A Series of Studies On Professional Rugby League Players.

1
A series of studies on professional rugby league players,

including:
1. Testing and the relationship of upper body muscular
strength, power, speed and strength-endurance to playing
position and status in professional rugby league players
2. Acute training methods that affect the development of
upper body muscular power
and
3. Chronic adaptations ~ the nature, scope and methodology
of long-term adaptations in upper body strength and power
By
Daniel Baker Student # 3033093
PhD Candidate
Edith Cowan University
Principal supervisor: Prof. Rob Newton
Date of Submission: September, 2006
Table of Contents
Abstract ....................................................................................... 6
Acknowledgements ................................................................... 9
List of original papers ............................................................... ...........11
Abbreviations and Definitions ................................................. 13
Chapter 1.
Introduction ............................................................................... 14
Purposes .......................................................................................................18
Statement of the problem ..............................................................................19
Specific research questions .......................................................................... 20
Limitations ..................................................................................................... 21
Chapter 2.
Literature Review ................................................................................... 19
Introduction ................................................................................................. 22
2a. Definition of strength and power ....................................................... 23
2b. Neuromuscular basis of strength and power ................................... 24
2bi. Neural adaptations to strength training ................................................. 24
2bii. Increased central drive/descending activity ......................................... 26
2biii. Disinhibition .......................................................................................... 28
3
2biv. Hypertrophy .......................................................................................... 32
2c. Development of strength and power .................................................. 40
2ci. Programming considerations .................................................................. 40
2cii. Periodization of strength and power training ........................................ 41
2ciii. Periodization of resistance training for rugby league players .............. 57
2civ. Advanced power training methods currently being used by elite rugby
league players ............................................................................................... 61
Testing of strength and power in rugby league players ......................... 62
2di. Type of tests .......................................................................................... 62
Strength .............................................................................................. 63
Power ................................................................................................. 65
Speed ................................................................................................. 68
Endurance .......................................................................................... 69
2dii.
Does testing identify trends in the team grading (a measure of
performance) or positional groups of rugby league players? ........................ 72

Summary and Implications of the Literature Review .............................. 79
Chapter 3.
Original Published Papers ................................................................. 82
1. Analyses of tests of upper body strength, power, speed and strengthendurance to describe and compare playing rank in professional rugby league
players. ........................................................................................................ 83
2. An analysis of the ratio and relationship between upper body pressing and
4
pulling strength. ........................................................................................... 112
3.
Predicting 1RM or sub-maximal strength levels from simple reps to
fatigue (RTF) tests. .................................................................................... 135
4. Acute effect of alternating heavy and light resistances on power output

during upper-body complex power training. ................................................ 149
5. Acute effect on power output of alternating an agonist and antagonist

muscle exercise during complex training. ....................................................166
6.
Acute negative effect of a hypertrophy-oriented training bout on
subsequent upper-body power output. ........................................................ 180

7. Adaptations in upper body maximal strength and power output resulting
from long-term resistance training in experienced strength-power athletes.
..................................................................................................................... 192
8. The effects of systematic strength and power training during the formative
training years: A comparison between younger and older professional rugby
league players. ............................................................................................ 216
9. Methods to increase the effectiveness of maximal power training for the
upper body. ................................................................................................. 224
10. Cycle-length variants in periodized strength/power training. ................. 245
Chapter 4. General Discussion ..................................................... 271
Chapter 5. Conclusions and Primary findings ......................... 286
References for Chapter 1 - Introduction, Chapter 2 - Review of

the Literature, Chapter 4 - Discussion and Chapter - 5
Summary and Conclusions .............................................................. 290
Abstract
Rugby league football is a popular game in Australia, which appears to
rely heavily upon strength, power, speed and endurance due to the nature of
the phyiscal contacts. In an effort to discern the importance of upper body
strength, power speed and endurance to rugby league players a retrospective
data analysis was performed.
Three areas of investigation were: 1) the
testing of upper body physical qualities of strength, power, speed and

strength-endurance and their significance to playing status in the elite national
first-division (NRL), second-division (SRL) and third-division (CRL), 2) the
effect of acute training variable manipulations upon power output and 3) the
nature, scope and magnitude of chronic adaptations in strength and power in
a multi-year period in professional rugby league players.
The findings for the first part suggest that maximum pressing and
pulling strength appear vitally important to NRL attainment. Maximum power
and strength-endurance are only slightly less indicative of NRL attainment and
appear as important as each other. Upper body speed appears to garner less
importance. The major findings of this part of the thesis is that testing can
determine the future training content of an athlete to a degree, but that initial
training should be directed at increasing maximum strength which appears to
underpin all other qualities. After adequate levels of maximum strength have
been attained, the training can be directed (based upon test results) more
appropriately at either maximum power or strength-endurance training; these
qualities which require very different training variable manipulations (viz.
repetitions, rest periods, etc).
7
The second part of the thesis looked at how power output could be
acutely affected within a workout by different training variable manipulations.
The first two papers addressed the power training methodology known as
complex or contrast training. Previous upper body studies have not shown
any benefit and equivocal results exist concerning lower body effects of such
training strategies. However, in the current studies both an agonist strength
exercise and an antagonist strength exercise alternated with the power
exercise brought about a small but significant increase in power output. The
difference between this and previous research is that the athletes in these
investigations were stronger, more powerful and experienced in power
training. As such it was concluded that complex training, using contrasting
resistances and/or exercises, might be a valid power training method for
advanced athletes. However, less experienced athletes may actually derive
adverse outcomes from attempting to implement complex training.
A third study in this section looked at the effect that hypertrophyoriented training may have upon power output within a training session. It
was determined that a hypertrophy-oriented training bout, in this instance a
small dose of 3 x 10 repetitions @ 65%1RM with short rest periods, severely
suppressed power output by 17%. A considerable negative effect still lasted
despite 7 minutes of passive rest and was more pronounced in the strongest
athletes.
Consequently coaches should be wary of hypertrophy-oriented
strength training preceding power training within a training session.

The nature, scope and magnitude of chronic adaptations in strength
and power in a multi-year period in professional rugby league players were
8
the final themes to be investigated.
The two major findings were that 1)
advanced athletes can still make gains in strength and power, however there
exists a diminishing scope for improvements with increased strength and
experience levels ~ the time frames over which changes may be seen may be
quite lengthy. Also the age that regimented resistance training commences
also appears to impact upon strength and power levels. Those who delay the
start of such training until their early twenties do not possess the same
strength and power levels as those who start in their late teenage years.
The last papers are review papers. The first paper is concerned with
practical methods of enhancing the effectiveness of power training. By itself it
could be seen as a summary paper of much of the work in this thesis as it
contains a review of relevant power training literature coupled with practical
recommendations for enhancing power training.
The second paper is a
review of the different periodization strategies used to vary training across a

training cycle.
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the support of the Brisbane Broncos Rugby
League Football Club. Especially I would like to thank the coaching staff for
their assistance and support.
In particular Wayne Bennett has been
extremely supportive over 10 years of association. Not many strength and

conditioning coaches get to work at the same club for 10 years straight, win
three Premierships, a World Club Championship and make the finals each
year. Ten years allows you to develop players from scratch and you can learn
a lot that way.
Of course the players must be acknowledged for being
extremely hard-working and motivated trainers, which is what separates this

thesis from those done using typical college students as subjects. No one
trains harder than athletes whose livelihood depends largely upon their
physical attributes and who are scrutinized by millions each week on
television. More and more training studies must be done on elite athletes to
discern the differences in their adaptations in comparison to lesser level
athletes.
I would also like to thank my supervisor Professor Rob Newton for his
patience and help in preparing this type of thesis. His desire to see research
on elite athletes parallels my own and I know I could not get a start on a thesis
like this without his support and enthusiasm.
I would also like to thank all the other athletes I have trained or trained
with over the years. I learned something from each session, even if it was
merely an affirmation of something I already knew or believed. Also to former
power-lifting greats such as Glen Wazkiel, Wayne Scarffe, Dino Toci, Mason
10
Jardine and Robert Wilks for passing on practical bits of information and
guidance concerning elite level strength training over the years.
Family and friends are the basis of all positive things that can happen
in your life. Consequently I would like to thank my parents, Frank and Aline
Baker, for providing me with a great upbringing, great education and great
love of sport, which was only achieved through their sacrificing a lot to give
their seven children something.
Finally, I would also like to thank my partner Sercia Caballes Hopkins
for helping me over all the years. She is the most beautiful and funny woman
I have ever met.
Philippines).
Daniel Baker
Mahal kita (I love you in the Bisaya language of the
11
List of Original Papers
1. Baker, D. & Newton, R. U. (2006): Analyses of tests of upper body

strength, power, speed and strength-endurance to describe and compare
playing rank in professional rugby league players. International Journal of
Sports Physiology and Performance, 1(4) December.
2. Baker, D. & Newton, R. U. (2004): An analysis of the ratio and relationship

between upper body pressing and pulling strength. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 18(3):594-598.
3.
Baker, D. (2004): Predicting 1RM or sub-maximal strength levels from
simple reps to fatigue (RTF) tests. Strength and Conditioning Coach,

12(4):19-24.
4. Baker, D. (2003): Acute effect of alternating heavy and light resistances

on power output during upper-body complex power training. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 17(3):493 -497.
5. Baker, D. & Newton, R. U. (2005): Acute effect on power output of

alternating an agonist and antagonist muscle exercise during complex
training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19(1):202-205.
6. Baker, D. (2003): Acute negative effect of a hypertrophy-oriented training
12
bout on subsequent upper-body power output. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 17(3):527-530.
7. Baker, D. & Newton, R. U. (2006): Adaptations in upper body maximal

strength and power output resulting from long-term resistance training in
experienced strength-power athletes. Daniel Baker and Robert U. Newton,
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(3):541-546.
8. Baker, D. (2005): The effects of systematic strength and power training

during the formative training years: A comparison between younger and older
professional rugby league players. Strength and Conditioning Coach.
11(2):911.
9. Baker, D. & Newton, R. U. (2005): Methods to increase the effectiveness

of maximal power training for the upper body. Strength and Conditioning
Journal, 27(6):24-32.
10. Baker, D. (2006): Cycle-length variants in periodized strength/power

training. Strength and Conditioning Journal (was accepted to be published
on 6th September, 2006).
13
Abbreviations and Definitions

NRL = the elite, professional first-division national rugby league competition
SRL = A second-division intra-state based rugby league competition
CRL = A third-division intra-city based rugby league competition
Pmax = Maximum power
1RM = One Repetition Maximum (test of strength)
BP = Bench press
PU = Pull-up
BT = Bench throw
BT P20 = Bench throw test of upper body speed with a resistance of 20 kg
BT P40-80 = Bench throw tests of power with a resistances of 40-80 kg
Load-power curve = Graphic display of BT 40-80 testing
RTF BP 60 = Exhaustive test bench pressing 60 kg for as many repetitions to
fatigue (RTF) as possible
Hypertrophy-oriented training = training with higher repetitions, moderate
resistances and shorter rest periods to induce muscle growth
Strength-oriented training = training with lower repetitions, heavy resistances
and longer rest periods to induce increases in muscle strength
Power-oriented training = training with lower repetitions, moderate resistances
and longer rest periods to induce increases in power output
Strength-endurance training = training with very high repetitions, light to
moderate resistances and shorter rest periods to increase strength-endurance
capabilities
14
Chapter 1. Introduction
Rugby league football is an important professional sport in Australia.
Currently the Australian national team is the world champions, a situation that
has remained unchanged for a number of years. However, until recently a
paucity of scientific data existed regarding the applied physiology of
professional rugby league players. As rugby league entails brutal physical
collisions, (requiring a large degree of strength, power speed and endurance)
between opposing players, then any study examining these physical qualities
is of interest. Pressing or pushing an opponent backwards/away is perhaps
the most fundamental task in rugby league. Therfore studies examining the
testing and training of upper body pressing/pushing strength, power speed
and endurance and how they relate to players of differing playing status and
training experience is of interest.
In an effort to discern the importance of upper body strength, power
and speed to rugby league players, I have analyzed data that I have amassed
during testing and training during my eleven years involvement in a
professional rugby league club. This retrospective data analysis would have
three main areas of focus.
These three areas of investigation are 1) the
testing of upper body physical qualities of strength, power, speed and

strength-endurance, 2) the effect of acute training variable manipulations upon
power output and 3) the nature, scope and magnitude of chronic adaptations
in strength and power in a multi-year period in professional rugby league
players.
First, a retrospective data analysis study would determine to what
extent upper body maximum strength, power, speed and strength-endurance
affect the playing position and status of professional rugby league players
(Study 1). Specifically the extent to which these upper body physical qualities
relate to playing status as participants in the elite national league (NRL),
15
second-division state league (SRL) or third-division intra-city league (CRL).

While previous studies (Baker, 2001c, 2002) have shown that maximum
strength is more important than upper body speed in determining playing
status, the extent to which maximum power and strength-endurance impact
upon playing status is less clear. Recent trends in playing and refereeing
games appear to have increased the strength-endurance demands upon the
players. It is of considerable interest if this belief is borne out in testing.
A second related study (Study 2) would examine the strength ratio
between upper body pressing and pulling strength and again determine if this
differed between NRL and SRL players. Very little data exists concerning the
pulling strength of rugby league players and no data has been found that
examines whether a strength ratio between pressing or pulling strength exists
in any athletes, despite the widespread and commonly held edict that they
should be equivalent (either in force or training dosages).
A brief data analysis study of the predictive value of repetitions to
fatigue tests (RTF) to extrapolate 1RM performance is also included in this
section (Study 3). Many studies have been performed using RTF tests to
develop regression equations to estimate 1RM performance in exercises such
as the squat and bench press. However regression equations, assuming a
linear relationship between repetitions performed and sub-maximal strength
levels, from which maximum levels are predicted, may be fundamentally
flawed given that the relationship is actually curvi-linear or partly parabolic.
Consequently in Study 3 a table of correction factors applicable to the
repetitions performed and the corresponding sub-maximal strength levels is
used in the bench press and pull-up exercise to extrapolate 1RM
performance.
A more accurate method of testing large numbers of less
experienced athletes in a short period of time in these two key upper body
tests would be of considerable interest to lower level coaches.
16
Overall these three studies will provide insightful data indicating the
relevance of further training intervention studies. In particular they will provide
normative data as to the actual relevance of each quality to successful
participation in the NRL. Once this is known it is much easier to determine the
nature of future training studies. For example, if upper body speed is found to
be more important than strength-endurance in NRL attainment, then future
longer-term training studies should focus upon upper body speed, rather than
strength-endurance.
The second series of studies will consist of three training intervention
studies that investigate how acute manipulations of training variables may
affect upper body power output. Increasing muscular power output is of
interest to many sports and considerable interest exists in specific
methodologies that aim to do this. A number of these methods are quite
common in the wider power training community, but have yet to be
conclusively verified.
One method is the use of contrasting exercises and
resistances. The effect that alternating sets of a heavier strength exercise

with sets of lighter power exercises (also known as complex training) has
upon subsequent power output will be analyzed in Study 4.
To date the
results from complex training have been mixed for the lower body with no
benefit elucidated yet for the upper body. Some of the research suggests the
strength level and training experience of the athletes influences the outcomes
of these studies (eg. Hakkinen, 1985).
A different form of complex training, whereby an antagonist exercise is
alternated with the agonist power exercise will also be examined to observe if
this procedure has any effect upon subsequent agonist power output (Study
5). Some previous work concerning agonist and antagonist muscle interplay
suggests that this method warrants consideration as a power training method.
The hypertrophy of muscle is thought to offer possibly the only avenue
of continued strength/power gain in elite, experienced athletes. However the
17
training variable manipulation suitable for hypertrophy is quite disparate, and

perhaps contradictory, to that recommended for power training. Hypertrophyoriented training typically precedes general strength/power and maximal
strength/power training in a yearly-periodized training cycle. However, some
recent trends entail a more holistic approach within a week (e.g., hypertrophyoriented, strength-oriented and power-oriented training sections within each
work-out). Given that high-volume energy system training has been shown to
attenuate power output, the effect that high-volume hypertrophy-oriented
resistance training may have if it precedes power training within a workout is
of interest. Study 6 will investigate how upper body power output is affected
by a high-volume, short-rest period training protocol that is often
recommended to induce muscle hypertrophy.
The third theme to be analyzed will be the nature and scope of
changes in upper body maximal strength and power across prolonged periods
in professional rugby league players (Study 7).
Long-term training
observations of elite athletes are extremely rare, but in reality should be of the
greatest interest to researchers. Of interest is the fact that the professional
rugby league players, who could be grouped equally based upon years of
training experience at the commencement of the study period, could provide
data upon the concept of the diminishing scope for further strength/power
progress that may occur with increased training experience. This concept is
further illustrated by a short data analysis paper that compares the strength
and power levels for matched NRL players who are differentiated not by how
many years resistance training experience they have but by at what age did
they commence serious periodized resistance training (Study 8).
From the series of retrospective data analysis and training intervention
studies, a literature review and recommendations for training to develop
maximum strength and power will be described (Studies 9 and 10).
18
Purposes
The most basic purposes of this research are to determine the extent to
which levels of upper body strength, power, speed and endurance relate to
rugby league players from different playing positions and different status
levels and the factors that affect the development of strength and power. The
factors that affect strength and more particularly power are will be examined in
both acute (within a work-out) and chronic (4-years) periods.
Rugby league is an important professional sport in Australia, which,
due to the high impact force physical contact it entails, appears to rely heavily
upon high levels of strength, power, speed and endurance. Therefore testing
of these physical qualities and the training methods that impact upon them are
of interest. This increased understanding of the role of strength, power, speed
and endurance play in the development of rugby league players would benefit
not only rugby league players and coaching staff but also broaden our
understanding of the field of applied sports physiology.
While maximum
strength appears to be adequately researched over the last 40 years, little

research has been conducted upon upper body power in comparison,
especially using experienced athletes. For example, most studies conducted
at universities use university students as subjects and extrapolate these
results to other populations such as elite athletes.
This methodology is
continually questioned, especially in the field of sports physiology and

coaching. The issue of complex power training (an acute manipulation of
training) stands out. It has been illustrated that differences exist in the nature
of the adaptation to complex training, based upon initial strength levels and
19
training experience. As yet, complex training has not been verified as an
effective power training method, despite its seemingly widespread acceptance
in the wider training community. Complex training may be either an invalid
training method, as some research suggests or perhaps a valid method that
has yet to be fully understood due to the relative inexperience and low levels
of strength of subjects used in previous research. The question is will using
much stronger, powerful and experienced athletes garner different results to
previous upper body complex training studies?
The papers concerning
complex training in this thesis may provide data that resolve the issues of the
veracity of complex training.
Also by investigating younger college-aged CRL players, SRL players
and comparing them to elite NRL professionals, differences in the extent and
scope of adaptations to training can be identified and more readily explained.
Furthermore the examination of changes in strength and power over a 4-year
period has rarely been reported for any athletes, let alone elite professional
athletes. This thesis will report the nature and scope of changes in strength
and power across this long-term time period with special reference to different
training variable manipulations.
Statement of the problem
Because a paucity of data exists concerning the applied physiology
and biomechanics of rugby league, confusion exists concerning the relative
importance of strength, power and speed to playing status in the game.
Furthermore it has not been determined if strength, power, speed and
endurance are more important to some positional playing groups.
The
purpose of this research is to determine a) the importance of upper body
20
strength, power, speed and endurance to professional rugby league players,

b) how power output can be impacted by different training variable
manipulations and c) the nature and scope of changes in strength and power
across long-term time periods in experienced trainers.
Specific Research questions

This series of studies will examine a number of questions pertinent to
the development of strength, power, speed and endurance in professional
rugby league players.
1. What is the extent to which levels of upper body strength, power,
speed and endurance relate to rugby league players from different
playing positions and different status levels?
2.
Is there a difference in the strength ratio between pressing and pulling

strength between players of different status levels?
3. Can simple Repetitions to Fatigue (RTF) testing accurately predict

upper body 1RM pulling and pressing strength?
4. How is upper body power output impacted upon by contrasting
resistances during complex training including a traditional heavier
strength-oriented training set alternated with a lighter power set?
5. How is upper body power output impacted by a non-traditional method
whereby the contrast provided is in the form of alternating agonist and
antagonist exercises in the complex?
6. How is upper body power output impacted by different resistance
training variable manipulations such as high volume hypertrophyoriented training?
7. What is the scope and nature of changes in upper body strength and
power across a 4-year time period in professional rugby league
players?
21
8. Does the chronological starting age possibly affect the scope, nature
and magnitude of changes in upper body strength and power?
9. Based upon this and other relevant literature, what practical methods of
enhancing power training can be recommended?
10. What are the variations of periodized strength/power training that may
be utilized by rugby league players or other strength/power athletes?
Limitations
The results of this series of studies may be limited to rugby league
players or athletes with considerable training experience. It is not known if
other athletes who are not used to performing resistance, speed and
endurance training concurrently would exhibit the same responses or
adaptations. Clearly the training experience of athletes affects the nature and
scope of adaptations and this should be taken into account when
extrapolating the results of this series of studies.
Furthermore, the results and conclusions from this series of studies
were limited to the chosen upper body tests. This does not preclude other
tests or other physical qualities (eg. running endurance) from also being of
great importance to the success of rugby league athletes.
22
Chapter 2. Review of the literature.

Introduction
This literature review will address aspects of upper body muscular
functioning as related to the sport of rugby league, in particular maximal
strength and power. Firstly strength and power will be defined, using common
definitions used in the literature. The related qualities of speed and strengthendurance, although not the main focus of this thesis, will also be defined.
The second part of this review will address the neuromuscular basis of
strength and power. Specifically the relative (and sometimes theoretical) role
that neural mechanisms such as increased central drive and decreased
disinhibition have upon strength and power adaptations will be reviewed. The
role, nature and scope of the hypertrophy of muscle and its effect upon
ongoing strength/power gain in long-term training will also be reviewed. It is
hoped that a greater understanding of the role of these two broad avenues of
force regulation, but in particular the neural mechanisms, may give rise to the
development of specific acute training strategies that may enhance power
output.
The third part of this chapter will review the interplay between neural
and hypertrophic adaptations to resistance training and how these two broad
avenues of force regulation are affected by different training variable
configurations. Specifically training methods to develop strength and power,
including programming considerations, the concept of training periodization
and specific advanced strategies will also be reviewed.
The fourth part of this chapter will address how the different upper body
23
muscular qualities of strength, power, speed and strength-endurance are
assessed in the athlete and in particular, rugby league players. An important
reason for testing of muscular functioning is to determine if testing identifies
trends in the team grading (a measure of performance) or positional grouping
of rugby league players. This question will be reviewed in regards some of
the common tests currently used or recommended. This area of the review
will provide insight as to which tests may prove most useful when assessing
the upper body muscular functioning of rugby league players.
2a. Definitions of strength and power.

For the purpose of this thesis strength will defined as the ability to
apply force, irrespective of time constraints.
The ability to apply maximal
force, irrespective of time constraints, can be defined as maximal strength

(Knuttgen & Kraemer, 1987). However in most sporting situations force must
be applied rapidly or under some time constraint (eg. in rowing, the stroke rate
may be 40 per minute, so this is the time constraint under which force must be
applied). The parameter that describes a force being applied over a given
distance (work performed) in a given time is power. For the purpose of this
thesis power will be defined as force x distance/time (also work/time).
Maximal power (Pmax) will be defined as the highest average power output
during the concentric phase of a muscular contraction (Baker, 2001a). Speed
will be defined as the distance-time, based upon the time taken to move
between two points (ASCA, 2006). Strength-endurance will be defined as the
ability to continue to apply force at a designated level or the ability to apply
24
force with minimal diminishment, for longer periods (typically greater than 30
s) (ASCA, 2006).
2b. Neuromuscular basis of strength and power.

It has long been known that progressive over-loading of muscle
brings about an increase in strength. However, it is not yet fully understood
how this occurs. The interaction of neural factors, hypertrophy and hormonal
activity plays an important role in increasing strength and power (Hakkinen,
1985; 1989).
This review will only briefly examine the roles of neural
adaptations and hypertrophic responses in improving strength and power

functioning but it is felt necessary to gain a better understanding of the
rationale of some specific strategies currently being used.
In particular
periodization of resistance training is largely based upon having periods of

training primarily addressing strength and power either through the avenue of
hypertrophy of muscle and/or altering contractile properties or through
periods addressing the neural control of muscle. Furthermore some specific
advanced power training strategies currently being used require an in depth
understanding of the neural interplay involved in force regulation.
2bi. Neural Adaptations to Strength Training

As force output is largely regulated by neural control, some basic
understanding of the neural mechanisms of force control and how resistance
training may impact them is required.
This review is not intended to be
extensive, but merely to provide a general insight into how neural control
strategies may be impacted by resistance training.
The fact that large increases in strength are observable shortly after
the commencement of strength training in beginners without any discernible
hypertrophy has led researchers to believe that other factors may contribute
to strength gains (Thorstensson et al., 1976; Costill et al., 1979; Dons et al.,
25
1979; Moritani and DeVries, 1979). Muscle activation can be measured by

electromyography (EMG) and the recorded signal is often integrated for
further quantification. Increased integrated myoelectrical activity (IEMG)
(Moritani and DeVries, 1979; Hakkinen and Komi, 1983), motor unit
synchronization (Milner-Brown et al., 1975; Moritani et al., 1987; Moritani,
1993) and skill learning/coordination (Rutherford and Jones, 1986) have
consequently been hypothesized to account for these rapid increases in
strength.
Before further elaborating on the neural responses to strength training
a short discussion on the role of motor unit recruitment and firing rate in
grading muscle force production is warranted. A muscle can increase its
force via increased recruitment of motor units and/or an increased firing rate
(rate coding) of neural impulses in the motor neuron that controls the motor
unit (Milner-Brown et al., 1973; Desmedt and Godaux, 1978). The relative
contribution of motor unit recruitment and firing rate to muscular force
production varies according to the muscle (DeLuca et al., 1982), the level of
force required (Milner-Brown et al., 1973; Desmedt and Godaux, 1977) and
possibly the type of muscle contraction (Person, 1974; Desmedt and
Godaux, 1981).
In muscular contractions it has been hypothesized that the size
principle of motor unit recruitment applies (Henneman et al., 1965). This
principle suggests that force output increases initially by recruiting the small
motor units, followed by the larger, higher threshold motor units. However,
there may be a "ceiling" of recruitment after which the firing rate may be
more critical for increasing force (Belanger and Comas, 1981; Kukulka and
Clamann, 1981). The initial effect of strength training may be to facilitate the
recruitment of these higher threshold motor units as well as the
enhancement of the firing rate (Sale, 1986). How this "functional reserve" of
26
neural output is accessed and at what level of the nervous system this
occurs is not fully understood.
The tripartite model of motor control (Wetzel and Stuart, 1977) has
been hypothesized to account for the neural processes that regulate force
production and motor control at different levels of the nervous system. This
model proposes three levels of nervous system control of muscle from which
neural output and hence force could be increased.
The three levels of
control of the tripartite model are the high-level controller (supraspinal

centres), the low-level controller (spinal cord) and the peripheral receptors
(muscle spindle, Golgi tendon organ) (Wetzel and Stuart, 1977).
The low-level controller contains neural circuitry responsible for the
performance of a motor skill, for example, the lifting of a barbell. Such a
movement also requires the high-level controller to initiate this action by
descending commands and feedback from the peripheral receptors to
regulate and modify the motor skill.
Consequently performance by the
neuromuscular system is dependant on the interaction of the input and

output at these different levels of the nervous system. Importantly the level of
excitation of the various interneurones within the spinal cord (low-level
controller) that receive and integrate inhibitory input and excitatory output
from the various levels of the tripartite model may be a major factor in
regulating muscle force production (Stuart, 1987a; 1987b). Consequently
before ascribing "neural adaptations" as the mechanism of increased
strength it is necessary to review the processes by which the nervous
system might influence the neural activity of muscle.
2bii. Increased central drive/descending activity.

The increased central drive of the supraspinal centres (high-level
controller) has been postulated to partly account for the large initial increases
in voluntary strength observed upon the commencement of strength training
27
or as a result of extraordinary arousal (Ikai and Steinhaus, 1961; MilnerBrown et al., 1975; Shelton and Mahoney, 1978; Moritani and De Vries,
1979;
Hakkinen and Komi, 1983; Narici et al., 1989).
There may be
inhibition occurring at the higher motor centres as varying types of arousal

strategies can precipitate immediate and large increases in strength (Ikai and
Steinhaus, 1961). Various arousal strategies such as hypnosis, shouting,
loud noises (gunshot) and positive affirmations have been hypothesized to
have the effect of increasing the descending activity of the higher cortical
centres. This may increase neural input to the muscle and hence facilitate
force production (Ikai and Steinhaus, 1961). Such a scenario could result in
the over-riding of the inhibitory effects of the peripheral receptors', such as
the Golgi tendon organ, and the central interneurones, such as the Renshaw
cell, resulting in an increase in net neural input to the muscle.
Ikai and
Steinhaus (1961) demonstrated that the actual increases in strength

following the arousal techniques seemed to correspond to the "intensity" of
the arousal strategy. This may indicate that increased descending activity of
the supraspinal centres may precipitate a greater excitatory state in the
facilitatory interneurones that integrate the various neural signals, resulting in
increased net excitatory output.
Most research has focused on level of neural output measured in a
prime mover muscle group during an isometric contraction (eg. Moritani and
De Vries, 1979; Hakkinen and Komi, 1983; Narici et al., 1989). However, as
performance of strength skills, either isometric or dynamic, depends to a
large extent on synergist muscle activity (Rutherford and Jones, 1986), it
would appear prudent to assume that the increased descending activity of
the supraspinal centres encompasses these muscles as well. It has been
suggested that improved neural activation of synergists would result from
strength training (Hakkinen et al., 1993).
Conceivably the output of the
synergists would add favourably to the total force output of the movement or
28
test of strength, however this assumption has not yet been investigated
during strength training.
Increased descending activity would not only apply to prime movers
and synergists but also to the antagonist muscle group.
The fact that
supraspinal excitatory signals have been sent to the prime movers would
result in a reciprocal inhibitory signal being sent to the antagonist muscles.
This may occur through interneurones that serve to integrate the intensity of
the supraspinal signals with the feedback signals (Baldissera et al., 1981).
By inhibiting the antagonist muscles the net activity to the agonist muscles
would be increased.
Therefore, the recruitment and rate coding of motor units and
consequent strength of muscle contraction may be effected by the higher
motor centres increasing their descending activity so there is an enhanced
excitatory output to prime mover muscle and synergist muscles and
increased inhibition of antagonist muscle. However, the sum neural output to
a muscle would depend on the effects of coupling the supraspinal excitatory
output with inhibitory feedback mechanisms existing in the peripheral and
low-level controller areas of the nervous system. Therefore the roles of the
inhibitory mechanisms in regulating force production must be reviewed.
2biii. Disinhibition.
The neuromuscular system has a number of in-built feedback
mechanisms that regulate the production of muscular force through the net
balance of inhibitory and excitatory neural impulses. One of these inhibitory
mechanisms is the Golgi tendon organ (GTO) (McGrouch et al., 1950), which
is sensitive to the level of tension produced in the musculature. The GTO is
found in the musculotendinous junction and throughout the perimysial
connective tissues. It lies in series with the skeletal muscle fibers and is
29
sensitive to the production of tension via muscular activity. It is believed that
the GTO is an important peripheral source of inhibition, through the inverse
myotatic reflex, that protects the muscle from too great an overload that
potentially could result in injury to the muscle or tendon (Granit, 1950). Thus
if excessive tension is perceived by the neural system an inhibitory signal is
sent by the GTO along the sensory nerve fibre, via a connecting inhibitory
synaptic knob in the spinal cord (interneurone), to the motor nerve. This
results in the reduction of neural input for further motor unit discharge and
consequently force output is moderated (Granit, 1950).
The Renshaw cell is a central feedback loop mechanism that also
moderates neural output, and hence force output, through its property of an
inhibitory synaptic knob. This central negative feedback loop operates via a
recurrent axon collateral when an alpha efferent neuron fires. The discharge
information of the alpha neuron that is initiating the contraction is fed back
within the spinal cord to reduce further recruitment that may result in injurious
levels of force production. The Renshaw cell exists centrally and acts to
inhibit the further recruitment of motor units which otherwise may make the
contraction too strong.
The GTO operates peripherally to moderate the
current force levels.

The strength of the signals sent by these inhibitory afferents and how
they are acted upon may dictate the resultant neural signals, and hence
force output of the muscle (Baldissera et al., 1981). Therefore muscular
strength and power are potentially limited to a considerable degree by the
central inhibition of the Renshaw cell and the peripheral inhibition of the
30
GTO, which both operate to dampen neural output and thus limit the
potential force production of the muscle.
Learning to disinhibit these
mechanisms by progressively exposing them to increasing levels of tension

and loading (via resistance or speed), thereby reducing their sensitivity, may
be an important aspect of strength and power training (Hakkinen and Komi,
1983). Further, reducing their inhibitory effect at the interneurone level, in
the low level controller, by increased descending activity of the higher
supraspinal centres, may be a concurrent process with increased central
drive from the supraspinal centres. The net effect of these occurrences is an
increased neural input to muscle (Milner-Brown et al., 1975; Burke, 1985)
It is believed that the initial stages of strength training involve the
reduction of inhibition so that the higher threshold motor units are
preferentially recruited (Milner-Brown et al., 1973; Narici et al., 1989) and the
maximal firing rate is increased (Kulkulka and Clamann, 1981).
Due to
neural inhibition it has been hypothesized that there exists a deficit between
the potential force production capabilities of the muscle, based on the crosssectional
area,
and
the
actual
maximal
voluntary
force
output
(Schmidtbleicher, 1985). This difference between the potential and actual

strength
capabilities
has
been
termed
the
"strength
deficit"
by
Schmidtbleicher (1985) and estimated as the difference between the

maximum eccentric and isometric strength. Tidow (1990) has stated that the
strength deficit may be as high as 45% in untrained individuals, who cannot
readily access the high threshold motor units or fire them at maximal
frequencies due to neural inhibition.
This is in accordance with the
31
hypothesis of Sale (1986) that a functional reserve of neural activity exists
which untrained people have difficulty accessing, even during maximum
voluntary contractions.
In contrast, Tidow (1990) suggests that trained
athletes who are regularly exposed to high levels of tension may have
strength deficits of only 5%. The sensitivity of these inhibitory mechanisms
is such that Schmidtbleicher (1985) suggested that the state of inhibition or
disinhibition is considered to be a relatively temporary state and would
constantly alter in accordance with the loads used in training (or the training
state of the athlete). Schmidtbleicher (1985) stated that when the strength
deficit is high, the musculature is relatively inhibited to high levels of force
production or high loads. Consequently strength may be increased, without
hypertrophy, by using high intensity/low volume training that serves to
disinhibit the GTO and Renshaw cells so that motor unit recruitment and
firing rate are enhanced. When the deficit is low Schmidtbleicher (1985)
recommends that further strength gains may best be acquired by
morphological changes to the muscle through the use of higher volume/lower
intensity training.
Schmidtbleicher (1985) has stated that this is the
fundamental rationale for the periodization of strength training.

As yet it is unclear to what degree the reduction of inhibitory signals
(GTO and Renshaw cell) from the prime movers play in increasing strength
and much of the theories of Schmidtbleicher (1985) are conjecture.
Increased strength and/or neural output have been observed in untrained
contra lateral limbs as a result of strength training. This tends to indicate that
much of the enhanced neural output must stem from central mechanisms
32
such as increased descending activity and/or reduced Renshaw cell
inhibition (Darcus and Salter, 1955; Moritani and De Vries, 1979). The GTO
of the untrained limb would theoretically not have been disinhibited and as a
result, would not have influenced the increased neural and force output
observed in the untrained limb that occurred as a result of training.
The conclusion is that the relative contributions of the different levels of
the nervous system to increased neural output during muscular work are not
fully understood. It has been hypothesized that the interaction of the various
neural impulses in the interneurones (excitatory output coupled with inhibitory
input), rather than the motor neurones, dictates to a large extent the neural
and force output (Baldissera et al., 1981; Stuart, 1987a; 1987b). How these
neural control strategies are altered by different resistance training variable
manipulations and at different levels of training adaptation, are of interest.
While this thesis does not include a mechanistic investigation into the realms
of neural control and resistance training adaptations, the above review does
provide a theoretical basis for attempting some training interventions. Given
this basis of muscle-force control reviewed above, some quite distinct
practical training methods capable of enhancing power output (temporarily at
least), presumably through some neural based mechanism(s), will be
investigated in this thesis (Studies 4 and 5).
2biv. Hypertrophy
An increase in the size of a muscle, subject to exercise or loading, is a
clearly observable and well-established phenomenon (Hakkinen et al., 1981;
Young et al., 1983; Schmidtbleicher and Buehrle, 1987; Narici et al., 1989).
33
However the exact mechanisms that trigger this hypertrophy of muscle are
still not fully understood (McDonagh and Davies, 1984). It is known that the
muscle hypertrophies due to a net increase in protein synthesis (Goldberg,
1975) that results in an increased size of individual muscle fibers
(Thorstensson et al, 1976;
Haggmark et al., 1978;
Dons et al., 1979;
Hakkinen et al., 1981). The increase in individual fibre size is results from an
increased myofibrillar volume (Luthi et al., 1986).
The biochemical
processes that precipitate these occurrences warrant further investigation as

clearly the processes of muscle tissue remodeling/hypertrophy are linked to
hormonal regulation (Florini, 1985, 1987; Kuoppasalmi and Aldercreutz,
1985).
However this review will concentrate more on the macro level
adaptations consequent to different training variable manipulations during

strength and power training, which are of interest to rugby league players.
McDonagh and Davies (1984) hypothesized that the tensile strain in
the myosin and actin filaments may precipitate hypertrophy. If the level of
strain, caused by loading and stretching, was the main mechanism for the
initiation of hypertrophic responses, then eccentric training, which utilizes the
highest loads under stretch, should conceivably precipitate the greatest
responses in hypertrophy and strength. However the highest loading (strain)
does not seem to produce the greatest hypertrophy or strength (Hakkinen
and Komi, 1981). Nonetheless the load utilized would seem important (Atha,
1981; McDonagh and Davies, 1984). The forces produced by high loads
are translated to the muscle fibre and cell membrane causing a "disruption in
muscle fibers which are crucial for the initiation of a remodeling process in
34
muscle" (Kraemer, 1992). The repair mechanisms consequent to this load
induced disruption of muscle fibre are different to those that are caused by
injury (Clarkson and Tremblay, 1988). The mechanical forces translated to
the muscle could be expected to differ with varying movements (Narici et al.,
1989). This may cause a preferential recruitment of fibres for certain tasks
(Caldwell et al., 1993), which might result in certain muscles or aspects of a
muscle preferentially hypertrophied (Narici et al., 1989). Further, different
training
variable
manipulations
such
as
load
intensity,
exercise,
volume/duration of the contraction stimulus and rest period, could cause

different myogenic adaptations (Kraemer, 1992; Schmidtbleicher and
Buerhle, 1987).
The importance of hypertrophy to continual strength improvement lie
in the fact that hypertrophy is almost, but not always (Sale et al, 1992)
associated with a long-term increase in force producing capabilities (Ikai and
Fukunga, 1970). Early researchers utilized simple girth measures to assess
limb hypertrophy or lean body mass changes to assess whole body
hypertrophic responses (eg. O'Shea, 1966; Alexeeyev
& Roman, 1976).
This progressed to the cross-sectional or total surface area of muscle being

calculated using ultra-sound scanning (Ikai and Fukunga, 1968) and then
computer tomography (Haggmark et al., 1978;
Shantz et al., 1981;
Schmidtbleicher & Buehrle, 1987). Over the last twenty years or so nuclear
magnetic resonance imaging seems to have become the standard for
assessing hypertrophy of muscle (eg. Hinshaw et al., 1979; Narici et al.,
1989). Both cross-sectional and longitudinal experimental paradigms have
35
been utilized to examine hypertrophy in response to strength training, but the
longitudinal
training
studies
afford
much
greater
or
conclusive
understanding of how hypertrophy progresses and how it is affected by

Cross-sectional studies clearly indicate that strength trained athletes
possess significantly greater muscle size than controls (Katch et al., 1980;
Pipes, 1974; Tesch and Larsson, 1982), especially in fast twitch muscle
fibers (Edstrom and Ekblom, 1972; Prince et al., 1976; Tesch and Karlsson,
1985) but also across all fibre types (Shantz et al., 1981). The number of
fast twitch fibers may not be increased by resistance training (Dons et al.,
1979; Costill et al., 1979), though this is by no means unequivocal. More
importantly, the fast twitch fibre area within the muscle is increased
significantly (Thorstensson et al., 1976; McDougall et al., 1980; Hakkinen
and Komi, 1985; Tesch and Karlsson, 1985). These adaptations may be
observed within 2 to 3 months after the initiation of a heavy training program
(Thorstensson et al., 1976; Hakkinen et al., 1981), but the rate of
hypertrophic response tends to slow down after this period (Hakkinen et al.,
1985). Changes in body mass or lean body mass over this initial 2-3 month
period appear in the range of 1.2% (Hakkinen and Komi, 1981) to 5.8%
(Gater et al., 1992) in male athletes. Baker et al. (1994b) and Baker (1995c)
identified that changes in LBM were the statistically most significant factor
relating to changes in whole body strength (1RM squat + bench press totals)
in young males accustomed to resistance training during 9-12 week training
cycles.
36
After the initial large improvement in beginners there is a more limited
scope for training induced improvement in muscle fibre size or lean body
mass (Baker et al., 1994b, Hakkinen et al., 1985a,b, 1987, 1988).
Sale
(1986) has suggested that this may, in part, explain the avid interest in
anabolic steroids by experienced strength athletes. Alen et al. (1984) have
demonstrated that athletes using these drugs experienced a significantly
greater increase in fibre area and strength than control subjects performing
the same training regime. In intermediate level athletes not using anabolic
drugs small changes in hypertrophy are still achievable, but reduced in scope
and magnitude in comparison to less experienced athletes (Hakkinen, 1985).
Elite level strength athletes possess even less scope for improvements in
hypertrophy.
In elite weight-lifters no significant hypertrophy could be
detected, via muscle biopsy and computer tomography or changes in lean

body mass, over the course of one year of intense training (Hakkinen et al.,
1987). As a result no changes occurred in dynamic or isometric strength
levels. However, over a two year period, a small, significant increase in lean
body mass (2%) occurred corresponding with a small but significant increase
in weight-lifting strength (2.8%) (Hakkinen et al., 1988). Again no increase in
fibre size was detected indicating the difficulty of achieving hypertrophic
responses via this method in elite athletes. Based on this observation it
would appear that changes in lean body mass would offer an important
mechanism for continual strength development, especially in athletes with an
extensive strength training background.
37
The conclusion from this data is that the time frame for changes in
LBM varies with training history and with it, the potential for greater strength
gains. For example, a 2% increase in body mass was achieved in 12 weeks
by non-competitive subjects (Hakkinen and Komi, 1981) versus a 2%
improvement in 2 years for elite weight-lifters (Hakkinen et al., 1988). The
relative increase in strength was tenfold for the novice subjects compared to
the elite lifters in these two studies.
The "type" of hypertrophy developed by different training variable
manipulations may affect strength and power functioning quite differently
(Hakkinen et al, 1984a; Hakkinen et al, 1986; Blazevich et al., 2003). It has
been theorized that hypertrophy induced by body building methods (1015RM, short rest periods of 1 minute) may be less beneficial, in regards to
strength and power functioning, than hypertrophy developed by more intense
loads (Kraemer, 1992). In particular power-training exercises seem to affect
the muscle architecture in a different way as compared to heavy strength
exercises (Blazevich et al., 2003).
Such differences may explain some
neuromuscular differences between body-builders and other strength

athletes (Hakkinen et al., 1986). As a result tissue remodeling/hypertrophy
may differ in nature over the long term training history of an athlete as modes
of resistance training vary. Given that Blazevich et al (2003) identified
differences in neural and muscle architecture in response to different types of
training (hypertrophy versus power training), strength coaches may need to
be aware of the limitations of traditional hypertrophy methods being used for
prolonged periods by power athletes.
38
In summary, the data from the above research clearly indicates that
hypertrophy is best produced by higher volume (8-20 RM, 3-5 sets), medium
intensity training (66-80% of maximum). A minimum load of 66-70% may be
needed to stimulate an adequate number of motor units (McDonagh and
Davies, 1984). More intense loads may stimulate more motor units, but the
duration of stimulus is decreased as fewer repetitions are possible with
greater intensity loads (Bryzcki, 1993; Baker, 1995d; Chapman et al., 1998).
The duration of the training stimulus (i.e. how long the load acts upon the
muscle) would appear to be an important factor (McDonagh and Davies,
1984). This may in part explain why higher repetitions are more effective in
producing hypertrophy than the more intense loads (1-3RM loads) (Berger,
1962) as the total time under stimulus is enhanced by higher repetitions.
Poliquin and King (1992) believe that the load intensity and the time the load
acts upon the muscle (an alternative measure of training volume to
repetitions), are important variables that affect hypertrophy and consequently
strength.
When high repetition training is done very quickly, reducing the time
the load acts upon the muscle, the hypertrophic responses are considerably
less (Schmidtbleicher and Buehrle, 1987).
However the changes to the
muscle architecture may be more favourable by this type of explosive

training for power-oriented athletes (Blazevich et al., 2003).
While some
hypertrophy-oriented training may be required to induce greater force

producing ability within the muscle, a necessary requirement for high power
output, coaches should be careful in the prescription of hypertrophy-oriented
39
training as this may reduce the future ability to maximise power output. The
long-term effects of large dosages of hypertrophy-oriented training upon
maximal power output or fast force production (in comparison to other
methods of inducing force producing abilities) is not known, but is hinted at in
the cross-sectional analyses of Katch et al. (1980) and Hakkinen et al.
(1986).
In the analyses of Hakkinen et al. (1986), body-builders, whose
resistance training was typically performed at slower speeds than weightlifters, exhibited reduced muscle force-time and power output characteristics.
The conclusions to be drawn from this aspect of the review of the
literature are that hypertrophy-oriented training appears necessary for
ongoing strength gains in experienced athletes. However, prolonged periods
of hypertrophy-oriented training may be detrimental to long-term power
development (irrespective of neural adaptations) due to differences in muscle
architecture or fibre (myosin heavy chain) responses to slow speed, shortrest period training. Given this conflict of a) hypertrophy is necessary for
continued high force development in advanced athletes but b) hypertrophyoriented training may not be most suitable for maximizing power output ~
then how do athletes such as rugby league players who require high levels of
lean body mass/hypertrophy, maximal strength and maximal power manage
training content. Consequently this thesis will investigate two main areas
concerning hypertrophy-oriented training. First, what are the acute, shortterm effects of one hypertrophy-oriented training dose upon power output
within a workout (Study 6). Second, can elite athletes still increase strength
40
and power across multi-year periods with limited or no increases in body
mass (Studies 7 and 8)?
2c. Development of strength and power.

2ci. Programming considerations
During the 1940's through to the 1980's recommendations for strength
training followed a more dogmatic, non-varied prescription of training volume
and intensity such as 3 sets of 10 repetitions (Delorme, 1945). The classical
work of Berger (1962) indicated that a program that utilized three sets of six
repetitions
was
most
beneficial
in
developing
strength.
These
recommendations were further supported by Atha (1981) who conducted an

extensive review of the area.
However throughout the 1960's and 1970's it
became apparent that the worlds strongest athletes, the competitive weightand power-lifters, did not follow such non-varied prescriptions of training
volume and intensity as recommended by Berger (1962). The domination of
eastern bloc weightlifters and power athletes at international competitions
during this era led to the belief that, among other aspects concerned with
athlete preparation (e.g. pharmacological enhancement), they possessed
superior methods of strength training. It appears the eastern bloc scientists
and coaches of that era recognized that strength and power are increased by
both morphological and neural adaptations and that the time frame over, and
the stage of training/development at which these adaptations occur, differ
(Matveyev, 1972; Vorobiev, 1978; Medvedev, 1988). Consequently they
41
sought methods that allow strength and force producing capabilities to be
developed by hypertrophic/morphological adaptations, stimulated by high
volume training, to be alternated with higher intensity training to stimulate the
specific maximal strength or power capabilities, in some coherent manner.
Therefore there would be different periods of training that mainly address
different stimuli to strength and power adaptations.
This structuring of
training to emphasize different aspects of muscle adaptation at different

times, is the basis of training periodization.
Consequently the concept of strength training periodization, as
developed in the eastern bloc countries, became an area of intense interest
to western athletes, coaches and scientists.
2cii. Periodization of strength and power training

A brief overview.
Periodization has been defined by Gambetta (NSCA Roundtable,
1986) as "the organization of training into a cyclic structure to attain the
optimal development of an athlete's capacities" and is characterized by
"periodic changes of the objectives, tasks and content of training". Although
the concept of training periodization was first examined by the Russian
researcher Matveyev during the 1950s-70s (Matveyev, 1972) it should not
be viewed as a particularly new concept. It is known that Ancient Greek
athletes utilized a crude form of periodization following a 10-month cycle in
preparation for the Olympics.
The last month was spent in specific
competitive preparation in order to be fully "peaked" for competition. The
42
training week was also periodized into a four day cycle, known as the tetrad,
which varied the tasks, content and objectives of training daily. This involved
the manipulation of training intensity and volume such that there were heavy,
light and medium effort training days (Sweet, 1987). Such training strategies
are still common 2000 years later.
The pioneering work of Stone and colleagues introduced periodization
of strength training to western literature in the early to mid-eighties (Stone et
al.1981, 1982; Stowers et al. 1983). They basically proposed that training be
divided into three main blocks, with each block encompassing methods that
address hypertrophy; basic strength and power; and peak strength and
power, respectively. Table 1 gives a basic outline of this model of training.
Since that time the concept of periodization has undergone considerable
study, with consequent debate concerning methods and effectiveness (eg.
OBryant et al 1988; Poliquin, 1988; Baker ,1993, 1994, 1995c; Baker et al.,
1994b; Balyi, 1995; Wilson & Baker, 1995a, b).
Table 1. Periodization model for strength training modified from Stone et al.,
(1981).
Weeks
1-4
5-8
9-12
Objective
Hypertrophy
Basic strength
Peak strength
Sets x Reps
3-5 x 8-12
3-5 x 4-6
1-5 x 1-3
Intensity (% 1RM)
60-75%
80-90%
90-100%
It is believed by experienced strength coaches that advanced athletes

adapt more readily to imposed training stresses ~ therefore their training
43
content must be more varied (Pedemonte, 1982;
Poliquin, 1988).
This
variation must occur during each week and across a training cycle (a training
cycle is the combination of training blocks or the summation of training
weeks). The purpose of within-week variation is to ensure that the training
stimulus is presented in a non-habituating manner in the short-term and to
allow for recovery within the training week (Pedemonte, 1982; Poliquin, 1988;
ASCA, 2006). Therefore training is not always becoming harder, heavier,
faster and so on, but there are variations in a number of the training variables
such that training difficulty may move in a more varied manner within a week
and also across a training block or group of weeks. It is thought that this
approach allows for better adaptation and a more holistic approach to training
(Pedemonte, 1982; Poliquin, 1998; Baker, 1993; Wilks, 1995; Stone et al.,
1999a, b).
The Australian Strength & Conditioning Association (ASCA, 2006) has
recognized nine main ways of varying or altering training load (volume-load)
and difficulty within a training week, which are outlined in Table 2.
It is
thought that these methods ensure a more varied presentation of training

stimuli on the 2-3 days/wk that most athletes typically resistance train a body
area or movement pattern.
The first five methods apply mainly when training to address
strength and hypertrophy, but not so much power, because they mainly
address increasing training workload and time under tension, factors
which are presumed to largely influence muscle contractile properties
(McDonagh & Davies, 1984; Keogh et al., 1999). The sixth and seventh
methods can be used for strength or power training as they reduce
44
workload and may also allow for greater lifting speeds (conducive to power
training, Keogh et al., 1999). The remaining methods are presumed to
work best when combining strength and power training due to their
influence on markedly reducing workload and increasing speed of
lifting/acceleration, factors favourable to enhancing power output (Newton
et al., 1996; Baker, 1995b, 2001b).
Table 2. Nine methods ways of altering training load and difficulty within a
training week.
Method of variation
1. Same exercises and other variables,
Day 1 example
3x10 @ 70 kg
Day 2 example
3x15 @ 60 kg
increase repetitions and decrease resistance.

Squat 4x10 @ 70 kg Squat 2x10 @ 70 kg
increase or decrease the number of sets.

