Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001731

Loads and Movement Speeds Dictate Differences in Power Output during Circuit Training

Kirk B. Roberson1, Sean Chowdhari1, Morgan White1, Joseph F. Signorile1, 2

D
1
University of Miami, Laboratory of Neuromuscular Research and Active Aging, Department of

TE
Kinesiology and Sport Sciences, Coral Gables, FL;

2
Miller School of Medicine, Center on Aging, University of Miami, Miami, FL
EP
Corresponding author and address for reprints:

Joseph F. Signorile, PhD

C

Professor

Department of Kinesiology and Sport Sciences

C

University of Miami
A

1507 Levante Ave, Max Orovitz, Rm 114

Coral Gables, FL 33146

Phone: 305-284-3105

Fax: 305-284-4183

Email: jsignorile@miami.edu

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 POWER OUTPUT AND CIRCUIT TRAINING 1

Running Title: Power Output and Circuit Training

ABSTRACT

Power training has become a common exercise intervention for improving muscle strength,

D
power, and physical function, while reducing injury risk. Few studies, however, have evaluated

acute load changes on power output during traditional resistance-training protocols. Therefore,

TE
the aim of this study was to quantify the effects of different loading patterns on power output

during a single session of circuit resistance training (CRT). Nine males (age=19.4±0.9 y) and

eleven females (age=20.6±1.6 y) completed three CRT protocols during separate testing sessions
EP
using seven pneumatic exercises. Protocols included heavy load explosive (HLEC: 80%1RM,

maximum speed concentric/2s eccentric), heavy load controlled (HLCC: 80%1RM, 2s

concentric/2s eccentric), and moderate load explosive (MLEC: 50%1RM, maximum speed
C

concentric/2s eccentric) conditions. Protocols were assigned randomly using a counterbalanced

design. Power for each repetition and set were determined using computerized software
C

interfaced with each machine. Blood lactate was measured at rest and immediately post-exercise.

For males and females, average power was significantly greater during all exercises for HLEC
A

and MLEC than HLCC. Average power was greatest during the HLEC for leg press (LP), hip

adduction (ADD), and hip abduction (ABD) (p<.05); while males alone produced their greatest

power during HLEC for leg curl (LC) (p<.001). For males and females, significantly greater

power was detected by set for LP, lat pulldown (LAT), ADD, LC, and ABD for the MLEC

protocol (p<.02) and for LP, LAT, CP, and LC for the HLEC protocol (p<.03). A condition x sex

interaction was seen for blood lactate changes (ηp2=.249; p=.024), with females producing a

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 POWER OUTPUT AND CIRCUIT TRAINING 2

significantly greater change for MLEC than HLEC (Mdiff=1.61±0.35 mmol·L-1; p=.011); while

males showed no significant differences among conditions. Performing a CRT protocol using

explosive training patterns, especially at high loads for lower body and moderate loads for upper

body exercises, produces significantly higher power than controlled speed training in most

exercises. These results provide exercisers, personal trainers and strength coaches with

D
information that can assist in the design of training protocols to maximize power output during

CRT.

TE
Key Words: resistance exercise, power training, optimal load, muscle power

INTRODUCTION
EP
Power output, the product of movement velocity and applied force, is an important factor

for maintaining physical function, maximizing performance, and reducing injury risk in

population samples ranging from untrained older individuals to athletes who participate in sports
C

requiring explosive movements. Additionally, declines in muscle power, along with decrements

in the associated variables, force and movement velocity, are often used as an index of
C

neuromuscular fatigue during exercise (8, 24, 26). Chronic changes in power output have been

rigorously studied, and many researchers have described the beneficial effects of strength and
A

power training programs on physical function and athletic performance (2, 3, 17, 18, 27-29);

however, no studies have examined changes in power output throughout multiple circuits of a

circuit resistance training program. This question is of considerable interest given the current

utilization of these programs as high-intensity interval programs used to produce changes in

aerobic capacity and body composition. Clearly, a knowledge of the loads and contractile speeds

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 POWER OUTPUT AND CIRCUIT TRAINING 3

that would maximize power during such programs would prove valuable to coaches, personal

trainers and practitioner.

Acute changes in power output with exercise have been investigated using diverse

exercise modalities (14, 30, 31, 34, 41); however, few studies have examined changes in power

output across multiple sets of resistance training (RT) performed in a single exercise session, and

D
none to our knowledge have examined changes following a circuit training protocol consisting of

multiple exercises. Volek et al (38) measured changes in performance of the jump squat and

TE
bench press across sets and training sessions following a control condition, creatine

supplementation or placebo administration. Changes in peak power were assessed across five

sets of 10 repetitions of the jump squat at 30%1RM to evaluate fatigue patterns relative to each
EP
condition. Results revealed that peak power decreased in all groups with each subsequent set,

however, decreases were attenuated in the creatine supplementation group. While these results

do demonstrate the beneficial effects of creatine supplementation, they do not provide insight

into how power output may be affected during a power training session in which multiple
C

exercises are utilized. A study by Sánchez-Medina and González-Badillo (32), examined acute

changes in movement velocity as an indicator of fatigue during RT protocols incorporating

C

differing numbers of repetitions. They reported that both movement velocity and lactate levels

could be used as valid markers of fatigue during resistance training. Although changes in
A

movement velocity were quantified, results regarding power output were not provided and

cannot be assumed based solely on the findings, Finally, Chiu et al (10) measured

neuromuscular fatigue and post-activation potentiation resulting from variations in loading

during high-intensity resistance exercise using changes in peak force production. They noted that

responses due to variations in loading differed due to the predominant heavy chain profiles of the

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 POWER OUTPUT AND CIRCUIT TRAINING 4

subjects tested. It is notable that in these studies only one or two movement patterns were

utilized (i.e. squat, bench press), thus, limiting the generalizability of these results to other

exercises and training protocols commonly employed by strength coaches, personal trainers and

recreational lifters.

Other researchers have measured power output across a range of loads for individual

D
resistance exercises in an effort to identify an optimal training load (11, 12, 15, 21, 22, 25);

however, their findings do not provide any information on how repeated bouts of resistance

TE
exercise might affect power during a single training session.

