REVIEW ARTICLE Sports Med 1998 Mar; 25 (3): 191-200

0112-1642/98/0003-0191/$05.00/0

© Adis International Limited. All rights reserved.

Impact of Resistance Training on

Endurance Performance
A New Form of Cross-Training?
Hirofumi Tanaka1 and Thomas Swensen2
1 Human Cardiovascular Research Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, University of Colorado,
Boulder, Colorado, USA
2 Department of Exercise and Sport Sciences, Ithaca College, Ithaca, New York, USA

Contents
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
1. Physiological Adaptations to Resistance and Endurance Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
2. Simultaneous Training for Strength and Endurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
3. Effects of Resistance Training on Endurance Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
3.1 Running Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
3.2 Cycling Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
3.3 Swimming Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

Summary In accordance with the principles of training specificity, resistance and en-
durance training induce distinct muscular adaptations. Endurance training, for
example, decreases the activity of the glycolytic enzymes, but increases intra-
muscular substrate stores, oxidative enzyme activities, and capillary, as well as
mitochondrial, density. In contrast, resistance or strength training reduces mito-
chondrial density, while marginally impacting capillary density, metabolic en-
zyme activities and intramuscular substrate stores (except muscle glycogen). The
training modalities do induce one common muscular adaptation: they transform
type IIb myofibres into IIa myofibres. This transformation is coupled with oppo-
site changes in fibre size (resistance training increases, and endurance training
decreases, fibre size), and, in general, myofibre contractile properties. As a result
of these distinct muscular adaptations, endurance training facilitates aerobic pro-
cesses, whereas resistance training increases muscular strength and anaerobic
power. Exercise performance data do not fit this paradigm, however, as they
indicate that resistance training or the addition of resistance training to an ongoing
endurance exercise regimen, including running or cycling, increases both short
and long term endurance capacity in sedentary and trained individuals. Resistance
training also appears to improve lactate threshold in untrained individuals during
cycling. These improvements may be linked to the capacity of resistance training
to alter myofibre size and contractile properties, adaptations that may increase
muscular force production. In contrast to running and cycling, traditional dry land
resistance training or combined swim and resistance training does not appear to
192 Tanaka & Swensen

enhance swimming performance in untrained individuals or competitive swim-

mers, despite substantially increasing upper body strength. Combined swim and
swim-specific ‘in-water’ resistance training programmes, however, increase a
competitive swimmer’s velocity over distances up to 200m. Traditional resistance
training may be a valuable adjunct to the exercise programmes followed by en-
durance runners or cyclists, but not swimmers; these latter athletes need more
specific forms of resistance training to realise performance improvement.

Traditional endurance training increases the
ability to perform low load, high repetition exer-
cise, but only marginally affects muscular strength
and anaerobic power. In contrast, resistance train-
ing improves ability to perform high load, low rep-
etition exercise, but marginally affects endurance.
Therefore, it seems inconsistent to prescribe resis-
tance training to athletes who only seek to improve
endurance, as such a prescription violates the prin-
ciples of training specificity; i.e., training pro-
grammes should simulate the athlete’s mode of ex-
ercise.[1]
To be successful in endurance sports, however,
competitive athletes need more than an enhanced
long term work capacity; they also require muscu-
lar strength and anaerobic power, abilities needed
for hill climbing, attacking, and final sprinting dur-
ing the race.[2,3] To obtain proficiency at these
skills, endurance athletes typically perform intense
short duration interval training,[4] but many
coaches and trainers have recently started to pre-
scribe resistance training in conjunction with or in
lieu of interval training. This prescription is pre-
sumably based on the capacity of resistance train-
ing to improve muscular strength and anaerobic
power, and in turn, possibly endurance perfor-
mance. In this capacity, resistance training may be
viewed as a form of cross-training, albeit an un-
traditional application of the concept. Tradition-
ally, cross-training involves activities that produce
a common goal, such as improving maximal oxy-
.
gen uptake (VO2max).[5] Resistance training fits this
paradigm, but from a different perspective; as with
short interval training, it enhances anaerobic
power. The body of scientific literature, however,
is equivocal concerning the impact of resistance
training on endurance performance.