3. Same exercises, sets and repetitions,
reduce the lifting speed and resistance.

(2s/rep)
(4s/rep)
decrease rest periods and resistance
(3m/rest)
(1m/rest)
Squat 3x5 @ 100 kg
Squat 3x5 @ 80 kg
decrease resistance.
6.Same exercises and other variables,
Squat 3x 5 @ 100 kg Squat 3x2 @ 100 kg
decrease repetitions.
7.Different strength exercises, but same for all Squat 3x10 @ 70 kg Front squat 3x10 @
other variables (same %1RM).
8. Perform a strength and power version of
55 kg
Squat 3x5 @ 100 kg
aligned exercises on different days.
9. Perform heavier and lighter versions of

aligned power exercises on different days.
Jump squat 3x5 @

50 kg
Power clean 3x5 @ Power snatch 3x5 @

75 kg
60 kg
45
All the methods above have been considered in isolation. In reality a
strength coach could combine many of the methods above to further ensure
that total workload, repetition volume, resistance in kgs and/or relative
intensity, rest periods and/or workout density, power output per repetition
and/or workout, speed of lifting and/or time under tension varied considerably
within a training week. It is possible that the astute usage of the above
methods may enable a strength coach of rugby league players to address
strength, power, hypertrophy and strength-endurance effectively within a
training week.
Different cycle-length variants or patterns of periodized strength

training.
While the ability to vary training sessions within a week by utilizing
methods such as those outlined in Table 2 appear well known to most
coaches, descriptions of different cycle-length variants of periodized strength
training appear less frequently in North American literature. The ASCA (2006)
has outlined a number of different cycle-length (eg. 6-16+ weeks) variants of
periodization that a strength coach may choose from, which have been
identified from the literature and from analysis of current practices throughout
the world (Baker, 1993;
McNaughton, 1991;
Bompa, 1996;
Pedemonte, 1982;
Brown and Greewood, 2005;

Plisk and Stone, 2003; Poliquin,
1988; Stone et al., 1981, 1982, 1999a, 1999b). A few examples of these
variants are described in Table 3. The nomenclature used by the ASCA,
which is based upon the method of intensification, has been source of some
debate, consternation or confusion ( eg. Bradley-Popovich, 2001 versus Haff,
46
2001).
Poliquin (1988) first proposed that a training cycle whereby the
intensity (%1RM) is increased each week of the cycle should be designated

as a linear method of intensification (see the first two examples in Table 3).
This classification of linear is made irrespective of the fact that intensity,
volume, workload (or training impulse) etc may be manipulated in an a nonlinear manner within the week by methods such as those outlined in Table 2
(eg. heavy intensity or light intensity days, high or low load-volume days etc).
Non-linear intensification entails not increasing training resistances each and
every week of the training cycle (eg. with heavier and lighter weeks in
intensity at certain weeks in the cycle, ASCA, 2006, Baker, 1993, 1994, 1995;
Balyi, 1992;
King and Poliquin, 1991; Stone et al., 1981, 1982, 1999a,
1999b). For the purposes of this review, if a variant does not entail increasing
% 1RM or resistance each week, then it is not a linear intensification variant.
This can be clearly seen in the two examples of variants of block
periodization provided in Table 3 which are distinguished by either linear or
non-linear intensification across 12-weeks.
Figure 1 graphically illustrates
differences between linear and non-linear intensification (Subtle Linear, Block

(non-linear), Wave-like and Undulating periodized variants) while Figure 2
provides a more comparative example of training impulse (repetition-volume x
relative intensity, % 1RM) between the Subtle Linear, Block (linear
intensification), Block (non-linear intensification) and Wave-like periodized
variants. Clearly most of the periodization strategies depicted are non-linear
in the progression of intensification and training impulse, but linear
progressions are still possible if the coach desires to configure training
variables in a certain pattern.
47
When using this method of description, it should be noted that it is the
method of intensification across the length of the cycle that is being refereed
to, not the progression across the overall training year.
A training year may
contain a number of cycles such that overall the yearly progression is clearly
non-linear, but this does not affect the description of the cycle-length pattern
of progression.
By looking at week three from each of the specific variants in Tables 3,
it can be seen that there are different prescriptions of sets, repetitions and
resistances, despite all being examples of periodized strength training. Great
diversity exists in periodized strength training and coaches may wish to
choose the variant(s) that they feel most appropriate to their circumstances
(level of the athlete, period of the year etc).
Comparisons between different cycle-length patterns of progression

A paucity of data exists concerning comparisons upon the effects of
different cycle-length patterns of progression as most research has tended to
compare some form of periodized training to non-periodized training (OBryant
et al., 1988, Stone et al., 1981, 1982; Stowers et al., 1983) or to preintervention data (ie. comparing pre- and post-training scores in muscular
functioning in response to a specific periodized training pattern, eg. Baker,
1994, 1995, 1998, 2001).
Baker et al. (1994) found that a block pattern with
linear progression and an undulatory pattern of progression (changing

repetition demands after every 2-weeks) provided similar benefits in maximal
strength across 12-weeks.
Rhea et al. (2002) found that a program that
alternated training volumes and intensities within a week more effective than a
48
block method with linear intensification and no within-week variation.
No
other data has been found that directly compares different progression
patterns of cycle-length periodized strength training in order to gauge the
relative effectiveness of one pattern against another.
Possible reasons for a lack of comparative data

Given that resistance-training objectives can vary for different athletes
(eg. hypertrophy of muscle, maximal power, absolute strength are different
objectives requiring somewhat different training prescriptions), it is not known
why research into the relative merits of different patterns of periodized
progression has been so limited.
The references contain many articles
outlining debate and theory concerning periodization but it appears little of this
theory has been tested, unless against non-periodized training.
It is of
interest to note that Stone et al. (2004) stated that the demise of sport science
in the United States is in part attributable to Institutional Review Boards and
academics not being conceptually familiar with sports science. This then
reduces what they call monitoring studies, examples of which would be the
analysis of the effects of different periodized variants/patterns of progression
upon muscular functioning and sports performance.
They also state that
politically correct views of the academics may partly regulate research away
from studies that investigate sports performance, to which comparative
periodized strength training studies belong. For whatever reason, the level of
research regarding the merits of different periodization variants/patterns has
not equated with the overall theoretical literature on periodization.
49
Table 3. Different variants or patterns of strength training periodization applicable to a primary strength exercise over a twelveweek period. Assume the athlete increases strength by 3-5% across the twelve-week period. *The Accumulation/intensification pattern
typically follows only an eight week cycle ~ however some initial higher repetition training may precede this type of cycle. S X R = sets x reps.
Type of cycle
Week # 1
Subtle Linear
SxR
% 1RM
3 x 13 3 x 12 3 x 11 3 x 10 3 x 9 3 x 8 3 x 7 3 x 6 3 x 5 3 x 4 3 x 3
63%
66% 69%
72%
75% 78% 81%
84% 87% 90% 93%
3x2
96%
Block with
Linear
intensification
SxR
% 1RM
4 x 10 4 x 10 4 x 10 4 x 10 4 x 5 4 x 5 4 x 5 4 x 5 3 x 3 3 x 3 3 x 3
60%
64% 68%
70%
78% 81% 83% 85% 88% 90% 92%
3x3
94%
Block with
Non-Linear
intensification
SxR
% 1RM
4 x 10 4 x 10 4 x 10 4 x 10 4 x 5 4 x 5 4 x 5 4 x 5 3 x 3 3 x 3 3 x 3
64%
68% 70%
66%
80% 83% 85% 75% 90% 92% 94%
3x3
80%
Undulating
SxR
% 1RM
4 x 10 4 x 10 4 x 6
64%
68% 76%
4x6
80%
4x8 4x8 4x4 4x4 3x6 3x6 3x3

72% 76% 84% 88% 82% 85% 92%
3x3
94%
Wave-like
SxR
% 1RM
4 x 10 4 x 8
64%
70%
4x6
76%
4x4
82%
4x9 4x7 4x5 4x3 3x8 3x6 3x4

70% 76% 82% 88% 78% 84% 90%
3x3
94%
6x3 6x4 6x5 6x6 5x5 4x4 3x3

80% 80% 80% 80% 85% 90% 95%
2x2
100%
Accumulation & S x R
Intensification* % 1RM
10
11
12
50
Figure 1. Different patterns of intensification of various periodized methods

across a 12-week cycle.
51
Figure 2. Graphic comparison of training impulse (total repetitions x % 1RM)

different periodized methods across a 12-week cycle.
52
When and why a coach may choose different cycle-length variants of
periodized strength/power training.
Given these deficiencies in the literature, the ASCA (2006) has made
some generalizations regarding when and why a coach may choose different
cycle-length
variants
of
periodized
strength/power
training.
These
generalizations have been made mainly based upon the practical experiences
of their elite coaches aligned with findings from the literature where possible
and are summarized below.
Subtle linear-intensification patterns of progression. As these types of
variants are characterized by fairly equivalent and small regular increments in
training intensity each week (e.g. by < 5% 1RM each week), it is thought
these types of variants may be suited to novice and less experienced athletes
who have not performed much periodized resistance training (Balyi, 1992;
Baker, 1993, 1998b; Wilks, 1994, 1995). This is due to the fact that other
variants are characterized by more pronounced alterations in intensity which
may not be as easily managed by less experienced athletes whose exercise
technique
may
deteriorate
under
such
situations
(Baker,
1998b,d;
Pedemonte, 1982). Hence the subtle variations in intensity (and workload)

enable
more
stable
technique
acquisition/refinement
environment
(Pedemonte, 1982). Consequently these types of models may be best suited

for lower level or less experienced athletes, irrespective of the training period
(Preparation or Competitive Period) (Baker, 1998b).
Block or Step patterns of progression.
The block or step patterns
generally entail a training cycle being divided into three steps of repetition and
intensity demands, each respectively signifying a hypertrophy block (a
53
traditional term, though now this block may also be referred to as a
consolidated strength-endurance block or muscle training block), basic
strength/power block and peak-strength/power block (Baker, 1993, Haff et al.,
2004a,b; Kraemer, 1985; Kramer, et al., 1997; OBryant, 1988; Stone et al.,
1981, 1982, 1999a, 1999b). As detailed in Table 3, the intensity progression
could be linear or non-linear.
As compared to subtle linear progressions,
sharper drops in volume and rises in intensity when changing blocks

characterize the block variants. These pronounced changes in volume and
intensity may provide a beneficial stimulatory shock to experienced athletes
and allow for a delayed training effect (Stone, et al., 1981, 1982; Wilks, 1994),
but the pronounced intensity changes may be too severe for less experienced
athletes to cope with (physiologically and exercise technique-wise) (Baker,
1998b; Pedemonte, 1982).
Consequently the ASCA (2006) has
recommended that these variants are generally recommended for use with
more experienced athletes who possess stable exercise technique and
predictable strength levels and who seem to benefit from the inherent marked
variation. These types of variants can be seen as a progression from the
subtle linear variants. Aside from competitive lifters, the block variants are
generally used for the preparation period as high volume blocks of strength
training are often not compatible with in-season training in a number of sports
(ASCA, 2006)). The coach will also need to choose a linear or a non-linear
intensity progression when implementing this variant.
Undulatory patterns of progression. The Undulatory variant in Table 3 is
characterized by 2-week changes in repetition demands and concomitant
alterations in intensity, which sees an undulatory progression in intensity as
54
training reverts from, lower intensity 2-week
week
phases to higher-intensity 2-
phases back and forth, throughout the cycle (Baker, et al., 1994;
Poliquin, 1988). It is not to be confused with simple within-week undulation of

training such as having, high, medium and low volume training days (Rhea et
al., 2002) (see Table 2).
These changes that typically occur after a 2-week time frame are
generally greater (in workload, intensification) than for subtle linear methods,
but less pronounced that block variants. Accordingly this type of variant may
be beneficial as a progression for athletes who have habituated to subtle
linear methods of intensity progression or for athletes who favour alternating
2-week phases of hypertrophy-oriented (eg. 3-4 sets x 8-12 repetitions)
training with 2-week phases of general strength training (3-4 sets x 4-6
repetitions) on a continual basis.
Wave-like patterns of progression. The distinguishing difference between
the undulatory and wave-like variants is the number of weeks that contain the
variation. If the repetitions do not change till after every 2-weeks, then it is an
undulatory model, as compared to every week for a true wave-like model
used by a non-lifter (ASCA, 2006).
This means there is less variation in
volume, intensity and load-volume in an undulatory pattern as compared to a

wave-like pattern.
Wave-like patterns derive from the sport of weightlifting, where earlier
Soviet coaches advised that weekly volume-load should be presented in a
wave-like fashion over a month (eg. the monthly 100% total is distributed 3536%, 26-28%, 21-23% and 13-18% per week, or 42-44%, 32-33%, 22-26%
for a 3-week month, (Baker, et al., 1987; Medvedev, 1987, 1988; Vorobiev,
55
1987). Even the order that each of these weekly workloads is to be presented
is not constant and the earlier Soviet coaches provided examples of different
orders that the workloads could be presented (Baker, et al., 1987; Medvedev,
1987, 1988; Vorobiev, 1987). Again the coach has to choose which workload
order of the wave (ie. which variation of the wave-like pattern) would best
suit their lifters (Baker, et al., 1987; Medvedev, 1987, 1988; Vorobiev, 1987).
The wave-like patterns have been adapted for use by non-lifters by
mainly using the number of repetitions per set to alter weekly volume-load
(Baker, 1993, 1994, 1995c, 1998a, 2000c, 2001d; Naughton, 1991; Poliquin,
1992), although additional sets can obviously affect volume-load (Naughton,
1991). In a basic wave-like pattern, the repetitions decrease weekly (with
concomitant rises in intensity) for 3-4 weeks, whereby the general pattern is
then repeated but at slightly higher intensities/lower repetitions as the athlete
comes to the peaking phase (Baker, 1993, 1994, 1995c, 1998a, 2000c,
2001d; King and Poliquin, 1991; Naughton, 1991; Poliquin, 1992). A number
of studies show that the wave-like variants are effective in maintaining or even
increasing strength and power in both
elite and moderately experienced
athletes during long in-season periods (Baker, 1994, 1998a, 2000c, 2001d),
though case studies also reported good results with its use in during
preparation periods (Baker, 1995c; Poliquin, 1992).
Accumulation/intensification patterns of progression. Many introductory
resistance-training programs can be loosely defined as, or based upon, the
processes of accumulation/intensification. For example, an athlete may be
prescribed a resistance they can lift for 3 x 10 repetitions and they do not
increase the resistance (intensify training) until they have managed to perform
56
3 x 12 repetitions (ie. they have accumulated volume) with that constant
resistance. Therefore these types of introductory programs are based upon
the athlete accumulating training volume (volume-load) at a steady or
designated resistance before training resistances are increased and the
volume
is
reduced
(intensification).
This
most
basic
type
of
accumulation/intensification used by beginners (eg. continually training within

a narrow specified range of repetitions such as 3 x 10-12 etc) does not really
embrace the concept of periodization and is not to be considered a periodized
variant.
Table 3 details a certain example of the accumulation/intensification
pattern that is a distinct cycle-length periodized variant. This program may be
more familiar to coaches as the Russian squat cycle (although it was
actually developed in the now separate country of Belarus) and was taken
from the sport of weightlifting (Zeinalov, 1984).
The original proponents
stated that this particular variant was best suited to increasing maximal squat
strength during the preparation period, presumably due to the high workloads
involved (Zeinalov, 1984). Clearly this variant of accumulation/intensification
was designed for competitive lifters and advanced athletes and may be less
applicable to the vast majority of athletes or exercises due to its high
intensities and workloads (ASCA, 2006).
However, modifications such as
more moderate volumes and intensities (eg. Accumulation => Wk1 =

70%/3x9, Wk2 = 70%/3x10, Wk3 = 70%/3x11, Wk4 = 70%/3x12,
Intensification => Wk5 = 80%/3x7, Wk6 = 84%/3x6, Wk7 = 88/3x5, Wk8 =
92%/3x4) may make it more suitable to a wider range of athletes to use.
57
Integrating different models?
As described above, choosing a specific cycle-length variant/pattern of
periodization may entail choosing a designated training variable configuration.
Coaches may find some variants/patterns work well with certain athletes (eg.
novice athletes and subtle linear-intensification patterns of progression) or
certain times of the year (eg. wave-like patterns and in-season periods).
Another method is to prescribe patterns according to exercise
classification.
For example, Australian National Team Powerlifting Coach
Robert Wilks proposed a block variant with linear intensity progressions for
the three key powerlifts (but with large within-week variation in %1RM
resistance and hence workload) and an undulatory approach for the
assistance exercises (alternating between sets of 10 or sets of 6 repetitions
every 2-3 weeks) (1994).
Accordingly a coach may ascribe to a philosophy of variant choice
being determined by exercise classification, the training age/state of the
athletes involved as well as the training period (General or Competitive
periods).
The overall periodized structure may reflect the integration of a
number of different cycle-length variants.
2ciii. Periodization of resistance training for rugby league players.

While various authors have detailed different periodization strategies
applicable to the training of rugby league players (Meir, 1993; Meir, 1994;
Baker, 1995), little data has actually been published concerning the effects of
different periodization models upon the strength and power of rugby league
players. Baker detailed that the elite NRL players could maintain upper body
58
strength and power across lengthy in-season periods with the implementation
of a wave-like cycle length training strategy as illustrated in Table 4 (2000c,
2001d). Moreover, younger SRL and CRL players could actually increase
strength and maintain power during the in-season period. These results were
achieved despite the high concurrent training volumes (eg. speed,
conditioning, skill and tactical training) and game demands associated with
the in-season period. As the goal of in-season training strategies is to
maintain the physical qualities developed in the preparation periods, it was
concluded that the wave-like strategy is a successful model and is
recommended for use during in-season periods for rugby league players
(Baker, 1998a). However it must be noted that these studies did not compare
between different strategies, but rather could a wave-like training program
maintain/increase the peak strength/power levels attained at the completion of
an intensive preparation period. Thus it is not known if another strategy may
have been more successful.
No data has been found that directly compares the effectiveness of
different strategies upon strength and power levels in rugby league players.
Also the long-term training effects are not known. For example, Balyi (1992,
1995;
Balyi & Hamilton, 1998) has detailed a number of training stages
applicable to the long-term athlete development (LTAD) of elite athletes. The

latter LTAD stages include a training to win stage whereby sub-elite athletes
aim to increase their physical capacities to the levels of the elite performers in
their sport and a training to maintain stage whereby the elite performers
59
attempt to maintain their capacities while competing at the highest level
(which takes precedence over developmental type of training).
As elite NRL rugby league players can experience lengthy careers
spanning many years, it would be of interest to determine if they can still
increase strength and power across this prolonged time period or at what time
frame do strength and power gains stop/slow and accordingly, maintenance of
these existing levels becomes the primary concern of training. Studies of this
nature for any sport are very rare in the literature and currently non-existent in
rugby league. To this end a long-term study investigating the changes in
upper body strength and power across a multi-year period in professional
rugby league players would be of interest. The scope and magnitude of the
changes in upper body strength and power could also be tracked in
accordance to the designation of whether the players were sub-elite
(synonymous with Balyis training to win stage) or elite (synonymous with
Balyis training to maintain stage) at the start of the study. These types of
studies would provide data pertinent to the age that structured, heavy
resistance training should commence for more optimal LTAD.
61
2civ. Advanced power training methods currently being used by elite
Power is the most desired physical quality for a number of sports
because it entails both force (strength) and velocity (speed) aspects. For
coaches and sports people it is more often described as strength x speed.
Because both strength and speed can be improved by many different training
variable manipulations, training to improve power output has been described
as requiring a multi-faceted approach (Newton and Kraemer, 1994). However
a cursory glance at many resistance training programs or recommendations
aimed at increasing muscular power would typically reveal a high proportion of
Olympic weightlifting (eg. power cleans, pulls) and plyometric exercises (eg.
jumping, bounding) (eg. Haff et al., 2001).
While Olympic weightlifting
methods of training often produce tremendous increases in lower body power,

other methods or exercises, especially for developing upper body power,
appear less explored. For example, maximal upper body pressing/pushing
power is of importance to rugby league to enhance the ability to push away
opponents.
However, most articles concerning power-training methods
involve Olympic weightlifting exercises and lower body plyometrics, paying

scant regard to the upper body requirements. Table 5 details some practical
methods currently being implemented to enhance maximal power (Pmax)
training in rugby league players.
In this thesis a review paper outlining
research findings and practical recommendations for the methods is included

(Study 9). Primary attention will be given to how these methods can be used
62
to enhance upper body power, however many of the methods can be utilized
for lower body power training as well.
Table 5. Practical methods to increase the effectiveness of maximal power

training for rugby league players.
1. Include full acceleration exercises as power exercises.

2. Alter the kinetics of some strength exercises to more favorably affect rapidforce or power output.
3. Use complexes of contrasting resistances or exercises.
4. Periodize the presentation of power exercises and resistances.
5. Use low repetitions when maximizing power output.
6. Use clusters, rest-pause or breakdown techniques for some strength or
power exercises.
7. Use an ascending order of resistances when maximizing power output.
2d - Testing of strength and power in rugby league players.

2di.
Types of tests
As rugby league is a collision-based sport, success would appear to
be heavily reliant upon the players possessing an adequate degree of

various physical fitness qualities such as strength, power, speed and
endurance as well as the individual skill and team tactical abilities (Gabbett,
63
2005). Testing of these physical qualities could therefore be deemed to be
of importance to rugby league players and coaching staff.
Testing of rugby league players has greatly increased during the past
decade ~ principally due to the increased professionalism in the sport and
the consequent determination to improve player talent identification and
performance levels. While a number of researchers have utilized holistic test
batteries running the gamut of physical conditioning (eg. Meir, 1993; Brewer
et al., 1994; Brewer & Davis, 1995; OConnor, 1996; Meir et al., 2001;
Gabbett, 2000, 2002, 2006; Gabbett & Herzig, 2004) the purpose of this
thesis is to concentrate principally upon the testing of upper body muscular
functioning. In particular, upper body strength, power, speed and strengthendurance would appear to be of importance due to the large amount of
tackling and grappling that occurs both in attack and defense during an 80minute game. With respect to upper body testing, there is a distinct paucity
of data prior to the early to mid-1990s.
Strength
Maximal strength levels appear to be important in rugby league.
Traditionally methods of assessing strength, whether it is upper or lower
body, have varied considerably (eg. isometric, dynamic, isokinetic etc). This
variance often results in some training-induced adaptations being reflected in
some tests, but not others (Baker et al., 1994a). Consequently it has been
proposed that the method of strength testing be similar to the method of
training (Baker et al., 1994a).
Consequently researchers involved in the
64
testing of rugby league players have gravitated more towards the traditional
free weight tests of maximal strength as were typically used in the American
football system (eg. Fry & Kraemer, 1991; Ware et al., 1995; Chapman et
al., 1998). Traditionally in the American football system, upper body strength
was typically assessed using the bench press exercise (Fry & Kraemer,
1991; Ware et al., 1995; Chapman et al., 1998). Consequently from the
early to mid-1990s onwards rugby league researchers have typically used
the bench press (BP) to gauge strength levels via a 1 or 3-repetition
maximum test (1RM or 3 RM BP) (Meir, 1993; Baker, 1995, OConnor,
1996). It was presumed the bench press exercise represented the athletes
upper body capabilities in driving an opponent backwards, a fundamental
task for players of all positions in both attack and defence in rugby league
(Meir, 1993; Baker, 1995; OConnor, 1996; Gabbett, 2005). Because of the
simple nature of the test and almost universal availability of equipment and
data for comparative purposes, it appears to have become an accepted
measure of general upper body pressing strength used by rugby league
players (eg. Meir, 1993 through to Keogh, 2004).
While pressing or pushing an opponent backwards/away is perhaps
the most fundamental task in rugby league, there are a number of times that
an opponent must be pulled to the ground in defense to halt their forward
momentum or to slow down the play the ball situations.
Consequently
testing of upper body pulling strength appears warranted. Again there is a

paucity of data concerning the measurement of pulling strength capabilities
of rugby league players although this type of test has been used for over a
65
decade in rugby union players (eg. Baker, 1998a-d). Generally some simple
test of pulling such as a pull-up (PU aka chin-up) test is performed with
additional resistance added to ensure the test fulfills the criterion of a test of
strength (high resistance, very few repetitions such as 1-5 RM, Kraemer et
al., 2002) as opposed to the athlete performing multiple repetitions with their
own body mass, which may be deemed more a test of strength-endurance.
Keogh (2004) reported the pulling strength for SRL and CRL players from
such a pull-up test. The pulling strength in this test was similar to the bench
press scores. Baker (2000c) reported the percentage maintenance, but not
the raw scores, of pull-up strength by rugby league players of various
performance levels during an in-season period. No other data has been
found that considers the upper body pulling strength of rugby league players.
Therefore further research into the pulling strength of rugby league players,
especially NRL players, appears warranted.
Power
Testing of upper body power did not appear for rugby league players
until the late 1990s when power measurement technologies became more
readily available for the testing and training of rugby league players. Baker
and Nance (1999a, b), Baker, (2000a-c, 2001a, c, d) and Baker et al.
(2001a) first reported the maximum upper body power of rugby league
players by the testing of incline or flat bench press throws (BT) in a modified
and calibrated Smith machine (Plyometric Power System). The bench press
throw (or simply bench throw) in a Smith machine is used because this
66
exercise involves acceleration through the full range of movement, resulting
in higher power outputs as compared to a traditionally performed bench
press exercise (Newton et al., 1996). The testing procedures entailed the
athletes performing three repetitions in the BT with a battery of absolute
resistances (eg. 40, 50, 60, 70 and 80 kg). These resistances were chosen
because they encompassed the resistance range of 30-60 % 1RM, which
Newton et al. (1997) had shown maximized power output during BTs. Only
the highest average concentric power output was recorded for each absolute
resistance, with the highest power output overall designated as the Pmax.
This testing also allowed for a load-power profile to be developed (see Figure
1 below), based upon the earlier work of Newton et al. (1997), which itself
was influenced by the lower body jump squat load-power profiling research
conducted by Hakkinen et al. (1985a,b). Based upon the research of these
earlier investigators that reported distinct adaptations between strengthoriented and power-oriented training (Hakkinen et al. 1985a,b), it was
recommended that the BT load-power profile could be used to aid training
prescription (Baker, 2001c). For example, rugby league players with high
strength levels but lower relative power levels could be prescribed more
Pmax rather than strength training and vice versa (Baker, 2001c; Baker et
al., 2001a, b).
Further research in the area of BT or incline BT power testing reported
that these tests that were apparently sensitive to high volume training by
Baker (2000c) reported a trend (p=0.08) towards
decreased power (5.6%) during an extremely fatiguing portion of the in-
67
season. This trend was reversed with the resumption of normal playing and
training loads.
A follow up study (Baker, 2001d) also reported that the
relationship between 1RM BP and BT Pmax was lower (r = 0.52 - 0.56) when
a higher volume of upper body aerobic conditioning (swimming, arm grinding,
wrestling etc) was concurrently being performed, however the relationship
appeared also to revert back to normal levels (r= 0.75 0.77) with the
cessation of this high volume training. The normal levels regarding the
extent of the relationship between 1RM BP and BT Pmax were based upon
the earlier relationships of that magnitude that were reported by Baker and
Nance (1999b) and Baker et al. (2001a, c) with a large number of the same
subjects.
Various other researchers have also reported a strong cross-
sectional relationship between maximum strength and power (Funato et al.,

1996; Moss et al., 1997).
Upper body BT power testing has become more accepted in the
testing of athletes and it appears to be a test that is sensitive to training and
playing load interventions (eg. Drinkwater et al., 2005; Lawton et al., 2006).
Consequently future research may focus more on how training and playing
load interventions impact on the load-power profile and Pmax or even just 12 designated training resistances which may appear sensitive to such
interventions (eg. how BT P40-60, power output during bench throws with
40-60 kg, is impacted, Drinkwater et al., 2005).
68
Power output (W)

600
580
P 560
o
w 540
e
520
r
500
o
u 480
t
p 460
u
440
t
420
400
40 kg
50 kg
60 kg
70 kg
80 kg
Barbell load
Figure 3. The load-power curve for various barbell resistances (40 to 80 kg)
for professional and semi-professional rugby league players (From Baker,
2001c).
Speed
While running speed capabilities seem extensively reported in rugby
league players of all different levels (Meir, 1993; Baker, 1999a; Baker and
Nance, 1999a; Gabbett, 2000, 2002, 2006; Gabbett & Herzig,
2004),
measures of upper body speed have not garnered much interest. As such it
is not known if upper body movement speed is a factor of much importance
to rugby league players. The first study to look at measuring upper body
speed in rugby league players (players from NRL, SRL and CRL levels)
utilized an incline BT with an empty 20 kg barbell in the Plyometric Power
System (Baker, 2001c).
Little difference in this measure was reported
between the teams, however this data was collected in 1997 when rugby
league players had typically not possessed an extensive background in
69
specific upper body speed training.
Figure 2 (taken from Baker, 2001c)
below depicts no difference between NRL and CRL players in the upper body
speed test, but an increased percentage difference with increased
resistances gravitating towards maximal strength.
In an effort to amass
more definitive data, a further comparative study was performed three years
later in which the subjects were NRL, CRL and talented high-school rugby
league players (ie. part of a Talent Identification process) who possessed
varied resistance training backgrounds (Baker, 2002). The results of this
study were more positive insofar as a flat BT test with 20 kg, designating
upper body speed capabilities, could distinguish between NRL and lesser
players, and therefore may be useful in rugby league talent identification. To
date no other studies have investigated upper body speed in rugby league
players.
Endurance
Due to the extensive amount of tackling and upper body grappling that
occurs in tackles, it has long been thought that training and measuring upper
body strength-endurance would be of benefit to rugby league players (Meir,
1993).
Specifically the American College of Sports Medicine has
recommended that strength-endurance training or testing entails the choice

of a resistance in the range of 30-80% 1RM and should allow for the
completion of at least 10-25 or more repetitions (Kraemer et al., 2002). The
difficulty lies in choosing a test protocol that fulfills these requirements and is
appropriate to the demands of the sport.
70
Speed -->Power --> Strength

18
%
16
14
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
P20
P40
P60
3 RM
Load
Figure 4.
The percentage difference between professional (NRL) and
college-aged (CRL) rugby league players in four loads of the speed-powerstrength spectrum during upper body exercises. The difference in the Incline
BT P20, representing the speed end of the spectrum, was not significantly
different whilst differences in the other three loads were. From Baker, 2001c.
Meir (1993) and Meir et al. (2001b) were the first researchers to report
an upper body strength-endurance test in rugby league players.
They
described a pushup test with the repetitions performed in a certain time

period (eg. 60-s, Meir 1993) being the indicator of strength-endurance.
While pushup tests have been used extensively in many settings such as the
military to measure strength-endurance, typically the tests have not been
normalized according to each subjects different body mass. Studies have
shown that the actual resistance during a pushup is actually about BM x .67
(LaChance and Hortobagyi, 1994; Gouvali and Boudolos, 2005). Therefore
71
heavier subjects may perform less RTF, indicating less strength-endurance
when analysed in this manner, but they may be actually performing more
absolute work. The same situation applies when performing RTF pull-up
tests with only the athletes own body mass as resistance. In rugby league,
defensive situations are thought to be the portion of the game most requiring
strength-endurance (due to the upper body grappling occurring in the tackle)
and in these defensive situations the onus is to perform work (work = mass x
distance, ie., move the body mass of the opponent backwards or
downwards).
Therefore an upper body strength-endurance test that
standardized the resistance to be overcome and measured the absolute

work efforts based upon the RTF performed with that standardized
resistance has been sought. A widely accepted and performed test in the
American football system is a RTF BP test performed with a resistance of
102.5 kg (NFL 225 test,), which is used at the NFL draft combine (McGee &
Burkett, 2003). Typically these athletes have high body mass levels and an
extensive history of strength and power training (eg. 2-4 years at both high
school and then college) ~ consequently the resistance of 102.5 kg allows for
the completion of a high number of repetitions, fulfilling the ACSM (2002)
guidelines regarding strength-endurance. However as rugby league players
are talent identified and recruited by clubs at a younger age (Baker, 2002),
with less resistance training experience, it must be presumed that this test
would not fulfill the ACSM guidelines regarding strength-endurance.
For
example, in the research of Baker (2002), with the exception of the NRL
squad, the NFL 225 test would be too heavy for the vast majority of younger
72
subjects to lift even once and for the remainder of the subjects capable of
actually lifting this resistance, their performance of only 1-5 repetitions would
invalidate it as a test of strength-endurance. Therefore while the NFL 225
test appears to be a valid test for strength-endurance (and for an
extrapolated 1RM, eg. Ware et al., 1995;
Chapman et al. 1998) in the
American football system, this absolute resistance is too heavy for the vast
majority of rugby league players. Consequently a strength-endurance test
appropriate to the vast majority of adult rugby league players is sought.
2dii. Does testing identify trends in the team grading (a measure of

performance) or positional grouping of rugby league players?
The most fundamental reasons to test the physical qualities of rugby
league players are for the purposes of player talent identification and to
provide a guide or rationale for adjusting training to improve playing
performance levels through the enhancement of physical capabilities.
Therefore tests should be able to discern differences in elite and non-elite
performers in a sport. As an example, Secher had rowers of international,
national and club level perform a number of tests of muscle strength and
function in an effort to discern which tests were most capable of
discriminating between the athletes at each of these levels (Secher, 1975).
Only one test, an isometric pull in the start position of the rowing stroke was
capable of identifying between the oarsmen (about 10% difference in force
levels between each level of oarsmen). All the other standardized tests of
73
muscle strength and function were virtually useless for the purposes of
identifying which athletes were elite or non-elite performers.
Sechers' study has become a benchmark for researchers looking to
distinguish elite or more highly performed athletes from non-elite and lesserperforming athletes and as such this type of comparative study has been
utilized in a number of sports ranging from kayaking (Fry & Morton, 1991) to
American football (Fry & Kraemer, 1991) and volleyball (Fry et al., 1991).
The testing of rugby league players should presumably follow this basis of
testing being able to distinguish better performers in the sport from lesser
skilled performers.
However the first published studies concerning rugby
league typically reported results for only one performance level of player
(Meir, 1993; OConnor, 1996). This provides information pertinent only to
that one level of performance unlike the study of Secher, where a club level
oarsman could see that an isometric pulling force of 1600 N was adequate
for that level of competition but levels of 1800N and 2000N would be
necessary to attain national and international level, respectively. It could be
said that test studies that are aimed at identifying physical differences
between elite and non-elite performers should include as many levels and/or
ages of athlete as possible. This would allow for the generation of a talent
identification/physical performance pathway from the lowest to highest levels
(LTAD).
With regards upper body testing, the first study to do so was
performed by Baker (2001c), who compared NRL, SRL and CRL upper body
strength, power and speed capabilities. The difference in 1RM BP strength
74
between the three groups was in the order of 11-14% between each level
whereas for power the differences were about 10%. There was no difference
in the speed test. The basic result of that study was that the heavier the
resistance used in a test procedure, the greater the difference between NRL,
SRL and CRL players (see Figure 4).
A follow up study performed three years later found more profound
differences between the 1RM BP levels of the CRL and NRL groups, which
was attributed to greater resistance training experience of the NRL groups
(Baker, 2002).
The high-school rugby league players in this study were
obviously less strong and possessed slower movement speed as compared

to the NRL and CRL players (BT P20 test). This result concerning the highschool players was of course expected and that data was in reality collected
for the purposes of establishing a talent identification/physical performance
pathway ranging from junior to senior high-school, to CRL and finally NRL
level. The fact that upper body speed differentiated the CRL group from the
NRL, which was different to the previous result (Baker, 2001c) was
interesting. It may be attributed to the increasing professionalism of elite
NRL players and the growing sophistication of their training whereas the
semi-professional CRL training standards and practices have perhaps
remained less changed.
As yet no study has been performed that compares the strengthendurance capabilities of elite players to players of a lower performance
level.
Consequently it is not known if strength-endurance capabilities
discriminate between rugby league players of a certain level and whether
75
testing strength-endurance would be useful in terms of talent identification or
performance enhancement. Currently some commentators in the popular
media believe that due to changes in, and interpretations of, the rules of the
game (eg. concept of dominant tackle and surrender tackle), strengthendurance for the upper body and high-intensity running endurance for the
lower body have become the dominant physical qualities required for
success in rugby league. Obviously it is of interest to attempt to determine if
upper body strength-endurance had surpassed maximal strength, power or
upper body speed in importance, factors that had been shown to differentiate
NRL, SRL and CRL, at least to some degree, prior to the dominant tackle
rule changes.
Player Position
Studies of American football players clearly illustrate differences in
strength and power levels not only between players of different performance
levels (eg, starters and non-starters) but also according to the playing
position of the players (Fry & Kraemer, 1991).
As rugby league entails
players having certain positional grouping requirements, it is possible that

some of the upper body measures could also differ in importance.
Therefore, analyzing the upper body capabilities according the positional
grouping of the players appears warranted.
Earlier studies testing rugby
league players tended to use the two basic groupings of forwards and backlines players (Meir, 1993; Brewer & Davis, 1995). However, this dichotomy
oversimplifies the matter, as within these two groups are some players tasks
that overlap or may be quite different. Later researchers such as OConnor
76
and Meir et al. (2001a,b) analysed players according to their distinct
positional groupings (5-9 groups) and reported some differences between
groups in maximal upper body strength (1 and 3RM). Meir et al. (2001b)
labeled this more finite grouping as the players position on the team. Meir
et al. also included the standard, simplified forwards versus backline
analyses off upper body strength (forwards 10% > back-line players) and
strength-endurance (back-line players performed 33.65 and forwards, 31.28
repetitions in a 30-s speed push-up test). No normalization for differences in
body mass were taken into account for the strength-endurance test ~
therefore it is not known if differences truly existed in absolute workload
performed as would be readily observable in a test that standardized
absolute workload.
However, while Meir et al. (2001b) also analysed players into four
sub-groups, which were labeled as forwards (props, second row players
known as the hit-up forwards), outside backs (centres, wingers and
fullbacks), ball distributors (hookers and half-backs) and adjustables (locks
and five-eighths), none of the analysed tests were of upper body functioning
(only sprint and 5-minute endurance running tests were analysed).
This
positional sub-grouping was based on current coaching strategies at the

time.
However, former Australian national team coach Wayne Bennett
believes the analyses or training of players should be according to three subgroupings with the adjustables and ball-players joined as their roles are
linked and inter-changeable to a large degree (Wayne Bennett, personal
communication, 1995 to present). Furthermore, the style of play of some
77
players in their position on the team should determine which sub-group
they belong to, not simply position on the team. For example, a fullback
that is used in attack like a second five-eighth should be considered to be in
the adjustable/distributors group whereas a fullback who is more of a ballrunner would be considered to be an outside back (Wayne Bennett, personal
communication, 1995 to present). The same situation applies to the lock
forward position on the team ~ their style of play may enable them to be in
the adjustable/distributors group or in the hit-up forward group (Wayne
Bennett, personal communication, 1995 to present).
In conclusion, irrespective of how players are grouped or sub-grouped
there has been no study that has compared upper body maximal strength,
power, strength-endurance or speed levels between playing positions or subgroups from different performance levels. Maximum strength, power and
upper body speed have been previously been show to differentiate between
different performance levels (Baker, 2000a-c; 2001a, c, d; 2002), while
maximum strength has been shown to differentiate to some degree between
different positions on the team (OConnor, 1996, Meir et al., 2001b).
Strength-endurance has been analyzed in a simple forward versus back-line
player comparison with no (Meir, 1993) or only minor differences (Meir et al.,
2001b) in the repetitions performed in time constrained push-up tests.
Absolute work was not assessed in either strength-endurance test, so this
area of analyses remains devoid of definitive data.
Given the NRL salary cap and its strict enforcement, elite rugby
league clubs in Australia must now focus on talent identification and physical
78
performance enhancement (Wayne Bennett, personal communication 2004
to present).
As such rugby league clubs seek better talent identification
protocols, including establishing norms for various upper body functioning

tests for players of different positional sub-groupings at different levels of
team performance (eg. NRL, SRL and CRL). Consequently the purposes of
some of the studies within this thesis are to establish normative data for a
number of upper body tests and to determine if these tests indeed
discriminate between players from different performance levels or positional
sub-groupings. The upper body tests would involve mainly standard tests
used previously in rugby league players such as 1RM bench press and pullup tests to assess maximum strength; BT power tests with a resistance
battery of 40 to 80 kg to assess maximum power; BT P20 test to assess
upper body speed; and a new strength-endurance test, the RTF BP60
(repetitions till fatigue bench pressing 60 kg) which is based upon the well
accepted NFL 225 test, but modified to utilize a lighter resistance more
appropriate to assessing the strength-endurance levels of rugby league
players. Study 1 will investigate whether differences exist in upper body
strength, power, speed and strength-endurance for players in three different
positional
groupings
(hit-up
forwards,
outside
backs
and
ball-
distributors/adjustables) x team rankings (NRL, SRL and CRL). Study 2 will

investigate pulling and pressing strength differences between SRL and NRL
players. Study 3 will investigate whether high intensity RTF tests can be
used to accurately predict 1RM BP and PU performance in rugby league
players.
79
Summary and Implications of the Literature Review
This review of the literature has defined various qualities of upper body
muscular functioning such as strength, power, speed and strength-endurance.
The neural and muscle contractile basis for force output have also been
reviewed. Theoretically in a high force sport such as rugby league football it
could be assumed that testing of strength and power would be extensive and
that strength and power may be prominent descriptors of performance level.
However there is a paucity of data concerning upper body strength testing in
rugby league players and even less data exists concerning power testing.
Furthermore, given recent rule changes and current game trends, some
debate exists as to whether strength and power are as important as strengthendurance. Therefore the purpose of Study 1 was to determine the relative
importance to rugby league playing level of tests of upper body strength,
power, speed and strength-endurance. The same movement pattern for each
test must be used to limit chances of potential differences being ascribed to
individuals inter-test variance.
Also a comparison between upper body
pushing and pulling strength was deemed necessary as most strength studies
tend to focus upon pushing/pressing strength. Given the large amount of
pulling that occurs in defense (pulling an opponent to the ground etc), it was
posited that this measure of strength should not be neglected when assessing
the strength of rugby league players (Study 2).
If pulling strength was
different between NRL players and lower level players, then pulling strength
must addressed in the training content of these lower level players. As 1RM
strength testing can be a difficult and time consuming process when dealing
with a large number of athletes, especially those not greatly experienced in
resistance training, a simplified version of extrapolating 1RM test scores
suitable for lower level athletes was also deemed of interest (Study 3). The
80
results of these testing investigations should direct the training goals and
content of rugby league players.
The review of neural control of force output has potentially identified a
theoretical basis for some specific acute power training strategies. As power
movements entail rapid muscular contractions, they rely upon finite interplay
between various neural control mechanisms.
If specific training variable
configurations could influence this neural interplay, then conceivably power

output could be enhanced.
This review identified two methods of acutely
favourably influencing power output ~ one through the use of alternating sets
of a heavier load in the same movement with sets of the designated power
training resistance (Study 4) and the other through alternating sets of an
antagonist training movement with sets of the designated power training
resistance (Study 5).
Hypertrophy of muscle (and/or changes in the contractile qualities of
muscle) was also identified as one of the main avenues that experienced
resistance trainers may use to increase maximal strength. However the high
volume of training thought to favourably influence hypertrophy was also
identified as not being conducive to power development.
The possible
deleterious effects that an acute hypertrophy-oriented training bout has upon

power output needs to be investigated (Study 6).
Most resistance training studies in the literature are short-term studies
(< 6 months) using college students as subjects (with little or moderate
resistance training experience). How the results of any of these studies can
be applied to long-term experienced resistance trainers has been questioned
by a number of researchers and strength coaches alike. Furthermore the few
long-term studies (up to 2-years) that exist in the literature have shown that
the scope and magnitude for increases in strength and power appear to
diminish with increased training experience. What the nature and scope of
long-term resistance training adaptations in maximal strength and power in
81
experienced, professional athletes across even longer multi-year periods is a

question that need to be addressed (Study 7).
In terms of Long-term Athlete Development (LTAD) ~ Is there any
advantage in commencing regimented strength/power training in the latter
teenage years as compared to the early twenties with regards the
development of strength and power in professional rugby league players
(Study 8)? This would appear to be an important question for professional
coaches.
As well as the testing, intervention and long-term observation studies
outlined above, this review of the literature has identified that there are acute
and chronic training strategies that can affect resistance-training outcomes
such as strength and power output. Consequently two papers detailing these
acute and chronic strategies were published arising from this literature review.
60
Table 4. In-season model of periodization using Wave-like variants according to exercise classification as primary strength or
power or assistant strength or power exercises (from Baker, 1998a, 2001d).
Exercise
Week #
Primary
SxR
3x8
8-6-5
6-5-3
5-3-2
8-6-5
6-5-3
5-3-2
strength
% 1RM
66%
66-72-77%
72-77-82%
77-82-87%
70-75-80%
75-80-85%
80-85-90% 85-90-95%
Assistant
SxR
2 x 10
2x8
2x6
2x5
2x8
2x6
2x5
2x5
strength
% 1RM
65%
70%
75%
80%
75%
80%
85%
87%
Primary
SxR
3x5
3x5
5-4-3
4-3-2
3x5
5-4-3
4-3-2
power
% 1RM
65%
70%
70-75-80%
75-80-85%
75%
75-80-85%
80-85-90% 85-90-95%
SxR
3x6
3x6
3x5
3x4
3x6
3x5
3x4
3x3
% 1RM
65%
70%
75%
80%
75%
80%
85%
90%
classification
2-1-1
eg. SQ, BP, PU
3-2-2
eg. PC, J, BT JS
Assistant power
S x R = Sets x Reps, %1RM = Percentage of one repetition maximum strength, BP = bench press, PU = pull-ups, SQ = squats, PC = power clean from hang,
J = jerks, JS = jump squats, BT = bench throws. * For squats, reduce intensity by about 10% 1RM. Third set may be optional for squats.
** Assistant
strength and power exercises can be performed for 2 or 3 sets. Assistant power exercises include pull variations (eg. pulls to waist, high pulls, power shrugs),
push press and power press/throwing variations, loaded jumping exercises etc.
61
2civ. Advanced power training methods currently being used by elite
Power is the most desired physical quality for a number of sports
because it entails both force (strength) and velocity (speed) aspects. For
coaches and sports people it is more often described as strength x speed.
Because both strength and speed can be improved by many different training
variable manipulations, training to improve power output has been described
as requiring a multi-faceted approach (Newton and Kraemer, 1994). However
a cursory glance at many resistance training programs or recommendations
aimed at increasing muscular power would typically reveal a high proportion of
Olympic weightlifting (eg. power cleans, pulls) and plyometric exercises (eg.
jumping, bounding) (eg. Haff et al., 2001).
While Olympic weightlifting

other methods or exercises, especially for developing upper body power,
appear less explored. For example, maximal upper body pressing/pushing
power is of importance to rugby league to enhance the ability to push away
opponents.
However, most articles concerning power-training methods
involve Olympic weightlifting exercises and lower body plyometrics, paying

scant regard to the upper body requirements. Table 5 details some practical
methods currently being implemented to enhance maximal power (Pmax)
training in rugby league players.
In this thesis a review paper outlining
research findings and practical recommendations for the methods is included

(Study 9). Primary attention will be given to how these methods can be used
62
to enhance upper body power, however many of the methods can be utilized
for lower body power training as well.
Table 5. Practical methods to increase the effectiveness of maximal power

training for rugby league players.
1. Include full acceleration exercises as power exercises.

2. Alter the kinetics of some strength exercises to more favorably affect rapidforce or power output.
3. Use complexes of contrasting resistances or exercises.
4. Periodize the presentation of power exercises and resistances.
5. Use low repetitions when maximizing power output.
6. Use clusters, rest-pause or breakdown techniques for some strength or
power exercises.
7. Use an ascending order of resistances when maximizing power output.
2d - Testing of strength and power in rugby league players.

2di.
Types of tests
As rugby league is a collision-based sport, success would appear to
be heavily reliant upon the players possessing an adequate degree of

various physical fitness qualities such as strength, power, speed and
endurance as well as the individual skill and team tactical abilities (Gabbett,
63
2005). Testing of these physical qualities could therefore be deemed to be
of importance to rugby league players and coaching staff.
Testing of rugby league players has greatly increased during the past
decade ~ principally due to the increased professionalism in the sport and
the consequent determination to improve player talent identification and
performance levels. While a number of researchers have utilized holistic test
batteries running the gamut of physical conditioning (eg. Meir, 1993; Brewer
et al., 1994; Brewer & Davis, 1995; OConnor, 1996; Meir et al., 2001;
Gabbett, 2000, 2002, 2006; Gabbett & Herzig, 2004) the purpose of this
thesis is to concentrate principally upon the testing of upper body muscular
functioning. In particular, upper body strength, power, speed and strengthendurance would appear to be of importance due to the large amount of
tackling and grappling that occurs both in attack and defense during an 80minute game. With respect to upper body testing, there is a distinct paucity
of data prior to the early to mid-1990s.
Strength
Maximal strength levels appear to be important in rugby league.
Traditionally methods of assessing strength, whether it is upper or lower
body, have varied considerably (eg. isometric, dynamic, isokinetic etc). This
variance often results in some training-induced adaptations being reflected in
some tests, but not others (Baker et al., 1994a). Consequently it has been
proposed that the method of strength testing be similar to the method of
training (Baker et al., 1994a).
Consequently researchers involved in the
64
testing of rugby league players have gravitated more towards the traditional
free weight tests of maximal strength as were typically used in the American
football system (eg. Fry & Kraemer, 1991; Ware et al., 1995; Chapman et
al., 1998). Traditionally in the American football system, upper body strength
was typically assessed using the bench press exercise (Fry & Kraemer,
1991; Ware et al., 1995; Chapman et al., 1998). Consequently from the
early to mid-1990s onwards rugby league researchers have typically used
the bench press (BP) to gauge strength levels via a 1 or 3-repetition
maximum test (1RM or 3 RM BP) (Meir, 1993; Baker, 1995, OConnor,
1996). It was presumed the bench press exercise represented the athletes
upper body capabilities in driving an opponent backwards, a fundamental
task for players of all positions in both attack and defence in rugby league
(Meir, 1993; Baker, 1995; OConnor, 1996; Gabbett, 2005). Because of the
simple nature of the test and almost universal availability of equipment and
data for comparative purposes, it appears to have become an accepted
measure of general upper body pressing strength used by rugby league
players (eg. Meir, 1993 through to Keogh, 2004).
While pressing or pushing an opponent backwards/away is perhaps
the most fundamental task in rugby league, there are a number of times that
an opponent must be pulled to the ground in defense to halt their forward
momentum or to slow down the play the ball situations.
Consequently
testing of upper body pulling strength appears warranted. Again there is a

paucity of data concerning the measurement of pulling strength capabilities
of rugby league players although this type of test has been used for over a
65
decade in rugby union players (eg. Baker, 1998a-d). Generally some simple
test of pulling such as a pull-up (PU aka chin-up) test is performed with
additional resistance added to ensure the test fulfills the criterion of a test of
strength (high resistance, very few repetitions such as 1-5 RM, Kraemer et
al., 2002) as opposed to the athlete performing multiple repetitions with their
own body mass, which may be deemed more a test of strength-endurance.
Keogh (2004) reported the pulling strength for SRL and CRL players from
such a pull-up test. The pulling strength in this test was similar to the bench
press scores. Baker (2000c) reported the percentage maintenance, but not
the raw scores, of pull-up strength by rugby league players of various
performance levels during an in-season period. No other data has been
found that considers the upper body pulling strength of rugby league players.
Therefore further research into the pulling strength of rugby league players,
especially NRL players, appears warranted.
Power
Testing of upper body power did not appear for rugby league players
until the late 1990s when power measurement technologies became more
readily available for the testing and training of rugby league players. Baker
and Nance (1999a, b), Baker, (2000a-c, 2001a, c, d) and Baker et al.
(2001a) first reported the maximum upper body power of rugby league
players by the testing of incline or flat bench press throws (BT) in a modified
and calibrated Smith machine (Plyometric Power System). The bench press
throw (or simply bench throw) in a Smith machine is used because this
66
exercise involves acceleration through the full range of movement, resulting
in higher power outputs as compared to a traditionally performed bench
press exercise (Newton et al., 1996). The testing procedures entailed the
athletes performing three repetitions in the BT with a battery of absolute
resistances (eg. 40, 50, 60, 70 and 80 kg). These resistances were chosen
because they encompassed the resistance range of 30-60 % 1RM, which
Newton et al. (1997) had shown maximized power output during BTs. Only
the highest average concentric power output was recorded for each absolute
resistance, with the highest power output overall designated as the Pmax.
This testing also allowed for a load-power profile to be developed (see Figure
1 below), based upon the earlier work of Newton et al. (1997), which itself
was influenced by the lower body jump squat load-power profiling research
conducted by Hakkinen et al. (1985a,b). Based upon the research of these
earlier investigators that reported distinct adaptations between strengthoriented and power-oriented training (Hakkinen et al. 1985a,b), it was
recommended that the BT load-power profile could be used to aid training
prescription (Baker, 2001c). For example, rugby league players with high
strength levels but lower relative power levels could be prescribed more
Pmax rather than strength training and vice versa (Baker, 2001c; Baker et
al., 2001a, b).
Further research in the area of BT or incline BT power testing reported
that these tests that were apparently sensitive to high volume training by
Baker (2000c) reported a trend (p=0.08) towards
decreased power (5.6%) during an extremely fatiguing portion of the in-
67
season. This trend was reversed with the resumption of normal playing and
training loads.
A follow up study (Baker, 2001d) also reported that the
relationship between 1RM BP and BT Pmax was lower (r = 0.52 - 0.56) when
a higher volume of upper body aerobic conditioning (swimming, arm grinding,
wrestling etc) was concurrently being performed, however the relationship
appeared also to revert back to normal levels (r= 0.75 0.77) with the
cessation of this high volume training. The normal levels regarding the
extent of the relationship between 1RM BP and BT Pmax were based upon
the earlier relationships of that magnitude that were reported by Baker and
Nance (1999b) and Baker et al. (2001a, c) with a large number of the same
subjects.
Various other researchers have also reported a strong cross-
sectional relationship between maximum strength and power (Funato et al.,

1996; Moss et al., 1997).
Upper body BT power testing has become more accepted in the
testing of athletes and it appears to be a test that is sensitive to training and
playing load interventions (eg. Drinkwater et al., 2005; Lawton et al., 2006).
Consequently future research may focus more on how training and playing
load interventions impact on the load-power profile and Pmax or even just 12 designated training resistances which may appear sensitive to such
interventions (eg. how BT P40-60, power output during bench throws with
40-60 kg, is impacted, Drinkwater et al., 2005).
68
Power output (W)

600
580
P 560
o
w 540
e
520
r
500
o
u 480
t
p 460
u
440
t
420
400
40 kg
50 kg
60 kg
70 kg
80 kg
Barbell load
Figure 3. The load-power curve for various barbell resistances (40 to 80 kg)
for professional and semi-professional rugby league players (From Baker,
2001c).
Speed
While running speed capabilities seem extensively reported in rugby
league players of all different levels (Meir, 1993; Baker, 1999a; Baker and
Nance, 1999a; Gabbett, 2000, 2002, 2006; Gabbett & Herzig,
2004),
measures of upper body speed have not garnered much interest. As such it
is not known if upper body movement speed is a factor of much importance
to rugby league players. The first study to look at measuring upper body
speed in rugby league players (players from NRL, SRL and CRL levels)
utilized an incline BT with an empty 20 kg barbell in the Plyometric Power
System (Baker, 2001c).
Little difference in this measure was reported
between the teams, however this data was collected in 1997 when rugby
league players had typically not possessed an extensive background in
69
specific upper body speed training.
Figure 2 (taken from Baker, 2001c)
below depicts no difference between NRL and CRL players in the upper body
speed test, but an increased percentage difference with increased
resistances gravitating towards maximal strength.
In an effort to amass
more definitive data, a further comparative study was performed three years
later in which the subjects were NRL, CRL and talented high-school rugby
league players (ie. part of a Talent Identification process) who possessed
varied resistance training backgrounds (Baker, 2002). The results of this
study were more positive insofar as a flat BT test with 20 kg, designating
upper body speed capabilities, could distinguish between NRL and lesser
players, and therefore may be useful in rugby league talent identification. To
date no other studies have investigated upper body speed in rugby league
players.
Endurance
Due to the extensive amount of tackling and upper body grappling that
occurs in tackles, it has long been thought that training and measuring upper
body strength-endurance would be of benefit to rugby league players (Meir,
1993).
Specifically the American College of Sports Medicine has
recommended that strength-endurance training or testing entails the choice

of a resistance in the range of 30-80% 1RM and should allow for the
completion of at least 10-25 or more repetitions (Kraemer et al., 2002). The
difficulty lies in choosing a test protocol that fulfills these requirements and is
appropriate to the demands of the sport.
70
Speed -->Power --> Strength