Circuit resistance training (CRT) is becoming an increasingly more popular training

modality among recreational lifters, personal trainers and other professionals concerned with
EP
fitness and rehabilitation. Although CRT may not be the most popular or effective tool for

increasing power, the importance of this factor in daily activities and sports performance make it

an important factor when targeting specific goals. The assessment of power across multiple sets
C

and repetitions under varying velocities, loading conditions, and movement patterns has been

impractical in most training environments; however, the improved computer interfaces currently
C

available with many resistance-training systems has made such measurements feasible.

Moreover, there is a paucity of data regarding acute changes in power output among females,
A

with nearly all of the aforementioned studies focusing on college-aged male participants.

Finally, the use of pneumatic machines has been quite common when examining high-

speed power training techniques; however, this work has concentrated on improving physical

function in independently-living (13, 16, 33) and frail older persons (19), persons with

sarcopenic obesity (6) and individuals with mental illness (36). Additionally, of the studies that

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 POWER OUTPUT AND CIRCUIT TRAINING 5

have utilized a circuit training model, none have examined variations in load and training

velocity to ascertain what variations would provide the greatest increase in power.

Therefore, the purpose of the present investigation was to quantify differences in power

output during three different CRT protocols using differing loads and movement velocities

(heavy load explosive contraction, heavy load controlled contraction, and moderate load

D
explosive contraction), across multiple exercises. We hypothesized that power output would

significantly decrease across subsequent sets of each exercise, and that the average power output

TE
for each exercise would be greatest during a heavy load explosive training (HLEC) protocol,

when compared to either a heavy load controlled contraction (HLCC) or a moderate load

explosive contraction (MLEC) protocol. We further hypothesized that these results would be

consistent across sexes.

EP
METHODS

Experimental Approach to the Problem

This study is an analysis of the differences in neuromuscular results due to load and
C

movement velocity during CRT. It is novel since no controlled study hasquantified how power

output is affected during a single exercise session using multiple loading patterns, training
C

velocities, and exercises. Altering each of the aforementioned variables lies at the core of

established principles involved in periodization and program design; therefore, understanding

A

how changes in each variable may influence power output is essential for creating effective

training. The study provides strength coaches, personal trainers and practitioners with new

information regarding how the modulation of loads and training speeds during circuit training

affects power output, a key component of performance in many sports and activities. Due to the

volume of data, the cardiovascular results of this study have been reported elsewhere.

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 POWER OUTPUT AND CIRCUIT TRAINING 6

A repeated-measures design with the order of the CRT protocols randomized among

subjects, was used to determine if there were acute differences in power output across multiple

sets of each exercise. Muscle power was tested on seven Keiser A420 computerized pneumatic

resistance machines (Keiser Corp., Fresno, CA) in 20 college-aged males and females. The

pneumatic resistance machines provided force, velocity, and power output for each repetition

D
during the concentric phase of each exercise. For each training session, the subject completed

one of three CRT protocols: moderate-load explosive contractions, heavy-load explosive

TE
contractions, and heavy-load controlled contractions. A detailed description of each protocol is

provided below. Each protocol consisted of three rotations through a circuit of seven exercises,

for a total of three sets per exercise. Power output was analyzed for each set of each exercise for

each protocol. Additionally, an average power output was calculated for all three sets of an
EP
exercise, for each protocol. This analysis allowed us to analyze the changes in power output

across sets for each exercise within each protocol, and made it possible to detect differences in

the average power output for each exercise between protocols. In addition to assessing power,
C

blood lactate concentration ([La-]) was measured before and after each training session. The

measurement of La- may provide further insight into how power output may be influenced by
C

fatigue resulting from the accumulation of metabolites during an acute bout of exercise, and if

this differ by the type of protocol administered.

A

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 POWER OUTPUT AND CIRCUIT TRAINING 7

Subjects

Nine apparently healthy males (age: 19.4±0.9 y; height: 1.75±0.06 m; body weight:

77.5±12.9 kg) and eleven apparently healthy females (age: 20.6±1.6 y; height: 1.63±0.06 m;

body weight: 60.2±7.5 kg;) voluntarily participated in the study. Subjects were determined to be

recreationally active if they participated in some form of aerobic or resistance training for at least

D
30 min per day at least three days each week. Information regarding physical activity was

provided by each subject on a Health History Questionnaire. None of the subjects tested had any

TE
prior experience with pneumatic exercise equipment or the experimental protocol employed.

Additionally, subjects were instructed to refrain from any type of structured or non-structured

exercise throughout the course of the experimental protocol. All subjects were non-smokers;

denied using any medications (with the exception of birth control in females), dietary or
EP
ergogenic supplements; and reported no active disease states or neuromuscular or

musculoskeletal disorders. The study was approved by the University Institutional Review Board

(IRB) and all subjects were informed of the benefits and risks of the investigation prior to
C

signing an institutionally approved informed consent document to participate in the study. Each

participant also completed a physical activity readiness questionnaire and health history
C

questionnaire prior to participation.

Procedures
A

Each subject visited the laboratory on six separate occasions at the same time each day

(±1 hour) with 24-72 hours separating sessions. All training was conducted between the hours of

10 am and 4 pm. A Consort diagram showing the flow of subjects through the study is presented

in Figure 1. In the first session, subjects completed all necessary paperwork, anthropometric

measures, resting blood pressure, and a 12-lead electrocardiogram. During the second session,

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 POWER OUTPUT AND CIRCUIT TRAINING 8

subjects were given a VO2max test on a motorized Cybex 790T treadmill (Cybex International,

Inc., Medway, MA), and expired gas was continuously analyzed using a portable metabolic unit

(Oxycon Mobile, Carefusion, Yorba Linda, CA). During session three, a one-repetition

maximum (1RM) was determined for each subject on each of the seven pneumatic machines.

