THE EFFECTS OF CONCURRENT ENDURANCE AND
RESISTANCE TRAINING ON 2,000-M ROWING
ERGOMETER TIMES IN COLLEGIATE MALE ROWERS
DANE GALLAGHER,1 LORETTA DIPIETRO,1 AMANDA J. VISEK,1 JOHN M. BANCHERI,2
1
AND TODD A. MILLER
1
Department of Excercise Science, The George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC; and 2Department of
Student Life, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, Michigan
ABSTRACT
Gallagher, D, DiPietro, L, Visek, AJ, Bancheri, JM, and Miller, TA.
The effects of concurrent endurance and resistance training on
2,000-m rowing ergometer times in collegiate male rowers.
J Strength Cond Res 24(5): 1208–1214, 2010—The current study
evaluated if high rep, low rep, or no weight training at all would be
best suited for decreasing 2,000-m rowing ergometer times in
male varsity rowers. Subjects (n = 18) were rowers from Grand
Valley State University who were randomly and equally assigned to
1 of 3 groups: control (CON), high-load low repetitions (HLLR),
and low-load high repetitions (LLHR). The weight training groups
resistance trained and rowed twice a week, whereas the control
group only rowed twice a week. Each group performed the training
study workouts (weight training and rowing) along with their daily
prescribed varsity practices. The subjects performed both pre and
post 2,000-m ergometer tests on concept 2 indoor rowers to
evaluate the effects of each training protocol. Paired t-tests
revealed statistically significant decreases in 2,000-m times from
pre to posttesting for all groups (p , 0.05), whereas a 1-way
analysis of variance with repeated measures did not reveal
a statistically significant difference (p , 0.96) between the 3
groups (DCON: 22.8%, DLLHR: 23.1%, and DHLLR: 23.5%).
However, a trend existed in the hypothesized direction, as the
HLLR illustrated the greatest decrease in mean rowing time (CON:
11 seconds, LLHR: 12 seconds, and HLLR: 15 seconds). Overall,
the current study demonstrates that although weight training does
not create a statistically significant short-term training effect on
rowing performance, the profound decreases in 2,000-m times
seen in this study may be of practical significance for the oarsman.
KEY WORDS rowing, crew, high load, low load, rowing
ergometer, over distance
Address correspondence to Todd A. Miller, tamiller@gwu.edu.
24(5)/1208–1214
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2010 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
1208 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
INTRODUCTION
C
oncurrent training is the idea of combining
both endurance training and weight training into
1 program (1). Although research on this topic is
limited, the majority of studies illustrate that during
concurrent training, athletes are prone to either a reduction or
no improvement in strength gains or a reduction or no
improvement in endurance gains, compared with training for
each separately (3,4,6,7,10,12). However, some studies are
now confirming that concurrent strength and endurance
training are more effective in improving athletic performance
than are either endurance or strength training separately
(1,8,9,13). These contradictory findings are difficult to
interpret for endurance athletes looking for enhanced concur-
rent training programs. One group of athletes in particular,
rowers, rely heavily on both power and endurance to excel at
their sport. However, the most effective way for them to train
for improved athletic performance remains unclear.
Despite the aerobic energy demands during rowing,
anaerobic factors play an important role in an oarsman’s
overall success. Hickson et al. noted that certain types of
endurance sports, particularly those requiring fast-twitch fiber
recruitment, can be improved by strength training supplemen-
tation (8). Gains to this system could be useful during starts,
surges in pace, and sprint finishes. Nonetheless, many rowing
coaches believe, because rowing is 70–80% aerobic (11), that if
the training stimulus does not increase their athlete’s V_ O2max
then that training stimulus is not specific to rowing and should
not be continued, because it may deter from the primary
source of performance gains. However, there is little empirical
evidence that illustrates that resistance training will decrease or
increase a rower’s performance, creating controversy for
concurrent endurance and resistance training for oarsmen.
Unfortunately, this lack of research on the technical and
physical demands of rowers, and potentially improving them
through weight training, leaves professionals still questioning
the idiosyncrasies of the sport, because the physiological
demands of a rower during a 2,000-m race are quite intense.
During the 6- to 7-minute all-out effort race, the rower works
anaerobic alactic, anaerobic lactic, and aerobic systems to

