You are on page 1of 24

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print DOI: 10.1519/JSC.

0b013e31823f8b86

Changes in Strength over a Two Year Period in Professional Rugby Union Players

Brendyn Applebya, Robert U. Newtonb and Prue Cormieb


b

Corresponding author:

C C

EP

Brendyn Appleby Rugby WA PO 146 Floreat WA 6014 Phone: (+61 8) 9387 0754 Email: brendyn.appleby@rugbywa.com.au

TE
1

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Western Force, Rugby WA, Perth, Australia School of Exercise, Biomedical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to assess the magnitude of upper and lower body strength change in highly trained professional rugby union players following two years of training. An additional purpose was to examine if the changes in strength were influenced by starting strength level, lean mass index or chronological age. This longitudinal investigation tracked maximal strength and body composition over three consecutive years in 20 professional rugby union athletes. Maximal strength in the bench press and back squat as well as body composition was assessed during preseason resistance training sessions each year. Athletes completed a very rigorous training program throughout the duration of this study consisting of numerous resistance, conditioning and skills

training sessions every week. The primary findings of this study were: (1) maximal upper and lower body strength was increased by 6.5-11.5% following two years of training (p = 0.000-0.002 for bench press; p = 0.277-0.165 for squat); (2) magnitude of the improvement was negatively associated with

maximal strength was positively related to the change in LMI (an indicator of hypertrophy; r = 0.6920.880; p 0.05); and (4) magnitude of improvement was not associated with the age of professional rugby union athletes (r = -0.068 to -0.345). It appears particularly important for training programs to

union athletes this must be achieved in the face of high volumes of aerobic and skills training if strength is to be increased.

Key Words: resistance training, long term adaptations, diminishing returns, bench press, squat

C C

be designed for continued muscle hypertrophy in highly trained athletes. Even in professional rugby

EP

initial strength level (r = -0.569 to -0.712; p 0.05); (3) magnitude of improvement in lower body

TE

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

INTRODUCTION Rugby union is a collision based field sport, intermittent in nature, requiring high levels of endurance, strength, power, agility and speed, as well as proficiency in match related skills (1, 13, 14). Match analysis has detailed a highly varied and intermittent game, with a wide degree of physical situations utilising all energy systems (13). Forwards in particular have been identified as requiring high levels of strength for scrumming and contact/wrestling activities whilst backs perform a higher frequency of sprints per match compared to forwards. In rugby league, player sprint performance has been related to strength and power (4) whilst muscular strength has been frequently demonstrated to discriminate playing levels within many collision-based field sports (2, 6, 18, 19). Whilst these findings highlight the importance of high strength development as a critical requirement for rugby union players, the need for development of other physical characteristics and the training structure of professional rugby (i.e. limited time for physical conditioning and the need for concurrent training) can affect maximum strength development.

Whilst maximising the long-term development of strength is one of the primary goals of

to resistance training arise from short-term (i.e. commonly 8-12 week interventions) investigations involving relatively untrained or inexperienced participants. This is a serious limitation of current knowledge as the principle of diminished returns dictates that initial improvements in muscular

function are easily invoked and further improvements are progressively harder to achieve (28). Very few studies have examined the magnitude of changes in strength over relatively longer periods of time and even fewer have done so with very well trained athletes (3, 5, 7, 20, 21). An investigation involving incoming intercollegiate Division IA basketball athletes reported upper and lower body strength increases of 24% and 32% respectively over a four year period (22). While these improvements are of similar magnitude to those observed in short-term research studies, changes in strength have been observed to be much smaller in highly trained athletes (5, 7, 20, 21). Professional

C C

conditioning programs, much of what we know about the neurological and morphological adaptations

EP

TE

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

rugby league athletes with at least 3 years of resistance training experience were reported to improve maximal lower body strength by 14% across a four year period (7) and maximal upper body strength by 11% across a six year period (3). Furthermore, a comparison of upper body strength development between elite and sub-elite rugby league athletes illustrated considerable difference in the magnitude of change over a 6 year period with increases of 6% and 24% observed respectively (3). Finnish national champion weightlifters were observed to show small, non-statistically significant improvements in maximal strength following one year of training (20), and a significant improvement of 2.8% in total weight-lifting result after two years of training (21). Collectively, these results

illustrate that highly trained athletes have a limited potential for further strength development even over long-term periods of intense training and highlight the importance of effective program design. While these findings provide indirect observations about the theoretical construct of the principle of diminished returns, to date there is a paucity of research empirically testing this hypothesis (28),