1RM testing was conducted using guidelines established by the National Strength and

D
Conditioning Association (1). Following the completion of all 1RM testing, subjects were

familiarized with the experimental protocol by performing the concentric and eccentric phases of

TE
each lift in synchronization with the tones of a digital metronome (DeltaLab, DMT-1, Thousand

Oaks, CA) at both loads (50% and 80% 1RM) and lifting speeds (max concentric: 2s eccentric;

2s concentric: 2s eccentric) to be utilized during the three CRT protocols. Subjects performed six

repetitions of each exercise, in the assigned order of the circuit, at both loads. If subjects
EP
requested or required additional repetitions in order to become proficient with the lifting

protocol, as many attempts as needed were allowed. On days 4-6, subjects completed each of

the three assigned CRT protocols (HLEC, HLCC, and MLEC). The order in which the protocols
C

were completed was randomly assigned in a counterbalanced manner.

Prior to each of the three testing protocols, subjects rested in a supine position in a dark,
C

quiet room, on a padded treatment table for 15 min. Ten minutes into the resting phase a blood

sample was obtained to determine [La-]. Blood samples (~2.8 µL) were obtained via the finger-
A

stick method at 10 min into the resting phase and immediately following the end of the exercise

phase of each testing session. Two samples were obtained at each time point and the average was

used to determine [La-] (mmol·L). The sites chosen for the finger sticks were midway between

the edge and midpoint of the fingertip on the second, third, and fourth fingers. Each site was

properly cleaned using a 70% isopropyl alcohol solution prior to the blood draw. Samples were

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 POWER OUTPUT AND CIRCUIT TRAINING 9

taken using two identical portable lactate analyzers (Lactate plus, Nova Biomedical, Waltham,

MA. USA). Each analyzer was calibrated according to company guidelines.

Participants were tested on seven machines in the following order: leg press (LP),

latissimus dorsi pull-down (LAT), hip adduction (ADD), chest press (CP), leg curl (LC),

overhead press (OHP), and hip abduction (ABD). Machines were interfaced with a laboratory

D
computer. Data were collected at a sampling rate of 400 samples·s-1 and transferred to a

spreadsheet program, which was later used for analysis. For consistency, seat positions, arm

TE
positions, hand placements and foot placements for each of the seven machines were recorded

and used during all testing sessions. For the LP, CP, and OHP, starting knee and elbow angles of

~1.57 rad were established using a mechanical goniometer. Immediately preceding the first
EP
circuit of each protocol, subjects completed a warm-up set of 10 repetitions at a self-directed

pace at 40% of their 1RM on the LP machine. Data from the warm-up set were not included in

the analysis. Subjects received strong verbal encouragement throughout each of the testing

sessions and circuit-training protocols.

C

Two-way, fixed model intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to determine
C

the test/retest reliability of the power output measures for each of the seven pneumatic resistance

machines using SPSS statistical software (SPSS ver. 22, Armonk, NY. USA). An ICC ≥0.75 is
A

considered excellent, those between 0.41 and 0.74 are considered fair to good and those <0.41

reflect poor reliability (35). ICCs for each machine ranged between 0.985 and 0.999 with

confidence intervals ranging from 0.912 to 0.999. Each ICC was significant at an alpha level

of p<0.001.

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 POWER OUTPUT AND CIRCUIT TRAINING 10

Figure 1 about here

Dietary Requirements

On the day of baseline and resting measurements, subjects were instructed not to eat or

consume caffeine two hours prior to their visit. Subjects were also instructed to keep a written

record and to consume the exact same meal at the exact same time point each day before and

D
each day of their testing sessions. Subjects were not limited to any particular diet and were not

instructed to change their diet, however, in order to obtain consistent baseline measures, meals

TE
prior to testing needed to be identical in all aspects. The respiratory exchange ratio and resting

HR were examined during the resting portion of each testing session to ensure that subjects were

starting at similar baseline levels prior to the exercise phase of the session.
EP
MLEC Protocol

For the MLEC protocol, subjects attempted to complete 12 repetitions on each of the

seven machines at 50% of their established 1RM. For the concentric portion of the lift, the
C

subject was asked to “move the load as forcefully and as quickly as possible”. The eccentric

phase of the lift consisted of a two second, controlled motion. For rest intervals, subjects were
C

instructed to take as much time as needed before progressing to the next machine so they could

successfully complete all required repetitions. This method for assigning rest intervals was
A

chosen based on results from our pilot study that revealed no significant differences in rest

intervals when this technique was applied. This method also reflects the training pattern typical

of most CRT sessions.

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 POWER OUTPUT AND CIRCUIT TRAINING 11

HLEC and HLCC Protocol

Instructions for the HLEC protocol were identical to that of the MLEC protocol except

that the load lifted was 80% of the subject's 1RM. For the HLCC protocol the load used was the

same as that for the HLEC; however, the movement speeds for the concentric and eccentric

phases were set at two seconds. If a subject was not able to complete all repetitions for any

D
protocol the total number completed was recorded. Additionally, if further rotations in the

circuit remained, the subject was provided a longer recovery to allow completion of the next

TE
exercise set(s).

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

A 3 x 3 x 2 repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine significant condition, time

EP
or sex differences or interactions. Bonferroni’s post hoc analyses, where appropriate, were used

to establish the source of any significance (SPSS ver. 22, Armonk, NY. USA). Significance was

established a priori at p≤.05. Effect sizes for partial eta squared are interpreted as: 0.01-0.08,
C

considered small; 0.09-0.24, considered medium; and, values > 0.25 considered large.

RESULTS
C

Comparison of Average Power Output and Rest Times between Protocols

The average power output for males for each exercise across all three protocols and each
A

respective post-hoc analysis are presented in Table 1. For males, the average power output for all

seven exercises was higher in the HLEC and MLEC protocols than in the HLCC (p<0.01).

Additionally, the average power output was significantly higher for the HLEC protocol than the

MLEC and HLCC protocols for ADD (p=.003), LC (p=.036), and ABD (p=.024). With respect

to lower body exercises, average power outputs during the HLEC protocol were 55-383W higher

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 POWER OUTPUT AND CIRCUIT TRAINING 12

than the MLEC protocol, and 154-1364W higher than the HLCC protocol. However, for upper

body exercises, average power outputs during the MLEC protocol were 4-125W higher than the

HLEC protocol, and 124-352W higher than the HLCC protocol.

