See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/49279757

Effect of concurrent endurance and circuit

resistance training sequence on muscular strength
and power development

ARTICLE
Source: OAI

CITATIONS DOWNLOADS VIEWS

24 2,681 416

7 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:

Moktar Chtara Anis Chaouachi

University of Monastir 158 PUBLICATIONS 1,929 CITATIONS
25 PUBLICATIONS 308 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Gregory Levin
The University of Calgary
28 PUBLICATIONS 417 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Karim Chamari
Aspetar - Qatar Orthopaedic and Sports Medic…
274 PUBLICATIONS 3,964 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Karim Chamari

Retrieved on: 09 September 2015
EFFECT OF CONCURRENT ENDURANCE AND CIRCUIT
RESISTANCE TRAINING SEQUENCE ON MUSCULAR
STRENGTH AND POWER DEVELOPMENT
MOKTAR CHTARA,1 ANIS CHAOUACHI,2 GREGORY T. LEVIN,3 MUSTAPHA CHAOUACHI,1
KARIM CHAMARI,2 MOHAMED AMRI,4 AND PAUL B. LAURSEN3
1
Institute of Sport and Physical Education, Ksar Said, Tunis, Tunisia; 2Research Unit, Evaluation, Sport, Sante´, National Centre
of Medicine and Science in Sport, Tunis, Tunisia; 3School of Exercise, Biomedical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University,
Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia; 4Nutrition Physiology Laboratory, Faculty of Sciences, Tunis, Tunisia
ABSTRACT
Chtara, M, Chaouachi, A, Levin, GT, Chaouachi, M, Chamari, K,
Amri, M, Laursen, PB. Effect of concurrent endurance and
circuit resistance-training sequence on muscular strength and
power development. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1037–1045,
2008—The purpose of this study was to examine the influence
of the sequence order of high-intensity endurance training and
circuit training on changes in muscular strength and anaerobic
power. Forty-eight physical education students (ages, 21.4 6
1.3 years) were assigned to 1 of 5 groups: no training controls
(C, n = 9), endurance training (E, n = 10), circuit training (S,
n = 9), endurance before circuit training in the same session,
(E+S, n = 10), and circuit before endurance training in the same
session (S+E, n = 10). Subjects performed 2 sessions per
week for 12 weeks. Resistance-type circuit training targeted
strength endurance (weeks 1–6) and explosive strength and
power (weeks 7–12). Endurance training sessions included 5
_ 2max (Vo
repetitions run at the velocity associated with Vo _ 2max)
_ 2max;
for a duration equal to 50% of the time to exhaustion at Vo
recovery was for an equal period at 60% Vo _ 2max. Maximal
strength in the half squat, strength endurance in the 1-leg half
squat and hip extension, and explosive strength and power in
a 5-jump test and countermovement jump were measured pre-
and post-testing. No significant differences were shown fol-
lowing training between the S+E and E+S groups for all exer-
cise tests. However, both S+E and E+S groups improved less
than the S group in 1 repetition maximum (p , 0.01), right and
left 1-leg half squat (p , 0.02), 5-jump test (p , 0.01), peak
jumping force (p , 0.05), peak jumping power (p , 0.02), and
peak jumping height (p , 0.05). The intrasession sequence did
not influence the adaptive response of muscular strength and
Address correspondence to Anis Chaouachi, anis.chaouachi@email.ati.tn
22(4)/1037–1045
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2008 National Strength and Conditioning Association
explosive strength and power. Circuit training alone induced
strength and power improvements that were significantly
greater than when resistance and endurance training were
combined, irrespective of the intrasession sequencing.
KEY WORDS plyometric training, combined training, interval
training, interference effect
INTRODUCTION
C
oncurrent strength and endurance training has
received considerable attention in the literature
(20,22,29). One major concern that has arisen
from this body of knowledge is that the benefits
incurred from resistance training in isolation may be
compromised when strength and endurance training are
performed concurrently (4,28). Several possible reasons have
been suggested to explain this interference phenomenon
(4,8,15,21,23,24,30,32), one of which is the sequencing and
order effect of the training (15,20).
A number of different sequencing and order effects have
been implemented in previous research, including endurance
training before strength training (38), strength training before
endurance training (26,38) as well as the scheduling of both
types of training on the same day (15,16,37) or on alternate
days (4,17,19,37). Only 2 studies, however, have directly
investigated the effect of the sequencing order during the
same training session on strength and endurance adaptations
(14,20). Using mostly sedentary female subjects, these studies
showed that the intrasession sequencing had a negligible
effect on changes in strength (14,20). The influence of the
intrasession sequencing of strength and endurance training in
male subjects, however, remains unknown.
Previous work that examined intrasession sequencing and
order effects employed continuous submaximal endurance
protocols as well as the traditional type of weight training
(14,20). Neither of these studies employed high-intensity
interval training as a means of endurance training or
resistance-type circuit training to enhance strength. Since it
is well established that high-intensity interval training is an
VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 4 | JULY 2008 | 1037
Intrasession Concurrent Training
effective means of endurance training (29) and circuit training
