{"id":6891,"date":"2020-03-06T06:30:00","date_gmt":"2020-03-06T12:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/?p=6891"},"modified":"2020-06-02T13:42:57","modified_gmt":"2020-06-02T18:42:57","slug":"high-volume-resistance-training-and-its-effects-on-anaerobic-work-capacities-over-time-a-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/high-volume-resistance-training-and-its-effects-on-anaerobic-work-capacities-over-time-a-review\/","title":{"rendered":"High Volume Resistance Training and its Effects on Anaerobic Work Capacities Over Time: A Review"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Authors: <\/strong>Keith B. Painter, Luis Rodr\u00edguez-Castellano, & Michael H. Stone<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Corresponding Author:<\/strong>
Luis Rodr\u00edguez-Castellano
Department of Sport, Exercise, Recreation, and Kinesiology
Center of Excellence of Sport Science and Coach Education
East Tennessee State University
Johnson City, TN, USA, 37614-1701
rodriguezl1@etsu.edu
787-470-3676<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Luis Rodr\u00edguez-Castellano is a Sports Physiology and Performance Fellow PhD student in East Tennessee State University.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors did not claim any funding from any agency for the creation of this manuscript. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

High Volume Resistance Training and its Effects on Anaerobic Work Capacities Over Time: A Review<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

ABSTRACT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Performing resistance\ntraining (RT) may improve physical performance capabilities, with anaerobic\nwork capacity (AWC) being one of the characteristics targeted by coaches and\nathletes. High volume resistance training (HVRT) is typically prescribed in RT programs with the expectancy\nof improving AWC. However, much of the research available is unclear concerning\nthe effects of HVRT on AWC over time. Therefore, this review will focus on the\nlongitudinal effects of HVRT on AWC. Searches were conducted on SportDiscus,\nPubMed, Google Scholar, relevant articles from references of qualifying\nstudies, and by using strategies previously suggested (20). Fourteen studies met the following inclusion criteria: a)\npeer-reviewed, b) testing of AWC pre- and post-HVRT, c) subjects between the\nages of 18-40 years, d) a study of at least 4 weeks in duration, e) the study\nhad to use a RT intervention with a set and repetition scheme of \u2265 3 x 8 or\nbase volume load (bVL) of 24 reps, f) and training had to occur at least twice\na week for multiple muscle groups. Contrasting protocols within qualifying\nstudies made it challenging to compare between them. Many studies did not meet\nour criteria mainly due to lack of required duration and pre- and post-training\nperformance testing. The findings of this review indicate that moderately high-volume\nload (VL) of 4 \u00b1 1 sets of 12 \u00b1 3 repetitions can improve AWC more efficiently\nthan higher VL protocols while mitigating potential strength losses, especially\nwhen enough intra-set rest is provided. Moreover, the various implemented protocols\nand mixed results make generalizability impractical. Coaches and athletes\nshould use this information with good judgement. Reporting full descriptions of\nthe protocols (ie. VL per day)\nand the inclusion of performance measurements are warranted for future research\nto understand the contributions of HVRT to AWC. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Keywords:<\/strong> Anaerobic Work Capacity, Resistance Training, High Volume, Anaerobic Endurance<\/p>\n\n\n\n

INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The effects of resistance\ntraining (RT) have become increasingly more scrutinized in the scientific\nliterature and there is much debate on the methodologies of implementation, mechanisms\nof adaptations, and physiological impact. Many athletes trying to optimize their\nabilities use RT programs to improve physiological qualities for better sports\nperformance. Copious articles related to RT have focused on muscle hypertrophy,\nstrength\/power adaptations, and injury prevention (11, 10, 28, 33, 38, 53).\nHowever, <\/strong>anaerobic work capacity\n(AWC) is an important factor to consider when programming for some sports (51) and\ncan be defined as the amount of work that can be accomplished primarily using\nthe anaerobic energy systems. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Often researchers will\nindirectly assess AWC by implementing what\nhistorically has been known as a \u201cmuscular endurance\u201d test (9, 17, 18, 31,\n41, 42, 45-47, 53). Although endurance has been defined as the ability\nof the muscle to resist fatigue under a submaximal load (14) or the maximal number of repetitions performed with a\nspecified load (1, 31), it is best described as\nthe ability to maintain or repeat a given force or power output (6).\n\u201cMuscular endurance\u201d has been the term commonly used to described endurance\nactivities that are of high intensity. It should\nbe noted that the term \u201cmuscular endurance\u201d suggests that fatigue is wholly a\nmuscle phenomenon. Indeed even in short-term activities other physiological\n(and psychological) aspects can contribute to fatigue such as the nervous\nsystem (6, 50). As endurance activities represent a continuum from low intensity\nexercise endurance (LIEE) to high intensity exercise endurance (HIEE), a\nbetter way to refer to the term \u201cmuscle endurance\u201d in this review would be HIEE\nas the exercises and tests used usually fall \u2264 2 minutes (6, 50). Additionally,\nloads used have oscillated from absolute to relative, and relative loads have\nvaried in percentages of one-repetition maximum (1RM). The typical duration of HIEE tests range from\n15-90 s (or \u2265 8 repetitions), similar to other exercises and tests that measure\nfor AWC (i.e. 200 & 400 m sprints, 50 & 100 m in swimming, Wingate\nAnaerobic Test, etc.) which highly tax the anaerobic metabolism. Anaerobic work\ncapacity is associated with a large metabolic component; so, to develop HIEE using\nRT, it has been suggested to implement high repetitions with lower intensities (12, 14, 31,\n43, 51). It has been recommended to employ\n\u2265 3 sets of 8-20 repetitions to improve HIEE in most adults while possibly minimizing\nrest between sets (1, 51). This is often\nincluded in various RT programs as a \u201cstrength-endurance\u201d phase (10, 11, 38), with the frequency and intensities\nmanipulated to attain a HIEE or AWC goal (51). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Developing AWC is\nmultifaceted, and one physiological component necessary for many sports is\nanaerobic capacity (AC) (19, 43). High AC is vital for optimal AWC in order\nto perform repeated high-intensity bouts in many sports successfully. However,\nAWC should not be confused with AC or metabolism, as the former refers to the\ntotal work performed during an exhaustive work bout, while the latter are the\nprocesses that provide for energy during short duration maximal exercise (19). These high-intensity efforts could be\nperformed in a continuous manner, such as in short-duration sprinting, cycling,\nand swimming events; or in random intermittent manner during many individual\nand team sport games or practice. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Great emphasis is placed on proper adaptations to AWC in training, team practice and\/or specific sports conditioning when annual plans are employed (7, 36, 43). Although AWC is mainly powered by the AC of the athlete, aerobic metabolism does have an influence on duration and outcome (19). Considering the advantages of using RT to improve athletic performance (10, 11, 33, 38), conflicts within the literature concerning this area still exist, specifically when comparing the effects of high-volume resistance training (HVRT) on AWC. A plurality of the research studies assessing AWC that met our criteria were conducted on untrained to recreationally trained subjects (9, 17, 18, 27, 32, 35, 40-43, 45-47, 52), while none measured changes in athletes before and directly after the HVRT portions of their studies. In this review, the primary focus will be directed toward the impact of HVRT on AWC. The literature search for this review was conducted using the strategies suggested by Greenhalgh & Peacock (20) and had the following criteria applied: a) peer-reviewed, b) testing of AWC pre- and post-HVRT, c) subjects had to be between the ages 18-40 years, d) the study had to be at least 4 weeks in duration, e) the study had to use a RT intervention with a set and repetition scheme of \u2265 3 x 8 or base volume loads (bVL) of \u2265 24 repetitions, f) and training had to occur at least twice a week for multiple muscle groups.  A total of 14 articles met the inclusion criteria. Additional analyses of these articles were calculated using Cohen\u2019s d<\/em> effect sizes (ES).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

