EFFECTS OF ACCENTUATED ECCENTRIC LOADING ON
MUSCLE PROPERTIES, STRENGTH, POWER, AND SPEED
IN RESISTANCE-TRAINED RUGBY PLAYERS
JAMIE DOUGLAS,1,2 SIMON PEARSON,1,3 ANGUS ROSS,2
1
Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ), Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New
Zealand; 2High Performance Sport New Zealand (HPSNZ), Auckland, New Zealand; 3Queensland Academy of Sport,
Nathan, Australia; and 4School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia
ABSTRACT
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKbH4TTImqenVKgR5BWYxyIrPZwrUJ2sCuRgxt8cHb54kFd07BFQ5PKt on 09/27/2018
Douglas, J, Pearson, S, Ross, A, and McGuigan, M. Effects of
accentuated eccentric loading on muscle properties, strength,
power, and speed in resistance-trained rugby players. J Strength
Cond Res 32(10): 2750–2761, 2018—The purpose of this
study was to determine the effects of slow and fast tempo resis-
tance training incorporating accentuated eccentric loading
(AEL) compared with traditional resistance training (TRT) in
trained rugby players. Fourteen subjects (19.4 6 0.8 years,
1.82 6 0.05 m, 97.0 6 11.6 kg, and relative back squat 1
repetition maximum [1RM]: 1.71 6 0.24 kg$BM21) completed
either AEL (n = 7) or TRT (n = 7) strength and power protocols.
Two 4-week phases of training were completed. The first phase
emphasized a slow eccentric tempo, and the second phase
emphasized a fast eccentric tempo. Back squat 1RM, inertial
load peak power, drop jump reactive strength index (RSI), 40-
m speed, maximum sprinting velocity (Vmax), and vastus lateralis
(VL) muscle architectural variables were determined at baseline
and after each phase of training. Slow AEL elicited superior
improvements in back squat 1RM (+0.12 kg$BM21; effect size
[ES]: 0.48; and 90% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14, 0.82), 40-m
time (20.07 seconds; ES: 0.28; and CI: 0.01–0.55), and Vmax
(+0.20 m$s21; ES: 0.52; and CI: 0.18–0.86) vs. slow TRT. Fast
AEL elicited a small increase in RSI but impaired speed. There
was a likely greater increase in peak power with fast TRT (+0.72
W$kg21; ES: 0.40; and CI: 0.00–0.79) vs. fast AEL alongside
a small increase in VL pennation angle. The short-term incorpo-
ration of slow AEL was superior to TRT in improving strength
and maximum velocity sprinting speed in rugby players under-
Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL
citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML
and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s Web site (http://
journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr).
Address correspondence to Jamie Douglas, Jamie.Douglas@hpsnz.org.
nz.
32(10)/2750–2761
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
2750 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
AND MIKE MCGUIGAN1,4
taking a concurrent preparatory program. The second 4-week
phase of fast AEL may have exceeded recovery capabilities
compared with fast TRT.
KEY WORDS resistance training, neuromuscular performance,
athletes
INTRODUCTION
R
esistance training is an integral component of
physical preparation for team sport athletes
(35). Physical characteristics improved by resis-
tance training such as strength, power, and speed
have been found to be associated with successful match out-
comes in Rugby Sevens (40) and performance levels (45) in
Rugby Union players. Traditional resistance training (TRT)
strategies using the same isoinertial load during both eccen-
tric and concentric phases of a given exercise are therefore
widely used in Rugby Union physical preparation programs
(27). However, as greater forces may be produced during
eccentric vs. concentric contractions (20), the eccentric
phase may be insufficiently loaded during TRT programs.
Indeed, compelling evidence indicates that accentuated
eccentric loading (AEL) of TRT exercises can induce greater
enhancements of strength, power, and speed vs. TRT alone
(20,39).
Resistance training that incorporates AEL has been
demonstrated to elicit a novel adaptive signal within the
neuromuscular system (20). Subsequently, superior adapta-
tions in strength, power, and speed have been reported after
chronic training with eccentric overload (13,20,30). The per-
formance improvements observed with AEL are proposed
to result from increased volitional agonist activation,
increased muscle fascicle length, muscle hypertrophy, a shift
toward a faster muscle phenotype (e.g., preferential fast-
twitch fiber hypertrophy and a possible increase in type IIx
fiber composition), and enhancements in stretch-shortening
cycle function (20,37). In addition, there is evidence to sug-
gest that the implementation of faster eccentric contraction
velocities or tempos with AEL training may elicit greater