is a useful method to improve both strength and cardiovas-
cular performance, it is important to understand how these
2 types of training interact when performed concurrently in
a single session.
The aim of the current study was to examine the influence
of the intrasession sequencing of concurrent strength and
endurance training (i.e., strength training before endurance
training or endurance training before strength training in the
same session) on strength, explosive-strength, and power
development in males. Based on previous findings, we
hypothesized that maximal strength, strength endurance,
and explosive strength and power would increase in all
training groups that performed strength training. Further, it
was hypothesized that the 2 concurrent training groups
would have smaller gains in strength and power than the
group performing only resistance-type training.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This study used a repeated-measures design to determine the
magnitude of change in strength, explosive strength and
power, and strength endurance after a 12-week training
program. Further, changes in body composition are also
reported. The training effect on each dependent variable was
measured for each of the 5 different groups in the study: E
(n = 10) high-intensity endurance run training; S (n = 9)
strength circuit training; E+S (n = 10) endurance training
before strength training, S+E (n = 10) strength training
before endurance training, and C (n = 9) nontraining
controls.
Subjects
Forty-eight male physical education students volunteered to
participate in the study. Participants were not involved in any
organized sports activity, but were required to perform an
average of 15 hours per week of physical activity as part of
their university degree requirements. The average (SD) age,
height, mass, and percentage body fat of the group were 21.4
(1.3) years, 178.2 (5.7) cm, 72.1 (6.3) kg, and 14.7 (3.0)%,
respectively. The study was approved by the National
University Ethical Committee, and all participants gave their
written informed consent before the start of the study.
Procedures
Participants were assigned to 1 of 5 groups based on initial
test results. Group allocation was designed in such a way that
any initial differences between groups in the dependent
variables of muscular strength, explosive strength, and power
were minimized. Training was performed twice per week for
12 weeks. Each subject performed the same evaluation
protocol before and after the training period. The testing
protocol included anthropometric measurements as well as
strength and power assessments. Subjects were requested to
refrain from intense activity in the 24-hour period before each
the TM
1038 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
test. The effect of these training programs on endurance
performance parameters has recently been published else-
where (13).
Anthropometric Measurements
Height and body mass were measured using a stadiometer to
the nearest 0.5 cm and balance weighing scales (accurate to
0.1 kg), respectively. Skinfold thickness was measured to the
nearest 0.2 mm at 4 predetermined sites (biceps, triceps,
subscapular, and suprailiac) using Harpenden skinfold
calipers (Lange, Cambridge, MA). Skinfold thickness was
then used to calculate the percentage of body fat using the
techniques of Durnin and Womersley (18). All measurements
were taken on the right side of the body by the same tester.
Physical Measurements
The pre- and posttesting measurements were conducted on
2 different days separated by a minimum of 72 hours. The
variables tested on day 1 of the pre- and posttesting sessions
included a 1-leg half squat and a hip extension test for both the
right and left legs. Day 2 of the testing consisted of
a countermovement jump (CMJ) test, 5-jump distance test
(5-J), and a 1 repetition maximum (1RM) half squat test.
Subjects completed a standardized warm-up before each of
the testing sessions including 10 minutes of cycling on
a stationary cycle ergometer (Monark, Stockholm, Sweden)
at 60 rev
min21 and a series of dynamic stretches for 5
minutes.
1RM Half Squat Strength. 1RM half squat strength was
recorded as the maximal weight subjects were able to rise in a
half squat (;90° angle in the knee joint between the femur
and tibia) as described by McMillan et al. (34). After the
general warm-up, subjects performed a specific warm-up
using 50% (10 reps), 75% (6 reps), and 85% (3 reps) of their
estimated 1RM. Following this subsequent warm-up, the
subjects’ resistance was fixed at a critical value of 5% below
the expected 1RM and was gradually increased after each
successful performance until failure. The interval between
each trial was ;2 minutes. 1RM was normally achieved
within 3 to 5 attempts.
1-Leg Half Squat. Subjects performed a maximum number of
1-leg half squats with a load corresponding to one-fourth of
their body mass (35). The movements were performed at
a constant rate of 30 half squats per minute using
a metronome set at 60 beeps
min21. Subjects were required
to be in the top or bottom position at each beep, and the test
was stopped once this rate could no longer be maintained.
Hip Extension. This exercise was performed with subjects
lying supine and supported with dense foam at the shoulders
and feet so that they remained 20 cm above ground level.
Subjects then raised and lowered themselves a maximum
number of times at the same rate described for the 1-leg half
squats until they could no longer continue at the set tempo.
Testing was performed with a load corresponding to 10% of
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

TABLE 1. Outline of the circuit training program.