Table 1 about here

The average power outputs for females for each exercise across all three protocols are

D
provided in Table 2. For females, the average power output for all seven exercises was higher in

the HLEC and MLEC protocols than in the HLCC (p<0.01). Average power output was

TE
significantly higher for the HLEC protocol than all other protocols for the LP (p=.021), and ABB

(p =.013) exercises. Average power output was significantly higher for the MLEC protocol than

all other protocols for LAT (p=.004). Similar to the findings for males with respect to lower body
EP
exercises, average power outputs during the HLEC protocol were 6-122W higher than the MLEC

protocol, and 51-594W higher than the HLCC protocol. For upper body exercises, average power

outputs during the MLEC protocol were 26-87W higher than the HLEC protocol, and 36-277W
C

higher than the HLCC protocol. There were no significant differences in rest intervals between

the three protocols for males or females (HLEC: 24.24±1.00 s; HLCC: 24.25±1.25 s; MLEC:
C

22.00±1.25 s).

Table 2 about here

A

The results for average power output for the CP and LP exercises are depicted in two

separate line graphs (Figure 2) which show the magnitude of the differences among conditions

for each subject and the differences among protocols between males and females.

Figure 2 about here

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 POWER OUTPUT AND CIRCUIT TRAINING 13

Changes in Power Output within a Single Exercise Session

Differences in average power among sets for each condition and exercise are depicted in

Figures 3 and 4.

Figures 3 and 4 about here

Heavy-Load Explosive Contraction Protocol

D
Significant differences were detected by set for LP (p=.005, ηp2=.299), LAT (p=.025,

ηp2=.194), CP (p=.004, ηp2=.297), and LC (p<.001, ηp2=.463) for the HLEC. Post hoc analyses

TE
showed that power output for sets two and three were significantly greater than set one for LC

(p=.012, .001). For LP, set three was significantly greater than set one (p=.017). Significant

interaction effects were detected for condition by sex for CP (p=.02, ηp2=.217), and OHP
EP
(p=.002, ηp2=.431).

Moderate-Load Explosive Contraction Protocol

Significant differences by set were detected for LP (p<.001, ηp2=.421), LAT (p=.004,
C

ηp2=.304), ADD (p=.018, ηp2=.223), LC (p<.001, ηp2=.483), and ABD (p=.002, ηp2=.340) for the

MLEC protocol. Post hoc analyses showed that power output for sets two and three were
C

significantly greater than set one for LP (p=.012, .009), LC (p=.007, .001), and ABD (p=.049,

.03). For LP, set three was also significantly greater than set two (p=.021). For LAT, only set
A

three was significantly greater than set one (p=.003). For ADD, set three was only significantly

greater than set two (p=.005), and not set one. A significant interaction effect was detected for

condition by sex for OHP (p=.049, ηp2=.172).

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 POWER OUTPUT AND CIRCUIT TRAINING 14

Heavy-Load Controlled Contraction Protocol

Significant differences were detected by set for LAT (p=.004, ηp2=.297) during the

HLCC protocol. Post hoc analysis revealed that power output for set three was significantly

greater than set one for LAT (p=.028).

Lactate

D
Due to complications during collection, blood lactate values for five subjects (two males

and three females) were not included in this analysis. [La-] pairwise comparisons are presented in

TE
Table 3. For resting blood lactate there was no significant difference (p=.412, ηp2=.066) or

condition x sex interaction (p=.209, ηp2=.113), and no significant differences were seen among

groups for the duration of the resting phases (p=.281, ηp2=.191). For ∆[La-] across the exercise
EP
phase, a significant condition effect was detected (p=.018, ηp2=.265), and a significant condition

x sex interaction was also observed (p=.024, ηp2=.249). Separate post-hoc analyses for females

and males revealed that for females MLEC produced a significantly greater ∆[La-] across the

exercise period than HLEC (Mdiff = 1.61±0.35 mmol·L-1; p=.011); while males showed no
C

significant differences by condition.

C

DISCUSSION

This study was the first to our knowledge to investigate the acute changes in power
A

output during three CRT protocols using different loads and movement velocities in

recreationally active males and females. In contrast to results from similar studies that reported

decrements in peak power and average power output across circuits (9, 20, 23, 26, 31), our

findings indicate that in five of the seven exercises tested during the HLEC and MLEC protocols,

average power output increased with each successive circuit. However, the earlier studies

utilized different methodologies and exercise equipment than those used in our study.

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 POWER OUTPUT AND CIRCUIT TRAINING 15

For example, a supplement study by Volek et al. reported acute changes in muscle power

and total repetitions in males following individual sets and training sessions, with or without

creatine supplementation (38). Subjects performed a bench press protocol consisting of five sets

to failure at their 10RM on one day and a jump squat exercise protocol consisting using five sets

D
of ten repetitions at 30% of their 1RM on a separate day. In contrast to our study, results for the

placebo group (without creatine supplementation) showed a consistent decline in the number of

TE
repetitions completed for the bench press and power output for the jump squat following each

successive set for any given session. The authors also reported changes in [La-], which were

similar to those seen in our results. Values attained in their study, however, reached higher levels
EP
than in ours. Two possible explanations for this difference is the greater potential for La-

clearance in our CRT protocol and the differences in muscle mass. The CRT program allowed

each muscle used to recover over the duration of six exercises and muscle mass varied from

larger masses during lower body exercises to smaller masses during upper body exercises. The
C

decrease in power output across successive sets in their study, not evidenced in ours may also be

due to the differences in overload patterns between the protocols. In a multiple repetition
C

program such as that used by Volek et al., the same muscle groups were recruited repeatedly,

increasing intercellular lactate and inorganic phosphates, while the patterns of use in the CRT
A

program offered greater potential for removal of waste products and resynthesis of high-energy

phosphates. Research indicates that during intense sequential contractions of a muscle or muscle

groups, the onset of fatigue has a metabolic basis (26, 39, 40), supporting this argument. In the

present study, subjects engaged multiple muscle groups, often in an alternating manner. By doing

so, the time between exercise sets may have been sufficient to allow for localized lactate

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 POWER OUTPUT AND CIRCUIT TRAINING 16

clearance and restoration of a muscle environment more favorable to the production of higher

power output.