High Volume Resistance Training<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is considerable\ndebate about optimal implementation strategies for RT and the adaptations that\noccur from differing set and repetition schemes (e.g. \u201cset\u201d x \u201crepetitions\u201d, 3 x\n10, 2 x 20, etc.) or bVL. The strength-endurance continuum is one training concept\nstating that training with higher repetitions and lighter intensities will\nelicit more endurance effects, while lifting with heavier intensities and lower\nrepetitions will lead to more strength improvements (3, 12, 52). However, this concept does not account for rest\nperiods and the cross-over effect of RT on improving endurance performance (7, 52).   \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many programs implemented\nin research have involved a period of HVRT to illicit muscle hypertrophy,\nimprove strength, and\/or increase HIEE (3, 8, 9,\n16-18, 27, 35, 38, 40-43, 45-47, 52).\nThese programs included total repetition ranges of 24-150 per exercise and were\nconducted at least twice a week (average bVL = 101.4 \u00b1 62.7 per week). With\nsuch large bVL variations a better suited method of comparing RT programs would\nbe by estimating work with volume load (VL) (21,\n24, 25, 38, 41, 45, 46). However, many of the studies satisfying the criteria\nof this review did not report training VL (3, 9,\n18, 27, 40, 42, 45, 47, 52).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This can lead to some\nconfounding results in work performed, especially with RT programs that use a\nrepetition maximum (RM) scheme.  In order\nto equate VL there cannot be a variable range in either the sets or repetitions\nperformed.  As shown in the following\ntable (See Table\n1), VL can fluctuate drastically\nbetween 8 and 12 repetitions which (8-12 repetitions) is a commonly prescribed\nbVL for HVRT in the literature (38, 41, 45-47)\nor it can be equated by a drastic reduction in intensity with higher\nrepetitions. Additionally, when implementing a RM scheme there is a\nrange in which the repetitions should be performed (i.e. 3 x 8-12 RM, 2 x 15-20\nRM, 4 x 6-8 RM, etc.), and if a weight can be lifted more than the prescribed\nnumber of repetitions then the weight is increased during the training session\nor in the following training session (3, 9, 18, 40,\n41, 45-47, 52) which further muddles comparisons. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 1<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n
Volume Load Variations<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n

Sets<\/strong><\/p><\/td>\n

 <\/strong><\/p><\/td>\n

Repetitions<\/strong><\/p><\/td>\n

 <\/strong><\/p><\/td>\n

Load (kg)<\/strong><\/p><\/td>\n

VL<\/strong><\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n

3<\/p><\/td>\n

x<\/p><\/td>\n

8<\/p><\/td>\n

x<\/p><\/td>\n

100<\/p><\/td>\n

2400 kg<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n

3<\/p><\/td>\n

x<\/p><\/td>\n

12<\/p><\/td>\n

x<\/p><\/td>\n

100<\/p><\/td>\n

3600 kg<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n

3<\/p><\/td>\n

x<\/p><\/td>\n

40<\/p><\/td>\n

x<\/p><\/td>\n

30<\/p><\/td>\n

3600 kg<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n <\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n