Strength endurance

1-leg half Walking Arm Back Hip

squats, lunges, flexion, extension, extension, Abdominal
Week interval S3R (%) S3R (%) S3R S3R S3R (%) S3R

1 4316–18 (10) 4316–18 (25) 4316–18 (5kg) 4322–26 4314–16 (10) 4322–26
2 30:30 5316–18 (10) 5316–18 (25) 5316–18 (5kg) 5322–26 5314–16 (10) 5322–26
3 5318–20 (10) 5318–20 (25) 5318–20 (5kg) 5324–28 5316–18 (10) 5324–28
4 4320–22 (20) 4322–24 (25) 4322–24 (10kg) 4326–30 4318–20 (20) 4326–30
5 40:20 5320–22 (20) 5322–24 (25) 5322–24 (10kg) 5326–30 5318–20 (20) 5326–30
6 5322–24 (20) 5324–26 (25) 5324–26 (10kg) 5328–32 5320–24 (20) 5328–32

Explosive strength and power

Drop jumps Hurdle Hopping Single-leg Single-leg Multijumps
S3R (h) jumps S3R hops bounds S3R (d)
S3R (h) S3R (d) S3R (d)

7 435–8 (0.30 m) 43(16–20) (0.50 m) 43(30–36) 43(20–24m) 43(20–24m) 43(18–22m)

8 30:30 535–8 (0.30 m) 53(16–20) (0.50 m) 53(30–36) 53(20–24m) 53(20–24m) 53(18–22m)
9 535–8 (0.45 m) 53(16–20) (0.60 m) 53(36–42) 53(24–30m) 53(24–30m) 53(20–24m)
10 436–9 (0.45 m) 43(24–30) (0.60 m) 43(48–56) 43(36–45m) 43(36–45m) 43(30–36m)
11 40:20 536–9 (0.60 m) 53(24–30) (0.60 m) 53(48–56) 53(36–45 m) 53(36–45m) 53(30–36m)
12 537–10 (0.60 m) 53(24–30) (0.70 m) 53(56–64) 53(42–48 m) 53(42–48m) 53(36–42m)
Sets (S) and repetitions (R) for all exercises are outlined. Percentages of body mass loads for 1-leg half squats, hip extension, and
walking lunges exercises are outlined. Height (h) or distance (d) of the hurdle and the plinth, single-leg hops, single-leg bounds, and
multijumps.

each subject’s body mass secured to their chest by their own enforced during the eccentric phase of the CMJ. On
arms (35). completion of the 3 CMJ tests, the best jump height was
recorded for analysis (31,39). Peak jumping force (Fpeak), peak
Countermovement Jump. Subjects performed 3 CMJ tests on
jumping power (Wan), and peak jumping height (Hpeak) were
a force platform (9281 C; Bioware, Kistler, Switzerland) with
recorded.
a 2-minute recovery period between each. Subjects were
instructed to jump for maximal height keeping their hands on 5-Jump Distance Test. The 5-J involved the subject attempting
their hips during the jump in order to reduce any contribution to cover the greatest horizontal distance possible by
from the upper limbs. No degree of knee angle restriction was performing a series of 5 forward jumps with alternate left
and right foot contacts (9).
Subjects were allowed 3 trials,
with the best result recorded for
TABLE 2. Pre and 12-week post measurements of body mass and percentage of analysis. Results were obtained
body fat in the various training groups of the present study.
using a measuring tape to
Pre Post measure the total distance cov-
ered from the edge of the toes at
Group Body mass (kg) % Body fat Body mass (kg) % Body fat take off, to the edge of the heel
E 75.1 6 6.2 14.9 6 1.9 74.9 6 6.5 13.1 6 1.7** at landing.
S 68.9 6 2.9 14.2 6 2.2 69.8 6 3.1** 12.9 6 2.3** Training Programs
S+E 73.9 6 6.3 14.9 6 4.2 75.0 6 5.8** 12.7 6 2.8**
E+S 70.7 6 6.6 14.7 6 2.4 71.8 6 6.6** 12.5 6 1.8** The E and S training groups
C 71.5 6 3.0 14.6 6 4.0 72.7 6 3.0 14.6 6 4.4 trained on Mondays and Thurs-
days, and the E+S and S+E
E+S = endurance followed by strength training; S+E = strength followed by endurance groups trained on Tuesdays and
training; E = endurance training only; S = strength training only; C = nontraining controls.
**Significant difference: p , 0.01 between pre- and posttraining values. Fridays. Subjects were allowed
to drink ad libitum during all
training sessions.

VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 4 | JULY 2008 | 1039

Intrasession Concurrent Training

20 m. The training session

included 5 high-intensity inter-
vals, run at Vo_ 2max each fol-
lowed by a period of active
running recovery performed at
60% of Vo _ 2max. The duration
of each interval and recovery
period was prescribed based on
one-half of the individual’s
Tmax. Pacing was controlled by
the assessors who would sound
Figure 1. Pre- and 12-week post scaled 1 repetition maximum scores (kg
mb20.67) in the various training
a signal; subjects were required
groups. E+S = endurance followed by strength training; S+E = strength followed by endurance training;
E = endurance training only; S = strength training only; C = nontraining controls. *Significant difference, p , 0.05. to be near each reference mark
**Significant difference, p , 0.01.
Improved significantly more than E, E+S, S+E, and C. ‡Improved significantly when the signal was sounded.
more than E and C.
The duration of the work
periods was increased by 5%
when the heart rate measured
Endurance Training (E). In order to prescribe endurance at the end of an entire session was .10 beats
min21 lower
training, subjects performed 2 additional tests before training. than the heart rate at the end of the first interval performed at
A Vam-eval track test was performed to determine maximal that particular intensity.
aerobic speed (Vo _ 2max) (11), and a test to measure time to
exhaustion (Tmax) at the maximal aerobic speed (7) was Circuit Training (S). The circuit training program consisted of
performed 1 week later. Endurance training was carried out four 3-week periods (Table 1). Periods 1 and 2 focused
on a 200-m outdoor synthetic track with landmarks every on strength endurance, and periods 3 and 4 focused on
explosive strength and power.
During the second week of each
period, the demands of the
training sessions were increased
TABLE 3. Maximal number of repetitions for the 1-leg half squat and hip extension by decreasing the amount of
pre- and 12 weeks post-training. rest between sets. Exercises
included total and segmentary
1-leg half squat (RM)
movements of the upper limbs,
Right Left Hip extension (RM) trunk, and lower limbs. Exercise
intensity was individualized by
E Pre 52.8 6 7.9 52.9 6 8.2 23.1 6 2.3 instructing subjects to perform a
Post 55.3 6 7.9 56.2 6 8.1 25.0 6 2.4
D% 4.7** 6.2** 8.2** determined maximum number
S Pre 51.1 6 6.9 51.8 6 13.1 22.8 6 3.3 of repetitions per set (Table 1).
Post 66.7 6 8.2 68.0 6 11.5 31.4 6 1.9 The maximum number of rep-
D% 30.4**§ 31.3**§ 38.0**‡ etitions during the work period
S+E Pre 49.6 6 9.6 52.6 6 9.4 23.7 6 2.3 that each subject could perform
Post 61.4 6 8.2 64.9 6 9.3 33.8 6 2.7
D% 23.8**‡ 23.4**‡ 42.6 ‡ ** was established by an individu-
E+S Pre 51.3 6 4.7 52.1 6 9.2 22.5 6 3.5 alized test before the start of the
Post 62.3 6 6.7 62.5 6 8.1 31.1 6 1.8 training program. An assessor
D% 21.4**‡ 20.0**‡ 38.2**‡ was always present to verbally
C Pre 51.7 6 7.7 53.8 6 5.8 21.9 6 4.4 encourage participants to per-
Post 52.7 6 9.1 55.3 6 6.0 22.9 6 4.4
D% 1.9 2.9 4.6* form to their maximum ability
Interaction, F = 36.92** F = 21.90** F = 13.4** during the work periods and to
df 4, 43 complete all 5 sets. The strength
training session lasted approxi-
E+S = endurance followed by strength training; S+E = strength followed by endurance
training; E = endurance training only; S = strength training only; C = nontraining controls. mately 30 minutes, excluding
*Significant difference: p , 0.05. a 15- to 20-minute warm-up.
**Significant difference: p , 0.01. Recovery between circuits was
§Improved significantly more than E, E+S, S+E, and C.
‡Improved significantly more than E and C. set at 2 minutes. Throughout
the training period, progres-
sions of the exercises were
the TM

1040 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

delineate the differences

between the groups. Signifi-
cance was set at an a level of
0.05, and all statistical analyses
were conducted using the sta-
tistical package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS, Version 13.0;
SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Reli-
ability of variables was assessed
using a 2-way average measure
of the intraclass correlation
coefficient. Effect size estimates
for main comparisons were
obtained from our experimen-
tal data, so that post hoc
statistical power could be com-
puted; power values ranged
from 0.75 to 0.80 for the group
sample sizes obtained (at an a
level of 0.05).

