Effects of In-Season Strength Maintenance Training Frequency in Professional Soccer Players

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to examine the effect of in-season strength maintenance training frequency on strength, jump height, and 40-m sprint performance in professional soccer players. The players performed the same strength training program twice a week during a 10-week preparatory period. In-season, one group of players performed 1 strength maintenance training session per week (group 2 + 1; n = 7), whereas the other group performed 1 session every second week (group 2 + 0.5; n = 7). Only the strength training frequency during the in-season differed between the groups, whereas the exercise, sets and number of repetition maximum as well as soccer sessions were similar in the 2 groups. The preseason strength training resulted in an increased strength, sprint, and jump height (p < 0.05). During the first 12 weeks of the in-season, the initial gain in strength and 40-m sprint performance was maintained in group 2 + 1, whereas both strength and sprint performance were reduced in group 2 + 0.5 (p < 0.05). There was no statistical significant change in jump height in any of the 2 groups during the first 12 weeks of the in-season. In conclusion, performing 1 weekly strength maintenance session during the first 12 weeks of the in-season allowed professional soccer players to maintain the improved strength, sprint, and jump performance achieved during a preceding 10-week preparatory period. On the other hand, performing only 1 strength maintenance session every second week during the in-season resulted in reduced leg strength and 40-m sprint performance. The practical recommendation from the present study is that during a 12-week period, 1 strength maintenance session per week may be sufficient to maintain initial gain in strength and sprint performance achieved during a preceding preparatory period.

Full text

EFFECTS OF IN-SEASON STRENGTH MAINTENANCE
TRAINING FREQUENCY IN PROFESSIONAL SOCCER
PLAYERS
BENT R. RØNNESTAD,
1
BERNT S. NYMARK,
1
AND TRULS RAASTAD
2
1
Lillehammer University College, Lillehammer, Norway; and
2
Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway
ABSTRACT
Rønnestad, BR, Nymark, BS, and Raastad, T. Effects of in-
season strength maintenance training frequency in professional
soccer players. JStrengthCondRes25(X): 000–000,
2011–The aim of the present study was to examine the effect
of in-season strength maintenance training frequency on
strength, jump height, and 40-m sprint performance in pro-
fessional soccer players. The players performed the same
strength training program twice a week during a 10-week
preparatory period. In-season, one group of players performed
1 strength maintenance training session per week (group 2 + 1;
n= 7), whereas the other group performed 1 session every
second week (group 2 + 0.5; n= 7). Only the strength training
frequency during the in-season differed between the groups,
whereas the exercise, sets and number of repetition maximum as
well as soccer sessions were similar in the 2 groups. The
preseason strength training resulted in an increased strength,
sprint, and jump height (p,0.05). During the first 12 weeks of
the in-season, the initial gain in strength and 40-m sprint
performance was maintained in group 2 + 1, whereas both
strength and sprint performance were reduced in group 2 + 0.5
(p,0.05). There was no statistical significant change in jump
height in any of the 2 groups during the first 12 weeks of the in-
season. In conclusion, performing 1 weekly strength mainte-
nance session during the first 12 weeks of the in-season allowed
professional soccer players to maintain the improved strength,
sprint, and jump performance achieved during a preceding
10-week preparatory period. On the other hand, performing only
1 strength maintenance session every second week during the
in-season resulted in reduced leg strength and 40-m sprint
performance. The practical recommendation from the present
study is that during a 12-week period, 1 strength maintenance
session per week may be sufficient to maintain initial gain in
strength and sprint performance achieved during a preceding
preparatory period.
KEY WORDS sprint performance, vertical jump ability, one
repetition maximum
INTRODUCTION
Conditioning for sport has usually been divided into
preparatory, in-season,and postseason phases. One
major goal for the preparatory period in team
sports like soccer is to maximize the fitness
parameters, like jumping ability, sprint performance, and
maximal dynamic strength. During the in-season, professional
soccer players have limited time available for strength training.
This is because coaches have to plan for recovery from and
preparations to 1–3 matches per week and for an increased
focus on tactical and technical training sessions. Because of the
increased demands of competition and the increased focus on
technical and tactical training, in-season strength training is
usually intended to maintain the fitness level achieved during
the preparatory period. However, already fit players are likely
to need a relatively high training stress to maintain their
maximal strength level. Consequently, it is important to
optimize the in-season strength training frequency and volume
so that strength can be maintained with as little interference on
other football-specific skills as possible. Therefore, the main
question asked by coaches might be what is the minimum
amount of strength training necessary to maintain strength and
power in leg extensors during a season? Despite a large body of
soccer-specific scientific work (e.g., Refs. (2,14,25), no one has
so far investigated the effects of in-season strength training
frequency.
Maximal strength is a basic quality that influences power
performance; an increase in maximal strength is usually
connected with an improvement of power abilities. Significant
correlations are observed between maximum strength in the
lower body and sprint and jump performance(8,24,31,32), and
an increased strength is often followed by an improved sprint
and jump performance (e.g., Refs. (6,27)). Thus, maximal
strength is an important factor that potentially affects soccer
performance. Therefore, it seems important to maintain
strength during the competition period. However, strength
Correspondence to Bent R. Rønnestad, bent.ronnestad@hil.no.
0(0)/1–8
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó2011 National Strength and Conditioning Association
VOLUME 0 | NUMBER 0 | MONTH 2011 | 1
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