Though there is continued debate over HVRT implementation strategies, it is widely accepted that continuous, prolonged HVRT can lead to performance decrements from fatigue and overtraining.  Of the qualifying studies implementing HVRT, the time frames observed ranged from 4 to 24 weeks averaging 8 \u00b1 4.6 weeks. However, other training studies that implement HVRT as a portion of training have done so within the time frame of 4 weeks or less (10, 11, 38, 50). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Measurements of Anaerobic Work Capacity <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When testing for AWC, it\nis important to consider what energy systems are being assessed. Researchers have\npreviously classified AWC tests as either alactic work capacity (durations of 1-10\ns), intermediate (durations of 20-60 s), and long duration (\u2265 90 s) (19, 30). The separation of these work\ncapacities can be complicated since energy systems are not exclusively used at\nany time. Hence, the use of AWC, which engulf all the qualities to be measured,\nseems more appropriate. Many tests have been performed in laboratory settings\nto measure AWC (4, 19, 22, 31). Depending\non the nature of a sport and variables to be evaluated, differing AWC tests\nhave been utilized; continuous constant-load, intermittent, or all-out (19, 43). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Continuous constant-load\ntests are typically performed in a laboratory setting and require the athlete\nto maintain a certain power output until it can no longer be maintained.\nUsually these power outputs exceed the maximal oxygen consumption workload\nintensity. Many tests have proposed the use of a variety of standard velocities,\ngradient inclines, and work outputs at a standard cycle rate (19, 22). Typically, AWC is shown to be higher\nin sprint rather than endurance athletes and it has significant correlations\nwith 400 m run time (19). On the other\nhand, intermittent tests are performed as either repeated, gradually building\nfrom submaximal to maximal intensities, or all-out maximal intensities (4, 31, 43). These tests seem to be more\nappropriate for many team sports where repeated bursts of high-intensity\nsprints are required. An important difference between a constant-load and an\nall-out test is that the subject is required to exert maximum efforts\nthroughout the entire test duration in the latter. An example of a common\nall-out test that has been used is the Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT) (26). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some limiting factors of\nthese testing procedures are the requirement of sophisticated equipment, costs,\nand technical knowledge. This has led to other assessments\nof AWC in research and coaching which include intermmittent and RM tests.  Some of these tests include repeated sprint\ntests (4, 43), repeated WAnT (33), and a maximum set of repetitions on a chosen\nexercise (9, 16-18, 31, 41, 42, 47, 48, 52). Results from these tests could\neither be analyzed for each sequential individual repetition or by using a summation\nof all repetitions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Resistance Training and Anaerobic Work Capacity<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Resistance training and\nmany sporting events rely heavily on the anaerobic energy systems (See Table 2).\nAdditionally, many RT sessions and sporting events could last longer than one\nhour placing a repeated heavy demand on AWC. The repeated use of the anaerobic\nsystem is the underpinning reason that AWC is vital in developing prolonged\nhigh intensity work. Studies have related RM testing to AWC (3, 31, 52), though there have been some\ndifferences in how it has been assessed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 2<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Table<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Repetition Maximum Testing<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some studies used RM\ntesting to assess AWC by providing a specified load to be lifted until muscular\nfailure (MF).  Anderson and Kearney (3),\nobserved changes in HIEE for the bench press with the use of bVL schemes of low\nresistance-high repetition (1 x 100-150 RM), medium resistance-medium\nrepetition (2 x 30-40 RM), and high resistance-low repetition (3 x 6-8 RM) in\nuntrained young men (age 20.65 \u00b1 1.79 years) 3 days a week for 9 weeks.\nDifferences were assessed using MF with a given load (absolute and relative)\npre- and post-training. While both the high repetition and low repetition\ngroups performed higher bVL than is typically prescribed in current RT\nprograms, they did provide a stark contrast. Interestingly, there was no\nstatistical difference in absolute endurance improvements, though the moderate-repetition\ngroup had the greatest ES (1.51) compared to the high (1.06) and low repetition\n(0.88) groups. However, relative endurance tests showed both the medium and\nhigh repetition groups improved >20% each having strong ES (1.03, 1.20;\nrespectively), but the low repetition group decreased by 7% with a small ES (0.55).\nWhile subjects seemingly produced better activation of AC pathways, this was at\nthe expense of optimal maximal strength gains in the high (+4.9%) and medium repetition\ngroup (+8.2%), which did not compare to the low repetition group (+20.2%). Though\nsignificant statistical differences were not found, ES indicate the medium repetition\ngroup out preformed the high repetition group in strength gains (1.17, 0.65;\nrespectively). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To further expand on the\nAnderson and Kearney (3) study, Stone and\nCoulter (52) attempted to replicate the results with young women (age\n23.1 \u00b1 3.5 years) and added similar training measures to the lower body and RM\ntests via squats. The training protocols use in this study did vary somewhat\nfrom the Anderson and Kearney study with the low-repetition group performing 3×6-8\nRM with 2-3 min rest between sets; the moderate-repetition group performing 3×9-11\nRM with 2 min rest between sets; and the high-repetition group preforming 2×20-28\nRM with 1 min rest between sets. They (52) found that low-repetition was the\nsole protocol that produced a HIEE decrement, and that the medium-repetition\ngroup performed similarly to the high-repetition group in most measures of HIEE.\nHowever, the moderate-repetition group had the highest average ES (1.68) for\nupper and lower body strength gains. Both studies provided evidence that the\nmagnitude of HIEE improvements were similar between the moderate- and high-repetition\ngroups (3, 52), but the optimal method for developing both HIEE while also\ncontinually improving strength was in the moderate-repetition groups. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Campos et al. studied\nhealthy men (n = 32; age 22.5 \u00b1 5.8 years) during one of 3 progressive RT\nprograms (Low = 4 x 3-5 RM, Intermediate = 3 x 9-11 RM, High = 2 x 20-28 RM)\nwith a control group performing no exercises (9).  These training sessions were each conducted twice\nper week the first 4 weeks and 3 times per week the remaining 4 weeks, for a\ntotal of 8 weeks with progressively increasing VL. The AWC test was conducted using\na leg press, squat, and knee extensions at 60% 1RM, performing to MF. The High\ngroup performed statistically more repetitions in the AWC tests than all the\nother groups but was significantly lower in all maximal strength gains.  Interestingly, both the Low and Intermediate\ngroup only produced statistically significant improvements in the AWC test for\nsquats. This study also provided additional evidence of increased cross-sectional\narea with the average ES of the Intermediate group (0.74) outperforming the\nHigh group (0.50). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Schoenfeld et al. (47), also\nstudied the effects of low- versus high-load RT.  They progressed male (n = 18, age range of 18-33 years) experienced lifters\n(1.5-9 years of lifting consistently > 3 times per week) through either\nhigh-load or low-load training 3 times per week for 8 weeks.  The high-load group training consisted of 3 x\n8-12 RM and the low-load performed 3 x 25-35 RM. To assess AWC, they used an RM\ntest to MF with the load corresponding to 50% of each subject\u2019s current 1RM on\nthe bench press. The low-load produced substantial AWC improvements but failed\nto produce statistically significant strength improvements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Using the same AWC\ntesting protocols, Schoenfeld et al. (45) attempted to ascertain differences\nbetween constant and varied loads in healthy men (n = 19; age 23.9 \u00b1 3.2 years)\nwith resistance training experience (4.7 \u00b1 3.2 years).  The constant group performed a weekly bVL of\n72-108 (3 x 8-12 RM, 3 days per week) and the varied group performed a weekly\nbVL of 90-138 (Day1 = 3 x 2-4 RM, Day2 = 3 x 8-12 RM, Day 3 = 3 x 20-30 RM).\nAlthough the bVL was higher in the varied group, the reported weekly VLs were statistically\nhigher for the constant group. Oddly enough, the graphical depiction of VL\ndeviations for the varied group were lower (\u00b1 10,000 approx.) than that of the\nconstant group (\u00b1 20,000 approx.), but there was no mention of this\ndiscrepancy. Both groups showed significant increases in all measures but were\nnot statistically different from each other. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another\nstudy by Schoenfeld, et al. (46) assessed AWC testing via\nrepetitions to MF by comparing training groups of low volume (1 x 8-12 RM),\nmedium volume (3 x 8-12 RM), and high volume (5 x 8-12 RM) over 8 weeks.  Subjects (n = 34) were healthy males (age\n23.8 \u00b1 3.8 years) with RT experience (4.4 \u00b1 3.9 years). Their evaluation of AWC\nwas the bench press to MF using 50% of the initial 1RM. While all groups had statistically\nsignificant pre- and post-training improvements, no statistical differences\nwere found between groups in bench press strength (ES = 0.27) or AWC (ES =\n0.14). They did find that higher volumes were associated with greater\nhypertrophic responses, leading to the question of how much of the AWC changed\ndue to AC improvements versus possible muscle fiber gains. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