their maximal capacity. Even though aerobic fitness accounts
for the majority of rowing performance, muscular power and
maximum strength also play a significant role in rowing
success. Because of the components of hydrodynamics, to
amplify oar velocity, oarsmen must increase their muscular
force to overcome increased water resistance, illustrating
muscular strength as a limiting factor in hull speed (15).
With regards to rowing-specific weight training protocols,
3 researchers have proposed diverging viewpoints that lead
to the development of the current study. McNeely supports
using high percentages of 1RM, usually between 85 and 95%
or less than 6 repetitions, resistance training (5,11). However,
unlike McNeely et al., Ebben et al. compared and propose
moderately high repetitions (67–85% or 6–12) and high
repetitions (,67% or 15–32) to effectively increase perfor-
mance (5). McNeely and Ebben both support resistance
training for rowers but disagree on the optimal mode of
training, whereas Bell et al. disagree with both McNeely and
Ebben, stating that an emphasis on resistance training is
useless in developing rowing prowess because it restricts the
volume of specific training for the oarsman (2).
Overall, the conflicting weight training research along with
the opposing concurrent training research makes it difficult
for rowers to find an optimal training method. Therefore, the
purpose of this study was to test the effects of concurrent
endurance and resistance training while comparing both
high- and low-load resistance training protocols. Two
hypotheses were developed from the review of the literature:
(a) both concurrent endurance and resistance training groups
will demonstrate greater improvements on 2,000-m rowing
ergometer times than the nonweight training control group;
(b) the high-load group will demonstrate greater improve-
ments on 2,000-m rowing ergometer times than both the low-
load group and non–weight training group.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
As previously stated, concurrent endurance and resistance
training has been shown to increase, decrease, or show no
alterations in athletic performance. To determine the effects of
combined endurance and resistance training on 2,000-m
rowing ergometer times (dependent variable), 18 male rowers
were randomly and equally divided into 3 groups (independent
variable) consisting of a control group (CON), high-load and
low repetition (HLLR) weight training group, and a low-load,
high-repetition weight training group (LLHR). Pre and post
2,000-m rowing ergometer tests were performed for all
subjects, with the 2 experimental groups performing resistance
training for 8 weeks as an intervention. All subjects performed
identical weekly twice rowing workouts for 50 minutes per
session in addition to their regularly scheduled team practices.
Subjects
The subjects consisted of 18 male rowers from Grand Valley
State University (GVSU). Participants had diverse rowing
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
backgrounds and ranged in years of rowing, rowing
preferences (starboard or port), height, weight, and ages.
The athletes in this study have had great success in the rowing
community, and the subject pool included 2 first team All
American ACRA Inductees, third place—American Collegiate
Rowing Association (ACRA) National Championships
Men’s Varsity Eight, and fourth place—Head of The Charles
Men’s Collegiate Eight. A qualifying variable for the
participants was that they were full-time rowers and on the
official team roster. Before beginning the study, athletes had
been performing unsupervised training for the previous 3
months. This training included resistance training, rowing,
and various crosstraining types of activities. The investigation
was approved by the Institutional Review Board for use of
Human subjects at the George Washington University, before
data collection. Participants were recruited via an informa-
tional session held by GVSU’s head rowing coach, and all
participants completed written informed consent documen-
tation before actively engaging in the prescribed training
study.
Research Design
Subjects were randomly and equally assigned to 1 of 3 groups,
before the research began, by randomly picking names from
a hat. As stated previously, groups were labeled CON, HLLR,
and LLHR. Subjects in the resistance training groups strength
trained twice weekly for approximately 50 minutes per
session, and all subjects performed identical rowing workouts
twice weekly for approximately 50 minutes per session, all in
addition to their regularly scheduled practices. All subjects
underwent a 2,000-m rowing ergometer test before and after
the 8-week resistance training and rowing intervention
period.
Instrumentation
The athletes were evaluated on their pre and post 2,000-meter
rowing ergometer times using a concept 2 model D or
C indoor rowing ergometer. This machine simulates the
rowing stroke and displays individualized data such as stroke
rate, wattage, time, average 500-m splits, and caloric expendi-
ture. The concept 2 models D and C can both be calibrated
by using specific drag factors that increase or decrease the
amount of resistance produced by the flywheel. Because
each machine can be calibrated to the same resistance, there is
no difference between the 2 in collecting individualized data.
The overall time to perform the 2,000-m rowing ergometer
test was used as the dependent variable for the study.
Rowing requires the use of all major muscle groups: starting
with the legs then to the back and then finishing with the
arms. The workout program developed for this study was
designed to strengthen each of the major muscle groups
used for rowing. Both free weights and resistance training
machines were used in the training groups. Subjects’ weight
scores were recorded as the amount lifted for each set. For
both the resistance and rowing ergometer training, athletes
used a supplied journal to monitor their training progress.
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2010 | 1209
Concurrent Endurance and Resistance Training

