Concurrent fatigue and potentiation in endurance athletes

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2011, 6, 82-93 © 2011 Human Kinetics, Inc. Concurrent Fatigue and Potentiation in Endurance Athletes Daniel A. Boullosa, José L. Tuimil, Luis M. Alegre, Eliseo Iglesias, and Fernando Lusquiños Purpose: Countermovement jump (CMJ) and maximum running speed over a distance of 20 m were evaluated for examination of the concurrent fatigue and postactivation potentiation (PAP) in endurance athletes after an incremental ield running test. Methods: Twenty-two endurance athletes performed two attempts of CMJ on a force plate and maximum running speed test before and following the Université de Montréal Track Test (UMTT). Results: The results showed an improvement in CMJ height (3.6%) after UMTT that correlated with the increment in peak power (3.4%), with a concurrent peak force loss (–10.8%) that correlated with peak power enhancement. The athletes maintained their 20 m sprint performance after exhaustion. Cluster analysis reinforced the association between CMJ and peak power increments in responders with a reported correlation between peak power and sprint performance increments (r = .623; P = .041); nonresponders showed an impairment of peak force, vertical stiffness, and a higher vertical displacement of the center of mass during the countermovement that correlated with lactate concentration (r = –0.717; P = .02). Conclusions: It can be suggested that PAP could counteract the peak force loss after exhaustion, allowing the enhancement of CMJ performance and the maintenance of sprint ability in endurance athletes after the UMTT. From these results, the evaluation of CMJ after incremental running tests for the assessment of muscular adaptations in endurance athletes can be recommended. Keywords: countermovement jump, sprint, maximum aerobic speed, exhaustion, ield During recent years, various studies investigated the inluence of neuromuscular factors on distance running, in particular, the relationship between muscle power factors and endurance running.1,2 Furthermore, different modalities of strength training with emphasis on power characteristics have been demonstrated to promote a higher running economy3–5 and a higher endurance performance.1,6 This Daniel A. Boullosa is with Pós-Graduação Stricto Sensu em Educação Física, Universidade Católica de Brasília, Brazil. José L. Tuimil is with the Department of Physical Education and Sport, University of A Coruña, A Coruña, Galicia, Spain. Luis M. Alegre is with the Faculty of Sports Sciences, University of Castilla–La Mancha, La Mancha, Spain. Eliseo Iglesias is with the Department of Physical Education and Sport, University of A Coruña, A Coruña, Galicia, Spain. Fernando Lusquiños is with the Department of Applied Physics, University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain. 82 Potentiation After Exhaustion 83 suggests that metabolic adaptations could also be accompanied by neuromuscular adaptations when a runner improves his running test results after a training period. Consequently, the evaluation of power concurrently with running performance should be considered for the monitoring of endurance athletes. Postactivation potentiation (PAP) refers to the phenomena by which muscular performance characteristics are acutely enhanced as a result of their contractile history.7 Some authors8 have reported an acute enhancement of power and jump capacities after an incremental protocol until exhaustion in a cohort of elite distance runners. This enhancement is contrary to the expected effect of fatigue on power characteristics following running until exhaustion.9,10 Other authors11 have shown the inluence of two exhausting, running protocols on the PAP proile while jumping and indicated that this PAP has not been reported in a group of physically active nonrunners. Therefore, it may be suggested that the PAP response, after running exercises, is speciic for endurance-trained subjects with different responses detected depending upon the mode of the running protocol. Furthermore, the paradox of jump enhancement after exhaustion is interesting and may indicate the coexistence of PAP and fatigue12 where the PAP-fatigue relationship affects subsequent voluntary activity.7 Potentiation is expected to occur after evoked contractions and after