18
%
16
14
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
P20
P40
P60
3 RM
Load
Figure 4.
The percentage difference between professional (NRL) and
college-aged (CRL) rugby league players in four loads of the speed-powerstrength spectrum during upper body exercises. The difference in the Incline
BT P20, representing the speed end of the spectrum, was not significantly
different whilst differences in the other three loads were. From Baker, 2001c.
Meir (1993) and Meir et al. (2001b) were the first researchers to report
an upper body strength-endurance test in rugby league players.
They
described a pushup test with the repetitions performed in a certain time

period (eg. 60-s, Meir 1993) being the indicator of strength-endurance.
While pushup tests have been used extensively in many settings such as the
military to measure strength-endurance, typically the tests have not been
normalized according to each subjects different body mass. Studies have
shown that the actual resistance during a pushup is actually about BM x .67
(LaChance and Hortobagyi, 1994; Gouvali and Boudolos, 2005). Therefore
71
heavier subjects may perform less RTF, indicating less strength-endurance
when analysed in this manner, but they may be actually performing more
absolute work. The same situation applies when performing RTF pull-up
tests with only the athletes own body mass as resistance. In rugby league,
defensive situations are thought to be the portion of the game most requiring
strength-endurance (due to the upper body grappling occurring in the tackle)
and in these defensive situations the onus is to perform work (work = mass x
distance, ie., move the body mass of the opponent backwards or
downwards).
Therefore an upper body strength-endurance test that
standardized the resistance to be overcome and measured the absolute

work efforts based upon the RTF performed with that standardized
resistance has been sought. A widely accepted and performed test in the
American football system is a RTF BP test performed with a resistance of
102.5 kg (NFL 225 test,), which is used at the NFL draft combine (McGee &
Burkett, 2003). Typically these athletes have high body mass levels and an
extensive history of strength and power training (eg. 2-4 years at both high
school and then college) ~ consequently the resistance of 102.5 kg allows for
the completion of a high number of repetitions, fulfilling the ACSM (2002)
guidelines regarding strength-endurance. However as rugby league players
are talent identified and recruited by clubs at a younger age (Baker, 2002),
with less resistance training experience, it must be presumed that this test
would not fulfill the ACSM guidelines regarding strength-endurance.
For
example, in the research of Baker (2002), with the exception of the NRL
squad, the NFL 225 test would be too heavy for the vast majority of younger
72
subjects to lift even once and for the remainder of the subjects capable of
actually lifting this resistance, their performance of only 1-5 repetitions would
invalidate it as a test of strength-endurance. Therefore while the NFL 225
test appears to be a valid test for strength-endurance (and for an
extrapolated 1RM, eg. Ware et al., 1995;
Chapman et al. 1998) in the
American football system, this absolute resistance is too heavy for the vast
majority of rugby league players. Consequently a strength-endurance test
appropriate to the vast majority of adult rugby league players is sought.
2dii. Does testing identify trends in the team grading (a measure of

performance) or positional grouping of rugby league players?
The most fundamental reasons to test the physical qualities of rugby
league players are for the purposes of player talent identification and to
provide a guide or rationale for adjusting training to improve playing
performance levels through the enhancement of physical capabilities.
Therefore tests should be able to discern differences in elite and non-elite
performers in a sport. As an example, Secher had rowers of international,
national and club level perform a number of tests of muscle strength and
function in an effort to discern which tests were most capable of
discriminating between the athletes at each of these levels (Secher, 1975).
Only one test, an isometric pull in the start position of the rowing stroke was
capable of identifying between the oarsmen (about 10% difference in force
levels between each level of oarsmen). All the other standardized tests of
73
muscle strength and function were virtually useless for the purposes of
identifying which athletes were elite or non-elite performers.
Sechers' study has become a benchmark for researchers looking to
distinguish elite or more highly performed athletes from non-elite and lesserperforming athletes and as such this type of comparative study has been
utilized in a number of sports ranging from kayaking (Fry & Morton, 1991) to
American football (Fry & Kraemer, 1991) and volleyball (Fry et al., 1991).
The testing of rugby league players should presumably follow this basis of
testing being able to distinguish better performers in the sport from lesser
skilled performers.
However the first published studies concerning rugby
league typically reported results for only one performance level of player
(Meir, 1993; OConnor, 1996). This provides information pertinent only to
that one level of performance unlike the study of Secher, where a club level
oarsman could see that an isometric pulling force of 1600 N was adequate
for that level of competition but levels of 1800N and 2000N would be
necessary to attain national and international level, respectively. It could be
said that test studies that are aimed at identifying physical differences
between elite and non-elite performers should include as many levels and/or
ages of athlete as possible. This would allow for the generation of a talent
identification/physical performance pathway from the lowest to highest levels
(LTAD).
With regards upper body testing, the first study to do so was
performed by Baker (2001c), who compared NRL, SRL and CRL upper body
strength, power and speed capabilities. The difference in 1RM BP strength
74
between the three groups was in the order of 11-14% between each level
whereas for power the differences were about 10%. There was no difference
in the speed test. The basic result of that study was that the heavier the
resistance used in a test procedure, the greater the difference between NRL,
SRL and CRL players (see Figure 4).
A follow up study performed three years later found more profound
differences between the 1RM BP levels of the CRL and NRL groups, which
was attributed to greater resistance training experience of the NRL groups
(Baker, 2002).
The high-school rugby league players in this study were
obviously less strong and possessed slower movement speed as compared

to the NRL and CRL players (BT P20 test). This result concerning the highschool players was of course expected and that data was in reality collected
for the purposes of establishing a talent identification/physical performance
pathway ranging from junior to senior high-school, to CRL and finally NRL
level. The fact that upper body speed differentiated the CRL group from the
NRL, which was different to the previous result (Baker, 2001c) was
interesting. It may be attributed to the increasing professionalism of elite
NRL players and the growing sophistication of their training whereas the
semi-professional CRL training standards and practices have perhaps
remained less changed.
As yet no study has been performed that compares the strengthendurance capabilities of elite players to players of a lower performance
level.
Consequently it is not known if strength-endurance capabilities
discriminate between rugby league players of a certain level and whether
75
testing strength-endurance would be useful in terms of talent identification or
performance enhancement. Currently some commentators in the popular
media believe that due to changes in, and interpretations of, the rules of the
game (eg. concept of dominant tackle and surrender tackle), strengthendurance for the upper body and high-intensity running endurance for the
lower body have become the dominant physical qualities required for
success in rugby league. Obviously it is of interest to attempt to determine if
upper body strength-endurance had surpassed maximal strength, power or
upper body speed in importance, factors that had been shown to differentiate
NRL, SRL and CRL, at least to some degree, prior to the dominant tackle
rule changes.
Player Position
Studies of American football players clearly illustrate differences in
strength and power levels not only between players of different performance
levels (eg, starters and non-starters) but also according to the playing
position of the players (Fry & Kraemer, 1991).
As rugby league entails
players having certain positional grouping requirements, it is possible that

some of the upper body measures could also differ in importance.
Therefore, analyzing the upper body capabilities according the positional
grouping of the players appears warranted.
Earlier studies testing rugby
league players tended to use the two basic groupings of forwards and backlines players (Meir, 1993; Brewer & Davis, 1995). However, this dichotomy
oversimplifies the matter, as within these two groups are some players tasks
that overlap or may be quite different. Later researchers such as OConnor
76
and Meir et al. (2001a,b) analysed players according to their distinct
positional groupings (5-9 groups) and reported some differences between
groups in maximal upper body strength (1 and 3RM). Meir et al. (2001b)
labeled this more finite grouping as the players position on the team. Meir
et al. also included the standard, simplified forwards versus backline
analyses off upper body strength (forwards 10% > back-line players) and
strength-endurance (back-line players performed 33.65 and forwards, 31.28
repetitions in a 30-s speed push-up test). No normalization for differences in
body mass were taken into account for the strength-endurance test ~
therefore it is not known if differences truly existed in absolute workload
performed as would be readily observable in a test that standardized
absolute workload.
However, while Meir et al. (2001b) also analysed players into four
sub-groups, which were labeled as forwards (props, second row players
known as the hit-up forwards), outside backs (centres, wingers and
fullbacks), ball distributors (hookers and half-backs) and adjustables (locks
and five-eighths), none of the analysed tests were of upper body functioning
(only sprint and 5-minute endurance running tests were analysed).
This
positional sub-grouping was based on current coaching strategies at the

time.
However, former Australian national team coach Wayne Bennett
believes the analyses or training of players should be according to three subgroupings with the adjustables and ball-players joined as their roles are
linked and inter-changeable to a large degree (Wayne Bennett, personal
communication, 1995 to present). Furthermore, the style of play of some
77
players in their position on the team should determine which sub-group
they belong to, not simply position on the team. For example, a fullback
that is used in attack like a second five-eighth should be considered to be in
the adjustable/distributors group whereas a fullback who is more of a ballrunner would be considered to be an outside back (Wayne Bennett, personal
communication, 1995 to present). The same situation applies to the lock
forward position on the team ~ their style of play may enable them to be in
the adjustable/distributors group or in the hit-up forward group (Wayne
Bennett, personal communication, 1995 to present).
In conclusion, irrespective of how players are grouped or sub-grouped
there has been no study that has compared upper body maximal strength,
power, strength-endurance or speed levels between playing positions or subgroups from different performance levels. Maximum strength, power and
upper body speed have been previously been show to differentiate between
different performance levels (Baker, 2000a-c; 2001a, c, d; 2002), while
maximum strength has been shown to differentiate to some degree between
different positions on the team (OConnor, 1996, Meir et al., 2001b).
Strength-endurance has been analyzed in a simple forward versus back-line
player comparison with no (Meir, 1993) or only minor differences (Meir et al.,
2001b) in the repetitions performed in time constrained push-up tests.
Absolute work was not assessed in either strength-endurance test, so this
area of analyses remains devoid of definitive data.
Given the NRL salary cap and its strict enforcement, elite rugby
league clubs in Australia must now focus on talent identification and physical
78
performance enhancement (Wayne Bennett, personal communication 2004
to present).
As such rugby league clubs seek better talent identification
protocols, including establishing norms for various upper body functioning

tests for players of different positional sub-groupings at different levels of
team performance (eg. NRL, SRL and CRL). Consequently the purposes of
some of the studies within this thesis are to establish normative data for a
number of upper body tests and to determine if these tests indeed
discriminate between players from different performance levels or positional
sub-groupings. The upper body tests would involve mainly standard tests
used previously in rugby league players such as 1RM bench press and pullup tests to assess maximum strength; BT power tests with a resistance
battery of 40 to 80 kg to assess maximum power; BT P20 test to assess
upper body speed; and a new strength-endurance test, the RTF BP60
(repetitions till fatigue bench pressing 60 kg) which is based upon the well
accepted NFL 225 test, but modified to utilize a lighter resistance more
appropriate to assessing the strength-endurance levels of rugby league
players. Study 1 will investigate whether differences exist in upper body
strength, power, speed and strength-endurance for players in three different
positional
groupings
(hit-up
forwards,
outside
backs
and
ball-
distributors/adjustables) x team rankings (NRL, SRL and CRL). Study 2 will

investigate pulling and pressing strength differences between SRL and NRL
players. Study 3 will investigate whether high intensity RTF tests can be
used to accurately predict 1RM BP and PU performance in rugby league
players.
79
Summary and Implications of the Literature Review
This review of the literature has defined various qualities of upper body
muscular functioning such as strength, power, speed and strength-endurance.
The neural and muscle contractile basis for force output have also been
reviewed. Theoretically in a high force sport such as rugby league football it
could be assumed that testing of strength and power would be extensive and
that strength and power may be prominent descriptors of performance level.
However there is a paucity of data concerning upper body strength testing in
rugby league players and even less data exists concerning power testing.
Furthermore, given recent rule changes and current game trends, some
debate exists as to whether strength and power are as important as strengthendurance. Therefore the purpose of Study 1 was to determine the relative
importance to rugby league playing level of tests of upper body strength,
power, speed and strength-endurance. The same movement pattern for each
test must be used to limit chances of potential differences being ascribed to
individuals inter-test variance.
Also a comparison between upper body
pushing and pulling strength was deemed necessary as most strength studies
tend to focus upon pushing/pressing strength. Given the large amount of
pulling that occurs in defense (pulling an opponent to the ground etc), it was
posited that this measure of strength should not be neglected when assessing
the strength of rugby league players (Study 2).
If pulling strength was
different between NRL players and lower level players, then pulling strength
must addressed in the training content of these lower level players. As 1RM
strength testing can be a difficult and time consuming process when dealing
with a large number of athletes, especially those not greatly experienced in
resistance training, a simplified version of extrapolating 1RM test scores
suitable for lower level athletes was also deemed of interest (Study 3). The
80
results of these testing investigations should direct the training goals and
content of rugby league players.
The review of neural control of force output has potentially identified a
theoretical basis for some specific acute power training strategies. As power
movements entail rapid muscular contractions, they rely upon finite interplay
between various neural control mechanisms.
If specific training variable
configurations could influence this neural interplay, then conceivably power

output could be enhanced.
This review identified two methods of acutely
favourably influencing power output ~ one through the use of alternating sets
of a heavier load in the same movement with sets of the designated power
training resistance (Study 4) and the other through alternating sets of an
antagonist training movement with sets of the designated power training
resistance (Study 5).
Hypertrophy of muscle (and/or changes in the contractile qualities of
muscle) was also identified as one of the main avenues that experienced
resistance trainers may use to increase maximal strength. However the high
volume of training thought to favourably influence hypertrophy was also
identified as not being conducive to power development.
The possible
deleterious effects that an acute hypertrophy-oriented training bout has upon

power output needs to be investigated (Study 6).
Most resistance training studies in the literature are short-term studies
(< 6 months) using college students as subjects (with little or moderate
resistance training experience). How the results of any of these studies can
be applied to long-term experienced resistance trainers has been questioned
by a number of researchers and strength coaches alike. Furthermore the few
long-term studies (up to 2-years) that exist in the literature have shown that
the scope and magnitude for increases in strength and power appear to
diminish with increased training experience. What the nature and scope of
long-term resistance training adaptations in maximal strength and power in
81
experienced, professional athletes across even longer multi-year periods is a

question that need to be addressed (Study 7).
In terms of Long-term Athlete Development (LTAD) ~ Is there any
advantage in commencing regimented strength/power training in the latter
teenage years as compared to the early twenties with regards the
development of strength and power in professional rugby league players
(Study 8)? This would appear to be an important question for professional
coaches.
As well as the testing, intervention and long-term observation studies
outlined above, this review of the literature has identified that there are acute
and chronic training strategies that can affect resistance-training outcomes
such as strength and power output. Consequently two papers detailing these
acute and chronic strategies were published arising from this literature review.
82
Chapter 3. Copies of Original Papers
The papers in this thesis appear in the manner in which they

were accepted for each journal.
Accordingly the style of
referencing, layout and structure vary due to the preferences of

each journal. Due to this fact, the references for each publication
must also be included at the end of each publication (and are
distinct from the references for Chapter 2 - Review of the
Literature). Furthermore, some small differences (eg. grammar)
may exist between the versions contained below and how they
appear in the journals, due to further minor alterations made by the
editorial staff of each journal.
162
References
1. Baker, D. Specific strength/power training for elite divers: Case study from
the Australian Institute of Sport. Strength & Conditioning Coach. 2(1):2027. 1994.
2. Baker D. Selecting the appropriate exercises and loads for speed-strength

development. Strength & Conditioning Coach 3(2):8-16. 1995.
3.
Baker, D.
Acute and long-term power responses to power training:
Observations on the training of an elite power athlete.
Strength Cond.
23(1):47-56. 2001.
4.
Baker, D.
Comparison of maximum upper body strength and power
between professional and college-aged rugby league football players.
J.
Strength Cond. Res. 15(1): 30-35. 2001.
5. Baker, D. A series of studies on the training of high intensity muscle power

in rugby league football players.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 15(2): 198-209.
2001.
6. Baker, D and S. Nance The relationship between running speed and

measures of strength and power in professional rugby league players. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 13(3):230-235. 1999.
7. Baker, D. and S. Nance. The relationship between strength and power in

professional rugby league players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 13(3):224-229.
1999.
8. Baker D, S. Nance and M. Moore. The load that maximizes the average
163
mechanical power output during explosive bench press throws in highly

trained athletes J. Strength Cond. Res. 15(1): 20-24. 2001.
mechanical power output during jump squats in power-trained athletes J.
10. Ebben, W. P. and P.B. Watts. A review of combined weight training and
plyometric training modes: Complex training. Strength Condit. 20(5)18-27.
1998.
11.
Ebben, W.P., Jensen, R.J and D.O Blacker.
Electromyographic and
kinetic analysis of complex training J. Strength Cond. Res. 14(4):451-456.

2000.
12.
Enoka, R. M.
Muscular control of a learned movement: The speed
control system hypothesis. Exp. Brain Res. 51:135-145. 1983.
13. Fleck, S and K. Kontor. Complex training. NSCA Journal. 8 (5):66-69.

1986.
14. Gulich, A. and D. Schmidtbleicher. MVC-induced short-term potentiation

of explosive force. New Studies in Athletics. 11(4):67-81. 1996.
15.
Hrysomallis, C., and D. Kidgell.
Effect of heavy dynamic resistive
exercise on acute upper-body power. J. Strength Cond. Res. 15(4):426-430.

2001.
16.
Komi, P.V.
Training of muscle strength and power: interaction of
164
neuromotoric, hypertrophic and mechanical factors.
Int. J. Sports Med.
7:(Supp):101-105. 1986
17.
Moritani, T., Muro, M, Ishida, K and S. Taguchi. Electromyographic
analyses of the effects of muscle power training. J. Med. Sport Sci. (Japan),
1, 23-32. 1987.
18. Newton, R., A. Murphy, B. Humphries, G. Wilson, W. Kraemer and K.

Hakkinen Influence of load and stretch shortening cycle on the kinematics,
kinetics and muscle activation that occurs during explosive bench press
throws. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 75(4). 333-342. 1997.
19.
Newton, R., W, Kraemer, K, Hakkinen, B, Humphries & A, Murphy.
Kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation during explosive upper body

movements. J. Appl. Biomech. 12:31-43. 1996.
20. Radcliffe, J.C., and J.L. Radcliffe. Effects of different warmups protocols
on peak power output during a single response jump task. (Abstract). Med.
Sci. Sports. Exerc.28:S189. 1996.
21.
Wilson, G., R. Newton, A. Murphy and B. Humphries.
The optimal
training load for the development of dynamic athletic performance. Med. Sci.
Sports Exerc. 23:1279-1286. 1993.
22.
Wilson, G., Murphy, A & Giorgi, A.
Weight and plyometric training:
Effects on eccentric and concentric force production. Can. J. Appl. Physiol.

21(4):301-315. 1996.
23. Wilson, G., Wood, G. & Elliott, B. Optimal stiffness of the series elastic
165
component in a stretch-shorten cycle activity. J. Appl. Physiol. 70: 825833. 1991.
24. Wilson, G.
Elliott, B. & Wood, G.
The effect on performance of
imposing a delay during a stretch-shorten cycle movement. Med. Sci.

Sports Exer., 23: 363-370. 1991
25. Wilson, G., Elliot, B. & Wood, G. Stretch shorten cycle performance
enhancement through flexibility training. Med. Sci. Sports Exer., 24:
403-407. 1992.
26. Young, W. B., A. Jenner and K. Griffiths. Acute enhancement of power

performance from heavy load squats. J. Strength Cond. Res. 12(2):82-84.
1998.
166
Paper 5.
Acute effect on power output of alternating an agonist
and antagonist muscle exercise during complex training.
by
Daniel Baker and Robert U. Newton
published in the
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
19(1):202-205. 2005.
167
Abstract
It is known that the efficient coordination of agonist and antagonist
muscles is one of the important early adaptations in resistance training
responsible for large increases in strength. It has also been demonstrated
that weak antagonists may limit speed of movement and consequently that
strengthening the antagonist muscles leads to an increase in agonist muscle
movement speed.
However the effect of combining agonist and antagonist
muscle exercises into a power training session has been largely unexplored.
The purpose of this study was to determine if a training complex consisting of
contrasting agonist and antagonist exercises would result in an acute increase
in power output in the agonist power exercise.
Twenty-four college-aged
rugby league players who were experienced in combined strength and power
training served as subjects for this study. The subjects were equally assigned
to an experimental (Antag) or control (Con) group who were no different in
age, height, body mass, strength or maximal power.
Power output was
assessed during bench press throws with a 40 kg resistance (BT P40) using
the Plyopower training device. After warming up, the Con group performed
the BT P40 tests three minutes apart to determine if any acute augmentation
to power output could occur without intervention.
The Antag group also
performed the BT P40 tests, however an intervention strategy of a set of

bench pulls, which is an antagonistic action to the bench throw, was
performed between tests to determine if this would affect acutely power output
during the second BT P40 test. While the power output for the Con group
remained unaltered between test occasions, the significant 4.7% increase for
the Antag group indicates that a strategy of alternating agonist and antagonist
exercises may acutely increase power output during complex power training.
This result may affect power training and specific warm-up strategies used in
ballistic sports activities, with increased emphasis placed upon the antagonist
muscle groups.
168
Key words: reciprocal inhibition, triphasic pattern, acceleration
169
Introduction
responsible for large increases in strength or torque (7, 9, 17). This appears
to be achieved by a neural strategy of enhanced reciprocal inhibition of the
antagonist musculature.
However, little research has been conducted
examining the role of agonist and antagonist muscle interplay in power

movements. The faster lifting speeds involved in power training may make it
more difficult (as compared to traditional strength training) to efficiently control
unwarranted co-contraction between agonist and antagonist muscle groups,
potentially reducing power output (18).
It has also been demonstrated that weak antagonist muscles may limit
speed of movement (22) and that strengthening of the antagonist muscles
leads to an increase in agonist movement speed (16).
It would therefore
seem prudent to strengthen the antagonist muscles involved in the power

training action or movement. One method of integrating strength and power
training into a training session has been labeled as complex or contrast
training (1-5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 23). Traditional recommendations for contrast
loading have included the alternating of sets of heavy and light resistances in
similar agonist exercises or movement patterns (13, 14, 23). This method of
alternating contrasting resistances to enhance power output has been
substantiated for the lower body on a number of different occasions (1, 3, 4,
14, 23). It has also been shown that heavy resistance exercises increase the
concentric rate of force development while lighter, plyometric type exercises
enhance eccentric rate of force development (22). This combination of effects
conceivably partially explains the success of this combined method of power
training. With regards to upper body complex training, only one study to date
has documented any significant effects (5) with other studies reporting no
augmentation to power output or performance (11, 15).
170
While the traditional methodology of complex power training has entailed

contrasting resistances in similar agonist exercises (eg. alternating heavy and
light resistances in squats and jump squats), no research exists concerning
complexes of contrasting muscle actions.
If some augmentation to force
output occurs due to a neural strategy of enhanced reciprocal inhibition of the

antagonist musculature, then contrasting strategies involving the antagonist
musculature may also prove fruitful for enhancing power output. In support of
this, Burke et al. (8) recently reported that a high speed antagonist contraction
immediately preceding an agonist contraction resulted in increased torque
during
the
agonist
contraction
(isokinetic
seated
bench
press/pull
movements). As yet it has not been determined if the effect reported by Burke
et al would transfer between alternating sets of agonist and antagonist
exercises in typical isoninertial resistance training.
The purpose of this study was to examine the acute effect upon power
output of alternating agonist
and antagonist exercises during typical
isoninertial complex power training.
Methods
Experimental approach to the problem
To determine if power output generated during an exercise could be
acutely affected by the subsequent performance of an antagonist exercise, an
intervention study was implemented.
This entailed two groups of athletes
performing a Pre test of power output during bench press throws with a
standard resistance.
The control group would then repeat this test three
minutes later to provide data pertinent to whether power output could be

acutely affected without some form of active intervention. The experimental
group would perform the same tests, however an intervention strategy of
performing a set of an antagonist exercise of bench pulls between power tests
would be implemented to determine whether power output could be acutely
171
affected.
Subjects
Twenty-four college-aged rugby league players who possessed at
least 1 year of resistance training experience and specifically at least 6
months of contrast/complex power training served as subjects for this study.
They were informed of the nature of the study and voluntarily elected to
participate in the testing and intervention sessions and were divided equally
into an experimental (Antag) and control group (Con). A description of the
subjects is contained in Table 1.
Table 1. Description of subjects. Mean (standard deviation).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Age
Height
Mass
1RM BP
BT Pmax
Antag
(yrs)
(cm)
(kg)
(kg)
(w)
18.7 (.65)
184.5 (6.0)
87.6 (6.8)
111.2 (6.9)
522 (43)
19.0 (1.0)
184.1 (5.3)
93.0 (9.3)
115.8 (15.1) 554 (84)
(n =12)
Control
(n =12)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testing procedures
Power output was tested during explosive bench press style throws
with an absolute resistance of 40 kg (BT P40) using the Plyometric Power
System (PPS, Norsearch, Lismore, Australia), which has been described
extensively elsewhere by various authors (4-6, 18-22). Briefly, the PPS is a
device whereby the displacement of the barbell is limited to the vertical plane,
as in a Smith weight training
machine.
The linear bearings that are
attached to each end of the barbell allow the barbell to slide about two
172
hardened steel shafts with a minimum of friction. A rotary encoder attached to

the machine produced pulses indicating the displacement of the barbell. The
number of pulses, denoting barbell displacement, and the time of the barbell
movement were measured by a counter timer board installed in the computer.
The PPS software calculated the average mechanical power output in watts
(w) of the concentric phase of the bench press throws based upon the
displacement of the barbell, time of displacement and mass of barbell (*
gravity) data (M * G * D / T=Power output in watts, where G = gravity). Test
reliability of r = 0.92 was previously established with a group of 12 subjects.
Prior to pre-testing, subjects warmed up by performing five repetitions
of both the bench press (60 kg) and bench throw exercise (20 kg). After three
minutes rest, the subjects performed the pre-test, which consisted of five
consecutive repetitions with the investigated resistance (Pre-BT P40). Only
the repetition with the highest concentric average power output was chosen
and recorded for analysis. The Con subjects were Post-tested after three
minutes rest. This provided data pertinent as to whether any augmentation to
power output may occur without active intervention.
The experimental Antag group performed the intervention strategy of a
set of a moderately heavy resistance antagonist muscle action exercise. In
this case the prone bench pull with a free weight barbell was used. For this
exercise, the subjects lie prone upon a special high bench with the barbell
placed upon the floor directly under their chest. The subjects were instructed
to pull the barbell as forcefully as possible towards their chest-abdomen
region for eight repetitions.
The construction of the bench prevented any
impact of the barbell with the subjects body. The subjects were allowed to
virtually drop the bar to the floor to lessen any potential effect of fatigue that
may have arisen from the slow or careful eccentric lowering of the barbell.
This meant about a 1-2 second rest existed between consecutive repetitions
as the subjects re-gripped the bar. These strategies were implemented to
173
ensure the athletes performed the bench pulls in manner similar to the bench
throws (ie. explosively and with loss of hand contact with the bar).
The
resistance of the barbell for the bench pull was set at 50% of each subjects
1RM BP. This meant the subjects were bench throwing a mass of 40 kg and
prone bench pulling a mean barbell mass of 56.2 kg (+ 3.8 kg). The Antag
group was then retested for BT P40 three minutes after completing the
intervention strategy of bench pulls.
Statistical Analyses
To determine the effect of the intervention on test occasion, a repeated
measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used.
Significance was
accepted at an alpha level of p < 0.05 for all testing.
Results
The results are detailed in Table 2. The 4.7 % increase in the Post-test
BT P40 as a result of the intervention strategy of heavy antagonist bench
pulls for the Antag group was statistically significant. The power output for the
BT P40 remained unchanged in the Control group between test occasions.
Discussion
The experimental Antag group increased power output as a result of
the intervention of a set of antagonist bench pulls between sets of the power
exercise while the power output for the control group remained unaltered. The
acute increase in power output as a result of the contrasting contraction
strategy gives support to the effect reported by Burke et al (8).
If this
augmentation to power output was due to a neural strategy of enhanced

reciprocal inhibition of the antagonist musculature, then the nature of these
strategies might need to be discussed to provoke further research in this area.
174
Table 2. The acute effect upon power output of imposing a set of antagonist
prone bench pulls between sets of bench press throws with 40 kg. Mean
(standard deviation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BT P40 power output (w)
Pre
Post
Antag
468 (31)
490 (38)*
Control
508 (54)
505 (59)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* denotes significantly different from Pre test occasion, p < 0.05
During some rapid, ballistic movements of the limbs a particular neural

pattern of motor unit firing known as the triphasic or ABC pattern becomes
evident (16). This pattern is characterized by a large Action burst of activity
by the agonist musculature followed by a shorter Braking burst of activity by
the antagonist musculature of the limb and finally a short Clamping burst
again by the agonists to complete the movement. As the net force produced
during a movement is a trade-off between the force of the agonists and the
counteracting force of the antagonists (7, 9), then the interaction between
these bursts of myoelectrical activity warrant interest.
Strength training
reduces the interfering effect of co-contraction between agonists and

antagonists in rapid movements (16). Therefore a more efficient control of the
ABC pattern may benefit the power athlete.
For example, the maximal resistance theory of myoelectrical
augmentation (10, 11, 13, 14, 23) in agonist complex training (eg. alternating
very heavy squats and light jump squats) would rely on an increase in the
175
Action burst of activity in the agonists muscles (caused by enhanced neural

stimulation resulting from the very heavy squats) to facilitate the increase in
power during the ensuing exercise.
This would be the post-tetanic
potentiation advocated by Gulich & Schmidtbleicher (14). However, in this

study a contrasting antagonist contraction was alternated with the power
exercise and hence it is not readily conceivable how this strategy could
directly affect the amount of activity of the Action burst of the agonists. It is
conceivable that the heavy bench pull set effected the timing of the Braking
burst of the antagonists during the agonist power exercise. A shorter, more
succinct Braking phase would mean that the agonist Action burst could be
continued for longer into the total contraction time (16). Given that the total
concentric contraction time during bench throws with this sort of resistance is
only around 500-650 msec (19), then any significant increase in action time
and reduction in braking time could be beneficial. Indeed Jaric et al. (16)
demonstrated that increased strength of the antagonists as a result of training
resulted in increased speed during ballistic elbow flexion movements. They
demonstrated that the increased strength allowed for a shorter braking
period, a greater relative acceleration period and favourable alterations in the
ABC myoelectrical patterns. Some evidence also suggests that increased
power output could result without increased agonist or antagonist strength if a
more synchronous firing of motor units within a muscle occurred within the
first 60-100 ms of the contraction (18). Conceivably, complexes of agonist
and antagonist exercises may aid in these situations.
While this study illustrated the acute effect upon power output of
alternating agonist and antagonist exercises during complex training, it is
unknown if this effect would transfer to greater increases in power output over
long term periods. Longitudinal studies of many months duration need to be
performed that compare the development of power through various
intervention strategies used in complex training to the more traditional straight
176
sets method of power training. Conceivably this agonist/antagonist strategy

could also be used as a specific warm-up strategy to acutely increase power
output for sports activities. For example, baseball pitchers and tennis players
could alternate antagonist shoulder external rotation exercises (eg. with
rubber tubing) with their agonist pitching and serving drills.
When selecting antagonist power training exercises it may be even
more appropriate to choose exercises that allow acceleration for the entire
range of movement.
For rapid upper limb movements this could mean
throwing movements alternated with rapid pulling movements, such as the top
pulls and power cleans from hang/boxes.
The alternating of agonist and
antagonist power exercises may be area for future exploration for strength
coaches.
Practical applications
While
traditional
contrasting
resistance/complex
training
recommendations have focused upon the alternating of heavier and lighter

resistances in exercises of similar agonist movement patterns, the alternating
of agonist and antagonist movement patterns may be useful in ballistic power
training. The effect of directly stimulating the antagonist musculature in a
power-training complex may be to reduce the time necessary for the braking
phase that occurs about halfway through the ballistic limb movement in the
ensuing agonist movement. In turn, this may increase resultant force, speed
and power. Practical combinations of agonist and antagonist exercises for the
upper body would be bench press throws and bench pulls, bench press
throws and power clean from hang or various forms of explosive medicine ball
throwing alternated with explosive pulling, shoulder external rotation and
elbow flexion exercises (with resistance provided by dumbells, rubber tubing,
medicine balls or sports implements in some cases).
177
References

development. Strength & Conditioning Coach. 3(2):8-16. 1995.
3.
Baker, D.
Strength Cond.
23(1):47-56. 2001.

2001.
5. Baker, D. The acute effect of alternating heavy and light resistances upon
power output during upper body complex power training. J. Strength Cond.
Res. 17(3): 00-00. 2003
7. Baratta R, Solomomow M, Zhou B, Letson D, Chuinard R, D'Ambrosia R.

Muscular co-activation. The role of the antagonist musculature in maintaining
knee stability. Am J Sports Med.16: 113-122. 1988.
8.
Burke, D. G., Pelham, T.W. and L. E. Holt.
The influence of varied
178
resistance and speed of concentric antagonist contractions on subsequent

concentric agonist efforts. J. Strength Cond. Res. 13(3)193-197. 1999.
9. Draganich L, Jaeger R, and Krajl A. Coactivation of the hamstrings and

quadriceps during extension of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg. 71: 1075-1081.
1989.
1998.
11. Ebben, W.P., Jensen, R.J and D.O Blackard. Electromyographic and
kinetic analysis of complex training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 14(4):451-456.
2000.
12.
Enoka, R. M.

1986.

15.

2001.
16.
Jaric, S., Ropert, R., Kukolj, M and D.B. Ilic.
Role of agonist and
179
antagonist muscle strength in rapid movement performances. Eur. J. Appl.

Physiol. 1995.
17. Moritani, T.
training.
Time course of adaptations during strength and power
in Strength and power in sport.
P.V Komi (ed).
Blackwell
Science. 1992.
18. Moritani, T. Neuromuscular adaptations during the acquisition of muscle

strength, power and motor tasks. J. Biomechan. 26, Supp 1:95-107. 1993.

Hakkinen. Influence of load and stretch shortening cycle on the kinematics,
20.
The optimal
Sports Exerc. 23:1279-1286. 1993.
21.

21(4):301-315. 1996.
22. Wierzbicka, M and A. Wiegner. Effects of weak antagonist on fast elbow

flexion movements in man. Exp. Brain Res. 91, 509-519. 1992.
23. Young, W., A. Jenner and K. Griffiths. Acute enhancement of power

1998.
180
Paper 6.
Acute negative effect of a hypertrophy-oriented training bout
on subsequent upper-body power output.
by
Daniel Baker
published in the
17(3):527-530. 2003
181
Abstract
Athletes regularly combine maximal strength, power and hypertrophyoriented training within the same workout. Traditionally it has suggested that
power-oriented exercises precede strength and hypertrophy-oriented training
within a workout to avoid the possible negative effects that the latter types of
training may have upon power output. However, with regards to upper body
training, little study has been performed to verify this commonly held belief.
The purpose of this study was to determine the extent, if any, of a high
repetition, short rest period, hypertrophy-oriented training dose upon upper
body power output. Twenty-seven college-aged rugby league players were
tested for average power output during bench press throws with a resistance
of 40 kg (BT P40). The experimental group (Hyp, n = 15) then performed a
typical hypertrophy-oriented work bout (3 x 10 at 65% one repetitionmaximum bench press,1RM BP) before being retested for power output with
the same resistance. In comparison to the control group (Con, n = 12), whose
power output remained unchanged between the Pre- and Post-test periods,
the Hyp group experienced a large, significant decrease in BT P40 power
output.
Even after further passive rest of seven minutes, power output
remained suppressed from the Pre-test values. Furthermore, the strongest

five subjects experienced significantly larger percentage declines in power
output than did the five less strong subjects.
repetition, short rest period training
This study shows that a high
can acutely decrease power out.
Coaches should plan the order of exercises carefully when combining power
and hypertrophy training.
Key words: bench press, bench throw, fatigue, strength
182
Introduction
Typical recommendations have suggested that power training should
precede strength or hypertrophy-oriented training within a workout or training
cycle (3, 21). It is thought that these other forms of resistance training may
induce some acute fatigue that could compromise power output (21).
However, those who advocate complex training embrace the alternating of
strength and power exercises or sets within a workout (2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 14 15).
The strength work recommended within contrast/complex training is typically
of very low volume (3, 11, 14), which may not have a deleterious effect upon
power output and indeed has been shown to increase power output (4, 6).
However, hypertrophy-oriented training is usually distinguished from strengthoriented training by a much higher training volume (21). Theoretically this
higher volume of training may acutely impair power output (21).
In some
support of this hypothesis is the recent work of Leveritt and Abernethy (18)
who reported a decrease in squat strength and isokinetic knee extension
torque following a bout of mixed aerobic and anaerobic exercise.
To date few studies exist that have examined the acute effect of higher
volume hypertrophy-oriented training on upper body power output within a
workout,
despite the
seemingly
commonality
of
the power
before
hypertrophy edict. The purpose of this study is to report the acute effects of a
dose of high volume, hypertrophy-oriented training on power output during
upper body training.
Methods
Subjects
Twenty
seven college-aged
rugby
league players,
who
were
experienced in power training, served as subjects for this study. They were
informed of the nature of the study and voluntarily elected to participate in the
testing and intervention sessions. Fifteen were assigned to the experimental
183
group (Hyp), who were to perform the hypertrophy-oriented intervention

strategy, while twelve served as controls (Con).
There was no difference
between the groups in any of the performance tests such as One-repetition

maximum bench press (1RM BP) or bench press throw maximal power output
(BT Pmax) that were conducted 72 hours prior to testing. Nor was there any
difference in anthropometric data. The mean (+ standard deviation) height,
body mass, age, 1RM BP and BT Pmax were 182.7 + 5.5 cm, 88.1 + 6.0 kg,
19.1 + 1.2 yrs, 112.8 + 8.2 kg and 523 + 43 W for the Hyp group and 1823.2 +
4.5 cm, 92.4 + 9.7 kg, 18.8 + 1.1 yrs, 116.0 + 15.0 kg and 560 + 88 W, for
the Con group.
Testing
extensively elsewhere (2-10, 19, 20, 22, 23). Briefly, the PPS is a device
whereby the displacement of the barbell is limited to the vertical plane, as in a
Smith weight training machine. The linear bearings that are attached to
each end of the barbell allow the barbell to slide about two hardened steel
shafts with a minimum of friction. A rotary encoder attached to the machine
produced pulses indicating the displacement of the barbell.
The number of
pulses, denoting barbell displacement, and the time of the barbell movement
were measured by a counter timer board installed in the computer. The PPS
software calculated the average mechanical power output in watts (w) of the
concentric phase of the bench press throws based upon the displacement of
the barbell, time of displacement and mass of barbell (* gravity) data (M * G *
D / T=Power output in watts). Test reliability (r = .92) was conducted using the
Con group, who were retested after four days. Prior to pre-testing, subjects
warmed up by performing five repetitions of both the bench press (60 kg) and
bench throw exercise (20 kg).
After three minutes rest, the subjects
184
performed the pre-test, which consisted of five consecutive repetitions with the
investigated resistance (Pre-BT P40). Only the repetition with the highest
concentric average power output was chosen and recorded for analysis.
The Con subjects were Post-tested after three minutes rest.
This
provided data pertinent as to whether any augmentation to power output may

occur without active intervention.
The Hyp subjects performed three sets of ten repetitions of the free
weight bench press exercise with a resistance of 65% of their 1RM BP,
separated by a 1.5 minute rest between sets. This intervention strategy was
chosen as a typical example of a hypertrophy-oriented workout. The Posttesting consisted of the athletes repeating the BT P40 test two more times
(Post #1 BT P40 and Post #2 BT P40). A 1.5 minute rest period existed
between the conclusion of the intervention segment (3 x 10 @ 65%1RM BP)
and Post #1 BT P40 to determine the immediate effects upon power output of
such a hypertrophy-oriented bout of resistance training.
After five more
minutes rest the subjects performed another test (Post #2 BT P40) to gauge
the extent of recovery. Statistics
To determine if any difference existed between the Hyp or Con groups
at any testing occasion
a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with
repeated measures was used.
To discern if absolute workload had a more
deleterious effect upon power output in stronger subjects, two largely

disparate sub-groups were identified. A factorial ANOVA based on each
subjects absolute 1RM BP was used to identify two significantly different
groups of five subjects (Strong and Less Strong).
The percentage decline
results for these two sub-groups were also compared using factorial ANOVA.
Significance was accepted at an alpha level of p < 0.05 for all testing.
Results
The results are outlined in Table 1. All post-test scores for the Hyp
185
group were significantly different from each other (p < 0.05) and from those of
the Con group, who remained unchanged. The intervention strategy of high
repetition, short rest period, hypertrophy-oriented training had caused an
acute 18% decrease in power output to be manifested 1.5 minutes after the
cessation of the last intervention set. After a further five minute rest period
(about seven minutes after the last intervention set), power output was still
depressed by an average of 6.6%.
Table 1.
Acute effect of performing high repetition, short rest period,
hypertrophy-oriented training upon power output (w).
Mean + standard
deviation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pre-BT P40
Post-#1 BT P40
Post-#2 BT P40
Hyp group
479 + 29
393 + 41*
447 + 32*
Con group
508 + 54
505 + 59
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* denotes test scores significantly different to each other at all occasions
Discussion
The results detailing the deleterious effect of just three sets of
hypertrophy-oriented training on power output support the common edict that
power exercises should be performed before or separate from high repetition
or hypertrophy-oriented training. The fatiguing effects of high repetition, short
rest period training was quite pronounced and actually had a more
pronounced effect than a much longer, more voluminous conditioning bout
had upon muscle strength in previous research (1, 18).
Leveritt and Abernethy (18), who studied the acute effects of prior
combined aerobic and anaerobic conditioning training upon squat and
186
isokinetic knee extension strength and Kramer et al (17), who reported large
reductions in work capacity resulting from high volume, short rest period
protocols, stated the source of such impairment in performance may be due to
a combination muscle acidosis (high muscle lactates) or changes in the
electrical/tissue properties of the muscle.
Neither of these factors by
themselves would appear to capable of the 18% decline in power in the

current study and as such this study tends to support a multi-faceted fatigue
approach. For example, as isokinetic strength can be impaired even four
hours after an acute dose of such conditioning, by which time muscle acid
levels should have returned to normal, then this may not be the only fatigue
mechanism (1). In this study the prescribed intervention workload should not
have depleted glycogen to such a level that it could account for the 18%
decline in power output and the fact that power levels increased significantly
after a further five minutes rest tends to support this. In light of Hakkinen's
(16) research demonstrating acute neural fatigue within a training session
consisting of multiple sets of maximal effort squats, this avenue of fatigue
must also be considered. With increased rest (7 mins) there was a gravitation
back towards pre-test power levels, indicating that simple rest offers some
respite from the mechanisms inducing performance decrement. Simple rest
may provide time for lactate clearance and neural relaxation, helping to
restore power levels.
Another possible neural source for decreased power output may be, in
part, due to the Speed-control Theory as enunciated by Enoka (13). The
slower speed of the hypertrophy-oriented training may tune the neural system
into performing the power test at a less than the normal speed, resulting in
lower post-test power outputs.
An interesting observation of the results was the effect of absolute
workload upon fatigue. While every subject lifted the same relative workload
as the intervention strategy (3 x 10 @ 65% 1RM BP), stronger (in absolute
187
mass lifted) subjects performed a much higher absolute workload. To discern

if this absolute workload had a more deleterious effect upon power output, two
largely disparate groups of five subjects were identified, based upon absolute
1RM BP (a Strong and Less Strong group).
This strategy of discerning
disparate sub-groups of only 5 or 6 of the strongest or less strong subjects

within a population has been performed before and yielded interesting results
upon the adaptations to resistance training (6, 23). A significant difference (p
< 0.05) in the degree of decline in power output from the Pre-BT P40 to the
Post #1 BT P40 was observed between the Strong (24.4%) and Less Strong
groups (13.1%).
Thus the stronger subjects, performing higher absolute
workloads for the intervention strategy (8000 kg v 6750 kg), fatigued to a

significantly greater degree than their less strong counterparts. Previously it
has also been shown that high-volume training accompanied by very short
rest periods severely compromises work capacity in very strong athletes (17).
This result would indicate that for stronger athletes, even greater care must be
taken to ensure the negative effects of high repetition, short rest period
training does not impact upon power training.
High repetition, short rest period hypertrophy-oriented training has a
significant severe acute impact upon power output.
This negative impact
upon power output is still significant seven minutes after a mild dose (3 x 10)
of such training.
It could be posited that if a number of exercises were
performed in such a hypertrophy-oriented training session, than the

cumulative effects upon power output would be even more severe. As such it
must be recommended that high repetition, short rest period training not be
alternated with or performed before power training sets or exercises.
A significantly higher decline in power output was noted in the five
strongest athletes, as compared to the five less strong athletes. Given that
188
stronger athletes perform higher absolute workloads than less strong athletes,
strength coaches should be aware of the possible interfering effects that the
compounding (eg. 5-10 exercises x 3 sets x 10 repetitions) of hypertrophyoriented training may have upon power output within a session or training
week.
Consequently, strength coaches may need to curtail or carefully
manage the hypertrophy-oriented training of their strongest athletes when in

training cycles aimed at maximizing power output.
189
References
1.
Abernethy, P.J.
Influence of acute endurance activity on isokinetic
strength. J. Strength Cond. Res. 7:141-146. 1993.

4.
Baker, D.
Strength Cond.
23(1):47-56. 2001.
5.
Baker, D.
J.

2001.


190
1999.
1998.
2000.
13.
Enoka, R. M.

1986.

16. Hakkinen, K. Neuromuscular fatigue and recovery in male and female

athletes during heavy resistance exercise. Int. J Sports Med. 14(2):53-59.
191
1993.
17. Kraemer, W.J., B.J. Noble., B.W. Culver, and M.J. Clark. Physiologic
responses to heavy-resistance exercise with very short rest periods. Int. J.
Sports Med. 8:247-252. 1987.
18. Leveritt, M., and P. Abernethy. Acute effects of high-intensity endurance

exercise on subsequent resistance activity.
J. Strength Cond. Res.
13(1):131-142. 1997.

20.

21.
Wathen, D.
Exercise order.
in Essentials of Strength and
Conditioning. T. Bachele (Ed). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 1994.
22.
The optimal
Sports Exerc. 23:1279-1286. 1993.
23.

21(4):301-315. 1996.
192
Paper 7.
Adaptations in upper body maximal strength and power
output resulting from long-term resistance training in
experienced strength-power athletes.
by
published in the
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(3):541546, 2006.
193
Abstract
The purpose of this investigation was to observe changes in maximal
upper body strength and power and shifts in the load-power curve across a
multi-year period in experienced resistance trainers.
Twelve professional
rugby league players who regularly performed combined maximal strength

and power training were observed across a four year period with test data
reported every two years (years 1998, 2000, 2002). Upper body strength was
assessed by the one repetition maximum bench press (1RM BP) and
maximum power during bench press throws (BT Pmax) with various barbell
resistances of 40 to 80 kg (BT P40-80). During the initial testing, players were
also identified as Elite (n=6) or Sub-elite (n=6) depending upon whether they
participated in the elite first division national league (NRL) or second division
league. This sub-grouping allowed for a comparison of the scope of changes
dependent upon initial strength and training experience. The Sub-elite group
was significantly younger, less strong or powerful than the Elite group but no
other difference existed in height or body mass in 1998. Across the four-year
period significant increases in strength occurred for the group as a whole and
larger increases were observed for the Sub-elite as compared to the Elite
group, verifying the limited scope that exists for strength gain in more
experienced, elite resistance trainers. A similar trend occurred for changes in
BT Pmax. The changes in BT Pmax were highly correlated with changes in
1RM BP (r=0.75).
This long-term observation confirms that the rate of
progress in strength and power development diminishes with increased

strength levels and resistance training experience.
Furthermore, it also
indicates that strength and power can still be increased despite a high volume
of concurrent resistance and endurance training.
Key words: Bench press, bench throw, rugby league,
194
Introduction
It has been theorized that considerable gaps exist in our understanding
of the long-term adaptations to resistance training due to the short term nature
of most university based training studies (17, 39). Typically these training
studies last 6-12 weeks and consist mainly of college students or athletes with
limited resistance training experience serving as subjects (eg. 15).
It has
been demonstrated that the effectiveness of one program over another

program may take at least 8-weeks to manifest itself (17, 28), limiting the
extrapolative value of a number of studies. Furthermore, how the adaptations
stemming from these shorter training studies reflect the adaptations that
athletes training for many years may experience has been questioned by both
experienced strength coaches and researchers alike (37, 39).
In light of these limitations Finnish researchers have garnered
considerable data examining the adaptations resulting from participation in
resistance training for periods longer than typically occur in American collegebased studies.
These studies have detailed the effects of training and
detraining in periods of up to 6-months in athletes and various other

population groups (19-26).
However, knowledge of long-term resistance training adaptations in
elite athletes is scarce and tends to rely on cross-sectional data analysis (eg.
23). Very little longitudinal tracking data exists concerning the extent and
nature of muscular adaptations resulting form prolonged resistance training
over a multi-year period in elite athletes. To date only a few studies exist that
track changes in maximal strength, force, power or various other muscular
functioning tests across multi-year periods (16, 24, 25, 27). These studies
reported that changes in muscular functioning reflect the nature of training, but
also that the relative ease with which strength may be increased in novices
195
and those with a more limited training history is in stark contrast to the great
difficulty that exists in trying to increase strength in experienced, elite strength
athletes (17, 18).
Almost all of the multi-year data garnered from the above research has
concerned lower body strength and power adaptations and little data exists
concerning long-term upper body strength and power adaptations.
The
purpose of this study is to report upon the changes in upper body maximum
strength and power levels as well as shifts in the load-power curve for a group
of twelve highly resistance-trained professional rugby league players who
performed combined maximal strength and power training for a four year
period. Furthermore, the differential effects resulting from the initial resistance
training experience of the athletes will also be examined.
Methods
Three strength and power testing sessions conducted two years apart
over four years in highly trained strength-power athletes (1998, 2000 and
2002).
The subjects were professional athletes who performed combined
upper body strength and power training on a regular basis. This repeated
measures comparative analysis provide information pertinent to the long-term
changes in strength and power output as a result of intense resistance training
across a multi-year period. Differences in the extent of adaptations, based
upon initial playing status and resistance training experience, would also be
observed and compared.
Subjects
Twelve professional rugby league players who were experienced in
strength and power training served as subjects in this investigation.
All
subjects were members of the same World Champion club team and
underwent similar training (relevant to their playing position and individual
196
strength and power levels) during the four-year period. All subjects were
aware of the methods and nature of the testing and voluntarily participated in
the testing sessions, which were a regular part of their testing and
conditioning regime. Of the twelve subjects, two disparate groups of six
subjects each could be identified based upon resistance training experience
and playing status at the commencement of the study. Researchers have
been able to distinguish differences in the scope, magnitude or direction of
adaptations to the same resistance training stimuli experienced by athletes
with different starting levels of adaptation/strength (eg. 7, 8, 17, 38). These
two groups were identified as an Elite group who were currently participating
in the elite, first-division national league (NRL) in 1998 and had a resistance
training experience entailing combined maximal strength and power training
for a period of greater than three years and a Sub-elite group participating in
the second division competition. The Sub-elite group was also training to
become potential participants in the NRL. The Sub-elite group was younger
than the Elite group and possessed a combined resistance training
background of less than three years. Fortuitously, the disparate groups were
matched exactly for playing position with three hit-up forwards, two outside
backs and one hooker in each group. Descriptions of the group as a whole
and of the two sub-groups are contained in Table 1.
Procedures
Training
Throughout the four-year period, training for the upper body was
conducted on average, twice per week except in end of season periods
where no training occurred (usually 4-6 weeks per year).
The training
program was periodized throughout the year with general preparation (usually
4-8 weeks per year), specific preparation (usually 6-10 weeks per year) and
in-season competition (usually 24-32 weeks per year) periods.
The
197
preparation period usually consisted of two linear periodization phases

separated by a two-week transition period during the Christmas-New Year
period.
The general preparation phase contained only exercises that
developed hypertrophy, basic strength and agonist/antagonist muscle

balance.
The specific preparation phase contained explosive power
development exercises as well as strengthening exercises.
Table 1. Description of subjects as a whole Group (n=12) and as identified as

Elite (n=6) or Sub-elite (n=6), based upon initial resistance training and
playing experience in 1998. Mean (standard deviation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Body mass (kg)
Height (cm)
Age (years)
Group
97.8 (8.7)
186.7 (4.6)
20.2 (1.6)
Elite
95.5 (10.4)
186.3 (4.7)
21.3 (1.4)*
Sub-elite
100.7 (6.7)
187.2 (4.9)
19.0 (0.6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* denotes significantly different between groups
In-season resistance training followed a wave-like periodization

progression. The wave-like progression has been described previously (4),
but briefly it entails repeating two cycles of three weeks with an additional
introductory week emphasizing hypertrophy and a concluding week
emphasizing peak strength and power (eight weeks in total). The first fourweek block was geared slightly more towards developing basic strength and
hypertrophy with a concomitant decreased volume of power exercises while
the second four-week block was geared slightly more towards peaking
maximum strength and power with an increased number of power exercises,
increased training intensity and decreased training volume.
198
Within each training week, the first training day was oriented slightly
more towards the development of maximal strength and the factors that affect
strength (eg. hypertrophy, agonist/antagonist muscle balance) while the
second training day was oriented slightly more towards the development of
maximal power and other factors that affect power (eg. acceleration, rapid
force development, ballistic speed). This alternating of strength- and poweroriented training days also caused an undulatory pattern (a higher load and
lower load day) in the weekly periodization scheme throughout the year.
Typically upper body workouts lasted about 50 minutes in the
preparation period and 30 minutes in the in-season competition period.
Various other lower body (eg. full squats, jump squats, lunges, step-ups) and
whole body exercises (eg. power clean, push press, jerks, 1-arm dumbbell
snatches, Dominator whole body rotations) appropriate to rugby league (4)
were also performed throughout the year following the same periodization
scheme. Examples of how sets and repetitions were manipulated in different
periods and phases are contained in Table 2.
As rugby league players cover distances of up to 10 km in each 80minute game (30, 31), then endurance training is also of importance to the
total preparation of the player.
In the general preparation period, five
conditioning sessions are performed each week (3 running, 1 wrestling, 1

mixed ergometry) with differing volumes, intensities and methods (continuous,
fartlek, long interval, short interval).
This is reduced to 2-3 endurance
workouts in the specific preparation period with a concomitant increase in

speed and agility training. Team tactical training sessions also entail running
volumes of 2-5 km.
199
Table 2. Typical example of the sets and repetitions periodisation for upper
body exercises for the maximal strength bench press (BP) and various
assistant strength exercises (AS) and maximal power bench throw (BT) and
various assistant power exercises (AP).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------General preparation
Transition Specific preparation
Weeks
1-2
3-4
5-6
7-10
11-12
BP
4 x10
4x8
3 x 10-12
4x5
3 x2-3
AS
3 x 10
3x8
2 x 10-12
3 x 8-10
3 x 5-6
BT
N/A
N/A
N/A
4x5
4 x 2-4
AP
N/A
N/A
N/A
3 x 5-8
3 x 3-6
13
Test
Test
---------------------
In-season competition
1
BP
3 x 8 8-6-5 6-5-3 5-3-2 8-6-5 6-5-3 5-3-2 2-1-1 Test & repeat
AS
2x10
BT
3 x 5 3 x 5 5-4-3 4-3-2 3 x 5 5-4-3 4-3-2 3-2-2 Test & repeat
AP
3x6
2x8
3x6
2x6
3 x5
2x5
3 x4
2x8
3x6
2x6
3x5
2x5
3x4
2x5
3x4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testing
Testing consisted of maximum upper body strength as assessed by the
1 repetition maximum bench press (1RM BP) according to the methods
previously outlined (6, 7, 12). Testing of upper body maximum power (Pmax)
was assessed during bench press throws (BT) using the Plyometric Power
System (PPS, Plyopower Technologies, Lismore, Australia) and the methods
200
previously described (6-8, 13).
Bench press throws in a Smith machine
weight training device such as the PPS result in much higher power outputs
than traditionally performed bench presses making this exercise more suitable
for power testing (35, 36).
Briefly, the PPS is a device whereby the
displacement of the barbell is limited to the vertical plane, as in a Smith

weight training machine. The linear bearings that are attached to each end of
the barbell allow the barbell to slide up and down two hardened steel shafts
with a minimum of friction.
A rotary encoder attached to the machine
The number of
software calculated the average power output of the concentric phase of each
bench press throw based upon the displacement, time and mass data.
Specifically, each subject performed three repetitions during bench press
throws with 40, 50, 60, 70 and 80 kg (BT P40, BT P50, BT P60, BT P70 and
BT P80), with only the highest power output at each resistance recorded.
This battery of resistances allowed for generation of a load-power profile or
curve (6, 8, 13, 35), similar to what has been done before for the lower body
using jump squats with various resistances (19-21). The highest power output
for any individual, irrespective of the resistance, was deemed the BT Pmax.
Statistical procedures
At the initial testing occasion, two disparate groups of six subjects
could be identified based upon whether they were participating in the NRL
team or the second-division team. These Elite and Sub-elite groups were
compared using a factorial one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for
performance and anthropometric data to discern if any differences existed
between them (See Table 1).
The results for the whole Group 1RM BP, BT Pmax and BT P40-80
were compared using a repeated measures one-way analysis of variance
201
(ANOVA) to determine if any of the test scores in 2000 and 2002 differed from
the base-line scores of 1998. Also the test scores for the Elite versus Subelite group were compared for the same variables. If a significant effect of test
occasion was found, Fisher Least Squares Difference (PLSD) post hoc
comparisons were performed to determine which test occasions produced
significantly different results. Pearsons product moment correlations were
used to determine the strength of relationships between variables. Statistical
significance was accepted at an alpha level of p < 0.05.
Due to the low
subject numbers and difficulty of performing such research on elite

professional athletes no adjustment of the alpha level was made for
comparison of multiple variables.
Results
The results for changes in 1RM BP for the group as a whole and
according to sub-grouping are contained in Table 3. The results for changes
in BT Pmax for the group as a whole and according to sub-grouping are
contained in Table 4. The changes in power output with various resistances
ranging from 40 to 80 kg are displayed graphically in Figure 1 for the group as
a whole and Figure 2 when compared according to sub-grouping. There was
a significant increase in body mass up to 100.2 +/- 9.4 and 101.7 +/- 9.0 kg for
year 2000 and 2002 respectively for the group as a whole. The Elite group
increased body mass significantly by about 5% from 1998 to 2000 from where
it remained statistically unaltered. The Sub-elite groups increase of 3% in
body mass was only significant from 1998 to 2002. There was no significant
difference between the sub-groups in body mass at any period.
202
Table 3. Results for 1RM BP for the group as a whole and according to subgrouping as Elite or Sub-elite presented as mean (standard deviation).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1RM BP (kg)
Group
Elite
Sub-elite
1998
129.6 (15.3)*
139.2 (11.6)+
120.0 (12.7)
2000
141.0 (15.6)*
144.6 (12.7)
137.5 (18.6)
2002
148.1 (16.5)*
147.5 (13.0)
148.7 (20.1)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* denotes that Group 1RM BP were significantly different at each test
occasion,
+ denotes Elite group significantly different to Sub-elite in 1998 only.
Discussion
This study details the changes in strength and power across a 4-year
period by a number of athletes who were members of a World champion team
and who experienced in combined strength and power training.
Changes in subjects.
Over the four years all Sub-elite players
progressed to become "elite" players (by participating in the NRL competition),

with the team winning two Championships. Seven of the twelve also earned
selection into the national team, who were the World national team
champions. Essentially by 2000, there were no differences between the subgroups in performance data. These results merely reflect the high caliber of
athlete involved in this observation.
Initial strength and power levels. The initial data from 1998 detailing
the differences in strength and power between the Elite and Sub-elite group
are to be expected and have been reported previously not just for upper body
strength and power (6-9) but also lower body power (9) and abdominal
strength (5) when comparing participants in the elite professional NRL to
203
participants in second and third division leagues (SRL and CRL). However
the upper body strength levels of both groups appears to far exceed the
average that had been previously reported for large groups of professional
rugby league players (32), perhaps indicating the intensive resistance training
history of the twelve subjects compared to other professional rugby league
players. This is to be expected when it is considered that subjects in 1998
were World Champion club team members and could be expected to be
stronger than less successful counterparts.
Table 4. Results for BT Pmax for the group as a whole and according to subgrouping as Elite or Sub-elite. Mean (standard deviation).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BT Pmax (w)
Group
Elite
Sub-elite
1998
611 (80)*
666 (61)*+
555 (55)*
2000
715 (81)
727 (55)
703 (105)
2002
696 (86)
699 (82)
693 (97)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* denotes BT Pmax in 1998 significantly different to year 2000 and 2002,
+ denotes Elite significantly different to Sub-elite in 1998 only
Changes in maximal strength.
While the training group as a whole
exhibited a 14.3% increase in 1RM BP across four years, the Elite group only
exhibited a 6.0% increase compared to the 23.9% for the younger Sub-elite
group. The results of this long-term observation suggest that maximum upper
body strength can still be increased in experienced strength-power athletes,
however there appears to be a diminishing degree of positive adaptation with
increased training experience.
Training experience and existing strength
levels reduce the scope for strength improvement, even if both groups follow
the same program (17).
This becomes even more apparent by further
204
examining the progress over the last two years of the observation, from 2000
to 2002. During this two year period the Elite group exhibited only a 2.0%
increase in 1RM BP, similar to the amount reported by Hakkinen et al (25) for
the Finnish national Olympic weightlifting squad across a two-year period.
The Sub-elite group exhibited an 8.1% increase in 1RM BP during this time
period, further supporting the concept of diminishing progress with increasing
training experience. In reality, the Sub-elite group are two years behind the
Elite group in age and training experience in 1998 and hence the scope of
adaptations experienced by the Sub-elite group for the final two year period
from 2000 to 2002 are similar to the first two years of the Elite group. Thus it
could be posited that the progress that the Sub-elite group make in the next
two year period may also only quite small.
Changes in maximal power and the load-power curve. The results for
changes in maximal power (BT Pmax) largely reflected the changes in 1RM
BP, with diminished progress with increased training experience.
For
example, over the four year period the group as a whole significantly
increased BT Pmax by 14%, with the Elite group improving only 5% compared
to 25% for the Sub-elite group.
Power output with all investigated resistances (40 to 80 kg) also
increased significantly from 1998 to 2000 and then remained unchanged. The
emphasis on combined maximal strength and power training is reflected in
greater increases in the heavier portion of the load-power curve. From Figures
1 and 2 it can clearly be seen that power output with heavy resistances such
as 70 and 80 kg increases far more (13.7%) than power output with
resistances of 40 kg (8.7%). This was one of the objectives of the training
over the 4-year period as previous research has established that BT P70 and
BT P80 significantly and strongly discriminate between rugby league players
who participate in the NRL versus second and third division leagues (8).
205
Of interest is the fact that neither groups BT Pmax or load-power

curve improved over the last two years of the observation. It is not clear why
this occurred, but most simply it may again reflect the limited scope for
improvement in power output with experienced athletes (17, 24-26).
Relationship between changes in strength and power. It has been well

established that on a cross-sectional basis, maximum strength and maximum
power are highly related (6-14). The relationship may reduce slightly with
increased training experience or with the direction that training takes (eg.
endurance training, strength-, hypertrophy- or power-oriented training may
affect the relation, 7, 8). The results of this study tend to confirm this with a
slightly diminishing correlation between 1RM BP and BT Pmax ranging from r
= .85 to r = .81 to r = .78 at the three successive testing occasions for the
group as a whole.
It is interesting to note is that changes in 1RM BP significantly
correlated with changes in BT Pmax across the four-year period (r = .75, p =
.005), which is in almost complete agreeance with the relationship (r = .73)
that was reported across a 19-week in-season period in college-aged rugby
league players (7). This suggests that increasing maximum strength is of
extreme importance to athletes who need to increase maximum power.
However, given the diminishing scope for strength improvements with
increased training experience and the multi-faceted nature of power (34),
other avenues of increasing Pmax, such as improving movement speed, must
also be considered (8). When strength begins to plateau, such as for the Elite
group after year 2000, then increases in maximum strength do not necessarily
equate to increases in maximum power. Other methods of training may need
to be embraced to enhance power output (3, 34).
206
Figure 1. Shifts in bench throw load-power curve for the combined group
(n=12) of rugby league players across a four-year period. All changes were
significant. Because 2000 and 2002 were not different to each other, 2000
results have been omitted for clarity. SD bars omitted for clarity.
207
Figure 2. Shifts in bench throw load-power curve for the Elite and Sub-elite
groups (n = 6 each) of rugby league players across a four-year period. All
changes were significant. Because 2000 and 2002 were not different to each
other, 2000 results have been omitted for clarity. SD bars omitted for clarity.
208
Relationship between changes in body mass and changes in strength and

power. While it has been shown that changes in body mass or lean body
mass largely account for increases in maximal strength in males accustomed
to resistance training, especially in regards to upper body strength (12), that
finding was not confirmed in this research (ns). Clearly with the experienced
athletes in this study mechanisms such as neural, fiber or other morphological
adaptations must have largely accounted for the changes in 1RM BP and BT
Pmax rather than simple increases in body mass. The extent and nature of
these adaptations is beyond the scope of discussion for this paper (see ref.
17, 18).
Concurrent strength and endurance training. This current observation has

shown that the group as a whole increased strength and power by around
14% across four years, despite the large total concurrent resistance and
conditioning workloads. Despite some current beliefs that strength and power
cannot be improved or are severely limited when a large amount of
conditioning and heavy resistance training are performed concurrently (1, 54)
the results of this and other long-term observations (7, 29) emphatically
illustrate otherwise.
It has been suggested previously that better conditioned athletes and
more efficient periodization and sequencing of training may allow athletes to
perform concurrent strength and endurance training without significant
negative results (1, 7).
This long-term observation of changes in upper body strength and
power output in experienced resistance trainers has supported the earlier
findings concerning the limited scope for improvements in lower body strength
and power with increased training experience.
209
Maximum upper body strength and power can still be increased in

advanced strength-power athletes, however the degree of improvement
diminishes with increased strength/power levels and training experience. The
time frames over which increases in strength/power may be observed may
become quite lengthy in more advanced athletes.
For advanced strength/power athletes it would appear that when both
types of exercises are performed concurrently in the training regime, then
statistically at least, increases in maximum strength go hand-in-hand with
increases in maximum power. Based upon this result, it is recommended that
coaches prescribe both strength and power exercises in a periodized fashion
to maximise the muscular adaptations in multi-year resistance training.
210
References
1. Abernethy, P.J.
2.
Alen, M., Hakkinen, K. and P. V. Komi.
Changes in neuromuscular
performance and muscle fiber characteristics of elite power athletes selfadministering androgenic and anabolic steroids. Acta Physiol. Scand. 122:
535-544. 1984.