An alternate method of structuring\nHVRT programs is by increasing the number of sets performed per session instead\nof the repetitions per set.  This method\nwas investigated in untrained men (n = 43) comparing 1-, 3-, and 5- sets using\n8-12 RM 3 days per week for 6 months (41).  They used a 20 RM on bench press and leg\npress to assess AWC and found that the 1-set group had inferior gains compared\nto the other two groups.  Interestingly, the\n5-set group was the only group with statistically different AWC results compared\nto the one set group in the leg press, but also produced statistically better\nresults than the other groups in the bench press AWC test. The 5-set group also\nhad statistically greater absolute muscle thickness results in the elbow\nflexors and extensors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Giessing\net al (18) chose to manipulate the speed of the movement. They used recreationally\nactive students (n = 30; age 23 \u00b1 3 years) in a \u201chigh intensity training\u201d\nprogram or a 3-set circuit twice a week for 10\nweeks. The high intensity training group performed 1 x 10 RM with controlled\nmovement speeds (concentric = 2 s, isometric = 1 s, eccentric = 4 s) then\nperformed 2 x 2-3 more immediately afterward dropping the weight 10-15% each\nset. The 3-set circuit group performed 1 x 10 RM on each exercise but performed\nthe circuit 3 times. Of note, the authors do mention that loads were only\nincreased if participants achieved >15 repetitions which indicates these\nprograms may have repetition fluccuation from 10 to 15 potentially leading to a\nweekly bVL of 60-90 for the 3-set circuit group. Their assessments of AWC were conducted\npre- and post-training in the form of an RM test using 50% of the absolute load\nfor each participants determined 10 RM for each exercise.  The authors found statistical pre- and post-\ndifferences in both groups, but found statistical differences between groups for\nonly 3 exercises (heel raises, elbow flexion, and knee flexion), which all\nfavored the high intensity training group. Overall, the 3-set circuit group\nexperience an average increase of 16 \u00b1 13.5 repetitions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

McGee and others (32) had\none group of young male subject (17-26 years old) perform a 3 x 10 set load\nrepetition scheme for 7 weeks. Subjects were tested using a squat (1 squat per\n6 seconds) that began with a 60 kg load which increased every minute by 2.5 kg\nuntil exhaustion. The total repetitions, calculated load, and the final maximum\nmass lifted at exhaustion increased from pre- to post-test (ES = 1.00, 0.97, 0.93;\nrespectively). In comparison to a single set protocol, multiple sets and higher\nvolumes produced superior gains in HIEE. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wingate Testing and Anaerobic Work Capacity<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Psilander and colleagues\n(40) used the WAnT for pre and post testing, which was performed after a\n40-minute time trial and 20 minutes of easy pedaling. Moderately trained\ncyclists (n = 9; age 34 \u00b1 2 years, 5.0 \u00b1 1.6 years of cycling experience and\n7.1 \u00b1 1.0 h\/week of training) visited the laboratory 2 times per week in\nexchange for 2 sessions of their normal training schedule. After performing the\nendurance training sessions, the subjects were separated into an experimental\n(5 x 15 repetitions at 65%, 70%, 75%, 75% and 65% for sets 1-5, respectively in\nthe leg press), and control (2.5 to 4 additional minutes equating for energy\nexpenditure) for 8 weeks. Although increases in strength and peak power\n(alactic) were observed for the experimental group, compared to the controlled\ngroup, no improvements were noted for mean power (alactic and lactic) during\nany AWC variables in the WAnT.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Using the WAnT, a group of healthy college aged males (n = 24; age range 18-22 years) completed 8 weeks of training with 3 x 8-10 RM of a split-body routine consisting of multi-joint and single-joint exercises where subjects were instructed to train at an intensity that elicited MF (27). No statistically significant changes were observed for either peak or mean power, however significant improvements of 1RM strength were observed in the bench press and leg press exercises over-time (27).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interestingly, Netreba\nand others (35) conducted a study in which physically active young men trained their\nknee extensors and flexors, and hip extensors 3 times a week for 8 weeks using\na Power Hummer training machine.\n<\/strong>One\ngroup (n = 9; age = 20 \u00b1 4 years) trained with a 6-10 RM scheme performing 7\nsets on a Monday, and 3 sets on Wednesday and Friday with full limb range of\nmovement. The intensity range for this group was kept around 80-85% of the\nmaximum voluntary force produced for each exercise. While the experimental group\n(n = 9; age = 21 \u00b1 4 years) trained by maintaining constant tension on the\nmuscle with a training load of 50% of the maximum voluntary force for each\nexercise. The protocol for the experimental group was performed accordingly in\norder to maintain a constant muscle tension during the exercise period. They found\nimprovements in alactic power during the first 10 s of the WAnT test in both\ngroups after the training period (35).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other Testing Methods for Anaerobic Work Capacity<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Repeated sprint ability\nis an important characteristic for many athletes and has been used for the assessment\nof AWC. Robinson and others (43), used a repeated maximal effort cycle test\nthat consisted of 15 x 5 s intervals with 50 s of rest between them. The\ntesting was performed before and after 5 weeks of 5 x 10 at a set load with\nassistance exercises limited to 3 x 10 at a set load. Three equally divided (n\n= 33) groups were differentiated by distinct rest intervals (180 s, 90 s, and\n30 s). The variables measured were peak power, mean power and total work of\neach repetition, and average peak power from all repetitions. Statistically significant\ntime effects for all variables were shown for all groups, yet no differences\nbetween the groups were observed. This was despite increased strength in the\nsquat for the group that used longer rest between sets compared to the\nshortest. The authors suggest that this provides evidence that there is a rest\nperiod continuum, in which longer rest periods attained greater strength gains\nwhich is related to the higher relative training intensity used by the longer\nrest interval group. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