Procedures
Ergometer Testing. Before the commencement of the 8-week
training programs, athletes were evaluated on a 2,000-m TABLE 2. Eight-week high-load low-repetition
rowing ergometer test at GVSU’s rowing training center; the schedule.
ergometers were calibrated to the 130-drag factor. The test Week Sets Reps Total reps
took place in the morning, and rowers did not fast before the
test and were allowed to consume their usual morning 1 4 5 20
breakfast foods and liquids. Athletes arrived at the rowing 2 5 4 20
3 5 3 15
training center 45 minutes before the test and warmed up 4 3 5, 3, 1 9
on the ergometers for 10 minutes. The warm-up consisted of 5 4 5 20
5 minutes of easy rowing immediately followed by 2 30-second 6 5 4 20
race pace pieces, with each piece separated by 2 minutes of 7 5 3 15
easy rowing. The rowers were given 5 minutes before the test 8 3 5, 3, 1 9
started to stretch and to drink water. The rowing ergometers
were set at 2,000 m and counted down to 0 m, with athletes
using any monitor display setting they felt comfortable with.
There was no capped stroke rate and athletes were expected
weeks of training, athletes were required to outperform their
to exert maximal effort for the duration of the entire test. All
previous best for that prescribed repetition maximum (RM)
athletes were highly verbally encouraged during the test.
by at least 5 lb. Also, in every session, athletes were required to
record their total weight for each exercise; total weight was
Resistance Training Protocol. Athletes in both the HLLR and found by adding up the loads used for each set.
LLHR training groups trained for 8 weeks, completing The following month, athletes were required to exceed
2 workouts per week. The 2 workouts were comprised of their previous total weight records from month 1. This was
exercises that did not change during the 2 months of training achieved by increasing each set of every exercise by at least
(Table 1). However, the set and repetitions changed weekly 5 lb or more. If athletes could not achieve the 5 -lb increase,
with repetitions becoming lower each week (Tables 2 and 3). they were expected to maintain the previous load from the
The first month was identical to the second month with preceding month. Ideally, loads continuously increased
regards to training frequency, exercises, and set and throughout the 8 weeks of training. At the conclusion of
repetition assignments per week. the 8-week training program, athletes were given a recovery
Repetitions decreased throughout the first month of week to rest from the 2 months of training. This time was of
training; therefore, athletes were expected to increase the importance, as it allowed restitution and the development
load for each set, of every exercise, every week. During the of a supercompensated performance baseline (15). During the
first month, a 5-lb increase was expected for every set of every recovery week, athletes were encouraged to only participate
exercise for each week of training. If athletes could not achieve in the prescribed team schedule set by their coach.
the 5-lb increase, they were expected to maintain the previous The athletes were required to work to maximal voluntary
load used the preceding week. During the fourth and eighth contractions during their weight lifting sets, that is, hitting
failure on their last repetition. Because of the high level of
fatigue achieved from each set, athletes took 2 minutes of rest

TABLE 1. Weight lifting exercises used by both high-

load low repetitions and low-load high-repetition
groups during the 8-week training program.
TABLE 3. Eight-week low-load high-repetition
Day 1 Day 2 schedule.
Barbell flat bench Barbell incline bench Week Sets Reps Total reps
press press
Leg press (machine) Barbell deadlift 1 2 30 60
Dumbbell shoulder Barbell overhead press 2 2 20 40
press 3 3 15 45
Upright barbell rows Lateral pulldowns 4 3 30, 20, 15 65
Seated row (machine) Dumbbell bent over rows 5 2 30 60
Hamstring curls Hamstring single leg curls 6 2 20 40
(machine) (machine) 7 3 15 45
Barbell bicep curls Tricep extensions 8 3 30, 20, 15 65