nearmaximum or maximum voluntary conditioning exercises in power-trained athletes when performing explosive tasks.7 Similarly, twitch-potentiation has also been observed in endurance-trained athletes in evoked contractions after maximal voluntary contractions,13 moderate-intensity isometric voluntary contractions,14 and continuous15 and intermittent running bouts.16 Moreover, PAP has also been reported in endurance trained athletes in jump performance after intermittent,8 continuous running exercises,8,17 and incremental protocols.8,11 From these previous studies, it can be suggested that the nature of the conditioning activity for PAP may be dependent upon the chronic training adaptations experienced by subjects. While athletes experienced in endurance training would demonstrate PAP after conditioning activities that stimulate slow-twitch ibers, those athletes experienced in power training would experience PAP after conditioning activities that stimulate primarily on fast-twitch ibers. In this regard, some authors8 reported correlations among jump enhancement, training volume, and maximum aerobic speed (MAS), suggesting a relationship between muscular chronic adaptations of elite endurance runners and the acute responses under fatigue. In contrast, others11 failed to observe similar correlations between variables. Subsequently, it would be important to examine further the potential relationships among training, running, and mechanisms for PAP. A countermovement jump (CMJ) is an easy-to-perform test, which is a neuromuscular fatigue assessment of athletes.18 Previously, it was suggested that an enhancement of elastic energy transfer occurs in a fatigued condition in CMJ with both impairment18 or enhancement8 of performance. Previous studies of distance runners8,11 evaluated PAP and jump capacity with the light-time method. However, the characteristics of the force-time curve during the push-off phase remain still unknown when looking for mechanical differences when PAP occurs. Another easy ield test for neuromuscular fatigue evaluation is the maximal 20 m sprint test.9 Interestingly, the velocity loss in this test after a 5 km trial has been related to the nonfatigued performance.10 Subsequently, mechanical parameters during a CMJ and sprint performance could be considered valid for the evaluation of concurrent postexercise PAP and fatigue. 84 Boullosa et al. Thus, the aim of this work was to study mechanical differences when endurance athletes perform a CMJ on a force plate before and after the Université de Montréal Track Test (UMTT).19 This ield running test was selected because it is appropriate for both endurance running evaluation20 and fatiguing exercise.11 In addition, the maximal sprint velocity over 20 m sprint was evaluated for comparison between both conditions. The hypothesis was that the PAP and fatigue induced by the UMTT could be relected in the changes in mechanical parameters during the CMJ and in maximal sprint velocity over 20 m. Methods Participants Twenty-two experienced endurance athletes (8 female and 8 male endurance runners, and 6 male triathletes) of heterogeneous level (from regional to elite) and training background volunteered for participation in this study. The sample was evaluated throughout the months of July to September, immediately following the end of the runner’s competitive season. However, the triathletes were still competing. Their characteristics are shown in Table 1. The local ethics committee approved this study design for experimentation with human participants. All participants were informed of all procedures and provided informed written consent. Table 1 Characteristics of participants, mean (SD) N = 22 Mean (SD) Range Male Runners (n = 8) Age (y) Height (cm) Body mass (kg) % Body fat (% BW) Maximum aerobic speed (km·h–1) 24 (4.3) 179.9 (8.3) 68.4 (7.5) 7.8 (0.7) 20.1 (0.6) 18–28 171–196 54.2–75 6.6–8.9 19–21 Female Runners (n = 8) Age (y) Height (cm) Body mass (kg) % Body fat (% BW) Maximum aerobic speed (km·h–1) 22.5 (5.5) 165.5 (5.5) 53.9 (3.8) 13.8 (2.6) 18.1 (1) 18–31 158–174 47.6–59 10.1–18.4 16–19 Male Triathletes (n = 6) Age (y) Height (cm) Body mass (kg) % Body fat (% BW) Maximum aerobic speed (km·h–1) 28.5 (6.2) 175.3 (4.6) 67.2 (4.1) 7.8 (0.5) 18.3 (0.5) 18–35 171–181 63.2–73.5 7.3–8.5 18–19 Note. BW: body weight. Potentiation After Exhaustion 