Maximising the long-term strength development of team sport athletes is a primary goal for strength and conditioning coaches. Despite this, there is very limited research investigating long-term strength development in highly trained professional team sport athletes, especially rugby union athletes. While extensive research has examined the magnitude of change in strength expected over short periods of time in relatively untrained subjects, little scientific evidence exists regarding the magnitude of change in strength that can be expected over a long-term period in highly trained athletes (5, 7, 20, 21). Importantly, no such evidence is available for professional rugby union

athletes. Furthermore, very limited evidence is available regarding the factors that may influence the ability to adapt to resistance training, and thus the magnitude of change in strength, in highly trained rugby union athletes (i.e. can the older and/or very strong athletes still significantly improve their

strength; does a highly trained athlete need to increase lean muscle mass in order to significantly improve their strength). Therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to assess the magnitude of upper and lower body strength change in professional rugby union players following two years of

C C

EP

especially in highly trained athletes.

TE

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

training. An additional purpose was to examine if the changes in strength were influenced by starting strength level, lean mass index or chronological age.

METHODS Approach to the Problem

consecutive years in highly trained, professional rugby union athletes in order to examine the long-

body composition was assessed using a one repetition maximum (1RM) test during pre-season resistance training sessions each year. Participants completed 1RM assessments at the same time of day (i.e. 1st training session of the day), with squat and bench press 1RM tests conducted on separate days every three to four weeks throughout the pre-season period each year. Assessment of body composition was performed at the same time of day (i.e. prior to the 1st training session of the day) every two weeks throughout the pre-season period each year. All participants were highly experienced athletes from the same professional club that completed a very rigorous training program throughout the duration of this study consisting of numerous resistance, conditioning and skills training sessions every week. Subjects

Twenty professional rugby union athletes (12 forwards and 8 backs) with extensive resistance

training experience fulfilled all the requirements of this investigation (Table 1). Only athletes who had a minimum of two years of full-time employment in a professional rugby union club in 2007 were eligible to participate. At the start of this investigation the participants length of professional employment ranged from 2.5 to 13.8 years with an average of 6.6 3.2 years while the length of resistance training experience ranged from 4.5 to 17.5 years with an average of 10.5 3.3 years. Nineteen athletes completed all the upper body strength assessments while 11 athletes completed all

C C

EP

TE

term adaptations to resistance training. Maximal strength in the bench press and back squat as well as

This longitudinal investigation tracked maximal strength and body composition over three

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

the lower body strength assessments. Participants gave their written informed consent and voluntarily completed the requirements of this investigation as part of their normal club training sessions and. This study was approved by the universitys human research ethics committee.

- insert Table 1 here -

Procedures

Training Program. Throughout the duration of the study participants completed a periodised training program consisting of between 4-12 training sessions per week. The average number of resistance, conditioning and skills sessions as well as matches per week is outlined in Table 2.

weaknesses and the presence of any injury. The resistance training program was designed to maximise the long-term development of strength and power. During the pre-season phase, the resistance training sessions were typically categorised as hypertrophy (i.e. 60 to 75% 1RM, 20 to 25 sets of 10 to 15

100% 1RM, 15 to 20 sets of 1 to 6 reps) or power (i.e. 50 to 85% 1RM, 15 to 20 sets of 1 to 6 reps) and cycled in three week blocks with a recovery or lighter week being the last week of each cycle. The pre-competition phase was characterised by lower volume (i.e. 15 to 20 sets of 1 to 10 reps),

higher intensity (i.e. 75 to 100% 1RM) strength and power sessions while the competition phase consisted primarily of maintenance programming (i.e. 80 to 100% 1RM, 20 to 25 sets of 3 to 12 reps). At the completion of the season, athletes involved with their national representative team followed the direction of the national program. Participants not involved with representative teams completed hypertrophy or strength-based sessions aimed at maximising long-term strength development throughout the club season phase. Specific emphasis was placed on addressing each individuals athletic performance limitations. Individually designed training programs were prescribed with a

C C

reps) hypertrophy-strength (i.e. 65 to 90% 1RM, 20 to 25 sets of 3 to 15 reps), strength (i.e. 80 to

EP

Resistance training programs were individualised based on each athletes physical strengths and