Accordingly, the purpose of this article is to re-
view research on resistance, endurance and com-
bined resistance and endurance training in order to
examine the physiological basis for adding resis-
tance exercises to the endurance athlete’s training
regimen. To tighten our focus, we will concentrate
primarily on the muscular adaptations induced by
these aforementioned training modalities. In the re-
maining sections, we will examine the impact of
resistance training on running, cycling and swim-
ming performance, the 3 forms of exercise tradi-
tionally integrated into a cross-training regimen.[5]
1. Physiological Adaptations to
Resistance and Endurance Training
Traditional resistance training involves high
load, low repetition muscular contractions,
whereas endurance training involves low load,
high repetition muscular contractions. As a result
of these differences, each training mode produces
distinct physiological adaptations in the trained
musculature.[1] Resistance training, for example,
induces muscle hypertrophy as measured by in-
creased cross-sectional area in all fibre types or
just type II fibres.[6-10] This hypertrophy reflects
an increase in muscle protein content, resulting in
increased fibre size and possibly fibre num-
ber.[8,11,12] Resistance training also alters the ratio
of the type II fibres; as the percentage of type IIa
fibre increases and that of IIb (more recently re-
ferred to as IIx)[13,14] fibre decreases, there is a con-
comitant change reflecting a IIb to IIa fibre trans-
formation at a histochemical and myosin isoform
level.[6-8,15-17]
In contrast to these structural changes, resis-
tance training induces little to no change in activi-
ties of phosphagen and glycolytic and oxidative

© Adis International Limited. All rights reserved. Sports Med 1998 Mar; 25 (3)
Interaction Between Resistance and Endurance Training
enzymes.[9,10,18-22] Resistance training also has a
modest impact on muscle capillarisation; most
studies[23-25] indicated that this training mode in-
duces capillary neoformation, or that neoformation
occurs because capillary density remains un-
changed despite muscle hypertrophy. The data
from another study, however, showed that resis-
tance training does not induce capillary neo-
formation, as capillary density, but not number,
decreases.[26] It is worth noting that even if resis-
tance training induces capillary neoformation, it
does not increase capillary density. At best, resis-
tance training maintains capillary density, which
suggests that the O2 diffusion distance, and hence
O2 delivery, would remain at pretraining levels.
Compared with the effect of resistance training
on capillarisation, its impact on mitochondrial
density is pronounced, as the density of this key
metabolic organelle decreases, primarily via
hypertrophy-induced dilution.[8,23] In contrast, re-
sistance training has an undetermined impact on
levels of intramuscular phosphagens; data from
one study indicated that resistance training in-
creases this variable,[27] whereas data from another
showed no change.[20] Resistance training does,
however, appear to increase the glycogen content
of the trained musculature.[20,27]
In all, the most germane adaptive response to
resistance training may be the increase in myofibre
size, which is linked to altered contractile proper-
ties.[15] Collectively, these adaptations may in-
crease muscular force production, and hence, con-
tribute to the changes associated with resistance
training, such as increased muscular strength,
Wingate anaerobic power, short term power out-
put and time to exhaustion at high intensity sub-
maximal work rates.[7,15,18,28-31] Interestingly, the
increases in short term power output and time to
exhaustion at heavy submaximal work rates after a
period of resistance training were not associated
.
with significant changes in VO2max.[18,29] Indeed,
when all forms of resistance training are consid-
ered together, this training modality increases
.
VO2max by less than 3%, and then only in untrained
or moderately active individuals.[7,18,19,28,29,32-37]
© Adis International Limited. All rights reserved.
193
In marked contrast to resistance training, endur-
ance training unequivocally increases capillary
density, mitochondrial density, intramuscular sub-
strate stores and oxidative enzyme activity, while
also reducing the activity of the glycolytic en-
zymes.[22,28,38,39] Like resistance training, endur-
ance training alters the size and ratio of the type II
fibres, as it decreases their cross-sectional area
while increasing type IIa, and decreasing IIb, fibre
percentages, a concomitant change reflecting a fi-
bre transformation at a histochemical and myosin
isoform level.[15,22,40,41]
Most data indicate that endurance training does
not change the percentage of type I fibres and
slightly reduces or does not change type I fibre
size.[7,13,14,42,43] The fibre size data are, moreover,
supported by cross-sectional studies and research
on rodents.[15,22,41] In contrast, the data from sev-
eral other papers showed that endurance training
induces type I fibre hypertrophy.[40,44] This dis-
crepancy might be related to the pretraining fitness
level of study participants, as fibre size increased
in untrained individuals and decreased or did not
change in moderately to highly trained athletes.
Aside from altering fibre size and percentage,
endurance training also influences myofibre con-
tractile properties, as it lowers the maximum short-
ening velocity (Vmax) of the type II fibres and
slightly reduces peak tension development in all
fibre types.[15,43,45] Collectively, the changes in
myofibre size and contractile properties lower the
maximum force generating capability of type I and
IIa fibres.[13-15] The decrease in force production,
especially in IIa fibres, is not necessarily deleteri-
ous to endurance performance, as it may be linked
to increased fibre efficiency.[15,46] A smaller, more
efficient IIa fibre may be advantageous for endur-
ance exercise, as increased fibre efficiency would
reduce the rate of adenosine triphosphate (ATP)
utilisation, and decreased fibre diameter would en-
hance O2 delivery by shortening the O2 diffusion
distance. Both changes could act to increase long
term endurance capacity.