DISCUSSION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mechanical and metabolic\nmechanisms may develop at differing rates, but distinguishing between muscle\ngrowth, neurological development, and AC increases and how they impact AWC has shown\nto be difficult. Many studies directly and indirectly attempted to amplify AWC\nunder varying training protocols, but comparisons are problematic due to contrary\ntesting and RT program implementation methods. While reporting of VL data has\nbecome more prevalent in recent literature, standardization of this procedure\nwould help in cross comparisons. Additionally, reporting means and standard\ndeviations of relative VL per day may also aid in this process. However, with this\nlack of VL data, classifications of HVRT have been made challenging. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The studies examined had weekly\nbVL ranges of 36 to 360 and many did not report loads used during training. Most\ndata from the examined studies point to training with < 20 repetitions to\noptimally increase AWC (9, 35, 41-43, 45-47, 52).\nMoreover, calculations of ES indicate that training 3×10-15 repetitions may be\nthe most advantageous method to improve AWC and strength. This may indicate\nthat load may play a bigger role in developing AWC changes than is currently\nknown. Since fast glycolysis and phosphagen both are more intensity dependent,\nit stands to reason that training with higher intensities and higher volumes can\npositively affect AWC. This relationship may be supported by the evidence of moderately\nhigh training volumes increasing the AWC the same as higher volume RT programs (3, 9, 45, 46, 52). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additionally, RT has shown\nto affect muscle size, type, and number (9-11, 46,\n53). This relationship seems to be correlated with training intensities,\nbut without VL data it cannot be determined. It is possible that slow-twitch\nType I muscle fibers are developed to a greater extent with higher repetitions and\ntraining to failure, since some training groups experienced significantly higher\nAWC testing values, without significant strength improvements (9, 29). During HVRT, a common practice from\nstrength and conditioning coaches is to prescribe multiple sets of 10 or more\nrepetitions. With this HVRT prescription, rest intervals can fluctuate, but\nmany of the articles reviewed mention rest periods of \u2264 3 min during training (18, 27, 41, 43, 45-47). Rest intervals are somewhat\ncontroversial, as the intervals are dependent on the type of exercise, number\nof repetitions to be performed per set, and other factors (9, 43). However, rest intervals shorter than 3\nmin may not represent the optimal protocol for an athlete training for AWC\nimprovements since ATP recovery requires approximately 3-5 min, and PCr fully\nrecovers at approximately 8 min (5, 43, 49).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additional problems in\nthe existing literature are the testing methods themselves. Studies using RM to\nMF tests have differed in the loads, exercises, and implementation\nstrategies.  Loads used for AWC testing\nhave been absolute, relative, or a combination with relative loads ranging from\n45% to 60% 1RM (3, 9, 18, 42, 45-47, 52).\nAdditionally, these relative loads have differed on which 1RM to use as a basis\nfor testing with some using the pre-training load only (3, 9, 18, 42, 45, 46), some using current 1RMs (47), and others using some combination (52). While using relative loads is a method of\nobviating differing strength levels, it has been speculated to favor weaker\nindividuals (3, 6).  This may confound results when comparing\ngroups that had statistical strength increases using an initial 1RM and then\ntest with a load substantially higher than the previous testing.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, none of the\narticles that satisfied our criteria assessed athletes. Rather, they used untrained\n(n = 9) or recreationally trained (n = 5) individuals as subjects. This may\nalso confound some results as it has been shown that trained athletes can respond\ndifferently than others (13). Assessing\nAWC of trained individuals after HVRT may help distinguish the frequency in\nwhich HVRT is needed to optimize and maintain AWC. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The few studies that met\nour criteria using the WAnT (27, 35, 40) and repeated maximal effort cycling (43) were unable to reach a clear conclusion\ndue to evident mixed results. These problems stem from logistical arrangement\nof the assessments, as shown by Psilander and colleagues (40), in which 60\nminutes of exercise preceded the WAnT. This could severely hinder a true WAnT,\ndue to the accumulating fatigue (26). Another\nproblem observed was in the study by Netreba and colleagues (35), where an\natypical RT protocol was implemented, in which 7 sets were being prescribed on\nthe first session of the week for the 8-week protocol. Coupled with the use of\nRM schemes, this type of training would increase fatigue substantially. Also,\nthe total work performed between groups was doubled by the classical group\ncompared to the low intensity group (15,392 vs 7,693 kgm) which complicates\ncomparisons even more. Moreover, the simplified version of the WAnT used does\nnot allow for a full understanding of the AWC spectrum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The misuse of proper\nprescription leading towards testing or competition in power events can\nundermine the results of the optimal expression of power as shown by Kerksick\nand colleagues (27) and disputes have\nbeen made on whether RM training schemes yield greater results compared to a\nset bVL using a set load (10, 11, 38). With the use of a RM scheme, it could be\npossible that fatigue accumulated throughout the study negating any positive\nresults. This is something to consider in future research, as athletes aiming\nto peak for competition reduce overall VL while increasing intensity in order\nto dissipate fatigue (11, 51).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Only one study using\nrepeated maximal all-out efforts met our criteria for HVRT (43). \nAlthough improvements were observed for each repeated sprint in all\ngroups despite the rest interval protocol used for the HVRT (180 s, 90 s, or 30\ns), strength gains were greater in the higher rest interval group as compared\nto the lowest. This is important as the objective of strength and conditioning for\nan athletic population is to increase all muscle qualities that garner success\nin sports (strength, power, muscle endurance, etc.). Hence, increased rest\nintervals may elicit greater benefits. This aspect was an important statement\nmentioned by the authors in which they specify that lower rest intervals is not\nnecessary to increase AC. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In sports that require repeated maximal efforts, optimal RT programs should focus on building strength and AWC together. Findings from this review indicate that a moderately high VL consisting of approximately 4 \u00b1 1 sets of 12 \u00b1 3 repetitions can improve AWC more efficiently than higher VL training while mitigating strength losses. Moreover, length of time implementing HVRT should be programmed carefully, and depends on the objective of the program to be prescribed. Since HVRT programs stress the peripheral nervous system, increasing neuromuscular fatigue, a prolonged exposure might be detrimental to certain athletes as it has been shown to negatively affect neuroendocrine responses, affecting performance and reducing rate of force development (39). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The duration of the\nreviewed studies varied (4-24 weeks), making it difficult to determine an\noptimal time frame that should be allocated to the prescription of HVRT for\nathletes. Most of the studies that found increases in an AWC test had a minimum\nduration of 5 weeks (9, 17, 18, 35, 41-43,\n45, 47, 51, 52). However, there were\nstudies that did not find improvements when implementing HVRT for 8 weeks (27, 40, 46).\nThese results may be skewed due to the use of single-joint exercises which add\nto the local muscular stress that develops overtime with added movements (27). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

