attained or bettered personal bests in the 1RM
BP at the Pre testing occasion, indicating a high initial
training status. However, the NRL group were unable
to further increase strength across 29 weeks. This re-
sult may tend to confirm the limited scope for im-
provements in strength in athletes who possess greater
strength-training experience (10, 12).
This study differed from previous studies in that it
examined the possible interfering effects of concurrent
energy-system conditioning not only on strength, but
more importantly on power output for the upper and
lower body, across a long-term period. This study of
power output levels has yielded interesting results.
First, upper- and lower-body power can be main-
tained for up to 29 weeks despite the large degree of
lower- and upper-body conditioning that is performed
to improve the athlete’s ability to resist fatigue. There
has been scant research on the maintenance of maxi-
mal power outputs by subjects during prolonged pe-
riods of concurrent training. Kraemer et al. (16) re-
ported that maximum strength was maintained but
that power, as assessed during a Wingate test, was not
maintained in athletes performing concurrent training.
It was postulated that a high volume of total training
stress would appear to be the main interfering effect
on power output (15, 16). In the current study subjects
performed high total workloads, but based on the re-
sults and recommendations of previous research, a
number of strategies were implemented in an attempt
to reduce the possible interfering effects of concurrent
training on power output. These strategies were the
prioritization of training goals, the sequencing of train-
ing sessions, the timing of training sessions (18), im-
proving the condition of the athlete to perform con-
current training (7), and the periodization of the total
training stress (15).
Insofar as prioritization, sequencing, and timing of
sessions, Leveritt and Abernethy (18) suggested that
training goals needed to be prioritized so that the pri-
mary training goal should be trained first in an unf-
atigued state. This prioritization of training goals
would then dictate the sequencing and/or timing of
other training sessions. This may be valid for athletes
who are deficient in a particular component of fitness
or strength. However, Nelson et al. (22) found no sup-
pression of strength development if strength training
precedes conditioning training. If conditioning train-
ing is performed later in the day, in an already sem-
ifatigued state, this would actually increase the de-
mands on the athlete to resist fatigue, which is often
the goal of conditioning training. The subjects in this
study did not perform conditioning training before
strength and power training in an effort to reduce the
likelihood of acute interference between conditioning
training and power output. Therefore, to reduce the
likelihood of interfering effects between different
forms of training, it is recommended to perform
strength and power training before (22) or on alternate
days to conditioning training (23). If sessions are to be
performed on the same day, then attempts should be
made to increase the amount of time between sessions
to allow for glycogen repletion (18).
Studies have shown that athletes performing con-
current energy-system and strength training become
accustomed to training such that strength is not al-
ways significantly affected (16, 22, 23). How the neu-
romuscular and hormonal systems manage this is still
unknown. However, it is thought that an effective pe-
riodization of the total stress of combined training en-
ables the athlete to better adapt to this training sce-
nario (15).
For athletes such as rugby league players who re-
quire high levels of energy-system fitness as well as
strength and power, an effective periodization plan
may be necessary to control the total training stress
imposed on the athlete. In this case, the athletes per-
formed 3–4 week cycles with the highest volume and
lowest intensity for both resistance and energy-system
training performed in the first week, progressing to
the highest intensity and lowest volume in the last
week of a cycle (2). These high-intensity, low-volume
training weeks always preceded the games of per-
ceived greatest difficulty. For the athletes involved in
this study, this periodization procedure must be at
least partly responsible for their maintenance of
strength and power across a 19- and 29-week in-sea-
son.
However, it must be noted that during this inves-
tigation Pmax was only tested during weeks of lower-
volume, higher-intensity training at the conclusion of
a training cycle, as per the periodization plan. It is
quite possible that if Pmax was tested during the
weeks of the highest workloads, then Pmax levels may
be temporarily suppressed. Also, if an acute bout of
energy-system conditioning can result in an acute de-
crease in strength and high-speed torque (18), then it
could be presumed that there would be an acute effect
on power output as well. Therefore it would appear
that strength and conditioning coaches may need to
implement the types of strategies discussed above to
reduce the possible interfering effect of concurrent
176 Baker
training on strength and power output over a long-
term (e.g., in-season) period.
Of interest is the relationship between changes in
strength (1RM BP) and the changes in power (BT
Pmax) across an in-season. In the current investigation
the relationship between changes in strength and
changes in power were r 5 0.73 (p , 0.05) and r 5
0.39 (not significant), respectively, for the college-aged
SRL and professional NRL rugby league players.