Endurance training also increases the expres-
sion of fast myosin light chains in the type I fibres,
Sports Med 1998 Mar; 25 (3)
194
which increases their Vmax, shifting it towards a
velocity more characteristic of type IIa fibres. [14,15]
This adaptation does not, however, indicate a type
I-type II fibre transformation; such a change re-
quires altered myosin heavy chain expression,
which has not been reported.[14,15,47] An increased
Vmax in the type I fibres may enhance muscle speed,
and hence body speed, without affecting fibre effi-
ciency.[15] These changes may allow endurance
athletes to reduce their use of the less efficient type
II fibres at a given absolute submaximal work rate,
which could account for the improved running
economy induced by endurance exercise.[48]
Collectively, the muscular adaptations induced
by endurance training facilitate aerobic processes,
.
as this training modality increases VO2max, lactate
threshold, and long term endurance capacity. In
contrast, the muscular adaptations, including the
changes in myofibre size, type II subtype ratio,
and contractile properties, in conjunction with the
diminished activity of the glycolytic enzymes,
may compromise anaerobic power and muscular
strength.[7,15,49-51] In fact, endurance training is as-
sociated with a depressed vertical jumping abil-
ity.[49,51] Interestingly, those who experienced the
.
largest increase in VO2max and submaximal run-
ning performance through the endurance training
had the greatest decrease in vertical jump score.[51]
Moreover, endurance training has been associated
with a significant reduction in isokinetic knee ex-
tension strength[50] and Wingate anaerobic power.[7]
In summary, resistance and endurance training
induce one common muscular adaptation; they
transform type IIb fibres into IIa fibres. This trans-
formation is coupled with opposite changes in fibre
size and, generally, in muscle contractile proper-
ties, which may explain why resistance, but not
endurance, training improves anaerobic power and
muscular strength. For the physiological variables
traditionally associated with enhanced endurance
(e.g. capillary density, mitochondrial density and
oxidative enzyme activity), resistance and endur-
ance training do not appear to be synergistic.
© Adis International Limited. All rights reserved.
Tanaka & Swensen
2. Simultaneous Training for Strength
and Endurance
The interaction between resistance and endur-
ance training in untrained individuals was first
studied by Hickson.[28] In that study, concurrent
resistance and endurance training induced an in-
.
crease in VO2max similar to that with endurance
training alone, but attenuated muscular strength
gains compared with solely resistance training. The
author speculated that overtraining may have
caused the attenuated strength gain, as the concur-
rent training group performed both modes of exer-
cise each weekday and completed additional en-
durance training on the weekend, whereas the
resistance training group performed only resis-
tance exercises 5 days a week.[28] The data from
subsequent studies in which the training load was
reduced, however, confirm that the concurrent
training in sedentary individuals attenuates
strength gains when compared with resistance
training.[37,38]
Although the mechanism for this antagonism is
unresolved, the data from a recent concurrent train-
ing study in which active soldiers served as partic-
ipants[7] suggest that differential changes in fibre
size might contribute to the attenuation of muscular
strength gain induced by this training modality. In
that study, resistance training increased the size of
the type I, IIa and IIc fibres, whereas concurrent
training marginally reduced the size of the type I,
IIb and IIc fibres. These data suggest that endur-
ance training, even with resistance training super-
imposed, tends to produce smaller muscle fibre
areas than simple resistance training.[7] As dis-
cussed earlier, smaller muscle fibres and the asso-
ciated changes in myofibre contractile properties
induced by endurance training (i.e. decreased Vmax
in the type II fibres, increased Vmax in the type I
fibres and reduced peak tension development in all
fibres) may facilitate aerobic processes, while
compromising anaerobic power and muscular
strength. Indeed, the concurrent training group in
.
that study had a similar increase in VO2max to that
of the endurance-trained group, but an attenuated
gain in leg strength and Wingate anaerobic power
Sports Med 1998 Mar; 25 (3)
Interaction Between Resistance and Endurance Training
when compared with the resistance-trained group.
The data from the endurance-trained group further
support our argument, as this group experienced
. panied with an increase in VO2max.[29]
the largest increase in VO2max and the largest de-
crease in fibre size; the latter change, moreover,
was associated with slight reductions in leg
strength and Wingate anaerobic performance.[7]
Alternatively, the attenuation of strength gain in
sedentary or moderately active individuals after
concurrent training may be attributed to a time
course interaction, i.e. the body cannot adapt max-
imally to both training stimuli if they are initiated
simultaneously. This line of reasoning is supported
by the data that show the addition of resistance
exercises to the training regimen of well trained
endurance athletes does not attenuate strength
gains.[37] Additional support for this hypothesis is
provided by research on rodents which showed that
hypertrophying muscle experiences attenuated
gains in endurance, whereas previously hypertro-
phied muscle responds to endurance training sim-
ilarly to untrained muscle.[52,53]
3. Effects of Resistance Training on
Endurance Performance
3.1 Running Performance
Few studies have examined the impact of resis-
tance training on running performance. Improve-
ments in muscular strength and anaerobic power
acquired through resistance training could, how-
ever, help runners sustain attacks, climb hills or
sprint in the final minutes, which should enhance
running performance. Indeed, it has been reported
that anaerobic power is a critical determinant for
race success among cross-country runners who
. creased fibre size may further improve type I fibre
have similar VO2max values,[3] and that the fastest
long distance runners possess the most powerful
muscles.[54]
The first studies to examine effects of resistance
training on running performance used untrained
participants, which limits our ability to extend the
findings to highly trained runners. Nevertheless,
these studies showed that resistance training im-
proves leg strength by ≈25% and short term tread-
© Adis International Limited. All rights reserved.