4. Baker, D.
Applying the in-season periodisation of strength and power
training to football. NSCA Journal. 20(2):18-24. 1998.
5. Baker, D. A comparison of lower abdominal strength and lumbo-pelvic

stabilisation capabilities between rugby league players participating in the
national versus state and city based leagues.
Strength & Conditioning
Coach. 7(6):2-7. 1999.
6.
Baker, D.
J.
7.
Baker, D.
The effects of an in-season of concurrent training on the
maintenance of maximal strength and power in professional and college-aged

rugby league players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 15(2): 172-177. 2001
211

2001.
9. Baker, D. Differences in strength and power between junior-high, seniorhigh, college-aged and elite professional rugby league players. J. Strength
Cond. Res. 16(4):581-585. 2002.
1999.
12.
Baker, D., Wilson, G & Carlyon, R.
Periodization:
The effect of
manipulating volume and intensity upon strength. J. Strength Cond. Res.

8(4): 235-242. 1994.
212
15. Berger, R. Effect of Varied Weight Training Programs on Strength. Res.

Q. 33:168-181. 1962.
16. French, D. N., A.L. Gomez, J.S. Volek, M.R. Rubin, N.A. Ratamess, M.J.
Sharman, L.A. Gotshalk, W.J. Sebastianelli, m. Putukian, R.U. Newton, K.
Hakkinen, J.S. Fleck and W.J. Kraemer. Longitudinal tracking of muscular
power changes in NCAA Division 1 collegiate women gymnasts. J. Strength
Cond. Res. 18(1):101-107. 2004.
17. Hakkinen, K. Factors influencing trainability of muscular strength during

short term and prolonged training. NSCA Journal. 2: 32-37. 1985.
18. Hakkinen, K. Neuromuscular and hormonal adaptations during strength

and power training. A review. J. Sports Med. 29: 9-26. 1989.
19.
Hakkinen, K. & Komi, P.V. Changes in electrical and mechanical
behaviour of leg extensor muscles during heavy resistance strength training.

Scand. J. Sports Sci. 7(2):55-64. 1985
20.
Hakkinen, K. & Komi, P.V.
Effect of explosive strength training on
electromyographic and force production characteristics of leg extensor

muscles during concentric and various stretch-shortening cycle exercises.
Scand. J. Sports Sci. 7(2): 65-76. 1985.
21. Hakkinen, K., Alen, M. and Komi, P. Neuromuscular, anaerobic and

aerobic performance characteristics of elite power athletes. Eur. J. Appl.
Physiol. 53: 97-105. 1984.
213
22. Hakkinen, K., Alen, M., & Komi, P.V. Changes in isometric force- and
relaxation-time, electromyographic and muscle fiber characteristics of human
skeletal muscle during strength training and detraining. Acta Physiol. Scand.
125: 573-583. 1985.
23. Hakkinen, K. Alen, M., Kauhanen, H. and P.V. Komi. Comparison of

neuromuscular performance capacities between weightlifters, powerlifters and
bodybuilders. Intern. Olympic Lifter. 5: 24-26. 1986.
24. Hakkinen, K., Komi, P.V., Alen, M. and Kauhanen, H. EMG, muscle fiber
and force production characteristics during a one year training period in elite
weightlifters. Eur. Jour. Appl. Physiol. 56:419-427. 1987
25.
Hakkinen, K., Pakarinen, A., Alen, M., Kauhanen, H. and Komi, P.
Neuromuscular and hormonal adaptations in athletes to strength training in

two years. J. Appl. Physiol. 65(6):2406-2412. 1988.
26.
Relationships between training volume, physical performance capacity and

serum hormone concentrations during prolonged training in elite weight lifters.
Int. J. Sports Med. . supp, 61-65. 1987.
27. Hunter, G.R., J. Hilyer, and M.A. Forster. Changes in fitness during 4years of intercollegiate basketball.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 7(1):26-29.
1993.
28. Kraemer, W.J. A series of studies: The physiological basis for strength
training in American football: Fact over philosophy. J. Strength Cond. Res.
11(3):131-142. 1997
214
29.
Kraemer, W.J., J. F. Patton, S. E. Gordon, E. A. Harman, M. R.
Deschenes, K. Reynolds, R. U. Newton, N. T. Triplett and J. E. Dziados.

Compatibility of high-intensity strength and endurance training on hormonal
and skeletal muscle adaptations. J. Appl Physiol. 78: 976-989. 1995.
30.
Meir, R., D. Arthur and M. Forrest.
professional rugby league:
A case study.
Time and motion analysis of

Strength and Conditioning
Coach 1(3):24-29. 1993.
31. Meir, R., Colla, P and C. Milligan. Impact of the 10-meter rule change on
Implications for training.
Strength Condit. J.
23(6):42-46. 2001.
32.
Meir, R., Newton, R., Curtis, E., Fardell, M. and B. Butler.
Physical
fitness qualities of professional rugby league football players: Determination

of positional differences. J. Strength Cond. Res. 15(4):450-458. 2001.
33.
Nelson, A.G., D.A. Arnall, S.F. Loy, L.J. Silvester and R.K. Conlee.
Consequences of combining strength and endurance training regimens.

Phys. Ther. 70:287-294. 1990.
34. Newton, R., and Kraemer, W. Developing explosive muscular power:

Implications for a mixed methods training strategy.
Strength Condit. J.
October:20-31. 1994.

215
36.

37.
Stone, M. H, Sands, W.A, and M. E. Stone.
The downfall of sports
science in the United States. SCJ. 26(2):72-75. 2004
38.
Effects on eccentric and concentric force production. Can.J.Appl.Physiol.

21(4):301-315. 1996.
39.
Wilks, R.
Limitations in applied strength training research: Current
dilemmas and recommendations for future studies. Strength & Conditioning

Coach. 3(2):17-21. 1995.
216
Paper 8
The effects of systematic strength and power training during
the formative training years: A comparison between younger
and older professional rugby league players.
by
Daniel Baker
published in
Strength and Conditioning Coach.
Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.911. 2005.
217
Introduction
Maximum levels of strength and power distinguish between rugby
league players of different levels (1, 2). Professional players competing in the
national rugby league competition (NRL) are stronger and more powerful than
those in the State leagues (SRL), who in turn are stronger and more powerful
than players in city based leagues (CRL) (1, 2). This can be predominantly
attributed to greater strength and power training experiences and probably
some degree of natural selection.
However, of interest is a comparison between younger and older
players at the NRL level. Systematic strength and power training did not gain
much popularity in some NRL clubs until the early till mid-1990s. This meant
that some of the current older (>28 years) NRL players may not have
performed much, if any, systematic strength and power training in their
formative training years (circa 16-17 up to 21-22 years).
In comparison,
younger NRL players (<24 years) have generally been performing such
training during their formative training years.
Therefore while both older and younger groups of NRL players may
possess a strength training age of greater than five years, a difference
between them could be described as when this training was undertaken (eg.
17-23 years v 23-29 years of age). Thus it would be of interest to compare
the strength and power results for players, matched for playing position, who
could be described as having undertaken systematic strength training at a
younger or older age.
Methods.
A total squad of 20 NRL players was investigated. Twelve subjects
could be identified and matched into a Younger (N=6) or Older (n=6) group.
These groups each consisted of three forwards and three halves/hookers
players. No difference existed in body mass or height between the groups,
218
however the Older group were significantly older (29.5 + 2.4 v 23.2 + .8 yrs)
and had played more NRL games (199.3 + 42.4 v 59.8 + 27.4).
Testing of maximum strength consisted of a 1RM bench press (1RM
BP) and 1RM full squat (1RM SQ) using the methods previously described (1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Testing of upper body maximum power (Pmax) included a
bench press throw test (BT Pmax) with various barbell loads using the
methods previously described (1, 2, 6). Testing of lower body power output
consisted of a jump squat (JS Pmax) test with various barbell loads using the
methods previously described (3, 4,7).
The results for each group were compared using a one-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) to determine if differences existed between the groups in
1RM BP, 1RM SQ, BT Pmax or JS Pmax. In the event of a significant F-ratio,
Fisher PLSD post hoc comparisons were used to determine where these
differences existed. Significance was accepted at an alpha level of p < 0.05.
Results
The results for all tests are contained in Table 1. The Younger group
was significantly stronger and more powerful than the Older group in all of the
four tests. For lower body tests the magnitude of the difference was 19% for
both tests, while for the upper body the percentage differences were 13%
(1RM BP) and 28% (BT Pmax).
Discussion
This study compared two groups of players who were matched for
playing position and had basically performed the same training for four to five
years previously, but were differentiated by only two factors (apart from age).
These factors were (1) total NRL games and (2) the age that they had
commenced and/or consistently performed systematic strength and power
training. The basic finding was that the group that commenced systematic
219
strength training during their formative training years (circa 17-23 yrs) were
significantly stronger and more powerful in both the upper and lower body,
despite no significant difference in body mass or height, than the group who
had commenced such training at a later age (>23 yrs).
Why these large
difference existed in strength or power must then be ascribed as due to some

aspects related to either of these two factors listed above.
Table 1. Strength and power testing results for the Older and Younger NRL
players. Mean + standard deviation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1RM BP
1RM SQ
BT Pmax
JS Pmax
Younger
143.3 + 15.4 182.5 + 23.6
670 + 78
1881 + 254
Older
126.7 + 7.5* 153.3 + 12.1*
548 + 48*
1579 + 197*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* denotes statistically difference between groups.
Whilst the total number of professional NRL games would be expected

to impact upon the integrity of the neuromuscular system (through the
accumulation of playing and training injuries etc), which in turn may negatively
affect strength and power, it is arguable that this alone could not explain the
magnitude of the differences between the groups.
What effect (either
negative or positive) an extra 130 games (5-6 seasons) would have upon
strength and power is impossible to determine.
Furthermore, recovery
methods used after games and during the training week are now far more
professional than six or more years ago. Therefore this discussion will focus
more upon the impact that commencing strength and power training at an
earlier age may have had upon the results.
This analyses is unique in that a situation may not exist again whereby
players from the same football club can be compared based upon what age
220
they commenced systematic strength and power training. It is inconceivable

that a situation will ever exist again whereby players may play a number of
seasons of NRL level without performing systematic strength and power
training, as was the case in the early 1990s, making a another comparison
like this unlikely. This is due to increased player professionalism and the
greater role played by strength and conditioning coaches in the physical
preparation of players.
Basically both groups had performed the same training for four to five
years prior to this analyses, but were differentiated by at what age this training
commenced. With the advent of the super professionalism (i.e. the Super
League wars and the ensuing explosion in player payments in the mid1990s), coaches demanded greater training commitments from players.
Previously players generally trained 2-3 times per week with strength training
not being compulsory and rarely performed in-season. Thus the Older group
of players in this study participated in this type of regime during their formative
training years prior to the mid 1990s.
In opposition to this, the Younger group of players in this study was in
their formative training years (17-23 yrs) from the mid-1990s till now. This
period has entailed four strength and power sessions per week during the preseason and two per week during the in-season for all players in this study. So
despite similar recent training dosages since late 1995, the Younger group
displayed greater strength and power.
From international powerlifting records (IPF, 2000), it can be shown
that the world records for athletes older than 23 yrs are greater than those for
athletes younger than 23 yrs. Generally strength levels do not peak or at least
begin to decrease till about 30-35 years of age (10). Therefore the gross
affect of simply being older by about five years could not explain the
differences reported in this study.
221
Thus it appears that performing systematic strength and power training

from about ages 17-18 onwards will be of greater benefit than commencing
this training at a later training age. This may be due to the effect that such
training has upon the still maturing neuromuscular system of athletes of this
age. Performing strength and power training at such an age may lead to more
lasting positive adaptations within the neuromuscular system.
This value
adding effect of training at age 17-18 onwards may gradually dissipate as the
athlete ages (into their early to mid-20s). It is not known exactly what this
value adding of the neuromuscular system may be, but it is worthy of future
longitudinal study.
Conclusions and practical applications

Commencing systematic strength and power training during the
formative training years appears to be advantageous as compared to
commencing training at a later stage. This may be due to a value added
effect that such training may have upon the still maturing neuromuscular
system. It is recommended that rugby league players commence strength
and power training whilst still in their teenage years, although at this stage it is
not known if starting at an even earlier age (circa 14-15 years) would be even
more advantageous than commencing this type of training at 17-19 years of
age.
Balyi (8) has outlined different stages of the long-term development of
the athlete and has commented upon the importance of physical preparation
in the training to train or formative training age.
support that view.
This analyses tends to
222
References
1.
Baker, D.
J.

2001.
3. Baker, D and Nance, S. The relationship between strength and power in

1999.
4. Baker, D and Nance, S. The relationship between running speed and

5.
Baker, D., Wilson, G & Carolyn, R.
Generality versus specificity: A
comparison of dynamic and isometric measures of strength and speedstrength. Eur. J. Appl Physiol. 68:350-355. 1994.
trained athletes J. Strength Cond. Res. 15(1):20-24. 2001.
mechanical power output during jump squats in power-trained athletes. J.
223
8. Balyi, I. Long-term planning of athlete development: The training to train

phase. Strength & Conditioning Coach. 3(4): 4-12. 1995.
9.
International
Powerlifting
Federation
World
Records
HTTP/-
www.ipf.com Published by the International Powerlifting Federation, 2000.
10. Wilson, G. The effect of age and gender on the development of muscular
function. Strength & Conditioning Coach. 3(1): 1-6. 1995.
224
Paper 9.
Methods to increase the effectiveness of maximal power
training for the upper body
by
published in the
Strength and Conditioning Journal
27(6):24-32. 2005.
225
Introduction
A
cursory
glance
at
many
resistance
training
programs
or
recommendations aimed at increasing muscular power would typically reveal

a high proportion of Olympic weightlifting (eg. power cleans, pulls) or
plyometric exercises (eg. jumping, bounding) (3,
19, 21).
While these

methods for developing upper body power appear less explored. Maximal
upper body pressing/pushing power is of importance to both American and
rugby football players and as well as boxers and martial artists to enhance the
ability to push away/strike opponents. The purpose of this article is to outline
some practical methods that have been implemented in our program to
develop maximal upper body pressing power in rugby league players. Astute
coaches will be able to determine the relevance and application of these
concepts and methods to the broader area of athlete preparation for other
sports.
Maximal power (Pmax) for the purpose of this paper is defined as the
maximal power output for the entire concentric range of movement/contraction
(peak power refers to the highest instantaneous power output for a 1-msec
period within a movement) (5-10).
Upper body pressing Pmax is usually
determined by measuring power output during lifting of a number of different

barbell resistances in a designated exercise (eg. bench press, BP or bench
throws, BT, in a Smith machine) using the Plyometric Power System software
(PPS, see 5-10, 25, 26) or other software or testing modalities. The loadpower curve or profile (see Figures 1 and 2) that is generated for each
individual from this testing can aid in prescribing training (5-10). For example,
an individual whose load-power curve was characterized by high power
outputs with light resistances but also exhibited pronounced reductions in
power output with heavier resistances would be prescribed more maximal
power-oriented and heavy resistance strength training. Maximal strength has
226
been shown to be highly correlated to Pmax in both the upper- (5-10) and
lower-body (11) for both elite and less experienced athletes.
As the
relationship between an individuals change in Pmax and change in maximal

strength as a result of training is much higher in less experienced athletes
than it is in elite athletes (6).
Figure 1. Load-power curves (average concentric power) for rugby league

players participating in the professional National Rugby League (NL), or
college-aged state leagues (SL) or city based leagues (CL). From reference
7.
227
However, as maximum strength is the physical quality that most

appears to underpin Pmax, it is advisable that athletes who wish to attain high
Pmax levels develop and/or maintain very high levels of strength in muscle
groups important in the sport in both agonist and antagonist muscle groups.
The strength of the antagonists should not be neglected for athletes who
require rapid limb movements as research has shown that strengthening of
agonists increases both limb speed and accuracy of movement due to
favourable alterations in the neural firing pattern (22). It has been shown that
some power training practices described below are only effective for stronger,
more experienced athletes (14, 28).
Once a good strength and muscle
conditioning base has been established the following practices will be most
useful.
1. Include full acceleration exercises as power exercises

It is important to differentiate exercises as being used primarily for the
development of strength (or hypertrophy, depending on sets, reps, rest
periods etc) or power. What differentiates between these two classifications
of strength or power exercises is whether the performance of the exercise
entails acceleration throughout the range of movement, resulting in faster
movement speeds and hence higher power outputs (23, 25-27).
Power
exercises are those exercises that entail acceleration for the full range of
movement with resultant high lifting velocities and power outputs. Strength
exercises are those exercises that entail heavy resistances and high force
outputs but also pronounced periods of deceleration resulting in lower lifting
velocities and reduced power outputs (26). Performing an exercise where
acceleration can occur throughout the entire range of movement (such as a
bench throw in a Smith machine, see Figure 3, medicine ball throws, power
pushups etc) allows for higher lifting speeds and power outputs (23, 25, 26).
If athletes attempt to lift light resistances explosively in traditional exercises
228
such as bench press and squats, large deceleration phases occur in the
second half of the movement, resulting in lower power outputs as compared to
power versions of bench throw and jump squats (26, 27).
Thus a heavy
resistance bench press is considered a strength exercise whereas the bench

throw is considered a power exercise.
Training to maximise upper body pressing/pushing power should entail
both heavy resistance, slower speed exercises for strength development and
exercises that entail higher velocities and acceleration for the entire range of
movement for power development (eg. bench throws, medicine ball chest
passes,
plyometric
pushups
and
pressing/pushing exercises) (3, 7).
other
throwing
exercises,
ballistic
This approach should result in the
musculature being to contract both forcefully and rapidly.
2. Alter the kinetics of some strength exercises to more favorably affect

rapid-force or power output
Because heavy resistance strength exercises such as bench press
typically entail slow movement speeds and low power outputs (23, 26), they
alone are not specifically suited to developing Pmax (23). This phenomenon
has been the subject of considerable research attention. There are power
specific adaptations in terms of the neural activation, muscle fiber/contractile
protein characteristics and muscle architecture (12) that must be considered.
As discussed above, attempting to lift light resistance bench presses
explosively also results in large deceleration periods (26). However, there are
a number of strategies that the strength coach can implement to alter the
force profile or lifting speeds of strength exercises to make them more suitable
to rapid-force development.
For example, the performance of the bench press can be modified by
adding chains to the end of the barbell to alter the kinetics of the exercise so
that the acceleration phase can be extended further into the range of
229
movement. When the barbell is lowered to the chest, the chains are furled on
the floor and only provide minimal resistance (see Figure 4). As the barbell is
lifted, the chains unfurl and steadily increase resistance throughout the range
of motion (see Figure 5). This method means that a lighter resistance (eg. 5075% 1RM) can be lifted explosively off the chest but as the additional
resistance (+10-15% 1RM in chains) is added by the constant unfurling of the
chain links off the floor, the athlete can continue attempting to accelerate the
bar but it will slow due to the increasing mass, rather than the athlete
consciously reducing the push against the barbell.
This alters the kinetic
profile of the strength exercise to become more like a power exercise

(acceleration lasts longer into the range of motion). A similar strategy is to
use rubber tubing resistance (power bands) on the ends of the barbell to
increase resistance throughout the range of motion. In this case the athlete
pushes upward in the bench press and stretches the large rubber bands
attached to each end of the barbell. The higher into the range, the more
stretch and so the greater the elastic resistance.
Similar to the chains
example, this allows the athlete to explode upwards and continue to apply
high force much later into the movement.
Another strategy is the use of Functional Isometric (FI) training (23). A
FI exercise can be performed for the top half of a movement in a power rack
or Smith machine, altering the force characteristics considerably (23). Other
methods of altering the kinetic profile include partial repetitions in the top half
or maximal force zone of the lift (24). Weighted adjustable hooks (periscope
type design) that are constructed to fall off the barbell when the base of the
apparatus contacts the floor during the lowest portion of the bench press can
also alter barbell kinetics within a repetition.
Their use allows for heavier
eccentric and lighter concentric phases, conceivably resulting in enhanced

concentric lifting velocities. The use of chains, power bands, FI, partials,
hooks and other devices to alter the resistance/force production (and
230
acceleration) throughout the barbell trajectory and particularly the end of the
range of movement (so that it more closely mimics power exercises) can be
basically applied to any free weight barbell exercise used in upper body
training.
3. Use complexes of contrasting resistances or exercises

A method of training where sets of a heavy resistance strength
exercise are alternated with sets of lighter resistance power exercises is
known as a complex (14-18, 28) or contrast training (1, 7, 14). This type of
training has been shown to acutely increase explosive force production or
jumping ability when implemented for lower body power training (4, 14, 18,
28), presumably through stimulating the neuro- or musculo-mechanical
system(s) (14, 18, 28).
Recent research also illustrates it is effective for
acutely increasing upper body power output (1). This research found that
bench presses with 65% 1RM alternated with bench throws (30-45% 1RM)
resulted in an acute increase in power output (1).
An agonist-antagonist
complex may also warrant consideration from the coach as speed of agonist
movement may be improved in these situations (13, 22). Thus a strength
coach has a choice of implementing agonist strength and power exercises or
antagonist and agonist strength and power exercises in a complex to increase
power output.
It is recommended that if upper body resistance training is performed
twice per week, then one day of the training week could emphasize strength
development with heavy resistance training and another training day
emphasize power development with training complexes alternating contrasting
sets of light resistances (30-45% 1RM) and medium-heavy resistances (6075% 1RM) (1, 7).
4. Periodize the presentation of power exercises and resistances
231
Many authors have suggested the periodization of resistance training

exercises to enhance power output (7, 19). While prescribing resistances in a
periodized manner is not a novel idea in relation to training for power as has
traditionally been used with Olympic weightlifting style exercises, it has not
been fully utilized for simpler, upper body power exercises such as the bench
throw. Baker has previously suggested that the resistances used for the upper
body (or lower body jumping) power exercises be periodized (7) to effectively
stress the multi-faceted nature of muscle power (19). Four power training
zones and their analogous strength training zones are outlined in Table 1.
Across a training cycle the power training resistances can progress from
lighter resistances where technique and ballistic speed are emphasized to the
heavier resistances that maximize power output (about 50% 1RM = 100%
Pmax). Table 2 details the last four weeks of an elite athletes bench press
and bench throw training cycle aimed at simultaneously maximizing strength
and power output. The progression in power training resistances (from 40 to
80 kg in bench throws) and concomitant increase in power output from 573 to
755 W can be seen.
If coaches dont have access to technologies that can measure the
actual Pmax and the resistance at which it occurred, it is recommended
assuming 50-55% 1RM BP for most athletes, 45%1RM BP for very strong
athletes (eg. 1RM BP = >150 kg) and greater than 55 % 1RM BP for less
experienced or strong athletes (7). This means that a resistance of 50% 1RM
BP equals 100% Pmax (and hence this resistance is the Pmax resistance).
It is important to note that, for example, training with a 50% Pmax
resistance does not mean the athlete will attain only 50% of their maximal
power output. For example, from Table 2 it can be seen that the athletes
Pmax resistance is 80 kg for bench throws, but that 40 kg, representing 50%
Pmax resistance, actually allows for the athlete to attain a power output of 7678% of the maximum. During week 2, training with a resistance of 50 kg
232
(representing 63% of his Pmax resistance of 80 kg) allowed the athlete to

attain power outputs of around 600 w or 80% of maximum. Therefore an
athlete can attain very high power outputs at lower percentages of the Pmax
resistance. Because of the plateauing of power output around the Pmax (see
Figure 1), it can be seen that the use of resistances of around 85% or more of
the resistance used to attain Pmax will usually result in the athlete training at
or very close to Pmax (eg. 70 kg in Table 2 = 84 % Pmax resistance but
results in power outputs of up to 96% Pmax).
Table 1. Zones of intensity for strength and power training, modified from
reference 7.
______________________________________________________________
Type and / or goal of training of each intensity zone
Strength
Zone 1: < 50% * General muscle & technical
Power
General neural & technical
(< 25 % 1RM)
Zone 2: 50-75% Hypertrophy training
Ballistic speed training

(25 - 37.5 % 1RM)
Zone 3: 75-90% Basic strength training
Basic power training

(37.5 - 45 % 1RM)
Zone 4: 90-100% Maximal strength training
Maximal power training

(45 - 55 % 1RM)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* For strength, percentage of maximum refers to 1RM (100%). For power,
100% = Pmax resistance (circa 45-55% 1RM if exact Pmax resistance not
known). Equivalent percentage ranges based upon 1RM are included in
brackets for cases where exact Pmax resistance is not known.
5. Use low repetitions when maximizing power output

Low repetitions are necessary to maximise power output.
High
repetition, high workload, hypertrophy-oriented training acutely decreases

power output (2) and should not precede or be combined with maximal power
233
training.
It would appear important to avoid fatigue when attempting to
maximise power output and a simple method for achieving this is by using low
repetitions for power exercises (and obviously ensuring the appropriate rest
period is utilized).
Anecdotal evidence from training hundreds of athletes with the PPS
shows that power output markedly decreases after three repetitions when
using resistances that maximize power output (around 45-50% 1RM BP)
during the BT exercise. Based on this evidence, for power exercises it is
usually recommended that only 2-3 repetitions be performed when training in
the maximal power zone, 3-5 in the general power and ballistic power zone
and higher repetitions (eg. 8-10) are only performed when using lighter
resistances in the technical/neural zone (learning technique or warming up).
6. Use clusters, rest-pause or breakdown techniques for some

strength or power exercises
To increase force output, velocity and reduce fatigue within a set, some
specific methods have evolved over the years (23).
Recent research
indicates that, compared to the traditional manner of performing repetitions,

force or velocity can be increased when repetitions are presented in clusters
(20) or by using the rest-pause or breakdown methods (23). Clusters are
a method whereby a set of higher repetitions is broken down into smaller
clusters of repetitions that allow a brief pause between performances of
these clusters.
For example, eight repetitions can be performed as four
clusters of two repetitions with a 10-second rest between clusters. The restpause system is essentially similar but typically entails the breakdown of a
lower repetition set (for example, 5RM) into single repetitions with a short
pause (for example, 2-15 secs) between repetitions.
A breakdown (aka
stripping) set consists of small amounts of resistance being taken from the
barbell during short pauses between repetitions. This reduction in resistance
234
to accommodate the cumulative effects of fatigue results in a decreased

degree of deterioration in power output across the set as well as increased
force in the initial repetitions as compared to the traditional manner of lifting a
heavy resistance (23).
7.
Use an ascending order of resistances when maximizing power
output
Whether the resistances are presented in an ascending (working up in
resistance) or descending (working down in resistance) order during power
training has been cause of some debate (7). A recent study examining the
effects of ascending or descending order on power output during bench
throws reported that an ascending order resulted in the highest power output
during BT (7).
It was also recommended that an ascending order of
resistances with the inclusion of a lighter down set may be an effective

method of presenting power training resistances.
Rest periods
The rest period between sets or even repetitions will depend upon the
objective of that set, the number of repetitions being performed, the intensity
of the resistance, the type of exercise, the training state of the athlete and the
periodization phase. When the objective of the set is maximise the power
output that can be generated with the selected resistance, the rest period
between sets of a power exercise should be one to two-minutes or as is long
enough to ensure that the objective is met. When performing a complex of a
strength and power exercise, anecdotal evidence suggests a four-minute turnaround period (eg. set of bench press then 90 s rest, set of bench throw then
120 s rest before repeating complex) has been shown to be adequate as
evidenced by the power outputs measured by the PPS. Shorter rest periods
(eg. < 1-minute between sets of a power exercise or < 3-minutes for a
235
complex) result in reduced power outputs, diminishing the effectiveness of the

entire power-training process.
Long term progress

Maximal upper body pressing power can still be quite readily increased
over the long term even in advanced trainers. Changes in the load-power
curve for a group of twelve elite rugby league players as well as the individual
progression of one young rugby league player (player X) across a four year
period is depicted in Figure 2 (9). It is clear that even for advanced trainers
such as this group that progression can still be quite pronounced, especially in
power output against heavier resistances. The load-power curve for the group
as a whole as well as for player X has shifted upwards and slightly towards
the left. From the graph it is visible that while power output generated while
lifting a resistance of 40 kg (BT P40) changes only slightly, power outputs with
heavier resistances of 60-80 kg increased markedly, a favourable situation
considering the strong relation between high power outputs generated while
lifting 70 and 80 kg in the bench throw exercise and progress into the elite
professional rugby league ranks (7). As power output with lighter resistances
improved relatively less than power output with heavier resistances, it is
obvious that increases in strength rather than speed accounted for the
majority of change. Statistically Pmax is more related to maximal strength
rather than speed in these athletes (7).
During this time player X progressed from playing in the city-based
leagues into the ranks of the full-time professional national rugby league. His
BT Pmax increased 39%, from 603 w to 836 w while his 1RM BP increased
from 135 to 180 kg (33%) at a relatively constant body mass of 110 kg.
For
the group of twelve subjects as a whole, the BT Pmax increased from 611 w
to 696 w. This 14% increase appears to be underpinned by a similar change
of 14.3 % in 1RM BP (from 129.6 to 148.1 kg) (9). From this evidence it would
236
appear that the concept of combining maximum strength and power training,
using the methods outlined above, can result in enhanced upper body power
output over long-term training periods.
Figure 2. Change in the upper body bench throw load-power curve (average
concentric power) across a four-year period in a group of twelve professional
rugby league players as well as for one individual who made considerable
progress (player X). The change in 1RM BP appears to underpin the change
in BT Pmax during this time. From reference 9.
237
A number of practical methods used for increasing the effectiveness of

upper body power training have been presented. It is not necessary to use all
of these methods at one time to effectively develop maximal upper body
pressing power.
However, it is not difficult to implement a number of these
methods simultaneously either. For example, a bench press and bench throw
workout to maximize pressing power that entails six methods: full acceleration
exercise; kinetically altered strength exercise; contrasting resistance complex;
low repetitions; ascending order of resistances for the power exercise; and
clustered repetitions is detailed in Table 3. Variation and periodization should
influence if, when and how, any of these strategies are implemented.
This paper has addressed mainly the training for maximal power
production and especially may be of value for athletes who must overcome
large external resistances such as the body mass of opponents (eg. football,
rugby league and union, wrestling, judo, mixed martial arts). Athletes who
require a greater speed contribution rather than pure strength contribution in
their power production (eg. boxing and related martial arts, tennis, javelin)
may need to modify their training accordingly and their load-power curves
would reflect this by perhaps showing increased power output with lighter
resistances of 10-40 kg. However, many of the methods described above
would be applicable to many sporting situations and it is the job of the astute
coach to modify and implement them accordingly.
238
Table 2. Actual sample training content for bench press and bench throws
across the last 4-weeks of a pre-season strength-power training cycle for an
elite professional rugby league player. Testing occurred in week 5.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Weeks
1
Test
Pmax
Bench throws
D1
Power
573 w
599 w
696 w
683 w
Wt
@ 40 kg
@ 50 kg
@ 70 kg
@ 70 kg @ 80k
%BT Pmax
76
79
92
91
D2
Power
588 w
605 w
722 w
746 w
Wt
@ 40 kg
@ 50 kg
@ 70 kg
@ 80 kg
78
80
96
99
%BT Pmax
Bench press
D1
100 %
1RM BP
Wt
130 kg
135 kg
140 kg
150 kg
SxR
3x5
3x5
3x5
3x3
% 1RM
76.5
79.4
82.4
88.2
D2
Wt
105 kg
110 kg
125 kg*
125 kg*
SxR
3x5
3x5
5x3
5x3
61.8
64.7
73.5
73.5
% 1RM
755 w
=170
100%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------W = power output in watts, Wt = resistance in kilograms, SxR = Sets x

Repetitions, D1 = Heavier, strength-oriented training day with BP performed
before BT. D2 = Medium-heavy, power-oriented training day consisting of
contrasting resistance complexes (alternating sets of BP & BT, same sets and
repetitions). Denotes 110 kg barbell load plus 15 kg in chains attached to the sleeves of
barbell. See text for a description of this bench press + chains exercise. Grip width was
altered to a narrower grip for all D2 BP workouts.
239
Table 3. Sample workout for combined bench press and bench throws on a
power-oriented training day during the peaking maximum strength/power
phase for an athlete possessing a 1RM BP of 130 kg.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sets
Wt (kg)
40
50
60
70
60
100* 100* 100*
1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1
1a. Bench throws (Smith machine) Reps
Wt (kg)
1b. Bench press + chains* Reps
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1a, 1b. = Alternate exercises as a contrast resistance complex.

* = 85 kg barbell resistance + 15 kg in chains attached = 100 kg resistance at
lockout.
1, 1, 1= 3-rep cluster sets, rest 15 secs between each clustered repetition.
83
Paper 1.
Analyses of tests of upper body strength, power, speed and
strength-endurance to describe and compare playing rank in
professional rugby league players.
by
was published in the
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
1(4):347-360, December 2006
84
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the upper body strength,
speed, power and strength-endurance capabilities of rugby league players of
different playing rank. This data would provide information pertinent to the
importance of upper body strength, power, speed and strength-endurance for
different grades of rugby league and for positional groups within those
different grades in professional rugby league players.
Methods: Sixty rugby league players, comprised of 20 participants each in
the elite, national first-division league (NRL), state-based second division
league (SRL) and intra-city third division league (CRL), served as subjects in
this investigation. Maximal upper body strength, power, speed and muscle
endurance were assessed using the bench press exercise.
Results: The NRL players were significantly stronger (141.415.4 kg) than
SRL (126.613.1, ES=1.033) and CRL players (108.111.6, ES=2.458) and
more powerful (NRL=68099 W, SRL=59172, CRL=52171, ES=1.037 and
1.867, respectively) than other players. The differences in speed
(NRL=34531 W, SRL=31929 and CRL=303 29 (ES=0.884 and 1.409
respectively) and strength-endurance (NRL=367 reps, SRL=32 7 and
CRL=245, ES=0.521, ns 1.984, respectively) were generally not as
pronounced.
Conclusions: The results of this investigation illustrate that of the tests
undertaken, maximal strength best describes those players who attain NRL
ranking. Maximum power and strength-endurance were also strong
descriptors of attainment of NRL level. Upper body speed appears less likely
to strongly discriminate between those players who attain NRL and those who
85
do not. These results tended to hold true across the different positional
groupings within the team.
Key Words: speed, power, strength, endurance, football
86
Introduction
Rugby league is a collision-sport played world-wide and in particular is
popular in Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain. A rugby league team
each consists of 13 players participating on the field (six forward-line and
seven back-line) as well as up to four interchange players (of mixed positional
groupings). At the professional level, the game is typically played over two 40minute halves separated by a 10-minute rest interval.
Success in rugby
league football appears heavily reliant upon the players possessing an

adequate degree of various physical fitness qualities such as strength, power,
speed and endurance as well as the individual skill and team tactical abilities13
. In particular, upper body strength, power, speed and endurance would
appear to be of importance due to the large amount of tackling and grappling

that occurs both in attack and defense during an 80-minute game. It has
previously been established that maximum strength and power levels could
distinguish between players participating in the elite national first division
league and players participating in second- and third-division leagues4-9.
Furthermore, a test of upper body speed distinguished between players
participating in these professional leagues from younger high-school players7.
Other previous work also illustrated differences in strength between high
school and college-aged (17-21 yrs) rugby union and rugby league players6, 9.
There is scant research investigating upper body endurance in rugby
league players. The studies listed above illustrated the importance of
maximum strength and power but did not investigate strength-endurance as
an outcome measure. Recent changes in referee interpretations, coaching
87
strategies and game play have conceivably increased the importance of
upper-body strength-endurance. For example, previously only 1-2 defending
players would generally commit to a tackle and then, as stipulated by the
rules, quickly move away from the tackled player. This meant a high level of
maximum strength and power would be required by those 1-2 defending
players to quickly halt the forward momentum of the attacking player. Since
circa 2001 the concept of a dominant tackle has been promoted by some
coaches and commentators and is now interpreted by referees throughout the
game.
This has had the effect of increasing gang tackles and grapple
tackles whereby 4-5 defenders attempt to take extra time to halt the forward
momentum of the attacker and wrap up the ball to stop the attacker
unloading the ball to further promote the attack. This has had the effect of
increasing the number of tackles each player may be involved in during a
game, but these tackles may require less strength and power effort per tackle
than prior to 2001. This situation has led many commentators in the popular
media and coaches to ascribe to the theory that high levels of upper-body
strength-endurance and lower body running endurance (elite rugby league
players can cover distances of up to 10 km in an 80-minute game, 1) are now
the main physical requirements needed by rugby league players who aspire to
reach the highest levels of competition.
The purpose of this study was to compare the upper body strength,
speed, power and strength-endurance capabilities of selected rugby league
players participating in the elite, national first-division (NRL), state-based
second division (SRL) and intra-city third division (CRL) rugby league
88
competitions. In addition, a further analysis by positional grouping was also
performed, similar to that of Meir et al 2.
This data and analyses would
provide information pertinent to the importance of upper body strength, power,

speed and strength-endurance for different grades of rugby league and for
positional groups within those different grades in professional rugby league
players. In particular whether upper-body strength-endurance, as measured
in this investigation, had become the dominant upper body physical quality
(rather than maximum strength or power) that separated NRL players from
SRL and CRL players was of interest.
Methods
Subjects
Sixty rugby league players, comprising twenty full-time professionals
participating in the elite first-division National Rugby League competition
(NRL), as well as twenty semi-professionals each participating in a second
division State League (SRL) and third-division intra-city league (CRL) served
as participants in this investigation. All were members of the same football
club and performed the same resistance training relative to their different
playing positions, and individual strength levels under the same resistance
training coach to ensure homogeneous exercise technique development
occurred across the different squads. Irrespective of which team a player was
in, his entire resistance training program was prescribed according to his
positional grouping, which was the same throughout all three squads. The
bench press portion of the training was exactly the same for each individual in
89
terms of training volumes (sets x repetitions) and relative intensities (%1
repetition maximum, RM) for at least 8-weeks prior to testing. Therefore the
players in each positional grouping were resistance trained in a homogeneous
manner and each player performed exactly the same bench press training for
the eight weeks prior to testing, irrespective of his position or squad. Although
the full-time professional NRL players performed additional training sessions
(fitness, skill, tactics), no additional resistance training was performed by
these players. All subjects were aware of the methods and nature of the
testing and voluntarily participated in the testing sessions, which were a
regular part of their testing and conditioning regime. This study conformed to
the policy statement of the Declaration of Helsinki regarding research
involving human subjects. All of the athletes had performed a pre-season
resistance training cycle immediately prior to testing. Descriptive data for the
various player groupings is contained in Table 1.
Experimental Design
Tests of strength, power, speed and high-intensity strength-endurance
during upper body pressing movements were measured in rugby league
players participating in three different playing grades. Scores in these tests
were analyzed to determine if there were differences in these tests between
the different grades.
A further analysis by positional grouping was also
performed to determine if upper body strength, power, speed or strengthendurance are more important for players in different positions in rugby
league.
90
Table 1. Description of subjects as participants in the national (NRL), intrastate (SRL) or intra-city (CRL) based rugby league competitions.
Mean
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Body mass (kg)
Height (cm)
Age (yrs)
NRL
96.8 (10.4)
183.6 (5.4)
25.3 (3.1)
SRL
94.2 (8.1)
184.6 (4.9)
20.7 (2.5)
CRL
88.7 (7.7)b
182.0 (5.4)
18.6 (.9)a
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------a
denotes all groups different, p < 0.05,
Denotes CRL different to NRL, p <
0.05
Methodology
Four tests were chosen to measure the strength, power, speed and
strength-endurance of the upper body musculature.
All tests entailed the
exact same movement pattern whereby the weights were lowered to the chest
and then forcefully and rapidly pressed away from the body (bench press
movement). Individuals can exhibit differences in performances in strength
and power between different test movements for the same muscles
10
. By
using the same test movement to assess all four physical qualities it was
presumed that if differences occur then these differences could be ascribed to
the level of performance in the four physical qualities rather than inter-test
differences.
The bench press is a very common exercise in the training
regimen of many athletes and is commonly used to assess strength and other
91
upper-body physical qualities in rugby league players
5-9, 11-13
as it replicates
pushing away an opponent, a fundamental task in both attack and defense.

Each player, irrespective of position or squad, performed the same bench
press training routine for 8-weeks prior to testing. The tests of maximum
strength and strength-endurance were performed on day one, with the
maximum strength test performed first. Both of these tests were performed
using the free weight bench press exercise.
The tests of upper body maximum power and speed were performed
four days later, with the speed test performed first.
Both of these tests
entailed the use of the Plyometric Power System (PPS), which has been
described previously
5, 6, 11-13

weight-training machine. A rotary encoder attached to the machine produced
pulses indicating the displacement of the barbell.
The number of pulses,
denoting barbell displacement, and the time of the barbell movement were
measured by a counter timer board installed in the computer.
The PPS
software calculated the average mechanical power output of the concentric

phase of bench press throws based upon the displacement, time and mass
data.
Strength testing - Maximum upper body strength was assessed by the 1
Repetition Maximum bench press (1RM BP) using free weights and according
to methods previously outlined 5-7, 11.
Strength endurance - This test was devised based upon the results of pilot
work and entailed the athlete attempting to bench press a free-weight
92
resistance of 60 kg for as many repetitions as possible till fatigue (RTF BP60).
This absolute resistance was chosen as it complied with the American College
of Sports Medicine (ACSM) Position Stand for Progression Models in
Resistance Training for Healthy Adults concerning strength-endurance14.
Specifically this absolute resistance was between 30-80% for all subjects and
allowed for the completion of at least 10-25 repetitions or more as
recommended by the ACSM guidelines. Recent research has illustrated that
absolute resistances, for example 40 kg during bench throws, are reliable
indicators of training-based changes
6, 15
. Thus players who could perform
more repetitions with this absolute mass are performing more absolute work,
a factor rugby league coaches believe is more important than measures
relative to body mass or 1RM. A resistance of 60 kg was also only marginally
different between groups in terms of relative percentage of body mass and
represented 62%, 63.7% and 67.6% of the NRL, SRL and CRL groups body
mass. Testretest reliability was r = 0.94 (n =19).
Speed testing - Upper body speed testing was conducted using the PPS and
a resistance of 20 kg (the empty barbell representing the lightest resistance
that could be used in the PPS) using methods described previously 7. After
warming up, the athlete performed five repetitions of the bench press throw
exercise with the highest power output generated during the concentric phase
recorded as the speed capability of the upper body (BT P20).
Power testing - Maximum power output (BT Pmax) was assessed for the
upper body during the concentric phase of bench press throws with
resistances ranging from 40 to 80 kg using methods described previously5-6, 11-
93
13
Briefly this entailed the subjects performing three repetitions of bench
throws with resistances of 40, 50, 60, 70 and 80 kg, with the highest power
output at any of the resistances deemed the Pmax.
Player groupings
Players were analyzed according to a method modified from Meir et al.
2
where the front-row and back-rowers were defined as the hit-up forwards
while the centers and wingers were defined as outside-backs. The hookers,
halves, fullbacks and utility players were defined as the ball-players as their
primary role in a game is the setting up of plays, distribution of the ball and
general organization of attack. These were the groupings determined by their
club coaches based upon contemporary trends and practices and the players
training was organized in such groupings to a large degree.
Means and standard deviations for each measured variable were
calculated for both playing level and team position groupings. The Levene test
was used to assess homogeneity of variance and age and body mass were
the only variables that did not pass this test. Multivariate ANOVA was used to
determine if differences existed between the groups or positional sub-groups
in age, body mass, height, 1RM BP, BT Pmax, BT P20 or RTF BP60. In the
event of a significant F-ratio, Bonferroni post hoc comparisons were used to
determine where these differences existed, except for age and body mass
where Dunnett T3 was used to account for lack of homogeneity of variance for
these two variables. Spearman rank correlations were calculated between
individual test scores and progression from CRL to NRL level. Pearsons
94
product moment correlations were calculated to examine the interrelationships between performances in the different tests. Significance was
accepted at a criterion alpha level of p < 0.05.
Results
Summary data for age, height and body mass are contained in Table 1.
Age was significantly different between all groups (p<0.001, df=2, ES=0.598)
but height was not (p=0.308, df=2, ES=0.040). Body mass was not different
between NRL and SRL players (p=1.000, df=38, ES=0.283), or SRL and CRL
(p=0.163, df=38, ES=0.693) however NRL players were significantly heavier
than CRL players (9.1%, p=0.016, df=38, ES=0.896). Results for the strength,
power, speed and strength-endurance tests are contained in Table 2.
Maximum strength and power were significantly different between all groups.
NRL players were stronger than SRL (11.6%, p=0.003, df=38, ES=1.033) and
CRL players (30.8%, p<0.001, df=38, ES=2.458) and SRL players were
stronger than CRL (17.1%, p<0.001, df=38, ES=1.497). In terms of upper
body power output, BT Pmax was higher for the NRL players compared to the
SRL players (15.0%, p=0.003, df=38, ES=1.037) and CRL players (30.6%,
p<0.001, df=38, ES=1.867). Also SRL players produced more power
compared to CRL players (13.6%, p=0.025, df=38, ES=0.987). Strengthendurance was not different between the NRL and SRL groups (p=0.250,
df=38, ES=0.521), however both groups were significantly different to the CRL
group (49.3%, p<0.001, df=38, ES=1.984 and 34.6%, p<0.001, df=38,
ES=1.356 respectively). The NRL group was significantly different to both
95
groups in upper-body speed. That is, BT P20 was higher for the NRL players
compared to the SRL players (8.4%, p=0.019, df=38, ES=0.884) and CRL
players (13.9%, p<0.001, df=38, ES=1.409) however there was no difference
between SRL players and CRL players (p=0.310, df=38, ES=0.536). The
relation of the four physical factors to progression to NRL level was r = 0.75,
0.63, 0.63 and 0.55 for strength, power, strength-endurance and speed,
respectively.
Body weight alone exhibited a much lower relation to
progression to NRL rank (r = 0.34). This analysis indicated that maximum

strength displays the highest correlation to playing level. Differences in the
performance data according to three broad positional groupings for the
players of different ranking are depicted in Tables 3 to 5. In the main these
results reflected those of the team group data
Discussion
The aim of this study was to assess and compare upper body strength,
speed, power and endurance in rugby league players across three
competition levels and by playing position.
Prior to testing, all players
performed exactly the same bench press routine. Therefore the differences
exhibited are not due to the NRL players training more often or relatively
harder prior to testing, but must reflect long-term adaptations garnered from
multiyear training as well as some possible genetic influences which are
beyond the scope of this manuscript.
The results illustrate that all the
measured variables tend to discriminate between rugby league players of

different grades or achievement levels to some degree.
This is
96
understandable given the intense physical nature of rugby league football and
the need to forcefully push away opponents.
Table 2.
Comparison of strength, power, strength-endurance and speed
scores between rugby league players participating in the national (NRL), intrastate (SRL) or intra-city (CRL) based rugby league competitions.
Mean
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 RM BP (kg)
BT Pmax (w)
BT P20 (w)
RTFBP60(reps)
NRL
141.4 (15.4)
680 (99)
345 (31)b
35.6 (6.6)
SRL
126.6 (13.1)
591 (72)
319 (29)
32.1 (6.9)
CRL
108.1 (11.6)a
521 (71)a
303 (29)
23.8 (5.3)c
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------a
denotes all groups different to each other, p < 0.05

denotes NRL different to both other groups, p < 0.05
c
denotes CRL different to both other groups, p < 0.05
1RM BP = 1 Repetition Maximum bench press, BT Pmax = Maximum power
generated during bench throws with 40-80 kg, BT P20 = Power generated
during bench throws with empty 20 kg barbell, RTF BP60 = Maximum number
of repetitions performed till fatigue while bench pressing 60 kg.
b
First, overall maximum strength appears the most potent descriptor for
the three different grades of rugby league players, as has been reported
previously
5-7, 11
. Upper body pressing strength, as assessed by the 1RM BP,
was different by about 15% between each grade. Thus the NRL squad was
30% stronger than the CRL and about 15% stronger than the SRL squad.
97
The magnitude of the relationship between strength and progression to NRL (r
= 0.75) ranking can be defined as very large according to Hopkins scaling
and interpretation of correlations and effect sizes (r > 0.7 = very large)
16
Although the ES differences between the NRL and SRL squads could be
deemed to be moderate according to Hopkins analysis
16
, the differences
between NRL and CRL and SRL and CRL can described as either large (ES =
1.2 - 2) or very large (ES = >2). Thus the relationship between strength and
NRL ranking and the magnitude of ES differences between the squads mean
that of the variables in this investigation, strength is the most distinguishing
between rugby league players of different ranking.
This difference cannot be explained solely by differences in body mass
as there was no significant difference in body mass between the SRL and
NRL groups (but differences with the CRL group). If results for 1RM BP are
scaled relative to body mass then the scores of 1.46, 1.34 and 1.22 kg/kg-BM
for the NRL, SRL and CRL groups respectively are still significantly different to
each other. Even if an allometric method of scaling such as the two-thirds
formula is used (1RM BP / (BM * .67)
17
, then the scores of 2.18, 2.00 and
1.82 for the NRL, SRL and CRL groups respectively are still significantly
different to each other. Therefore issues other than simple measures of total
BM or even fat-free mass must explain these differences in strength.
Consequently, various neural, tissue/morphological or maturation (the NRL
group were older) adaptations must explain this result.
It has been shown
that increased neural activity occurs in muscles, perhaps due to increased

rate coding and signal intensity, in the first 8-12 weeks of strength training 18-19.
98
It has been postulated that other neural adaptations that occur with long-term
periodized strength and power training would be more efficient neural
patterning of the skill of the strength exercises, diminished levels of
unwarranted antagonist co-contraction, synchronous firing of motor units
(especially during the initial concentric phases of ballistic power exercises)
and reduced inhibitory feedback from force receptors/regulators such as the
Golgi tendon organ and Renshaw cells 18. To what extent these adaptations
occur and the time frame for their occurrence is yet to be fully determined.
Qualitative muscle tissue adaptations such as changes to the fiber type or
myosin heavy chain expression could also presumably be occurring with
Further discussion of the type, extent and
nature of these adaptations is beyond the nature of this manuscript, but have
been reviewed extensively elsewhere 18-20.
Maximum upper body pressing power, as assessed by the BT Pmax,
also clearly differentiated between the three groups.
The NRL and SRL
groups were 30 and 15% more powerful than the CRL group. The extent of
the relation of power to NRL ranking was large according to the Hopkins
interpretation 16. Effect size differences were quite large between NRL and
CRL players and moderate between NRL and SRL players and SRL and CRL
players. The outcome mirrors almost exactly the result for maximum strength,
which is understandable given the very strong correlation between maximum
strength and power
12, 21
. Thus, maximum power would appear to be a potent
descriptor of which athletes progress from CRL to SRL to NRL level, a finding
verifying previous research 5, 11.
99
Movement speed, as assessed by the BT P20, illustrated a difference
between the NRL group and the other two groups but not a difference
between the lower two groups. Overall the percentage differences between
the groups, magnitude of the relation of speed to NRL progression and ES
were about half compared to strength and power. There was no significant
difference in upper body speed between the CRL and SRL groups, however
the apparent 5% difference in scores may have a practical significance for
elite athletes. A previous report on this type of testing also demonstrated that
the movement speed test was not as strong a discriminator of rugby league
playing level as a test of maximum strength 11. This finding may indicate that
upper body movement speed, as assessed while lifting a light resistance, is
less important to rugby league success than absolute strength and maximum
power.
Strength-endurance, as assessed by the RTF BP60 test, has not been
assessed in this manner before in rugby league players and this paper is the
first to report on its suitability or otherwise for this athlete population. Our
preliminary pilot work attempted to analyze the ability of a common test of
high-intensity strength-endurance used in the American football system to
describe and compare rugby league players of different grades. However it
was felt the resistance used in the test (RTF while bench pressing 102.5 kg, a
test known as the NFL 225-lb test
22
) was inappropriately heavy for a large
number of subjects who could either not lift this resistance at all or for only a
few repetitions. As a result the test became a feat of maximum strength,
rather than strength-endurance, for a large proportion of the subjects. It was
100
concluded that a lighter absolute resistance of 60 kg be used during bench
press RTF testing to determine the relative importance of strength-endurance
for success in rugby league. The repetitions to fatigue performed while benchpressing 60 kg in the current study ranged from 16 to 50, clearly indicating
that this was a valid test of strength-endurance in terms of repetitions
completed and the relative %1RM used, according to the ACSM guidelines 14.
This test of strength-endurance differentiated between CRL players and the
other higher ranking groups with the relation to NRL ranking and ES indicating
a large difference. However between the NRL and SRL groups the differences
were not significant and the ES could be deemed to be small. So while there
was clearly a significant difference between the lower ranked CRL group and
the higher ranked groups in the performance of this test, it would be appear
not to be as potent a descriptor of rugby league playing ability as the upper
body test of maximum strength and power between athletes already at stateleague level. Given that the NRL players are substantially stronger than SRL
players and that there is a strong relationship between 1RM strength and the
number of repetitions performed with sub-maximal resistances
22-24
, it is not
fully understood how the strength-endurance test failed to be different

between these two groups. Further research is required in the area of high
intensity strength-endurance to determine its relevance to rugby league.
The relative importance of these tests to whether a player attained
NRL, SRL and CRL ranking and interpretation to Hopkins scale
16
is
interesting. By assigning numbers 3, 2, and 1 respectively to the players in

the NRL, SRL and CRL squads and then rank correlating these numbers to
101
the different test scores for an individual, the relationship of these absolute
test scores to the players ranking can be determined. For example, body
mass was significantly related to attainment of NRL level (r = 0.34), but the
very moderate extent of this relationship suggests that it is not as strongly
related as the performance factors of strength (very large), power, speed or
strength-endurance (large). Thus merely being a rugby league player with a
large body mass is far less important than being a strong rugby league player,
irrespective of body mass.
As rugby league football entails players with different positional tasks, it
could be expected that the different upper body muscular qualities may be
more or less desirable in these different positions 2. To discern if this was
true, further analyses were implemented along the positional groupings that
were determined by their club coaches according to contemporary practices
and trends. Conceivably the upper body strength, power, speed and strengthendurance needs for these three different positional groups could differ
substantially.
Tables 3 to 5 describe the differences in these four qualities of upper
body muscular performance for each of the three positional groupings. As is
the case for the squad data, maximum strength and power again tend to be
the best descriptors of rugby league playing ability. For the hit-up forwards,
maximum strength and power clearly distinguish the NRL players from the
SRL players (11-13%, ES = 1.855 to 2.267) and the CRL players (33-38%, ES
= 2.6). Upper body speed results are less markedly different and muscular
endurance only separated the NRL and SRL hit-up forwards from their CRL
102
counterparts (ES >= 1.5), not from each other. For the more robust physical
tasks confronting the larger hit-up forwards during a game of rugby league,
maximum strength, power and body mass (ES = 1.75 - 3.39, = large to very
large differences) appear more highly desirable and better able to describe
those who progress to NRL level from those who do not.
Table 3. Comparison of upper body strength, power, speed and strengthendurance between rugby league hit-up forwards participating in the national
(NRL), intra-state (SRL) or intra-city (CRL) based rugby league competitions.
Mean (standard deviation).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRL
1 RM BP
BT Pmax
BT P20
RTF BP60 Body mass
(kg)
(w)
(w)
(# reps)
(kg)
150.0 (19.3) 740 (86)b
362 (29)b
36.6 (8.5)
107.6 (2.9)
126.9 (5.6)
596 (41)
322 (26)
32.3 (4.5)
99.4 (5.2)
112.5 (10.0)a 536 (70)
305 (32)
25.3 (4.4)c
93.7 (5.2)a
(n = 8)
SRL
(n = 9)
CRL
(n = 6)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------a
Denotes all groups different to each other, p < 0.05, b denotes NRL different
to both other groups, p < 0.05, c denotes CRL different to both other groups, p
< 0.05
103
The results for the outside backs are similar to those for the hit-up
forwards, with the NRL outside backs being 13-14% stronger (ES = 1.86,
large and 3.44, very large differences) and 29-30% (ES = 1.2-1.98, large
differences) more powerful than their SRL and CRL counterparts, respectively
despite no significant difference in body mass.
While strength was
significantly different between all three team levels, power and speed were
similar between the SRL and CRL players. Strength endurance was different
between the CRL and both the NRL (ES = 2.854) and SRL groups, who were
statistically similar. Based upon the magnitude of the % differences and the
ES, clearly the outside backs at NRL level are much stronger and more
powerful than lower ranked counterparts. Most importantly they do not rely
upon differences in body mass to provide those advantages.
The magnitude of differences in the muscular performance tests for the
ball-players was less pronounced. Differences in strength, strength-endurance
and power existed between CRL players and the SRL and NRL players (ES =
1.46 2.909, designating large to very large differences), but not between
these latter two groups. As the ball-players are deemed to be the most skillful
players, it is probable that the factors separating the SRL and NRL players in
this positional grouping are not upper body strength or power but may be
more related to other attributes such as ball skills, organizational ability and
game-related decision making.
While the positional grouping x team ranking analyses is hampered by
lower numbers of subjects, we feel that this is unavoidable when dealing with
elite and sub-elite athletes. In this case study approach we desired subjects
104
with a recent homogeneous training background but whom their coaches
ranked differently.
This then allowed us to investigate whether their
performance in strength, power, speed and endurance in one simple test

motion (bench press) could largely distinguish their different team rankings.
Table 4. Comparison of upper body strength, power, speed and strengthendurance between rugby league outside backs participating in the national
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRL
1 RM BP
BT Pmax
BT P20
RTFBP60
Body Mass
(kg)
(w)
(w)
(# reps)
(kg)
141.0 (4.2)
698 (41)b
351 (11)b
37.4 (4.0)
94.9 (6.2)
125.0 (13.0) 604 (105)
325 (29)
31.0 (6.7)
93.4 (7.3)
109.3 (14.2)a 535 (93)
308 (31)
22.7 (5.6)c
87.3 (7.1)
(n = 5)
SRL
(n = 7)
CRL
(n = 7)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------a
Denotes all groups different to each other, p < 0.05, b denotes NRL different
to both other groups, p < 0.05, c denotes CRL different to both other groups, p
< 0.05.
105
Table 5. Comparison of upper body strength, power, speed and strengthendurance between rugby league ball-players participating in the national
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRL
1 RM BP
BT Pmax
BT P20
RTF BP60 Body mass
(kg)
(w)
(w)
(# reps)
(kg)
131.8 (10.2) 597 (91)d
321 (30)
33.1 (5.5)d
86.0 (8.9)
128.8 (25.6) 558 (62)
299 (35)
33.5 (12.3)
84.0 (4.2)
103.0 (9.6)c 493 (46)
296 (26)
23.7 (6.2)
86.0 (3.5)
(n = 7)
SRL
(n = 4)
CRL
(n = 7)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------c
denotes CRL different to both other groups, p < 0.05, d denotes NRL different
to CRL only, p < 0.05
Thus this was a performance oriented approach to determining the

relative importance of upper body strength, power, speed and strengthendurance in a real world setting with elite and sub-elite athletes, rather than a
controlled mechanistic study of the underlying factors affecting strength,
power, speed and strength-endurance. Thus we rated performance as team
ranking, as determined by the professional coaches and attempted to
ascertain how the upper body factors affected this measure of performance.
Using the descriptors linked to the correlation coefficients and effect sizes
106
proposed by Hopkins16, the overall team analyses show that strength very
largely and the other factors, largely, do distinguish team ranking. This is
especially so for both the hit-up forwards and the outside backs and to a
lesser degree for the ball-players.
The inter-relations between various muscular performance factors are
also of interest and are detailed in Table 6. First, body mass exhibits only
moderate relationships between maximum strength, power, speed and
strength-endurance (r [95% confidence interval] = 0.48 [0.22 to 0.74], 0.58
[0.32 to 0.84], 0.51 [0.25 to 0.77] and 0.40 [0.14 to 0.66], respectively)..
Maximum power, strength and speed were very highly inter-related, a finding
that has been reported numerous times before in rugby league players 5,6,11,12
as well as other athletes 21.
Practical Applications
A pathway in upper body strength, power, speed and strengthendurance for professional rugby league players in different positions and
team rankings has been illustrated in this paper. Strength and conditioning
specialists and players must devote considerable training time to increasing
these aspects if they are to maximize their playing level. The preparation of
the elite rugby league athlete will include a long training history of
hypertrophy-oriented training (to increase body mass to the levels of SRL and
NRL players), heavy resistance training to maximize strength development
and exercises to develop upper body power output. Strength-endurance
training also appears to be of importance to NRL attainment and should be
107
stressed in the resistance-training regime of rugby league players. Players
should initiate resistance training during adolescence and gradually increase
in volume and intensity as they mature and rise in playing level if they are to
be successful in elite competition.
Table 6.
Inter-correlations between tests of upper body strength, power,
speed and strength-endurance between rugby league players participating in

the national (NRL), intra-state (SRL) or intra-city (CRL) based rugby league
competitions. All relationships are p > 0.0001.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BT Pmax
BT P20
RTF BP60
1RM BP
.84
.71
.83
BT P20
.84
.55
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Conclusions
Despite recent
rule changes,
referee interpretations,
coaching
strategies and ploys that have conceivably increased the upper body strengthendurance demands upon the players, strength-endurance, as assessed in
this investigation, was not found to be the most dominant upper-body
descriptor of NRL playing rank. Of the four upper body tests assessed in this
paper, maximum strength appears the most highly related to success in rugby
league and displays the highest percentage differences between different
teams. Maximum power and strength-endurance, which were both strongly
related to maximum strength, were also strongly and similarly indicative of
successful attainment of NRL level. Upper body movement speed, while still
108
significant, tends to describe team ranking less readily than the other
measures of upper body muscular function.
When analyzed according to
positional groupings, the results are similar. Based upon these results
younger rugby league players who desire to attain higher playing levels
should strive to increase upper body maximum strength, which appears to
underpin performance in other key muscular performance factors such as
maximum power and strength-endurance.
109
References
1. Meir R, Colla P, Milligan C. Impact of the 10-meter rule change on
professional rugby players: Implications for training. Strength and Conditioning
Journal. 2001; 23(6): 42-46.