the TM

1210 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

 the TM

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

between each exercise. Athletes

were informed by their coach
on how to properly perform TABLE 4. Demographic descriptors of 18 varsity male rowers from Grand Valley State
RM weight training. The var- University.*
sity rowers had previous re- Control Low load High load
sistance training experience
with the prescribed exercises Age (y) 20.2 6 0.87 20.25 6 0.96 20.8 6 0.84
Height (in.) 74 6 3.21 74.75 6 1.71 68 6 8.0
and were able to self-determine
Weight (lb) 181.2 6 15.13 186.25 6 11.09 163.6 6 22.24
the proper loads for the re- Years rowing 66 0.68 2.75 6 0.5 6.8 6 0.84
quired RM. The coach in-
structed his athletes to use *Data are mean 6 SD.
1 or 2 warm-up sets (10–12 reps
of light to moderate weight)
before executing any heavy
lifting; the warm-up set was
not logged and was not added
TABLE 5. 2,000-m rowing ergometer times (s) before and after training in control, low-
to the total weight for that
load high-repetition and high-load low-repetition groups.
exercise. Each athlete only
recorded the performed RM Pretest Posttest A time (s) % DES
load for each set, of every
Control (n = 5) 430.1 6 3.6 418.3 6 5.4* 211.8 2.8
exercise, in the training log Low load (n = 6) 398.6 6 5 386.2 6 4.4* 212.4 3.2
provided by the coach. High load (i = 7) 417.9 6 6.6 403.3 6 4.7* 214.6 3.5
Rowing Training Protocol. All *p , 0.05 within-group improvements based on paired t-tests. ES = Ergometer Score.
subjects performed a total of
16 rowing training sessions
during the 8-week training
period, using either a rowing
ergometer or on the water. All
workouts were of long duration
and were intended to be per-
formed 18–25 seconds above
the athlete’s maximum 2,000-m
average 500-m split. During
ergometer training, the drag
factor was set at 130. Each
week was composed of 2 train-
ing sessions, and at the begin-
ning of week 5, the workouts
started over and repeated
themselves from week 1. The
athletes recorded their average
500-m splits, for each workout,
in their training log provided by
the coach.
Figure 1. Percent change in 2,000-m rowing ergometer times after an 8-week training cycle (p , 0.96).
Statistical Analyses
The primary outcome variable
of interest was 2,000-m time
(seconds). Univariate statistics (mean 6 SE; %) were first RESULTS
generated on the study variable. Within-group differences in The 3 groups were similar in height, weight, age, and years of
the study outcomes before and after training were tested with rowing (Table 4). Athletes participating in both the HLLR
paired t-tests. Differences in training-related improvements and LLHR groups showed improvements in overall upper
(time and percent change) among the 3 groups were tested body and lower body strength, as the LLHR group increased
using a 1-way analysis of variance with repeated measures. total weight for all exercises by 367 lb and the HLLR group
Statistical significance was set at an a-level of ,0.05. increased by 125 lb. The LLHR group experienced a 9.44%

VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2010 | 1211

Concurrent Endurance and Resistance Training

changes in 2,000-m ergometer

rowing performance are shown
in Figures 2A–C. Intergroup
analysis did not show a statisti-
cal difference between the
3 groups (p , 0.96).
Groups were then stratified
by years of rowing to deter-
mine whether rowing experience
served as an effect modifier to
the relation between training
method and training-related
improvements among the
groups; however, the results were
unchanged (data not shown).

DISCUSSION
This study integrated 2 popular
weight training methods that
are used by a multitude of
rowers. One method focused
on developing muscular endur-
ance and the other focused on
developing maximal strength.
Unlike Ebben et al., we focused
on developing our rowers with
distinct high loads and distinct
low loads (5). This particular
approach allowed for the eval-
uation of effects of 2 different
weight training methods on
rowing endurance training,
specifically on 2,000-m rowing
ergometer times. The goal was
to determine if the specific
weight training improvements
would carry over and show
significant differences during
rowing ergometer testing and
increase overall rowing perform-
ances. Our results illustrated
Figure 2. (A) Change in individual 2,000-m rowing ergometer times in control group (CON) subjects after an 8- that athletes participating in
week training cycle. (B) Change in individual 2,000-m rowing ergometer times in low-load high rep subjects after an
8-week training cycle. (C) Change in individual 2,000-m rowing ergometer times in high-load low-rep subjects after the weight training protocols
an 8-week training cycle. became better resistance train-
ers over the 8-week cycle, but
did not become better athletes
on the rowing ergometer, based
relative increase in overall body strength, whereas the HLLR on overall percent change, than those athletes who did not
group experienced a 2.02% relative increase in overall body weight train. Even though the athletes were stronger, their
strength. generalized strength gains did not increase rowing perform-
All groups showed statistically significant improvements ances, regardless of the weight training method used.
in 2,000-m rowing ergometer times after 8 weeks of training These conclusions agree with those of Bell et al. who also
(Table 5). The HLLR group experienced a 23.4% change in found similar results with experienced male rowers who
performance, whereas the LLHR group had a 23.1% change trained with high- and low-velocity resistance training
and the control had a 22.8% change (Figure 1). Individual programs (2). Our results show that the supplemental effect
the TM