improvements in fast muscle phenotypic properties,
strength, power, reactive strength, and sprinting perfor-
mance than slower eccentric tempos (30,37).
Rugby players are required to develop several conflicting
adaptations simultaneously such as maximal strength and
aerobic power (27). Although simultaneous improvements
can be made across divergent components of fitness, con-
current training possibly attenuates the magnitude of adap-
tation (19). Therefore, the inclusion of AEL may be
a particularly useful method of further stimulating the neu-
romuscular system within a concurrent training program for
the rugby player. Indeed, previous investigations have iden-
tified isoinertial (13) and flywheel (18) eccentric training
protocols to be effective in enhancing measures of strength,
power, and speed performance in highly trained team sport
athletes with a concurrent aerobic training component.
However, to date, there have been no investigations com-
paring isoinertial AEL training using both eccentric and
concentric phases of the movement with a control group
completing an ecologically valid TRT program in trained
rugby players. In the absence of a control group completing
a TRT protocol, it remains unclear whether the previously
reported findings were a result of AEL per se or simply the
inclusion of a resistance training program. Furthermore, no
studies have compared the effects of slow and fast tempo
AEL protocols with equivalent TRT protocols, and there-
fore, it remains unclear how eccentric tempo influences the
adaptive response to AEL training in resistance-trained
athletes.
Thus, the purpose of this investigation was to elucidate
the effects of 4 weeks of slow eccentric tempo AEL training,
followed by 4 weeks of fast eccentric tempo AEL training, in
comparison with a TRT control group on muscle properties,
strength, power, and speed in resistance-trained academy
rugby players. It was postulated that AEL would elicit
superior enhancements in strength, power, and speed
compared with TRT. Furthermore, it was proposed that
slow AEL would have a larger influence on muscle
properties and maximal strength, whereas fast AEL would
have a larger influence on power, reactive strength, and
sprinting speed.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
Resistance-trained academy rugby players were recruited to
elucidate the effects of AEL resistance training vs. TRT on
muscle properties, strength, power, and speed within an
ecologically valid setting. Subjects were within the pre-
paratory phase of their representative program and had
previously completed 2, 4-week TRT phases preceding the
study period. Subjects were pair-matched based on lower-
body strength and allocated through block randomization to
complete either AEL or TRT protocols within their
resistance training program during the study period. The
primary difference between groups was the load used during
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
the eccentric phase of selected strength and power exercises.
All other elements of the resistance training program such as
exercise selection, sets, reps, tempo, and frequency were
matched between groups. In addition, all subjects were
recruited from the same provincial academy program,
therefore the weekly schedule and training load was
approximately equivalent across all subjects for the duration
of the study. Both AEL and TRT groups completed 2, 4-
week training phases (Figure 1).
The first phase emphasized a slow eccentric phase tempo
and the second phase emphasized a fast eccentric phase
tempo. Dependent variables including muscle architectural
properties, strength, reactive strength, power, and speed
were measured at 3 time points during the study period,
including pre-testing at baseline, mid-testing after the first
training phase, and post-testing after the second training
phase. The effects of AEL and TRT protocols were
elucidated through the determination of change scores of
dependent variables within and between groups. Effect size
(ES) statistics and qualitative inferences were used to
determine the magnitude and likelihood of observed effects.
Subjects
Seventeen male resistance trained academy rugby players
were initially recruited to participate in this study. After
attrition due to contact injury (n = 3), a final sample of 14
subjects (mean 6 SD; age: 19.4 6 0.8 years, range: 18–21
years, height: 1.82 6 0.05 m, body mass: 97.0 6 11.6 kg, and
relative back squat 1 repetition maximum [1RM]: 1.71 6
0.24 kg$BM21) were retained for the initial 4-week training
period. One subject was not included in the second, 4-week
period because of representative selection. All subjects had at
least 1 year of resistance training experience within a super-
vised program. Subjects were within the preparatory phase
of their representative season, although they were also par-
ticipating in a regional club competition including one ;80-
minute rugby game per week throughout the duration of the
study. Subjects were provided with an overview of all study
procedures and informed of any potential risks or benefits of
participation before data collection. All subjects signed an
institutionally approved informed consent document and
were older than 18 years. Study procedures were approved
by the Auckland University of Technology’s Institutional
Review Board.
Procedures
Resistance Training Protocols. All subjects completed a combi-
nation of strength- and power-based gym sessions, condi-
tioning- and skill-based field sessions, and a club rugby game
each week (see Appendix 1, Supplemental Digital Content 1,
http://links.lww.com/JSCR/A111). This schedule remained
consistent throughout the 12-week study period. Subjects
were pair-matched based on lower-body strength and then
allocated through block randomization to either an AEL
group (n = 7) or a TRT group (n = 7) to be completed within
the strength- and power-based gym sessions. Two, 4-week
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 10 | OCTOBER 2018 | 2751
 Responses to Eccentric vs. Traditional Resistance Training
training phases separated by 2 weeks were completed. The
first 4-week phase emphasized a slow 3-second eccentric
tempo, a lower intensity, and higher repetitions, whereas
the second 4-week phase emphasized a fast 1-second eccen-
tric tempo, a higher intensity, and concomitantly lower rep-
etitions, in the back squat exercise (see Appendix 2,
Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/
JSCR/A104). The eccentric load for the AEL group was
set 18–25% above the TRT load during the strength sessions.
Training load during the strength sessions was matched to
within ;10% intensity relative volume (intensity [%1RM as
a decimal] 3 sets 3 reps) between groups (47). Therefore,
concentric intensity was 4–5% lower in the AEL group.
The 2 strength sessions per week completed on Monday
and Thursday began with either an AEL or TRT back squat,
whereas the power session completed on Tuesday began
with AEL or TRT lower-body power movements (see
Appendix 3, Supplemental Digital Content 3, http://links.
lww.com/JSCR/A105). Those in the AEL group performed
back squats in custom-built Smith machine (Goldmine;
HPSNZ, Auckland, New Zealand) that provided pneumatic
assistance on the lifting, or concentric, portion of the move-
ment to within 61 kg of the individualized load. The assis-
tance was applied to the barbell through pneumatic
cylinders built into the rails of the Smith machine. Subjects
were required to descend to a knee angle of approximately
908, and range of motion was individualized through 2
adjustable switches that were set at the top and bottom of
the movement, respectively. The assistance was applied
within 0.10 seconds after the barbell triggered the bottom
switch at the end of the concentric phase of the movement
and was removed 0.25 seconds after the barbell triggered the
top switch at the end of the concentric phase of the move-
ment. Tempo was monitored by a linear position transducer
sampling at 250 Hz fixed to the bar (Goldmine; HPSNZ).
Those in the TRT group performed a regular back squat
with a free barbell in a power rack. Subjects were required to
descend to a knee angle of approximately 908 as indicated by
a plyometric box set at an individualized height. They were
required to perform each repetition at the designated tempo
with a verbal count provided by a spotter. Power sessions
followed a similar periodization scheme in volume and 3–4
sets of 4–6 reps were completed per exercise while intensity
was held constant across each training phase. All subjects
included in the final analysis after attrition completed $90%
of the allocated training program. All training sessions were
supervised by 2 experienced strength and conditioning
coaches.
Back Squat One Repetition Maximum. Lower limb muscle
strength was determined by the back squat 1RM relative to
the subject’s body mass in kilograms (kg$BM21). Subjects
were required to descend to a knee angle of approximately
908 and touch a plyometric box with posterior thighs. After 4
warm-up sets of 30% (8–10 repetitions), 50% (4–6 repeti-
the TM
2752 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
tions), 70% (2–4 repetitions), and 90% (one repetition) of
the estimated 1RM based on recent testing loads, the load
was increased until the resistance could not be overcome,
with the intention of attaining the 1RM within 3–4 attempts
(34). Subjects were instructed to rest passively for 3–
5 minutes between maximum attempts. The back squat
1RM has previously been demonstrated to exhibit high
(coefficient of variation [CV] , 5%) absolute interday reli-
ability in a cohort of subjects exhibiting similar strength
levels to those recruited in this study (12).
Inertial Load Cycling Power. A custom-built inertial load (IL)
cycle ergometer (Goldmine; HPSNZ) was used to assess
concentric muscle power of the lower limb (33). The IL
assessment involves the determination of torque delivered
to an ergometer flywheel across a range of pedaling rates
(32). The product of flywheel inertia, angular velocity, and
angular acceleration with no frictional resistance applied to
the flywheel is used to calculate power (32). A warm-up was
completed comprising 3 minutes of submaximal cycling at
a self-selected intensity followed by one 6-second effort at
90% of self-selected maximal intensity. Subjects then com-
pleted 3 trials separated by 2 minutes. Subjects started from
a stationary position with the self-selected dominant foot
and accelerated maximally for 4–6 seconds (i.e., 6.5 revolu-
tions) on a verbal command with standardized encourage-
ment (33). Seat and handle heights were self-selected by the
subject and remained the same across all testing periods.
Instantaneous power and torque data were sampled contin-
uously at every 38 of crank rotation and collected using a cus-
tom LabVIEW program (National Instruments Corp.,
Austin, TX, USA) on a personal laptop, and exported to
a custom spreadsheet where the parabolic power-velocity
and linear torque-velocity relationships were calculated
(33). Peak power (W$kg21) and the cadence at which peak
power occurred (revolutions per minute [RPM]) were deter-
mined. This protocol has been previously demonstrated (32)
to exhibit acceptable interday reliability (CV , 5%). It has
been shown in active subjects without cycling experience
that 2 familiarization sessions are necessary for the reliable
determination of peak power (32); however, the sample re-
cruited in this study regularly completed maximum cycling
power assessments in training, and therefore, only one famil-
iarization session was completed.
0.50-m Drop Jump. The drop jump assessment was com-
pleted bilaterally from 0.50 m. Subjects completed one
practice jump followed by 3 maximal attempts with 30
seconds of recovery between each trial. Subjects were
instructed to perform the drop jumps with hands akimbo
and to step forward from the box avoiding stepping down or
jumping up. They were explicitly asked to simultaneously
attempt to minimize their ground contact time while
maximizing their jump height but to prioritize a brief ground
contact time (8). Trials in which the technique was notably