TE

D
5

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

methodical, progressive overload outlook. Recovery and off-season programs were general in prescription. A typical upper body training session commenced with one to three shoulder warm-up exercises targeting rotator cuff and scapular stability. In general, the number of sets ranged from 15 to 25, depending on the individual requirements. Between three to four sets of progressively increasing load were performed prior to two to three sets at maximal intensity for that sessions required load.

individually to ensure muscular balance in each athlete. Typical exercises included chin-ups, bent-

A typical lower body session commenced with one to two lower body stability or technique orientated warm-up exercises of sub-maximal intensity. The number of work sets was generally less than the upper body sessions, ranging from 15 to 20. Similar to upper body strength training sessions, between three to four sets of progressively increasing load were performed prior to two to three sets of maximal intensity at that sessions required load. Only multi-joint exercises were prescribed with the exception of supplementary hamstring and gluteal isolation exercises, completed towards the later stages of the program. Typical multi-joint exercises included deadlifts, squats, clean pulls, step-ups, incline leg press and power cleans.

Conditioning sessions involved a variety of aerobic and anaerobic conditioning training modalities during the duration of the study period. During the pre-season phase, conditioning

sessions were comprised predominately of running, although bike, cross-training, swimming and boxing sessions were also utilised. Individuals were prescribed between two and four conditioning sessions per week of varying intensity (i.e. 6 to 9 rating of perceived exertion [RPE] using the modified 1-10 scale) and duration (30-60 minutes), depending on their individual positional requirements. During the pre-competitive and in-season phases, technical and tactical skill sessions were the predominant form of conditioning, incorporating a high conditioning running component, supplemented where necessary with small sided games. Additional conditioning sessions were

C C

EP

TE

over rows, bench pull, flat, incline and shoulder press, using barbells or dumbbells.

Only multi-joint exercises were used and the ratio of push-pull movements was prescribed

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

prescribed on an individual player basis in accordance to their needs analysis. The in-season conditioning sessions were of a similar intensity (i.e. 6 to 9 RPE), but much shorter duration (maximum 30 minutes). Skill sessions involved components of individual player skill development, unit training (i.e. position specific specialist small team technique and tactics), full team training, simulating match play with varying levels of physical contact ranging from no contact, to pads, to full contact drills. The

intensity (RPE of 3 to 7). In-season, post-match recovery and travel were factors that influenced the

sessions.

- insert Table 2 here -

Maximal Strength Assessment. The bench press and back squat 1RM were used to assess maximal upper body and lower body strength respectively. Regular assessments were conducted throughout the pre-season period each year with testing occurring at the same time of the day, on the same day of the week for each exercise every year. The 1RM protocol involved participants completing a series of 3-4 warm up sets of increasing load each separated by 3 minutes of recovery. A series of maximal lift attempts were then performed until a 1RM was obtained. No more than five attempts were permitted with each attempt separated by 5 minutes of recovery. This protocol has been

used frequently in previous research for the assessment of maximal dynamic strength (8, 10, 11) and reliability of these protocols have been established previously (24-26). A free weights bench press rack was used to test bench press 1RM. Only trials in which participants lowered the barbell to their chest and returned it back to full extension of the arms without bouncing the barbell off their chest or losing contact between the bench and their hips or the floor and their feet were considered successful. A free weights squat rack was used to test squat 1RM. Participants were required to lower the barbell to a depth equivalent to at least 90 degrees of knee flexion in order for the attempt to be considered 7

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

C C

EP

TE

frequency (between 2 and 3), duration (30 to 60 minutes) and intensity (RPE of 2 to 7) of skill

number of sessions per week ranged from two to four, of varying lengths (45 to 120 minutes) and

successful. This depth was monitored during testing using a linear position transducer (GymAware, Kinetic Technology, Canberra, Australia) attached to the barbell as well as visually by the same experienced tester. All participants were very experienced with the bench press and squat 1RM protocols, having performed the assessments frequently for a minimum of 2 years prior to 2007. Assessment of 1RM occurred frequently throughout the pre-season phase each year and only the highest 1RM of the year was included in the analysis (i.e. comparisons were made between the highest strength level achieved during the pre-season of three consecutive years in order to determine the long-term changes in strength rather than short-term fluctuations due to de-conditioning during the off-season etc.).