APPLICATIONS\nIN SPORT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In reviewing the evidence\nprovided in these studies, HVRT does improve AWC but seems to be subject to a\nbell curve; more volume does not efficiently improve AWC and not enough volume\nmay decrease AWC.  Prescribing ranges\nbetween 10 to 15 repetitions might help in improving AWC while also providing a\nminimal stimulus for strength gains. Moreover, increments in strength gains\ncould also provide an additional stimulus that could help in improving AWC at\nrelative intensities driven by the fact that less muscle fiber recruitment is\nneeded at absolute loads. Additionally, within limits (\u2248 3 \u2013 5 min) longer rest\nperiods may be more important with higher repetition schemes as the amount of\nrest between sets during training does not seem to substantially affect the\nperformance of AWC during testing but does influence the maximal strength\nimprovements. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, a variety of\nfield tests have been studied for the measurement of performance or AWC in\nsports. However, to our knowledge, no study using a field test measured for AWC\nbefore and directly after a HVRT protocols that could meet our criteria. This\nis important to examine in future studies as they could render more\necologically valid results that could be more easily used by coaches and\npractitioners. This would also enhance the understanding of the role of fatigue\nin the AWC expression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More research needs to be conducted using differing VL in HVRT in order to better understand its effects, especially with athletes. No study using an elite athletic population met our criteria and the applications to that population of the information compiled in this review should be used with caution. Moreover, it is not well known how the gains in AWC from HVRT are maintained throughout RT training plans or competitive seasons. This relationship will better our understanding of HVRT programming in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