2. Meir R, Newton R, Curtis E, Fardell M, Butler B. Physical fitness qualities of
professional rugby league football players: determination of positional
differences. J Strength Cond Res. 2001; 15(4): 450-8.
3. Gabbet, T.J. Science of rugby league football: A review. J. Sport Science.
2005; 23(9):961-976.
4. Baker D. Comparison of lower body strength and power between national,
state and city level rugby league football players. Strength and Conditioning
Coach. 2000; 8(4): 3-7.

5. Baker D. Comparison of upper-body strength and power between
professional and college-aged rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res.
2001; 15(1): 30-35.
6. Baker D. The effects of an in-season of concurrent training on the
rugby league football players. J Strength Cond Res. 2001; 15(2): 172-177.
7. Baker D. Differences in strength and power among junior-high, senior-high,
college-aged, and elite professional rugby league players. J Strength Cond
Res. 2002; 16(4): 581-5.

8. Baker DG, Newton RU. An analysis of the ratio and relationship between
upper body pressing and pulling strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2004; 18(3):
594-8.
110
9. Baker D. Applying the in-season periodization of strength and power
training to football. Strength and Conditioning Journal. 1998; 20(2): 18-24.
10. Baker D, Wilson G, Carlyon B. Generality versus specificity: a comparison
of dynamic and isometric measures of strength and speed-strength. Eur J
Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1994; 68(4): 350-355.

11. Baker D. A series of studies on the training of high-intensity muscle power
in rugby league football players. J Strength Cond Res. 2001; 15(2): 198-209.
12. Baker D, Nance S. The relation between strength and power in
professional rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res. 1999; 13(3): 224229.
13. Baker D, Nance S, Moore M. The load that maximizes the average
trained athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2001; 15(1): 20-24.
14. Kramer, WJ, Adams, K, Carafelli, E, Dudley, GA, Dooly, C, Feigenbaum,
MS, Fleck, SJ, Franklin, B, Fry, AC, Hoffman, JR, Newton, RU, Potteiger, J,
Stone, MH, Ratamess, NA, Triplett-McBride, T. American College of Sports
Medicine Position Stand: Progression models in resistance training for
healthy adults. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2002;34(2):364-380.
15. Drinkwater, EJ, Lawton, TW, Linsdell, RP, Pyne, DB, Hunt, PH, McKenna,
MJ. Training leading to repetition failure enhances bench press strength
gains in elite junior athletes. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19(2):382-388.
16. Hopkins, WG. A scale of magnitudes for effect statistics.
http://www.sportsci.org/ Accessed April 25 2006.
111
17. Challis, J.H. Methodological Report: The appropriate scaling of
weightlifting performance. J. Strength Cond. Res. 1999;13(4): 367-371.
18. Hkkinen K. Neuromuscular and hormonal adaptations during strength
and power training. A review. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1989; 29(1): 9-26.
19. Moritani T, Muro M, Ishida K, Taguchi S. Electrophysiological analyses of
the effects of muscle power training. Research Journal of Physical Education
in Japan. 1987; 1(1): 23-32.

20. Baker D. Periodization of strength training for sports : a review. Strength
and Conditioning Coach. 1993; 1(3): 15-21.

21. Moss BM, Refsnes PE, Abildgaard A, Nicolaysen K, Jensen J. Effects of
maximal effort strength training with different loads on dynamic strength,
cross-sectional area, load-power and load-velocity relationships. Eur J Appl
Physiol Occup Physiol. 1997; 75(3): 193-9.

22. Chapman PP, Whitehead JR, Binkert RH. The 225-lb reps-to-fatigue test
as a submaximal estimate of 1-RM bench press performance in college
football players. J Strength Cond Res. 1998; 12(4): 258-261.
23. Hoeger WWK, Hopkins DR, Barette SL, Hale DF. Relationship between
repetitions and selected percentages of One Repetition Maximum. J Strength
Cond Res. 1990; 4(2): 47-54.

24. Braith RW, Graves JE, Leggett SH, Pollock ML. Effect of training on the
relationship between maximal and submaximal strength. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 1993; 25(1): 132-8.
112
Paper 2.
An analysis of the ratio and relationship between upper
body pressing and pulling strength.
by
Daniel G. Baker and Robert U. Newton
published in the
18(3):594-598. 2004.
113
Abstract
It has been posited that certain balances in strength should exist for opposing
muscle groups (eg. hamstrings and quadriceps) or actions (eg. internal and
external rotation of the shoulder) to improve sports performance or limit the
likelihood of injury.
Typically,
expensive laboratory equipment such as
isokinetic devices have been used to determine strength balances.
The
purpose of this paper was to determine if two popular field tests of strength
could be used to determine a concise strength balance in roughly opposing
muscle actions for the shoulder girdle. The two opposing movement actions
of pressing away from the shoulder girdle and pulling in towards the shoulder
girdle were assessed via the one repetition maximum bench press (1RM BP)
and one repetition maximum pull-up (1RM PU), respectively. Forty-two rugby
league players, comprising 21 national league (NRL) and 21 state league
(SRL) players who regularly performed both exercises in their training served
as subjects in this investigation.
The equivalence of the strength ratio
(BP/PU*100) and correlation between tests were also examined. The pooled
data exhibited a strength ratio of 97.7% (9.0%) and correlation of r = 0.81
between the 1RM BP of 130.1 + 20.2 and 1RM PU of 133.1 + 17.1.
The
small standard deviation exhibited tends to indicate that athletes should

exhibit a concise ratio of around 100% if pressing and pulling strength have
been addressed fairly equally in training.
However, some athletes may have
body types, preexisting injuries or training histories that predispose them to

excelling or conversely performing poorly during strength activities for either
upper body pressing or pulling actions with differences in strength of up to
114
15% existing in some individuals.
These factors need to be taken into
account when prescribing training based upon the strength ratio between
pressing and pulling strength.
Key words:
balance
bench press, pull-up, strength ratio, rugby league, muscle
115
Introduction
It has been posited that certain balances in strength should exist for
opposing muscle groups (eg. hamstrings and quadriceps) or actions (eg.
internal and external rotation of the shoulder) to improve physical or sports
performance or limit the likelihood of injury (5-7, 11-15, 17, 19, 23). If one
muscle or movement action is markedly stronger than its opposing muscle or
movement action, it is thought performance could be compromised or that
muscles strains may occur in the weaker muscles (5, 7, 11, 12, 15, 17).
For example, increased strength of antagonist muscles has been
shown to increase the movement speed, via a decrease in the braking time,
and accuracy of the limbs in rapid ballistic movements (14, 22). Therefore it
may be seen that opposing movement actions need a certain strength
balance so that the antagonist muscles can brake the agonists succinctly in
rapid limb movements. If the forces produced in one movement action largely
dominates over its antagonist muscle or opposite action, then conceivably
limb speed and accuracy are impaired (14). This would then lend itself to an
impairment in sports performance.
Furthermore Burkett reported increased incidence of hamstring strain in
football players who possessed markedly stronger quadriceps (5). This may
be due to the antagonist hamstring muscles not possessing enough strength
to adequately brake the lower limb during a rapid knee extension movement
such as sprinting. It is also thought that throwing and racquet sport athletes
are at increased likelihood of rotator cuff strain if their training or sport
activities have created strength imbalances in the shoulder, favouring the
116
larger internal rotator muscles of the shoulder (11, 12, 15, 17). Again it is
believed that the smaller, weaker external rotator cuff muscles do not possess
enough strength to adequately brake or counteract the tremendous forces
produced by the internal rotators during the rapid throwing or serving
movements (12, 17). With regards to resistance training for the upper body, it
is theorized that a preponderance of pressing movements in the resistance
training regime and/or imbalances in strength may predispose the shoulder
complex to injuries such rotator cuff muscle strain and impingement (11, 15).
Therefore the concept of opposing muscle or movement strength balance
appears well founded.
The level of balance between muscle groups in
opposing actions is often termed the strength ratio.

A number of sports require athletes to be able to use their shoulder
girdle musculature to both forcefully press away an opponents body or limbs
and/or conversely pull an opponents body or limbs towards them or to the
ground. Athletes such as wrestlers, judoists, mixed martial artists and rugby
football players are required to both press away and/or pull in large external
resistances such as their opponents. Athletes such as male gymnasts also
require tremendous levels of upper body pressing and pulling strength to
move their own body mass during the performance of their routines on the
various apparatus such as rings, high bar and parallel bars.
Therefore both upper body pressing and pulling strength is vital for
success in these sports. Large discrepancies in strength in either movement
action may limit the success of the athlete in these sports or increase the
117
likelihood of shoulder injuries such as muscle strains or tendon impingement
(eg. bicep or rotator cuff).
Typically, laboratory equipment such as isokinetic devices have been
used to determine strength ratios in opposing muscle or movement actions (6,
12, 13, 17, 18).
Some limitations of such equipment are its expense and
hence availability to the broader sporting population. Also these isokinetic

tests are generally isolated muscle tests, which may be less practical or
sports-specific than more integrated functional tests of strength or muscle
function (18). Strength coaches typically prefer integrated field or gymnasium
tests of strength that they can easily implement themselves at little or no extra
cost.
Data collected from these tests could then be analysed to determine
the strength balances in certain movements or muscles and training altered

accordingly if needed.
The purpose of this paper was to determine if two popular field tests of
strength could be used to determine the existence of a concise strength ratio
in the roughly opposing muscle actions of pressing away from~ and pulling in~
towards the shoulder girdle. The relationship between pressing and pulling
strength will also be investigated and analysed according to the training status
of the athletes.
Methods
This study was designed to investigate the strength ratio of two
common movement actions ~ pressing away and pulling in ~ about the
118
shoulder girdle. This was to be assessed by measuring and comparing one
repetition maximum (1RM) strength in two common resistance-training
exercises that entail these movement actions. The null hypotheses was that
there would be no significant relation between the bench press and pull-up
1RM and that a largely disparate strength ratio would exist indicating no
concise balance in strength exists in these roughly opposing actions.
concise ratio would be defined by the existence of similarities and a very small
standard deviation in the strength ratio.
Two groups of athletes with
differences in the length and level of resistance training adaptation were also
studied to determine if these factors impact upon the extent of the strength
ratio or relation.
Strength testing.
The exercises chosen for 1RM testing and analysis were the bench
press (BP) and pull-up (PU). The tests were carried out on separate days,
with the 1RM BP being performed on the first day and the 1RM PU being
performed 72 hours later. The 1RM BP was chosen as it is a universally
accepted test of upper body pressing strength that entails lowering a barbell
resistance towards the chest and then pressing the barbell away to arms
length. The methodology of testing has been described extensively elsewhere
(1-4), but briefly it entailed the athletes warming up with lighter resistances
and then performing single repetitions with progressively heavier resistances
till a 1RM was achieved. Standard free-weight equipment such as a standard
power lifting bench, olympic barbells and plates were used.
119
The PU was chosen to test strength because it is a fairly universally
popular exercise often used to test strength-endurance via the maximum
number of repetitions that can be completed lifting ones own body mass (21).
Therefore athletes and coaches are reasonably familiar with it in both the
testing and training environment.
The PU 1RM test was rather unique in
implementation and requires further description. The 1RM was determined by

adding the athletes body mass to the attached additional mass to garner the
total mass that was successfully lifted during the 1RM PU test. Additional
mass was attached to the athletes lifting belt via a rope or light chain. This
allowed for the incrementation and calibration of lifting mass during the 1RM
PU test.
For example a 90 kg athlete who could perform a PU with an
additional 40 kg attached to the waist and a 70 kg athlete who could perform a

PU with an additional 60 kg attached to the waist would both score 130 kg as
their 1RM PU.
The PU test was performed with a supinated grip and the testing
repetition was preceded by an eccentric phase, as is the case for the BP. For
the preceding eccentric phase to occur, the athlete and attached additional
mass had to be held by three spotters in the starting position of arms flexed
and chin in line with the pull-up bar. On the testers command, the athletes
support was removed and he proceeded into the eccentric phase to arms
length, whereupon he immediately pulled himself back to the flexed arm
starting position. Any attempt that did not entail an eccentric portion to full
arms length and return to the start position was disallowed.
120
After generalized warm-up of callisthenic and dynamic stretching
exercises, the athletes commenced the testing procedure by performing three
repetitions in the PU with their own body mass.
After this the athletes
performed only single repetitions with additional mass attached to their waists,
starting at an extra 20 kg for the NRL and 10 kg for the less strong SRL group.
Mass was increased by 2.5-10 kg at each further attempt till both the athlete
and tester were satisfied that the 1RM PU had been attained. The test-retest
reliability of r= 0.90 was established upon a subset of sixteen of the subjects.
Thus the tests incorporated roughly opposing muscle actions in fairly
simple and universally popular resistance training exercises. For example,
the BP entailed grasping a barbell with a pronated grip and lowering it to the
body, which is stabilized upon a bench, and then pressing this resistance to
the starting position of arms extended. The PU entailed gripping a bar, which
remains stable, and then lowering the resistance to arms length whereupon it
is immediately pulled back to the start position of arms flexed.
Subjects
Forty-two rugby league players from the same rugby league football
club served as subjects in this investigation and consented to be tested as
part of the conditioning requirements of their sport.
resistance training and performed both
All were in current
upper body pressing and pulling
resistance-training exercises equally and regularly in their training. All the

subjects were tested at the end of their pre-season training cycle when their
strength and power levels were expected to be at peak levels. Almost all
subjects attained or bettered their personal bests in both testing exercises.
121
These subjects were investigated as a whole group (Pooled) and according to
their status as full-time professional athletes participating in the in the elite
national rugby league competition (NRL, n =21) or as the semi-professional
college-aged subjects participating in an intrastate league competition,
equivalent to a second division competition (SRL, n=21). A description of the
The NRL group was older and more
experienced in resistance training, typically with a resistance training history

of greater than six years.
The SRL group was younger and typically
possessed a resistance training history of one to three years. This grouping

would provide data pertinent to training history affecting either the levels of
maximum strength in the 1RM BP or 1RM PU, the equivalence of the strength
ratio and the relationship between the pressing and pulling tests.
Recent
studies have indicated that the strength levels and training status of athletes
can affect the extent of adaptation to various resistance training stimuli (eg. 2,
24).
Table 1. Description of subjects. Mean (standard deviation)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Age (yrs)
Height (cm)
Weight (kg)
Pooled (n = 42)
22.0 (3.8)
184.2 (6.2)
94.4 (10.2)
SRL
(n = 21)
19.8 (2.0) *
184.6 (6.7)
92.2 (9.5)
NRL
(n = 21)
24.2 (4.0)
183.8 (5.9)
96.6 (9.5)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* denotes significantly different to NRL group, p < 0.05

Statistics.
122
Factorial ANOVAs were used to determine if differences existed
between the groups in 1RM BP, 1RM PU and strength ratio. In the event of a
significant F-ratio, Fisher PLSD post hoc comparisons were used to determine
where these differences existed. The strength ratio was calculated by dividing
the 1RM BP by the 1RM PU and expressing as a percentage (BP/PU*100).
Pearsons moment correlations were also calculated between 1RM BP and
1RM PU. Significance was accepted at an alpha level of p < 0.05.
Results
The results for the strength scores are contained in Table 2. The NRL
and SRL groups were significantly different to each other for 1RM BP, 1RM
PU and strength ratio. The results for the relations between 1RM BP and
1RM PU are contained in Table 3. Overall the pooled data indicates a strong
and significant relation between upper body pressing and pulling strength in
athletes who simultaneously train for maximum strength in both actions. The
relation between BP and PU was much lower in the stronger and more
experienced NRL group than in the SRL group. The relation between body
mass and 1RM BP and 1RM PU were r = 0.60 and r = 0.61, respectively (p <
0.05).
123
Table 2. Group mean (standard deviation) results for upper body pressing
and pulling strength and comparative strength ratio.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1RM BP (kg)
1RM PU (kg)
% BP/PU
Pooled
130.1 (20.2)
133.1 (17.1)
97.7 (9.0)
SRL
117.4 (16.3)*
123.8 (13.5)*
94.6 (5.6)*
NRL
142.7 (15.2)
142.4 (15.3)
100.7 (10.7)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* denotes significantly different to NRL group, p < 0.05
Discussion
The 1RM BP results for the NRL and SRL groups are similar to those
published before for these groups of athletes (1-4) and require little further
discussion. The 1RM PU was a novel test and no data could be found that
directly compares strength levels in this pulling test with the results of similar
athletes. While data for upper body pressing strength in exercises such as
the bench press (BP) is quite extensively reported upon (1-4), a paucity of
data exists for upper body maximum pulling strength of athletes.
It was
expected that the NRL group would be significantly stronger in the 1RM PU
than the SRL group given the results for 1RM BP in the studies listed above
and the fact that pulling and pressing strength were equally emphasized in the
training program.
Typically data for upper body pulling strength is reported as the
maximum number of repetitions that can be performed in the pull-up (PU) or
chin-up exercise (21). As elite athletes may perform a considerable number
of repetitions in the PU, then these types of tests in reality become tests of
124
strength-endurance not maximum strength.
More recently, elite wrestlers
have used a speed rope-climb test, which while being more dynamic and
strength-oriented than the maximum pull-up repetitions test, is still more a test
of speed-strength rather than pure maximum strength (8). Thus a simple test
of upper body maximum pulling strength that is as readily accepted and easy
to implement as the upper body pressing test of 1RM BP is required. While
conceptually a seated row test is more truly antagonist to the BP than a PU,
practical experience has shown it difficult to perform very strictly with heavy
resistances. Athletes will tend to cheat by invoking small amounts of almost
indiscernible back, hip and knee extension, which are summed to the upper
body pulling strength, distorting the strength score. This could easily lead to
erroneous conclusions being made upon an athletes upper body pulling
strength. The PU is a simple exercise widely used in training in gymnasiums,
wrestling halls, judo dojos and the military. Its familiarity, basic equipment and
simple performance with strict criteria lends itself to 1RM or maximum
repetition testing. That is why it was used in this investigation as opposed to
a seated row type of movement.
For the pooled data, the 1RM BP and 1RM PU were very similar in the
mass lifted and expressed as a strength ratio indicating a general equivalence
of strength in the opposing actions of pressing and pulling in these athletes.
Because the standard deviation for the strength ratio was quite small (9%), it
can be seen that a definite concise ratio exists. If the standard deviation for
the strength ratio was quite large, it would indicate that tremendous disparities
exist in the strength ratio for individuals, reducing the validity of the concept.
125
Some previous testing of shoulder internal and external rotation strength
ratios in tennis players reported standard deviations of 12-28% (12).
In
comparison, the younger SRL subjects who were a similar age to the tennis
players in that study, the standard deviation was less than 6%.
While there was a strong correlation between test scores, there was
also enough variance to suggest that good pressing strength will not ensure
good pulling strength. This data would indicate that athletes in sports that
require high levels of both upper body pressing and pulling strength should
generally possess similar levels of 1RM BP and PU strength,
which is
probably attained by giving equal attention to both actions during training.

However, an analysis of the test results for the 1RM BP and 1RM PU
indicate some interesting results. While the strength ratio of the mean test
scores was close to 100% for the elite professional NRL group, there was a
much lower relation between the 1RM BP and 1RM PU as compared to the
less strong SRL group. The SRL group was actually significantly different to
the NRL in the strength ratio, indicating that they were proportionately
stronger in the PU than in the BP, although by only a small amount. These
athletes were significantly younger than the NRL group and possessed a
shorter resistance training experience.
This shorter training or playing
experience may have affected the development of pressing strength, as

opposed to pulling strength, to a greater degree.
Why the NRL group would exhibit a markedly lower relation between
1RM BP and PU was of interest. At first glance it was assumed that some of
the NRL group may have possessed an unbalanced training history where
126
perhaps pressing movements were over-emphasized earlier in their
resistance training histories at the expense of pulling movements and that this
may have had impacted upon the relation between pressing and pulling
strength.
However, an analysis of the results in fact reveals the exact
opposite. To allow for a direct comparison of subjects strength scores across

a large body mass spectrum, the classical or two-thirds normalizing formula
was applied to the strength test scores (16). The two-thirds normalizing
formula was chosen because currently there are a number of different
formulas
for different lifts available to normalize the strength scores of
athletes with largely disparate body masses, however none has been
developed specially for the PU exercise. Thus a decision was made to use
the very generic two-thirds formula for this investigation so as not to use a
formula that may favour the bench press, upon which a considerable amount
of investigation in this area has been reported (eg. 9, 10). By normalizing the
strength scores with a body mass correction formula (1RM / {BM * .67}), a
direct comparison of strength scores between subjects of different body
masses was possible. From this procedure, three subjects were identified
that were more than one standard deviation below the group mean in 1RM BP
strength.
For these three subjects the strength ratio was only 84.6%,
indicating average pulling strength (149.7 kg), but below average pressing
strength (126.6 kg) at a mean body mass of 103.3 kg. Three other subjects
were identified as being more than one standard deviation above the group
mean in 1RM PU strength. For these three subjects, the strength ratio was
89.0%, indicating average pressing strength (139.2 kg) and exceptional
127
pulling strength (156.0 kg) at a mean body mass of 91.0 kg. There were no
subjects who were more than one standard deviation above the group mean
in 1RM BP strength and the only statistical outlier that existed in the SRL
group possessed a strength ratio of 97.5%. If the six statistical outliers are
eliminated from the NRL data, then the relation between 1RM BP and 1RM
PU increase markedly from r = 0.52 to 0.78. The reasons why these six
individuals exhibited large differences in their strength ratios may be more
likely due to reasons other than merely previous training history. Factors
such as muscle and limb lengths and/or muscle attachments or preexisting
training / game related injuries may affect joint / muscle integrity or the
effectiveness of training.
These factors may eventually predispose those
individuals to enhanced pulling strength or diminished pressing strength. Due

to the intense physical front on upper body contact and the use of no (or at
best minimal) shoulder padding in rugby league, contact injuries and constant
micro-trauma may affect the anterior musculature responsible for pressing
strength, leading to a suppression of pressing strength. Because the pulling
musculature is mainly on the posterior side of the body and not liable to brutal
front on contact as much, it may suffer less and hence pulling strength is less
affected. The fact that the six outliers were all better pullers than pressers
and all existed in the elite professional NRL group may lend credence to this.
The SRL may merely have not had as many opportunities to have damaging
contacts to their anterior musculature or the contacts that they experience in
their second division competition may not be as damaging as those
experienced in the elite professional league. There may also be a cumulative
128
effect of this type of front on contact, leading to a suppression of pressing
strength over the years in some players the elite professional group.
On the basis of this research it can be posited that upper body pressing
and pulling strength should be fairly equivalent in athletes who train these
actions fairly equally in training.
However, some individuals may have
preexisting injuries or specific anatomical considerations that may predispose

them to score lower in the pressing movements or conversely higher in the
pulling movement. Also athletes in sports such as rugby union and rugby
league, wrestling, judo, and various other mixed martial arts while requiring
tremendous levels of both upper body pressing and pulling strength, also must
deal with the physical contact that can damage the integrity of the joints and
musculature. The intense and prolonged brutal physical contact may lead to
an accumulation of injuries that may suppress pressing strength, giving rise to
a strength ratio favouring pulling strength. Coaches may need to take this into
account when diagnosing and prescribing training based upon the results of
these two tests.
It must also be considered that athletes who may over-emphasize
pressing movements at the expense of pulling movements may exhibit
strength ratios in favour of the 1RM BP, although none of the subjects in this
study would have appeared to have done this. However, it could also be
expected that athletes from sports where upper body pressing movements
dominate (eg. shot-put, American football lineman, boxing) may possess
strength ratios in favour of BP strength. Strength and conditioning coaches
may need to develop an appropriate ratio for these athletes, different from the
129
concise 95-100% ratio that existed for the majority of athletes in this study
who had possessed a resistance training history entailing pressing and pulling
fairly equally.
Conversely, athletes who participate in sports where upper
body pulling movements predominate over pressing (eg. swimming, kayaking,

rowing) would also need to develop their own strength ratios, which would
most likely favour pulling strength in these types of athletes. Nonetheless
enough evidence exists to suggest that resistance training should be fairly
well balanced between agonist and antagonist muscles or movement actions.
This would then lead to an equivalence in the strength ratio between upper
body pressing and pulling movements and theoretically develop a more
balanced and stable shoulder complex. At all times coaches need to consider
that weak antagonist muscles may limit limb speed and accuracy during rapid
movements (14, 22) or possibly lead to muscle strains or tendon
impingements.
Table 3. Correlation and co-efficient of determination (r-squared expressed

as a percentage) between upper body pressing (1RM BP) and pulling (1RM
PU) strength.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pooled
SRL
NRL
Correlation (r =)
0.81
0.93
0.52
CoD
65%
86%
27%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
130
Practical considerations
A 1RM test can be easily implemented to determine upper body pulling
strength in the simple and universally popular pull-up exercise. This test was
a roughly antagonistic version of the popular upper body pressing movement
of BP.
A comparison of the test scores should indicate a strength ratio
equivalence of around 100%, indicating the same amount of mass can be

lifted in the respective pressing and pulling movements. Strength coaches of
sports such as rugby types of football, wrestling, judo and various other forms
of martial arts that must both forcefully press away or pull in opponents should
monitor the development of strength in both actions. However, they should
also be aware that some individuals are predisposed to better performances
in one test as compared to the other and that this may confound correlation
results to some degree. Also younger athletes tend to perform slightly better
in the PU test as compared to the BP test. It could also be expected that
athletes from sports where upper body pressing movements dominate may
possess strength ratios in favour of BP strength whereas athletes from sports
where upper body pulling predominates may possess strength ratios in favour
of PU strength.
Prolonged exposure or perhaps one acute bout of intense physical
contact, which typically involves the anterior musculature, may affect pressing
strength. Cumulative trauma may also be a factor that needs to be taken into
account when diagnosing strength ratios and prescribing training for athletes
in contact sports.
131
References
1.
Baker, D.
J.

2001.
Cond. Res. 16(4): 581-585. 2002.
5. Barlow, J.C., B.W. Benjamin, P.J. Birt and C.J. Hughes. Shoulder strength
and range-of-motion characteristics in bodybuilders. J. Strength Cond. Res.
16(3):367-372. 2002.
6. Behm, D.G., K. Anderson, and R.S. Curnew. Muscle force and activation
under stable and unstable conditions. J. Strength Cond. Res. 16(3):416422. 2002.
132
7. Burkett, L.N. Causative factors in hamstring strains. Med. Sci. Sports
Exer. 2:39-42. 1970.
8. Callan, S.D., D. M., Brunner, K.L., Devolve, S.E., Mulligan, J. Hesson, R.L.
Wilber, and J.T. Kearney. Physiological profiles of elite freestyle wrestlers.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 14(2):162-169. 2000.
9. Challis, J.H. Methodological Report: The appropriate scaling of weightlifting

performance. J. Strength Cond. Res. 13(4): 367-371. 1999.
10. Dooman, S.C., and P.M. Vanderburgh. Allometric modelling of the bench
press and squat: Who is the strongest regardless of body mass? J. Strength
Cond. Res. 14(1): 32-36. 2000.
11. Durral., C.J., R.C. Manske, and Davies, G.J. Avoiding shoulder injuries
from resistance training. Strength Cond. J. 23(5): 10-18. 2001.
12. Ellenbecker, T.S and E.P. Roetert.
Effects of a 4-month season on
glenohumeral joint rotational strength and range of motion in female collegiate

tennis players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 16(1): 92-96. 2002
13. Findley, B.W., L.E. Brown, M. Whitehurst, R. Gilbert, D.R. Groo, and J.
ONeal.
Sitting vs. standing isokinetic trunk extension and flexion
performance differences. J. Strength Cond. Res. 14(3): 310-315. 2000.
133
14.
Role of agonist and

Physiol. 1995.
15. Kaufmann, T.M. Weight room considerations for the throwing athlete.
Strength Cond. J. 21(4): 7-12. 1999.
16.
Lietzke, MH. Relation between weight-lifting totals and body weight.
Science 124: 486-487. 1956.
17. Moncrieff, S.A, J.D. Lau, J.R. Gale, and S.A. Scott. Effect of rotator cuff
exercise on humeral rotation torque in healthy individuals. J. Strength Cond.
Res. 16(2): 262-270. 2000.
18. Morriss, C.J., K. Toffey, and R.J. Copack. Effects of short-term isokinetic
training on standing long-jump performance in untrained men. J. Strength
Cond. Res. 15(4): 498-502. 2001.
19. Stanton, R. Strength training for outrigger canoe paddlers.
Strength
Cond. J. 21(2): 28-32. 1999.
20. Stumbo, T.A., S. Merriiam, K. Nies, A. Smith, D. Spurgeon, and J.P. Weir.
The effect of hand-grip stabilisation on isokinetic torque at the knee.
J.
134
21. Trappe, S. W., and D. R Pearson. Effects of weight assisted dry-land
strength training on swimming performance. J. Strength Cond. Res. 8(4):
209-213. 1994.

flexion movements in man. Exp. Brain Res. 91, 509-519.
23. Wright, G.A., T.H. DeLong, and G. Gehlsen. Electromyographic activity of

the hamstrings during performance of the leg curl, stiff-leg deadlift and back
squat movements. J. Strength Cond. Res. 13(2): 168-174. 1999.
24. Young, W.B., A. Jenner and K. Griffiths. Acute enhancement of power

performance from heavy load squats.
1998.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 12: 82-84.
135
Paper 3.
Predicting 1RM or sub-maximal strength levels from simple
reps to fatigue (RTF) tests.
by
Daniel Baker
published in
Strength and Conditioning Coach , Vol. 12 (4) pp.19-24. 2004.
136
Abstract
The validity of estimating one-repetition maximum (1RM) or estimating
repetition performance at levels between 60-100% 1RM from a table of
correction factors was investigated in two studies. In study one, thirty-four
(34) male professional rugby league players were tested for 1RM bench press
(BP) and repetitions to fatigue (RTF) while lifting an absolute resistance of
102.5 kg.
In study two, twenty-three (23) male professional rugby league
players were tested for 1RM pull-up (PU) and RTF with body mass. The
actual repetitions performed by each individual in the RTF tests were
correlated to the number of repetitions that were predicted to be performed
according to each individuals 1RM and the data from the table.
correlations of
High
r = 0.93 and r = 0.83 were found between the actual
repetitions and predicted repetitions performed in the RTF test for the BP and
PU, respectively. This result indicates that RTF tests appear to be reliable
predictors of strength performance in these two exercises. Consequently RTF
tests can be recommended for estimating 1RM performance or repetition
performance at sub-maximal resistances. This may be especially useful when
dealing with large numbers of athletes, especially inexperienced athletes.
Key words: strength, 1RM, bench press, pull-up, prediction
137
Introduction
When commencing the strength coaching of a new athlete it is often
good to have some idea of their capabilities. As a coach, you can interview
them regarding their capabilities, implement lengthy One-repetition Maximum
(1RM) test procedure(s) or perhaps implement quicker, more simple test(s)
that estimate 1RM levels through the performance of a reps to fatigue (RTF)
test with a given sub-maximal resistance.
This last procedure relies on
understanding the relationship between maximum and sub-maximum

capabilities to estimate 1RM levels.
The relationship between human power output or performance and
time to exhaustion is not a linear relationship, but a hyperbolic relationship
(18).
Many equations that have been developed to estimate maximum
capabilities from sub-maximum performance do not take this into account and
tend to over-estimate 1RM capabilities by inferring a more linear relationship
(16, 17, 20).
Also some equations are not gym friendly, requiring a
spreadsheet to determine the complicated equations.
Simple three-digit
correction factors are believed more appealing as they can be used with a
simple pocket calculator in the gym to calculate training weights or estimates
of 1RM (12). Instead of developing another semi-useful equation, I developed
a table that allows a coach to extrapolate a 1RM from a RTF effort and
conversely, by back-extrapolation, determine how many repetitions could be
performed at other sub-maximal resistances in that exercise.
Table 1
provides a guide as to the relationship between repetitions performed and

%1RM between 1 and 20 reps with a reconversion factor to estimate 1RM
138
from a RTF effort or test. This table is based upon my primarily upon my own
research (2) and training observations upon the hundreds of athletes that I
have trained, but is also influenced by other research (1, 6-9, 12-17, 20-22) as
well as the tables of renowned strength coaches Boyd Epley (10), Charles
Poliquin (19), Nate Foster (11) and the American National Football League
(NFL) table (9). The table of correction factors that I developed has been
validated before, when between three and six repetitions have been
performed (2, 12), but further validation is needed for the higher repetition
ranges. Generally correction factors become less accurate further away from
80% 1RM, when higher repetitions are performed (16, 17, 22). Also very little
data has been published concerning 1RM pull-up strength, RTF and predictive
correction factors.
The purpose of this paper is to validate the predictive qualities of the
table by comparing RTF results predicted from 1RM test results to actual RTF
performance in the bench press (BP) and pull-up (PU) exercise (aka chin-up).
Methods
Two experiments were carried out with professional rugby league
players as subjects.
All were experienced in resistance training and were
tested at the completion of a strength development cycle.
In Study One,
thirty-four players were tested for 1RM bench press (1RM BP) and RTF with
an absolute resistance of 102.5 kg.
139
Table 1. Guide for determining 1RM from varying repetitions performed to
maximum effort.
An estimate of 1RM is made when the weight lifted is
multiplied by the reconversion factor according to the number of repetitions

that were performed with that weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Guide for 1-10 reps
Guide for 10-20 reps
Reps %1RM
Reconvert*
Reps %1RM
Reconvert*
100
n/a
11
73
1.36
95
1.05
12
71
1.40
92
1.08
13
69.5
1.43
89
1.12
14
68
1.47
86
1.16
15
66.5
1.5
83
1.20
16
65
1.53
81
1.23
17
64
1.56
79
1.26
18
63
1.58
77
1.29
19
62
1.61
10
75
1.33
20
61
1.63
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For example, if someone can lift 100 kg for ten repetitions, then the estimated
1RM would be 133 kg (100 kg x 1.33). To estimate what resistance that they
could perform 5 repetitions with multiply the estimated 1RM (133 kg) by the
%1RM for 5 reps (86%) = 114 kg (round up to 115). To determine a 20-rep
resistance, it would be 133 kg X .61 = 81.1 kg (round down to 80 kg) and so
on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Study two, twenty-three players were tested for 1RM pull-up strength
and RTF with an absolute resistance of body mass. In both instances, the
amount of repetitions that were predicted to be performed with the designated
resistances, based upon an individuals 1RM and the relevant calculations
140
from Table 1, were compared to the actual repetitions that were performed
during the RTF tests.
Study One. The average age, body mass and height of the subjects was 22.6
+ 3.9 yrs, 95.5 + 10.1 kg and 183.3 + 5.8 cm. Procedures for 1RM BP testing
entailed warming up with sub-maximal resistances and then lifting
progressively heavier resistances until 1RM was achieved (2, 3, 4, 5). Three
days later a RTF test was performed with an absolute resistance of 102.5 kg
(this being the NFL 225-lb BP test). In this test, after warming up, the players
performed as many repetitions as possible with this resistance till fatigue (9).
The actual repetitions performed were compared to what was predicted to be
performed based upon the calculations from Table 1 (eg. 102.5 kg / 137.5
(1RM BP) = 75% which corresponds to 10 repetitions).
Study two. The average age, body mass and height of the subjects was 18.8
+ 1.3 yrs, 89.0 + 9.6 kg and 182.5 + 5.1 cm. The PU 1RM test was rather
unique in implementation and requires further description.
The 1RM was
determined by adding the athletes body mass to the attached additional mass
to garner the total mass that was successfully lifted during the 1RM PU test.
Additional mass was attached to the athletes lifting belt via a rope or light
chain.
This allowed for the incrementation and calibration of lifting mass
during the 1RM PU test (4). For example a 90 kg athlete who could perform a
PU with an additional 40 kg attached to the waist would score 130 kg in the
1RM PU test.
The PU test was performed with a supinated grip and the testing
repetition was preceded by an eccentric phase, as is the case for the BP. For
141
the preceding eccentric phase to occur, the athlete and attached additional
mass had to be held by three partners in the starting position of arms flexed
and chin in line with the pull-up bar. On the testers command, the athletes
support was removed and he proceeded into the eccentric phase to arms
length, whereupon he immediately pulled himself back to the flexed arm
starting position. Any attempt that did not entail an eccentric portion to full
arms length and return to the start position was disallowed.
After generalized warm-up of callisthenic and dynamic stretching
exercises, the athletes commenced the testing procedure by performing three
repetitions in the PU with their own body mass.
After this the athletes
performed only single repetitions with additional mass attached to their waists
till 1RM was achieved.
The RTF test was performed upon the dame day, about seven minutes
after the completion of the 1RM PU was completed, with only the players
body mass representing the absolute resistance.
The actual repetitions
performed with body mass were compared to what was predicted to be

performed, based upon the 1RM PU and the relevant calculations from Table
1 (eg.
95 (= BM)
/ 135 (1RM PU)
= 70.5 % which corresponds to 12
repetitions).
Results
The results outlined in Tables 2 and 3 indicate a very high, statistically
significant correlation between the predicted repetitions and the actual
repetitions performed in both exercises. Also, of the twenty-three athletes
142
who performed both tests the correlation between 1RM BP and 1RM PU was
also high (r= 0.82), a finding which is line with other research (4).
Table 2.
1RM strength levels, actual and predicted repetitions performed
while lifting the standard 102.5 kg mass during the bench press and
correlation between actual and predicted reps (n =34). Mean + SD.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1RM
102.5 kg
Actual
Predicted
Correlation
bench press (kg)
as % 1RM
reps
reps
co-efficient
135.6 + 16.3
76.6 + 8.8
10.1+ 4.8
9.8 + 5.1
r = 0.93
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
The very high correlations for predicting repetitions from extrapolating
from Table 1 and an athletes 1RM would indicate that the calculations could
be fairly accurate for predicting 1RM. Also this table would allow coaches to
estimate an athletes lifting capabilities across a broad range of repetitions
from one simple RTF test.
The reason why the PU exercise exhibited a slightly lower correlation to
the BP may be due the fact that both tests (1RM and RTF) were performed
upon the same day.
Fatigue resulting from the 1RM PU test may have
affected some individuals in the exhausting RTF test, slightly reducing the
correlation as compared to the BP. Nonetheless predicting 1RM from RTF or
conversely predicting RTF from 1RM tests would appear fairly accurate with
the figures contained in Table 1.
143
Table 3.
1RM strength levels, actual and predicted repetitions performed
while lifting body mass during the pull-up and correlation between actual and
predicted reps (n =23). Mean + SD.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1RM
BM
Actual
Predicted
Correlation
pull-up (kg)
as % 1RM
reps
reps
co-efficient
120.8 + 12.0
74.0 +7.1
11.5 + 4.3
11.1 + 4.3
r = 0.83
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore RTF testing to estimate 1RM could be used by coaches who

deal with large numbers of athletes.
For less strong athletes, the RTF
resistance with the bench press could be much lower, such as 60 kg for highschool athletes and maybe 80 kg for slightly stronger athletes. The absolute
resistance need not matter to much, as long as between 2 and 20 repetitions
can be performed. For the PU test, a resistance of body mass is a simple and
universal resistance for RTF tests.
When implementing programs based upon estimations of 1RM from
RTF tests, the following factors must be considered. Firstly, there are obvious
individual differences that exist such that some individuals vary greatly from
the averages of the table. The table is simply a starting point and over time a
coach may develop further information such that they know each individuals
variation and in fact develop modified tables for
individuals (11).
Also it
appears that these prediction equations or tables can sometimes be less

accurate with untrained people (although this is not unequivocal), less
144
accurate the further away from 80% 1RM you go (6, 16, 17, 20) and the fact
some exercises such as leg press or leg curls do not follow this guide (13).
For example, research has shown that about 20 repetitions can be performed
at 80% 1RM in the leg press, but only 11 repetitions at 60% in the leg curl
(13). But generally, for trained athletes performing multiple-joint free-weight
strength training exercises (or pulley exercises such as lat pulldowns), this
table appears a useful guide for extrapolating an individuals 1RM. Also backextrapolating how just how many repetitions can be performed at any
designated sub-maximum resistance in this range is also possible.
Conclusion
The data in Table 1 allows a coach to extrapolate what an individuals
1RM would be based upon RTF tests with sub-maximal resistances and also
for predicting how many repetitions can be performed at any designated submaximum resistance in this range. This could save time when dealing with
large numbers of athletes and when coupled with a spreadsheet application,
could also allow for very accurate individualized training weight prescriptions.
145
References
1. Arthur, M. (1982): NSCA tests and measurements survey results. NSCA
Journal. 3(12): 38a-38c.
2. Baker, D. The use of sub-maximal repetitions to predict maximal squat

and bench press strength in trained athletes. Strength & Conditioning Coach.
3(4): 1,19. 1995.
3.
Baker, D.
J.
4. Baker, D. An analyses of the relationship between upper body pressing

and pulling strength in national-league and state-league level athletes. J.
5. Baker, D., Wilson, G. & Carlyon, R. (1994): Periodization: The effect on

strength of manipulating volume and intensity. J. Strength Cond. Res. 8(4):
235-242.
6. Braith, R., Graves, J., Legget, S. & Pollock, M. Effect of training on the
relationship between maximal and submaximal strength. Med. Sci. Sports &
Exer. 25:132-138. 1993.
146
7. Buskies, W., & Boeckh Behrens, W. Control of training intensity in strength
training based on maximal strength tests. Translation from German, available
National Sport Information Centre. 2000.
8.
Brzycki, M. Strength testing:
Predicting a one-rep max from reps-to-
fatigue. J. Health, Phys. Ed, Rec. & Dance. 64: 88-90. 1993.
9. Chapman, P.P., Whitehead, J.R. and Binkert, R.H. The 225-lb reps-tofatigue test as a submaximal estimate of 1-RM bench press performance in
college football players. J. Strength Cond Res. 12(4):258-261. 1998.
10. Epley, B. Poundage chart. In: Boyd Epley Workout.
Linclon, Nebraska,
USA. 1985.
11. Foster, N.
Coaching at the world level. Ironman. 45(1): 36, 74, 76.
1985
12. Gaviglio, C. The accuracy of predicting equations for estimating 1-RM in
the bench press. Strength & Conditioning Coach. 9(2): 3-6. 2001.
13. Hoeger, W., Hopkins, D., Barette,S. & Hale, D. Relationship between
repetitions and selected percentages of one repetition maximum:
comparison between untrained and trained males and females. J. Appl. Sport
Sci. Res. 4:47-54. 1990.
147
14. Lander, J. Maximums based upon reps. NSCA Journal. 6(3): 60-61.
1985.
15. LeSuer, D.A., McCormick, L.H., Mayhew, J.L., Wasserstein, R.L. & M.D.
Arnold.
The accuracy of prediction equations for estimating 1-RM
performances in the bench press, squat and deadlift. J. Strength Cond Res.
11(4): 211-213. 1997.
16.
Mayhew, J., Ball, T., and Bowen, J.
Relative muscular endurance
performance as a predictor of bench press strength of in college men and

women. J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res 6: 200-206. 1992.
17. Mayhew, J., Ball, T., and Bowen, J. Prediction of bench press lifting
ability from sub-maximal repetitions before and after training. Sports. Med.
Train. Rehab. 3: 195-201. 1992.
18. Monod, H. and Scherrer, J. The work capacity of a synergistic muscle

group. Ergonomics. 8: 329-350. 1981.
19. Poliquin, C. Sensible strength training from the start. Coaching Review.
28-30. 1985.
20.
Prinster, J.L., Mayhew, J., Arabas, J., Ware, J. and Bemben, M.
Prediction of maximal bench press strength from relative endurance

performance in college men. J. Strength Cond Res. 7: 9185-186. 1993.
148
21.
Sobonya, S. & Morales, J.
The use of maximal repetition tests for
prediction of 1 repetition maximum loads. Sports. Med. Train. Rehab 4:154

(Abstract). 1993.
22. Ware, J., Clemens, C., Mayhew, J. & Johnston, T.
Muscular endurance
repetitions to predict bench press and squat strength in college football

players. J. Strength Cond Res. 9(2): 99-103. 1995.
149
Paper 4.
Acute effect of alternating heavy and light resistances on
power output during upper-body complex power training.
by
Daniel Baker
published in the
17(3):493 -497. 2003.
150
Abstract
This study investigated the effect on upper body power output of
manipulating resistances during contrast or complex power training. This
power training strategy typically entails the athlete alternating sets of a heavy
resistance in a strength-oriented exercise with sets of lighter resistances in a
power-oriented exercise.
Sixteen rugby league players, who were
experienced in power training and who performed complex training on a

regular basis, served as subjects for this study and were divided equally into a
control (Con) or experimental (Exp) group. Both groups were pre- and posttested for power output while performing explosive bench press throws in a
smith machine with a resistance of 50 kg (BT P50). The Exp group performed
an intervention strategy of a six repetition set of bench press with a resistance
of 65% of one repetition maximum (65% 1RM) between tests. At the pre-test
occasion, no differences was observed between the groups in power output,
however at the post-testing, a significant difference in power output was
observed between the groups in the BT P50.
The 4.5% increase in the
power output recorded during the post-testing BT P50 for the Exp group was
determined to be significantly different from all other scores (p < 0.05). This
data indicates that the performance of a set of heavy resistance strength
training exercise between power training sets will acutely enhance power
output in the second power training set.
This effect has been previously
theorized as possibly due to some combination of acute neural or mechanical

adaptations.
Key words: contrast loading, strength, neural, bench press, bench throw.
151
Introduction
Recently the training method whereby sets of heavier and lighter
resistances are alternated in order to elicit an increase in power output has
received some attention (2, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 20, 26). This method, often
called complex training (11, 13) or contrast loading (2) has previously
received scant scientific regard despite training recommendations and
prescriptions dating back over fifteen years (13).
Fleck and Kontor (13), who originally reported upon the Russian
complex method of training, described the alternating of sets of a very heavy
resistance (>85% 1RM) in a strength-oriented exercise such as squats or
bench press with sets of a lighter resistance (30-45% 1RM) in a poweroriented exercise such as jump squats or medicine ball throws (3, 23, 25, 26).
A power-oriented exercise is an exercise where acceleration occurs through
the full range of movement, resulting in higher movement speeds and
accordingly power outputs (18, 19, 23).
The rationale for this contrasting
resistance method was that the heavy resistance strength-oriented set

provided some sort of enhanced neural drive to the agonist musculature (13,
15). Theoretically this increased neural activity would carry over to the lifting of
the light resistance power-oriented exercise, resulting in a higher power output
with this lighter resistance than would occur without the prior heavy resistance
set (11, 13, 14, 15).
Recently, a number of studies have illustrated the significant acute
effect that this training method has on jumping performance (14, 21, 26).
These studies have typically involved heavy resistance squats or leg presses
alternated with vertical jumps or lighter resistance jump squats. More recent
studies have also reported significant enhancement of power output after
alternating heavier and lighter resistance sets of merely a power-oriented
exercise, in these cases jump squats (3, 5). However, despite the success of
the studies listed above and recent training recommendations (3, 10), very
152
little data exists validating the effects of contrasting loading upon upper body
power output. Two recent studies that examined contrast load training during
upper body power training could not determine any performance benefit or
muscular or mechanical source of augmentation (11).
Ebben et. al. (11)
reported no performance augmentation in the power exercise (medicine ball

throwing) or possible mechanism of augmentation after heavy bench pressing
with a resistance of about 90% 1RM. More recently, Hrysomallis and Kidgell
(15) also reported no augmentation in performance of the power exercise
(explosive pushups) following the performance of a heavy resistance 5RM
bench press set. These authors were unclear why non-significant results may
occur with complex training for the upper body considering the amount of
supporting data existing for the lower body.
The purpose of this study was to report the acute effects upon power
output of performing a heavy resistance bench press set between bench
throw power sets in athletes experienced in contrast/complex upper body
power training.
Methods
The
approach to the problem used in this study entailed an
intervention strategy whereby all subjects were pre-tested and post-tested for
power output during the bench throw power training exercise, however the
experimental subjects performed the intervention strategy of heavy bench
pressing between power tests. This testing strategy was devised to garner
data concerning the effect, if any, that the heavy bench pressing may have
upon consequent power output during the post-testing occasion.
Subjects
Sixteen rugby league players participating in the national or state
league and who possessed at least one years experience in contrast/complex
power training served as subjects for this study. They were informed of the
153
nature of the study and voluntarily elected to participate in the testing and
intervention sessions and were divided equally into an experimental (Exp)
and control (Con) group. A description of the subjects is contained in Table 1.
Table 1. Description of subjects. Mean (standard deviation)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1RM BP
BT Pmax
Height
Mass
Age
Exp
143.7 (20.0) 694 (80)
188.1 (4.2)
107.4 (6.9)* 23.3 (3.1)
Con
137.2 (15.1) 612 (73)
182.4 (7.0)
91.5 (7.4)
22.4 (1.9)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* denotes difference between groups, P < 0.05.
Testing
System
(Norsearch,
Lismore,
Australia),
extensively elsewhere (3-9, 18, 19, 21, 22).
which has
been described
Briefly, the PPS is a device

The number of
software calculated the average mechanical power (in watts, w) output of the
the barbell, time of displacement and mass of barbell data (M * G * D / T =
power output in watts). A test-retest reliability of r = .92 was previously
154
established with a group of twelve subjects.

of both the bench press and bench throw exercise with resistances of 60 kg
and 40 kg, respectively (5). After three minutes rest, the subjects performed
the pre-test, which consisted of five consecutive repetitions with the 50 kg
resistance (Pre BT P50). Subjects were instructed to propel the barbell as
explosively as possible and were given verbal encouragement throughout.
Only the repetition with the highest average concentric power output was
chosen and recorded for analysis. After three more minutes rest the Con
group repeated the test (Post BT P50).
The intervention strategy performed by the Exp group consisted of the
subjects performing six repetitions of the free weight bench press exercise
with a resistance of 65% of their 1RM BP. After three minutes rest the Exp
group performed the Post BT P50 test. Thus, after warm-up, both groups had
performed a Pre and Post BT P50 power output test, with the Exp subjects
also performing an intervention strategy of heavy resistance bench pressing
between tests. This experimental design was implemented in order to observe
if there had been any augmentation to power output through the intervention
of the heavy resistance set in the Exp group.
Statistics
To determine if any difference in power output existed between the
groups at either testing occasion, a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
with repeated measures was used. Significance was accepted at an alpha
level of p < 0.05 for all testing.
Results
The results are outlined in Table 2.
At the pre-test occasion, no
differences was observed between the groups in power output, however at the
post-testing, a significant difference was observed between the groups in the
155
BT P50. The 4.5% increase in the power output recorded during the posttesting BT P50 for the Exp group was determined to be significantly different
from all other scores (p < 0.05).
Table 2. Power outputs (w) during bench press throws with a barbell
resistance of 50 kg (BT P50) for the control and experimental groups. Mean
(standard deviation)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pre BT P50 Post BT P50
Exp
595 (57)
621 (66) *
Con
575 (59)
574 (67)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* denotes difference between groups, P < 0.05.
Discussion
Similar to previous results for the lower body (1, 3, 5, 14, 20, 26) but
dissimilar to previous upper body studies (11, 15), the method of alternating
heavy and light resistances had a small but significant acute effect upon
power output. This discussion will now focus upon mechanisms via which
augmentation to power output may occur as a result of the intervention of a
heavy resistance set during complex training and the reasons why the current
study reported significant results in contrast to the previous upper body
studies.
The reason why power output is increased by the intervention of a
contrasting heavy resistance set may be due to short term neural or
mechanical adaptations or combinations of both. In the studies listed above,
the various authors have postulated upon why the alternating of heavy and
light resistances may increase power output. These authors have surmised
156
that this acute augmentation in power output may be the result of neural
adaptations such as increased descending activity from the higher motor
centres, direct myoelectrical potentiation, increased synchronization of motor
unit firing, reduced peripheral inhibition from the Golgi tendon organ (GTO),
reduced central inhibition from the Renshaw cell and enhanced reciprocal
inhibition of the antagonist musculature (5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 26). None of these
possible mechanisms need be
exclusive and a number of the above
mechanisms could function together simultaneously.

Gulich and Schmidtbleicher (14) and Young et al. (26) rationalized that
the intervention strategy must be a very heavy resistance of maximal or nearmaximal intensity to increase motor unit activation (> 85-90% 1RM). The fact
that Young et al. (26) found greatest augmentation to jumping height in the
strongest athletes using the heaviest 5RM loads, would tend to support the
fact that some tension sensitive mechanisms were at least partly responsible.
However, the present study entailed a much lower resistance of 65% 1RM as
the contrast set. As five repetitions performed at a resistance of 65% 1RM is
insufficient to cause a full tetany to occur, the post tetanic augmentation as
theorized by Gulich & Schmidtbleicher (14) could not fully account for the
augmentation to power output in the current study.
Previous lower body
studies have also reported significant results with much lighter contrasting
resistances (5). This would suggest that other neural strategies associated
with lifting heavier, though not maximal, resistances can be used for
contrast/complex training.
If the intervention mechanism is related to resistance, but not
necessarily the heaviest resistance, then some tension sensitive mechanism
of the neuromuscular system that are affected by resistance/force must be at
least partly responsible (14). Tension sensitive receptors such as the Golgi
tendon organ and Renshaw cell could possibly account for this consequent
change in power output by reducing their negative inhibitory feedback (2, 16).
157
An effective relaxation of the antagonist muscles to prevent excessive cocontraction must also be considered an option available to the neuromuscular
system (17). Thus it is feasible that the heavier contrasting resistance set
may enable athletes to be better able to process and over-ride inhibitory
signals that occur in ensuing sets. However, the only previous study that
assessed neural output levels during upper body contrast/complex training
found no change in electromyographic activity during the performance of the
power exercise, but this may not be unexpected as no performance
augmentation was reported either (11). Therefore it is still unclear via which, if
any, neural mechanism may be responsible when augmentation to power
output occurs during complex training.
Another possible avenue of augmentation is the stiffness of the
musculo-tendinous unit and specifically the series elastic component (SEC)
(16, 22-25). Depending upon the resistance to be overcome, some increased
SEC stiffness may be useful in regulating force output during stretch-shorten
cycle movements (16, 23, 25). A heavier resistance set of 65% 1RM may
temporarily result in a favourable increase in SEC stiffness, proving
favourable for power production in ensuing power training sets. However, a
very heavy resistance (85-90% 1RM) set may temporarily result in a SEC that
is stiffer than would be optimal considering the lighter resistance to be
overcome in the power movement (23, 25).
Therefore at this stage it is not known exactly via which avenues an
increase in power output may occur, but conceivably some acute neural
adaptations and stiffness regulation of the SEC probably account for the
effect. How long this effect may last is not yet known, but this would have
implications for athletes who use contrast loading complexes in sport warmups.
For example, how long could any possible augmentation to power
performance last from using a weighted bat donut for baseball batters?
Conceivably if the augmentation is primarily accounted for by neural or
158
stiffness regulation, then the effects may dissipate after a matter of minutes
(perhaps less than 10 minutes).
Further research into the length of time
power remains elevated is warranted.