85 Procedures Participants were evaluated individually on two occasions. A preliminary session in the laboratory was employed for both anthropometric evaluation and familiarization of participants with CMJ performance. This preliminary session was conducted between 48 h and 1 wk before the ield evaluation session with participants advised to avoid strenuous exercise 72 h before. The second session was conducted on a 400 m outdoor track with climatic conditions as follows: temperature of 21–28°C, relative air humidity of 70–80%, and barometric pressure of 735–765 mmHg. Power Performance in Nonfatigued Condition Participants warmed up by running on the grass for 10 min at an intensity of 60% of their estimated HRmax with a HR monitor (625x, Polar Electro, Finland). As part of the warm-up, the athletes practiced two to three CMJ attempts with arms akimbo immediately after the running exercise. Recording of jump performance in the nonfatigued condition was conducted 2–3 min after the warm-up and consisted of two maximal CMJ attempts, separated by at least 15 s. Participants were encouraged to jump as high as possible. The depth of the countermovement was freely chosen by participants. These jumps were performed on a force plate (Quattro jump, Kistler, Switzerland) with a sampling rate of 500 Hz, where vertical forces were recorded. The highest jump was selected for further analysis. Jump height (CMJ) was calculated from the difference between maximum height of the center of mass (apex) and the last contact of the toe on the ground during the take-off. Peak force was considered relative to body weight (BW). Mean and peak power during the push-off phase were also obtained. Additional parameters for further analysis were the vertical path of center of mass and normalized vertical stiffness (N·m–1·kg–1).21 Immediately after jump evaluation, participants performed two attempts, separated by 2 min of recovery, of a maximal running velocity test over 20 m. Distance for acceleration was freely chosen by participants (ie, 25–40 m) and performed in progression for achieving a true maximum sprint speed over a 20 m section recorded with a photocell portable system (Chronomaster, Spain) having an accuracy of +0.001 s. Maximum running speed was calculated from the recorded lap time. Endurance Running Evaluation The cadence of the UMTT was similar to the original (1 km·h–1 every 2 min)19 but the velocity was imposed by a cyclist with a velocimeter that was previously calibrated (SC6501, Shimano, Taiwan). The last completed 2 min stage was considered as the maximum aerobic speed (MAS). The inal time of the test was also recorded (TUMTT). This test is highly reproducible in athletic populations with the maximum aerobic speed demonstrating signiicant and high correlations with running performance.20 At the end of the running test, exhaustion was conirmed by an RPE > 19 (6–20 Borg’s scale) and attainment of estimated HRmax. Immediately after the UMTT, blood samples were taken from the ingertip for lactate measurement with a portable lactate analyzer (Lactate Scout, Senslab, Germany) for characterization of effort and as an additional exhaustion criterion (> 8 mmol·L–1). 86 Boullosa et al. Power Performance in Fatigued Condition At the end of the UMTT, participants walked to the starting point where the force platform and the photocells were placed. At the second minute of recovery they performed two attempts of the CMJ. This recovery time was necessary because the inal location of the athlete at the end of the UMTT may be uncertain, and also because it has been demonstrated to be appropriate for our purposes.11 After CMJ evaluation, participants performed two attempts of the maximal 20 m running test (third and ifth minute of recovery) as previously described. Percentage of changes of power performance parameters were calculated (Δ) for further analysis. Statistical Analysis To conirm a normal distribution for variables, a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was performed. Statistical descriptives are shown as means (SD). To assess withintrial reliability of jump and sprint tests, intraclass correlation coeficients (ICCs) were calculated. Paired t tests were performed to identify pre- to post-trial UMTT changes. On the basis of the distribution of the change in CMJ (ΔCMJ), participants were also categorized