195
mill performance by ≈10%.[29,32-35] This improved
time to exhaustion on the treadmill was not accom-
.
As with untrained individuals, resistance train-
ing also improves short term treadmill perfor-
mance, leg strength and anaerobic power in mod-
erately trained endurance athletes. Data from 1
study, for example, indicated that the addition of
resistance exercises to an endurance training regi-
men improves leg strength by 30% and short term
treadmill performance by 13%.[18] Similarly, an-
other study showed that resistance training in-
creases leg strength by 40% and vertical leap by 15%
in previously trained runners, indicating enhanced
anaerobic power and, hence, possibly running per-
formance.[37] Neither study found that resistance
.
training altered VO2max in endurance-trained indi-
viduals.[18,37]
The underlying muscular adaptations responsi-
ble for the improved short term running perfor-
mance are unknown. Because resistance training
decreases mitochondrial density and minimally
.
impacts VO2max, capillary density, substrate stores
and oxidative enzyme activities, the key mecha-
nism may be the increase in myofibre size and the
associated changes in myofibre contractile proper-
ties induced by resistance training. Although the
effect of resistance training on myofibre size in
highly trained runners has not been studied, con-
current training in active soldiers produced larger
myofibres and greater gains in strength and Win-
gate anaerobic performance than endurance train-
ing alone.[7] In short, if resistance training can in-
duce fibre hypertrophy in trained runners, then it
may reverse some of the muscular changes pro-
duced by endurance training. For example, in-
Vmax and attenuate or reverse the reduction in the
Vmax of the type II fibres and force production and
peak tension development in all fibres.[13-15,43,45]
Since faster, larger and stronger fibres generate
more force, resistance-trained runners may be able
to exercise longer at each absolute submaximal
work rate by reducing the force contribution from
each active myofibre or by using fewer of them. In
Sports Med 1998 Mar; 25 (3)
196
conjunction, a stronger type I fibre may allow re-
sistance-trained runners to delay the recruitment of
the less efficient type II fibres.[18,28]
Our hypothesis is indirectly supported by data
that show resistance training reduces the inte-
grated electromyography/muscle tension ratio at
absolute submaximal work rates in untrained indi-
viduals[55,56] and improves running economy in
trained runners.[57] These data can be interpreted in
at least 2 ways: (i) the degree of activation per mo-
tor unit/muscle fibre is lower; and/or (ii) fewer
motor units/muscle fibres are active.[58] Moreover,
based on the motor unit size principle, this latter
alternative implies that large motor unit activity is
reduced, i.e. fewer, less efficient type II fibres are
active. Additionally, it has been suggested that
running economy is partially related to type I fibre
percentage or Vmax or both factors.[59] Since resis-
tance training does not increase type I fibre per-
centage, it might improve running economy by
augmenting the increased Vmax seen in these fibres
after endurance training.
3.2 Cycling Performance
As with running, resistance training may im-
prove cycling performance, because dynamic mus-
cular strength is an essential component of those
facets of competitive road cycling requiring anaer-
obic and short term power output, such as attack-
ing, responding to an attack, climbing a short steep
hill or sprinting.[2] Indeed, the more highly rated
cyclists within the US Cycling Federation, the gov-
erning body for amateur cycling in America, had
significantly higher anaerobic power outputs than
the lower rated cyclists.[60] None of the work that
has examined the impact of resistance training on
cycling, however, has used trained cyclists as par-
ticipants, so it is uncertain if the results apply to
this population. Nonetheless, the data indicate that
resistance training may improve certain aspects of
cycling performance.
Data from the studies that examined the impact
of resistance training on cycling-specific anaerobic
power, for example, showed that this training mo-
dality increases Wingate anaerobic power (range:
© Adis International Limited. All rights reserved.
Tanaka & Swensen
6 to 17%) and leg muscular strength (range: 3 to
30%) in sedentary individuals, active soldiers and
elite swimmers.[7,61,62] Additional data showed that
resistance training improves leg strength by 35%
and short term cycling performance by 29% in un-
trained individuals.[29,30] Data from a subsequent
study indicated that the addition of resistance
training to a well trained endurance athlete’s exer-
cise programme also improves leg strength by 30%
and short term cycling performance by 11%.[18]
Moreover, the training programme increased long
term cycling capacity by 20%, as measured by time
.
to exhaustion at 80% of VO2max. This finding is
supported by data that show resistance training in-
.
creases time to exhaustion at 75% of VO2max by
33% in untrained individuals.[63] Note that the
.
mean change in absolute VO2max in the aforemen-
tioned studies was only 2%,[7,18,29,63] which indi-
.
cates that changes in VO2max did not contribute to
the improved endurance capacity.