The reason why a significant result was obtained in this investigation
but not in previous upper body studies may be due to a number of reasons.
Primarily, the level of the intervention resistance was not as high in this study
as compared to the previous upper body studies. In the two studies that
investigated the upper body during complex training, subjects performed 4-5
repetitions at a resistances of about 85-90% 1RM in the bench press
alternated with medicine ball drop throws or explosive push ups, with no
performance augmentation reported in either study (11, 15).
In the present
study a resistance of only 65% 1RM precipitated an increase in power output

during the ensuing power set. This result would directly indicate that very
heavy resistances are not required to enhance the contrast effect during
upper body complex training. The use of very heavy resistances of 85-90 %
1RM in contrast loading for the upper body may not be as effective as for the
lower body, possible due to the smaller muscle mass involved.
Certainly
some pilot work involved with this investigation found equivocal results when a
resistance of 90% 1RM was used for the heavy resistance set. Perhaps any
intervention resistance that is markedly heavier than the power resistance and
hence provides a contrast, may be effective during complex training.
Another reason why power output was enhanced in this study and not
in the other upper body studies may also be due to the very heavy resistance
being performed at much slower lifting speeds (18). According to the speedcontrol theory (12) the neural output may have been attuned to the slower
speed of very heavy bench pressing, reducing the possibility of favourable
neural adaptations occurring during the ensuing, faster power exercise. Thus
it is possible that very heavy resistances of >85-90% 1RM, with inherently
slower lifting speeds, may not provide an optimal stimulus for upper body
159
complex training, as they may temporarily attune the neural output to a slower
speed than is optimal for maximum power production. However, a resistance
of 65% 1RM as used in this study still allows for high lifting speeds (18) and is
also markedly heavier than the typical power training resistances.
In the
present study the alternated resistances were in sharp contrast to each other
(mean resistance of 91.9 + 9.3 kg during bench press alternated with 50 kg
during bench throws).
Finally, the subjects in this study were trained power athletes who
performed contrasting resistance complex training on a regular basis (1-2/wk)
and were much stronger (by about an average of 50-60%) than the subjects in
previous upper body studies (15).
Young et al. (26) reported greater
performance augmentation in the strongest subjects, indicating strength levels

may be an important predictor of success for contrasting resistance complex
training. For example, the two strongest subjects in the present study had an
average augmentation to performance of 6.2% as compared to 0.8% for the
two least strong subjects. This may partially explain the lack of significant
results reported previously for the upper body (11, 15).
Based upon this result and research upon lower body power output,
coaches need not have to rely upon extremely heavy resistances to provide a
neural training stimulus during complex training. It is conceivable that any
resistance that is markedly heavier than the power training resistance may
elicit a favourable contrast loading training response (1, 2, 3, 5).
The
importance of this concept is that if strength coaches use a heavy-light system

within the training week, they could easily integrate contrasting resistance
training into the light training day of the week (eg. alternating light day
bench presses of 65-75% 1RM with bench throws of 20-50% 1RM) .
It must be noted that the lighter power exercise should be an exercise
in which full acceleration can occur through the full range of motion (eg. the
weight does not need to be decelerated to remain in the subjects hand at the
160
completion of a repetition). If a traditional exercise such as squat or bench

press is performed with low resistances of 30-45% 1RM, then the large
deceleration epoch that occurs at the end of the range of motion severely
compromises power output (18, 19, 21, 22). Therefore it may be better to
perform bench press throws (in a Smith machine), explosive pushups,
medicine ball throws and barbell jump squats or other jumps with the lighter
resistances than to attempt to perform explosive versions of the traditional
bench press and squat exercises. The traditional exercises of bench press
and squat are reserved for the heavy resistance
set and/or strength
development. Full acceleration exercises (eg. throwing, jumping, weightlifting

pulling movements) are required as the power training exercise. Based upon
these results it is also recommended that future training and research for
upper body power training utilize resistances of 60-70% 1RM for the heavy
resistance set and 25-40% 1RM for the power training set to garner significant
results.
An increase in power output can occur during upper body power
training when
sets of a heavy resistance, strength-oriented exercise are
alternated with sets of a lighter, power-oriented training exercise. In this study

a resistance of 65% 1RM, a resistance which is lower than is commonly
recommended (11, 15, 26), was heavy enough to elicit an increase in power
output during the performance of the ensuing power training exercise.
Resistances of 65% 1RM are typical of the resistances that many coaches
often prescribe on the lighter training day of a week and accordingly contrast
loading complexes of exercises could be easily integrated into the training
routine on this day (3). Typically, the heavy resistance set could be about
twice the resistance of the power training set, which should be enough of a
contrast to have the desired stimulatory effect upon the neuromuscular
161
system.
Common examples for the upper body would be bench press
alternated with lighter 1-hand or 2-hand bench press throws in a smith

machine, various forms of explosive push-ups or medicine ball throwing
exercises.
It is possible that acute augmentation to sport performance could be
achieved by the use of contrast loading in the latter phases of the warm-up.
The use of weighted bat donuts, slightly heavier than normal balls or throwing
implements (shot-putt, discus, hammer) are examples currently used in upper
body power-sports warm-ups.
Astute coaches should be able to devise
methods to use this technique in many other upper body sports.
162
References

3.
Baker, D.
Strength Cond.
23(1):47-56. 2001.
4.
Baker, D.
J.

2001.


1999.
163

1998.
11.
Ebben, W.P., Jensen, R.J and D.O Blacker.
Electromyographic and

2000.
12.
Enoka, R. M.

1986.

15.

2001.
16.
Komi, P.V.
Training of muscle strength and power: interaction of
164
neuromotoric, hypertrophic and mechanical factors.
Int. J. Sports Med.
7:(Supp):101-105. 1986
17.
Moritani, T., Muro, M, Ishida, K and S. Taguchi. Electromyographic
analyses of the effects of muscle power training. J. Med. Sport Sci. (Japan),
1, 23-32. 1987.

19.

20. Radcliffe, J.C., and J.L. Radcliffe. Effects of different warmups protocols
on peak power output during a single response jump task. (Abstract). Med.
Sci. Sports. Exerc.28:S189. 1996.
21.
The optimal
Sports Exerc. 23:1279-1286. 1993.
22.

21(4):301-315. 1996.
23. Wilson, G., Wood, G. & Elliott, B. Optimal stiffness of the series elastic
165
component in a stretch-shorten cycle activity. J. Appl. Physiol. 70: 825833. 1991.
24. Wilson, G.
Elliott, B. & Wood, G.
The effect on performance of
imposing a delay during a stretch-shorten cycle movement. Med. Sci.

Sports Exer., 23: 363-370. 1991
25. Wilson, G., Elliot, B. & Wood, G. Stretch shorten cycle performance
enhancement through flexibility training. Med. Sci. Sports Exer., 24:
403-407. 1992.
26. Young, W. B., A. Jenner and K. Griffiths. Acute enhancement of power

1998.
166
Paper 5.
Acute effect on power output of alternating an agonist
and antagonist muscle exercise during complex training.
by
published in the
19(1):202-205. 2005.
167
Abstract
responsible for large increases in strength. It has also been demonstrated
that weak antagonists may limit speed of movement and consequently that
strengthening the antagonist muscles leads to an increase in agonist muscle
movement speed.
However the effect of combining agonist and antagonist
muscle exercises into a power training session has been largely unexplored.
The purpose of this study was to determine if a training complex consisting of
contrasting agonist and antagonist exercises would result in an acute increase
in power output in the agonist power exercise.
Twenty-four college-aged
rugby league players who were experienced in combined strength and power
training served as subjects for this study. The subjects were equally assigned
to an experimental (Antag) or control (Con) group who were no different in
age, height, body mass, strength or maximal power.
Power output was
assessed during bench press throws with a 40 kg resistance (BT P40) using
the Plyopower training device. After warming up, the Con group performed
the BT P40 tests three minutes apart to determine if any acute augmentation
to power output could occur without intervention.
The Antag group also
performed the BT P40 tests, however an intervention strategy of a set of

bench pulls, which is an antagonistic action to the bench throw, was
performed between tests to determine if this would affect acutely power output
during the second BT P40 test. While the power output for the Con group
remained unaltered between test occasions, the significant 4.7% increase for
the Antag group indicates that a strategy of alternating agonist and antagonist
exercises may acutely increase power output during complex power training.
This result may affect power training and specific warm-up strategies used in
ballistic sports activities, with increased emphasis placed upon the antagonist
muscle groups.
168
Key words: reciprocal inhibition, triphasic pattern, acceleration
169
Introduction
responsible for large increases in strength or torque (7, 9, 17). This appears
to be achieved by a neural strategy of enhanced reciprocal inhibition of the
antagonist musculature.
However, little research has been conducted
examining the role of agonist and antagonist muscle interplay in power

movements. The faster lifting speeds involved in power training may make it
more difficult (as compared to traditional strength training) to efficiently control
unwarranted co-contraction between agonist and antagonist muscle groups,
potentially reducing power output (18).
It has also been demonstrated that weak antagonist muscles may limit
speed of movement (22) and that strengthening of the antagonist muscles
leads to an increase in agonist movement speed (16).
It would therefore
seem prudent to strengthen the antagonist muscles involved in the power

training action or movement. One method of integrating strength and power
training into a training session has been labeled as complex or contrast
training (1-5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 23). Traditional recommendations for contrast
loading have included the alternating of sets of heavy and light resistances in
similar agonist exercises or movement patterns (13, 14, 23). This method of
alternating contrasting resistances to enhance power output has been
substantiated for the lower body on a number of different occasions (1, 3, 4,
14, 23). It has also been shown that heavy resistance exercises increase the
concentric rate of force development while lighter, plyometric type exercises
enhance eccentric rate of force development (22). This combination of effects
conceivably partially explains the success of this combined method of power
training. With regards to upper body complex training, only one study to date
has documented any significant effects (5) with other studies reporting no
augmentation to power output or performance (11, 15).
170
While the traditional methodology of complex power training has entailed

contrasting resistances in similar agonist exercises (eg. alternating heavy and
light resistances in squats and jump squats), no research exists concerning
complexes of contrasting muscle actions.
If some augmentation to force
output occurs due to a neural strategy of enhanced reciprocal inhibition of the

antagonist musculature, then contrasting strategies involving the antagonist
musculature may also prove fruitful for enhancing power output. In support of
this, Burke et al. (8) recently reported that a high speed antagonist contraction
immediately preceding an agonist contraction resulted in increased torque
during
the
agonist
contraction
(isokinetic
seated
bench
press/pull
movements). As yet it has not been determined if the effect reported by Burke
et al would transfer between alternating sets of agonist and antagonist
exercises in typical isoninertial resistance training.
The purpose of this study was to examine the acute effect upon power
output of alternating agonist
and antagonist exercises during typical
isoninertial complex power training.
Methods
To determine if power output generated during an exercise could be
acutely affected by the subsequent performance of an antagonist exercise, an
intervention study was implemented.
This entailed two groups of athletes
performing a Pre test of power output during bench press throws with a
standard resistance.
The control group would then repeat this test three
minutes later to provide data pertinent to whether power output could be

acutely affected without some form of active intervention. The experimental
group would perform the same tests, however an intervention strategy of
performing a set of an antagonist exercise of bench pulls between power tests
would be implemented to determine whether power output could be acutely
171
affected.
Subjects
Twenty-four college-aged rugby league players who possessed at
least 1 year of resistance training experience and specifically at least 6
months of contrast/complex power training served as subjects for this study.
They were informed of the nature of the study and voluntarily elected to
participate in the testing and intervention sessions and were divided equally
into an experimental (Antag) and control group (Con). A description of the
Table 1. Description of subjects. Mean (standard deviation).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Age
Height
Mass
1RM BP
BT Pmax
Antag
(yrs)
(cm)
(kg)
(kg)
(w)
18.7 (.65)
184.5 (6.0)
87.6 (6.8)
111.2 (6.9)
522 (43)
19.0 (1.0)
184.1 (5.3)
93.0 (9.3)
115.8 (15.1) 554 (84)
(n =12)
Control
(n =12)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testing procedures
extensively elsewhere by various authors (4-6, 18-22). Briefly, the PPS is a
device whereby the displacement of the barbell is limited to the vertical plane,
as in a Smith weight training
machine.
The linear bearings that are
attached to each end of the barbell allow the barbell to slide about two
172
hardened steel shafts with a minimum of friction. A rotary encoder attached to

the machine produced pulses indicating the displacement of the barbell. The
number of pulses, denoting barbell displacement, and the time of the barbell
movement were measured by a counter timer board installed in the computer.
The PPS software calculated the average mechanical power output in watts
(w) of the concentric phase of the bench press throws based upon the
displacement of the barbell, time of displacement and mass of barbell (*
gravity) data (M * G * D / T=Power output in watts, where G = gravity). Test
reliability of r = 0.92 was previously established with a group of 12 subjects.
of both the bench press (60 kg) and bench throw exercise (20 kg). After three
minutes rest, the subjects performed the pre-test, which consisted of five
consecutive repetitions with the investigated resistance (Pre-BT P40). Only
the repetition with the highest concentric average power output was chosen
and recorded for analysis. The Con subjects were Post-tested after three
minutes rest. This provided data pertinent as to whether any augmentation to
power output may occur without active intervention.
The experimental Antag group performed the intervention strategy of a
set of a moderately heavy resistance antagonist muscle action exercise. In
this case the prone bench pull with a free weight barbell was used. For this
exercise, the subjects lie prone upon a special high bench with the barbell
placed upon the floor directly under their chest. The subjects were instructed
to pull the barbell as forcefully as possible towards their chest-abdomen
region for eight repetitions.
The construction of the bench prevented any
impact of the barbell with the subjects body. The subjects were allowed to
virtually drop the bar to the floor to lessen any potential effect of fatigue that
may have arisen from the slow or careful eccentric lowering of the barbell.
This meant about a 1-2 second rest existed between consecutive repetitions
as the subjects re-gripped the bar. These strategies were implemented to
173
ensure the athletes performed the bench pulls in manner similar to the bench
throws (ie. explosively and with loss of hand contact with the bar).
The
resistance of the barbell for the bench pull was set at 50% of each subjects
1RM BP. This meant the subjects were bench throwing a mass of 40 kg and
prone bench pulling a mean barbell mass of 56.2 kg (+ 3.8 kg). The Antag
group was then retested for BT P40 three minutes after completing the
intervention strategy of bench pulls.
To determine the effect of the intervention on test occasion, a repeated
measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used.
Significance was
accepted at an alpha level of p < 0.05 for all testing.
Results
The results are detailed in Table 2. The 4.7 % increase in the Post-test
BT P40 as a result of the intervention strategy of heavy antagonist bench
pulls for the Antag group was statistically significant. The power output for the
BT P40 remained unchanged in the Control group between test occasions.
Discussion
The experimental Antag group increased power output as a result of
the intervention of a set of antagonist bench pulls between sets of the power
exercise while the power output for the control group remained unaltered. The
acute increase in power output as a result of the contrasting contraction
strategy gives support to the effect reported by Burke et al (8).
If this
augmentation to power output was due to a neural strategy of enhanced

reciprocal inhibition of the antagonist musculature, then the nature of these
strategies might need to be discussed to provoke further research in this area.
174
Table 2. The acute effect upon power output of imposing a set of antagonist
prone bench pulls between sets of bench press throws with 40 kg. Mean
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BT P40 power output (w)
Pre
Post
Antag
468 (31)
490 (38)*
Control
508 (54)
505 (59)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* denotes significantly different from Pre test occasion, p < 0.05
During some rapid, ballistic movements of the limbs a particular neural

pattern of motor unit firing known as the triphasic or ABC pattern becomes
evident (16). This pattern is characterized by a large Action burst of activity
by the agonist musculature followed by a shorter Braking burst of activity by
the antagonist musculature of the limb and finally a short Clamping burst
again by the agonists to complete the movement. As the net force produced
during a movement is a trade-off between the force of the agonists and the
counteracting force of the antagonists (7, 9), then the interaction between
these bursts of myoelectrical activity warrant interest.
Strength training
reduces the interfering effect of co-contraction between agonists and

antagonists in rapid movements (16). Therefore a more efficient control of the
ABC pattern may benefit the power athlete.
For example, the maximal resistance theory of myoelectrical
augmentation (10, 11, 13, 14, 23) in agonist complex training (eg. alternating
very heavy squats and light jump squats) would rely on an increase in the
175
Action burst of activity in the agonists muscles (caused by enhanced neural

stimulation resulting from the very heavy squats) to facilitate the increase in
power during the ensuing exercise.
This would be the post-tetanic
potentiation advocated by Gulich & Schmidtbleicher (14). However, in this

study a contrasting antagonist contraction was alternated with the power
exercise and hence it is not readily conceivable how this strategy could
directly affect the amount of activity of the Action burst of the agonists. It is
conceivable that the heavy bench pull set effected the timing of the Braking
burst of the antagonists during the agonist power exercise. A shorter, more
succinct Braking phase would mean that the agonist Action burst could be
continued for longer into the total contraction time (16). Given that the total
concentric contraction time during bench throws with this sort of resistance is
only around 500-650 msec (19), then any significant increase in action time
and reduction in braking time could be beneficial. Indeed Jaric et al. (16)
demonstrated that increased strength of the antagonists as a result of training
resulted in increased speed during ballistic elbow flexion movements. They
demonstrated that the increased strength allowed for a shorter braking
period, a greater relative acceleration period and favourable alterations in the
ABC myoelectrical patterns. Some evidence also suggests that increased
power output could result without increased agonist or antagonist strength if a
more synchronous firing of motor units within a muscle occurred within the
first 60-100 ms of the contraction (18). Conceivably, complexes of agonist
and antagonist exercises may aid in these situations.
While this study illustrated the acute effect upon power output of
alternating agonist and antagonist exercises during complex training, it is
unknown if this effect would transfer to greater increases in power output over
long term periods. Longitudinal studies of many months duration need to be
performed that compare the development of power through various
intervention strategies used in complex training to the more traditional straight
176
sets method of power training. Conceivably this agonist/antagonist strategy

could also be used as a specific warm-up strategy to acutely increase power
output for sports activities. For example, baseball pitchers and tennis players
could alternate antagonist shoulder external rotation exercises (eg. with
rubber tubing) with their agonist pitching and serving drills.
When selecting antagonist power training exercises it may be even
more appropriate to choose exercises that allow acceleration for the entire
range of movement.
For rapid upper limb movements this could mean
throwing movements alternated with rapid pulling movements, such as the top
pulls and power cleans from hang/boxes.
The alternating of agonist and
antagonist power exercises may be area for future exploration for strength
coaches.
While
traditional
contrasting
resistance/complex
training
recommendations have focused upon the alternating of heavier and lighter

resistances in exercises of similar agonist movement patterns, the alternating
of agonist and antagonist movement patterns may be useful in ballistic power
training. The effect of directly stimulating the antagonist musculature in a
power-training complex may be to reduce the time necessary for the braking
phase that occurs about halfway through the ballistic limb movement in the
ensuing agonist movement. In turn, this may increase resultant force, speed
and power. Practical combinations of agonist and antagonist exercises for the
upper body would be bench press throws and bench pulls, bench press
throws and power clean from hang or various forms of explosive medicine ball
throwing alternated with explosive pulling, shoulder external rotation and
elbow flexion exercises (with resistance provided by dumbells, rubber tubing,
medicine balls or sports implements in some cases).
177
References

development. Strength & Conditioning Coach. 3(2):8-16. 1995.
3.
Baker, D.
Strength Cond.
23(1):47-56. 2001.

2001.
5. Baker, D. The acute effect of alternating heavy and light resistances upon
Res. 17(3): 00-00. 2003
7. Baratta R, Solomomow M, Zhou B, Letson D, Chuinard R, D'Ambrosia R.

Muscular co-activation. The role of the antagonist musculature in maintaining
knee stability. Am J Sports Med.16: 113-122. 1988.
8.
178

9. Draganich L, Jaeger R, and Krajl A. Coactivation of the hamstrings and

quadriceps during extension of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg. 71: 1075-1081.
1989.
1998.
kinetic analysis of complex training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 14(4):451-456.
2000.
12.
Enoka, R. M.

1986.

15.

2001.
16.
Role of agonist and
179

Physiol. 1995.
17. Moritani, T.
training.
Time course of adaptations during strength and power
in Strength and power in sport.
P.V Komi (ed).
Blackwell
Science. 1992.
18. Moritani, T. Neuromuscular adaptations during the acquisition of muscle

strength, power and motor tasks. J. Biomechan. 26, Supp 1:95-107. 1993.

Hakkinen. Influence of load and stretch shortening cycle on the kinematics,
20.
The optimal
Sports Exerc. 23:1279-1286. 1993.
21.

21(4):301-315. 1996.

flexion movements in man. Exp. Brain Res. 91, 509-519. 1992.
23. Young, W., A. Jenner and K. Griffiths. Acute enhancement of power

1998.
180
Paper 6.
Acute negative effect of a hypertrophy-oriented training bout
on subsequent upper-body power output.
by
Daniel Baker
published in the
17(3):527-530. 2003
181
Abstract
Athletes regularly combine maximal strength, power and hypertrophyoriented training within the same workout. Traditionally it has suggested that
power-oriented exercises precede strength and hypertrophy-oriented training
within a workout to avoid the possible negative effects that the latter types of
training may have upon power output. However, with regards to upper body
training, little study has been performed to verify this commonly held belief.
The purpose of this study was to determine the extent, if any, of a high
repetition, short rest period, hypertrophy-oriented training dose upon upper
body power output. Twenty-seven college-aged rugby league players were
tested for average power output during bench press throws with a resistance
of 40 kg (BT P40). The experimental group (Hyp, n = 15) then performed a
typical hypertrophy-oriented work bout (3 x 10 at 65% one repetitionmaximum bench press,1RM BP) before being retested for power output with
the same resistance. In comparison to the control group (Con, n = 12), whose
power output remained unchanged between the Pre- and Post-test periods,
the Hyp group experienced a large, significant decrease in BT P40 power
output.
Even after further passive rest of seven minutes, power output
remained suppressed from the Pre-test values. Furthermore, the strongest

five subjects experienced significantly larger percentage declines in power
output than did the five less strong subjects.
repetition, short rest period training
This study shows that a high
can acutely decrease power out.
Coaches should plan the order of exercises carefully when combining power
and hypertrophy training.
Key words: bench press, bench throw, fatigue, strength
182
Introduction
Typical recommendations have suggested that power training should
precede strength or hypertrophy-oriented training within a workout or training
cycle (3, 21). It is thought that these other forms of resistance training may
induce some acute fatigue that could compromise power output (21).
However, those who advocate complex training embrace the alternating of
strength and power exercises or sets within a workout (2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 14 15).
The strength work recommended within contrast/complex training is typically
of very low volume (3, 11, 14), which may not have a deleterious effect upon
power output and indeed has been shown to increase power output (4, 6).
However, hypertrophy-oriented training is usually distinguished from strengthoriented training by a much higher training volume (21). Theoretically this
higher volume of training may acutely impair power output (21).
In some
support of this hypothesis is the recent work of Leveritt and Abernethy (18)
who reported a decrease in squat strength and isokinetic knee extension
torque following a bout of mixed aerobic and anaerobic exercise.
To date few studies exist that have examined the acute effect of higher
volume hypertrophy-oriented training on upper body power output within a
workout,
despite the
seemingly
commonality
of
the power
before
hypertrophy edict. The purpose of this study is to report the acute effects of a
dose of high volume, hypertrophy-oriented training on power output during
upper body training.
Methods
Subjects
Twenty
seven college-aged
rugby
league players,
who
were
experienced in power training, served as subjects for this study. They were
informed of the nature of the study and voluntarily elected to participate in the
testing and intervention sessions. Fifteen were assigned to the experimental
183
group (Hyp), who were to perform the hypertrophy-oriented intervention

strategy, while twelve served as controls (Con).
There was no difference
between the groups in any of the performance tests such as One-repetition

maximum bench press (1RM BP) or bench press throw maximal power output
(BT Pmax) that were conducted 72 hours prior to testing. Nor was there any
difference in anthropometric data. The mean (+ standard deviation) height,
body mass, age, 1RM BP and BT Pmax were 182.7 + 5.5 cm, 88.1 + 6.0 kg,
19.1 + 1.2 yrs, 112.8 + 8.2 kg and 523 + 43 W for the Hyp group and 1823.2 +
4.5 cm, 92.4 + 9.7 kg, 18.8 + 1.1 yrs, 116.0 + 15.0 kg and 560 + 88 W, for
the Con group.
Testing
extensively elsewhere (2-10, 19, 20, 22, 23). Briefly, the PPS is a device
The number of
software calculated the average mechanical power output in watts (w) of the
the barbell, time of displacement and mass of barbell (* gravity) data (M * G *
D / T=Power output in watts). Test reliability (r = .92) was conducted using the
Con group, who were retested after four days. Prior to pre-testing, subjects
warmed up by performing five repetitions of both the bench press (60 kg) and
bench throw exercise (20 kg).
After three minutes rest, the subjects
184
performed the pre-test, which consisted of five consecutive repetitions with the
investigated resistance (Pre-BT P40). Only the repetition with the highest
concentric average power output was chosen and recorded for analysis.
The Con subjects were Post-tested after three minutes rest.
This
provided data pertinent as to whether any augmentation to power output may

occur without active intervention.
The Hyp subjects performed three sets of ten repetitions of the free
weight bench press exercise with a resistance of 65% of their 1RM BP,
separated by a 1.5 minute rest between sets. This intervention strategy was
chosen as a typical example of a hypertrophy-oriented workout. The Posttesting consisted of the athletes repeating the BT P40 test two more times
(Post #1 BT P40 and Post #2 BT P40). A 1.5 minute rest period existed
between the conclusion of the intervention segment (3 x 10 @ 65%1RM BP)
and Post #1 BT P40 to determine the immediate effects upon power output of
such a hypertrophy-oriented bout of resistance training.
After five more
minutes rest the subjects performed another test (Post #2 BT P40) to gauge
the extent of recovery. Statistics
To determine if any difference existed between the Hyp or Con groups
at any testing occasion
a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with
repeated measures was used.
To discern if absolute workload had a more
deleterious effect upon power output in stronger subjects, two largely

disparate sub-groups were identified. A factorial ANOVA based on each
subjects absolute 1RM BP was used to identify two significantly different
groups of five subjects (Strong and Less Strong).
The percentage decline
results for these two sub-groups were also compared using factorial ANOVA.
Significance was accepted at an alpha level of p < 0.05 for all testing.
Results
The results are outlined in Table 1. All post-test scores for the Hyp
185
group were significantly different from each other (p < 0.05) and from those of
the Con group, who remained unchanged. The intervention strategy of high
repetition, short rest period, hypertrophy-oriented training had caused an
acute 18% decrease in power output to be manifested 1.5 minutes after the
cessation of the last intervention set. After a further five minute rest period
(about seven minutes after the last intervention set), power output was still
depressed by an average of 6.6%.
Table 1.
Acute effect of performing high repetition, short rest period,
hypertrophy-oriented training upon power output (w).
Mean + standard
deviation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pre-BT P40
Post-#1 BT P40
Post-#2 BT P40
Hyp group
479 + 29
393 + 41*
447 + 32*
Con group
508 + 54
505 + 59
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* denotes test scores significantly different to each other at all occasions
Discussion
The results detailing the deleterious effect of just three sets of
hypertrophy-oriented training on power output support the common edict that
power exercises should be performed before or separate from high repetition
or hypertrophy-oriented training. The fatiguing effects of high repetition, short
rest period training was quite pronounced and actually had a more
pronounced effect than a much longer, more voluminous conditioning bout
had upon muscle strength in previous research (1, 18).
Leveritt and Abernethy (18), who studied the acute effects of prior
combined aerobic and anaerobic conditioning training upon squat and
186
isokinetic knee extension strength and Kramer et al (17), who reported large
reductions in work capacity resulting from high volume, short rest period
protocols, stated the source of such impairment in performance may be due to
a combination muscle acidosis (high muscle lactates) or changes in the
electrical/tissue properties of the muscle.
Neither of these factors by
themselves would appear to capable of the 18% decline in power in the

current study and as such this study tends to support a multi-faceted fatigue
approach. For example, as isokinetic strength can be impaired even four
hours after an acute dose of such conditioning, by which time muscle acid
levels should have returned to normal, then this may not be the only fatigue
mechanism (1). In this study the prescribed intervention workload should not
have depleted glycogen to such a level that it could account for the 18%
decline in power output and the fact that power levels increased significantly
after a further five minutes rest tends to support this. In light of Hakkinen's
(16) research demonstrating acute neural fatigue within a training session
consisting of multiple sets of maximal effort squats, this avenue of fatigue
must also be considered. With increased rest (7 mins) there was a gravitation
back towards pre-test power levels, indicating that simple rest offers some
respite from the mechanisms inducing performance decrement. Simple rest
may provide time for lactate clearance and neural relaxation, helping to
restore power levels.
Another possible neural source for decreased power output may be, in
part, due to the Speed-control Theory as enunciated by Enoka (13). The
slower speed of the hypertrophy-oriented training may tune the neural system
into performing the power test at a less than the normal speed, resulting in
lower post-test power outputs.
An interesting observation of the results was the effect of absolute
workload upon fatigue. While every subject lifted the same relative workload
as the intervention strategy (3 x 10 @ 65% 1RM BP), stronger (in absolute
187
mass lifted) subjects performed a much higher absolute workload. To discern

if this absolute workload had a more deleterious effect upon power output, two
largely disparate groups of five subjects were identified, based upon absolute
1RM BP (a Strong and Less Strong group).
This strategy of discerning
disparate sub-groups of only 5 or 6 of the strongest or less strong subjects

within a population has been performed before and yielded interesting results
upon the adaptations to resistance training (6, 23). A significant difference (p
< 0.05) in the degree of decline in power output from the Pre-BT P40 to the
Post #1 BT P40 was observed between the Strong (24.4%) and Less Strong
groups (13.1%).
Thus the stronger subjects, performing higher absolute
workloads for the intervention strategy (8000 kg v 6750 kg), fatigued to a

significantly greater degree than their less strong counterparts. Previously it
has also been shown that high-volume training accompanied by very short
rest periods severely compromises work capacity in very strong athletes (17).
This result would indicate that for stronger athletes, even greater care must be
taken to ensure the negative effects of high repetition, short rest period
training does not impact upon power training.
High repetition, short rest period hypertrophy-oriented training has a
significant severe acute impact upon power output.
This negative impact
upon power output is still significant seven minutes after a mild dose (3 x 10)
of such training.
It could be posited that if a number of exercises were
performed in such a hypertrophy-oriented training session, than the

cumulative effects upon power output would be even more severe. As such it
must be recommended that high repetition, short rest period training not be
alternated with or performed before power training sets or exercises.
A significantly higher decline in power output was noted in the five
strongest athletes, as compared to the five less strong athletes. Given that
188
stronger athletes perform higher absolute workloads than less strong athletes,
strength coaches should be aware of the possible interfering effects that the
compounding (eg. 5-10 exercises x 3 sets x 10 repetitions) of hypertrophyoriented training may have upon power output within a session or training
week.
Consequently, strength coaches may need to curtail or carefully
manage the hypertrophy-oriented training of their strongest athletes when in

training cycles aimed at maximizing power output.
189
References
1.
Abernethy, P.J.

4.
Baker, D.
Strength Cond.
23(1):47-56. 2001.
5.
Baker, D.
J.

2001.


190
1999.
1998.
2000.
13.
Enoka, R. M.

1986.

16. Hakkinen, K. Neuromuscular fatigue and recovery in male and female

athletes during heavy resistance exercise. Int. J Sports Med. 14(2):53-59.
191
1993.
17. Kraemer, W.J., B.J. Noble., B.W. Culver, and M.J. Clark. Physiologic
responses to heavy-resistance exercise with very short rest periods. Int. J.
Sports Med. 8:247-252. 1987.
18. Leveritt, M., and P. Abernethy. Acute effects of high-intensity endurance

exercise on subsequent resistance activity.
13(1):131-142. 1997.

20.

21.
Wathen, D.
Exercise order.
in Essentials of Strength and
Conditioning. T. Bachele (Ed). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 1994.
22.
The optimal
Sports Exerc. 23:1279-1286. 1993.
23.

21(4):301-315. 1996.
192
Paper 7.
Adaptations in upper body maximal strength and power
output resulting from long-term resistance training in
experienced strength-power athletes.
by
published in the
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(3):541546, 2006.
193
Abstract
The purpose of this investigation was to observe changes in maximal
upper body strength and power and shifts in the load-power curve across a
multi-year period in experienced resistance trainers.
Twelve professional
rugby league players who regularly performed combined maximal strength

and power training were observed across a four year period with test data
reported every two years (years 1998, 2000, 2002). Upper body strength was
assessed by the one repetition maximum bench press (1RM BP) and
maximum power during bench press throws (BT Pmax) with various barbell
resistances of 40 to 80 kg (BT P40-80). During the initial testing, players were
also identified as Elite (n=6) or Sub-elite (n=6) depending upon whether they
participated in the elite first division national league (NRL) or second division
league. This sub-grouping allowed for a comparison of the scope of changes
dependent upon initial strength and training experience. The Sub-elite group
was significantly younger, less strong or powerful than the Elite group but no
other difference existed in height or body mass in 1998. Across the four-year
period significant increases in strength occurred for the group as a whole and
larger increases were observed for the Sub-elite as compared to the Elite
group, verifying the limited scope that exists for strength gain in more
experienced, elite resistance trainers. A similar trend occurred for changes in
BT Pmax. The changes in BT Pmax were highly correlated with changes in
1RM BP (r=0.75).
This long-term observation confirms that the rate of
progress in strength and power development diminishes with increased

strength levels and resistance training experience.
Furthermore, it also
indicates that strength and power can still be increased despite a high volume
of concurrent resistance and endurance training.
Key words: Bench press, bench throw, rugby league,
194
Introduction
It has been theorized that considerable gaps exist in our understanding
of the long-term adaptations to resistance training due to the short term nature
of most university based training studies (17, 39). Typically these training
studies last 6-12 weeks and consist mainly of college students or athletes with
limited resistance training experience serving as subjects (eg. 15).
It has
been demonstrated that the effectiveness of one program over another

program may take at least 8-weeks to manifest itself (17, 28), limiting the
extrapolative value of a number of studies. Furthermore, how the adaptations
stemming from these shorter training studies reflect the adaptations that
athletes training for many years may experience has been questioned by both
experienced strength coaches and researchers alike (37, 39).
In light of these limitations Finnish researchers have garnered
considerable data examining the adaptations resulting from participation in
resistance training for periods longer than typically occur in American collegebased studies.
These studies have detailed the effects of training and
detraining in periods of up to 6-months in athletes and various other

population groups (19-26).
However, knowledge of long-term resistance training adaptations in
elite athletes is scarce and tends to rely on cross-sectional data analysis (eg.
23). Very little longitudinal tracking data exists concerning the extent and
nature of muscular adaptations resulting form prolonged resistance training
over a multi-year period in elite athletes. To date only a few studies exist that
track changes in maximal strength, force, power or various other muscular
functioning tests across multi-year periods (16, 24, 25, 27). These studies
reported that changes in muscular functioning reflect the nature of training, but
also that the relative ease with which strength may be increased in novices
195
and those with a more limited training history is in stark contrast to the great
difficulty that exists in trying to increase strength in experienced, elite strength
athletes (17, 18).
Almost all of the multi-year data garnered from the above research has
concerned lower body strength and power adaptations and little data exists
concerning long-term upper body strength and power adaptations.
The
purpose of this study is to report upon the changes in upper body maximum
strength and power levels as well as shifts in the load-power curve for a group
of twelve highly resistance-trained professional rugby league players who
performed combined maximal strength and power training for a four year
period. Furthermore, the differential effects resulting from the initial resistance
training experience of the athletes will also be examined.
Methods
Three strength and power testing sessions conducted two years apart
over four years in highly trained strength-power athletes (1998, 2000 and
2002).
The subjects were professional athletes who performed combined
upper body strength and power training on a regular basis. This repeated
measures comparative analysis provide information pertinent to the long-term
changes in strength and power output as a result of intense resistance training
across a multi-year period. Differences in the extent of adaptations, based
upon initial playing status and resistance training experience, would also be
observed and compared.
Subjects
Twelve professional rugby league players who were experienced in
strength and power training served as subjects in this investigation.
All
subjects were members of the same World Champion club team and
underwent similar training (relevant to their playing position and individual
196
strength and power levels) during the four-year period. All subjects were
aware of the methods and nature of the testing and voluntarily participated in
the testing sessions, which were a regular part of their testing and
conditioning regime. Of the twelve subjects, two disparate groups of six
subjects each could be identified based upon resistance training experience
and playing status at the commencement of the study. Researchers have
been able to distinguish differences in the scope, magnitude or direction of
adaptations to the same resistance training stimuli experienced by athletes
with different starting levels of adaptation/strength (eg. 7, 8, 17, 38). These
two groups were identified as an Elite group who were currently participating
in the elite, first-division national league (NRL) in 1998 and had a resistance
training experience entailing combined maximal strength and power training
for a period of greater than three years and a Sub-elite group participating in
the second division competition. The Sub-elite group was also training to
become potential participants in the NRL. The Sub-elite group was younger
than the Elite group and possessed a combined resistance training
background of less than three years. Fortuitously, the disparate groups were
matched exactly for playing position with three hit-up forwards, two outside
backs and one hooker in each group. Descriptions of the group as a whole
and of the two sub-groups are contained in Table 1.
Procedures
Training
Throughout the four-year period, training for the upper body was
conducted on average, twice per week except in end of season periods
where no training occurred (usually 4-6 weeks per year).
The training
program was periodized throughout the year with general preparation (usually
4-8 weeks per year), specific preparation (usually 6-10 weeks per year) and
in-season competition (usually 24-32 weeks per year) periods.
The
197
preparation period usually consisted of two linear periodization phases

separated by a two-week transition period during the Christmas-New Year
period.
The general preparation phase contained only exercises that
developed hypertrophy, basic strength and agonist/antagonist muscle

balance.
The specific preparation phase contained explosive power
development exercises as well as strengthening exercises.
Table 1. Description of subjects as a whole Group (n=12) and as identified as

Elite (n=6) or Sub-elite (n=6), based upon initial resistance training and
playing experience in 1998. Mean (standard deviation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Body mass (kg)
Height (cm)
Age (years)
Group
97.8 (8.7)
186.7 (4.6)
20.2 (1.6)
Elite
95.5 (10.4)
186.3 (4.7)
21.3 (1.4)*
Sub-elite
100.7 (6.7)
187.2 (4.9)
19.0 (0.6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* denotes significantly different between groups
In-season resistance training followed a wave-like periodization

progression. The wave-like progression has been described previously (4),
but briefly it entails repeating two cycles of three weeks with an additional
introductory week emphasizing hypertrophy and a concluding week
emphasizing peak strength and power (eight weeks in total). The first fourweek block was geared slightly more towards developing basic strength and
hypertrophy with a concomitant decreased volume of power exercises while
the second four-week block was geared slightly more towards peaking
maximum strength and power with an increased number of power exercises,
increased training intensity and decreased training volume.
198
Within each training week, the first training day was oriented slightly
more towards the development of maximal strength and the factors that affect
strength (eg. hypertrophy, agonist/antagonist muscle balance) while the
second training day was oriented slightly more towards the development of
maximal power and other factors that affect power (eg. acceleration, rapid
force development, ballistic speed). This alternating of strength- and poweroriented training days also caused an undulatory pattern (a higher load and
lower load day) in the weekly periodization scheme throughout the year.
Typically upper body workouts lasted about 50 minutes in the
preparation period and 30 minutes in the in-season competition period.
Various other lower body (eg. full squats, jump squats, lunges, step-ups) and
whole body exercises (eg. power clean, push press, jerks, 1-arm dumbbell
snatches, Dominator whole body rotations) appropriate to rugby league (4)
were also performed throughout the year following the same periodization
scheme. Examples of how sets and repetitions were manipulated in different
periods and phases are contained in Table 2.
As rugby league players cover distances of up to 10 km in each 80minute game (30, 31), then endurance training is also of importance to the
total preparation of the player.
In the general preparation period, five
conditioning sessions are performed each week (3 running, 1 wrestling, 1

mixed ergometry) with differing volumes, intensities and methods (continuous,
fartlek, long interval, short interval).
This is reduced to 2-3 endurance
workouts in the specific preparation period with a concomitant increase in

speed and agility training. Team tactical training sessions also entail running
volumes of 2-5 km.
199
Table 2. Typical example of the sets and repetitions periodisation for upper
body exercises for the maximal strength bench press (BP) and various
assistant strength exercises (AS) and maximal power bench throw (BT) and
various assistant power exercises (AP).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------General preparation
Transition Specific preparation
Weeks
1-2
3-4
5-6
7-10
11-12
BP
4 x10
4x8
3 x 10-12
4x5
3 x2-3
AS
3 x 10
3x8
2 x 10-12
3 x 8-10
3 x 5-6
BT
N/A
N/A
N/A
4x5
4 x 2-4
AP
N/A
N/A
N/A
3 x 5-8
3 x 3-6
13
Test
Test
---------------------
In-season competition
1
BP
3 x 8 8-6-5 6-5-3 5-3-2 8-6-5 6-5-3 5-3-2 2-1-1 Test & repeat
AS
2x10
BT
3 x 5 3 x 5 5-4-3 4-3-2 3 x 5 5-4-3 4-3-2 3-2-2 Test & repeat
AP
3x6
2x8
3x6
2x6
3 x5
2x5
3 x4
2x8
3x6
2x6
3x5
2x5
3x4
2x5
3x4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testing
Testing consisted of maximum upper body strength as assessed by the
1 repetition maximum bench press (1RM BP) according to the methods
previously outlined (6, 7, 12). Testing of upper body maximum power (Pmax)
was assessed during bench press throws (BT) using the Plyometric Power
System (PPS, Plyopower Technologies, Lismore, Australia) and the methods
200
previously described (6-8, 13).
Bench press throws in a Smith machine
weight training device such as the PPS result in much higher power outputs
than traditionally performed bench presses making this exercise more suitable
for power testing (35, 36).

weight training machine. The linear bearings that are attached to each end of
the barbell allow the barbell to slide up and down two hardened steel shafts
with a minimum of friction.
A rotary encoder attached to the machine
The number of
software calculated the average power output of the concentric phase of each
bench press throw based upon the displacement, time and mass data.
Specifically, each subject performed three repetitions during bench press
throws with 40, 50, 60, 70 and 80 kg (BT P40, BT P50, BT P60, BT P70 and
BT P80), with only the highest power output at each resistance recorded.
This battery of resistances allowed for generation of a load-power profile or
curve (6, 8, 13, 35), similar to what has been done before for the lower body
using jump squats with various resistances (19-21). The highest power output
for any individual, irrespective of the resistance, was deemed the BT Pmax.
Statistical procedures
At the initial testing occasion, two disparate groups of six subjects
could be identified based upon whether they were participating in the NRL
team or the second-division team. These Elite and Sub-elite groups were
compared using a factorial one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for
performance and anthropometric data to discern if any differences existed
between them (See Table 1).
The results for the whole Group 1RM BP, BT Pmax and BT P40-80
were compared using a repeated measures one-way analysis of variance
201
(ANOVA) to determine if any of the test scores in 2000 and 2002 differed from
the base-line scores of 1998. Also the test scores for the Elite versus Subelite group were compared for the same variables. If a significant effect of test
occasion was found, Fisher Least Squares Difference (PLSD) post hoc
comparisons were performed to determine which test occasions produced
significantly different results. Pearsons product moment correlations were
used to determine the strength of relationships between variables. Statistical
significance was accepted at an alpha level of p < 0.05.
Due to the low
subject numbers and difficulty of performing such research on elite

professional athletes no adjustment of the alpha level was made for
comparison of multiple variables.
Results
The results for changes in 1RM BP for the group as a whole and
according to sub-grouping are contained in Table 3. The results for changes
in BT Pmax for the group as a whole and according to sub-grouping are
contained in Table 4. The changes in power output with various resistances
ranging from 40 to 80 kg are displayed graphically in Figure 1 for the group as
a whole and Figure 2 when compared according to sub-grouping. There was
a significant increase in body mass up to 100.2 +/- 9.4 and 101.7 +/- 9.0 kg for
year 2000 and 2002 respectively for the group as a whole. The Elite group
increased body mass significantly by about 5% from 1998 to 2000 from where
it remained statistically unaltered. The Sub-elite groups increase of 3% in
body mass was only significant from 1998 to 2002. There was no significant
difference between the sub-groups in body mass at any period.
202
Table 3. Results for 1RM BP for the group as a whole and according to subgrouping as Elite or Sub-elite presented as mean (standard deviation).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1RM BP (kg)
Group
Elite
Sub-elite
1998
129.6 (15.3)*
139.2 (11.6)+
120.0 (12.7)
2000
141.0 (15.6)*
144.6 (12.7)
137.5 (18.6)
2002
148.1 (16.5)*
147.5 (13.0)
148.7 (20.1)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* denotes that Group 1RM BP were significantly different at each test
occasion,
+ denotes Elite group significantly different to Sub-elite in 1998 only.
Discussion
This study details the changes in strength and power across a 4-year
period by a number of athletes who were members of a World champion team
and who experienced in combined strength and power training.
Changes in subjects.
Over the four years all Sub-elite players
progressed to become "elite" players (by participating in the NRL competition),

with the team winning two Championships. Seven of the twelve also earned
selection into the national team, who were the World national team
champions. Essentially by 2000, there were no differences between the subgroups in performance data. These results merely reflect the high caliber of
athlete involved in this observation.
Initial strength and power levels. The initial data from 1998 detailing
the differences in strength and power between the Elite and Sub-elite group
are to be expected and have been reported previously not just for upper body
strength and power (6-9) but also lower body power (9) and abdominal
strength (5) when comparing participants in the elite professional NRL to
203
participants in second and third division leagues (SRL and CRL). However
the upper body strength levels of both groups appears to far exceed the
average that had been previously reported for large groups of professional
rugby league players (32), perhaps indicating the intensive resistance training
history of the twelve subjects compared to other professional rugby league
players. This is to be expected when it is considered that subjects in 1998
were World Champion club team members and could be expected to be
stronger than less successful counterparts.
Table 4. Results for BT Pmax for the group as a whole and according to subgrouping as Elite or Sub-elite. Mean (standard deviation).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BT Pmax (w)
Group
Elite
Sub-elite
1998
611 (80)*
666 (61)*+
555 (55)*
2000
715 (81)
727 (55)
703 (105)
2002
696 (86)
699 (82)
693 (97)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* denotes BT Pmax in 1998 significantly different to year 2000 and 2002,
+ denotes Elite significantly different to Sub-elite in 1998 only
Changes in maximal strength.
While the training group as a whole
exhibited a 14.3% increase in 1RM BP across four years, the Elite group only
exhibited a 6.0% increase compared to the 23.9% for the younger Sub-elite
group. The results of this long-term observation suggest that maximum upper
body strength can still be increased in experienced strength-power athletes,
however there appears to be a diminishing degree of positive adaptation with
Training experience and existing strength
levels reduce the scope for strength improvement, even if both groups follow
the same program (17).
This becomes even more apparent by further
204
examining the progress over the last two years of the observation, from 2000
to 2002. During this two year period the Elite group exhibited only a 2.0%
increase in 1RM BP, similar to the amount reported by Hakkinen et al (25) for
the Finnish national Olympic weightlifting squad across a two-year period.
The Sub-elite group exhibited an 8.1% increase in 1RM BP during this time
period, further supporting the concept of diminishing progress with increasing
training experience. In reality, the Sub-elite group are two years behind the
Elite group in age and training experience in 1998 and hence the scope of
adaptations experienced by the Sub-elite group for the final two year period
from 2000 to 2002 are similar to the first two years of the Elite group. Thus it
could be posited that the progress that the Sub-elite group make in the next
two year period may also only quite small.
Changes in maximal power and the load-power curve. The results for
changes in maximal power (BT Pmax) largely reflected the changes in 1RM
BP, with diminished progress with increased training experience.
For
example, over the four year period the group as a whole significantly
increased BT Pmax by 14%, with the Elite group improving only 5% compared
to 25% for the Sub-elite group.
Power output with all investigated resistances (40 to 80 kg) also
increased significantly from 1998 to 2000 and then remained unchanged. The
emphasis on combined maximal strength and power training is reflected in
greater increases in the heavier portion of the load-power curve. From Figures
1 and 2 it can clearly be seen that power output with heavy resistances such
as 70 and 80 kg increases far more (13.7%) than power output with
resistances of 40 kg (8.7%). This was one of the objectives of the training
over the 4-year period as previous research has established that BT P70 and
BT P80 significantly and strongly discriminate between rugby league players
who participate in the NRL versus second and third division leagues (8).
205
Of interest is the fact that neither groups BT Pmax or load-power

curve improved over the last two years of the observation. It is not clear why
this occurred, but most simply it may again reflect the limited scope for
improvement in power output with experienced athletes (17, 24-26).
Relationship between changes in strength and power. It has been well

established that on a cross-sectional basis, maximum strength and maximum
power are highly related (6-14). The relationship may reduce slightly with
increased training experience or with the direction that training takes (eg.
endurance training, strength-, hypertrophy- or power-oriented training may
affect the relation, 7, 8). The results of this study tend to confirm this with a
slightly diminishing correlation between 1RM BP and BT Pmax ranging from r
= .85 to r = .81 to r = .78 at the three successive testing occasions for the
group as a whole.
It is interesting to note is that changes in 1RM BP significantly
correlated with changes in BT Pmax across the four-year period (r = .75, p =
.005), which is in almost complete agreeance with the relationship (r = .73)
that was reported across a 19-week in-season period in college-aged rugby
league players (7). This suggests that increasing maximum strength is of
extreme importance to athletes who need to increase maximum power.
However, given the diminishing scope for strength improvements with
increased training experience and the multi-faceted nature of power (34),
other avenues of increasing Pmax, such as improving movement speed, must
also be considered (8). When strength begins to plateau, such as for the Elite
group after year 2000, then increases in maximum strength do not necessarily
equate to increases in maximum power. Other methods of training may need
to be embraced to enhance power output (3, 34).
206
Figure 1. Shifts in bench throw load-power curve for the combined group
(n=12) of rugby league players across a four-year period. All changes were
significant. Because 2000 and 2002 were not different to each other, 2000
results have been omitted for clarity. SD bars omitted for clarity.
207
Figure 2. Shifts in bench throw load-power curve for the Elite and Sub-elite
groups (n = 6 each) of rugby league players across a four-year period. All
changes were significant. Because 2000 and 2002 were not different to each
other, 2000 results have been omitted for clarity. SD bars omitted for clarity.
208
Relationship between changes in body mass and changes in strength and

power. While it has been shown that changes in body mass or lean body
mass largely account for increases in maximal strength in males accustomed
to resistance training, especially in regards to upper body strength (12), that
finding was not confirmed in this research (ns). Clearly with the experienced
athletes in this study mechanisms such as neural, fiber or other morphological
adaptations must have largely accounted for the changes in 1RM BP and BT
Pmax rather than simple increases in body mass. The extent and nature of
these adaptations is beyond the scope of discussion for this paper (see ref.
17, 18).
Concurrent strength and endurance training. This current observation has

shown that the group as a whole increased strength and power by around
14% across four years, despite the large total concurrent resistance and
conditioning workloads. Despite some current beliefs that strength and power
cannot be improved or are severely limited when a large amount of
conditioning and heavy resistance training are performed concurrently (1, 54)
the results of this and other long-term observations (7, 29) emphatically
illustrate otherwise.
It has been suggested previously that better conditioned athletes and
more efficient periodization and sequencing of training may allow athletes to
perform concurrent strength and endurance training without significant
negative results (1, 7).
This long-term observation of changes in upper body strength and
power output in experienced resistance trainers has supported the earlier
findings concerning the limited scope for improvements in lower body strength
and power with increased training experience.
209
Maximum upper body strength and power can still be increased in

advanced strength-power athletes, however the degree of improvement
diminishes with increased strength/power levels and training experience. The
time frames over which increases in strength/power may be observed may
become quite lengthy in more advanced athletes.
For advanced strength/power athletes it would appear that when both
types of exercises are performed concurrently in the training regime, then
statistically at least, increases in maximum strength go hand-in-hand with
increases in maximum power. Based upon this result, it is recommended that
coaches prescribe both strength and power exercises in a periodized fashion
to maximise the muscular adaptations in multi-year resistance training.
210
References
1. Abernethy, P.J.
2.
Alen, M., Hakkinen, K. and P. V. Komi.
Changes in neuromuscular
performance and muscle fiber characteristics of elite power athletes selfadministering androgenic and anabolic steroids. Acta Physiol. Scand. 122:
535-544. 1984.

4. Baker, D.
Applying the in-season periodisation of strength and power
5. Baker, D. A comparison of lower abdominal strength and lumbo-pelvic

stabilisation capabilities between rugby league players participating in the
national versus state and city based leagues.
Strength & Conditioning
Coach. 7(6):2-7. 1999.
6.
Baker, D.
J.
7.
Baker, D.

rugby league players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 15(2): 172-177. 2001
211

2001.
Cond. Res. 16(4):581-585. 2002.
1999.
12.
Baker, D., Wilson, G & Carlyon, R.
Periodization:
The effect of

8(4): 235-242. 1994.
212
15. Berger, R. Effect of Varied Weight Training Programs on Strength. Res.

Q. 33:168-181. 1962.
16. French, D. N., A.L. Gomez, J.S. Volek, M.R. Rubin, N.A. Ratamess, M.J.
Sharman, L.A. Gotshalk, W.J. Sebastianelli, m. Putukian, R.U. Newton, K.
Hakkinen, J.S. Fleck and W.J. Kraemer. Longitudinal tracking of muscular
power changes in NCAA Division 1 collegiate women gymnasts. J. Strength
Cond. Res. 18(1):101-107. 2004.
17. Hakkinen, K. Factors influencing trainability of muscular strength during

short term and prolonged training. NSCA Journal. 2: 32-37. 1985.
18. Hakkinen, K. Neuromuscular and hormonal adaptations during strength

and power training. A review. J. Sports Med. 29: 9-26. 1989.
19.
Hakkinen, K. & Komi, P.V. Changes in electrical and mechanical
behaviour of leg extensor muscles during heavy resistance strength training.

Scand. J. Sports Sci. 7(2):55-64. 1985
20.
Effect of explosive strength training on
electromyographic and force production characteristics of leg extensor

Scand. J. Sports Sci. 7(2): 65-76. 1985.
21. Hakkinen, K., Alen, M. and Komi, P. Neuromuscular, anaerobic and

aerobic performance characteristics of elite power athletes. Eur. J. Appl.
Physiol. 53: 97-105. 1984.
213
22. Hakkinen, K., Alen, M., & Komi, P.V. Changes in isometric force- and
relaxation-time, electromyographic and muscle fiber characteristics of human
skeletal muscle during strength training and detraining. Acta Physiol. Scand.
125: 573-583. 1985.
23. Hakkinen, K. Alen, M., Kauhanen, H. and P.V. Komi. Comparison of

neuromuscular performance capacities between weightlifters, powerlifters and
bodybuilders. Intern. Olympic Lifter. 5: 24-26. 1986.
24. Hakkinen, K., Komi, P.V., Alen, M. and Kauhanen, H. EMG, muscle fiber
and force production characteristics during a one year training period in elite
weightlifters. Eur. Jour. Appl. Physiol. 56:419-427. 1987
25.

two years. J. Appl. Physiol. 65(6):2406-2412. 1988.
26.
Relationships between training volume, physical performance capacity and

serum hormone concentrations during prolonged training in elite weight lifters.
Int. J. Sports Med. . supp, 61-65. 1987.
27. Hunter, G.R., J. Hilyer, and M.A. Forster. Changes in fitness during 4years of intercollegiate basketball.
1993.
28. Kraemer, W.J. A series of studies: The physiological basis for strength
training in American football: Fact over philosophy. J. Strength Cond. Res.
11(3):131-142. 1997
214
29.
Kraemer, W.J., J. F. Patton, S. E. Gordon, E. A. Harman, M. R.
Deschenes, K. Reynolds, R. U. Newton, N. T. Triplett and J. E. Dziados.

Compatibility of high-intensity strength and endurance training on hormonal
and skeletal muscle adaptations. J. Appl Physiol. 78: 976-989. 1995.
30.
Meir, R., D. Arthur and M. Forrest.
A case study.
Time and motion analysis of

Strength and Conditioning
Coach 1(3):24-29. 1993.
31. Meir, R., Colla, P and C. Milligan. Impact of the 10-meter rule change on
Implications for training.
Strength Condit. J.
23(6):42-46. 2001.
32.
Meir, R., Newton, R., Curtis, E., Fardell, M. and B. Butler.
Physical
fitness qualities of professional rugby league football players: Determination

of positional differences. J. Strength Cond. Res. 15(4):450-458. 2001.
33.
Nelson, A.G., D.A. Arnall, S.F. Loy, L.J. Silvester and R.K. Conlee.
Consequences of combining strength and endurance training regimens.

Phys. Ther. 70:287-294. 1990.
34. Newton, R., and Kraemer, W. Developing explosive muscular power:

Implications for a mixed methods training strategy.
Strength Condit. J.
October:20-31. 1994.

215
36.

37.
Stone, M. H, Sands, W.A, and M. E. Stone.
The downfall of sports
science in the United States. SCJ. 26(2):72-75. 2004
38.
Effects on eccentric and concentric force production. Can.J.Appl.Physiol.

21(4):301-315. 1996.
39.
Wilks, R.