Chiu and colleagues (10) conducted a study in which subjects produced baseline peak

force measurements for knee extension on an isokinetic dynamometer. This occurred prior to the

completion of two separate resistance exercise protocols separated by six hours The protocols

D
consisted of ten sets of five repetitions of a speed squat at 70% 1RM, and ten sets of five

repetitions with weight reduced across sets if the load reduced movement velocity during any

TE
subsequent set. For each protocol, sets were separated by two minutes. During the squat exercise,

movement velocity was continuously measured. During the constant high load protocol load

remained unchanged, while movement velocity decreased. In contrast, the accommodating load
EP
protocol produced moderately increasing velocity with significantly decreasing loads. Although

power output was not calculated, the patterns of change are reflective of training-specific

adaptations. Although these changes are in contrast with the absence of fatigue in the current

CRT protocol, the load-specific changes do reflect our results.

C

Although no controlled studies have measured changes in power output during CRT,
C

researchers have examined the effects of complex resistance training on power output. A study

by Baker and Newton examined the effects of complex training, consisting of contrasting agonist
A

and antagonist muscle exercises, on acute power output in the agonist power exercise (5). They

reported an acute increase in power output for the agonist exercise when employing a contrasted

antagonist strategy. In a separate study, Baker reported that performing a heavy (65% 1RM) set

of resistance exercise prior to performing a maximal power exercise with a lighter weight

resulted in greater (4.5%) power output than if no heavy set was used (4). While our study did

not explicitly employ either of these techniques, there are many instances in which exercises in

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 POWER OUTPUT AND CIRCUIT TRAINING 17

the circuit alternated between agonist and antagonist, and heavy and light loads. However, due to

the nature of CRT, our subjects did not follow sequential pattern agonist/antagonist utilization;

rather these muscles were trained in a more prolonged sequence dictated by the completion of a

full rotation of the circuit. Therefore, it is not practical to assert that the changes seen in power

output in our data were due to the application of complex training techniques.

D
Perhaps the increases in power output seen in many of the exercises chosen for this study

may be explained by exercise pacing. In a study by Tucker et al, the authors reported that power

TE
output was maintained throughout the duration of a cycling exercise bout, but significantly

increased during the final kilometer of the event (37). They noted that although power output

randomly fluctuated during the entire exercise bout, it remained relatively even. They also
EP
reported a similar increase for all subjects during the final minutes of exercise, which they

attributed to subject motivation. These findings are representative of work completed on a cycle,

but a similar pacing strategy may have been employed by subjects in our study, even though

verbal encouragement was provided. Subjects were aware that each circuit consisted of three
C

rotations, and ultimately three sets of each exercise. Given this knowledge, it is plausible that

some subjects did not exert a full effort until the last set of each exercise in an effort to ensure
C

completion of all three rotations. Alternatively, a warm-up effect could explain changes in power

output; however, we believe that any such effect would not have carried over to the third
A

rotation. Additionally, post-activation potentiation is doubtful given the intensity of the

exercises, the duration of the workout and the inherent time between sets of an exercise due to

CRT structure.

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 POWER OUTPUT AND CIRCUIT TRAINING 18

Concerning changes in blood lactate concentration, for males, there was no significant

difference between the HLEC and MLEC protocol. These changes reflected the results that

revealed no significant differences in power output in any exercise from rotation to rotation. The

exception was for OHP, in which average power output for each set decreased from set one

through set three. For females, however, a significant difference was detected in the post-

D
exercise [La-] and overall ∆[La-], with MLEC producing significantly greater changes than

HLEC. This, however, did not appear to negatively influence power output from circuit to circuit

TE
for the MLEC protocol. For all exercises, with the exception of LAT and OHP, average power

output was significantly greatest in the final set. Based on these findings, our results indicate that

[La-] did not substantially affect acute power outputs.

EP
Our results may be compared to those of a training study, which examined changes in

power output and blood lactate concentration due to variations in programming. In this study,

Izquierdo et al assessed changes in power and blood during fatigue tests performed before and

after a seven week heavy resistance training program in twelve physically active young men
C

(20). The fatigue test incorporated 5 sets of 10 repetitions of leg extension at specific pretraining

loads and at the same relative intensity, that is the same percentage of the pretraining and post-
C

training loads, and the same pretraining load after the training period. Power outputs were

measured immediately before, and at multiple time points following each protocol using a
A

bilateral leg extension machine. Additionally, blood lactate was measured throughout each acute

training protocol. They reported lower in peak power output after training for the fatigue

protocol than seen before training or when a relative load was employed after training. This

pattern was reflected in the increases in blood lactate. In all three protocols, increases in blood

lactate were significant; however, these increases were ameliorated during the absolute load

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 POWER OUTPUT AND CIRCUIT TRAINING 19

protocol, indicating that training influenced lactate response, which may have influenced

observed power outputs. Although their study did not measure power output during the training

protocol, the significant decrease in power following their multi-set testing protocol is in conflict

with our results. Similar to the results of our study, significant increases were observed in blood

lactate concentration; however, the increases in our study did not appear to have a negative

D
impact on subjects’ power outputs. Because the subjects in our study completed three cycles of

seven different exercises, the length of recovery for each targeted muscle group was notably

TE
longer than that in their testing protocol. This may have allowed better localized lactate clearance

as the transitions between exercises and the utilization of diverse muscle groups provided active

recovery. Additionally, since each exercise constitutes a work cycle for the specific muscle

targeted, the remaining exercises in the circuit constitute a prolonged active recovery. Therefore,
EP
this work:recovery duty cycle may have resulted in less muscle glycogen depletion, and

increased time for the re-synthesis of adenosine triphosphate and creatine phosphate.

Since no study has attempted to examine the effects of variations in load and velocity on
C

power output during CRT, this discussion suffers from the lack of comparative studies. This

caveat supports the need for the current study, in which the experimental protocol consisted of
C

several different exercises, each with different biomechanical characteristics such as multi-joint

and single joint movements and the incorporation of different lever lengths and classes of lever.
A

It may be argued that because these programs were examined on pneumatic rather than

selectorized isoinertial machines the results may be of limited benefit to the practitioner given

the concept of generalizability. However a study recently completed in our laboratory has

demonstrated that selectorized and pneumatic machines produce comparable changes in power

when used during the same training protocol (7).