The muscular adaptations responsible for the in-
creases in anaerobic power and short- or long term
endurance capacity are unknown. From a broad
perspective, the gains in anaerobic power correlate
well to the increases in leg strength.[61,64,65] From
a cellular perspective, we refer you to the hypoth-
esis elucidated in the previous section on running:
namely, the changes in fibre size, type II subtype
ratio, and myofibre contractile properties induced
by resistance training may allow individuals to ex-
ercise longer at a given absolute submaximal work
rate by reducing the force contribution from each
active myofibre or by using fewer myofibres. In
conjunction, the myofibre changes may also allow
individuals to delay the recruitment of the less ef-
ficient type II fibres.
Additional support for our hypothesis is found
in a study by Marcinik et al.,[63] whose data indi-
cated that the 33% increase in long term cycling
capacity induced by resistance training was associ-
ated with a 12% increase in the lactate threshold.
Indeed, mean blood lactate was 30% lower at the
same absolute submaximal work rate after training.
These data reflect a lower overall activation of the
working musculature, and hence, its mitochondria.
Sports Med 1998 Mar; 25 (3)
Interaction Between Resistance and Endurance Training
As a result, disturbance of cellular homeostasis
would be reduced, as would glycogenolysis and
lactate production.[39,59] Additional research is
needed to determine if resistance training can alter
cycling economy or glycogen depletion in the var-
ious types of myofibres, as such data would allow
us to discern if fibre recruitment patterns change.
3.3 Swimming Performance
As with competitive running and cycling, dy-
namic strength is an important determinant of
swimming performance. Many studies have re-
ported that upper-body muscular strength and/or
power output correlate highly with swim velocity
over distances ranging from 23 to 400m, with
average correlation coefficient values of 0.87 for
the shorter distance and 0.63 for the longer dis-
tance.[66-70] Hence, resistance training, through its
ability to increase muscular strength and anaer-
obic power, may improve endurance swim perfor-
mance.
Similar to running and cycling, the early studies
that examined the impact of resistance training on
swim performance used untrained participants.
Since many of these early studies did not include
a control group or provide information on the type
of exercise regimen used as the training stimu-
lus,[66,71,72] their data are difficult to interpret. The
data from the better controlled studies indicated
that traditional resistance training or combined
swim and resistance training was no more effective
than swim training in improving swim perfor-
mance in sedentary individuals. For instance,
Thompson and Stull[73] observed a significant im-
provement in swimming performance as a result of
concurrent resistance and swimming training, but
the swim training only group (or control group)
increased performance more than the combined
group. These results are supported by a report that
there were no differences between the swimming
only group and the combined swimming and re-
sistance training group in a 15-minute endurance
swim test.[72]
Recently, the effects of combined swim and tra-
ditional resistance training on swimming perfor-
© Adis International Limited. All rights reserved.
197
mance were examined using competitive colle-
giate swimmers.[74] Even though combined train-
ing increased upper body strength by ≈30%, it
did not produce faster sprint times or lower sub-
maximal blood lactate levels compared with swim
training. It was speculated that the strength gain
induced by the resistance training programme did
not translate into better performance because the
swimming stroke is highly technical, i.e. tradi-
tional resistance training is not specific enough to
improve swim performance. This hypothesis is
supported by data that show combined swim and
swim-specific (or ‘in-water’) resistance training
improves performance more than swim or com-
bined swim and traditional resistance training in
competitive swimmers.[70,75] In these studies,
swim-specific resistance exercise included: bio-
kinetic swim bench training, reverse current
hydrochannel swimming and in-water devices that
the athletes push off from while swimming. Addi-
tional data showed that in-water resistance training
in well conditioned children was more beneficial
than dry land resistance training.[76]
The data from the aforementioned studies indi-
cate that traditional resistance training or com-
bined swim and resistance training does not im-
prove endurance in competitive swimmers. In
contrast, combined swim and swim-specific resis-
tance training, particularly if executed ‘in-water’,
improves a competitive swimmer’s velocity over
distances up to 200m.[70] The effects of combined
swim and in-water resistance training on perfor-
mance over longer distances are unknown. Inter-
estingly, traditional and swim-specific dry land re-
sistance training induced greater gains in upper
body strength than in-water resistance training,
whereas the latter training modality more favoura-
bly impacted those factors associated with im-
proved stroke mechanics, such as stroke force and
distance per stroke.[70,74,76] These data support the
contention that stoke mechanics are an important
determinant for swim success, and imply that they
may be more crucial than upper body strength in
determining swimming velocity.[70,74,76-78]
Sports Med 1998 Mar; 25 (3)
198
4. Conclusion
Traditional resistance training may be a valu-
able adjunct to the exercise programmes followed
by runners and cyclists, as it improves anaerobic
power and short and long term endurance capacity
in sedentary or trained athletes. Whether resistance
training improves endurance performance in elite
cyclists or runners is unknown. Nonetheless, the
data suggest that resistance training may be useful
as a form of cross-training for these athletes, par-
ticularly in the off-season when they require a re-
spite from their normal exercise modality, while
also maintaining muscular strength, power and
work capacity. The benefit of year-round resistance
exercises is an unresolved issue that cannot be ad-
dressed until we compare resistance training to
sport-specific interval training. In contrast, tradi-
tional (or dry land) resistance training or combined
swim and resistance training does not appear to
improve endurance swimming performance in un-
trained or competitive swimmers. Combined swim
and ‘in-water’ resistance training, however, in-
creases a competitive swimmer’s velocity over var-
ious distances during the season, which implies
that this type of resistance training is a valuable
form of cross-training throughout the year.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Drs Jeffrey Widrick and
Edward Howley for their helpful comments.