Coach. 3(2):17-21. 1995.
216
Paper 8
The effects of systematic strength and power training during
the formative training years: A comparison between younger
and older professional rugby league players.
by
Daniel Baker
published in
Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.911. 2005.
217
Introduction
Maximum levels of strength and power distinguish between rugby
league players of different levels (1, 2). Professional players competing in the
national rugby league competition (NRL) are stronger and more powerful than
those in the State leagues (SRL), who in turn are stronger and more powerful
than players in city based leagues (CRL) (1, 2). This can be predominantly
attributed to greater strength and power training experiences and probably
some degree of natural selection.
However, of interest is a comparison between younger and older
players at the NRL level. Systematic strength and power training did not gain
much popularity in some NRL clubs until the early till mid-1990s. This meant
that some of the current older (>28 years) NRL players may not have
performed much, if any, systematic strength and power training in their
formative training years (circa 16-17 up to 21-22 years).
In comparison,
younger NRL players (<24 years) have generally been performing such
training during their formative training years.
Therefore while both older and younger groups of NRL players may
possess a strength training age of greater than five years, a difference
between them could be described as when this training was undertaken (eg.
17-23 years v 23-29 years of age). Thus it would be of interest to compare
the strength and power results for players, matched for playing position, who
could be described as having undertaken systematic strength training at a
younger or older age.
Methods.
A total squad of 20 NRL players was investigated. Twelve subjects
could be identified and matched into a Younger (N=6) or Older (n=6) group.
These groups each consisted of three forwards and three halves/hookers
players. No difference existed in body mass or height between the groups,
218
however the Older group were significantly older (29.5 + 2.4 v 23.2 + .8 yrs)
and had played more NRL games (199.3 + 42.4 v 59.8 + 27.4).
Testing of maximum strength consisted of a 1RM bench press (1RM
BP) and 1RM full squat (1RM SQ) using the methods previously described (1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Testing of upper body maximum power (Pmax) included a
bench press throw test (BT Pmax) with various barbell loads using the
methods previously described (1, 2, 6). Testing of lower body power output
consisted of a jump squat (JS Pmax) test with various barbell loads using the
methods previously described (3, 4,7).
The results for each group were compared using a one-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) to determine if differences existed between the groups in
1RM BP, 1RM SQ, BT Pmax or JS Pmax. In the event of a significant F-ratio,
Fisher PLSD post hoc comparisons were used to determine where these
differences existed. Significance was accepted at an alpha level of p < 0.05.
Results
The results for all tests are contained in Table 1. The Younger group
was significantly stronger and more powerful than the Older group in all of the
four tests. For lower body tests the magnitude of the difference was 19% for
both tests, while for the upper body the percentage differences were 13%
(1RM BP) and 28% (BT Pmax).
Discussion
This study compared two groups of players who were matched for
playing position and had basically performed the same training for four to five
years previously, but were differentiated by only two factors (apart from age).
These factors were (1) total NRL games and (2) the age that they had
commenced and/or consistently performed systematic strength and power
training. The basic finding was that the group that commenced systematic
219
strength training during their formative training years (circa 17-23 yrs) were
significantly stronger and more powerful in both the upper and lower body,
despite no significant difference in body mass or height, than the group who
had commenced such training at a later age (>23 yrs).
Why these large
difference existed in strength or power must then be ascribed as due to some

aspects related to either of these two factors listed above.
Table 1. Strength and power testing results for the Older and Younger NRL
players. Mean + standard deviation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1RM BP
1RM SQ
BT Pmax
JS Pmax
Younger
143.3 + 15.4 182.5 + 23.6
670 + 78
1881 + 254
Older
126.7 + 7.5* 153.3 + 12.1*
548 + 48*
1579 + 197*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* denotes statistically difference between groups.
Whilst the total number of professional NRL games would be expected

to impact upon the integrity of the neuromuscular system (through the
accumulation of playing and training injuries etc), which in turn may negatively
affect strength and power, it is arguable that this alone could not explain the
magnitude of the differences between the groups.
What effect (either
negative or positive) an extra 130 games (5-6 seasons) would have upon
strength and power is impossible to determine.
Furthermore, recovery
methods used after games and during the training week are now far more
professional than six or more years ago. Therefore this discussion will focus
more upon the impact that commencing strength and power training at an
earlier age may have had upon the results.
This analyses is unique in that a situation may not exist again whereby
players from the same football club can be compared based upon what age
220
they commenced systematic strength and power training. It is inconceivable

that a situation will ever exist again whereby players may play a number of
seasons of NRL level without performing systematic strength and power
training, as was the case in the early 1990s, making a another comparison
like this unlikely. This is due to increased player professionalism and the
greater role played by strength and conditioning coaches in the physical
preparation of players.
Basically both groups had performed the same training for four to five
years prior to this analyses, but were differentiated by at what age this training
commenced. With the advent of the super professionalism (i.e. the Super
League wars and the ensuing explosion in player payments in the mid1990s), coaches demanded greater training commitments from players.
Previously players generally trained 2-3 times per week with strength training
not being compulsory and rarely performed in-season. Thus the Older group
of players in this study participated in this type of regime during their formative
training years prior to the mid 1990s.
In opposition to this, the Younger group of players in this study was in
their formative training years (17-23 yrs) from the mid-1990s till now. This
period has entailed four strength and power sessions per week during the preseason and two per week during the in-season for all players in this study. So
despite similar recent training dosages since late 1995, the Younger group
displayed greater strength and power.
From international powerlifting records (IPF, 2000), it can be shown
that the world records for athletes older than 23 yrs are greater than those for
athletes younger than 23 yrs. Generally strength levels do not peak or at least
begin to decrease till about 30-35 years of age (10). Therefore the gross
affect of simply being older by about five years could not explain the
differences reported in this study.
221
Thus it appears that performing systematic strength and power training

from about ages 17-18 onwards will be of greater benefit than commencing
this training at a later training age. This may be due to the effect that such
training has upon the still maturing neuromuscular system of athletes of this
age. Performing strength and power training at such an age may lead to more
lasting positive adaptations within the neuromuscular system.
This value
adding effect of training at age 17-18 onwards may gradually dissipate as the
athlete ages (into their early to mid-20s). It is not known exactly what this
value adding of the neuromuscular system may be, but it is worthy of future
longitudinal study.
Conclusions and practical applications

Commencing systematic strength and power training during the
formative training years appears to be advantageous as compared to
commencing training at a later stage. This may be due to a value added
effect that such training may have upon the still maturing neuromuscular
system. It is recommended that rugby league players commence strength
and power training whilst still in their teenage years, although at this stage it is
not known if starting at an even earlier age (circa 14-15 years) would be even
more advantageous than commencing this type of training at 17-19 years of
age.
Balyi (8) has outlined different stages of the long-term development of
the athlete and has commented upon the importance of physical preparation
in the training to train or formative training age.
support that view.
This analyses tends to
222
References
1.
Baker, D.
J.

2001.
3. Baker, D and Nance, S. The relationship between strength and power in

1999.
4. Baker, D and Nance, S. The relationship between running speed and

5.
Baker, D., Wilson, G & Carolyn, R.
Generality versus specificity: A
comparison of dynamic and isometric measures of strength and speedstrength. Eur. J. Appl Physiol. 68:350-355. 1994.
trained athletes J. Strength Cond. Res. 15(1):20-24. 2001.
mechanical power output during jump squats in power-trained athletes. J.
223
8. Balyi, I. Long-term planning of athlete development: The training to train

phase. Strength & Conditioning Coach. 3(4): 4-12. 1995.
9.
International
Powerlifting
Federation
World
Records
HTTP/-
www.ipf.com Published by the International Powerlifting Federation, 2000.
10. Wilson, G. The effect of age and gender on the development of muscular
function. Strength & Conditioning Coach. 3(1): 1-6. 1995.
224
Paper 9.
Methods to increase the effectiveness of maximal power
training for the upper body
by
published in the
Strength and Conditioning Journal
27(6):24-32. 2005.
225
Introduction
A
cursory
glance
at
many
resistance
training
programs
or
recommendations aimed at increasing muscular power would typically reveal

a high proportion of Olympic weightlifting (eg. power cleans, pulls) or
plyometric exercises (eg. jumping, bounding) (3,
19, 21).
While these

methods for developing upper body power appear less explored. Maximal
upper body pressing/pushing power is of importance to both American and
rugby football players and as well as boxers and martial artists to enhance the
ability to push away/strike opponents. The purpose of this article is to outline
some practical methods that have been implemented in our program to
develop maximal upper body pressing power in rugby league players. Astute
coaches will be able to determine the relevance and application of these
concepts and methods to the broader area of athlete preparation for other
sports.
Maximal power (Pmax) for the purpose of this paper is defined as the
maximal power output for the entire concentric range of movement/contraction
(peak power refers to the highest instantaneous power output for a 1-msec
period within a movement) (5-10).
Upper body pressing Pmax is usually
determined by measuring power output during lifting of a number of different

barbell resistances in a designated exercise (eg. bench press, BP or bench
throws, BT, in a Smith machine) using the Plyometric Power System software
(PPS, see 5-10, 25, 26) or other software or testing modalities. The loadpower curve or profile (see Figures 1 and 2) that is generated for each
individual from this testing can aid in prescribing training (5-10). For example,
an individual whose load-power curve was characterized by high power
outputs with light resistances but also exhibited pronounced reductions in
power output with heavier resistances would be prescribed more maximal
power-oriented and heavy resistance strength training. Maximal strength has
226
been shown to be highly correlated to Pmax in both the upper- (5-10) and
lower-body (11) for both elite and less experienced athletes.
As the
relationship between an individuals change in Pmax and change in maximal

strength as a result of training is much higher in less experienced athletes
than it is in elite athletes (6).
Figure 1. Load-power curves (average concentric power) for rugby league

players participating in the professional National Rugby League (NL), or
college-aged state leagues (SL) or city based leagues (CL). From reference
7.
227
However, as maximum strength is the physical quality that most

appears to underpin Pmax, it is advisable that athletes who wish to attain high
Pmax levels develop and/or maintain very high levels of strength in muscle
groups important in the sport in both agonist and antagonist muscle groups.
The strength of the antagonists should not be neglected for athletes who
require rapid limb movements as research has shown that strengthening of
agonists increases both limb speed and accuracy of movement due to
favourable alterations in the neural firing pattern (22). It has been shown that
some power training practices described below are only effective for stronger,
more experienced athletes (14, 28).
Once a good strength and muscle
conditioning base has been established the following practices will be most
useful.
1. Include full acceleration exercises as power exercises

It is important to differentiate exercises as being used primarily for the
development of strength (or hypertrophy, depending on sets, reps, rest
periods etc) or power. What differentiates between these two classifications
of strength or power exercises is whether the performance of the exercise
entails acceleration throughout the range of movement, resulting in faster
movement speeds and hence higher power outputs (23, 25-27).
Power
exercises are those exercises that entail acceleration for the full range of
movement with resultant high lifting velocities and power outputs. Strength
exercises are those exercises that entail heavy resistances and high force
outputs but also pronounced periods of deceleration resulting in lower lifting
velocities and reduced power outputs (26). Performing an exercise where
acceleration can occur throughout the entire range of movement (such as a
bench throw in a Smith machine, see Figure 3, medicine ball throws, power
pushups etc) allows for higher lifting speeds and power outputs (23, 25, 26).
If athletes attempt to lift light resistances explosively in traditional exercises
228
such as bench press and squats, large deceleration phases occur in the
second half of the movement, resulting in lower power outputs as compared to
power versions of bench throw and jump squats (26, 27).
Thus a heavy
resistance bench press is considered a strength exercise whereas the bench

throw is considered a power exercise.
Training to maximise upper body pressing/pushing power should entail
both heavy resistance, slower speed exercises for strength development and
exercises that entail higher velocities and acceleration for the entire range of
movement for power development (eg. bench throws, medicine ball chest
passes,
plyometric
pushups
and
pressing/pushing exercises) (3, 7).
other
throwing
exercises,
ballistic
This approach should result in the
musculature being to contract both forcefully and rapidly.
2. Alter the kinetics of some strength exercises to more favorably affect

rapid-force or power output
Because heavy resistance strength exercises such as bench press
typically entail slow movement speeds and low power outputs (23, 26), they
alone are not specifically suited to developing Pmax (23). This phenomenon
has been the subject of considerable research attention. There are power
specific adaptations in terms of the neural activation, muscle fiber/contractile
protein characteristics and muscle architecture (12) that must be considered.
As discussed above, attempting to lift light resistance bench presses
explosively also results in large deceleration periods (26). However, there are
a number of strategies that the strength coach can implement to alter the
force profile or lifting speeds of strength exercises to make them more suitable
to rapid-force development.
For example, the performance of the bench press can be modified by
adding chains to the end of the barbell to alter the kinetics of the exercise so
that the acceleration phase can be extended further into the range of
229
movement. When the barbell is lowered to the chest, the chains are furled on
the floor and only provide minimal resistance (see Figure 4). As the barbell is
lifted, the chains unfurl and steadily increase resistance throughout the range
of motion (see Figure 5). This method means that a lighter resistance (eg. 5075% 1RM) can be lifted explosively off the chest but as the additional
resistance (+10-15% 1RM in chains) is added by the constant unfurling of the
chain links off the floor, the athlete can continue attempting to accelerate the
bar but it will slow due to the increasing mass, rather than the athlete
consciously reducing the push against the barbell.
This alters the kinetic
profile of the strength exercise to become more like a power exercise

(acceleration lasts longer into the range of motion). A similar strategy is to
use rubber tubing resistance (power bands) on the ends of the barbell to
increase resistance throughout the range of motion. In this case the athlete
pushes upward in the bench press and stretches the large rubber bands
attached to each end of the barbell. The higher into the range, the more
stretch and so the greater the elastic resistance.
Similar to the chains
example, this allows the athlete to explode upwards and continue to apply
high force much later into the movement.
Another strategy is the use of Functional Isometric (FI) training (23). A
FI exercise can be performed for the top half of a movement in a power rack
or Smith machine, altering the force characteristics considerably (23). Other
methods of altering the kinetic profile include partial repetitions in the top half
or maximal force zone of the lift (24). Weighted adjustable hooks (periscope
type design) that are constructed to fall off the barbell when the base of the
apparatus contacts the floor during the lowest portion of the bench press can
also alter barbell kinetics within a repetition.
Their use allows for heavier
eccentric and lighter concentric phases, conceivably resulting in enhanced

concentric lifting velocities. The use of chains, power bands, FI, partials,
hooks and other devices to alter the resistance/force production (and
230
acceleration) throughout the barbell trajectory and particularly the end of the
range of movement (so that it more closely mimics power exercises) can be
basically applied to any free weight barbell exercise used in upper body
training.
3. Use complexes of contrasting resistances or exercises

A method of training where sets of a heavy resistance strength
exercise are alternated with sets of lighter resistance power exercises is
known as a complex (14-18, 28) or contrast training (1, 7, 14). This type of
training has been shown to acutely increase explosive force production or
jumping ability when implemented for lower body power training (4, 14, 18,
28), presumably through stimulating the neuro- or musculo-mechanical
system(s) (14, 18, 28).
Recent research also illustrates it is effective for
acutely increasing upper body power output (1). This research found that
bench presses with 65% 1RM alternated with bench throws (30-45% 1RM)
resulted in an acute increase in power output (1).
An agonist-antagonist
complex may also warrant consideration from the coach as speed of agonist
movement may be improved in these situations (13, 22). Thus a strength
coach has a choice of implementing agonist strength and power exercises or
antagonist and agonist strength and power exercises in a complex to increase
power output.
It is recommended that if upper body resistance training is performed
twice per week, then one day of the training week could emphasize strength
development with heavy resistance training and another training day
emphasize power development with training complexes alternating contrasting
sets of light resistances (30-45% 1RM) and medium-heavy resistances (6075% 1RM) (1, 7).
4. Periodize the presentation of power exercises and resistances
231
Many authors have suggested the periodization of resistance training

exercises to enhance power output (7, 19). While prescribing resistances in a
periodized manner is not a novel idea in relation to training for power as has
traditionally been used with Olympic weightlifting style exercises, it has not
been fully utilized for simpler, upper body power exercises such as the bench
throw. Baker has previously suggested that the resistances used for the upper
body (or lower body jumping) power exercises be periodized (7) to effectively
stress the multi-faceted nature of muscle power (19). Four power training
zones and their analogous strength training zones are outlined in Table 1.
Across a training cycle the power training resistances can progress from
lighter resistances where technique and ballistic speed are emphasized to the
heavier resistances that maximize power output (about 50% 1RM = 100%
Pmax). Table 2 details the last four weeks of an elite athletes bench press
and bench throw training cycle aimed at simultaneously maximizing strength
and power output. The progression in power training resistances (from 40 to
80 kg in bench throws) and concomitant increase in power output from 573 to
755 W can be seen.
If coaches dont have access to technologies that can measure the
actual Pmax and the resistance at which it occurred, it is recommended
assuming 50-55% 1RM BP for most athletes, 45%1RM BP for very strong
athletes (eg. 1RM BP = >150 kg) and greater than 55 % 1RM BP for less
experienced or strong athletes (7). This means that a resistance of 50% 1RM
BP equals 100% Pmax (and hence this resistance is the Pmax resistance).
It is important to note that, for example, training with a 50% Pmax
resistance does not mean the athlete will attain only 50% of their maximal
power output. For example, from Table 2 it can be seen that the athletes
Pmax resistance is 80 kg for bench throws, but that 40 kg, representing 50%
Pmax resistance, actually allows for the athlete to attain a power output of 7678% of the maximum. During week 2, training with a resistance of 50 kg
232
(representing 63% of his Pmax resistance of 80 kg) allowed the athlete to

attain power outputs of around 600 w or 80% of maximum. Therefore an
athlete can attain very high power outputs at lower percentages of the Pmax
resistance. Because of the plateauing of power output around the Pmax (see
Figure 1), it can be seen that the use of resistances of around 85% or more of
the resistance used to attain Pmax will usually result in the athlete training at
or very close to Pmax (eg. 70 kg in Table 2 = 84 % Pmax resistance but
results in power outputs of up to 96% Pmax).
Table 1. Zones of intensity for strength and power training, modified from
reference 7.
______________________________________________________________
Type and / or goal of training of each intensity zone
Strength
Zone 1: < 50% * General muscle & technical
Power
General neural & technical
(< 25 % 1RM)
Zone 2: 50-75% Hypertrophy training
Ballistic speed training

(25 - 37.5 % 1RM)
Zone 3: 75-90% Basic strength training
Basic power training

(37.5 - 45 % 1RM)
Zone 4: 90-100% Maximal strength training
Maximal power training

(45 - 55 % 1RM)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* For strength, percentage of maximum refers to 1RM (100%). For power,
100% = Pmax resistance (circa 45-55% 1RM if exact Pmax resistance not
known). Equivalent percentage ranges based upon 1RM are included in
brackets for cases where exact Pmax resistance is not known.
5. Use low repetitions when maximizing power output

Low repetitions are necessary to maximise power output.
High
repetition, high workload, hypertrophy-oriented training acutely decreases

power output (2) and should not precede or be combined with maximal power
233
training.
It would appear important to avoid fatigue when attempting to
maximise power output and a simple method for achieving this is by using low
repetitions for power exercises (and obviously ensuring the appropriate rest
period is utilized).
Anecdotal evidence from training hundreds of athletes with the PPS
shows that power output markedly decreases after three repetitions when
using resistances that maximize power output (around 45-50% 1RM BP)
during the BT exercise. Based on this evidence, for power exercises it is
usually recommended that only 2-3 repetitions be performed when training in
the maximal power zone, 3-5 in the general power and ballistic power zone
and higher repetitions (eg. 8-10) are only performed when using lighter
resistances in the technical/neural zone (learning technique or warming up).
6. Use clusters, rest-pause or breakdown techniques for some

strength or power exercises
To increase force output, velocity and reduce fatigue within a set, some
specific methods have evolved over the years (23).
Recent research
indicates that, compared to the traditional manner of performing repetitions,

force or velocity can be increased when repetitions are presented in clusters
(20) or by using the rest-pause or breakdown methods (23). Clusters are
a method whereby a set of higher repetitions is broken down into smaller
clusters of repetitions that allow a brief pause between performances of
these clusters.
For example, eight repetitions can be performed as four
clusters of two repetitions with a 10-second rest between clusters. The restpause system is essentially similar but typically entails the breakdown of a
lower repetition set (for example, 5RM) into single repetitions with a short
pause (for example, 2-15 secs) between repetitions.
A breakdown (aka
stripping) set consists of small amounts of resistance being taken from the
barbell during short pauses between repetitions. This reduction in resistance
234
to accommodate the cumulative effects of fatigue results in a decreased

degree of deterioration in power output across the set as well as increased
force in the initial repetitions as compared to the traditional manner of lifting a
heavy resistance (23).
7.
Use an ascending order of resistances when maximizing power
output
Whether the resistances are presented in an ascending (working up in
resistance) or descending (working down in resistance) order during power
training has been cause of some debate (7). A recent study examining the
effects of ascending or descending order on power output during bench
throws reported that an ascending order resulted in the highest power output
during BT (7).
It was also recommended that an ascending order of
resistances with the inclusion of a lighter down set may be an effective

method of presenting power training resistances.
Rest periods
The rest period between sets or even repetitions will depend upon the
objective of that set, the number of repetitions being performed, the intensity
of the resistance, the type of exercise, the training state of the athlete and the
periodization phase. When the objective of the set is maximise the power
output that can be generated with the selected resistance, the rest period
between sets of a power exercise should be one to two-minutes or as is long
enough to ensure that the objective is met. When performing a complex of a
strength and power exercise, anecdotal evidence suggests a four-minute turnaround period (eg. set of bench press then 90 s rest, set of bench throw then
120 s rest before repeating complex) has been shown to be adequate as
evidenced by the power outputs measured by the PPS. Shorter rest periods
(eg. < 1-minute between sets of a power exercise or < 3-minutes for a
235
complex) result in reduced power outputs, diminishing the effectiveness of the

entire power-training process.
Long term progress

Maximal upper body pressing power can still be quite readily increased
over the long term even in advanced trainers. Changes in the load-power
curve for a group of twelve elite rugby league players as well as the individual
progression of one young rugby league player (player X) across a four year
period is depicted in Figure 2 (9). It is clear that even for advanced trainers
such as this group that progression can still be quite pronounced, especially in
power output against heavier resistances. The load-power curve for the group
as a whole as well as for player X has shifted upwards and slightly towards
the left. From the graph it is visible that while power output generated while
lifting a resistance of 40 kg (BT P40) changes only slightly, power outputs with
heavier resistances of 60-80 kg increased markedly, a favourable situation
considering the strong relation between high power outputs generated while
lifting 70 and 80 kg in the bench throw exercise and progress into the elite
professional rugby league ranks (7). As power output with lighter resistances
improved relatively less than power output with heavier resistances, it is
obvious that increases in strength rather than speed accounted for the
majority of change. Statistically Pmax is more related to maximal strength
rather than speed in these athletes (7).
During this time player X progressed from playing in the city-based
leagues into the ranks of the full-time professional national rugby league. His
BT Pmax increased 39%, from 603 w to 836 w while his 1RM BP increased
from 135 to 180 kg (33%) at a relatively constant body mass of 110 kg.
For
the group of twelve subjects as a whole, the BT Pmax increased from 611 w
to 696 w. This 14% increase appears to be underpinned by a similar change
of 14.3 % in 1RM BP (from 129.6 to 148.1 kg) (9). From this evidence it would
236
appear that the concept of combining maximum strength and power training,
using the methods outlined above, can result in enhanced upper body power
output over long-term training periods.
Figure 2. Change in the upper body bench throw load-power curve (average
concentric power) across a four-year period in a group of twelve professional
rugby league players as well as for one individual who made considerable
progress (player X). The change in 1RM BP appears to underpin the change
in BT Pmax during this time. From reference 9.
237
A number of practical methods used for increasing the effectiveness of

upper body power training have been presented. It is not necessary to use all
of these methods at one time to effectively develop maximal upper body
pressing power.
However, it is not difficult to implement a number of these
methods simultaneously either. For example, a bench press and bench throw
workout to maximize pressing power that entails six methods: full acceleration
exercise; kinetically altered strength exercise; contrasting resistance complex;
low repetitions; ascending order of resistances for the power exercise; and
clustered repetitions is detailed in Table 3. Variation and periodization should
influence if, when and how, any of these strategies are implemented.
This paper has addressed mainly the training for maximal power
production and especially may be of value for athletes who must overcome
large external resistances such as the body mass of opponents (eg. football,
rugby league and union, wrestling, judo, mixed martial arts). Athletes who
require a greater speed contribution rather than pure strength contribution in
their power production (eg. boxing and related martial arts, tennis, javelin)
may need to modify their training accordingly and their load-power curves
would reflect this by perhaps showing increased power output with lighter
resistances of 10-40 kg. However, many of the methods described above
would be applicable to many sporting situations and it is the job of the astute
coach to modify and implement them accordingly.
238
Table 2. Actual sample training content for bench press and bench throws
across the last 4-weeks of a pre-season strength-power training cycle for an
elite professional rugby league player. Testing occurred in week 5.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Weeks
1
Test
Pmax
Bench throws
D1
Power
573 w
599 w
696 w
683 w
Wt
@ 40 kg
@ 50 kg
@ 70 kg
@ 70 kg @ 80k
%BT Pmax
76
79
92
91
D2
Power
588 w
605 w
722 w
746 w
Wt
@ 40 kg
@ 50 kg
@ 70 kg
@ 80 kg
78
80
96
99
%BT Pmax
Bench press
D1
100 %
1RM BP
Wt
130 kg
135 kg
140 kg
150 kg
SxR
3x5
3x5
3x5
3x3
% 1RM
76.5
79.4
82.4
88.2
D2
Wt
105 kg
110 kg
125 kg*
125 kg*
SxR
3x5
3x5
5x3
5x3
61.8
64.7
73.5
73.5
% 1RM
755 w
=170
100%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------W = power output in watts, Wt = resistance in kilograms, SxR = Sets x

Repetitions, D1 = Heavier, strength-oriented training day with BP performed
before BT. D2 = Medium-heavy, power-oriented training day consisting of
contrasting resistance complexes (alternating sets of BP & BT, same sets and
repetitions). Denotes 110 kg barbell load plus 15 kg in chains attached to the sleeves of
barbell. See text for a description of this bench press + chains exercise. Grip width was
altered to a narrower grip for all D2 BP workouts.
239
Table 3. Sample workout for combined bench press and bench throws on a
power-oriented training day during the peaking maximum strength/power
phase for an athlete possessing a 1RM BP of 130 kg.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sets
Wt (kg)
40
50
60
70
60
100* 100* 100*
1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1
1a. Bench throws (Smith machine) Reps
Wt (kg)
1b. Bench press + chains* Reps
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1a, 1b. = Alternate exercises as a contrast resistance complex.

* = 85 kg barbell resistance + 15 kg in chains attached = 100 kg resistance at
lockout.
1, 1, 1= 3-rep cluster sets, rest 15 secs between each clustered repetition.
240
Figure 3. Bench press throw exercise in a Smith machine. Loss of hand

contact with the barbell ensures acceleration throughout the entire range of
movement.
Figures 4 & 5. Bench press exercise kinetically modified by adding heavy

chains to the sleeves of the barbell. In the bottom of the lift the chains are
furled upon the floor, adding little additional resistance. As the barbell is lifted
through its range of movement, the continuous unfurling of the chains from the
floor provides additional resistance acting upon the barbell.
241
References
1. Baker D. The acute effect of alternating heavy and light resistances upon
Res. 17(3):493-497. 2003.
2. Baker D. The acute negative effects of a hypertrophy-oriented training

bout upon subsequent upper body power output. J. Strength Cond. Res.
17(3):527-530. 2003.

4.
Baker, D.
Observations on the training of an elite power athlete. Strength Cond. J.

23(1):47-56. 2001.
5.
Baker, D.
J.
6.
Baker, D.

rugby league football players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 15(2): 172-177. 2001.

2001.
242

1999.
9. Baker, D. and R.U. Newton. Adaptations in upper body maximal strength

and power output resulting from long-term resistance training in experienced
strength-power athletes. (sent for publication)
12. Blazevich, A.L., N.D. Gill, R. Bronks, and R.U. Newton. Training-specific
muscle architecture adaptation after 5-wk training in athletes.
Med. Sci.
Sports Exerc. 35(12): 2013-2022. 2003.
13.

14. Duthie., G. M., Young, W.B and D.A. Aitken. The acute effects of heavy
loads on jump squat performance: An evaluation of the complex and contrast
methods of power development.
2002.
243
plyometric training modes: Complex training. Strength Cond. J. 20(5)18-27.
1998.
2000.

1986.

19. Haff, G. G., Whitley, A. and J. A. Potteiger. A brief review: Explosive

exercises and sports performance. Strength Cond. J. 23(3): 13-20. 2001.
20. Haff, G. G., Whitley, A. , L.B. McCoy, H.S. O'Bryant, J.L. Kilgore, E.E.
Haff, K.Pierce, and M.H. Stone.
Effects of different set configurations on
barbell velocity and displacement during a clean pull. J. Strength Cond.

Res. 17(1):95-103. 2003.
21. Hydock, D. The weightlifting pull in power development. Strength Cond.

J. 23(1): 32-37. 2001.
22.
Role of agonist and

Physiol. 71:464-468. 1995.
244
23. Keogh, J.W.L., Wilson, G. J. and R.P. Weatherby. A cross-sectional

comparison of different resistance training techniques in the bench press. J.
24. Moorkerjee, S and N. Ratamess. Comparison of strength differences and

joint action durations between full and partial range-of-motion bench press
exercise. J. Strength Cond. Res. 13(1):76-81. 1999.

26.

27.
The optimal
Sports Exerc. 23:1279-1286. 1993.
28. Young, W., Jenner, B., A and K. Griffiths. Acute enhancement of power
1998.
245
Paper 10
Cycle-length variants in periodized strength/power training
by
Daniel Baker
was accepted on 6th September, 2006

in the
Strength & Conditioning Journal.
246
Introduction
When designing resistance-training programs the strength coach has
to consider a number of variables that can be manipulated to make programs
different. These include choosing 1. the exercise 2. the repetitions 3. the sets
4. the resistance 5. the speed of performing the exercise 6. the order of
exercises and 7. the rest periods between sets and exercises (6). The
Australian Strength and Conditioning Association (ASCA) also accepts that
coaches may choose to use a particular, specific variant of periodization
(known also as a pattern, plan, strategy, method or model of periodization) for
a training cycle (1).
While there are similarities between these different
variants of periodized training, the ASCA recognizes that some coaches

prefer to use certain variants for certain athletes (eg. novices versus
experienced trainers) or periods of the training year (preparation period
versus competitive period). This approach of choosing a particular variant or
method for periodized strength training, popular in Australia, was largely
influenced by Poliquin (39, 40) and others (2, 13-16, 25) over the past 15
years. The purpose of this article is to outline some of the particular variants
of cycles within a periodized training structure that a coach may choose from
when designing a cycle-length strength/power training program.
Brief history of periodization

For the purpose of this article, periodization of training is defined as the
methodical planning and structuring of training aimed at bringing or keeping
an athlete at peak sports performance. Athletes have used periodization of
training since ancient times. For example some ancient Greek athletes chose
247
to use a specific four-day training cycle, known as the tetrad, that included
daily variations in volume, intensity and technical work (49). The concept of
general and competitive training periods also seems to have been adopted by
these athletes when training for the ancient Olympics or other important
sports festivals (49). However interest in the concept of training periodization
in more modern times in the sports science and training literature has been
attributed to the work of the Soviet Matveyev (eg. 30). Earlier authoritive
Soviet weightlifting coaches and authors stated the need for training variation
to occur throughout different training time-frames (eg. weekly, monthly and
multi-monthly time frames, 31, 32, 50).
Different authors have differing
definitions for terms used in periodized training, so to avoid confusion

regarding the terms micro-, meso- or macro-cycle, for the purposes of this
article, the terms week, block or cycle will be used to denote the different time
frames typically referred to in periodized training. While the usual definition of
week should suffice, it must also be noted that training weeks can vary in
length (eg. 4-10 days) in some sports, with the tetrad mentioned above a
prime example of a non-standard training week.
A block (sometimes
known as a mesocycle) may be 2-5 weeks in length and a training cycle

(sometimes known as a macrocycle), is the sum of a number of blocks (or
mesocycles) (30, 31, 50). The training cycle, which may typically consist of 24 blocks of training (eg. initially described as being hypertrophy, general
strength and maximal strength blocks, 2, 23, 36-46), is the time frame of
concern in this article.
Soviet and other former eastern bloc coaches and authors (eg. 30, 31,
50) were the main sources of information on the concept of strength training
248
periodization until the pioneering work of Stone and colleagues introduced
periodization of strength training to western literature in the early to mideighties (42-44). Since that time the concept of periodization has undergone
considerable study, with consequent debate concerning methods and
effectiveness (7-25, 36- 46, 48, 51-53).
Wilks (52) believes the debate concerning the effectiveness of
periodization (17, 19, 48, 53) can largely attributed to the patterns or variants
of periodization used, the amount of variation inherent in each model (eg. 11,
20 versus 21, 36, 41-44) as well as the experience of the athlete and length of
the study.
Therefore rather than use a generic term such as periodized
strength training, coaches and researchers in the future may wish to specify
which variant or pattern of periodization of strength training was implemented.
Different cycle-length variants or patterns of periodized strength

training.
While the ability to vary training sessions within a week by utilizing
methods such as those outlined in Table 1 appear well known to most
coaches, descriptions of different cycle-length variants of periodized strength
training appear less frequently in North American literature. The ASCA has
outlined a number of different cycle-length (eg. 6-16+ weeks) variants of
periodization that a strength coach may choose from, which have been
identified from the literature and from analysis of current practices throughout
the world (1, 2, 16, 18, 34, 37-46). A few examples of these variants are
described in Tables 2-4. The nomenclature the ASCA uses, which is based
upon the method of intensification, has been source of some debate,
249
consternation or confusion in the NSCA (17, 22-24, 27, 28, 45, 46, 52, 53).
Poliquin (40) first proposed that a training cycle whereby the intensity (%1RM)
is increased each week of the cycle should be designated as a linear
method of intensification (see the first two examples in Table 2).
This
classification of linear is made irrespective of the fact that intensity, volume,

(training impulse), workload etc may be manipulated in a non-linear manner
within the week by methods such as those outlined in Table 1 (eg. heavy
intensity or light intensity days, high or low load-volume days etc). Non-linear
intensification entails not increasing training resistances each and every week
of the training cycle (eg. with heavier and lighter weeks in intensity at certain
weeks in the cycle, 1-4, 12-15, 25, 39-43). For the purposes of this article, if a
variant does not entail increasing %1RM or resistance each week, then it is
not a linear intensification variant (1, 2, 16-18). This can be clearly seen in
the two examples of variants of block periodization provided in Table 3
which are distinguished by either linear or non-linear intensification across 12weeks. Figure 1 graphically illustrates differences between linear and nonlinear intensification (Subtle Linear, Block (non-linear), Wave-like and
Undulating periodized variants) while Figure 2 provides a more comparative
example of training impulse (repetition-volume x relative intensity, %1RM)
between the Subtle Linear, Block (linear intensification), Block (non-linear
intensification) and Wave-like periodized variants. When using this method of
description, it should be noted that it is the method of intensification across
the length of the cycle that is being refereed to, not the progression across the
overall training year.
A training year may contain a number of cycles such
250
that overall the yearly progression is clearly non-linear, but this does not affect
the description of the cycle-length pattern of progression.
By looking at week three from each of the specific variants in Tables 2
and 3, it can be seen that there are different prescriptions of sets, repetitions
and resistances, despite all being examples of periodized strength training.
Great diversity exists in periodized strength training and coaches may wish
to choose the variant(s) that they feel most appropriate to their circumstances
(level of the athlete, period of the year etc).
Comparisons between different cycle-length patterns of progression

A paucity of data exists concerning comparisons upon the effects of
different cycle-length patterns of progression as most research has tended to
compare some form of periodized training to non-periodized training (36, 4244) or to pre-intervention data (ie. comparing pre- and post-training
scores in muscular functioning in response to a specific periodized training
pattern, eg. 3, 4, 7-9). Baker et al. (11) found that a block pattern with linear
progression and an undulatory pattern of progression (changing repetition
demands after every 2-weeks) provided similar benefits in maximal strength
across 12-weeks.
Rhea et al. (41) found that a program that alternated
training volumes and intensities within a week more effective than a block
method with linear intensification and no within-week variation. No other data
has been found that directly compares different progression patterns of cyclelength periodized strength training in order to gauge the relative effectiveness
of one pattern against another.
251
Possible reasons for a lack of comparative data
Given that resistance-training objectives can vary for different athletes
(eg. hypertrophy of muscle, maximal power, absolute strength are different
objectives requiring somewhat different training prescriptions), it is not known
why research into the relative merits of different patterns of periodized
progression has been so limited.
The references contain many articles
outlining debate and theory concerning periodization but it appears little of this
theory has been tested, unless against non-periodized training.
It is of
interest to note that Stone et al. (47) stated that the demise of sport science in
the United States is in part attributable to Institutional Review Boards and
academics not being conceptually familiar with sports science. This then
reduces what they call monitoring studies, examples of which would be the
analysis of the effects of different periodized variants/patterns of progression
upon muscular functioning and sports performance.
They also state that
politically correct views of the academics may partly regulate research away
from studies that investigate sports performance, to which comparative
periodized strength training studies belong. For whatever reason, the level of
research regarding the merits of different periodization variants/patterns has
not equated with the overall theoretical literature on periodization.
When and why a coach may choose different cycle-length variants of

periodized strength/power training.
Given these deficiencies in the literature, the ASCA has made some
generalizations regarding when and why a coach may choose different cyclelength variants of periodized strength/power training. These generalizations
252
have been made mainly based upon the practical experiences of their elite
coaches aligned with findings from the literature where possible.
Subtle linear-intensification patterns of progression. As these types of
variants are characterised by fairly equivalent and small regular increments in
training intensity each week (e.g. by < 5% 1RM each week), it is thought
these types of variants may be suited to novice and less experienced athletes
who have not performed much periodized resistance training (1, 2, 13, 51,
52). This is due to the fact that other variants are characterized by more
pronounced alterations in intensity which may not be as easily managed by
less experienced athletes whose exercise technique may deteriorate under
such situations (1, 6, 37).
Hence the subtle variations in intensity (and
workload) enable a more stable technique acquisition/refinement environment

(37). Consequently these types of models may be best suited for lower level
or less experienced athletes, irrespective of the training period (Preparation or
Competitive Period) (1, 6).
Block or Step patterns of progression.
The block or step patterns
generally entail a training cycle being divided into three steps of repetition and
intensity demands, each respectively signifying a hypertrophy block (a
traditional term, though now this block may also be referred to as a
consolidated strength-endurance block or muscle training block), basic
strength/power block and peak-strength/power block (1, 2, 13, 22-24, 27, 28,
36-38, 41-46).
As detailed in Table 2, the intensity progression could be
linear or non-linear. As compared to subtle linear progressions, sharper drops

in volume and rises in intensity when changing blocks characterize the block
variants. These pronounced changes in volume and intensity may provide a
253
beneficial stimulatory shock to experienced athletes and allow for a delayed
training effect (42, 43, 51), but the pronounced intensity changes may be too
severe for less experienced athletes to cope with (physiologically and
exercise
technique-wise)
(6,
37).
Consequently
the
ASCA
has
recommended that these variants are generally recommended for use with
more experienced athletes who possess stable exercise technique and
predictable strength levels and who seem to benefit from the marked variation
inherent in these models (1).
These types of variants can be seen as a
progression from the subtle linear variants (1). Aside from competitive lifters,
the block variants are generally used for the preparation period as high
volume blocks of strength training are often not compatible with in-season
training in a number of sports (1). The coach will also need to choose a linear
or a non-linear intensity progression when implementing this variant.
Undulatory patterns of progression. The Undulatory variant in Table 2 is
characterised by 2-week changes in repetition demands and concomitant
alterations in intensity, which sees an undulatory progression in intensity as
training reverts from, lower intensity 2-week
phases to higher-intensity 2-
week phases back and forth, throughout the cycle (11, 39). It is not to be
confused with simple within-week undulation of training (41) (see Table 1).
These changes that typically occur after a 2-week time frame are
generally greater (in workload, intensification) than for subtle linear methods,
but less pronounced that block variants. Accordingly this type of variant may
be beneficial as a progression for athletes who have habituated to subtle
linear methods of intensity progression or for athletes who favour alternating
2-week phases of hypertrophy-oriented (eg. 3-4 sets x 8-12 repetitions)
254
training with 2-week phases of general strength training (3-4 sets x 4-6
repetitions) on a continual basis.
Wave-like patterns of progression. The distinguishing difference between
the undulatory and wave-like variants is the number of weeks that contain the
variation. If the repetitions do not change till after every 2-weeks, then it is an
undulatory model, as compared to every week for a true wave-like model
used by a non-lifter (1).
This means there are less variation in volume,
intensity and load-volume in an undulatory pattern as compared to a wave-like

pattern.
Wave-like patterns derive from the sport of weightlifting, where earlier
Soviet coaches advised that weekly volume-load should be presented in a
wave-like fashion over a month (eg. the monthly 100% total is distributed 3536%, 26-28%, 21-23% and 13-18% per week, or 42-44%, 32-33%, 22-26%
for a 3-week month, 12, 31, 32, 50). Even the order that each of these
weekly workloads is to be presented is not constant and the earlier Soviet
coaches provided examples of different orders that the workloads could be
presented (12, 31, 32, 50).
Again the coach has to choose which workload
order of the wave (ie. which variation of the wave-like pattern) would best
suit their lifters (31, 32, 50).
The wave-like patterns have been adapted for use by non-lifters by
mainly using the number of repetitions per set to alter weekly volume-load (24, 10, 40), although additional sets can obviously affect volume-load (34). In
a basic wave-like pattern, the repetitions decrease weekly (with concomitant
rises in intensity) for 3-4 weeks, whereby the general pattern is then repeated
but at slightly higher intensities/lower repetitions as the athlete comes to the
255
peaking phase (2-4, 7-10, 25, 34, 40). A number of studies show that the
wave-like variants are effective in maintaining or even increasing strength and
power in both
elite and moderately experienced athletes during long in-
season periods (3, 7, 9), though case studies also reported good results with
its use in during preparation periods (3, 4, 40).
Accumulation/intensification patterns of progression. Many introductory
resistance-training programs can be loosely defined as, or based upon, the
processes of accumulation/intensification. For example, an athlete may be
prescribed a resistance they can lift for 3 x 10 repetitions and they do not
increase the resistance (intensify training) until they have managed to perform
3 x 12 repetitions (ie. they have accumulated volume) with that constant
resistance. Therefore these types of introductory programs are based upon
the athlete accumulating training volume (volume load) at a steady or
designated resistance before training resistances are increased and the
volume
is
reduced
(intensification).
This
most
basic
type
of
accumulation/intensification used by beginners (eg. continually training within

a narrow specified range of repetitions such as 3 x 10-12 etc) does not really
embrace the concept of periodization and is not to be considered a periodized
variant.
Table 2 details a certain example of the accumulation/intensification
pattern that is a distinct cycle-length periodized variant. This program may be
more familiar to coaches as the Russian squat cycle (although it was
actually developed in the now separate country of Belarus) and was taken
from the sport of weightlifting (54). The original proponents stated that this
particular variant was best suited to increasing maximal squat strength during
256
the preparation period, presumably due to the high workloads involved (54).
Clearly this variant of accumulation/intensification was designed for
competitive lifters and advanced athletes and may be less applicable to the
vast majority of athletes or exercises due to its high intensities and workloads
(1). However, modifications such as more moderate volumes and intensities
(eg. Accumulation => Wk1 = 70%/3x9, Wk2 = 70%/3x10, Wk3 = 70%/3x11,
Wk4 = 70%/3x12, Intensification => Wk5 = 80%/3x7, Wk6 = 84%/3x6, Wk7 =
88/3x5, Wk8 = 92%/3x4) may make it more suitable to a wider range of
athletes to use.
Integrating different models?

As described above, choosing a specific cycle-length variant/pattern of
periodization may entail choosing a designated training variable configuration.
Coaches may find some variants/patterns work well with certain athletes (eg.
novice athletes and subtle linear-intensification patterns of progression) or
certain times of the year (eg. wave-like patterns and in-season periods).
Another method is to prescribe patterns according to exercise classification.
For example, Australian National Team Powerlifting Coach Robert Wilks
proposed a block variant with linear intensity progressions for the three key
powerlifts (but with large within-week variation in %1RM resistance and hence
workload) and an undulatory approach for the assistance exercises
(alternating between sets of 10 or sets of 6 repetitions every 2-3 weeks) (51).
Baker and Newton reported changes in upper body strength and power for
elite, professional strength-power athletes across a 4-year period, using
257
different periodized training variants according to times of the year and
exercise classifications (10).
Accordingly a coach may ascribe to a philosophy of variant choice
being determined by exercise classification, the training age/state of the
athletes involved as well as the training period (General or Competitive
periods).
The overall periodized structure may reflect the integration of a
number of different cycle-length variants.
Conclusions
Coaches can choose a cycle-length variant or pattern of presenting
overload that largely determines the sets, repetitions, and relative intensity
and so on to be used during each week of the cycle. Little consideration has
been given to the effects that different variants or patterns of progression of
periodized overload have upon strength, power, and size, and so on for
different levels of athletes at different times of the training year. Hopefully this
presentation of different variants of cycle-length periodized overload may
provoke further research by academics or experimentation by coaches in a
bid to determine the relative merits of this type of cycle-length training
variation.
258
Figure 1. Graphic display of differences in the method of intensification

(%1RM) across a 12-week cycle between a Subtle Linear, Block (non-linear),
Wave-like and Undulating periodized variants outlined in Table 2.
259
Figure 2. Graphic display of differences in training impulse (total repetitions

per exercise x %1RM relative intensity) across an 12-week cycle between the
Subtle Linear, Block (linear intensification), Block (non-linear intensification)
and Wave-like periodized variants outlined in Table 2. Note the Subtle linear
pattern entails a straight decline in training impulse across the 12-weeks as
compared to the more varied patterns for the other methods.
260
Table 1. Nine methods ways of altering training load and difficulty within a training week.
Method of variation
Day 1 example
1. Same exercises and other variables, increase
Squat 3 x 10 @ 70 kg Squat 3 x 15 @ 60 kg
Day 2 example
repetitions and decrease resistance

2. Same exercises and other variables, increase or
Squat 4 x 10 @ 70 kg
Squat 3 x 10 @ 50 kg (4s/rep)
Squat 3 x 10 @ 50 kg (1m/rest)
decrease the number of sets.

3. Same exercises, sets and repetitions, reduce the
lifting speed and resistance.
4.
Same exercises and other variables, decrease
rest periods and resistance
(3m/rest)
5.
Squat 3 x 5 @ 80 kg
Front squat 3 x10 @ 55 kg
Jump squat 3 x 5 @ 50 kg
Power clean 3 x 5 @ 75 kg
Power snatch 3 x 5 @ 60 kg
resistance.
6.
repetitions.
7. Different strength exercises, but same for all other
variables (same %1RM).
8. Perform a strength and power version of aligned
exercises on different days.
9. Perform heavier and lighter versions of aligned
power exercises on different days.
262
power or assistant strength or power exercises (from ref. 7, 10).
Exercise
Week # 1
Primary
SxR
8-6-5
6-5-3
5-3-2
8-6-5
6-5-3
5-3-2
2-1-1
strength
% 1RM 66%
66-72-77% 72-77-82% 77-82-87% 70-75-80% 75-80-85% 80-85-90% 85-90-95%
Assistant
SxR
2x8
2x6
2x5
2x8
2x6
2x5
2x5
strength
% 1RM 65%
70%
75%
80%
75%
80%
85%
87%
Primary
SxR
3x5
3x5
5-4-3
4-3-2
3x5
5-4-3
4-3-2
3-2-2
power
% 1RM 65%
70%
70-75-80% 75-80-85% 75%
75-80-85% 80-85-90% 85-90-95%
SxR
3x6
3x6
3x5
3x4
3x6
3x5
3x4
3x3
% 1RM 65%
70%
75%
80%
75%
80%
85%
90%
classification
3x8
eg. SQ, BP, PU

2 x 10
eg. PC, J, BT JS
Assistant power
%1RM = Percentage of one repetition maximum strength, BP = bench press, PU = pull-ups, SQ = squats, PC = power clean from
hang, J = jerks, JS = jump squats, BT = bench throws. * For squats, reduce intensity by about 10% 1RM. Third set may be
optional for squats.
** Assistant strength and power exercises can be performed for 2 or 3 sets. Assistant power exercises
include pull variations (eg. pulls to waist, high pulls, power shrugs), push press and power press/throwing variations, loaded
jumping exercises etc.
262
power or assistant strength or power exercises (from ref. 7, 10).
Exercise
Week # 1
Primary
SxR
8-6-5
6-5-3
5-3-2
8-6-5
6-5-3
5-3-2
2-1-1
strength
% 1RM 66%
66-72-77% 72-77-82% 77-82-87% 70-75-80% 75-80-85% 80-85-90% 85-90-95%
Assistant
SxR
2x8
2x6
2x5
2x8
2x6
2x5
2x5
strength
% 1RM 65%
70%
75%
80%
75%
80%
85%
87%
Primary
SxR
3x5
3x5
5-4-3
4-3-2
3x5
5-4-3
4-3-2
3-2-2
power
% 1RM 65%
70%
70-75-80% 75-80-85% 75%
75-80-85% 80-85-90% 85-90-95%
SxR
3x6
3x6
3x5
3x4
3x6
3x5
3x4
3x3
% 1RM 65%
70%
75%
80%
75%
80%
85%
90%
classification
3x8
eg. SQ, BP, PU

2 x 10
eg. PC, J, BT JS
Assistant power
%1RM = Percentage of one repetition maximum strength, BP = bench press, PU = pull-ups, SQ = squats, PC = power clean from
hang, J = jerks, JS = jump squats, BT = bench throws. * For squats, reduce intensity by about 10% 1RM. Third set may be
optional for squats.
** Assistant strength and power exercises can be performed for 2 or 3 sets. Assistant power exercises
include pull variations (eg. pulls to waist, high pulls, power shrugs), push press and power press/throwing variations, loaded
jumping exercises etc.
263
References
1. Australian Strength and Conditioning Association Level 2 Coaching course
syllabus. Unit 5 Strength. Australian Strength and Conditioning Association,
Browns Plains, QLD, Australia. 2006.
2. Baker, D. Periodization of strength training for sports: A review. Strength

and Conditioning Coach. 1(3): 15-21. 1993.
the Australian Institute of Sport.
2(1):20-27. 1994.
4. Baker, D.
The effect of a wave-like periodized strength training cycle on
maximal strength and lean body mass. Strength and Conditioning Coach.
3(3): 11-16. 1995.

development. Strength and Conditioning Coach. 3(2):8-16. 1995.
6.
Baker, D.
Designing, implementing and coaching strength training
programs for beginner and intermediate level athletes. Part one: Designing
the program. Strength and Conditioning Coach. 5(3):11-20. 1998.
7. Baker, D. Applying the in-season periodization of strength and power

264
8.
Baker, D.
Strength and
Conditioning Journal. 22(5):1-10. 2000.
9.
Baker, D.

rugby league players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 15(2): 172-177. 2001.
10.
Baker, D.G.
and Newton, R.U.
Adaptations in upper-body maximal
strength and power output resulting from long-term resistance training in

experienced strength-power athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. (in press).
11.
Baker, D., Wilson, G. and Carlyon, R.
Periodization: The effect of

8(4):235-242. 1994.
12.
Baker, G., H. Newton, B. Klemens, and A. Charniga.
United States
Weightlifting Federation Coaching Manual (Vol 3); Training design. Colorado

Springs, CO; USWF, 1987
13. Balyi, I. A critique of the contemporary theories of the periodization of

training. 4th Annual Conference, National Strength and Conditioning
Association of Australia. 1992.
265
14. Balyi, I. Long-term planning of athlete development: The training to
train phase. Strength and Conditioning Coach. 3(4): 4-12. 1995.
15.
Balyi, I. and A. Hamilton. Long-term athlete development model:
Macrocycle and macrocycle planning of the annual plan.
Strength and
Conditioning Coach 5(3): 3-10, 1998.
16.
Bompa, T. Variations of Periodization of Strength. Strength and
Conditioning Journal. 18( 3): 5861. 1996.
17 Bradley-Popovich G. E. Point/Counterpoint: Nonlinear versus linear

periodization
modelsPoint.
Strength
and
Conditioning
Journal.
23(1):4243. 2001.
18. Brown, L. E, and M. Greenwood. Periodization essentials and innovations

in resistance training protocols. Strength and Conditioning Journal. 27(4):
8085. 2005.
19. Findley, B. W. Is Periodization applicable to novice athletes? Strength

and Conditioning Journal. 27(3):2728. 2005.
20.
Herrick, A.B and W. J. Stone. The effects of periodization versus
progressive resistance exercise on upper and lower body strength in women.

J. Strength Cond. Res. 10(2):7276. 1996.
266
21.
Graham, J. MS. Periodization research and an example application.
Strength and Conditioning Journal. 24,(6):6270. 2002.
22.
Haff, G.G. Point/Counterpoint: Nonlinear Versus Linear Periodization
Models - Counterpoint. Strength and Conditioning Journal. 23(1):4344.

2001.
23. Haff, G.G, Kraemer W.J, O'Bryant, H. Pendlay, G, Plisk, S and Stone,
M.H. Roundtable Discussion: Periodization of Training - Part 1. Strength and
Conditioning Journal. 26(1):5069. 2004.
24. Haff, G.G, Kraemer W.J, O'Bryant, H. Pendlay, G, Plisk, S and Stone,
M.H. Roundtable Discussion: Periodization of Training - Part 2. Strength and
Conditioning Journal. 26( 2): 5670. 2004.
25. King, I and C. Poliquin. Long term periodisation: A three-year strength

development model for rugby players. Sports Coach. April-June, 22-26.
1991.
26. Keogh, J. W. L., G. J. Wilson and R. P. Weatherby. A cross-sectional

comparison of different resistance training techniques in the bench press. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 13(3):247-258.
27. Kramer, J. B., M.H. Stone, H. S. O'Bryant, M. S. Coney, R. L. Johnson, D.

C. Nieman, D. R. Honeycutt, and T.P. Hoke. Effects of single versus multiple
267
sets of weight training: Impact of volume, intensity and variation. J. Strength
Cond. Res. 113:143147. 1997.
28. Kraemer, W.J. Program Design: Exercise prescription: Chronic program

variables (Periodization of training). NSCA Journal: 7(3):4747. 1985.
29. Kraemer, W.J., L. Marchitelli, S. E. Gordon., E. Harmann., J. E. Dziados,

R. Mello, P. Frykman, D. McCurry and S. J.. Fleck. Hormonal and growth
factor responses to heavy exercise protocols. J. Appl. Physiol. 69:14421450. 1990
30. Matveyev, L. Fundamentals of sports training. (Translated from

Russian), Progress Publishers, Moscow, USSR, 1981.
31.
Medvedyev, A. Several basics on
the methodics of training
weightlifters. Cited in Soviet Sports Rev. 23(1): 46-50. 1988.
32.
Medvedyev, A. Several basics on
33. McDonagh, M & Davies, C. Adaptive response of mammalian skeletal

muscle to exercise with high loads.
Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 52, 139-155.
1984.
34. Naughton, D. The strength wave. NSCA Journal. 13(5):3637. 1991.
268
35.

36. O'Bryant, H. S., Byrd, R., & Stone, M.H. Cycle ergometer performance
and maximum leg and hip strength adaptations to two different methods of
weight training. J. Appl. Sports Sci. Res. 2(2): 27-30. 1988.
37. Pedemonte, J. Updated acquisitions about training periodization: Part

one. NSCA Journal. Oct-Nov. 1: 56-60. 1982.
38. Plisk, S. S and M. H. Stone. Periodization Strategies. Strength and

Conditioning Journal: Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 1937. 2003.
39. Poliquin, C.
Five ways to increase the effectiveness of your strength
training program. NSCA. Journal. 10(3): 34-39. 1988.
40. Poliquin, C. Applied strength training: Short-term periodisation. Sports

Coach. July-Sept., 25-28. 1992
41. Rhea, M. R., S. B. Ball, W. T. Phillips, and L. N. Burkett. A comparison of

linear and daily undulating periodization with equated volume and intensity for
strength. J. Strength Cond. Res. 16:250255. 2002.
269
42. Stone, M.H., O'Bryant, H. & Garhammer, J. A hypothetical model for
strength training. J. Sports Med. 21: 342-351. 1981.
43. Stone, M.H., O'Bryant, H. & Garhammer, J.
A theoretical model for
strength training. NSCA. Journal. 4(4): 36-39. 1982.
44. Stowers, T., McMillan, J., Scala, D., Davis, V., Wilson, D., Stone, M. The
short term effects of three different strength-power training methods. NSCA.
Journal. 5(3): 24-27. 1983.
45.
Stone, M.H, H. S. O'Bryant, B.K. Schilling, R. L. Johnson, K.C. Pierce
G. G. Haff, A. J. Koch and M. Stone. Periodization: Effects Of Manipulating

Volume And Intensity. Part 1. Strength and Conditioning Journal. 21(2):
5662. 1999.
46.
G. G. Haff, A. J. Koch and M. Stone. Periodization: Effects of Manipulating

Volume and Intensity. Part 2. Strength and Conditioning Journal.
21(3):5460. 1999.
47. Stone, M.H, W. A. Sands, M.E. Stone. The downfall of sports science in
the United States. Strength and Conditioning Journal. 26(2):72-75. 2004.
48. Stone, M.H and H. S. O'Bryant. Letter to Editor. J. Strength Cond. Res.
9(2):125-126. 1995.
270
49. Sweet, W.E. Sport and Recreation in Ancient Greece. Oxford University
Press, 1987.
50. Vorobiev. A.N. Weightlifting. Cited in Cited in Soviet Sports Review,

22(3): 147-152, 1987.
51. Wilks, R. Periodization of training for powerlifting - an applied model of

maximal strength training.
Strength & Conditioning Coach. 2(4): 9-18.
1994.
52.
Wilks, R.

Coach. 3(2):17-21. 1995.
53. Wilson, G and D. Baker. Response to Letter to Editor. J. Strength Cond.

Res. 9(2):126-127. 1995.
54. Zeinalov, A. Developing leg strength. Tyazhelaya Atletika. 29-31, 1976.