Figure 1. Study design. 1RM = 1 repetition maximum; AEL = accentuated eccentric loading; IL = inertial load cycle ergometer; TRT = traditional resistance
training.
compromised were excluded and repeated. Drop jumps were
performed from a plyometric box onto an AMTI force plat-
form sampling at 1,000 Hz (AMTI, Watertown, MA, USA). A
custom-designed LabView (National Instruments; version 8.2)
program was used to collect and analyze the data. A fourth-
order Butterworth low-pass filter with a cutoff frequency of
200 Hz was used to smooth all force-time data. A vertical
force threshold of 30 N was used to establish zero force and
remove noise of the unweighted plate. The deviation from
zero force was used to demarcate the beginning and end of
the ground contact phase, and the end of the flight phase.
Contact time (s), flight time (s), and reactive strength index
(RSI) (flight time divided by contact time) were determined.
Leg spring stiffness (kN$m$kg21) was calculated for each
drop jump using a method described previously (17).
40-m Sprint Profiling. Sprint testing was performed in the
same lane of the same indoor Mondotrack across all testing
periods. A standardized ;20-minute warm-up including jog-
ging, dynamic stretching, and submaximal 40-m efforts at 70,
80, and 90%, respectively, of self-selected maximal intensity
was completed (16). After the warm-up, subjects completed 2
maximal 40-m sprints separated by approximately 5 minutes.
Subjects commenced each sprint from a split stance without
a countermovement and instructed to accelerate maximally
while avoiding any deceleration before the 40-m mark. A
radar device (Stalker ATS II; Applied Concepts, Dallas, TX,
USA) set 2 m behind the subject and at a height of 1 m off of
the ground was used to capture velocity data at a sampling
rate of 46.9 Hz. The radar was operated by a portable laptop
using the software supplied by the manufacturer (STATS;
Applied Concepts). Velocity-time data were filtered and
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
clipped at the point of deceleration within the STATS pro-
gram. A rollout distance of 0.50 m was included to enable
distance-time data comparable with industry standard timing
lights.
Maximum velocity (Vmax) and time splits at 10, 20, and
40 m (s) were determined. A high-speed video camera
recording at 300 Hz was set adjacent to the track at 35 m
to capture maximum velocity kinematic variables between 30
and 40 m. Footage was transferred onto a personal computer
and analyzed using the video analysis software (Kinovea
0.8.15). Contact time (s), flight time (s), and step rate (Hz) at
maximum velocity were determined from each sprint. Vertical
stiffness (Kvert) and leg stiffness (Kleg) at maximum velocity
was modeled using the methods previously described by Mor-
in et al. (36). Previous research has demonstrated radar assess-
ment to be a valid alternative to photoelectric cells (44),
whereas this method of assessment exhibits high (CV ,
5%) absolute intraday and interday reliability (43).
Muscle Architecture. In vivo muscle architecture was mea-
sured using 2-dimensional (2D) B-mode ultrasonography
using an ultrasound transducer (45-mm linear array, 10
MHz; GE Healthcare, Vivid S5, Chicago, IL, USA). Subjects
lie supine on an adjustable bench with their right knee fixed
at 458 with muscles relaxed. This joint angle was chosen
to minimize fascicle curvature (7). The location of the scan
was taken at 50% of the femur length, and the vastus lateralis
(VL) muscle was scanned (46). Water soluble transducer gel
was applied to the probe head between the skin-probe inter-
face to aid acoustic contact and allow for minimal compres-
sion of the muscle (46). Scans were performed with the
transducer aligned parallel to the muscle fascicles and
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 10 | OCTOBER 2018 | 2753
 2754

Responses to Eccentric vs. Traditional Resistance Training

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the

TABLE 1. Performance data (mean 6 SD) for subjects (n = 7) in the intervention group completing an accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) resistance training
program.*†

Post-
Mid-testing testingz Qualitative Qualitative
Pre-testing (slow AEL) (fast AEL) Effect size (mid-pre) inference Effect size (post-mid) inference

Strength and power variables

Relative back squat 1RM 1.77 6 0.28 1.86 6 0.20 1.85 6 0.18 0.38§ (0.04 to 0.70) Likely higher 20.04 (20.07 to 20.01) Unclear
(kg$BM21)
IL relative peak power (W$kg21) 14.4 6 1.6 15.1 6 1.6 14.8 6 0.8 0.44 (20.22 to 1.10) Unclear 20.23 (21.25 to 0.78) Unclear
IL optimal cadence (RPM) 132 6 8 133 6 7 130 6 6 0.02 (20.42 to 0.46) Unclear 20.34 (20.98 to 0.31) Unclear
0.50-m drop jump variables
Contact time (s) 0.22 6 0.02 0.22 6 0.02 0.20 6 0.02 0.01 (20.71 to 0.72) Unclear 20.82║ (21.47 to 20.17) Likely lower
TM