REFERENCES<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. ACSM Position Stand. (2009). ACSM Position Stand. The recommended quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness, and flexibility in healthy adults. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 30<\/em>(6), 975-991.<\/li>
  2. Andersen, J., & Aagaard, P. (2010). Effects of strength training on muscle fiber types and size; consequences for athletes training for high\u2010intensity sport. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 20<\/em>, 32-38.<\/li>
  3. Anderson, T., & Kearney, J. (1982). Effects of Three Resistance Training Programs on Muscular Strength And Absolute and Relative Endurance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 53<\/em>(1), 1-7.<\/li>
  4. Australian Sports Commission . (2000). Physiological Tests for Elite Athletes.<\/em> Champaign, Ill, USA: Human Kinetics.<\/li>
  5. Barbalho, M., Silveira-Coswig, V., Raiol, R., Steele, J., Fisher, J., Paoli, A., & Gentil, P. (2018). Effects of Adding Single Joint Exercises to a Resistance Training Programme in Trained Women. Sports<\/em>, 6 (160): 1-9.<\/li>
  6. Bazyler, C. D., Abbott, H. A., Bellon, C. R., Taber, C. B., & Stone, M. H. (2015). Strength training for endurance athletes: theory to practice. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 37(2)<\/em>, 1-12.<\/li>
  7. Bompa, T., & Buzzichelli, C. A. (2015). Periodization Training for Sports.<\/em> Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.<\/li>
  8. Brechue, W., & Mayhew, J. (2009). Upper-Body Work Capacity and 1RM Prediction Are Unaltered by Increasing Muscular Strength in College Football Players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23<\/em>(9), 2477-2486.<\/li>
  9. Campos, G. E., Luecke, T. J., Wendeln, H. K., Toma, K., Hagerman, F. C., Murray, T. F., . . . Staron, R. S. (2002). Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones. European Journal of Applied Physiology<\/em>, 88: 50-60.<\/li>
  10. Carroll, K. M., Bayzler, C. D., Bernard, J. R., Taber, C. B., Stuart, C. A., DeWeese, B. H., . . . Stone, M. H. (2019a). Skeletal Muscle Fiber Adaptations Following Resistance Training Using Repetition Maximums or Relative Intensity. Sports, 7(7)<\/em>, 169.<\/li>
  11. Carroll, K. M., Bernards, J. R., Bayzler, C. D., Taber, C. B., Stuart, C. A., DeWeese, B. H., . . . Stone, M. H. (2019b). Divergent Performance Outcomes Following Resistance Training Using Repetition Maximums or Relative Intensity. International journal of sports physiology and performance, 14(1)<\/em>, 46-54.<\/li>
  12. De Lateur, B. J., Lehmann, J. F., & Fordyce, W. E. (1968). A test of the DeLorme axiom. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 49(5)<\/em>, 245-248.<\/li>
  13. De Pauw, K., Roelands, B., Cheung, S. S., de Geus, B., Rietjens, G., & Meeusen, R. (2013). Guidelines to Classify Subject Groups in Sport-Science Research. Interantional Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance<\/em>, 8, 111-122.<\/li>
  14. Deschenes, M., & Kraemer, W. (2002). Performance and physiologic adaptations to resistance training. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 81<\/em>(11).<\/li>
  15. Ebben, W. P., Kindler, A. G., Chirdon, K. A., Jenkins, N. C., Polichnowski, A. J., & Ng, A. V. (2004). The Effects of High-Load vs High-Repetition Training on Endurance Performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioing Research<\/em>, 18(3): 513-517.<\/li>
  16. Farrell, J., Blackwood, D., & Larson, R. (2018). Four Weeks of Muscular Endurance Resistance Training Does Not Alter Fatigue Index. International Journal of Kinesiology and Sports Science, 6<\/em>(3), 32-37.<\/li>
  17. Garc\u00eda-L\u00f3pez, D., Paz, J., Moneo, E., Jim\u00e9nez-Jim\u00e9nez, R., Bresciani, G., & Izquierdo, M. (2007). Effects of short vs. long rest period between sets on elbow-flexor muscular endurance during resistance training to failure. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21<\/em>(4), 1320-1324.<\/li>
  18. Giessing, J., Eichmann, B., Steele, J., & Fisher, J. (2016). A comparison of low volume ‘high-intensity-training’ and high volume traditional resistance training methods on muscular performance, body composition, and subjective assessments of training. Biology of Sport, 33<\/em>(3), 241-249.<\/li>
  19. Green, S. (1995). Measurement of Anaerobic Work Capacities in Humans. Sports Medicine<\/em>, 19(1): 32-42.<\/li>
  20. Greenhalgh, T., & Peacock, R. (2005). Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ, 331<\/em>(7524), 1064-1065.<\/li>
  21. Haff, G. G. (2010). Quantifying Workloads in Resistance Training: A Brief Review. United Kingdom Strength and Conditioning Association<\/em>, 19: 31-40.<\/li>
  22. Haff, G. G., & Dumke, C. (2012). Laboratory Manual for Exercise Physiology.<\/em> Champaign, Ill, USA: Human Kinetics.<\/li>
  23. Hobson, R. M., Saunders, B., Ball, G., Harris, R. C., & Sale, C. (2012). Effects of B-alanine supplementation on exercise performance: a meta-analysis. Amino Acids<\/em>, 43(1): 25-37.<\/li>
  24. Hornsby, W. G., Gentles, J. A., Comfort, P., Suchomel, T. J., Mizuguchi, S., & Stone, M. H. (2018). Resistance Training Volume Load with and without Exercise Displacement. Sports<\/em>, 6(137): 1-10.<\/li>
  25. Hornsby, W. G., Gentles, J. A., MacDonald, C. J., Mizuguchi, S., Ramsey, M. W., & Stone, M. H. (2017). Maximum Strength, Rate of Force Development, Jump Height, and Peak Power Alterations in Weightlifters across Five Months of Training. Sports<\/em>, 5(78): 1-18.<\/li>
  26. Inbar, O., Dotan, R., & Bar-Or, O. (1976). Aerobic and anaerobic components of a thirty-second supra-maximal cycling task. 8 (51).<\/li>
  27. Kerksick, C., Wilborn, C., Campbell, B., Roberts, M., Rasmussen, C., Greenwood, M., & Kreider, R. (2009). Early-phase adaptations to a split-body, linear periodization resistance training program in college-aged and middle-aged men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23<\/em>(3), 962-971.<\/li>
  28. Kraemer, W., & Ratamess, N. (2005). Hormonal Responses and Adaptations to Resistance Exercise and Training. Sports Medicine, 35<\/em>(4), 339-361.<\/li>
  29. Liam, H. C., & Watson, A. W. (1994). The interference effects of training for strength and endurance simultaneously. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 8(1)<\/em>, 12-19.<\/li>
  30. MacDougall, J. D., Wenger, H. A., & Green, H. J. (1991). Physiological testing of the high-performance athlete.<\/em> Champaign, Ill, USA: Human Kinetics.<\/li>
  31. Mayhew, J., Brechue, W., Smith, A., Kemmler, W., Lauber, D., & Koch, A. (2011). Impact of testing strategy on expression of upper-body work capacity and one-repetition maximum prediction after resistance training in college-aged men and women. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25<\/em>(10), 2796-2807.<\/li>
  32. McGee, D., Jessee, T. C., Stone, M. H., & Blessing, D. (1992). Leg and Hip Endurance Adaptations to Three Weight-training Programs. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research<\/em>, 6<\/em>(2), 92\u201395.<\/li>
  33. McGuigan, M., Wright, G., & Fleck, S. (2012). Strength Training for Athletes: Does It Really Help Sports Performance? International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 7<\/em>(1), 2-5.<\/li>
  34. McNaughton, L., Strange, N., & Backx, K. (2000). The effects of chronic sodium bicarbonate ingestion on multiple bouts of anaerobic work and power output. Journal of Human Movement Studies<\/em>, 38(6): 307-322.<\/li>
  35. Netreba, A., Popov, D., Bravyi, Y., Misina, S., & Vinogradova, O. (2009). Physiological effects of low-intensity strength training without relaxation. Human Physiology, 35<\/em>(4), 479-483.<\/li>
  36. Newton, R. U. (2006). Maximum strength and strength training-A relationship to endurance? Strength and Conditioning Journal, 28(3)<\/em>, 44.<\/li>
  37. Noordhof, D. A., Skiba, P. F., & Koning, J. J. (2013). Determining anaerobic capacity in sporting activities. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance<\/em>, 8(5): 475-482.<\/li>
  38. Painter, K. B., Haff, G. G., Ramsey, M. W., McBride, J., Tripplett, T., Sands, W., . . . Stone, M. H. (2012). Strength Gains: Block Versus Daily Undulating Periodization Weight Training Among Track and Field Athletes. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 7<\/em>, 161-169.<\/li>
  39. Plisk, S. S., & Stone, M. H. (2003). Periodization Strategies. Strength and Conditioining Journal<\/em>, 25(6): 19-37.<\/li>
  40. Psilander, N., Frank, P., Flockhart, M., & Sahlin, K. (2015). Adding strength to endurance training does not enhance aerobic capacity in cyclists. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 25<\/em>(4).<\/li>
  41. Radaelli, R., Fleck, S., Leite, T., Leite, R., Pinto, R., Fernandes, L., & Sim\u00e3o, R. (2015). Dose-response of 1, 3, and 5 sets of resistance exercise on strength, local muscular endurance, and hypertrophy. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29<\/em>(5), 1349-1358.<\/li>