RESULTS
Body composition and body
mass results for the pre- and
posttraining measurements are
presented in Table 2. All exper-
imental groups showed a signif-
Figure 2. Pre- and 12-week post measurements of 5-jump distance test (m) (A); peak-jumping force (N
kg20.67) icant decrease in their body fat
(B); peak jumping power (W
kg2 0.67) (C). E+S = endurance followed by strength training; S+E = strength
followed by endurance training; E = endurance training only; S = strength training only; C = control group. percentage following the exer-
*Significant difference, p , 0.05. **Significant difference, p , 0.01. §Improved significantly more than E, E+S, cise training intervention [E+S
S+E, and C. ‡Improved significantly more than (E) and (C). *Improved significantly more than C. (215.0%), S+E (214.8%), E
(212.1%), and S (29.2%)],
while the control group did
not (C, 0.0%). Increases in body
achieved by increasing hurdle height (0.50 to 0.70 m) and mass occurred in every group [E+S (+1.6%), S+E (+1.5%),
plinth (0.30 to 0.60 m) as well as increasing the length of the S (+1.3%), and C (+1.7%)] except the endurance training
jumps and bounds (Table 1). During the bounding and group (20.3%).
drop-jump exercises, subjects were instructed to minimize Peak force and peak power were analyzed for absolute and
ground contact time. allometrically scaled (N
kg20.67 and W
kg20.67) values since
research has suggested that allometric scaling is more
Combined Training (E+S and S+E). The combined training
suitable for comparative analysis when body mass is
groups performed both the endurance and circuit training
considered (12,25).
programs in a single session. The only difference between the
Maximal strength (1RM) increased significantly (p , 0.01)
2 training groups was the order in which they executed the
for all groups (S [+17.0%], S+E [+12.2%], E+S [+10.6%], E
training, either endurance training before circuit or circuit
[+6.2%], and C [+5.6%]; Figure 1). Significant (group 3 time)
training before endurance. A 15-minute recovery period
interaction effects were also observed (p , 0.001). Signifi-
separated the training sessions.
cantly greater increases in 1RM were seen following circuit
Statistical Analyses training (groups S, S+E, and E+S) compared with the
A paired-samples Student t-test identified differences endurance training (E) group and nontraining control (C)
between the initial and final values of a variable in the same group (Figure 1). Further, the circuit training (S) group
group. A 2-way (group 3 time) repeated-measures analysis increased 1RM significantly more than both the E+S and
of variance was used to determine training-related effects in S+E groups (p , 0.01; Figure 1). Allometric scaling resulted
each of the dependent variables over time. When a significant in similar changes in strength (S [+16.8%], S+E [+13.3%],
main effect was identified, Scheffé post hoc tests were used to E+S [+12.2%], E [+8.0%], and C [+5.3%]).

VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 4 | JULY 2008 | 1041

Intrasession Concurrent Training
TABLE 4. Test-retest reliability of strength and
explosive strength and power tests.
Criterion measures ICC a CV %
1RM 0.93 0.93 2.4
1-leg half squat right 0.89 0.89 3.1
1-leg half squat left 0.87 0.87 3.0
Hip extension 0.89 0.89 3.3
CMJ 0.93 0.93 2.6
5-J 0.91 0.91 2.8
ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; a = Cronba-
ch’s a reliability coefficients; CV = coefficient of variation;
CMJ ¼ countermovement jump; 5-J ¼ 5-jump test.
Hip extension and 1-leg half squat strength endurance
followed a trend similar to the 1RM results (Table 3).
Significant (group 3 time) interaction effects were also
observed (Table 3). All groups that performed strength
training showed increases in strength endurance (S) more
than the endurance-only (E) and control (C) groups.
Furthermore, the circuit-only group (S) improved signifi-
cantly more than the concurrent training groups (S+E and
E+S) for the 1-leg half squat, but not hip extension (Table 3).
Significant (group 3 time) interaction effects were
observed in scaled peak force (p , 0.001), scaled peak power
(p , 0.001), peak height jumped (p , 0.001), and in the 5-J
(p , 0.001). Groups performing circuit training improved
significantly more than the control or endurance training–
only groups in allometrically scaled peak force (S [+14.7%],
S+E [+11.6%], E+S [+9.6%], E [+5.4%], and C [+1.2%]),
scaled peak power (S [+8.7%], S+E [+5.7%], E+S [+5.6%], E
[+3.2%], and C [+0.1%]), peak height jumped (S [+7.0%],
S+E [+3.3%], E+S [+3.3%], E [+1.7%], and C [+0.2%]) and
in the 5-J (S [+9.2%], S+E [+6.5%], E+S [+5.7%], E [+3.4%],
and C [+1.6%]) (Figure 2). Similar to other measurements,
the S group outperformed the concurrent (E+S and S+E)
groups in the 5-J (p , 0.01), in peak-jumping force (p , 0.05),
in peak-jumping explosive strength and power (p , 0.02),
and in peak jumping height (p , 0.05) (Figure 2).
The test-retest interclass correlation coefficient and the
reliability coefficient for all tests are presented in Table 4.
DISCUSSION
The main findings of the present study were that a) for
individuals not accustomed to regular resistance or endurance
training, the intrasession sequencing of combined high-
intensity endurance and circuit resistance training did not
influence the adaptive response of maximal muscular
strength, explosive strength, and power and that b) increases
in strength and power were significantly greater in those
performing only circuit resistance training compared with
the TM
1042 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
those performing concurrent circuit resistance and endurance
training, irrespective of the intrasession sequencing order.
As mentioned, the intrasession sequencing order of a
12-week, low-frequency, concurrent circuit resistance train-
ing and endurance training program did not influence the
change in maximal muscular strength, explosive strength, and
power. The improvements shown in maximal muscular
strength, strength endurance, and explosive strength and
power were similar in both the E+S and S+E groups (Table 1,
Figures 1 and 2). These findings are in agreement with those
of previous studies in the area (14,20). The 10–12% increase
in 1RM half squat strength found with circuit training is
similar to the 12–14% increase in leg press strength found by
Collins and Snow (14). However, Gravelle and Blessing (20)
showed increases in leg press strength of 26.6% and 27.4% for
S+E and E+S groups, respectively. These larger gains in
strength compared with the present study and with the study
of Collins and Snow (14) may be attributable to the type of
endurance training employed (rowing versus running), the
type of strength training employed (strength only), and other
methodological variances. Indeed, the volume, intensity, and
frequency of training may all play a role in influencing the
degree of incompatibility observed between strength and
endurance training (8,21,24,32).
The frequency of concurrent strength and endurance
training has been shown to influence the adaptive response.
When the frequency of concurrent strength and endurance
training is high (4–6 days per week), a reduced improvement
in muscular strength has been observed (17,24,28). However,
when the training frequency of concurrent strength and
endurance training is low (2–3 days per week), maximal
strength during both short-term (,12 weeks) (3,32) and
long-term (21) training periods (.20 weeks) has been shown
to increase at a rate similar to that of strength training alone.
This suggests that a low-frequency approach to concurrent
strength and endurance training is appropriate when
improvements in strength are desired. In contrast to this,
the present study found that despite performing low-
frequency training, maximal strength increased significantly
more in the circuit training–only group (S, +17%) compared
with the E+S (+10.6%) and S+E (+12.2%) groups (Figure 1).
Since there was no difference in the work performed during
the circuit training, the reduced improvements in strength
displayed in the concurrent training groups may be attribut-
able to the endurance component supplemented into the
training program. This suggests that high-intensity interval
training may compromise strength adaptations when con-
current training is performed, irrespective of the sequencing
of this training.
Strength measured during the 1RM increased in all groups,
including increases of 6.2% for the E group and 5.6% for the C
group. An increase in maximal strength is not uncommon
after endurance training in isolation, and similar findings have
been reported previously (27,36). However, the increase in
maximal strength for the control group (+5.6%) suggests that