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 POWER OUTPUT AND CIRCUIT TRAINING 20

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Utilizing the results of this study, coaches, trainers, and exercisers will be better able to

construct training programs that more efficiently affect the development and maintenance of

power output throughout a CRT session. Our findings, demonstrating that higher loads are more

appropriate for achieving maximal average power output for lower body exercises, and that

D
moderate loads are more appropriate for upper body exercises in both males and females can also

be used for targeting specific muscle groups and movements. Our results indicate that a “one-

TE
size fits all” approach should be avoided when designing and implementing a CRT program

aimed at maximizing power output. Our novel finding, demonstrating an increase in power

output from circuit to circuit in a single training session when using a CRT protocol, should
EP
provide coaches and trainers with an alternative to traditional power training techniques. These

traditional techniques often require the athlete/individual to complete multiple consecutive sets

of an exercise before moving to the next andeven with prolonged recovert periods, this often

leads to decreases in power output during subsequent sets.

C

Additionally, this is the first study, to our knowledge, to demonstrate that males and
C

females respond similarly to each type of training, thus, making the results our findings

applicable to coaches and trainers working with each gender. The pneumatic resistance machines
A

utilized in this study are readily available at many collegiate and professional athletic

departments around the world and our latest results have demonstrated that they are applicable to

standard selectorized machines. In summary, results from this study provide previously

unavailable information to assist in the development of CRT exercise prescriptions designed to

optimize power output and associated performances.

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 POWER OUTPUT AND CIRCUIT TRAINING 21

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors have no conflict of interest.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank all of the loyal study participants of the Laboratory of Neuromuscular

D
Research & Active Aging and our undergraduate students for their continued dedication and

help. No external grant funding was provided for this study.

TE
REFERENCES

1. Baechle TR, Earle RW, and National Strength & Conditioning Association (U.S.).
EP
Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,

2008.

2. Baker D. Acute and long-term power responses to power training: Observations on the

training of an elite power athlete. J Strength Cond Res 23: 47-56, 2001.
C

3. Baker D. A series of studies on the training of high-intensity muscle power in rugby

league football players. J Strength Cond Res 15: 198-209, 2001.

C

4. Baker D. Acute effect of alternating heavy and light resistances on power output during
A

upper-body complex power training. J Strength Cond Res 17: 493-497, 2003.

5. Baker D and Newton RU. Acute effect on power output of alternating anagonist and

antagonist muscle exercise during complex training. J Strength Cond Res 19: 202-205,

2005.

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 POWER OUTPUT AND CIRCUIT TRAINING 22

6. Balachandran A, Krawczyk SN, Potiaumpai M, and Signorile JF. High-speed circuit

training vs hypertrophy training to improve physical function in sarcopenic obese adults:

a randomized controlled trial. Exp Gerontol 60: 64-71, 2014.

7. Balachandran AT. Comparison of Power Training Using Plate-Loaded vs. Pneumatic

Machines on Strength, Power, and Physical Function in Older Adults. Dissertation,

D
University of Miami, 2016.

8. Capostagno B, Lambert MI, and Lamberts RP. Systematic Review of Submaximal Cycle

TE
Tests to Predict, Monitor and Optimize Cycling Performance. Int J Sports Physiol

Perform, 2016.

9. Chatzinikolaou A, Fatouros IG, Gourgoulis V, Avloniti A, Jamurtas AZ, Nikolaidis MG,

Douroudos I, Michailidis Y, Beneka A, Malliou P, Tofas T, Georgiadis I, Mandalidis D,

EP
and Taxildaris K. Time Course of Changes in Performance and Inflammatory Responses

after Acute Plyometric Exercise. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1389-1398, 2010.

10. Chiu LZF, Fry AC, Schilling BK, Johnson EJ, and Weiss LW. Neuromuscular fatigue
C

and potentiation following two successive high intensity resistance exercise sessions. Eur

J Appl Physiol 92: 385-392, 2004.

C

11. Cormie P, McCaulley GO, Triplett NT, and McBride JM. Optimal loading for maximal

power output during lower-body resistance exercises. Med Sci Sport Exer 39: 340-349,
A

2007.

12. de Vos NJ, Singh NA, Ross DA, Stavrinos TM, Orr R, and Singh MAF. Optimal load for

increasing muscle power during explosive resistance training in older adults. J Gerontol

a-Biol 60: 638-647, 2005.

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 POWER OUTPUT AND CIRCUIT TRAINING 23

13. Fielding RA, LeBrasseur NK, Cuoco A, Bean J, Mizer K, and Fiatarone Singh MA.

High-velocity resistance training increases skeletal muscle peak power in older women. J

Am Geriatr Soc 50: 655-662, 2002.

14. Francescato MP, Cettolo V, and Prampero PE. Relationships between mechanical power,

O-2 consumption, O-2 deficit and high-energy phosphates during calf exercise in

D
humans. Pflug Arch Eur J Phy 445: 622-628, 2003.

15. Gonzalez-Badillo JJ and Sanchez-Medina L. Movement Velocity as a Measure of

TE
Loading Intensity in Resistance Training. Int J Sports Med 31: 347-352, 2010.

16. Hakkinen K, Kraemer WJ, Pakarinen A, Triplett-McBride T, McBride JM, Hakkinen A,

Alen M, McGuigan MR, Bronks R, and Newton RU. Effects of heavy resistance/power

training on maximal strength, muscle morphology, and hormonal response patterns in 60-
EP
75-year-old men and women. Can J Appl Physiol 27: 213-231, 2002.

17. Henwood TR, Riek S, and Taaffe DR. Strength versus muscle power-specific resistance

training in community-dwelling older adults. J Gerontol a-Biol 63: 83-91, 2008.

C

18. Henwood TR and Taaffe DR. Improved physical performance in older adults undertaking

a short-term programme of high-velocity resistance training. Gerontology 51: 108-115,

C

2005.

19. Izquierdo M and Cadore EL. Muscle power training in the institutionalized frail: a new
A

approach to counteracting functional declines and very late-life disability. Curr Med Res

Opin 30: 1385-1390, 2014.