These results illustrate that for the SRL athletes,
who possess lower levels of strength and power,
changes in Pmax are still highly dependent on changes
in maximum strength. However, it appears to become
less so with the increased training experience of the
NRL athletes. As the cross-sectional relationship be-
tween maximum strength and Pmax is usually in the
order of r 5 0.78–0.93 (4, 21), then the results for
changes in these parameters must indicate a decreas-
ing transfer effect that may be occurring with in-
creased training experience. This is most likely because
of the fact that the NRL athletes have (generally) al-
ready attained their strength base, from which further
gains in maximum strength are difficult to achieve
without inappropriately directing specialized training
in that direction, and hence gains in Pmax are occur-
ring through avenues other than the development of
strength. Thus for these more elite athletes to increase
power they must do so through increased velocity/
speed contributions. Accordingly, for these elite ath-
letes gains in strength, which will be minimal, will not
largely account for changes in power. Consequently,
the total training stress or the acute effects of changes
in the sequencing, timing, or volume of training ses-
sions may impact more on power levels than the min-
imal changes in strength could.
Furthermore, as power output can appear acutely
(negatively) affected by the volume of training, where-
as maximum strength is less affected (16), then statis-
tically there can be little relationship between changes
in the 2 variables at higher levels of adaptation if pow-
er decreases because of the effects of volume training,
whereas maximum strength remained stable.
The evidence of the correlations between 1RM BP
and BT Pmax at different testing periods may tend to
confirm the theory that the volume of training acutely
affects power output in some manner (see Table 4). For
the SRL the relationship between 1RM BP and BT
Pmax remained remarkably stable (r 5 0.87–0.88)
across all testing occasions, whereas it varied more for
the NRL group (r 5 0.52–0.77). The relationships be-
tween 1RM BP and BT Pmax become fairly similar for
each group by the third testing session, but are mark-
edly dissimilar during the first 2 testing occasions. The
only factors that differentiate between the 2 groups at
these first 2 testing sessions are training age (and con-
sequently strength and power levels) and the fact that
the NRL group also performed additional upper-body
Table 4. Correlations between strength (1RM BP) and
power (BT Pmax) at different testing occasions. All correla-
tions are significant (p # 0.05).
1RM BP v BT Pmax*
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4
NRL 0.56 0.52 0.77 0.75
SRL 0.88 0.88 0.87 —
* 1RM BP 1 repetition maximum bench press; BT Pmax 5
bench throw maximum power; NRL 5 professional rugby
league players; SRL 5 college-age rugby league players.
energy-system conditioning. As by the third testing
session (weeks 17 and 19) the relationships between
1RM BP and BT Pmax are similar for both groups and
the difference in training age is stable, then the extra
upper-body conditioning of the NRL group, which
had been discontinued after week 8, may be account-
able for these changes. It is likely that the addition of
a large volume of upper-body conditioning in the pre-
season and the first 8 weeks of the in-season lowered
the relationship between strength and power for the
NRL group. When the upper-body conditioning was
eliminated, the relationships returned to virtually the
same level as compared with the SRL group. This may
further indicate that the volume of training has more
impact, through as yet unknown mechanisms, on
power rather than strength.
Based on this and the previous cross-sectional data
(4, 21), it would appear that in the early training ages
the neuromuscular system adopts the strategy of in-
creasing Pmax by predominantly utilizing increases in
strength. As gains, or potential gains in strength di-
minish, then changes in Pmax must be produced
through other velocity-oriented means. Therefore a di-
minished relationship between changes in strength
and changes in Pmax must occur with increased train-
ing experience. Of interest would be the relationship
between changes in velocity or total training volume
and changes in Pmax over long-term training periods
in advanced athletes performing concurrent resistance
and energy-system training.
Practical Applications
Maximal strength and power can be maintained at the
maximum preseason levels for long in-season periods
of up to 29 weeks despite a large amount of concur-
rent energy-system training and a reduction in
strength-training volume. The key to maintaining
strength and power during the in-season may lie in
having athletes initially better conditioned to perform
concurrent training; the prioritization, sequencing, and
timing of training; and utilizing an appropriate peri-
odization model that allows for periods of high, me-
 Effects of Concurrent Training on Maintenance Strength and Power 177
dium, and low training volumes and intensities. With
an increased training age there appears to be a de-
creasing transfer between changes in maximum
strength and maximum power. This may be due to a
plateau affect of strength and the neuromuscular sys-
tem seeking other avenues (e.g., velocity) to increase
power. The total volume of training may also need to
be effectively periodized or managed such that its po-
tential to acutely effect power output is minimized.
References
1. BAKER, D. Strength training for rugby leagues. In: Proceedings
of the 1995 Australian Strength and Conditioning Association Na-
tional Conference and Trade Show.. I. King, ed. Toowong, QLD,
Australia, 1995. pp 135–155.