1212 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research


of resistance training does not substantially decrease an
athlete’s rowing ergometer time when compared with a
control group. These results disagree with those of Balabinis
et al., who stated that concurrent endurance and strength
training is more effective than training the 2 aspects sepa-
rately (1). However, Balabinis et al. trained basketball players,
whereas we were training rowers, who typically have more
aerobic aptitude. Our study did not illustrate a synergistic
training effect while simultaneously combining endurance
and resistance training when developing varsity oarsmen.
Dudley et al. also found similar results where concurrent
endurance and strength groups showed changes in peak cycle
ergometer V_ O2 of similar magnitude and linearity as the
endurance-only group (4). They concluded that performance
of both modes of training does not alter the adaptability of
the factors that govern increases in peak cycle ergometer
V_ O2. Our study illustrates that adding resistance training to
an endurance-oriented sport is not going to modify aerobic
power induced by endurance training only. However, Hickson
et al. claim that strength training might be compatible
with improving performance in endurance sports that require
fast-twitch fiber recruitment (8), such as rowing, possibly
because of the increased contractile protein per cross-sectional
area, but this idea was not supported by the current study.
According to Ebben et al., periodized resistance training
improves endurance performance in women rowers; re-
sistance training adaptations are similar among genders (14),
regardless of its effects on V_ O2max (5). Our results show
similarities because both the high- and low-load groups
showed decreases in 2,000-m rowing ergometer times after
8 weeks of concurrent endurance and resistance training.
Their high-load group had a decrease of 7 6 8 seconds, and
their high repetition group had a decrease of 4 6 6 seconds.
These findings are comparable to our results, because our
high-load group had a decrease of 15 seconds and the low-
load group had a decrease of 12 seconds on their posttesting
averages. However, our study adds to Ebbens’ findings by
including a control group, which demonstrated an 11-second
decrease.
The control group allowed us to evaluate the effectiveness
of the HLLR and LLHR groups. Although the 2 groups both
had statistically significant improvements in rowing ergom-
eter times, their improvements were not statistically greater
than the control’s or each other’s, illustrating that both modes
of resistance training allows for increased rowing perfor-
mance, but does not deliver a synergistic effect that is superior
to rowing endurance training only.
Although, the overall model was not statistically significant,
the trend in the data was in the hypothesized direction. For
example, the control group had an 11-second decrease in
overall mean time, whereas the low-load group demonstrated
a 12-second decrease, and the high-load group decreased by
15 seconds—this latter difference being nearly equivalent to
a boat length during a 2,000-meter sprint. It is likely that the
attrition of 3 athletes (2 from the control and 1 from the
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
LLHR group) and the overall low number of subjects
available in this study resulted in a lack of statistical power to
substantiate the trend toward a greater performance in the
resistance training groups. In addition to the small sample
size, the length of the study was only 8 weeks, which may not
have been long enough for some athletes to develop the
changes under investigation. Depending on their degree of
weight training before the study, athletes may have developed
strength primarily through a neural adaptation, and not
peripheral adaptations at the muscle. Therefore, the strength
gains seen in these athletes would likely have been greater
if the study were long enough to allow for physiological
changes at the myofiber level. Conversely, 8 weeks may have
been too short to see strength changes in subjects who
participated in chronic resistance training. A longer study
design would have allowed for more complete training
adaptations in both of these situations.
Nonetheless, training specificity plays a crucial role in
developing competitive endurance athletes and using modes
of training that do not have a great return on investment
should be avoided and replaced with specific exercises that
enhance performance, such as increasing the amount of
training time on the rowing ergometer to enhance aerobic
endurance, V_ O2max and lactate thresholds. Therefore,
training the actual movement itself rather than individual
muscles, through resistance training, is most beneficial.