as responders and nonresponders (ie, cluster analysis) for a better analysis of the variance as the distributions of selected parameters were mainly leptokurtic. The cluster analysis was automatically performed with the SPSS software (v.16.0.2, Chicago, IL). Square Euclidian distance was chosen as distance measurement method. A two-way ANOVA (moment × cluster) with repeated measurements was used to detect signiicant differences between conditions and clusters with post hoc analyses (Bonferroni) conducted if necessary. The factors gender and sport modality were not be considered for analysis because of their low number and homogeneity. Partial correlation coeficients (adjustment for gender) were employed for analysis of the relationships between selected parameters. Cohen’s D was also performed as a complementary effect size calculation (D = 0.2, small; D = 0.5, medium; D = 0.8, large). Results Running performance for the UMTT resulted in a TUMTT value of 1476 ± 145 s with a MAS of 18.9 ± 1.2 km·h–1. The HRmax recorded at the end of the running protocol was 189 ± 11 bpm with a lactate concentration of 9.6 ± 1.9 mmol·L–1. Reliability for CMJ was high in the nonfatigued (ICC = 0.889) and fatigued (ICC = 0.939) condition. The UMTT led to a signiicant increase in CMJ (ΔCMJ = 3.6 ± 6.1%; P = .008) and peak power (Δpeak power = 3.4 ± 6.1%; P = .035), and a signiicant decrease in peak force (Δpeak force = –10.8 ± 20.4%; P = .027). There were no other signiicant changes in the remaining parameters although there was a tendency for a decrease in the vertical path of the center of mass (P = .076) and vertical stiffness (P = .074) (see Table 2). Signiicant correlations were identiied between ΔCMJ and Δpeak power (r = .658; P = .001) and Δmean power (r = .643; P = .002). Δmean power was correlated with Δpeak force (r = .857; P = .000) and Δpeak power (r = .722; P = .000) while Δpeak force was correlated with Δpeak power (r = .480; P = .028) (see Figure 1). No signiicant correlations were found between jump or sprint and endurance performance parameters. Potentiation After Exhaustion 87 Table 2 Mean (SD) values of force-time parameters of the best CMJ before (Pre; nonfatigued condition) and after (Post; fatigued condition) the Université de Montréal Track Test. Percentage of changes (Δ%) are also reported. Variables Pre Post Δ% 29.5 (5.5) 30.6 (5.4) 3.6 (6.1)† 24.9 (5.5) 24.8 (5.2) –0.1 (8) 43.3 (10.2) 44.8 (9.7) 3.4 (6.1)* Vertical displacement of center of mass (cm) 27.4 (6.3) 28.9 (6.6) 4.3 (12.5) Maximum force (BW) 2.25 (0.26) 2.14 (0.21) –10.8 (20.4)* Vertical stiffness (N·m–1·kg–1) 99.6 (39.1) 92 (32.2) –9.4 (19.9) CMJ (cm) Mean power Peak power (W·kg–1) (W·kg–1) Note. CMJ: countermovement jump; BW: body weight. † P < .01; * P < .05. Figure 1 — Relationship between the pre–post changes (%) for peak power (ΔPP) with countermovement jump (circles, continuous line) (ΔCMJ; R2 = .43) and maximum force (triangles; dashed line) (ΔFi; R2 = .24). Reliability for sprint performance was high in the nonfatigued (ICC = 0.96) and fatigued (ICC = 0.959) condition. There was no signiicant difference (P = .993) between sprint performance in the nonfatigued condition (29.3 ± 2.5 km·h–1) and after the UMTT (29.3 ± 2.5 km·h–1). 88 Boullosa et al. Cluster Analysis Analysis of variance of clusters (see Table 3) revealed signiicant differences between conditions in some mechanical parameters for responders (5 male runners, 5 female runners, and 2 triathletes): ΔCMJ (+4.9%; P = .01), Δpeak power (+5.8%; P = .038); and for nonresponders: Δvertical path of the center of mass (+9.7%; P = .043), peak force (–29.9%; P = .000), and a tendency in vertical stiffness (–16.6%; P = .052; Cohen’s D = 0.48). A signiicant moment × cluster interaction was identiied for mean power (P = .000) and peak force (P = .000) with responders demonstrating greater values compared with nonresponders. Signiicant correlations between ΔCMJ and Δpeak power (r = .752; P = .005), ΔCMJ and Δmean power (r = .840; P = .001) and between Δpeak power and Δsprint performance (r = .623; P = .041) were detected for responders. For nonresponders, only a correlation between lactate concentration and Δvertical path of the center of mass (r = –0.717; P = .02) was exhibited. No correlations were found between jump and endurance running performance parameters for any