Body Composition Assessment. The same experienced, International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry accredited anthropometrist performed skinfold thickness assessments in accordance with standard methods throughout the duration of this study. The following seven sites were measured using calibrated skinfold callipers (Harpenden Skinfold Callipers) triceps, subscapular, biceps, supraspinale, abdomen, thigh and calf. Body mass was assessed using the same set of calibrated electronic scales. The between test technical error for sum of seven skinfolds and body mass was 2mm (i.e. 3.0%) and 0.01kg (i.e. 0.01%) respectively based on repeated measurements of 10 athletes. The lean mass index (LMI) was calculated using methods described by Duthie et al. (15) as an indicator of fat-free mass (LMI = mass/sum of 7 skinfoldsx; where x is 0.13 for forwards and 0.14 for backs). Urine specific gravity was assessed regularly to ensure a consistent level of hydration.

Statistical Analyses A general linear model with repeated measures analysis of variance followed by Bonferoni

post hoc tests was used to examine the changes in strength throughout the duration of the study. Mean effect sizes (ES) were also calculated to examine the practical significance of the changes in strength. The strength of the effect was classified based on Cohen (9) which suggests ES of 0.2, 0.5 and 0.8 to 8

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

C C

EP

TE

represent a small, moderate and large effect respectively. Relationships between the changes in strength and starting strength level, LMI as well as age were evaluated using Pearsons correlation coefficient (r). The strength of the correlation coefficient was determined based on classifications outlined by Cohen (9) where r = 0.10 0.29 has a small effect, r = 0.30 0.49 has a moderate effect and r 0.5 has a large effect. Statistical significance for all analyses was defined by p 0.05 and results were summarized as means standard deviations.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences between 2007, 2008 and 2009 were observed in a number of variables (Table 1). Statistically significant changes in LMI, bench press 1RM and bench press 1RM:BM were observed in both 2008 and 2009 (Table 3). Practically relevant improvements in squat

statistical significance (Table 3). Significant negative relationships that had a large effect were observed between strength level in 2007 and the percent change in strength in 2008 and 2009 for both the bench press and squat (Figure 1). This data indicates that 32-51% of the variance in maximal upper body strength percent change and 41-46% of the variance in maximal lower body strength percent change was explained by starting strength level. Significant positive relationships that had a large effect were also observed between the percent change in LMI and percent change in lower body strength but not upper body strength (Figure 2). This data indicates that 6-10% of the variance in

A
2007.

maximal upper body strength percent change and 44-77% of the variance in maximal lower body strength percent change was explained by the percent change in LMI. No relationship was observed between age in 2007 and the percent change in either upper body or lower body strength (Figure 3). Specifically, only 0-12% of the variance in maximal strength percent change was explained by age in

C C

- insert Table 3, Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 here 9

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

EP

1RM and squat 1RM:BM were also observed in 2008 and 2009 but these changes did not reach

TE

DISCUSSION This investigation is the first to document the long-term adaptations to resistance training in professional rugby union players. The primary findings of this study were: (1) maximal upper and lower body strength was increased by 6.5-11.5% following two years of training; (2) the magnitude of the improvement was negatively associated with initial strength level (this study provides some of the first data and the strongest evidence to date supporting the theoretical construct of the principle of diminished returns); (3) the magnitude of improvement in lower body maximal strength was

positively related to the change in LMI (an indicator of hypertrophy); and (4) the magnitude of improvement was not associated with the age of professional rugby union athletes.

Long-Term Changes in Strength. Despite the well trained nature of the athletes at the

performance in rugby union athletes, considerable increases in strength were observed in both the upper body and lower body. These findings support those previously observed in rugby league athletes where similar training characteristics and long maintenance phases are required (5, 7). The

training is comparable to the 6.0% (5) and 14.1% (7) improvement in upper and lower body strength previously reported for highly trained rugby league athletes. Despite the much greater work performed by professional athletes during long-term training programs, the adaptations observed are

of a considerably smaller magnitude than those reported by many short-term research investigations involving relatively untrained, inexperienced participants (e.g. 28% increase in squat 1RM following 10 weeks of resistance training (12)). The current findings provide additional evidence that highly trained athletes have a limited potential for further strength development even over long-term periods of intense training (3, 5, 7, 20, 21). Additionally, the current observations further demonstrate the importance of effective program design involving sophisticated resistance training techniques and a

C C

11.5% and 10.8% increase in maximal upper and lower body strength observed over two years of

EP

commencement of the two year training block and the concurrent training essential for improving