However, competitive endurance athletes are still known
to incorporate some types of resistance training into their
regimens, but caution should be used to avoid excessive
fatigue and injury (7).
Ideally, a study that follows all athletes through chronic
training would be optimal from a quantitative analysis
standpoint, as 16 weight training sessions may not have been
enough to see any specific results. Additionally, a 5-day rest
period after the completion of strength training may have
been inadequate to allow for complete realization of strength
because of delayed transformation, and this may have
marginalized the results of the final 2,000-m rowing
ergometer test. The weight training groups in particular were
training an extra 2 h
wk21; therefore, they may have needed
more time to realize their supercompensated baseline when
compared with the control group.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
In the current study, the combined use of resistance training
and rowing did not result in any statistical improvement in
2,000-m rowing ergometer times over rowing alone.
However, the groups that used resistance training and rowing
enjoyed faster rowing times, with the high-load low-rep
group showing the greatest improvements. Although not
statistically significant, the high-load resistance training group
experienced a decrease in rowing time of 2.8 seconds more
than the control group, and 2.2 seconds more than the low-
load resistance training group. The authors feel that
the practical significance of this decreased rowing time in
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2010 | 1213
Concurrent Endurance and Resistance Training
the high-load weight training groups is profound, and
warrants the use of high-load resistance training for the
oarsman. Nonetheless, it is advised that the majority of
training for rowers consist of actual rowing, with resistance
training serving as an adjunct to that training. Further work
needs to be done to determine the optimal resistance training
prescription for rowing.
ACKNOWLEDGEMNTS
The authors would like to thank the rowers and coaches from
GVSU for donating their time, effort, and resources for the
completion of this study. The results of the present study do
not constitute endorsement of the Concept 2 indoor rower by
the authors or the NSCA.
REFERENCES
1. Balabinis, CP, Psarakis, CH, Moukas, M, and Vassiliou, MP. Early
phase changes by concurrent endurance and strength training.
J Strength Cond Res 17: 393–401, 2003.
2. Bell, GJ, Peterson, SR, Quinney, AH, and Wenger, HA. The effect of
velocity-specific strength training on peak torque and anearobic
rowing power. J Sports Sci 7: 205–214, 1989.
3. Bishop, D, Jenkins, DG, MacKinnon, LT, and McEniery, M. The
effects of strength training on endurance performance and muscle
characteristics. Med Sci Sports Exer 31: 886–891, 1999.
4. Dudley, GA and Djamil, R. Incompatibility of endurance and
strength training modes of exercise. J Appl Physiol 59: 1446–1451,
1985.
the TM
1214 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
5. Ebben, WP, Kindler, AG, Chirdon, KA, and Jenkins, NC. The effect
of high load vs. high repetition training on endurance performance.
J Strength Cond Res 18: 513–517, 2004.
6. Hennessy, LC and Watson, AW. The interference effects of training
for strength and endurance simultaneously. J Strength Cond 8: 12–19,
1994.
7. Hickson, RC. Interference of strength development by
simultaneously training for strength and endurance. Eur J Appl
Physiol 45: 255–263, 1980.
8. Hickson, RC, Dvorak, BA, Gorostiaga, EM, and Kurowski, TT.
Potential for strength and endurance training to amplify endurance
performance. J Appl Physiol 65: 2285–2290, 1988.
9. Hoff, J, Helgerud, J, and Wisloff, U. Maximal strength training
improves work economy in trained female cross-country skiers.
Med Sci Sports Exer 31: 870–877, 1999.
10. Kraemer, WJ, Patton, JF, Gordon, SE, and Harman, EA.
Compatibility of high-intensity strength and endurance training on
hormonal and skeletal muscle adaptations. J Appl Physiol 78: 976–
989, 1995.
11. McNeely, E, Sandler, D, and Bamel, S. Strength and power goals for
competitive rowers. Strength Cond J 27: 10–15, 2005.
12. Nelson, AG, Arnall, DA, Loy, SF, and Silvester, JL. Consequences
of combining strength and endurance training regimes. Phys Ther
70: 287–294, 1990.
13. Sale, DG, MacDougall, JD, Jacobs, I, and Garner, S. Interaction
between concurrent strength and endurance training. J Appl Physiol
68: 260–270, 1990.
14. Staron, RS, Karapondo, DL, Kraemer, AC, and Fry, SE. Skeletal
muscle adaptations during early phase of heavy-resistance training in
men and women. J Appl Physiol 76: 1247–1255, 1994.
15. Zatsiorsky, VM and Kraemer, WJ. Science and Practice of Strength
Training (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2006.