20. Izquierdo M, Ibanez J, Calbet JAL, Gonzalez-Izal M, Navarro-Amezqueta I, Granados C,

Malanda A, Idoate F, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Hakkinen K, Kraemer WJ, Tirapu I, and

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 POWER OUTPUT AND CIRCUIT TRAINING 24

Gorostiaga EM. Neuromuscular Fatigue after Resistance Training. Int J Sports Med 30:

614-623, 2009.

21. Jandacka D and Uchytil J. Optimal Load Maximizes the Mean Mechanical Power Output

during Upper Extremity Exercise in Highly Trained Soccer Players. J Strength Cond Res

25: 2764-2772, 2011.

D
22. Kawamori N and Haff GG. The optimal training load for the development of muscular

power. J Strength Cond Res 18: 675-684, 2004.

TE
23. Kay D, Marino FE, Cannon J, Gibson AST, Lambert MI, and Noakes TD. Evidence for

neuromuscular fatigue during high-intensity cycling in warm, humid conditions. Eur J

Appl Physiol 84: 115-121, 2001.

24. Legaz-Arrese A, Reverter-Masia J, Munguia-Izquierdo D, and Ceballos-Gurrola O. An

EP
analysis of resistance training based on the maintenance of mechanical power. J Sports

Med Phys Fitness 47: 427-436, 2007.

25. Melanie P. KG, Ambika R., Troy P., and Joseph S. Optimal Loads for Power Differ by
C

Exercise in Older Adults. J Strength Cond Res In Press, 2016.

26. Mendez-Villanueva A, Hamer P, and Bishop D. Fatigue in repeated-sprint exercise is

C

related to muscle power factors and reduced neuromuscular activity. Eur J Appl Physiol

103: 411-419, 2008.

A

27. Mihalik JP, Libby JJ, Battaglini CL, and McMurray RG. Comparing short-term complex

and compound training programs on vertical jump height and power output. J Strength

Cond Res 22: 47-53, 2008.

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 POWER OUTPUT AND CIRCUIT TRAINING 25

28. Miszko TA, Cress ME, Slade JM, Covey CJ, Agrawal SK, and Doerr CE. Effect of

strength and power training on physical function in community-dwelling older adults. J

Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 58: 171-175, 2003.

29. Newton RU, Hakkinen K, Hakkinen A, McCormick M, Volek J, and Kraemer WJ.

Mixed-methods resistance training increases power and strength of young and older men.

D
Med Sci Sport Exer 34: 1367-1375, 2002.

30. Pierre S, Nicolas H, and Frederique H. Interactions between cadence and power output

TE
effects on mechanical efficiency during sub maximal cycling exercises. Eur J Appl

Physiol 97: 133-139, 2006.

31. Rittweger J, Mutschelknauss M, and Felsenberg D. Acute changes in neuromuscular

excitability after exhaustive whole body vibration exercise as compared to exhaustion by

EP
squatting exercise. Clin Physiol Funct I 23: 81-86, 2003.

32. Sanchez-Medina L and Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. Velocity Loss as an Indicator of

Neuromuscular Fatigue during Resistance Training. Med Sci Sport Exer 43: 1725-1734,
C

2011.

33. Sayers SP. High-speed power training: a novel approach to resistance training in older
C

men and women. A brief review and pilot study. J Strength Cond Res 21: 518-526, 2007.

34. Seiler KS, Spirduso WW, and Martin JC. Gender differences in rowing performance and
A

power with aging. Med Sci Sports Exerc 30: 121-127, 1998.

35. Shrout PE and Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability.

Psychol Bull 86: 420-428, 1979.

36. Strassnig MT, Signorile JF, Potiaumpai M, Romero MA, Gonzalez C, Czaja S, and

Harvey PD. High velocity circuit resistance training improves cognition, psychiatric

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 POWER OUTPUT AND CIRCUIT TRAINING 26

symptoms and neuromuscular performance in overweight outpatients with severe mental

illness. Psychiatry Res 229: 295-301, 2015.

37. Tucker R, Bester A, Lambert EV, Noakes TD, Vaughan CL, and Gibson AS. Non-

random fluctuations in power output during self-paced exercise. Brit J Sport Med 40:

912-917, 2006.

D
38. Volek JS, Kraemer WJ, Bush JA, Boetes M, Incledon T, Clark KL, and Lynch JM.

Creatine supplementation enhances muscular performance during high-intensity

TE
resistance exercise. J Am Diet Assoc 97: 765-770, 1997.

39. Wadley G and Le Rossignol P. The relationship between repeated sprint ability and the

aerobic and anaerobic energy systems. J Sci Med Sport 1: 100-110, 1998.

40. Westerblad H, Allen DG, and Lannergren J. Muscle fatigue: Lactic acid or inorganic
EP
phosphate the major cause? News Physiol Sci 17: 17-21, 2002.

41. Zink AJ, Perry AC, Robertson BL, Roach KE, and Signorile JF. Peak power, ground

reaction forces, and velocity during the squat exercise performed at different loads. J
C

Strength Cond Res 20: 658-664, 2006.

C

FIGURE CAPTIONS
A

Figure 1. Consort chart showing participant flow throughout the study.

Figure 2. Spaghetti graphs showing the magnitude of the differences in power output for each

individual subject across all three experimental protocols. (a) Represents the results for the chest

press exercise; (b) represents the results for the leg press exercise.

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 POWER OUTPUT AND CIRCUIT TRAINING 27

Figure 3. Differences in average power among sets for Moderate Load Explosive Contraction,

Heavy Load Explosive Contraction, and Heavy Load Controlled Contraction conditions for Leg

Press (a), Leg Curl (b), Hip Adduction (c), and Hip Abduction (d). ^significantly greater than set

one. *significantly greater than set one. **significantly greater than sets one and two. p≤.05.

Figure 4. Differences in average power among sets for Moderate Load Explosive Contraction,

D
Heavy Load Explosive Contraction, and Heavy Load Controlled Contraction conditions for

Chest Press (a), Lat Pulldown (b), and Overhead Press (c). ^significantly greater than set one.

TE
p≤.05.
EP
C
C
A

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Table 1. Average Power Output (W) by Condition for Males.