TE

10

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

clear understanding of the multitude of factors that affect adaptation in professional team sport athletes. Influence of Initial Strength Level on Long-Term Changes in Strength. Significant negative relationships were observed between initial strength level and the magnitude of change in both upper and lower body strength following two years of training (r = -0.569 to -0.712 i.e. 32-51% and 41-46% of the variance in maximal upper and lower body strength change respectively was

strongest evidence to date for elite athletes supporting the theoretical construct of the principle of

and further improvements are progressively harder to achieve (i.e. the magnitude of potential for training-induced improvement decreases as strength and training experience of the athlete increases) (7, 29). It is theorised that despite all participants being exposed to a similar volume of resistance training, the relatively weaker athletes had a greater capacity for adaptation within the neuromuscular system (i.e. a larger window of adaptation). If similar rates of improvements are to be achieved, the stronger participants may require a greater stimulus due to the smaller window of adaptation for strength improvement these athletes have as a result of their highly developed neuromuscular system. It is unknown if this can be achieved through sophisticated program design or if the time necessary to devote to a greater rate of improvement in these athletes limits the ability for development in other important performance areas and increases the risk of overtraining. Influence of Lean Mass on Long-Term Changes in Strength. It has been well documented

that increases in muscle cross-sectional area are strongly associated with increased strength (16, 17, 23). The current study reflects these results in an applied setting with significant correlations observed between the magnitude of lower body strength gain and the change in LMI (r = 0.692-0.880 i.e. 44-77% of the variance in lower body strength change was explained by the change in LMI). No significant relationship was observed between the magnitude of upper body strength gain and changes in LMI (r = 0.244-0.314 i.e. only 6-10% of the variance in upper body strength change was explained by the change in LMI). This is theorised to be a reflection of the greater potential for hypertrophy of 11

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

C C

EP

TE

diminished returns which dictates that initial improvements in muscular function are easily invoked

explained by starting strength level). These results provide some of the first data and certainly the

the lower body compared to upper body musculature. Although not a direct measure of muscle mass or cross-sectional area, the LMI can be considered an indicator of muscle hypertrophy. The significant relationship between strength and LMI gain demonstrates the importance of hypertrophy to enhancing lower body maximal strength in professional rugby union players. Therefore, if further improvements in strength are to be achieved in such highly trained athletes, training programs need to be designed for continued muscle hypertrophy and this can be achieved despite high volumes of aerobic and skills training. The significant 2.8% increase in LMI observed in the current investigation illustrates that muscle hypertrophy is still achievable under these circumstances.

the current study was higher than other long-term studies involving highly trained athletes (5, 7, 27). Despite this, the results indicate that older athletes were still able to increase strength. Specifically, there were no statistically significant relationships observed between the athletes age at the start of the investigation and the magnitude of change in maximal strength following two years of training. Although there were non-significant trends towards a negative relationship between initial age and upper body strength gain (r = -0.313 to -0.345; p = 0.148-0.191, i.e. 10-12% of the variance in upper body strength change was explained by initial age), changes in lower body strength showed no association with initial age (r = -0.068 to -0.152; p = 0.655-0.842, i.e. 0-2% of the variance in lower body strength change was explained by initial age). Interestingly, in 2007 there was a trend towards a positive relationship between age and upper body strength level (r = 0.389, p = 0.100) and no relationship observed between age and lower body strength level (r = -0.289, p = 0.388). These

A
strength.

observations suggest that the higher initial upper body strength level of older athletes may have a strong confounding impact on the correlations observed between age and change in strength. Nevertheless, it is clear that changes in lean muscle and an athletes initial strength level are more important factors to consider than chronological age when designing training programs that maximise the development of strength in highly trained athletes. This is an encouraging finding for strength and

conditioning coaches as it demonstrates that older athletes are still able to considerably improve

C C

EP

TE

Influence of Age on Long-Term Changes in Strength. The average age of participants in