References
1. McCafferty WB, Horvath SM. Specificity of exercise and speci-
ficity of training: a subcellular review. Res Q 1977; 48 (2):
358-71
2. Burke EB. Improved cycling performance through strength
training. Natl Strength Cond Assoc J 1983; 5 (3) : 6-7, 70-71
3. Bulbulian R, Wilcox AR, Darabos BL. Anaerobic contribution
to distance running performance of trained cross-country ath-
letes. Med Sci Spors Exerc 1986; 18 (1): 107-18
4. Daniels J, Scardina N. Interval training and performance. Sports
Med 1984; 1: 327-34
5. Tanaka H. Effects of cross-training: transfer of training effects
.
on V O2 max between cycling, running and swimming. Sports
Med 1994; 18 (5): 330-9
6. Staron RS, Leonardi MJ, Karapondo DL, et al. Strength and
skeletal muscle adaptations in heavy-resistance-trained
women after detraining and retraining. J Appl Physiol 1991;
70 (2): 631-40
© Adis International Limited. All rights reserved.
Tanaka & Swensen
7. Kraemer WJ, Patton JF, Gordon SE, et al. Compatibility of high-
intensity strength and endurance training on hormonal and
skeletal muscle adaptations. J Appl Physiol 1995; 78 (3): 976-89
8. MacDougall JD. Morphological changes in human skeletal
muscle following strength training and immobilization. In:
Jones NL, McCartney N, McComas AJ, editors. Human mus-
cle power. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics Publishers,
1986: 269-85
9. Houston ME, Froese EA, Valeriote SP, et al. Muscle perfor-
mance, morphology and metabolic capacity during strength
training and detraining: a one leg model. Eur J Appl Physiol
1983; 51: 25-35
10. Tesch PA, Komi PV, Hakkinen K. Enzymatic adaptations con-
sequent to long-term strength training. Int J Sports Med 1987;
8: 66-9
11. Goldberg AL, Etlinger JD, Goldspink DF, et al. Mechanism of
work-induced hypertrophy of skeletal muscle. Med Sci Sports
1975; 7: 185-98
12. Gonyea WJ, Sale D. Physiology of weight-lifting exercise. Arch
Phys Med Rehabil 1982; 63: 235-7
13. Widrick JJ, Trappe SW, Costill DL, et al. Force-velocity and
force-power properties of single muscle fibers from elite mas-
ter runners and sedentary men. Am J Physiol 1996; 271:
C676-83
14. Widrick JJ, Trappe SW, Blaser CA, et al. Isometric force and
maximal shortening velocity of single muscle fibers from elite
master runners. Am J Physiol 1996; 271: C666-75
15. Fitts RH, Widrick JJ. Muscle mechanics: adaptations with ex-
ercise-training. In: Holloszy JO, editor. Exercise and sport
sciences reviews. Vol. 24. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins,
1996: 427-73
16. Abernethy PJ, Jurimae J, Logan PA, et al. Acute and chronic
response of skeletal muscle to resistance exercise. Sports Med
1994; 17 (1): 22-38
17. Klitgaard H, Zhou M, Richter EA. Myosin heavy chain compo-
sition of single fibres from m. biceps brachii of male body
builders. Acta Physiol Scand 1990; 140: 175-80
18. Hickson RC, Dvorak BA, Gorostiaga EM, et al. Potential for
strength and endurance training to amplify endurance perfor-
mance. J Appl Physiol 1988; 65 (5): 2285-90
19. Nelson AG, Arnall DA, Loy SF, et al. Consequences of combin-
ing strength and endurance training regimens. Phys Ther
1990; 70 (5): 287-94
20. Tesch PA, Thorsson A, Colliander EB. Effects of eccentric and
concentric resistance training on skeletal muscle substrates,
enzyme activities and capillary supply. Acta Physiol Scand
1990; 140: 575-80
21. Thorstensson A, Hulten B, Doblen WV, et al. Effect of strength
training on enzyme activities and fiber characteristics in hu-
man skeletal muscle. Acta Physiol Scand 1976; 96: 392-8
22. Saltin B, Gollnick PD. Skeletal muscle adaptability: signifi-
cance for metabolism and performance. In: Peachey LD,
Adrian RH, Geiger SR, editors. Handbook of physiology. Sec-
tion 10: skeletal muscle. Bethesda (MD): American Physio-
logical Society, 1983: 555-631
23. Luthi JM, Howald H, Claassen H, et al. Structural changes in
skeletal muscle tissue with heavy-resistance exercise. Int J
Sports Med 1986; 7: 123-7
24. Hather BM, Tesch PA, Buchanan P, et al. Influence of eccentric
actions on skeletal muscle adaptations to resistance training.