clusters. Discussion The irst inding of this study is the conirmation of the PAP experienced by a group of endurance athletes, from different genders and training backgrounds, after an incremental running test, which is similar to previous studies with distance runners.8,11 This PAP was conirmed with the utilization of a force plate for jump evaluation, whereas prior studies have utilized a light-time method that overestimates the true light height22 that could potentially bias results. In this regard, it is interesting to note the differences in ΔCMJ among studies for well-trained male runners with one study8 reporting an 8.9% change, and another study11 reporting a 12.7% change. However, the current study found a smaller change of 4.9%. From these observations, we suggest considering these methodological issues in future studies, speciically with regard to athlete´s posture during CMJ landing on contact mats.23 Further studies are needed for the assessment of the possible inluence of the method employed in PAP magnitude. Regarding mechanical parameters, the signiicant correlations found between ΔCMJ with Δpeak power and Δmean power; Δmean power with Δpeak force and Δpeak power; and Δpeak force with Δpeak power, demonstrated that those athletes with the smaller loss of peak force enhanced their CMJ performance via peak power increments. These relationships between selected parameters could explain that PAP as CMJ performance is highly related to peak power.24 Further, as the mean power was related to the overall push-off phase (eccentric plus concentric movement) and its change (Δmean power) signiicantly correlated with Δpeak force, it may be suggested that participants having a smaller loss of peak force could maintain the overall mean power and improve the subsequent peak power enhancement as represented on Figure 1. The reported higher peak concentric and eccentric forces, and greater peak power values for a higher CMJ support this rationale.25 The most affected parameter by fatigue was peak force (–10.8%), suggesting a negative inluence of fatigue for the development of maximum forces. Interestingly, vertical stiffness was affected by fatigue, but this change did not achieve statistical signiicance (–9.4%; P = .109; Cohen’s D = 0.21). Previously, others26 described Table 3 Mean (SD) values of force-time parameters of the best CMJ before (Pre; nonfatigued condition) and after (Post; fatigued condition) the Université de Montréal Track Test for every cluster considered (Responders; n = 12; Nonresponders; n = 10). The p value of the moment × cluster interaction for every parameter is also reported. Responders Nonresponders ANOVA 2 × 2 Variables Pre Post Pre Post P= CMJ (cm) 29.6 (4.9) 31.2 (4.5)† 29.3 (6.3) 29.9 (6.5) 0.241 Mean power (W·kg–1) 24.1 (4.7) 25.3 (4.6) 25.8 (6.4) 24.2 (5.9) 0.000 Peak power (W·kg–1) 41.9 (8.6) 44.4 (9.1)† 45 (12.1) 45.1 (10.9) 0.053 Vertical displacement of center of mass (cm) 27.6 (6.8) 27.7 (7.4) 27.3 (6.1) 30.2 (5.7)* 0.064 Maximum force (BW) 2.2 (0.3) 2.3 (0.2) 2.3 (0.2) 2.0 (0.1)† 0.000 102.5 (44.2) 100.3 (36.4) 96 (34) 81.9 (24.4)* 0.144 Vertical stiffness (N·m–1·kg–1) Note. CMJ: countermovement jump; BW: body weight. † P < .01; * P < .05. 89 90 Boullosa et al. the effect of fatigue on the biceps femoris, rectus femoris, gastrocnemius and vastus lateralis in elite endurance runners during the last stages of an incremental running protocol. In this regard, it is tempting to establish a relationship between the fatigue of these muscle groups and the smaller capacity for the development of force in the deeper positions of the center of mass during the countermovement. Nevertheless, the highest capacity for developing PAP in the slighter fatigued athletes is in agreement with the previously suggested relationship between the lower level of fatigue and higher potentiation whereby both phenomena coexist and could be simultaneously modiied with training intervention.12 Another possible mechanism for this PAP may include an enhancement of elastic energy transfer8,18 in CMJ after fatiguing tasks. These prior studies suggested an enhancement of elastic energy in the fatigued state via the difference between CMJ and squat jump performances18 and the higher mechanical power with a reduction in EMGrms of the knee extensor muscles during half squats.8 Others24 suggested that