there is a variance of ;6% for this test. Since the difference
between maximal strength gains in the circuit training–only
group (17.0%) and the concurrent groups was greater than
(E+S, 10.6%) or approaching this 6% variance (S+E, 12.2%),
it can be concluded that when high-intensity interval and
circuit resistance training are performed in a single session,
interference of strength adaptation occurs.
Changes in explosive strength and power among the
groups paralleled the changes in muscular strength (Figure 2).
In contrast, Gravelle and Blessing (20) found that peak
anaerobic power measured during a Wingate test improved
only in the S+E group and not in the E+S group or S-only
group. In this study, however, the S+E group initially
possessed a lower anaerobic ability and thus a greater
capacity for improvement (20). In the current study, initial
levels of explosive strength and power were similar in all
training groups, making all groups equal with respect to their
potential for improvement. Our findings suggest that
explosive strength and power adaptations are unaffected
when resistance and endurance training are performed
concurrently in a single session (1).
A possible reason for the difference in the explosive power
shown between the S, S+E, and E+S groups in the current
study may have been the sequencing of the 2 different types of
circuit training. The first 6 weeks of the circuit training
program were designed to enhance muscular strength,
whereas the last 6 weeks was designed to develop explosive
strength and power (Table 1). However, no testing occurred
in the midpoint period of this study, which restricts our
ability to determine the contribution of each period of
training to the overall results achieved. However, Bell et al.
(2,5) previously showed that strength adaptations can be
maintained for a sustained period when a new training
stimulus is introduced. This finding suggests that once the
training program was altered from strength to explosive
strength and power, the S group may have already achieved
greater increases in strength and been better able to use these
gains and neuromuscular adaptations to significantly
improve their explosive strength and power results when
compared to the concurrent groups. Hennessy and Watson
(22) reported that 18 weeks of continuous and high-intensity
run training caused a deterioration of vertical jump
performance, a measure commonly used to assess anaerobic
power. These authors proposed that the endurance training
reduced the capacity of the neuromuscular system to rapidly
generate force (22). The findings of the present study are in
agreement with these findings in that the high-intensity
endurance run training performed by the concurrent training
groups resulted in less of an increase in explosive strength and
power compared with the strength-only training group.
Future research should attempt to examine mechanistically
why this may occur.
To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to
examine the influence of the intrasession strength and
endurance training sequencing order on changes in strength
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
endurance. The results of the changes in strength endurance
after concurrent strength and endurance training were
equivocal. The 1-leg half squat showed larger increases in
the strength training group compared with the concurrent
strength and endurance training groups, while no difference
was found between the strength-only and concurrent training
groups for the increase attained in hip extension (Table 3).
These differences may be due to the ability of the endurance
component (running) of the concurrent training to assist with
enhancing hip extension strength endurance and the
development of the core stabilizers, which would have also
been recruited during both running and the hip extension
test. Irrespective of the sequencing order or whether
endurance training was performed, circuit-type strength
training proved to be an effective means of increasing
strength endurance. Few studies have assessed strength
endurance after strength training programs, and those that
have have done so to test the continuum theory that light
loads and a high number of repetitions are most beneficial for
increasing strength endurance, whereas heavy loads and
fewer repetitions are more beneficial for increasing maximal
strength (10,33).
The concurrent training groups in the present study
completed 12 weeks of high-intensity endurance running
sessions, reaching 100% of maximal aerobic speed, defined as
the minimum speed that elicits Vo_ 2max (6) as well as strength
training sessions that included 6 weeks of strength endurance
training and 6 weeks of explosive strength and power
development in circuit-training format. While one might
hypothesize that the first activity performed would result in
some residual fatigue experienced during the second activity,
thereby reducing the quality of that session (15), evidence of
this was not shown in the present study. Both the S+E and
E+S groups maintained equal training intensities and as
a result made similar improvements in strength, power, and
strength endurance. As previously mentioned, however, this
study did not assess these strength and power variables
throughout the training period, and therefore the time course
for adaptation within these groups remains unknown.
Further research in this area is required to investigate the
time course of these changes with concurrent training
programs.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The present study has shown that a 12-week, low-frequency,
resistance-type circuit training program resulted in significant
improvements in muscular strength, explosive strength and
power, and strength endurance. Therefore, circuit type
programs that use individualized intensities to ensure
maximal effort over a short period are beneficial training
strategies for improving overall strength. Second, when this
training was combined with high-intensity endurance
training, strength and explosive strength and power were
still increased, but not to the same extent. Previous research
had suggested that low-frequency endurance training does
VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 4 | JULY 2008 | 1043
Intrasession Concurrent Training
not compromise strength improvements, and, therefore, there
is a possibility that high-intensity interval training is more
likely to be counterproductive to strength and power