12

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Time Course of Long-Term Changes in Strength. Another interesting observation worthy of discussion is the timing of improvements over the two year training period. Increases of 7.3% (p = 0.001, ES = 0.66) and 10.6% (p = 0.198, ES = 0.50) in bench press and squat 1RM strength respectively were observed during the first year of training (i.e. 2007-2008). In contrast, increases of only 4.0% (p = 0.099, ES = 0.38) and 0.4% (p = 0.857, ES = 0.02) in bench press and squat 1RM were observed during the second year of training (i.e. 2008-2009), leading to improvements of 11.5% and 10.8% across the two years of training (i.e. 2007-2009). These figures quite clearly demonstrate a far more pronounced yearly increase in strength during the first year of the training period observed, especially with lower body strength. There are many factors that may have contributed to these

observations (i.e. less effective program design, increased quantity of match time leading to more match related soreness (27), increased prevalence of injury, shift in program emphasis, player motivation etc.) but the primary driver was theorised to be associated with differences in the training

sessions involving the bench press remained relatively similar from 2007 (17.1 7.7) to 2008 (16.3 6.4; p = 0.627) and 2009 (14.6 8.5; p = 0.307). However, the number of resistance training sessions involving the squat showed a trend towards increasing from 2007 (10.9 6.6) to 2008 (13.0 6.4; p =

the number of work sets performed of the bench press (2007 51.4 25.5; 2008 51.3 23.2, p = 0.981; 2009 40.8 26.0, p = 0.197) and the squat (2007 40.7 25.4; 2008 51.6 30.2, p = 0.244; 2009 21.6 15.4, p = 0.018). While this data doesnt capture all exercise that target the

prime movers in the bench press and squat, it provides a strong indication of the changes in upper and lower body resistance training volume throughout the duration of the study. These differences in the volume of resistance training performed were due to injury and/or a shift in training emphasis for individual players. Conclusions. Professional rugby union athletes with extensive resistance training experience can expect to see strength gains of approximately 6.5-11.5% in both the bench press and squat following 1-2 years of training. These improvements can be expected regardless of the athletes age

C C

0.275) and was significantly lower in 2009 (6.3 4.4; p = 0.021). Similar results were observed in

EP

load performed between the first and second year of training. The number of resistance training

TE

13

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

and are associated with an increase in lean mass (squat only). Given the strong relationship between increases in lean mass index and increases in strength it appears particularly important for training programs to be designed for continued muscle hypertrophy. Even in elite level rugby union athletes this must be achieved in the face of high volumes of aerobic and skills training. Furthermore, the degree of strength improvement is related to initial strength level with larger improvements observed in athletes with relatively lower levels of strength regardless of age.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Improvement in strength is highly related to increased lean muscle mass in highly trained athletes. Strength and conditioning coaches should be mindful to include a level of hypertrophy training in resistance training programs for highly trained athletes requiring increases in

The magnitude of strength improvement is related to initial strength level with greater improvements observed in relatively weaker athletes. Strength and conditioning professionals should be aware of the greater programming detail required for continued development of strength in highly trained athletes compared to relatively weaker athletes even within the same professional organisation.

Age does not appear to limit the potential to adapt to strength training within a group of highly trained professional rugby union athletes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS No sources of funding were provided for this investigation. The authors would like to thank the players and coaching staff at the Emirates Western Force for their participation in the study.

C C

EP

strength.