Acta Physiol Scand 1991; 143: 177-85
25. Schantz P. Capillary supply in hypertrophied human skeletal
muscle. Acta Physiol Scand 1982; 114: 635-7
Sports Med 1998 Mar; 25 (3)
Interaction Between Resistance and Endurance Training
26. Tesch PA, Thorsson A, Kaiser P. Muscle capillary supply and
fiber type characteristics in weight and power lifters. J Appl
Physiol 1984; 56 (1): 35-8
27. MacDougall JD, Ward GR, Sale DG, et al. Biochemical adap-
tation of human skeletal muscle to heavy resistance training
and immobilization. J Appl Physiol 1977; 43 (4): 700-3
28. Hickson RC. Interference of strength development by simulta-
neously training for strength and endurance. Eur J Appl Phys-
iol 1980; 45: 255-63
29. Hickson RC, Rosenkoetter MA, Brown MM. Strength training
effects on aerobic power and short-term endurance. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 1980; 12 (5): 336-9
30. O’Bryant HS, Byrd R, Stone MH. Cycle ergometer perfor-
mance and maximum leg and hip strength adaptations to two
different methods of weight training. J Appl Sports Sci Res
1988; 2 (2): 27-30
31. Duchateau J, Hainaut K. Isometric or dynamic training: differ-
ential effects on mechanical properties of a human muscle. J
Appl Physiol 1984; 56 (2): 296-301
32. Gettman LR, Ayres JJ, Pollock ML, et al. The effect of circuit
weight training on strength, cardiorespiratory function, and
body composition of adult men. Med Sci Sports 1978; 10 (3):
171-6
33. Gettman LR, Ayres JJ, Pollock ML, et al. Physiologic effects
on adult men of circuit strength training and jogging. Arch
Phys Med Rehabil 1979; 60: 115-20
34. Gettman LR, Ward P, Hagan RD. A comparison of combined
running and weight training with circuit weight training. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 1982; 14 (3): 229-34
35. Wilmore JH, Parr RB, Girandola RN, et al. Physiological alter-
ations consequent to circuit weight training. Med Sci Sports
1978; 10 (2): 79-84
36. Hurley BF, Seals DR, Ehsani AA, et al. Effects of high-intensity
strength training on cardiovascular function. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 1984; 16 (5): 483-8
37. Hunter G, Demment R, Miller D. Development of strength and
maximum oxygen uptake during simultaneous training for
strength and endurance. J Sports Med 1987; 27 (3): 269-75
38. Dudley GA, Djamil R. Incompatibility of endurance- and
strength-training modes of exercise. J Appl Physiol 1985; 59
(5): 1446-51
39. Holloszy JO, Coyle EF. Adaptations of skeletal muscle to en-
durance exercise and their metabolic consequences. J Appl
Physiol 1984; 56 (4): 831-8
40. Simoneau JA, Lortie G, Boulay MR, et al. Human skeletal mus-
cle fiber type alteration with high-intensity intermittent train-
ing. Eur J Appl Physiol 1985; 54: 250-3
41. Tesch PA, Karlsson J. Muscle fiber types and size in trained and
untrained muscles of elite athletes. J Appl Physiol 1985; 59
(6): 1716-20
42. Howald H, Hoppeler H, Claassen H, et al. Influences of endur-
ance training on the ultrastructural composition of the differ-
ent muscle fiber types in humans. Pflugers Arch 1985; 403:
369-76
43. Fitts RH, Costill DL, Gardetto PR. Effect of swim exercise
training on human muscle fiber function. J Appl Physiol
1989; 66: 465-75
44. Gollnick PD, Armstrong RB, Saltin B, et al. Effect of training
on enzyme activity and fiber composition of human skeletal
muscle. J Appl Physiol 1973; 34 (1): 107-11
45. Fitts RH, Holloszy JO. Contractile properties of rat soleus mus-
cle: effects of training and fatigue. Am J Physiol 1977; 233:
C86-91
© Adis International Limited. All rights reserved.