gain achieved during the preparatory period in pubescent male
athletes has been observed to be reduced during a 12-week
competitive season without any strength maintenance training
(7). Consequently, it is necessary to perform some kind of
in-season strength maintenance training to avoid a decline in
strength and power. It is well known that when strength
training is terminated, the maximal strength declines (e.g.,
Refs. (13,29)), and it has been reported that only a small part
(0–45%) of the strength gained during a previous strength
training period is preserved after 8–12 weeks without strength
training (1,11,22). Furthermore, it has been shown that soccer
training alone has no effect on maximal strength (23,27).
In the National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I
men’s soccer, performing strength and plyometric sessions
approximately once a week during a 16-week competitive
season maintained maximal strength, sprint performance, and
vertical jump ability (28). Furthermore, Morehouse (20)
concluded that strength gains can be maintained by training
once every second week during an 8-week maintenance period
in college-aged men. However, the frequency of strength
training sessions per week is likely to be affected by the initial
training status and the length of the in-season. Furthermore, it
has been observed that adding large volumes of endurance
training to strength training may inhibit adaptations to strength
training (17). Therefore, whether it is possible to maintain an
initial gain in strength-related and power-related performance
with strength training once per week or once every second
week during the first 12 weeks of the in-season with a concurrent
large aerobic stress is unclear. Interestingly, by performing
in-season strength training twice per week during an 11-week
soccer season, a reduction in isokinetic strength, vertical jump
height, and sprint performance was observed (15). In the latter
study, a predominance of catabolic processes was observed
leading the authors to suggest that the players had a too large
stress stimulus, leading to an acute overtraining. This large stress
islikelytopartlybecausedbythe2strengthtrainingsessions
per week. It is thus important to further optimize the in-season
strength training frequency to reassure enough stimuli to
maintain the initial strength gain and, on the other hand, to
avoid a too large stimulus that might cause acute overtraining.
The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of
performing strength maintenance training during the com-
petitive season as 1 session per week versus 1 session every
second week on strength, jump, and sprint performance in
professional soccer players. The hypothesis was that the
strength maintenance training program consisting of 1 weekly
session would preserve the increases in muscle strength sprint
and vertical jump performance achieved during the pre-
paratory period to a greater extent than the program
consisting of only 1 session every second week.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
The present study was designed to investigate the effects of
in-season strength training frequency on strength, jump, and
sprint performance in professional soccer players. Because of
a tight match program, there is limited time available to
maintain strength during the in-season. Thus, optimizing the
in-season strength training frequency is important, and in
present study, the effect of performing 1 session of heavy
strength training once a week was compared with 1 session
every second week. Changes in the dependent variables, such
as 1 repetition maximum (RM), squat jump (SJ), and sprint
performance, were tested at 3 time points: (a) at the beginning
of a 10-week preparatory period (preintervention) that
preceded the competition season, (b) after the preparatory
period (precompetition season), and (c) at 12 weeks into the
competition season (at the middle of the competition season).
All soccer players performed the same strength training
program twice a week during the preparatory period. They
were thereafter randomly divided into 2 groups. One group
performed 1 strength training session per week during the
competition season (group 2 + 1; n=7,age2262years,body
mass 76 61 kg, height 184 63 cm), whereas the other group
performed 1 strength training session every second week
(group 2 + 0.5; n=7,age2662years,bodymass8363kg,
height 186 62 cm). Only the strength training frequency
during the competition season differed between the groups,
whereas the exercise, sets and number of RM and soccer
sessions were identical in the 2 groups.
Subjects
A total of 19 Norwegian professional male soccer players
(playing at the next highest level in Norway - the Norwegian
Championship) volunteered to participate in this study. The
players had performed in average 5–7 training sessions a week
during the past 3 years. The study was approved by the
Regional Ethics Committee of Norway. All participants
signed an informed consent form before participation. During
the preparatory period, 2 new players arrived and 2 players
departed. The new players were not included in the data
representing changes during the preparatory period (n= 12),
but they were randomly allocated into different groups and
included in the in-season data (n= 14). In addition to transfer,
injury and illness led to the dropout of 5 players. In total, 14
players completed the in-season study.
Procedures
All tests were performed in 1 test session and in the following
order: 40-m sprint, SJ, countermovement jump (CMJ), and
1RM. All test sessions were performed with the same
equipment with identical subject-equipment positioning over-
seen by the same trained investigator. The preseason and mid-
season tests were accomplished at the same time of the day as
the pretests and 3–5 daysafter the last strength-training session.
Forty-Meter Sprint
All players performed a standardized warm-up before the
sprint test byjogging for a 15-minute period at a moderate pace
and finishing with 4–5 40-m submaximal runs. After warm-up,
players performed 3–4 maximal sprints over a distance of 40 m.
2
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Strength Maintenance Training in Professional Soccer Players
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