Flight time (s) 0.49 6 0.05 0.49 6 0.04 0.48 6 0.05 0.01 (20.28 to 0.30) Unclear 20.35 (21.26 to 0.55) Unclear
RSI 2.29 6 0.32 2.29 6 0.21 2.41 6 0.45 20.03 (20.53 to 0.47) Unclear 0.37 § (20.19 to 0.93) Possibly higher
Leg stiffness (kN$m$kg21) 0.28 6 0.05 0.28 6 0.05 0.33 6 0.06 0.01 (20.69 to 0.72) Unclear 0.77║ (0.14 to 1.40) Likely higher
40-m sprint variables
10 m (s) 1.80 6 0.04 1.79 6 0.06 1.83 6 0.05 20.17 (20.82 to 0.47) Unclear 0.65║ (0.17 to 1.13) Likely higher
20 m (s) 3.08 6 0.07 3.05 6 0.09 3.11 6 0.07 20.35§ (20.84 to 0.14) Possibly lower 0.71║ (0.25 to 1.17) Very likely higher
40 m (s) 5.41 6 0.14 5.36 6 0.13 5.44 6 0.12 20.44§ (20.76 to 20.12) Likely lower 0.66║ (0.39 to 0.92) Almost certainly
higher
Maximum velocity sprint variables
Vmax (m$s21) 8.72 6 0.24 8.87 6 0.28 8.72 6 0.22 0.56§ (0.12 to 1.01) Likely higher 20.59§ (21.19 to 0.01) Likely lower
Contact time (s) 0.12 6 0.01 0.11 6 0.01 0.11 6 0.01 20.46§ (20.74 to 20.19) Likely lower 0.32 (20.68 to 1.33) Unclear
Flight time (s) 0.11 6 0.01 0.11 6 0.01 0.11 6 0.01 20.16 (20.85 to 0.53) Unclear 20.55 (21.47 to 0.37) Unclear
Step rate (Hz) 4.40 6 0.22 4.48 6 0.17 4.51 6 0.14 0.42§ (20.08 to 0.93) Likely higher 0.21§ (20.18 to 0.60) Possibly higher
Vertical stiffness (kN$m$kg21) 0.55 6 0.08 0.58 6 0.08 0.56 6 0.05 0.43§ (0.16 to 0.69) Likely higher 20.31 (21.32 to 0.70) Unclear
Leg stiffness (kN$m$kg21) 0.30 6 0.05 0.31 6 0.06 0.31 6 0.06 0.19 (20.14 to 0.53) Unclear 20.08 (20.76 to 0.60) Unclear

*1RM = 1 repetition maximum; kg$BM21 = kilograms per kilogram of body mass; IL = inertial load bike ergometer; W$kg21 = watts per kilogram; RPM = revolutions per minute;
RSI = reactive strength index; kN$m$kg21 = kilonewtons per meter per kilogram; Vmax = maximum velocity.
†Effect sizes presented as standardized Cohen differences (90% confidence interval).
zn = 6.
§Small effect; threshold values for small effects were set as 0.20–0.59, respectively.
║Moderate effect; threshold values for moderate effects were set as 0.60–1.19, respectively.

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

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

Figure 2. The standardized (Cohen) difference for subjects completing slow AEL (n = 7) vs. subjects completing slow TRT (n = 7). Differences are for the
change in selected performance variables. Negative values indicate a larger effect with TRT, and positive values indicate a larger effect with AEL. Qualitative
inferences indicate a positive or negative effect of AEL vs. TRT. Error bars indicate uncertainty in the true mean changes with 90% confidence intervals. The
shaded area represents the smallest worthwhile change. 1RM = 1 repetition maximum; AEL = accentuated eccentric loading; ES = effect size; IL = inertial load
cycle ergometer; RSI = reactive strength index; TRT = traditional resistance training; Vmax = maximum sprinting velocity.

perpendicular to the skin (6). Images were stored and trans-
ferred to a personal computer to be analyzed in the digitizing
software (ImageJ, 1.51j8; National Institutes of Health, USA).
Vastus lateralis muscle thickness (cm) was taken as the per-
pendicular distance between the deep and superficial apo-
neurosis, and fascicle angle (u) was defined as the angle of
the VL muscle fascicles relative to the deep aponeurosis of
insertion (2). As the fascicles often extended beyond the
recorded image, fascicle length (cm) across the deep and
superficial aponeurosis was estimated by the following
equation:
21
Fascicle length ¼ MT3ðsin uÞ
where MT refers to VL muscle thickness and u refers to VL
fascicle angle (22). The average of 3 scans was taken for each
variable.
Statistical Analyses
Data are presented as mean 6 SD. Effect size (90% confi-
dence interval [CI]) statistics were then calculated using
a statistical spreadsheet (25) and used to determine the mag-
nitude of change within and between the 2 groups (26). The
smallest worthwhile change or difference was calculated as
0.2 multiplied by the between-subject SD based on Cohen’s
ES principle (11). Threshold values for ES were set as: #0.19
trivial, 0.20–0.59 small, 0.60–1.19 moderate, 1.20–1.99 large,
2.00–3.99 very large, and $4.00 extremely large. Probabilities
were calculated to establish whether the true differences
were lower, similar, or higher than the smallest worthwhile
change or difference. Quantitative chances of higher or
lower differences were qualitatively evaluated as follows:
#0.99% almost certainly not, 1.0–4.9% very unlikely, 5.0–
24.9% unlikely, 25.0–74.9% possible, 75.0–94.9% likely,
95.0–98.9% very likely, and $99% almost certain. If the
chance of higher or lower differences was .5%, the true
difference was deemed to be unclear (26).
RESULTS
Pre-testing Differences
After attrition, several small to moderate differences in
; performance variables were observed between AEL and
TRT groups during baseline pre-testing. Inertial load peak
power (ES: 0.87; CI: 20.02 to 1.75) and optimal cadence
(ES: 1.11; CI: 0.27–1.95) were moderately higher in AEL
vs. TRT, respectively. Drop jump RSI (ES: 0.99; CI: 0.14–
1.84) and flight time (ES: 0.85; CI: 20.04 to 1.75) were both
moderately higher in the AEL group vs. the TRT group.
Subjects in the AEL group exhibited moderately faster 10-
m (ES: 1.05; CI: 0.18–1.92), 20-m (ES: 1.01; CI: 0.14–1.89),
and 40-m (ES: 1.08; CI: 0.24–1.93) times vs. the TRT group
in conjunction with a moderate difference in Vmax (ES: 1.13;
CI: 0.31–1.94).
The Effects of Slow Accentuated Eccentric Loading and
Traditional Resistance Training Protocols
At mid-testing after the first 4-week training phase, a small
improvement was found in back squat strength for those

VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 10 | OCTOBER 2018 | 2755

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 2756

Responses to Eccentric vs. Traditional Resistance Training

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the

TABLE 2. Performance data (mean 6 SD) for subjects (n = 7) in the control group completing a traditional resistance training (TRT) program.*†

Mid-testing Post-testing Qualitative Qualitative

Pre-testing (slow TRT) (fast TRT) Effect size (mid-pre) inference Effect size (post-mid) inference

Strength and power

variables
Relative back squat 1RM 1.65 6 0.20 1.62 6 0.20 1.63 6 0.23 20.14 (20.32 to 0.04) Unclear 0.01 (20.20 to 0.22) Unclear
(kg$BM21)
IL relative peak power 12.8 6 1.8 13.0 6 1.4 13.8 6 1.9 0.10 (20.31 to 0.52) Unclear 0.47z (0.17 to 0.78) Likely higher
(W$kg21)
IL optimal cadence (RPM) 125 6 3 129 6 4 129 6 7 0.88§ (0.06 to 1.70) Likely higher 0.10 (20.55 to 0.75) Unclear
0.50-m drop jump variables
Contact time (s) 0.24 6 0.04 0.24 6 0.03 0.24 6 0.05 0.11 (20.37 to 0.60) Unclear 0.08 (20.45 to 0.61) Unclear
Flight time (s) 0.45 6 0.04 0.46 6 0.04 0.46 6 0.03 0.37z (20.09 to 0.83) Possibly 20.25 (21.18 to 0.68) Unclear
higher
TM