adaptations when concurrent training is being performed.
Last, the intrasession order of strength and endurance training
resulted in no significant differences between these two
conditions. This finding suggests that there is no advantage to
performing either strength or endurance training before the
other when both types of training are performed in a single
session. However, if the development of strength and power is
the priority of the program, then concurrent training in
a single session is not advised.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was financially supported by the Ministère de la
Recherche Scientifique, de la Technologie et du Développe-
ment des Compétences, Tunisia.
REFERENCES
1. Balabinis, CP, Psarakis, CH, Moukas, M, Vassiliou, MP, and
Behrakis, PK. Early phase changes by concurrent endurance and
strength training. J Strength Cond Res 17: 393–401, 2003.
2. Bell, GJ, Petersen, SR, Quinney, HA, and Wenger, HA. Sequencing
of endurance and high-velocity strength training. Can J Sport Sci 13:
214–219, 1988.
3. Bell, GJ, Petersen, SR, Wessel, J, Bagnall, K, and Quinney, HA.
Physiological adaptations to concurrent endurance training and low
velocity resistance training. Int J Sports Med 12: 384–390, 1991.
4. Bell, GJ, Syrotuik, D, Martin, TP, Burnham, R, and Quinney, HA.
Effect of concurrent strength and endurance training on skeletal
muscle properties and hormone concentrations in humans.
Eur J Appl Physiol 81: 418–427, 2000.
5. Bell, GJ, Syrotuik, DG, Attwood, K, and Quinney, HA. Maintenance
of strength gains while performing endurance training in oars-
women. Can J Appl Physiol 18: 104–115, 1993.
6. Berthoin, S, Gerbeaux, M, Turpin, E, Guerrin, F, Lensel-Corbeil, G,
and Vandendorpe, F. Comparison of two field tests to estimate
maximum aerobic speed. J Sports Sci 12: 355–362, 1994.
7. Billat, V, Renoux, JC, Pinoteau, J, Petit, B, and Koralsztein, JP.
Reproducibility of running time to exhaustion at VO2max in subelite
runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 26: 254–257, 1994.
8. Bishop, D, Jenkins, DG, Mackinnon, LT, McEniery, M, and
Carey, MF. The effects of strength training on endurance
performance and muscle characteristics. Med Sci Sports Exerc
31: 886–891, 1999.
9. Bouhlel, E, Bouhlel, H, Chelly, MS, and Tabka, Z. Relationship
between maximal anaerobic power measured by force-velocity test
and performance in the counter movement jump and in the 5-jump
test in moderately trained boys. Sci Sports 21: 1–7, 2006.
10. Campos, GE, Luecke, TJ, Wendeln, HK, Toma, K, Hagerman, FC,
Murray, TF, Ragg, KE, Ratamess, NA, Kraemer, WJ, and Staron, RS.
Muscular adaptations in response to three different
resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum
training zones. Eur J Appl Physiol 88: 50–60, 2002.
11. Cazorla, G. Tests de terrain pour évaluer la capacité aérobie et la
vitesse maximale aérobie. In: L’e´valuation en activite´ physique et en
sport. G. Cazorla and G. Robert, eds. Cestas: AREAPS, 1990. pp.
151–174.
12. Chamari, K, Hachana, Y, Ahmed, YB, Galy, O, Sghaier, F, Chatard,
JC, Hue, O, and Wisloff, U. Field and laboratory testing in young elite
soccer players. Br J Sports Med 38: 191–196, 2004.
the TM
1044 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
13. 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: 555–560, 2005.
14. Collins, MA and Snow, TK. Are adaptations to combined endurance
and strength training affected by the sequence of training? J Sports Sci
11: 485–491, 1993.
15. Craig, BW, Lucas, J, Pohlman, R, and Stelling, H. The effects of
running, weightlifting and a combination of both on growth
hormone release. J Appl Sport Sci Res 5: 198–203, 1991.
16. Dolezal, BA and Potteiger, JA. Concurrent resistance and endurance
training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals.
J Appl Physiol 85: 695–700, 1998.
17. Dudley, GA and Djamil, R. Incompatibility of endurance- and
strength-training modes of exercise. J Appl Physiol 59: 1446–1451,
1985.
18. Durnin, JV and Womersley, J. Body fat assessed from total body
density and its estimation from skinfold thickness: measurements on
481 men and women aged from 16 to 72 years. Br J Nutr 32: 77–97,
1974.
19. Glowacki, SP, Martin, SE, Maurer, A, Baek, W, Green, JS, and
Crouse, SF. Effects of resistance, endurance, and concurrent exercise
on training outcomes in men. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 2119–2127,
2004.
20. Gravelle, BL and Blessing, DL. Physiological adaptation in women
concurrently training for strength and endurance. J Strength Cond Res
14: 5–13, 2000.
21. Häkkinen, A, Hannonen, P, Nyman, K, Lyyski, T, and Häkkinen, K.
Effects of concurrent strength and endurance training in women
with early or longstanding rheumatoid arthritis: comparison with
healthy subjects. Arthritis Rheum 49: 789–797, 2003.
22. Hennessy, LC and Watson, AWS. The interference effects of training
for strength and endurance simultaneously. J Strength Cond Res 8:
12–19, 1994.
23. Hickson, RC. Interference of strength development by simulta-
neously training for strength and endurance. Eur J Appl Physiol
Occup Physiol 45: 255–263, 1980.
24. Hickson, RC, Rosenkoetter, MA, and Brown, MM. Strength training
effects on aerobic power and short-term endurance. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 12: 336–339, 1980.
25. Hoff, J, Kemi, OJ, and Helgerud, J. Strength and endurance
differences between elite and junior elite ice hockey players.
The importance of allometric scaling. Int J Sports Med 26: 537–541,
2005.
26. Hortobagyi, T, Katch, FI, and Lachance, PF. Effects of simultaneous
training for strength and endurance on upper and lower body
strength and running performance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 31:
20–30, 1991.
27. Izquierdo, M, Häkkinen, 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: 70–75, 2005.
28. Kraemer, WJ, Patton, JF, Gordon, SE, Harman, EA, Deschenes, MR,
Reynolds, K, Newton, RU, Triplett, NT, and Dziados, JE.
Compatibility of high-intensity strength and endurance training on
hormonal and skeletal muscle adaptations. J Appl Physiol 78:
976–989, 1995.
29. Laursen, PB and Jenkins, DG. The scientific basis for high-intensity
interval training: optimising training programmes and maximising
performance in highly trained endurance athletes. Sports Med 32:
53–73, 2002.
30. Lepers, R, Pousson, ML, Maffiuletti, NA, Martin, A, and Van
Hoecke, J. The effects of a prolonged running exercise on strength
characteristics. Int J Sports Med 21: 275–280, 2000.