TE

D
14

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

REFERENCES 1. Argus CK, Gill, N., Keogh, J., Hopkins, W.G. and Beaven, C.M. Changes in Strength, Power, and Steroid Hormones During a Professional Rugby Union Competition. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 23: 1583-1592, 2009. 2. Baker D. Comparison of Upper-Body Strength and Power Between Professional and CollegeAged Rugby League Players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 15: 30-35, 2001. 3. Baker D. Six-Year Changes in Upper-Body Maximum Strength and Power in Experienced Strength-Power Athletes. Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning 16: 4-10, 2006. 4. Baker D, and Nance, S. The Relation Between Running Speed and Measures of Strength and Power in Professional Rugby League Players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 13: 230-235, 1999. 5. Baker D, and Newton, R. Adaptations in Upper-Body Maximal Strength and Power Output Resulting from Long-Term Resistance Training in Experienced Strength-Power Athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 20: 541-546, 2006. 6. Baker D, and Newton, R. Comparison of Lower Body Strength, Power, Acceleration, Speed, Agility and Sprint Momentum to Describe Playing Rank Among Professional Rugby League Players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 22: 153-158, 2008. 7. Baker D, and Newton, R. Observation of 4-Year Adaptations in Lower Body Maximal Strength and Power Output in Professional Rugby League Players. Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning 16: 3-10, 2008. 8. Baker D, Nance S, and Moore M. The load that maximizes the average mechanical power output during explosive bench press throws in highly trained athletes. J Strength Cond Res 15: 20-24, 2001. 9. Cohen J. The concepts of power analysis, in: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences J Cohen, ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988, pp 1-18. 10. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, and Newton RU. Adaptations in athletic performance after ballistic power versus strength training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42: 1582-1598, 2010. 11. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, and Newton RU. Influence of strength on magnitude and mechanisms of adaptation to power training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42: 1566-1581, 2010. 12. Cormie P, McGuigian, M.R. and Newton, R.U. Adaptations in Athletic Performance after Ballistic Power versus Strength Training. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 42: 1582-1598, 2010. 13. Deutsch MU, Kearney ,G.A. and Rehrer, N.J. Time-motion analysis of professional rugby union players during match-play. Journal of Sports Sciences 25: 461-472, 2007. 14. Duthie GM. A Framework for the Physical Development of Elite Rugby Union Players. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 1: 2-13, 2006. 15. Duthie GM, Pyne DB, Hopkins WG, Livingstone S, and Hooper SL. Anthropometry profiles of elite rugby players: quantifying changes in lean mass. Br J Sports Med 40: 202-207, 2006. 16. Folland JP, and Williams, A.G. Adaptations to Strength Training - morphological and neurological contributions to increase strength. Sports Medicine 37: 145-168, 2007. 17. Fry A. The Role of Training Intensity in Resistance Exercise Overtraining and Overreaching, in: Overtraining in Sport. RB Krieder, Fry, A.C. and O'Toole, M.L., ed. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics, 1998, pp 87-105. 18. Fry AC, and Kraemer, W.J. Physical Performance Characteristics of American Collegiate Football Players. Journal of Applied Sport Science Research 5: 126-138, 1991. 19. Garstecki MA, Latin, R.W. and Cuppett, M.M. Comparison of Selected Physical Fitness and Performance Variables Between NCAA Division I and II Football Players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 19: 292-297, 2004. 20. Hakkinen K, Komi, P.V., Aleu, M. and Kauhanen, H. EMG, Muscle Fibre and Force Production Characteristics During a 1 Year Training Period in Elite Weight-lifters. European Journal of Applied Physiology 56: 419-427, 1987.

C C

EP

TE

15

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

21.

22. 23. 24.

25.

27.

28. 29.

C C
16

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

EP

TE

26.

Hakkinen K, Pakarinen, A., Alen, M., Kauhanen, H. and Komi, P.V. Neuromuscular and Hormonal Adaptations in Athletes to Strength Training in Two Years. Journal of Applied Physiology 65: 2406-2412, 1988. Hunter GR, Hilyer, J. and Forster, M.A. Changes in Fitness During 4 Years of Intercollegiate Basketball. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 7: 26-29, 1993. Jones EJ, Bishop, P.H., Woods, A.K. and Green, J.M. Cross-Sectional Area and Muscular Strength - A Brief Review. Sports Medicine 38: 387-994, 2008. McBride JM, Triplett-McBride T, Davie A, and Newton RU. The effect of heavy- vs. lightload jump squats on the development of strength, power, and speed. J Strength Cond Res 16: 75-82, 2002. Rhea MR, Ball SD, Phillips WT, and Burkett LN. A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for strength. J Strength Cond Res 16: 250-255, 2002. Ritti-Dias RM, Avelar A, Salvador EP, and Cyrino ES. Influence of previous experience on resistance training on reliability of one-repetition maximum test. J Strength Cond Res 25: 1418-1422, 2011. Stodden DF, and Galitski, H.M. Longitudinal Effects of a Collegiate Strength and Conditioning Program in American Football. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 24: 2300-2308, 2010. Wilson G, Murphy AJ, and Walshe AD. Performance benefits from weight and plyometric training: effects of initial strength level. Coaching Sport Sci J 2: 3-8, 1997. Wilson GJ, Murphy, A.J. and Walshe, A.D. Performance Benefits from Weight and Plyometric Training: Effects of Initial Strength Level. Coaching and Sport Science Journal 2: 3-8, 1997.

FIGURE LEGENDS TABLES Table 1. Participant characteristics throughout the duration of the study. * Significantly (p 0.05) different than 2007.

Table 2. Average duration and number of resistance training, conditioning and skills sessions as well as the number of matches per week during each of the phases of the year.

FIGURES

Figure 3. Relationship between age in 2007 and the percent change in maximal strength in 2008 (A bench press and C - squat) and 2009 (B bench press and D - squat). The correlation coefficient (r) is indicated for each of the graphs.