RSI 1.94 6 0.31 1.96 6 0.23 1.97 6 0.56 0.07 (20.24 to 0.38) Unclear 0.03 (20.69 to 0.74) Unclear
Leg stiffness 0.26 6 0.07 0.25 6 0.07 0.26 6 0.11 20.12 (20.47 to 0.23) Unclear 0.08 (20.30 to 0.46) Unclear
(kN$m$kg21)
40-m sprint variables
10 m (s) 1.90 6 0.11 1.88 6 0.12 1.89 6 0.05 20.15 (20.59 to 0.29) Unclear 0.07 (20.79 to 0.92) Unclear
20 m (s) 3.22 6 0.16 3.20 6 0.18 3.22 6 0.09 20.13 (20.47 to 0.20) Unclear 0.14 (20.56 to 0.84) Unclear
40 m (s) 5.67 6 0.26 5.68 6 0.27 5.72 6 0.22 0.04 (20.18 to 0.25) Unclear 0.16 (20.44 to 0.77) Unclear
Maximum velocity sprint
variables
Vmax (m$s21) 8.30 6 0.37 8.25 6 0.31 8.14 6 0.39 20.14 (20.37 to 0.09) Unclear 20.34z (20.80 to 0.12) Possibly lower
Contact time (s) 0.12 6 0.01 0.12 6 0.01 0.13 6 0.01 0.15 (20.13 to 0.43) Unclear 0.13 (20.12 to 0.37) Unclear
Flight time (s) 0.12 6 0.01 0.12 6 0.01 0.12 6 0.02 0.37z (20.04 to 0.78) Likely higher 20.03 (20.65 to 0.58) Unclear
Step rate (Hz) 4.19 6 0.20 4.09 6 0.22 4.08 6 0.30 20.50z (20.97 to 20.04) Likely lower 20.03 (20.51 to 0.46) Unclear
Vertical stiffness 0.48 6 0.11 0.47 6 0.09 0.45 6 0.10 20.15 (20.42 to 0.12) Unclear 20.21z (20.59 to 0.16) Possibly lower
(kN$m$kg21)
Leg stiffness 0.30 6 0.06 0.31 6 0.06 0.30 6 0.06 0.09 (20.12 to 0.31) Unclear 20.20 (20.70 to 0.31) Unclear
(kN$m$kg21)

*1RM = 1 repetition maximum; kg$BM21 = kilograms per kilogram of body mass; IL = inertial load bike ergometer; W$kg21 = watts per kilogram; RPM = revolutions per minute;
RSI = reactive strength index; kN$m$kg21 = kilonewtons per meter per kilogram; Vmax = maximum velocity.
†Effect sizes presented as standardized Cohen differences (90% confidence interval).
zSmall effect; threshold values for small effects were set as 0.20–0.59, respectively.
§Moderate effect; threshold values for moderate effects were set as 0.60–1.19, respectively.

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

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

completing slow AEL (Table 1); this improvement was

likely superior (+0.12 kg$BM21; ES: 0.48; and CI: 0.14–

(20.20 to 0.16) (20.23 to 0.43)

(20.30 to 0.33) (20.10 to 0.61)

(20.37 to 0.25) (20.52 to 0.38)

0.82) to slow TRT (Figure 2). Slow AEL resulted in

Effect size
(post-mid)
small improvements in 20- and 40-m times. The

0.10

20.07
0.25§
TABLE 3. Vastus lateralis muscle architectural data (mean 6 SD) for subjects completing slow and fast accentuated eccentric loading (AEL; n = 7) and
improvement in 40-m time with slow AEL was possi-
bly superior compared with slow TRT (20.07 seconds;
ES: 0.28; and CI: 0.01–0.55). Slow AEL training also
elicited likely small improvements in Vmax, contact

Effect size
(mid-pre)
time, step rate, and leg stiffness. Alternatively, flight

20.02

0.01

20.06
time increased with slow TRT in conjunction with
a reduction in step rate (Table 2). The reduction in

TRT (control)
step rate did not seem to impair 40-m performance

Mid-testing Post-testing

3.3 6 0.4

15.6 6 2.0

12.4 6 2.0
(slow TRT) (fast TRT)
or the attainment of Vmax in the slow TRT group.
Improvements in Vmax (+0.20 m$s21 ; ES: 0.52; and
CI: 0.18–0.86), contact time (20.01 seconds; ES:
20.45; CI: 20.78 to 20.12), step rate (+0.20 Hz; ES:

3.2 6 0.3

0.25 (20.61 to 1.11) 15.1 6 1.8 15.1 6 1.7

0.61 (20.21 to 1.43) 20.49 (21.63 to 0.65) 12.6 6 2.0 12.5 6 1.5
0.83; CI: 0.27–1.39), and vertical stiffness (+0.05
kN$m$kg21 ; ES: 0.50; CI: 0.19–0.81) were likely
greater with slow AEL vs. slow TRT training. Leg
stiffness did not exhibit a clear change with either slow

0.05 (20.12 to 0.23) 3.2 6 0.3

AEL or TRT protocols.

testing
Pre-
In contrast to the changes in strength and speed after
slow AEL at mid-testing, there was a moderate
increase in IL optimal cadence with slow TRT

(slow AEL) (fast AEL) z Effect size (mid-pre) Effect size (post-mid)
(Table 2), which was likely greater compared with slow
AEL (+3.6 RPM; ES: 0.52; and CI: 0.12–1.16). There
was a possible small increase in drop jump flight time
with slow TRT; however, this had no effect on the RSI

†Effect sizes presented as standardized Cohen differences (90% confidence interval).

performance measure. Neither slow AEL nor slow

§Possible small increase; threshold value for a small effect was set as 0.20–0.59.
TRT protocols influenced muscle architectural varia-
bles (Table 3).
0.18 (20.03 to 0.39)

20.19 (20.68 to 0.30)

The Effects of Fast Accentuated Eccentric Loading and
Traditional Resistance Training Protocols
AEL (intervention)

At post-testing after the second 4-week phase of

training, a likely reduction in drop jump contact time
traditional resistance training (TRT; n = 7) programs.*†

was observed in the fast AEL group resulting in

a possible small increase in RSI and likely moderate
Mid-testing Post-testing

3.2 6 0.7

14.6 6 2.5

12.4 6 1.1

increase in leg stiffness (Table 1). The reduction in

contact time with fast AEL was likely greater (20.02
seconds; ES: 0.66; and CI: 20.12 to 1.43) than fast
TRT (Figure 3). However, there was no clear differ-
3.0 6 0.7 3.1 6 0.7

14.4 6 2.4 13.9 6 2.9

12.2 6 1.4 13.3 6 2.1

ence in RSI. In contrast to the slow phase of training,

there were moderate reductions in 10-, 20-, and 40-m
times with fast AEL. Furthermore, there were small
reductions in Vmax in both fast AEL (Table 1) and fast
TRT (Table 2) groups. No differences were observed
testing

*cm = centimeters.
Pre-

between fast AEL and fast TRT for any sprint perfor-
mance variable (Figure 3).
A small increase in IL peak power was observed with
thickness

angle (u)

zn = 6.

fast TRT at post-testing, which was likely greater

length
Fascicle

Fascicle
Muscle

(cm)

(cm)

(+0.72 W$kg21; ES: 0.40; and CI: 0.00–0.79) than fast

AEL (Figure 3). There was a possible small increase in
VL pennation angle with fast TRT; however, no clear
difference vs. fast AEL was observed (Table 3).

VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 10 | OCTOBER 2018 | 2757

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Responses to Eccentric vs. Traditional Resistance Training

Figure 3. The standardized (Cohen) difference for subjects completing fast AEL (n = 6) vs. subjects completing fast TRT (n = 7). Differences are for the change
in selected performance variables. Negative values indicate a larger effect with TRT, and positive values indicate a larger effect with AEL. Qualitative inferences
indicate a positive or negative effect of AEL vs. TRT. Error bars indicate uncertainty in the true mean changes with 90% confidence intervals. The shaded area
represents the smallest worthwhile change. 1RM = 1 repetition maximum; AEL = accentuated eccentric loading; ES = effect size; IL = inertial load cycle
ergometer; RSI = reactive strength index; TRT = traditional resistance training; Vmax = maximum sprinting velocity.

DISCUSSION neural mechanisms, as no clear changes in VL muscle thick-

This study compared the effects of slow and fast tempo AEL
resistance training with a control TRT program on muscle
architectural properties, strength, power, and speed perfor-
mance. The main finding was that 4 weeks of slow AEL
resistance training was superior to slow TRT resistance
training in improving lower-body strength and sprinting
speed in resistance-trained rugby players when integrated
within a concurrent training program. By contrast, besides
a possible increase in reactive strength, a second 4-week
training phase of fast AEL did not seem to elicit any further
improvements in strength or speed, and may have compro-
mised the previously observed enhancements in sprint
performance. These results partly support our hypothesis
of the superiority of AEL training vs. TRT in team sport
athletes completing a concurrent training program. How-
ever, the pattern of adaptation differed from what was
initially hypothesized. It was also identified that team sport
athletes may be less responsive to either fast eccentric
stimuli, or susceptible to eccentric-related fatigue and
impairments in performance with this periodization
approach.
It has been well established that eccentric training can lead
to greater increases in total strength, that is, combined
eccentric, isometric, and concentric strength, than concen-
tric training (39). The superiority of slow AEL in increasing
lower-body strength in this study is arguably underpinned by
the
ness, fascicle angle, or fascicle length were observed (20).
Although program volume was closely matched between
AEL and TRT groups, those completing slow AEL were
exposed to absolute loads 18–25% higher than those com-
pleting slow TRT, which may have elicited a disinhibition of
mechanisms constraining volitional agonist drive and there-
fore force production (1). It seems that the TRT protocol
provided an insufficient stimulus to increase strength in 4
weeks in a resistance-trained cohort undergoing concurrent
aerobic training. Indeed, it has previously been identified the
difficulty in increasing strength and power in academy-aged
rugby players with a high training load (4). This may be
explained by the interference phenomenon whereby concur-
rent aerobic training attenuates the magnitude of adaptation
to a given strength program because of divergent phenotypic
signals (19). Concurrent aerobic training possibly attenuated
myofibrillar protein synthetic rates in response to both pro-
tocols (10); however, the additional neural stimulation with
slow AEL elicited a small increase in strength independent
of changes in muscle cross-sectional area.
Slow AEL induced a superior improvement in 40-m sprint
performance vs. slow TRT, with no clear differences
observed between the groups for the shorter distances.
The improvement in 40-m sprint performance with slow
AEL was accompanied by an increase in maximum velocity
and underlying kinematic variables. The ability to apply
TM