peak power may not be a good measure of the working capacity of any muscle and may be an indication of how effectively energy is transferred between body segments. From these observations, we may suggest that PAP itself could explain these mechanical changes counteracting the force loss in the eccentric action and increasing power production in the concentric action. The maintenance of maximum sprint performance in the fatigued condition is surprising given the previous reported impairment of sprint ability after a 10 km trial9 and after a 5 km trial10 in endurance runners. Previously, some authors9 did not ind any difference between low- and high-caliber athletes in sprint performance after a 10 km. More recently, others10 found a correlation between sprint ability before a 5 km trial and the velocity loss after this running trial. As we did not ind any correlation between similar parameters in the current study, it may be speculated that running test mode (ie, incremental vs distance trial) may be important for the consideration of fatigue origin and its inluence on sprint performance under fatigue. As we did not ind a deterioration of this ability after conduction of the ramp test, it may be suggested—for a practical point of view—the evaluation of maximum sprint ability after incremental tests allowing coaches some economy in time evaluation. While our testing schedule was designed for a proper examination of the PAP on two different exercises in a ield setting, further studies are needed for a more precise evaluation of the sprint ability after incremental tests compared with other testing modes,9,10 speciically with regard to the different origins of fatigue among conditions, while this capacity is very important to the inal rushes of the races. For a better understanding of the mechanical differences, we decided to incorporate cluster analysis, as members of the same cluster are likely to have more similar responses. Two clusters of endurance athletes were obtained from the different magnitude of the ΔCMJ. These clusters were categorized as responders (n = 12; ΔCMJ = 5 ± 6.9%) and nonresponders (n = 10; ΔCMJ = 1.9 ± 4.9%). From this analysis, responders conirmed an improvement of CMJ in fatigued condition via enhancement of peak power. Interestingly, this group demonstrated a correlation between Δpeak power and Δsprint performance, suggesting the simultaneous inluence of PAP during these different exercises. Nonresponders demonstrated a signiicant impairment of peak force and vertical stiffness with a higher value for vertical displacement, reinforcing the negative inluence of local fatigue on the capability of athletes to demonstrate PAP during power performance. Moreover, Potentiation After Exhaustion 91 a correlation was found between lactate concentration and the changes in vertical displacement during jumping. The sign of this correlation is opposite to the expected inluence of lactate on fatigue as it means that the higher the lactate concentration, the lower the depth of the countermovement for this cluster. Therefore, while it may be suggested that there is a complex response of the neuromuscular system under fatigue from all these results, the ANOVA analysis (moment × cluster) revealed some interactions for maximum force and mean power with both tendencies detected for vertical displacement and peak power. Subsequently, it was conirmed there is a differentiated response of every cluster after the fatiguing, running exercise with emphasis on the role of the force preservation for the subsequent improvement in jump performance. The absence of correlations between endurance running and jump or sprint performance parameters is contrary to a previous study8 but in agreement with another one.11 These authors8 found some correlations of ΔCMJ with training volume, MAS, CMJ, and 20 m sprint performance. While we did not ind any correlation regarding these parameters, it is interesting to note the superior ΔCMJ value of the higher vs. lower quintile of TUMTT (8% vs 1.4%) s in the current study independently of the level and the training background of the athletes. From this observation, it may be suggested that the number of stage increments during the incremental test could favor athletes who run a greater proportion of their time during the UMTT at submaximal intensities,27 experiencing a