31. Markovic, G, Dizdar, D, Jukic, I, and Cardinale, M. Reliability and
factorial validity of squat and countermovement jump tests.
J Strength Cond Res 18: 551–555, 2004.
32. McCarthy, JP, Pozniak, MA, and Agre, JC. Neuromuscular
adaptations to concurrent strength and endurance training. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 34: 511–519, 2002.
33. McGee, D, Jessee, TC, Stone, MH, and Blessing, DL. Leg and hip
endurance adaptations to three weight-training programs. J Appl
Sport Sci Res 6: 92–95, 1992.
34. McMillan, K, Helgerud, J, Macdonald, R, and Hoff, J. Physiological
adaptations to soccer specific endurance training in professional
youth soccer players. Br J Sports Med 39: 273–277, 2005.
35. Miller, C. Évaluation et développement des capacités musculaires.
L’entraı̂nement de la force: spécificité et planification. Actes du 1er
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
stage international de formation continue pour entraı̂neurs de sportifs
de haut niveau. Eurathlon 95. Les Cahiers de l’INSEP 21: 33–84, 1997.
36. Nelson, AG, Arnall, DA, Loy, SF, Silvester, LJ, and Conlee,
RK. Consequences of combining strength and endurance
training regimens. Phys Ther 70: 287–294,
1990.
37. Sale, DG, Jacobs, I, MacDougall, JD, and Garner, S. Comparison of
two regimens of concurrent strength and endurance training. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 22: 348–356, 1990.
38. Sale, DG, MacDougall, JD, Jacobs, I, and Garner, S. Interaction
between concurrent strength and endurance training. J Appl Physiol
68: 260–270, 1990.
39. Spurrs, RW, Murphy, AJ, and Watsford, ML. The effect of
plyometric training on distance running performance. Eur J Appl
Physiol 89: 1–7, 2003.
VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 4 | JULY 2008 | 1045