Mean (SE) Meandiff p 95% CI

LOWER BODY

Leg Press

HLEC 1911.35 (116.05)* 383.6a .067 [-27.9, 795.2]

D
MLEC 1527.71 (79.34)* 981.1b <.001 [771.5, 1190.6]

HLCC 546.63 (26.65) 1364.7c <.001 [1029.3, 1700.2]

TE
Leg Curl

HLEC 684.08 (41.64)** 110.6 .036 [7.9, 213.3]

MLEC 573.52 (46.35)* 304.9 <.001 [197.7, 412.1]

HLCC 268.59 (18.05) 415.5 <.001 [326.5, 504.5]

Adduction
EP
HLEC 344.65 (20.26)** 80.2 .003 [34.5, 125.9]

MLEC 264.42 (18.29)* 121.8 <.001 [81.1, 162.6]

HLCC 142.57 (7.27) 202.1 <.001 [150.5, 253.7]

Abduction
C

HLEC 281.07 (29.98)** 55.7 .024 [8.6, 102.8]

MLEC 225.39 (20.12)* 99.1 <.001 [63.8, 134.4]

C

HLCC 126.30 (13.56) 154.8 .002 [78.7, 230.9]

UPPER BODY
A

Chest Press

HLEC 500.12 (35.44)* -88.8 .205 [-217.8, 40.2]

MLEC 588.90 (35.42)* 352.9 <.001 [269.2, 436.6]

HLCC 236.01 (11.70) 264.1 <.001 [167.9, 360.2]

Overhead Press

HLEC 276.62 (22.16)* -4.3 1.00 [-71.4, 62.8]

MLEC 280.96 (24.57)* 124.4 .001 [70.2, 178.6]

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 HLCC 156.55 (10.62) 120.1 <.001 [69.4, 170.7]

Lat Pull Down

HLEC 748.82 (65.15)* -124.9 .282 [-326.7, 76.9]

MLEC 873.72 (47.87)* 547.1 <.001 [413.6, 680.5]

HLCC 326.64 (27.04) 422.2 .001 [233.2, 611.2]

All values are expressed as mean ± standard error. W: watts; SE: standard error; Meandiff: mean difference; CI:

D
confidence interval; HLEC: heavy load explosive contraction; MLEC: moderate load explosive contraction; HLCC:

heavy load controlled contraction; a: HLEC-MLEC; b: MLEC=HLCC; c: HLEC-HLCC. * Significantly greater than

HLCC only p < 0.05. ** Significantly greater than all other conditions p < 0.05.

TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Table 2. Average Power Output (W) by Condition for Females.

Mean (SE) Meandiff p 95% CI

LOWER BODY

Leg Press

HLEC 1027.40 (85.27)** 122.8a .021 [20.3, 225.4]

D
MLEC 904.56 (76.88)* 471.5b <.001 [286.7, 656.3]

HLCC 433.09 (68.62) 594.3c <.001 [444.9, 743.7]

TE
Leg Curl

HLEC 333.60 (39.48)* -7.8 1.00 [-105.3, 89.7]

MLEC 341.38 (15.73)* 161.6 <.001 [118.4, 204.8]

HLCC 179.77 (18.31) 153.8 .005 [52.3, 255.4]

EP
Adduction

HLEC 141.39 (12.09)* 6.3 .843 [-9.9, 22.6]

MLEC 135.04 (10.06)* 45.2 <.001 [28.6, 61.7]

HLCC 89.85 (11.00) 51.5 <.001 [36.6, 66.5]

C

Abduction

HLEC 175.46 (11.79)** 24.0 .013 [5.5, 42.5]

MLEC 151.46 (7.29)* 55.8 <.001 [41.7, 69.9]

C

HLCC 95.68 (9.15) 79.8 <.001 [58.9, 100.6]

UPPER BODY
A

Chest Press

HLEC 206.36 (27.74)* -26.6 .664 [-85.9, 32.8]

MLEC 232.96 (16.58)* 112.4 <.001 [86.2, 138.6]

HLCC 120.58 (17.79) 85.8 .005 [28.1, 143.5]

Overhead Press

HLEC 114.03 (11.74)* 10.9 .051 [-0.1, 21.9]

MLEC 103.13 (11.45)* 36.5 .001 [16.8, 56.1]

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 HLCC 66.67 (12.65) 47.4 <.001 [30.9, 63.9]

Lat Pull Down

HLEC 375.24 (29.71)* -87.9 .004 [-144.1, -31.7]

MLEC 463.13 (15.09)** 277.3 <.001 [226.5, 328.1]

HLCC 185.87 (24.56) 189.4 <.002 [132.8, 245.9]

All values are expressed as mean ± standard error. W: watts; SE: standard error; Meandiff: mean difference; CI:

D
confidence interval; HLEC: heavy load explosive contraction; MLEC: moderate load explosive contraction; HLCC:

heavy load controlled contraction; a: HLEC-MLEC; b: MLEC=HLCC; c: HLEC-HLCC. * Significantly greater than

HLCC only p < 0.05. ** Significantly greater than all other conditions p < 0.05.

TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Table 3. Lactate.

Condition [La-] at rest [La-] post- ∆ [La-] Meandiff p 95% CI

exercise

Males

HLEC 1.3 ± .2 10.7 ± 1.1 9.4 ± 1.2 .16a 1.00 [-2.3, 2.6]

D
MLEC 1.8 ± .4 11.0 ± .7 9.3 ± 1.0 -1.3b .229 [-3.3, 0.7]

HLCC 1.1 ± .2 11.7 ± .9 10.6 ± 1.0 -1.2c .189 [-2.8, 0.5]

TE
Females

HLEC 1.6 ± .2 4.9 ± .6 3.3 ± .5 -1.6 .011* [-2.8, -0.5]

MLEC 1.5 ± .3 6.4 ± .4^ 4.9 ± .5^ .79 .123 [-.21, 1.8]

HLCC 1.6 ± .3 5.7 ± .6 4.1 ± .6 -.83 .482 [-2.5, 0.9]

EP
All values are mean ± standard error. [La-] = concentration of blood lactate in mmol/dL; Meandiff: mean difference;

CI: confidence interval; a: HLEC-MLEC; b: MLEC=HLCC; c: HLEC-HLCC. ^ Significantly greater than HLEC

only. * Significant for ∆ [La-] p < 0.05.

C
C
A

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association