greater musculature stimulation14 for the subsequent PAP in a dose-response manner. Previous evidence of a greater ΔCMJ after a tempo running (40 min at 80% of maximum aerobic speed; ΔCMJ = 14.5%) compared with an incremental protocol (ΔCMJ = 8.9%);8 and the UMTT (ΔCMJ = 12.7%) compared with the time limit at maximum aerobic speed (ΔCMJ = 3.5%),11 support this rationale. Further, some of the advanced athletes in the current study were included in the nonresponders cluster despite having a higher MAS in respect to their counterparts. Therefore, this would conirm that the tolerance to muscular fatigue may be the more important factor for the achievement of a higher jump height after exhaustion independently of the MAS recorded. Practical Applications We suggest coaches evaluate the CMJ performance after incremental tests as an easy-to-perform test relecting muscular fatigue tolerance and PAP in endurance running. Given the simultaneous inluence of training in muscular fatigue and potentiation,12 it may be considered the evaluation of vertical jump performance after ramp tests for the assessment of muscular adaptations in endurance athletes. Moreover, it may be suggested that the appropriateness of the evaluation of the maximum sprint ability after incremental tests as this capacity has demonstrated no deterioration after exhaustion when compared with nonfatigued conditions. For example, if an athlete experienced PAP in a CMJ after an incremental test and some weeks later the same athlete did not experience PAP with no changes in his MAS and VO2max, this could be interpreted as an impairment with his muscular capabilities with no changes in his metabolic adaptations. Although a mechanical explanation for this PAP was demonstrated, it should be noted that neither the molecular basis nor the neuromuscular parameters were explored in this study. In this regard, some authors28 have shown the different 92 Boullosa et al. interaction between fatigue and potentiation at different muscle lengths, suggesting a link with our study in which a maximum force preservation was found with a subsequent peak power enhancement, where the former is typically at longer and the latter at shorter muscle lengths. Consequently, further studies may need to address these aspects for a better understanding of this phenomenon. Another practical application could be to perform plyometrics immediately after non- exhaustive running exercises, allowing the beneit of the PAP as in other sport modalities (ie, complex training).29 Nevertheless, this question requires further experimental research for the assessment of the higher effectiveness of this training method if compared with other forms of concurrent strength and endurance training. Conclusions In summary, PAP was demonstrated after an incremental exhaustive protocol in endurance athletes with higher CMJ performance in those athletes with concurrent higher peak power increments and maximum force preservation. In addition, maintenance of maximum running velocity after exhaustion may be related to PAP response, and athletes who run further during a UMTT probably stimulates musculature more intensely at submaximal intensities resulting in a greater PAP. Maximum force preservation in a CMJ after a ramp test may be the more important factor for PAP in the evaluation of muscular adaptations of endurance athletes. Acknowledgments This study did not receive any inancial support. We wish to thank Antxón Gorrotxategi of Biolaster S.L for his support for lactate analysis. We want also to recognize the technical assistance of Félix Quintero and the helpful comments and English revisions of Anthony S. Leicht and Natasha Carr. References 1. Paavolainen L, Häkkinen K, Hämäläinen I, Nummela A, Rusko H. Explosive-strength training improves 5-km running time by improving running economy and muscle power. J Appl Physiol. 1999a;86:1527–1533. 2. Esteve-Lanao J, Rhea MR, Fleck SJ, Lucía A. Running-speciic, periodized strength training attenuates loss of stride length during intense endurance running. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22:1176–1183. 3. Johnson RE, Quinn T, Kertzer R, Vroman NB. Strength training in female distance runners: impact on running economy. J Strength Cond Res. 1997;11:224–229. 4. Millet GP, Jaouen B, Borrani F, Candau R. Effects of concurrent endurance and strength training on running economy and VO2 kinetics. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002;34:1351– 1359. 5. Saunders PU, Telford RD, Pyne DB, et al. Short-term plyometric training improves running economy in highly trained middle and long distance runners. J Strength Cond Res. 2006;20:947–954. 6. Hamilton RJ, Paton CD, Hopkins WG. Effect of high-intensity resistance training on performance of competitive distance runners. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2006;1:40–49. 7. Tillin NA, Bishop D. Factors modulating post-activation potentiation and its effect on performance on subsequent explosive activities. Sports Med. 2009;39:147–166. Potentiation After Exhaustion 93 8. Vuorimaa T, Virlander R, Kurkilahti P, Vasankari T, Häkkinen K. Acute changes in muscle activation and leg extension performance after different running exercises in elite long distance runners. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006;96:282–291. 9. Paavolainen L, Nummela A, Rusko H, Häkkinen K. Neuromuscular characteristics and fatigue during 10km running. Int J Sports Med. 1999b;20:516–521. 10. Nummela AT, Heath KA, Paavolainen LM, et al. Fatigue during a 5-km running time trial. Int J Sports Med. 2008;29:738–745. 11. Boullosa DA, Tuimil JL. Postactivation potentiation in distance runners after two different ield running protocols. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23:1560–1565. 12. Rassier D, Herzog W. The effects of training on fatigue and twitch potentiation in human skeletal muscle. Eur J Sport Sci. 2001;1:1–8. 13. Hamada T, Sale DG, MacDougall JD. Postactivation potentiation in endurance-trained male athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32:403–411. 14. Morana C, Perrey S. Time course of postactivation potentiation during intermittent submaximal fatiguing contractions in endurance- and power-trained athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23:1456–1464. 15. Škof B, Strojnik V. Neuromuscular fatigue and recovery dynamics following prolongued continuous run at anaerobic thershold. Br J Sports Med. 2006a;40:219–222. 16. Škof B, Strojnik V. Neuromuscular fatigue and recovery dynamics following anaerobic interval workload. Int J Sports Med. 2006b;27:220–225. 17. Ftaiti F, Kacem A, Latiri I, et al. Comparison of male and female thermal, cardiac, and muscular responses induced by a prolongued run undertaken in a hot environment. Can J Appl Physiol. 2005;30:404–418. 18. Bosco C, Tihanyi J, Latteri F, Fekete G, Apor P, Rusko H. The effect o fatigue on store and re-use of elastic energy in slow and fast types of human skeletal muscle. Acta Physiol Scand. 1986;128:109–117. 19. Léger L, Boucher R. An indirect continuous running multistage ield test: Université de Montréal track test. Can J Appl Sport Sci. 1980;5:77–84. 20. Billat V, Koralsztein JP. Signiicance of velocity at VO2max and time to exhaustion at this velocity. Sports Med. 1996;22:90–108. 21. Farley CT, Glasheen J, McMahon TA. Running springs: Speed and animal size. J Exp Biol. 1993;185:71–86. 22. Linthorne NP. Analysis of standing vertical jumps using a force platform. Am J Phys. 2001;69:1198–1204. 23. García-López J, Peleteiro J, Rodríguez-Marroyo JA, Morante JC, Herrero JA, Villa JG. The validation of a new method that measures contact and light times during vertical jump. Int J Sports Med. 2005;26:294–302. 24. Dowling JJ, Vamos L. Identiication of kinetic and temporal factors related to vertical jump performance. J Appl Biomech. 1993;9:95–110. 25. Cormie P, McBride JM, McCaulley GO. Power-time, force-time, and velocity-time curve analysis of the countermovement jump: impact of training. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23:177–186. 26. Hanon C, Thépaut-Mathieu C, Vandewalle H. Determination of muscular fatigue in elite runners. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2005;94:118–125. 27. Sale D. Postactivation potentiation: role in performance. Br J Sports Med. 2004;38:386– 387. 28. Rijkelijkhuizen JM, Ruiter CJ, Huijing PA, Haan A. Low-frequency fatigue, post-tetanic potentiation and their interaction at different muscle lengths following eccentric exercise. J Exp Biol. 2005;208:55–63. 29. Docherty D, Hodgson MJ. The application of postactivation potentiation to elite sport. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2007;2:439–444.