  42. Rana, S., Chleboun, G., Gilders, R., Hagerman, F., Herman, J., Hikida, R., . . . Toma, K. (2008). Comparison of early phase adaptations for traditional strength and endurance, and low velocity resistance training programs in college-aged women. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22<\/em>(1), 119-127.<\/li>
  43. Robinson, J., Stone, M., Johnson, R., Christopher, M., Warren, B., & Lewis, R. (1995). Effects of Different Weight Training Exercise\/Rest Intervals on Strength, Power, and High Intensity Exercise Endurance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 9<\/em>(4), 216-221.<\/li>
  44. Sawyer, B., Stokes, D., Womack, C., Morton, R., Weltman, A., & Gaesser, G. (2014). Strength Training Increases Endurance Time to Exhaustion During High-Intensity Exercise Despite No Change in Critical Power. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 28<\/em>(3), 601-609.<\/li>
  45. Schoenfeld, B. J., Contreras, B., Ogborn, D., Galpin, A., Krieger, J., & Sonmez, G. T. (2016). Effects of Varied Versus Constant Loading Zones on Muscular Adaptations in Trained Men. International Journal of Sports Medicine<\/em>, 37: 442-447.<\/li>
  46. Schoenfeld, B., Contreras, B., Krieger, J., Grgic, J., Delcastillo, K., Belliard, R., & Alto, A. (2018). Resistance Training Volume Enhances Muscle Hypertrophy but Not Strength in Trained Men. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 51<\/em>(1), 51(1): 94-103.<\/li>
  47. Schoenfeld, B., Peterson, M., Ogborn, D., Contreras, B., & Sonmez, G. (2015). Effects of Low- vs. High-Load Resistance Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Well-Trained Men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29<\/em>(10), 2954-2963.<\/li>
  48. Schoenfeld, B., Wilson, J., Lowery, R., & Krieger, J. (2016). Muscular adaptations in low- versus high-load resistance training: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Sport Science, 16<\/em>(1), 1-10.<\/li>
  49. Sim\u00e3o, R., De Salles, B. F., Figueiredo, T., Dias, I., & Willardson, J. M. (2012). Exercise order in resistance training. Sports medicine<\/em>, 42(3), 251-265.<\/li>
  50. Stone, M. H., Sands, W. A., Pierce, K. C., & Newton, R. U. (2006). Maximum strength and strength training-A relationship to endurance? Strength and Conditioning Journal, 28(3)<\/em>, 44.<\/li>
  51. Stone, M. H., Stone, M. E., & Sands, W. A. (2007). Principles and practice of resistance training.<\/em> Human Kinetics.<\/li>
  52. Stone, W., & Coulter, S. (1994). Strength\/endurance Effects From Three Resistance Training Protocols With Women. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 8<\/em>(4), 231-234.<\/li>
  53. Taber, C., Carroll, K., DeWeese, B., Sato, K., Stuart, C., Howell, M., . . . Stone, M. H. (2018). Neuromuscular Adaptations Following Training and Protein Supplementation in a Group of Trained Weightlifters. Sports, 6(2)<\/em>, 37.<\/li><\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Authors: Keith B. Painter, Luis Rodr\u00edguez-Castellano, & Michael H. Stone […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[898],"tags":[1568,1565,1567,1566],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-1N9","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":172,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/the-study-of-physiological-factors-and-performance-in-welterweight-taekwondo-athletes\/","url_meta":{"origin":6891,"position":0},"title":"The Study of Physiological Factors and Performance in Welterweight Taekwondo Athletes","date":"March 5, 2004","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Lin, Zen-Pin & Cynthia E. Ryder Abstract The purpose of this research was to investigate the variation in heart rate, oxygen consumption and blood lactic acid for taekwondo athletes during training and competition. Ten taekwondo athletes from a Division I university volunteered for the research. The average age\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"Zen-Pin Figure 2","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2004\/03\/ZenPin-Figure2.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":247,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/the-physical-and-physiological-properties-of-football-players-from-a-turkish-professional-first-division-football-league\/","url_meta":{"origin":6891,"position":1},"title":"The Physical and Physiological Properties of Football Players from a Turkish Professional First-Division Football League","date":"September 5, 2006","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: S. Muniroglu & M. Koz Abstract This research aims to determine the effects of a six weeks pre-season preparation training period on the physical and physiological characteristics of a football team in the Turkish Professional First Division League. Twenty football players participated in this study. Their ages were\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Coaching"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":4961,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/athlete-perceptions-of-a-monitoring-and-strength-and-conditioning-program\/","url_meta":{"origin":6891,"position":2},"title":"Athlete Perceptions of a Monitoring and Strength and Conditioning Program","date":"March 30, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Jacob P Reed(1), Mauro Palmero(2), Kimitake Sato(3), Cheng-Tu Hsieh(4), Michael Stone(3) (1)Kinesiology, Allied Health, and Human Services University of Northern Iowa Cedar Falls, IA 50614 (2)Hospitality Management Department University of Missouri Columbia Columbia, MO 65211 (3)Center of Excellence for Sport Science and Coach Education Department of Exercise and Sport\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Health & Fitness"","img":{"alt_text":"Table 1","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/03\/Table1-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":3825,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/analysis-of-contemporary-anaerobic-sport-specific-training-techniques-for-rock-climbing\/","url_meta":{"origin":6891,"position":3},"title":"Analysis of Contemporary Anaerobic Sport Specific Training Techniques for Rock Climbing","date":"June 24, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Justin Mabe* and Stephen L. Butler, Ed.D. Justin Mabe is a graduate student of the United States Sports Academy and a faculty member of Howard Community College where he instructs in lifetime fitness and health science courses. Previously running a rock climbing wall for the Y, Justin developed an\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Health & Fitness"","img":{"alt_text":"Hang board ","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/Figure-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":3894,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/tools-and-benefits-of-periodization-developing-an-annual-training-plan-and-promoting-performance-improvements-in-athletes\/","url_meta":{"origin":6891,"position":4},"title":"Tools and Benefits of Periodization: Developing an Annual Training Plan and Promoting Performance Improvements in Athletes","date":"August 5, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Michael B. Phillips, Jake A. Lockert, and LaNise D. Rosemond Corresponding Author: Jake Lockert, MA 810 Quadrangle TTU Box 5043 Cookeville, TN 38505 jalockert42@students.tntech.edu 423-779-7127 Jake Lockert works at Tennessee Technological University in Cookeville, TN as research assistant in the department of Exercise Science, Physical Education, and Wellness Tools\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Coaching"","img":{"alt_text":"Figure 1 Matveyev Model of Periodization","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/Figure-1-Matveyev-Model-of-Periodization.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":31,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/sports-medicine-for-youth-soccer\/","url_meta":{"origin":6891,"position":5},"title":"Sports Medicine for Youth Soccer","date":"February 11, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: William L. Carroll, Ed.D., ATC, and Augustin Mendoza, M.D. Training for Optimal Performance Soccer is a major sport for young athletes in the United States, and is also rapidly becoming a major sport for males and females for all ages. Because young athletes go through puberty at different\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Coaching"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6891"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6891"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6891\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7286,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6891\/revisions\/7286"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6891"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6891"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6891"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}