2. BAKER, D. Applying the in-season periodisation of strength and
power training to football. Strength Cond. J. 20(2):18–24. 1998.
3. BAKER, D., AND S. NANCE. The relation between running speed
and measures of strength and power in professional rugby
league players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 13:230–235. 1999.
4. BAKER, D., AND S. NANCE. The relation between strength and
power in professional rugby league players. J. Strength Cond.
Res. 13:224–229. 1999.
5. BAKER, D., S. NANCE, AND M. MOORE. The load that maximizes
the average mechanical power output during explosive bench
press throws in highly trained athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res.
15:20–24. 2001.
6. BAKER, D., G. WILSON, AND R. CARLYON. Generality versus
specificity: A comparison of dynamic and isometric measures
of strength and speed-strength. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 68:350–355.
1994.
7. DOS REMEDIOS, K.A., R.L. DOS REMEDIOS, S.F. LOY, G.J. HOL-
LAND, W.J. VINCENT, L.M. CONLEY, AND M. HING. Physiological
and field test performance changes of community college foot-
ball players over a season. J. Strength Cond. Res. 9:211–215. 1995.
8. DUDLEY, G.A., ANDDJAMIL, R. Incompatibility of endurance
and strength training modes of exercise. J. Appl. Physiol. 59:
1446–1451. 1985.
9. FLECK, S.J., AND W.J. KRAEMER. Designing Resistance Training
Programs. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1997.
10. HAKKINEN, K. Factors influencing trainability of muscular
strength during short-term and prolonged training. Natl.
Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 7(2):32–37. 1985.
11. HAKKINEN, K. Effects of the competition season on physical
fitness profile in elite basketball players. J. Hum. Move. Stud. 15:
119–128. 1988.
12. HAKKINEN, K., A. PAKARINEN, M. ALEN, H. KAUHANEN, AND
P. KOMI. Neuromuscular and hormonal adaptations in athletes
to strength training in 2 years. J. Appl. Physiol. 65(6):2406–2412.
1998.
13. HICKSON, R. Interference of strength development by simulta-
neously training for strength and endurance. Eur. J. Appl. Phy-
siol. 45:255–263.. 1980.
14. HUNTER, G., R. DEMMENT, AND D. MILLER. Development of
strength and maximum oxygen uptake during simultaneously
training for strength and endurance. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness
27:269–275. 1987.
15. KRAEMER, W.J., AND B.C. NINDL. Factors involved with over-
training for strength and power. In: Overtraining in Sport. R.B.
Kreider, A.C. Fry, and M.L. O’Toole, eds. Champaign, IL: Hu-
man Kinetics, 1998. pp. 69–86.
16. KRAEMER, W.J., J.F. PATTON, S.E. GORDON, E.A. HARMAN, M.R.
DESCHENES, K. REYNOLDS, R.U. NEWTON, N.T. TRIPLETT, AND
J.E. DZIADOS. Compatibility of high-intensity strength and en-
durance training on hormonal and skeletal muscle adaptations.
J. Appl. Physiol. 78:976–989. 1995.
17. LEGG, D., AND R. BURNHAM. In-season shoulder abduction
strength changes in football players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 13:
4381–4383. 1999.
18. LEVERITT, M., AND P.J. ABERNETHY. Acute effects of high-inten-
sity endurance on subsequent resistance activity. J. Strength
Cond. Res. 13:47–51. 1999.
19. MEIR, R., D. ARTHUR, AND M. FORREST. Time and motion anal-
ysis of professional rugby league: A case study. Strength Cond.
Coach 1(3):24–29. 1993.
20. MORITANI, T., AND H.A. De Vries. Neural factors versus hy-
pertrophy in the time course of muscle strength gain. Am. J.
Phys. Med. Rehabil. 58(3):115–130. 1979.
21. MOSS, B.M., P.E. REFSNES, A. ABILDAARD, K. NICOLAYSEN, AND
J. JENSEN. Effects of maximal effort strength training with dif-
ferent loads on dynamic strength, cross-sectional area, load-
power, and load-velocity relationships. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 75:
193–199. 1997.
22. NELSON, A.G., D.A. ARNALL, S.F. LOY, L.J. SILVESTER, AND R.K.
CONLEE. Consequences of combining strength and endurance
training regimens. Phys. Ther. 70:287–294. 1990.
23. SALE, D.G., I. JACOBS, J.D. MACDOUGAL, AND S. GARNER. Com-
parison of two regimens of concurrent strength and endurance
training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 22:348–356. 1990.
24. SCHEIDNER, V., B. ARNOLD, K. MARTIN, D. BELL, AND P. CROCK-
ER. Detraining effects in college football players during the
competitive season. J. Strength Cond. Res. 12:42–45. 1998.