C C

Figure 2. Relationship between percent change in maximal strength and percent change in lean mass index between 2007-2008 (A bench press and C - squat) and 2007-2009 (B bench press and D squat). The correlation coefficient (r) is indicated for each of the graphs. * Significant (p 0.05) correlation.

EP

Figure 1. Relationship between maximal strength level in 2007 and the percent change in maximal strength in 2008 (A bench press and C - squat) and 2009 (B bench press and D - squat). The correlation coefficient (r) is indicated for each of the graphs. * Significant (p 0.05) correlation.

TE

Table 3. Percent change in body composition and strength from 2007. The magnitude of effect is indicated by the effect size with 0.20 representing the smallest worthwhile change. * Significant (p 0.05) change from 2007.

17

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Table 1. Participant characteristics throughout the duration of the study. * Significantly (p 0.05) different than 2007.

Age (years) Body Mass (kg) Sum of 7 Skinfolds (mm) Lean Mass Index Bench Press 1RM (kg) Bench Press 1RM:BM Squat 1RM (kg) Squat 1RM:BM

2007 24.4 3.4 103.8 7.6 71.1 16.9 58.7 4.3

TE
2008 25.4 3.4* 104.7 8.2 65.7 16.1* 59.8 4.3* 141.6 12.6* 1.36 0.13* 1.68 0.22 178.6 26.1

C C EP
132.5 14.0 1.28 0.13 164.6 31.5 1.55 0.24

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

D
2009 26.4 3.4* 106.0 8.4* 68.0 16.4 60.3 4.3* 146.8 11.5* 1.39 0.14* 179.1 26.7 1.67 0.19

Table 2. Average duration and number of resistance training, conditioning and skills sessions as well as the number of matches per week during each of the phases of the year.

Phase of Year Pre-Season Christmas Break Pre-Competition Super 14 Competition Recovery International or Club Season Off-Season

Average Duration 8-10 weeks 2 weeks

Resistance Sessions Upper Body 4

TE
4 3-4 2 2 1-2 0 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 0 1-2 1

Lower Body

Conditioning Sessions

D
Skills Sessions 4 0 2-3 2-3 0 2 0 Matches 0 0 0-1 1 0 1 0

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

C C EP
1-2 5 weeks 1-2 14 weeks 1-2 0 1-3 weeks 13-16 weeks 2-4 weeks 1-2 1

Table 3. Percent change in body composition and strength from 2007. The magnitude of effect is indicated by the effect size with 0.20 representing the smallest worthwhile change. * Significant (p 0.05) change from 2007.

2008 % Change Body Mass Sum of 7 Skinfolds Lean Mass Index Bench Press 1RM Bench Press 1RM:BM Squat 1RM Squat 1RM:BM 0.8 1.6 -7.2 10.7* 1.9 1.9* 7.3 7.2* P-value 0.147 0.028

TE
% Change 2.1 2.4* -3.9 12.5 2.8 2.2* 11.5 10.0* 9.2 9.0* 10.8 17.6 9.2 16.4

Effect Size 0.11 0.33

D
2009 Pvalue 0.003 0.586 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.206 0.277 Effect Size 0.28 -0.19 0.37 1.04 0.81 0.52 0.53 Small Trivial Small Large Large Moderat e Moderat e Trivial Small
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

C C EP
0.002 0.001 0.25 0.66 Small 6.5 7.6* 0.005 0.56 10.6 17.0 9.5 14.6 0.198 0.50 0.165 0.59 Moderat e Moderat e Moderat e Moderat e

Figure 1. Relationship between maximal strength level in 2007 and the percent change in maximal strength in 2008 (A bench press and C - squat) and 2009 (B bench press and D - squat). The correlation coefficient (r) is indicated for each of the graphs. * Significant (p 0.05) correlation.

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

C C EP

TE

Figure 2. Relationship between percent change in maximal strength and percent change in lean mass index between 2007-2008 ( A bench press and C - squat) and 2007-2009 (B bench press and D - squat). The correlation coefficient (r) is indicated for each of the graphs. * Significant (p 0.05) correlation.

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

C C EP

TE

Figure 3. Relationship between age in 2007 and the percent change in maximal strength in 2008 (A bench press and C - squat) and 2009 ( B bench press and D - squat). The correlation coefficient (r) is indicated for each of the graphs.

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

C C EP

TE

You might also like