2758 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

greater mass-specific vertical forces and possibly maintain
a stiffer leg spring seem to underpin the attainment of a faster
maximum velocity (48). Indeed, it has been consistently
demonstrated that improvements in back squat strength pos-
itively transfer to sprinting speed (42). The reduced contact
time and concomitant increases in step rate and vertical
stiffness indicate improvements in mass-specific vertical
force production and lower limb stiffness after 4 weeks of
slow AEL training. The storage and return of energy within
elastic structures of the lower limb play an increasingly
important role at higher sprinting speeds up to maximum
velocity (9). As previous research has identified the efficacy
of eccentric training protocols in increasing tendon stiffness
(31) and upregulating muscle collagen synthesis rates (24),
the improvement in maximum velocity with slow AEL may
have been partly related to modulated stiffness properties of
tendon and fascial elements within the lower limb (9,38).
Nonetheless, muscle-tendon unit tissue stiffness was not
directly measured in this study, and therefore, any contribu-
tion remains speculative.
No changes in IL peak power were observed in either
group after the slow phase of training. Perhaps, in contrast
to expectations, those completing slow TRT, however, did
exhibit an increase in the cadence at which peak power
occurred. A higher optimal cadence is generally believed
to reflect a larger proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibers
comprising the lower limb musculature (23). However,
there is little corroborating evidence such as coinciding
improvements in speed and power to indicate an increase
in fast-twitch fiber composition with slow TRT. The train-
ing protocol in this study may have been a sufficient stim-
ulus to improve velocity-specific neural activation at
higher cadences independent of changes in muscle mor-
phological or architectural properties (41), and indeed,
concentric power. There were no changes in drop jump
RSI for either group after the slow training phase. Neither
protocol included specific reactive strength exercises in
this phase of training, and this strength quality is consid-
ered to be largely influenced by neuromuscular qualities
such as muscle preactivation, reflex excitability, and rapid
force application, which may be best developed through
exposure to the task (3).
The second 4-week phase of training with faster contrac-
tion speeds did not induce any further improvements in
strength in either group. There was a small increase in IL
peak power with fast TRT, which may reflect the efficacy of
the strength and power training (15), or indeed, the incur-
rence of less fatigue than the fast AEL protocol. A small
increase in VL pennation angle with fast TRT, which possi-
bly represents a small increase in physiological cross-
sectional area of the muscle (28), may also have contributed
to the observed improvements in IL peak power (15). The
apparent detrimental effect of fast AEL on IL peak power
compared with fast TRT may have been a result of residual
fatigue. Chronic eccentric exercise in combination with the
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
concurrent training load possibly suppressed a positive train-
ing effect (29). Indeed, the lack of improvement in strength,
moderate impairments in 10-, 20-, and 40-m sprint perfor-
mance, and a small impairment in maximum velocity after
fast AEL all suggest a fatigue-induced suppression of perfor-
mance. Previous research has found that improvements in
concentric power reached their peak 8 weeks after the ces-
sation of an eccentric training intervention (29), whereas
improvements in concentric force production have been
shown to peak after 6 weeks of detraining following eccen-
tric training (14).
A longer recovery period is likely necessary to allow for
improvements in performance to materialize after an
extended (e.g., 8-week) period of chronic eccentric training
(20,29). This may be especially relevant to rugby players
undergoing a concurrent training program whereby residual
fatigue is likely to be even greater than in previous reports. In
contrast to the impairments in strength and speed, there was
an improvement in drop jump RSI with fast AEL, which was
underpinned by a reduction in ground contact time. This
finding suggests that reactive strength is either less suscepti-
ble to fatigue incurred by chronic eccentric training than
other measures, or alternatively, may have exhibited a more
substantial improvement had an extended recovery period
been available. It is possible that the specific nature of the fast
AEL protocol with the inclusion of overloaded drop jumps
underpinned these performance responses. It has previously
been demonstrated that contact time during a drop jump
from 0.50 m is determined primarily by braking, or eccentric,
force production (21). The inclusion of AEL drop jumps
likely had a marked effect on eccentric force production
capabilities, which in turn lead to an improvement in contact
time during unloaded drop jumps.
There were several methodological limitations that may
affect the interpretation of these data. We were restricted in
the number of subjects available in the academy training
squad and therefore sample size. After attrition (n = 3) due to
injury or absence, baseline differences between groups were
magnified and subjects within the AEL intervention group
were moderately more powerful and faster than the TRT
control group. This may therefore have confounded the
training responses to several variables. Although it should
be noted that it is more difficult to elicit adaptation in indi-
viduals with a higher baseline or more training experience
(5), these differences plausibly attenuated the efficacy of the
AEL protocol. We tested one periodization model of slow
followed by fast AEL and TRT, and it is not clear whether
the performance effects observed were due to tempo per se
or the order of the training blocks. Further research should
therefore investigate the effects of fast tempo AEL training
without a preceding slow AEL phase. Finally, the inclusion
of concurrent conditioning training units may be considered
a limitation; however, we believe that this improved the
ecological validity of the study.
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 10 | OCTOBER 2018 | 2759
 Responses to Eccentric vs. Traditional Resistance Training
These findings are proposed to be relevant to the
practitioner seeking to implement eccentric training with
trained rugby players or team sport athletes undergoing
a broader physical preparation program. The short-term, 4-
week incorporation of slow AEL seems to be superior to
commonly implemented TRT in improving lower limb
strength and maximum velocity sprinting speed in rugby
players undertaking a concurrent preparatory program.
Aside from a possible improvement in reactive strength,
a second 4-week phase of fast AEL did not lead to additional
improvements in strength, power, or speed. Indeed, pre-
viously realized improvements in speed may have been
suppressed because of residual fatigue.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The additional eccentric load afforded by slow AEL may
provide a superior stimulus to the neuromuscular system,
a stimulus that could be especially relevant to trained
athletes simultaneously attempting to increase strength,
power, speed, and aerobic fitness. Although the improve-
ments were generally of a small magnitude, these findings
are nonetheless of interest to sport scientists and strength
and conditioning practitioners given the short duration of
the intervention, the training status of the subjects, and the
inclusion of conflicting modalities that likely interfered with
neuromuscular adaptation. As this method of training is
highly taxing to the neuromuscular system, 8 weeks of AEL
training may be inappropriate within a team sport setting,
unless a sufficient recovery period is available to realize
performance responses.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
REFERENCES
1. Aagaard, P. Training-induced changes in neural function. Exerc Sport
Sci Rev 31: 61–67, 2003.
2. Aagaard, P, Andersen, JL, Dyhre-Poulsen, P, Leffers, AM, Wagner,
A, Magnusson, SP, et al. A mechanism for increased contractile
strength of human pennate muscle in response to strength training:
Changes in muscle architecture. J Physiol 534: 613–623, 2001.
3. Alkjaer, T, Meyland, J, Raffalt, PC, Lundbye-Jensen, J, and
Simonsen, EB. Neuromuscular adaptations to 4 weeks of intensive
drop jump training in well-trained athletes. Physiol Rep 1: 1–11, 2013.
4. Baker, D. The effects of an in-season of concurrent training on the
maintenance of maximal strength and power in professional and
college-aged rugby league football players. J Strength Cond Res 15:
172–177, 2001.
5. Baker, D. 10-year changes in upper body strength and power in elite
professional rugby league players—The effect of training age, stage,
and content. J Strength Cond Res 27: 285–292, 2013.
6. Blazevich, AJ, Cannavan, D, Coleman, DR, and Horne, S. Influence
of concentric and eccentric resistance training on architectural
adaptation in human quadriceps muscles. J Appl Physiol (1985) 103:
1565–1575, 2007.
7. Blazevich, AJ, Gill, ND, Deans, N, and Zhou, S. Lack of human
muscle architectural adaptation after short-term strength training.
Muscle Nerve 35: 78–86, 2007.
the TM
2760 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
8. Bobbert, MF, Huijing, PA, and Van Ingen-Schenau, GJ. Drop
jumping. I. The influence of jumping technique on the biomechanics
of jumping. Med Sci Sports Exerc 19: 332–338, 1987.
9. Cavagna, GA, Komarek, L, and Mazzoleni, S. The mechanics of
sprint running. J Physiol 217: 709–721, 1971.
10. Coffey, VG and Hawley, JA. Concurrent exercise training: Do
opposites distract. J Physiol 595: 2883–2896, 2017.
11. Cohen, J. The T-test for Means. In: Statistical Power for Behavioural
Sciences. Hillsdale, MI: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988. pp. 19–
74.
12. Comfort, P and McMahon, JJ. Reliability of maximal back squat and
power clean performances in inexperienced athletes. J Strength Cond
Res 29: 3089–3096, 2015.
13. Cook, CJ, Beaven, CM, and Kilduff, LP. Three weeks of eccentric
training combined with overspeed exercises enhances power and
running speed performance gains in trained athletes. J Strength Cond
Res 27: 1280–1286, 2013.
14. Coratella, G and Schena, F. Eccentric resistance training increases
and retains maximal strength, muscle endurance, and hypertrophy
in trained men. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 41: 1184–1189, 2016.
15. Cormie, P, McGuigan, MR, and Newton, RU. Developing maximal
neuromuscular power: Part 1-biological basis of maximal power
production. Sports Med 41: 17–38, 2011.
16. Cross, MR, Brughelli, M, Samozino, P, Brown, SR, and Morin, JB.
Optimal loading for maximising power during sled-resisted
sprinting. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 12: 1069–1077, 2016.
17. Dalleau, G, Belli, A, Viale, F, Lacour, JR, and Bourdin, M. A simple
method for field measurements of leg stiffness in hopping. Int J Sports
Med 25: 170–176, 2004.
18. de Hoyo, M, Pozzo, M, Sanudo, B, Carrasco, L, Gonzalo-Skok, O,
Dominguez-Cobo, S, et al. Effects of a 10-week in-season eccentric-
overload training program on muscle-injury prevention and
performance in junior elite soccer players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform
10: 46–52, 2015.
19. Docherty, D and Sporer, B. A proposed model for examining the
interference phenomenon between concurrent aerobic and strength
training. Sports Med 30: 385–394, 2000.
20. Douglas, J, Pearson, S, Ross, A, and McGuigan, M. Chronic
adaptations to eccentric training: A systematic review. Sports Med
47: 917–941, 2017.
21. Douglas, J, Pearson, S, Ross, A, and McGuigan, M. The kinetic
determinants of reactive strength in highly trained sprint athletes.
J Strength Cond Res 32: 1562–1570, 2018.
22. Fukunaga, T, Miyatani, M, Tachi, M, Kouzaki, M, Kawakami, Y, and
Kanehisa, H. Muscle volume is a major determinant of joint torque
in humans. Acta Physiol Scand 172: 249–255, 2001.
23. Hautier, CA, Linossier, MT, Belli, A, Lacour, JR, and Arsac, LM.
Optimal velocity for maximal power production in non-isokinetic
cycling is related to muscle fibre type composition. Eur J Appl
Physiol 74: 114–118, 1996.
24. Heinemeier, KM, Olesen, JL, Haddad, F, Langberg, H, Kjaer, M,
Baldwin, KM, et al. Expression of collagen and related growth
factors in rat tendon and skeletal muscle in response to specific
contraction types. J Physiol 582: 1303–1316, 2007.
25. Hopkins, WG. Spreadsheets for analysis of controlled trials,
crossovers and time series. Available at: sportsci.org/2017/wghxls.
htm. Accessed April 12, 2017.
26. Hopkins, WG, Marshall, SW, Batterham, AM, and Hanin, J.
Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise
science. Sports Med 41: 3–12, 2009.
27. Jones, TW, Smith, A, Macnaughton, LS, and French, DN. Strength
and conditioning and concurrent training practices in elite rugby
union. J Strength Cond Res 30: 3354–3366, 2016.