Cited in Soviet Sports Review, 19(1): 33-36, 1984.
271
Chapter 4.
General Discussion
The structure of this thesis is in three distinct parts.
First was
concerned with testing of upper body strength, power, strength-endurance

and speed. From this testing it was discerned that, in particular, upper body
maximum strength (pressing and pulling) and power were of interest to
professional rugby league players as these measures appeared best able to
differentiate those who progressed to the elite professional ranks (NRL) from
those in the second-tier (SRL) and third-tier (CRL) ranks. As a result of these
findings, the rest of the studies focused upon training methods that effected
power output within a workout (Part two = Acute effects of resistance training
upon power output) or the nature, scope and magnitude of long-term changes
in strength and power output in professional rugby league players as a result
of chronic implementation of these methods (Part three = Chronic effect of
training on strength and power output).
This first series of studies were concerned mainly with the testing of
upper body strength and power was concerned with the relative importance,
or otherwise, of upper body strength, power, speed and strength-endurance to
professional rugby league players.
The results of the first study fairly
convincingly demonstrated that maximum strength was the most important

muscular function of those investigated as it differentiated along team-rank
and positional lines quite conclusively. However, the results for maximum
power and strength-endurance were nearly as emphatic. Speed appeared to
be less important in comparison to the other three attributes. However, all
272
performance attributes appeared better able to differentiate players than a
simple body mass measure.
In this study all investigated attributes were
measured during a bench press type movement, reducing the generality

versus specificity argument that can occur when different test movements
occur (Baker et al. 1994).
Thus the movement was the same, but the
resistance and repetition demands were manipulated to differentiate

maximum strength, power, speed or strength-endurance demands.
The
findings of this study clearly indicate that maximum strength is the key to
upper body training of rugby league players. From the base of maximum
strength, training can then be directed also towards either maximum power or
strength-endurance, both of which require distinctly different resistance
The second study in this first part was concerned with investigating
both pressing and pulling strength and further, did a distinct strength ratio
exist between the two roughly antagonistic movements. Similar to the results
for pressing strength, pulling strength was found to differentiate NRL from SRL
players.
More importantly a concise strength ratio between pressing and
pulling strength was observed that was significantly more equivalent in the
NRL as compared to the SRL players. While the levels of strength differences
are easily explained by training experience and natural selection (to a
degree), it is not fully understood why a difference in the strength ratio would
occur. It was initially theorized that perhaps the NRL squad may have had
players who performed unbalanced (pressing versus pulling) training early in
their careers. However, the results did not bear this out. The NRL squad
273
overall exhibited a very concise ratio and the players who were more than one
standard deviation difference in the ratio possessed a ratio in favour of pulling,
not pressing. Further investigation revealed that these players tended to have
suffered from contact injuries to the anterior musculature, typical in a physical
collision sport like rugby league.
These injuries may have suppressed
pressing strength, but not pulling strength (which is more dependant upon the
posterior musculature), affecting the strength ratio.
The third study was concerned with the validation of a less timeconsuming test methodology that may be more suitable to strength coaches of
lower level teams. Typically these coaches do not have the time, personnel,
experience and perhaps physical resources and equipment to implement a
test battery like those implemented in Studies 1 and 2. Therefore this study
aimed to validate the popular method of estimating 1RM performance via
extrapolation from one exhaustive set in the bench press and pull-up using
multiple repetitions till fatigue (RTF). Typically these tests take less than a
minute to perform per person and provide, via a suitable regression formula or
conversion table, not only an estimate of 1RM, but also due to the higher
repetitions performed a measure of high-intensity strength-endurance.
The bench press test performed was the NFL 225 lb (102.5 kg)
whereby the athletes performed as many repetitions as possible with this
resistance. In the pull-up test, body mass served as the chosen resistance.
Instead of a regression equation to extrapolate 1RM, a unique table of
conversion factors similar to the NFL table was used.
It is believed that
regression equations are fundamentally flawed in estimating 1RM because
274
they assume a linear relationship between fatigue (repetitions performed) and
1RM performance levels. The evidence in the cited literature suggests a more
curved-linear or part-parabolic relationship.
The results from actual 1RM
testing in these two exercises were compared to the predicted results, with
high correlations reported. Based upon these findings, it was recommended
that coaches working with athletes of lower level would be able to implement a
pressing and pulling strength test battery by using a one set RTF test with an
appropriate resistance utilizing the bench press and pull-up exercises. While
body mass is the obvious resistance for the pull-up exercise, for the bench
press exercise coaches of lower level athletes may have to utilize a lighter
resistance of, for example, 80 kg for college-aged athletes and 60 kg for highschool athletes as 102.5 kg is in excess of the maximum capabilities for many
athletes. By implementing these two one-set tests a coach may be able to
test sixty athletes in less than one hour. This scenario is suited to high-school
coaches.
Based upon the results of these studies coaches involved with rugby
league players should implement some form of upper body test battery aimed
at assessing the pressing and pulling strength. This testing may be via direct
1RM testing or by estimating 1RM via a RTF test with sub-maximal
resistance. The RTF test may also serve as a test of strength-endurance. If
the resources are available, then a maximum power testing battery may also
be implemented. Overall this data should highlight a pathway of upper body
muscular performance progressions for rugby league players who wish to
progress to the elite professional NRL ranks.
275
The second part of this thesis entailed studies that lead directly on from
the above findings. Having determined that levels of upper body strength,
power and strength-endurance are of importance to success in rugby league,
then methods that affect their development is of interest. These may be acute
methods that affect strength and power within a training session or the chronic
methods that affect development of strength, power and endurance over
longer periods of time. In particular, the interaction between muscle power
and muscle endurance is of interest given that endurance training is believed
to attenuate power development.
The next three studies focused upon acute training interventions;
specifically how power output could be affected by various resistance training
variable manipulations that occur within a workout.
Studies 4 and 5 involved manipulations of training variables to
investigate if power could be increased within a workout through the
interaction of a strength training oriented training dosage. Study 6 was
implemented to determine the effect upon power output of combining strength
and power training within a work-out.
For Studies 4 and 5 a method of training called complex or contrast
training was investigated to determine if it was an effective power training
strategy.
Complex
training
entails
the
alternating
of
contrasting
resistances/exercises (e.g. heavy bench presses with 100 kg alternated with

lighter bench throws with 50 kg).
Theoretically this results in some
enhancement of power output via some tension dependant mechanism that

has yet to be fully determined.
Despite being a common power training
276
methodology for over twenty years, the results for previous complex training
studies have been mixed to say the least. While some positive results have
been reported for some lower body studies, two previous upper body studies
had yielded no significant change in upper body power output or performance
as a result of utilizing a complex of contrasting resistance/exercises (Ebben et
al., 2000; Hrysomallis and Kidgell, 2001).
The reasons for these mixed
results may lay in the findings of some of the studies.
It appears that
stronger, more experienced athletes may benefit form this type of training but
that less experienced athletes may find this method detrimental to their power
performances.
Fortuitously the athletes in Study 4 were strong and
experienced athletes who had been performing contrast complex training for
over one year prior to the investigation. The significant increase in power
output as a result of alternating heavier bench presses with lighter bench
throws in Study 5 also illustrated a fundamental difference in the ideology of
complex training.
Most authors attempt to explain this method via a
mechanism of post-activation potentiation (PAP (eg. Schmidtbleicher, D. and

Buehrle, 1987; Ebben and Watts, 1998; Young, et al., 1998; Duthie et al.,
2002). Therefore the contrast resistance they utilize is extremely heavy (> 8590 % 1RM), in order to invoke maximum recruitment and rate coding.
However, in Study 4 a resistance of 65% 1RM was used as the contrast
resistance because pilot work by the lead author also revealed equivocal
results with extremely heavy resistances (90% 1RM). Heavy resistances of >
85% 1RM may recruit more muscle fibers but they also may attune the neural
system to a slower speed of lifting (the speed control theory). Therefore it
277
was decided for Study 4 that a contrast resistance merely had to be heavy
enough to be in stark contrast to the power testing resistance so that it would
evoke the positive effects (neural or otherwise) without the potentially negative
effect of attuning the neural network to a slow lifting speed. The findings of
Newton et al. (1996) illustrated that resistances of around 60% 1RM still
allowed for high lifting speeds. In Study 4 65%1RM was equivalent to 92 kg,
which is distinctly heavy in comparison to the power test resistance of 50 kg.
This disparity in resistances was apparently enough to warrant some
significant post-intervention increase in power output.
Consequently very
heavy resistances do not or perhaps should not be used for complex power
training.
It was recommended that if athletes wish to utilize contrast
complexes of strength and power exercises/resistances, then they should be

performed in a training session with moderate strength training resistances
(60-75% 1 RM) and lower repetition demands. Heavier resistance strength
training
(> 80% 1RM) can be performed in another training session.
Therefore training days could be differentiated as being primarily concerned

with development of maximal power (including the power complex training) or
maximal strength (including heavy resistance training). Furthermore, based
upon the results of Study 4 and the failure of other researchers to report
enhancement in power output when using resistances of > 85% 1RM, it is
recommended that further complex training research be conducted using
more moderate resistances and more advanced athletes.
As the results of Study 2 illustrated that pulling strength and a concise
strength/muscle balance ratio are of importance to rugby league players, it
278
was theorized that combining pulling strength and pressing power training in a
complex would warrant investigation. As a result, Study 5 investigated if a
non-traditional complex of contrasting movement actions, rather than
contrasting resistances, also had an acute effect upon power output. It was
conceivable based upon previous research into rapid limb movements and the
associated triphasic muscle activation patterns.
After measuring power output during the BT, the intervention strategy
of a pulling movement was introduced in the experimental group. The small,
but significant increase in power output for the experimental group suggests
that this method of complex training also deserves consideration.
Again the reasons why the results for Studies 4 and 5 were positive as
opposed to those of previous studies (Ebben et al., 2000; Hrysomallis and
Kidgell, 2001) may be due to three reasons.
One, the athletes in these
studies were stronger and experienced in contrast/complex training.

Secondly, the resistances used in the strength exercise were not extremely
heavy, so as to attune the neuromuscular system to a slower speed of lifting.
Finally, the most important reason is the philosophy behind choosing the
contrast exercise or resistance.
All previous authors have desired to
maximally recruit muscle fibers because they believed that full recruitment
was the key to complex training success. The philosophy behind Studies 4
and 5 was that the exercise or resistance has to be in contrast to the power
training exercise. A resistance of 65% 1RM, being 92 kg in the case of Study
5 is in stark contrast to 50 kg, but is not an intensity to evoke tetanus. There
are a myriad of neural interactions at play and evoking tetanus may not be the
279
reason why complex training can have a positive effect upon power output.
The results for Study 5 confirm this as the intervention resistance was only
about 16 kg heavier than the BT resistance, but the exercises were in contrast
(agonist and antagonist movement actions). There would have been no effect
if the reasons for the positive results reported for complex training were due to
post-tetanic potentiation as many authors have surmised.
Based upon the results for Studies 4 and 5 it should be clear that some
form of neural interplay is acutely affecting power output within a work-out.
The nature of this neural interplay is not fully understood, but it is not simply
as a result of full motor unit recruitment and firing. Future research upon
power output in these types of studies may consider other methods of
providing a contrast effect within a workout, rather than continually and more
often than not fruitlessly exploring the very heavy resistance/post-tetanic
potentiation theory of augmentation.
The third of these acute intervention studies (Study 6) revealed that a
hypertrophy-oriented training bout (high repetitions, short rest periods)
drastically reduced power output for over 7 minutes post the intervention.
Therefore training to improve hypertrophy (the cornerstone of long-term
maximal strength improvements) and strength-endurance (also characterized
by high repetition, short rest period training) must be planned judiciously if
increasing maximum power is also a goal of training. The question of how
best to combine maximum power and strength-endurance training is quite
pertinent. One small dosage of 3 x 10 repetitions @ 65% 1RM can reduce
power output by 17%.
The effect was even more pronounced for a sub-
280
grouping of stronger (performing higher total absolute workloads) versus less
strong athletes involved. This result raises even more research questions.
How much more severe would the cumulative effect upon power output of
doing 4-6 exercises with the same sets and repetitions be?
If athletes
performed such hypertrophy-oriented or strength-endurance oriented (15-20

reps @ 40-50% 1RM) training 3-4 days per week for a chronic period of 4
weeks, then what would be the degree of decrease in power output
(cumulative fatigue)?
For how long would training need to be periodized
(reduced volume, increased intensity) so that super-compensation could occur

and power output would increase back to or above preliminary levels? Would
the lower body running endurance demands impact greatly upon the upper
body power levels?
Certainly, given the need for high levels of strength-endurance (and
running endurance) the periodization of resistance training for rugby league
players would be more varied than that for American football players and may
more closely resemble the training plans for wrestlers and mixed martial
artists.
Due to the fact that Studies 4-6 established that power output could be
easily increased or decreased if exercise order, sets, repetitions,
resistances/loads and rest periods were manipulated in certain ways, future
studies may pursue the effects of other training variable manipulations upon
power output. The need for more research in the area of strength, power and
strength-endurance interaction appears obvious. This study has shown that
hypertrophyoriented training (and by extrapolation strength-endurance
281
training) should not precede power training within a work-out. Questions that
arose from this study were concerned with effective periodization of resistance
training and the interaction between strength, power and strength-endurance
training.
Specifically a) the interaction of heavier strength training (lower
volume) and power training within a work-out b) within a training week inseason (with a game on the weekend) c) across longer time periods of many
years.
The third part of this thesis dealt with the chronic adaptations in
maximal strength and power resulting from prolonged long-term resistance
training. In the first paper in this section (Study 7), twelve professional rugby
league players were tested for maximal power and strength across a 4-year
period and were analyzed as a group or according to their initial designation
as Elite (already participating in the NRL) or Sub-elite players (being
developed to participate in the NRL within 1-2 years). The results of this
investigation illustrated that experienced resistance trainers can still make
gains in maximal strength and power but that the magnitude and scope for
increases in strength and power diminishes with increased training
experience. Furthermore, changes in maximal power were heavily dependant
upon changes in strength and the extent of the relation between changes in
strength and changes in power suggests the communal experience of
strength plateaus in experienced athletes will also be manifested in power
plateaus. The magnitude of the changes for the Sub-elite group mirrored the
changes exhibited by the Elite group in the first two years (the groups were
approximately 2-years apart in chronological and training age). Based upon
282
this result it was thought that the age that these athletes commence such
regimented training may be a variable that could affect strength and power
levels in long-term training. The question is, would commencing combined
strength-power training at a younger training age lead to greater gains in
strength and power in the long-term?
The second paper of this section investigated this unique situation; that
is the effect of the chronological age at the start of systematic strength and
power training upon the ensuing changes in strength and power 3-4 years
later. In Study 8, a squad of 20 NRL players was analyzed and two groups of
6 players, who could designated as Young or Old, were identified. These two
groups had performed the same training for the 3-4 years previous and were
not different in body mass or height. What differentiated the groups were the
age of the subjects (29 yrs v 23 yrs) and more importantly the age at which
they commenced regimented strength-power training.
The results illustrated that the Younger group were 13 % stronger and
28% more powerful in the upper body than the Older group. This finding
highlighted the importance of commencing regimented strength-power training
at an earlier age ~ perhaps 17-19 years based upon these results.
The results of Studies 7 and 8 highlight some major findings for sports
athletes who must perform strength-power training as an adjunct to their other
sports training (endurance, speed, skill and team/tactical training).
Firstly
advanced athletes can still make gains in strength and power, however the
magnitude and scope for changes in strength and power diminishes with
increased training experience. These large changes in strength and power
283
can be attained despite high overall training volumes and specifically,
concurrent endurance training. Nonetheless increases in strength and power
will begin to diminish and the time periods over which changes in strength and
power might manifest themselves might be quite long (e.g. a 2.5 kg increase
in strength across 1-year). Given that there may be a ceiling for strength and
power development and the results for Study 8, it appears prudent to
implement strength-power training during the formative training years (17-23
yrs) to extract the maximum benefit from such training. Delaying the onset of
such training until the athlete is fully matured (> 23yrs) may reduce the full
benefits of this training.
The last two papers of the third part of this thesis were concerned with
practical methods to increase the effectiveness of upper body maximal power
training and the implementation of different periodized training strategies or
variants.
It included relevant literature reviews and practical suggestions
based upon the previous papers in this thesis and other relevant publications.
Therefore Paper 9 can be seen as an abbreviation of this entire thesis and
provides training recommendations suitable for not only rugby league players,
but also any athlete concerned with increasing maximal power.
Study 10
deals with a review of different methods, in particular, of the configuring of

sets, repetitions and intensity progressions across training cycles.
Specifically Paper 9 illustrated that, while maximal power relies heavily
upon maximal strength, there are acute practical methods of training that
specifically influence power output. These include the following:
284
1. Include full acceleration exercises (power exercises) as well as strength
exercises. Full acceleration exercises are distinctly different from heavy
resistance strength exercises that entail a deceleration component.
2. Alter the kinetic profile of exercises by utilizing chains, power bands etc
(attached to the ends of the barbell).
By implementing these procedures
acceleration will last further into the movement and the normal deceleration
component that exists in strength exercises is reduced.
3.
Use complexes of contrasting exercises and resistances, as was
determined by the results of the studies in this thesis.

4. Periodize the presentation of power exercises and resistances so that the
multi-faceted nature of power development can be addressed.
5. Use low repetitions. Study 4 in this thesis illustrated the severe impact
upon power output that high repetition training produces. To maximize power
output repetitions must be kept low (less than 5-6).
6.
In line with above, use clusters of repetitions, rest-pause and
breakdown sets to reduce intra-set fatigue and hence improve power output.
Even moderate repetition sets can be split up so a small respite to reduce
muscle fatigue occurs during the set.
Speed of muscle contraction and
therefore power output can stay high.

7. Ascending order of resistances produces higher power outputs. Whether
resistances in consecutive sets are presented in an ascending order (eg. 40
kg, 50 kg and then 60 kg) or descending order (60 kg, 50 kg, and then 40 kg)
was previously investigated (Baker, 2001c).
The results suggest that if
285
maximizing power output is the goal of training, then the ascending order is a
more productive strategy.
8.
Because fatigue severely impairs power output, then the rest periods
between sets must be adequate to ensure restoration of work capacity. This

may depend upon the nature of the exercise, the resistance used,
periodization stage and so on.
Generally it was recommended that 1-2
minutes between sets of a power exercise should suffice if repetitions are low
(5-6 or less). If the power exercise is alternated with a strength exercise in a
complex then the turn-around time for the complex may need to be of the
order of 3-4 minutes.
Paper 10 illustrated that there are a number of different periodized
training strategies a coach may choose from when designing resistance
programs aimed at developing strength and power. These variants have been
described by the method by which intensity is progressed along the training
cycle, although this method of description is contentious.
Nonetheless
periodized variants such as Subtle linear, Block (linear or non-linear

progressions
are
possible),
Undulating,
Wave-like
and
Accumulation/intensification were identified and described. As there is scant

comparative data in the scientific literature regarding the relative merits of
each type of variant, most recommendations for their implementation and
applicability for different levels of athlete or at different times of the training
year, were based upon the opinions of experienced strength coaches. The
applicability of different periodized variants for different levels of athletes
definitely warrants further research.
286
Chapter 5.
Conclusions and Primary Findings
This thesis was concerned with investigating, principally, strength and
power training in professional rugby league players. However, the sport of the
subjects is of less importance than the fundamental questions posed
concerning strength and power performance levels and training. Essentially
the subjects could have been any experienced strength-power athletes and
the questions remain unchanged.
The purpose of the initial part of this thesis was to determine if testing
of various aspects of upper body muscular functioning could determine three
basic questions.
1. How do the upper body muscular function qualities such as maximum
strength, power, speed or strength-endurance relate to success in a sport
(e.g. professional rugby league players or any other athletes)?
2. Are there any significant differences between elite participants (NRL) and
lower level participants in this sport (SRL and CRL) in any of these qualities?
3. Are there any significant differences in upper body muscular functioning
qualities within a team and between teams according to positional grouping?
The results of these investigations clearly indicate that of the four upper
body tests assessed in this thesis, maximum strength appears the most highly
related to success in rugby league but maximum power and strengthendurance were closely and similarly descriptive of elite NRL participation.
Furthermore, upper body pulling strength and a concise and equivalent
pressing-pulling strength ratio are also of importance to NRL participation.
287
Based upon these results it was recommended that younger rugby league
players who desire to attain higher playing levels should strive to increase
upper body maximum strength, which appears to underpin performance in
other key muscular performance factors such as maximum power and
strength-endurance. Once the maximum strength base has been established
training can be further directed to either (or both) maximum power or strength
endurance training. Coaches could implement either an extensive test battery
(such as in Study 1) or perhaps simple RTF tests (such as in Study 3, which
may be more suitable to high-school coaches and athletes), in an effort to
pinpoint where upper-body training efforts need to be directed. As these two
muscular qualities of maximum power and strength-endurance require quite
divergent and seemingly contradictory training prescriptions, it may be best to
train them in separate work-outs.
To this end the rest of the series of studies focused upon training
methods and the nature and scope of changes in strength and power in
response to the manipulations of resistance training variables across different
time periods.
The second part of the thesis was concerned with acute training
variable interventions ~ specifically how power output could be affected by
various resistance training variable manipulations. The questions asked were:
1. Does the combination of strength-oriented and power-oriented training into
a complex affect power output?
2. Does the combination of strength-oriented and power-oriented training with
contrasting movements into a complex affect power output?
288
3.
Does high-volume, short-rest period hypertrophy (or by further
extrapolation, strength-endurance) training performed before maximal power

training affect power output?
The results of these studies illustrated that when combining strengthoriented and power-oriented training, coaches should avoid high-volume,
short-rest period training (also used in strength-endurance training) before
power training.
Combining lower repetition, strength- and power-oriented
training in an alternating fashion (known as complex or contrast training) can

be an effective power training strategy provided the athletes are strong and
experienced in resistance training.
Also strength-oriented intensities and
volumes must not be extreme during the complex (higher volumes and
intensities can be performed for strength development at other times or on
other days). Importantly this thesis included a methodology of contrasting
exercise movements (agonist and antagonist) that has not been performed
previously.
Contrasting exercise complexes may prove to be an area of
further research.
The third part of the thesis was concerned with the chronic adaptations
from long-term resistance training in experienced athletes.
The questions
asked were:
1. What are the nature, scope and magnitude of changes in strength and
power in chronic long-term training in experienced athletes?
2. Does the age at which athletes commence such intense strength-power
training affect the levels of strength and power in the longer-term?
289
3.
Based upon this and other relevant research, what are the practical
methods that athletes and coaches may implement to enhance the

effectiveness of their long-term maximal power training?
One study was a longitudinal tracking study that monitored strength
and power adaptations consequent to 4-years of professional sports training
and participation.
The other study was a retrospective cross-sectional
analysis investigating whether the age at which athletes commence

regimented strength-power training could affect the resultant strength and
power results.
These studies revealed that advanced athletes could still
increase strength and power but that there was a diminishing scope for
strength and power improvements with increased training experience and/or
the chronological age at which training commences.
Based upon the results and findings of all these studies, the final
papers addressed practical methods to increase the effectiveness of upperbody maximal power training and the configuration of training variables across
a training cycle. Athletes and coaches who have attained a base level of
strength and muscle conditioning would most benefit from the methods
outlined in these papers.
In conclusion, this thesis has addressed upper body strength and
power in a very practical manner on three levels: 1. testing 2. acute training
interventions and 3.
chronic adaptations.
From these three levels of
investigation, recommendations for training were developed in the final two

review papers. Irrespective of the fact the subjects in this thesis were rugby
league players, researchers, athletes and coaches should be able to discern a
290
large amount of information that is relevant to the development of strength
and power from the included papers and the overall thesis.
291
References for Chapter 1 - Introduction, Chapter 2 - Review of

the Literature, Chapter 4 - Discussion and Chapter - 5
Summary and Conclusions
Alen, M., Hakkinen, K. & Komi, P. (1984): Changes in neuromuscular

performance and muscle fibre characteristics of elite athletes selfadministering androgenic and anabolic steroids.
Acta Physiol. Scand.
124: 535-544.
Alexeeyev, V & Roman, R. (1976): Different methods of training for an

increase in muscle mass in weightlifters. Soviet Sports Rev. 13: 14-17.
Atha, J. Strengthening Muscle. Exercise and Sports Science Review.

Vol. 9, D.I. Miller (ed), Philadelphia: Franklin Inst. Press, 1981. pp 1-73.
Australian Strength and Conditioning Association (ASCA (2006). ) Level 2

Coaching course syllabus Unit 5 Strength. Australian Strength and
Conditioning Association, Browns Plains, QLD, Australia.
Baker, D. (1993): Periodization of strength training for sports: A review.

Strength and Conditioning Coach. 1(3): 15-21.
Baker, D. (1994): Specific strength/power training for elite divers: Case study
from the Australian Institute of Sport.
Strength & Conditioning Coach.
292
2(1):20-27.
Baker, D. Strength training for rugby league. (1995a): Proceedings of the

1995 Australian Strength and Conditioning Association National
Conference and Trade Show.
pp 135-155.
ASCA,
Toowong, QLD,
Australia.
Baker D. (1995b): Selecting the appropriate exercises and loads for speedstrength development. Strength & Conditioning Coach 3(2):8-16.
Baker, D. (1995c): Effect of a wave-like periodized strength training cycle on

maximal strength and lean body mass. Strength & Conditioning Coach
3(3):11-16.
Baker, D. (1995d): The use of sub-maximal repetitions to predict maximal

squat and bench press strength in trained athletes.
Strength &
Conditioning Coach 3(4):17-20.
Baker, D.
(1996):
Improving vertical jump performance through general,
special and specific strength training: A brief review. J. Strength Cond. Res.
10(2):131-136.
Baker, D. (1998a): Applying the in-season periodisation of strength and

power training to football. NSCA Journal. 20(2):18-24.
293
Baker, D. (1998b): Designing, implementing and coaching strength training
programs for beginner and intermediate level athletes. Part one: Designing
the program. Strength & Conditioning Coach. 5(3):11-20.
Baker, D. (1998c): Designing, implementing and coaching strength training

programs for beginner and intermediate level athletes.
Part two:
Implementing the program. Strength & Conditioning Coach. 5(4):2-8.
Baker, D. (1998d): Designing, implementing and coaching strength training

programs for beginner and intermediate level athletes. Part three: Coaching
the program. Strength & Conditioning Coach. 6(1):2-6.
Baker, D. (1999a): A comparison of running speed and quickness between

elite professional and young rugby league players. Strength & Conditioning
Coach. 7(3):3-7.
Baker, D. (1999b): A comparison of lower abdominal strength and lumbopelvic stabilization capabilities between rugby league players participating in
the national versus state and city based leagues. Strength & Conditioning
Coach. 7(6):2-7.
Baker, D. (2000a): The effectiveness of goal setting in the strength and

power training process. Strength & Conditioning Coach. 8(1):3-8.
294
Baker, D. (2000b): Overuse of Swiss ball training to develop core stability or
improve sports performance. Strength & Conditioning Coach. 8(2):5-9.
Baker, D. (2000c): The in-season maintenance of strength and power in

elite rugby league players. Strength & Conditioning Coach. 8(3):5-10.
Baker, D. (2001a): Comparison of maximum upper body strength and power

J.
Strength Cond. Res. 15(1): 30-35.
Baker, D. (2001b):
Observations on the training of an elite power athlete. Strength and Condit.

Journal 23(1):47-56.
Baker, D. (2001c): A series of studies on the training of high intensity muscle

power in rugby league football players.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 15(2): 198-
209. 2001.
Baker, D. (2001d): The effects of an in-season of concurrent training on the

rugby league players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 15(2): 172-177.
Baker, D.
(2001e):
Science and practice of coaching a strength training
program for novice and intermediate-level athletes. Strength and Condit.
295
Journal. 23(2): 61-68. 2001.
Baker, D. (2002): Differences in strength and power between junior-high,

senior-high, college-aged and elite professional rugby league players. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 16(4): 581-585.
Baker, D., Wilson, G & Carlyon, R. (1994a): Generality versus specificity: A

comparison of dynamic and isometric measures of strength and speedstrength. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 68: 350-355. 1994.
Baker, D., Wilson, G & Carlyon, R. (1994b): Periodization: The effect of

8(4): 235-242.
Baker, D and S. Nance. (1999a) The relationship between running speed

and measures of strength and power in professional rugby league players. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 13(3):230-235.
Baker, D. and S. Nance. (1999b): The relationship between strength and

power in professional rugby league players.
13(3):224-229.
Baker D, S. Nance and M. Moore. (2001a): The load that maximizes the
average mechanical power output during explosive bench press throws in
296
highly trained athletes J. Strength Cond. Res. 15(1): 20-24.
Baker D, S. Nance and M. Moore. (2001b): The load that maximizes the
average mechanical power output during jump squats in power-trained
athletes J. Strength Cond. Res. 15(1):92-97.
Baker, G., H. Newton, B. Klemens, and A. Charniga.

Weightlifting Federation Coaching Manual (Vol 3);
United States
Training design.
Colorado Springs, CO; USWF, 1987
Baldissera, F., Hultborn, H. & Illert, M.
(1981):
Integration in spinal
neuronal systems. In V.B. Brooks (Ed.), Handbook of Physiology: Sec.

1. The nervous system. Vol. 2. Motor control. Part 1 (pp 509-595).
Bethseda, MD: American Physiological Society.
Balyi, I.
(1992):
A critique of the contemporary theories of the
periodization of training. 4th Annual Conference, National Strength and

Conditioning Association of Australia.
Balyi, I. (1995): Long-term planning of athlete development: The training

to train phase. Strength and Conditioning Coach. 3(4): 4-12.
297
Balyi, I. and A. Hamilton. (1998): Long-term athlete development model:
Macrocycle and macrocycle planning of the annual plan. Strength and
Conditioning Coach 5(3): 3-10.
Belanger, A. & McComas, A. (1981): Extent of motor unit activation during

effort. J. Appl. Physiol. 51: 1131-1135.
Berger, R. (1962): Effect of Varied Weight Training Programs on Strength.

Res. Q. 33: 168-181.
Blazevich, A.L., N.D. Gill, R. Bronks, and R.U. Newton. (2003): Trainingspecific muscle architecture adaptation after 5-wk training in athletes.
Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 35(12): 2013-2022.
Bompa, T. (1996): Variations of Periodization of Strength. Strength and

Conditioning Journal. 18( 3): 5861.
Bradley-Popovich, G. E. (2001): Point/Counterpoint: Nonlinear versus linear

periodization
modelsPoint.
Strength
and
Conditioning
Journal.
23(1):4243.
Braith RW, Graves JE, Leggett SH, Pollock ML. (1993): Effect of training
on the relationship between maximal and submaximal strength. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 25(1): 132-8.
298
Brown, L. E, and M. Greenwood. (2005):
Periodization essentials and
innovations in resistance training protocols. Strength and Conditioning

Journal. 27(4): 8085.
Brewer, J. & Davis, J.
(1995):
Applied physiology of rugby league.
Sports Medicine, 20. 129-135.
Brewer, J., Davis, J. & Kear, J. (1994): A comparison of the physiological

characteristics of rugby league forwards and backs. J. Sports Sci. 12,
158.
Brzycki, M. Strength testing. (1993): Predicting a one-rep max from repsto-fatigue. J. Health Phys Ed Rec & Dance 64: 88-90.
Burke, R. (1985): Integration of sensory information and motor commands

in the spinal cord. In P. S. G. Stein (Organizer), Motor control: From
Movement Trajectories to Neural Mechanisms (pp 44-66). Class at the
Society for Neuroscience, Washington, DC.
Burke, D. G., Pelham, T.W. and L. E. Holt. (1999): The influence of varied
concentric agonist efforts. J. Strength Cond. Res. 13(3)193-197.
299
Caldwell, G., Jamison, J. & Lee, S. (1993):
Amplitude and frequency
measures of surface electromyography during dual task elbow torque

production. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 66: 349-356.
Chapman PP, Whitehead JR, Binkert RH. (1998): The 225-lb reps-tofatigue test as a submaximal estimate of 1-RM bench press performance in
college football players. J Strength Cond Res.12(4): 258-261.
Clarkson, P. & Tremblay, I. (1988): Exercise-induced muscle damage,

repair and adaptations in humans. J. Appl. Physiol. 65: 1-6.
Costill, D., Coyle, E., Fink, W., Lesmes, G., & Witzmann, F.
(1979):
Adaptation in skeletal muscle following strength training. J. Appl. Physiol:

Respirat. Environ. Exerc. Physiol. 46: 96-99.
Cronin, J.B. and K. T. Hansen. (2005): Strength and power predictors of

sports speed. J. Strength Cond. Res. 19(2): 349357.
Darcus, H. & Salter, N. (1955): The effect of repeated muscular exertion

on muscle strength. J. Physiol. 51: 325-336.
DeLorme, T. (1945): Restoration of muscle power by heavy resistance

exercises. J. Bone Joint Surg. 27: 645-667.
300
De Luca C.J, LeFever R.S, McCue M.P, and Xenakis A.P. (1982): Behaviour
of human motor units in different muscles during linearly varying contractions.
J Physiol (Lond) 329: 113128.
Desmedt, J & Godaux, E.
(1977):
Ballistic contractions in man:
characteristic recruitment patterns of single motor units of the tibialis

anterior muscle. J. Physiol. 264: 673-693.
Desmedt, J & Godaux, E. (1978): Ballistic contractions in fast or slow

human muscles: discharge patterns of single motor units. J. Physiol. 285:
185-196.
Desmedt, J & Godaux, E. (1981): Spinal motoneuron recruitment in man:

rank deordering with direction but not speed of voluntary movement.
Science. 214: 933-936.
Dons, B., Bollerup, K., Bonde-Peterson, F. & Hancke, S. (1979): The

effect of weight-lifting exercise related to muscle fibre composition and
muscle cross-sectional area in humans. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 40: 95106.
Drinkwater, E.J, Lawton, T.W, Linsdell, R.P, Pyne, D.B, Hunt, P.H,
McKenna, M.J. (2005): Training leading to repetition failure enhances
301
bench press strength gains in elite junior athletes. J Strength Cond Res.
19(2):382-388.
Duchateau, J. & Hainut, K.
(1984).
Isometric or dynamic training:
differential effects on mechanical properties of a human muscle. J. Appl.

Physiol., 52: 296-301.
Ebben, W.P., Jensen, R.J and D.O Blackard. (2000): Electromyographic

and kinetic analysis of complex training.
14(4):451-456.
Edstrom, R. & Ekblom, B. (1972): Differences in sizes of red and white

muscle fibers in vastus lateralis of musculus quadriceps femoris of normal
individuals and athletes. Relation to physical performance. Scand. J.
Clin. Lab. Invest. 30: 175-181.
Florini, J. (1985): Hormonal control of muscle cell growth. J. Animal Sci.

61: 21-37.
Florini, J. (1987): Hormonal control of muscle growth. Muscle & Nerve.

10: 577-598.
Fry, A.C. & Kraemer, W.J. (1991): Physical performance characteristics of

American football players. J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res. 5 (3): 126-138.
302
Fry, A.C., Kraemer, W.J., Weseman, C.A., Conroy, B.P., Gordon, S.E.,
Hoffman, J.R., & Marsh, C.M. (1991): Effects of an off-season strength
and conditioning program on starters and non-starters in woman's
collegiate volleyball. J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res. 5(4): 174-181.
Fry, R.W. & Morton, A.R. Physiological and kinanthropometric attributes of

elite flatwater kayakists. (1991): Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 23(11): 12971301.
Funato, K., Matsuo, A. & Fukunga, T. (1996): Specific movement power

related to athletic performance in weight lifting. J. Appl. Biomech. 12:4457.
Gabbet, T.J. (2000): Physiological and anthropometric characteristics of

amateur rugby league players. Brit. J. Sports Med. 34: 303-307.
Gabbet, T.J.
(2002):
Physiological characteristics of junior and senior
rugby league players. Brit. J. Sports Med. 36: 334-339.
Gabbet, T.J. Science of rugby league football: A review. (2005):

Sci. 23(9):961-976.
J. Sport
303
Gabbett, T. J. (2006): Skill-based conditioning games as an alternative to
traditional conditioning for rugby league players. J Strength Cond. Res
20(2):309315.
Gabbet, T.J. and Herzig, P.J. (2004): Physiological characteristics of junior

elite and sub-elite rugby league players. Strength Conditioning Coach.
12: 19-24.
Gambetta, V. (1986): Roundtable: Periodization. NSCA J. 8(5): 12-22.
Gater, D., Gater, D., Uribe, J. & Bunt, J. (1992): Impact of nutritional
supplements and resistance training on body composition, strength and
insulin-like growth factor-1. J. Appl. Sports Sci. Res. 6(2): 66-76.
Goldberg, A., Etlinger, J., Goldspink, D. & Jablecki, C.
(1975):
Mechanisms of work induced hypertrophy of skeletal muscle. Med. Sci.

Sports Exer. 7: 248-261.
Gouvali, M. K. and Boudolos, K. (2005): Dynamic and Electromyographical

Analysis in Variants of Push-Up Exercise. J Strength Cond. Res 19(1):146
151.
Granit, R.
(1950):
Reflex self-regulation of muscle contraction and
autogenic inhibition. J. Neurophysiol. 13: 351-372.
304
Haff,
G.G.
(2001):
Point/Counterpoint:
Nonlinear
Versus
Linear
Periodization Models - Counterpoint. Strength Conditioning Journal.

23(1):4344.
Haff, G. G., Whitley, A. and J. A. Potteiger.
(2001):
A brief review:
Explosive exercises and sports performance. Strength Cond. J. 23(3):

13-20.
Haff, G. G., Whitley, A. , L.B. McCoy, H.S. O'Bryant, J.L. Kilgore, E.E. Haff,
K.Pierce, and M.H. Stone. (2003): Effects of different set configurations on
barbell velocity and displacement during a clean pull. J. Strength Cond.
Res. 17(1):95-103.
Haff, G.G, Kraemer W.J, O'Bryant, H. Pendlay, G, Plisk, S and Stone, M.H.
(2004a): Roundtable Discussion: Periodization of Training - Part 1. Strength
and Conditioning Journal. 26(1):5069.
Haff, G.G, Kraemer W.J, O'Bryant, H. Pendlay, G, Plisk, S and Stone, M.H.
(2004b): Roundtable Discussion: Periodization of Training - Part 2. Strength
and Conditioning Journal. 26( 2): 5670.
Haggmark, T., Jansson, E., & Svane, B.
(1978): Cross-sectional area of
the thigh in man measured by computer tomography. Scand. J. Clin. Lab.

Invest. 38: 355-360.
305
Hakkinen, K. (1985): Factors influencing trainability of muscular strength
during short term and prolonged training. NSCA J. 2: 32-37.
Hakkinen, K. (1989): Neuromuscular and hormonal adaptations during

strength and power training. A review. J. Sports Med. 29: 9-26.
Hakkinen, K. & Komi, P.V. (1981): Effect of different combined concentric

and eccentric muscle work regimens on maximal strength development. J.
Hum Mov Stud 7: 33-44. 1981.
(1983): Electromyographic changes during
strength training and detraining. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 15: 455-460.
1983.
Hakkinen, K. & Komi, P.V. (1985a): Changes in electrical and mechanical

behaviour of leg extensor muscles during heavy resistance strength
training. Scand. J. Sports Sci. 7(2):55-64.
Hakkinen, K. & Komi, P.V. (1985b): Effect of explosive strength training

on electromyographic and force production characteristics of leg extensor
Scand. J. Sports Sci. 7(2): 65-76.
306
Hakkinen, K., Komi, P.V., & Tesch, P.A.
(1981):
Effect of combined
concentric and eccentric strength training and detraining on force-time,

muscle fibre and metabolic characteristics of leg extensor muscles. Scand.
J. Sports Sci. 3(2):509-518.
Hakkinen, K., Alen, M. and Komi, P. (1984): Neuromuscular, anaerobic

and aerobic performance characteristics of elite power athletes. Eur. J.
Appl. Physiol. 53: 97-105.
Hakkinen, K. Alen, M., Kauhanen, H. et al., (1986):
Comparison of
neuromuscular performance capacities between weightlifters, powerlifters

and bodybuilders. Intern. Olympic Lifter. 5: 24-26.
Hakkinen, K., Komi, P.V., Alen, M. and Kauhanen, H.
(1987): EMG,
muscle fibre and force production characteristics during a one year training
period in elite weightlifters. Eur. Jour. Appl. Physiol. 56: 419-427.
Hakkinen, K., Pakarinen, A., Alen, M., Kauhanen, H. and Komi, P. (1988):
two years. J. Appl. Physiol. 65(6): 2406-2412.
Hakkinen, K., Pakarinen, A. and Kallinen, M. (1993): Does maximal neural

activation of muscle increase after resistance training.
Physiol. 66: 555-558.
Eur. J. Appl.
307
Hannaford, B. & Stark, L. (1985): Roles of the elements of the triphasic
control signal. Exper. Neurol. 90: 619-635.
Henneman, E., Somjen, G. & Carpenter, D.
(1965):
Functional
significance of cell size in spinal motoneurons. J. Neurophysiol. 28: 560580.
Herrick, A.B and W. J. Stone. (1996): The effects of periodization versus

progressive resistance exercise on upper and lower body strength in
women. J. Strength Cond. Res. 10(2):7276.
Hinshaw, W., Andrew, E., Bottomley, P., Holland, G., Moore, W.,
Worthington, B. (1979) : An in vivo study of the forearm and hand by thin
section NMR imaging. Br. J. Radiol. 52: 36-42.
Hrysomallis, C., and D. Kidgell. (2001): Effect of heavy dynamic resistive

exercise on acute upper-body power. J. Strength Cond. Res. 15(4):426430.
Ikai, M. & Steinhaus, J. (1961): Some factors modifying the expression of

human strength. J. Appl. Physiol. 16: 157-163.
308
Ikai, M. & Fukunga, T. (1970): A study on training effect on strength per
unit cross-sectional area of muscle by means of ultrasonic measurement.
Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 28: 173-180.
Ivanov, L., Krugliy, V. & Zinchenko, V. (1977): Individualized strength

development for throwers. Legkaya Atletika 11(12) . Reproduced in Soviet
Sports Review 14(3):138-139. 1980
Katch, V., Katch, F., Moffat, R. & Gittleson., M.
(1980): Muscular
development and lean body weight in bodybuilders and weightlifters.

Med. Sci. Sports. 12: 340-366.
King, I and C. Poliquin.
(1981):
Long term periodisation:
A three-year
strength development model for rugby players. Sports Coach. April-June,

22-26.
Knapik, J. J., Sharp, M. A.,Canham-Chervak, M., Hauret, K.J., Patton, J.F.

and B. H. Jones. (2001): Risk factors for training-related injuries among
men and women in basic combat training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 33(6)
:946-954.
Keogh, J. (2004). The discriminatory ability and inter-relation of strength

scores in rugby league. Strength Conditioning Coach. 12(2): 2-6.
309
Keogh, J.W.L., Wilson, G. J. and R.P. Weatherby.
(1999):
A cross-
sectional comparison of different resistance training techniques in the

bench press. J. Strength Cond. Res. 13(3):247-258.
Knuttgen, E. & Kraemer, W. (1987). Terminology and measurement in

exercise performance. J. Appl. Sports Sci. Res. 1: 1-10.
Kramer, J. B., M.H. Stone, H. S. O'Bryant, M. S. Coney, R. L. Johnson, D.

C. Nieman, D. R. Honeycutt, and T.P. Hoke. (1997):
Effects of single
versus multiple sets of weight training: Impact of volume, intensity and

variation. J. Strength Cond. Res. 113:143147.
Kraemer, W.J. Program Design: Exercise prescription: Chronic program

variables (Periodization of training). NSCA Journal: 7(3):4747. 1985.
Kraemer, W.
(1992): Influence of the endocrine system on resistance
training adaptations. NSCA J. 14(2): 47-54.
Kraemer, W.J., L. Marchitelli, S. E. Gordon., E. Harmann., J. E. Dziados, R.

Mello, P. Frykman, D. McCurry & S. J.. Fleck. (1990): Hormonal and growth
factor responses to heavy exercise protocols. J. Appl. Physiol. 69:14421450.
310
Kraemer, WJ, Adams, K, Carafelli, E, Dudley, GA, Dooly, C, Feigenbaum,
MS, Fleck, SJ, Franklin, B, Fry, AC, Hoffman, JR, Newton, RU, Potteiger, J,
Stone, MH, Ratamess, NA, Triplett-McBride, T. (2002): American College
of Sports Medicine Position Stand:
Progression models in resistance
training for healthy adults. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 34(2):364-380.
Kulkulka, C & Clamann, H. (1981): Comparison of the recruitment and

discharge properties of motor units in human brachial biceps and adductor
pollicis during isometric contractions. Brain Res. 219: 45-55.
Kuoppasalmi, K. & Aldercreutz, H. (1985): Interaction between catabolic

and anabolic steroid hormones in muscular exercise.
In Exercise
Endocrinology, Fotherby, K. & Pal, S. (Eds.). Walter de Grutyer, Berlin,

pp 65-98.
LaChance, P. & Hortobagyi., T. (1994): Influence of cadence on muscular

performance during push-up and pull-up exercise. J Strength Cond. Res.
8(2):7679.
Matveyev, L.
Fundamentals of Sports Training. (Translated from
Russian), Progress Publishers, Moscow, USSR, 1981.
311
Mayhew, J., Johns, R., Ware, J., Bemben, M. & Bemben, D.
(1992):
Changes in absolute upper body power following resistance training in

college males. J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res. 6(3): 187 (Abstract).
McCouch, G., Deering, I. & Stewart, W. (1950): Inhibition of knee jerk

from tendon spindles of crureus. J. Neurophysiol. 13: 343-350.
McDonagh, M & Davies, C. (1984): Adaptive response of mammalian

skeletal muscle to exercise with high loads. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 52,
139-155.
McGee, K.J., & L.N. Burkett. (2003):
The National Football League
combine: A reliable predictor of draft status? J Strength Cond Res. 17(1):

6-11.
Medvedyev, A. (1987): Several basics on
Medvedyev, A.
(1988):
Several basics on
weightlifters. Soviet Sports Rev. 23(1): 46-50.
Meir, R. (1993): Evaluating players fitness in professional rugby league:

Reducing subjectivity. Strength Conditioning Coach. 1: 6-12.
312
Meir, R. (1994): A model for the integration of macrocycle and microcycle
structure in professional rugby league. Strength Conditioning Coach. 2:
11-17.
Meir R, Colla P, Milligan C. (2001a): Impact of the 10-meter rule change on

professional rugby players: Implications for training. Strength &
Conditioning Journal. 23(6): 42-46.
Meir R, Newton R, Curtis E, Fardell M, Butler B. (2001b): Physical fitness

qualities of professional rugby league football players: determination of
positional differences. J Strength Cond Res.15(4): 450-8.
Milner-Brown, H., Stein, R. & Yemm, R. (1973): The orderly recruitment of

human motor units during voluntary isometric contractions.
J. Appl.
Physiol. 230: 359-370.
Milner-Brown, H., Stein, R. & Lee, R. (1975): Synchronization of human

motor units: Possible roles of exercise and supraspinal reflexes.
Electroenc. Clin. Neurophysiol. 38: 245-254.
Moritani, T. (1993): Neuromuscular adaptations during the acquisition of

muscle strength, power and motor tasks. J. Biomech. 26 (Suppl): 95-107.
313
Moritani, T. & De Vries, H.A. (1979): Neural factors versus hypertrophy in
the time course of muscle strength gain. Am J Phys Med Rehab. 58(3):
115-130.
Moritani, T., Muro, M., Ishida, K. & Taguchi, S. (1987): Electromyographic

analyses of the effects of muscle power training.
J. Sports Med. Sci.
(Japan). 1: 23-32.
Moss, B.M, Refsne,s P.E, Abildgaard A, Nicolaysen K, Jensen J. (1997):

Effects of maximal effort strength training with different loads on dynamic
strength, cross-sectional area, load-power and load-velocity relationships.
Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 75(3): 193-9.
Nakazawa, K., Kawakami, Y., Fukunaga, T., Yano, H. & Miyashita, M.

(1993).
Differences in activation patterns in elbow flexor muscles during
isometric, concentric and eccentric contractions. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.

66: 214-220.
Narici, M., Roi, G., Landoni, L., Minetti, A. & Cerretelli, P.
(1989):
Changes in force, cross-sectional area and neural activation during

strength training and detraining of the human quadriceps. Eur. J. Appl.
Physiol. 59: 310-319.
314
Newton, R., and Kraemer, W.
(1994).
Developing explosive muscular
power: Implications for a mixed methods training strategy. Strength and

Conditioning Journal. October:20-31.
Newton, R., W, Kraemer, K, Hakkinen, B, Humphries & A, Murphy. (1996):

movements. J. Appl. Biomech. 12:31-43.
Newton, R., A. Murphy, B. Humphries, G. Wilson, W. Kraemer and K.

Hakkinen. (1997): Influence of load and stretch shortening cycle on the
kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation that occurs during explosive
bench press throws. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 75(4). 333-342.
O'Bryant, H.S., Byrd, R., & Stone, M.H.
(1988):
Cycle ergometer
performance and maximum leg and hip strength adaptations to two

different methods of weight training. J. Appl. Sports Sci. Res. 2(2): 2730.
OConnor, D. (1996): Physiological characteristics of professional rugby

league players. Strength Conditioning Coach. 4:21-26.
Olson, V., Smidt, G & Johnston, R.
(1972).
The maximum torque
generated by the eccentric, isometric and concentric contractions of the

hip abductor muscles. Phys. Ther., 52: 149-157.
315
O'Shea, P. (1966): Effects of selected weight training programs on the
development of strength and muscle hypertrophy. Res. Q. 37(1): 95-102.
Pedemonte, J. (1982): Updated acquisitions about training periodization:

Part one. NSCA J. Oct-Nov: 56-60.
Person, R.S. (1974): Rhythmic activity of a group of human motoneurons

during voluntary contraction of a muscle. Electroen. Clin. Neurophysiol.
36: 585-595.
Plisk, S. S and M. H. Stone. (2003): Periodization Strategies. Strength

and Conditioning Journal: Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 1937. 2003.
Poliquin, C.
(1988):
Five ways to increase the effectiveness of your
strength training program. NSCA. J. 10(3): 34-39.
Poliquin, C. & King, I.
(1992):
Theory and methodology of strength
training: Volume. Sports Coach. April-June: 16-18.
Prince, F., Hikida, R., & Hagerman, F. (1976): Human muscle fibre types
in power lifters, distance runners and untrained subjects. Pflugers Arch.
363: 19-26.
316
Rhea, M. R., S. B. Ball, W. T. Phillips, and L. N. Burkett. (2002):
comparison of linear and daily undulating periodization with equated

volume and intensity for strength. J. Strength Cond. Res. 16:250255.
Rutherford, O.M., & Jones, D.A.
(1986):
The role of learning and
coordination in strength training. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 55: 100-105.
Sale, D.
(1986):
Neural adaptation to resistance training.
Med. Sci.
Sports Exer. 20 (Suppl): 135-145.
Sale, D., Martin, J. & Moroz, D. (1992): Hypertrophy without increased

isometric strength after weight training. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 64: 51-55.
Schantz, P., Randall, E., Norgen, P., Tyden, A. (1981): The relationship
between the mean muscle fibre area and the muscle cross-sectional area
of the thigh in subjects with large differences in thigh girth. Acta Physiol.
Scand. 113: 537-539.
Schmidtbleicher, D. (1985): Strength training: Structural analysis of motor

strength qualities and its application to training. Sports. Sept. 1985.
Schmidtbleicher, D. & Buehrle, M. (1987): Neuronal adaptations and

increase of cross-sectional area studying different strength training
317
methods. Biomechanics X-B Jonsson, B.(ed), Human Kinetics pp 615620.
Secher, N.H.
(1975):
Isometric rowing strength of experienced and
inexperienced oarsmen. Med. Sci. Sports 7: 280-283.
Shelton, T. & Mahoney, M. (1978): The content and effect of psyching-up

strategies in weightlifters. Cognit. Ther. Res. 2: 275-284.
Stone, M.H., O'Bryant, H. & Garhammer, J. (1981): A hypothetical model

for strength training. J. Sports Med. 21: 342-351.
Stone, M.H., O'Bryant, H. & Garhammer, J. (1982): A theoretical model

for strength training. NSCA. J. 4(4): 36-39.
Stone, M.H and H. S. O'Bryant. (1995): Letter to Editor. J. Strength Cond.

Res. 9(2):125-126.

G. G. Haff, A. J. Koch and M. Stone. (1999a) Periodization: Effects Of
Manipulating Volume And Intensity. Part 1. Strength and Conditioning
Journal. 21(2): 5662.
318
G. G. Haff, A. J. Koch and M. Stone. (1999b)Periodization: Effects of
Manipulating Volume and Intensity. Part 2. Strength and Conditioning
Journal. 21(3):5460.
Stone, M.H, W. A. Sands, M.E. Stone. (2004): The downfall of sports

science in the United States. Strength and Conditioning Journal.
26(2):72-75.
Stowers, T., McMillan, J., Scala, D., Davis, V., Wilson, D., Stone, M.
(1983): The short term effects of three different strength-power training
methods. NSCA. J. 5(3): 24-27.
Stuart, D. (1987a): Muscle receptors, mammalian. In G. Adelman (Ed.),

Encyclopedia of Neuroscience (Vol. 2, pp. 716-718). Boston: Birkhauser
Stuart, D. (1987b): Muscle receptors, mammalian, spinal actions. In G.

Adelman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Neuroscience (Vol. 2, pp. 718-719).
Boston: Birkhauser
Sweet, W. Sport and Recreation in Ancient Greece. Oxford University

press, 1987.
319
Tesch, P. & Karlsson, J. (1985): Muscle fibre types and size in trained
and untrained muscles of elite athletes. J. Appl. Physiol. 59: 1716-1720.
Thorstensson, A., Karlsson, J., Viitasalo J., Luhtanen, P. and Komi, P.

(1976):
Effects of strength training on EMG of human skeletal muscle.
Acta Physiol. Scand. 98: 232-236.
Tidow, G. (1990): Aspects of strength training for athletics. New Studies

in Athletics. 1: 93-110.
Vorobiev. A.N. Weightlifting. Cited in Cited in Soviet Sports Review,

22(3): 147-152, 1987.
Ware, J., Clemens, C., Mayhew, J. & Johnston, T. (1995):
Muscular
endurance repetitions to predict bench press and squat strength in college

football players. J. Strength Condit. Res. 9(2): 99-103.
Wetzel, M. & Stuart, D. (1977): Activation and co-ordination of vertebrate

locomotion. In R. M. Alexander & G. Goldspink (Eds.) Mechanics and
energetics of animal locomotion (pp 115-152). London. Chapman and
Hall.
320
Wilks, R. (1994): Periodization of training for powerlifting - an applied
model of maximal strength training.
Strength & Conditioning Coach.
2(4): 9-18.
Wilks, R. (1995): Limitations in applied strength training research: Current

dilemmas and recommendations for future studies.
Strength &
Conditioning Coach. 3(2):17-21.
Wilson, G., Newton, R., Murphy, A. & Humphries, B. (1993): The optimal
training load for the development of dynamic athletic performance. Med.
Sci. Sports Exerc. 23(11): 1279-1286.
Wilson, G and D. Baker. Response to Letter to Editor. (1995a): J. Strength

Cond. Res. 9(2):126-127. 1995.
Wilson, G and D. Baker. Response to Letter to Editor.
(1995b):
J.
Strength Cond. Res. 9(4):276.
Young, A., Stokes, M., Round, J. & Edwards, R. (1983): The effect of high
resistance training on strength and cross-sectional area of the human
quadriceps. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 13: 411-417.
Zeinalov, A.
Developing leg strength.
Tyazhelaya Atletika. 29-31, 1976.
Cited in Soviet Sports Review, 19(1): 33-36, 1984.

A Series of Studies On Professional Rugby League Players.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Series of Studies On Professional Rugby League Players.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Series of Studies On Professional Rugby League Players.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

A series of studies on professional rugby league players,

Does testing identify trends in the team grading (a measure of

performance) or positional groups of rugby league players? ........................ 72

Predicting 1RM or sub-maximal strength levels from simple reps to

fatigue (RTF) tests. .................................................................................... 135

4. Acute effect of alternating heavy and light resistances on power output

5. Acute effect on power output of alternating an agonist and antagonist

Acute negative effect of a hypertrophy-oriented training bout on

subsequent upper-body power output. ........................................................ 180

Chapter 4. General Discussion ..................................................... 271

Chapter 5. Conclusions and Primary findings ......................... 286

References for Chapter 1 - Introduction, Chapter 2 - Review of

Three areas of investigation were: 1) the

testing of upper body physical qualities of strength, power, speed and

Consequently coaches should be wary of hypertrophy-oriented

strength training preceding power training within a training session.

The two major findings were that 1)

The second paper is a

review of the different periodization strategies used to vary training across a

In particular Wayne Bennett has been

extremely supportive over 10 years of association. Not many strength and

Of course the players must be acknowledged for being

extremely hard-working and motivated trainers, which is what separates this

Mahal kita (I love you in the Bisaya language of the

List of Original Papers

1. Baker, D. & Newton, R. U. (2006): Analyses of tests of upper body

2. Baker, D. & Newton, R. U. (2004): An analysis of the ratio and relationship

Baker, D. (2004): Predicting 1RM or sub-maximal strength levels from

simple reps to fatigue (RTF) tests. Strength and Conditioning Coach,

4. Baker, D. (2003): Acute effect of alternating heavy and light resistances

5. Baker, D. & Newton, R. U. (2005): Acute effect on power output of

6. Baker, D. (2003): Acute negative effect of a hypertrophy-oriented training

7. Baker, D. & Newton, R. U. (2006): Adaptations in upper body maximal

8. Baker, D. (2005): The effects of systematic strength and power training

9. Baker, D. & Newton, R. U. (2005): Methods to increase the effectiveness

10. Baker, D. (2006): Cycle-length variants in periodized strength/power

Abbreviations and Definitions

These three areas of investigation are 1) the

testing of upper body physical qualities of strength, power, speed and

second-division state league (SRL) or third-division intra-city league (CRL).

A more accurate method of testing large numbers of less

One method is the use of contrasting exercises and

resistances. The effect that alternating sets of a heavier strength exercise

training variable manipulation suitable for hypertrophy is quite disparate, and

strength appears to be adequately researched over the last 40 years, little

continually questioned, especially in the field of sports physiology and

The papers concerning

purpose of this research is to determine a) the importance of upper body

strength, power, speed and endurance to professional rugby league players,

Specific Research questions

Is there a difference in the strength ratio between pressing and pulling

3. Can simple Repetitions to Fatigue (RTF) testing accurately predict

Chapter 2. Review of the literature.

2a. Definitions of strength and power.

The ability to apply maximal

force, irrespective of time constraints, can be defined as maximal strength

2b. Neuromuscular basis of strength and power.