199
46. Fitzsimons DP, Diffe GM, Herrick RE, et al. Effects of endur-
ance exercise on isomyosin patterns in fast- and slow-twitch
skeletal muscle. J Appl Physiol 1990; 68 (5): 1950-5
47. Staron RS. Correlation between myofibrillar ATPase activity
and myosin heavy chain composition in single human muscle
fibers. Histochemistry 1991; 96: 21-4
48. Morgan DW, Bransford DR, Costill DL, et al. Variations in the
aerobic demand of running among trained and untrained sub-
jects. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995; 27 (3): 404-9
49. Costill DL. The relationship between selected physiological
variables and distance running performance. J Sports Med
1967; 7: 61-6
50. Jones NL, McCartney N. Influence of muscle power on aerobic
performance and the effects of training. Acta Med Scand
1986; 711 Suppl.: 115-22
51. Ono M, Miyashita M, Asami T. Inhibitory effect of long dis-
tance running training on the vertical jump and other perfor-
mances among aged males. In: Komi P, editor. Biomechanics
V-B. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1976: 94-100
52. Stone J, Brannon T, Haddad F, et al. Adaptive responses of
hypertrophying skeletal muscle to endurance training. J Appl
Physiol 1996; 81 (2): 665-72
53. Riedy M, Moore RL, Gollnick PD. Adaptive response of hyper-
trophied skeletal muscle to endurance training. J Appl Physiol
1985; 59 (1): 127-31
54. Noakes TD. Implications of exercise testing for prediction of
athletic performance: a contemporary perspective. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 1988; 20 (4): 319-30
55. Komi PV, Viitasalo JT, Rauramaa R, et al. Effect of isometric
strength training on mechanical, electrical, and metabolic as-
pects of muscle function. Eur J Appl Physiol 1978; 40: 45-55
56. Moritani T, deVries HA. Neural factors versus hypertrophy in
the time course of muscle strength gain. Am J Physical Med
1979; 58 (3): 115-30
57. Johnston RE, Quinn TJ, Kertzer R, et al. Improving running
economy through strength training. Strength Cond 1995; 17
(4): 7-12
58. Basmajian JV, DeLuca CJ. Muscles alive: their functions re-
vealed by electromyography. Baltimore: Williams and Wil-
kins, 1985
59. Coyle EF. Integration of the physiological factors determining
endurance performance ability. In: Holloszy JO, editor. Exer-
cise and sport sciences reviews. Vol 23. Baltimore: Williams
and Wilkins, 1995: 25-63
60. Tanaka H, Bassett J, Swensen TC, et al. Aerobic and anaerobic
power characteristics of competitive cyclists in the United
States Cycling Federation. Int J Sports Med 1993; 14 (6):
334-8
61. Inbar O, Kaiser P, Tesch P. Relationships between leg muscle
fiber type distribution and leg exercise performance. Int J
Sports Med 1981; 2: 154-9
62. Petersen SR, Miller GD, Wenger HA, et al. The acquisition of
muscular
.
strength: the influence of training velocity and ini-
tial V O2 max. Can J Appl Sport Sci 1984; 9 (4): 176-80
63. Marcinik EJ, Potts J, Schlabach G, et al. Effects of strength
training on lactate threshold and endurance performance.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 1991; 23 (6): 739-43
64. Rutherford OM, Greig CA, Sargeant AJ, et al. Strength training
and power output: transference effects in the human quadri-
ceps muscle. J Sports Sci 1986; 4: 101-7
65. Smith DJ. The relationship between anaerobic power and
isokinetic torque outputs. Can J Sports Sci 1987; 12 (1): 3-5
Sports Med 1998 Mar; 25 (3)
200
66. Costill D, Sharp R, Troup J. Muscle strength: contributions to
sprint swimming. Swim World 1980; 21: 29-34
67. Davis JF. Effects of training and conditioning for middle dis-
tance swimming upon various physical measures. Res Q
1959; 30 (4): 399-412
68. Hawley JA, Williams MM. Relationship between upper body
anaerobic power and freestyle swimming performance. Int J
Sports Med 1991; 12 (1): 1-5
69. Sharp RL, Troup JP, Costill DL. Relationship between power
and freestyle swimming. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1982; 14 (1):
53-6
70. Toussaint HM, Vervoorn K. Effects of specific high resistance
training in the water on competitive swimmers. Int J Sports
Med 1990; 11 (3): 228-33
71. Davis JF. The effect of weight training on speed in swimming.
Physical Educator 1955; 12: 28-9
72. Nunney DK. Relation of circuit training to swimming. Res Q
1960; 31 (2): 188-98
73. Thompson HL, Stull GA. Effects of various training programs
on speed of swimming. Res Q 1959; 30 (4): 479-85
© Adis International Limited. All rights reserved.
Tanaka & Swensen
74. Tanaka H, Costill DL, Thomas R, et al. Dry-land resistance
training for competitive swimming. Med Sci Sports Exerc
1993; 25 (8): 952-9
75. Kiselev AP. The use of specific resistance in highly qualified
swimmers’ strength training. Sov Sports Rev 1991; 26 (3): 131-2
76. Bulgakova NZ, Vorontsov AR, Fomichenko TG. Improving the
technical preparedness of young swimmers by using strength
training. Sov Sports Rev 1990; 25 (2): 102-4
77. Costill DL, Kovaleski J, Porter D, et al. Energy expenditure
during front crawl swimming: predicting success in middle-
distance events. Int J Sports Med 1985; 6 (5): 266-70
78. Craig AB, Skehan PL, Pawelczyk JA, et al. Velocity, stroke rate,
and distance per stroke during elite swimming competition.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 1985; 17 (6): 625-34
Correspondence and reprints: Dr Hirofumi Tanaka, Depart-
ment of Kinesiology, University of Colorado at Boulder,
Boulder, CO 80309-0354, USA.
E-mail: tanakah@colorado.edu
Sports Med 1998 Mar; 25 (3)