28. Kawakami, Y, Abe, T, Kuno, SY, and Fukunaga, T. Training-induced
changes in muscle architecture and specific tension. Eur J Appl
Physiol 72: 37–43, 1995.
29. Leong, CH, McDermott, WJ, Elmer, SJ, and Martin, JC. Chronic
eccentric cycling improves quadriceps muscle structure and
maximum cycling power. Int J Sports Med 35: 559–565, 2014.
30. Liu, C, Chen, CS, Ho, WH, Fule, RJ, Chung, PH, and Shiang, TY.
The effects of passive leg press training on jumping performance,
speed, and muscle power. J Strength Cond Res 27: 1479–1486, 2013.
31. Malliaras, P, Kamal, B, Nowell, A, Farley, T, Dhamu, H, Simpson, V,
et al. Patellar tendon adaptation in relation to load-intensity and
contraction type. J Biomech 46: 1893–1899, 2013.
32. Martin, JC, Diedrich, D, and Coyle, EF. Time course of learning to
produce maximum cycling power. Int J Sports Med 21: 485–487, 2000.
33. Martin, JC, Wagner, BM, and Coyle, EF. Inertial-load method
determines maximal cycling power in a single exercise bout. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 29: 1505–1512, 1997.
34. McBride, JM, Triplett-McBride, NT, Davie, A, and Newton, RU. A
comparison of strength and power characteristics between power
lifters, Olympic lifters, and sprinters. J Strength Cond Res 13: 58–66,
1999.
35. McGuigan, MR, Wright, GA, and Fleck, SJ. Strength training for
athletes: Does it really help sports performance? Int J Sports Physiol
Perform 7: 2–5, 2012.
36. Morin, JB, Dalleau, G, Kyröläinen, H, Jeannin, T, and Belli, A. A
simple method for measuring stiffness during running. J Appl
Biomech 21: 167–180, 2005.
37. Paddon-Jones, D, Leveritt, M, Lonergan, A, and Abernethy, P.
Adaptation to chronic eccentric exercise in humans: The influence
of contraction velocity. Eur J Appl Physiol 85: 466–471, 2001.
38. Roberts, TJ. Contribution of elastic tissues to the mechanics and
energetics of muscle function during movement. J Exp Biol 219:
266–275, 2016.
39. Roig, M, O’Brien, K, Kirk, G, Murray, R, McKinnon, P, Shadgan, B,
et al. The effects of eccentric versus concentric resistance training on
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
muscle strength and mass in healthy adults: A systematic review
with meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 43: 556–568, 2009.
40. Ross, A, Gill, N, Cronin, J, and Malcata, R. The relationship between
physical characteristics and match performance in rugby sevens.
Eur J Sport Sci 15: 565–571, 2015.
41. Samozino, P, Rejc, E, Di Prampero, PE, Belli, A, and Morin, JB.
Optimal force-velocity profile in ballistic movements—Altius: Citius
or fortius? Med Sci Sports Exerc 44: 313–322, 2012.
42. Seitz, LB, Reyes, A, Tran, TT, de Villarreal, ES, and Haff, GG.
Increases in lower body strength transfer positively to sprint
performance: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports Med
44: 1693–1702, 2014.
43. Simperingham, KD, Cronin, JB, Pearson, SN, and Ross, A.
Reliability of horizontal force-velocity-power profiling during short
sprint-running accelerations using radar technology. Sports Biomech:
1–12, 2017. Epub ahead of print.
44. Simperingham, KD, Cronin, JB, and Ross, A. Advances in sprint
acceleration profiling for field-based team-sport athletes: Utility,
reliability, validity and limitations. Sports Med 46: 1619–1645, 2016.
45. Smart, DJ, Hopkins, WG, and Gill, ND. Differences and changes in
the physical characteristics of professional and amateur rugby union
players. J Strength Cond Res 27: 3033–3044, 2013.
46. Storey, A, Wong, S, Smith, HK, and Marshall, P. Divergent muscle
functional and architectural responses to two successive high
intensity resistance exercise sessions in competitive weightlifters and
resistance trained adults. Eur J Appl Physiol 112: 3629–3639, 2012.
47. Wernbom, M, Augustsson, J, and Thomee, R. The influence of
frequency, intensity, volume and mode of strength training on
whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans. Sports Med 37:
225–264, 2007.
48. Weyand, PG, Sternlight, DB, Bellizzi, MJ, and Wright, S. Faster
top running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not
more rapid leg movements. J Appl Physiol (1985) 89: 1991–1999,
2000.
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 10 | OCTOBER 2018 | 2761