The sprints were performed on a hard even surfacein an indoor
facility. All players used adaptedindoor shoes. The sprints were
separated by approximately 3 minutes to ensure full recovery
between sprints. Players commenced each sprint from
a standing (static) position in which they positioned their
front foot 50 cm behind the start line. Players decided
themselves when to starteach run with the timebeing recorded
when the subject intercepted the photocell beam. Players were
instructed to sprint as fast as possible through the distance.
Times were recorded by photocells (Speedtrap 2; Brower
Timing Systems, Draper, Utah, USA) placed at the start line
and after 40 m. The best 40-m sprint time was chosen for
statistical analysis of sprint performance.
Jumping Height
The maximal vertical jump ability was tested 3 minutes after
the last sprint on a force plate (FP 4; HUR Labs Oy, Tampere,
Finland) with a sampling rate at 1,200 Hz for5 seconds. Players
performed CMJ and SJ with the hands kept on the hips
throughout the jumps. During SJ, from a knee angle of 90°of
flexion, the players were instructed to execute a maximal
vertical jump without any downward movement before the
maximal vertical jump. The force curves were inspected to
verify no downward movements before the vertical jump.
During CMJ, the angular displacement of the knees was
standardized so that the players were required to bend their
knees to approximately 90°and then rebound upward in
a maximal vertical jump. Each subject had 4 attempts
interspersed with approximately 1.5-minute rest between each
jump in both SJ and CMJ. The best jump from each subject was
used in data analysis, and all data were calculated using Matlab
(MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA). Jumping height was de-
termined as the centre of mass displacement calculated from
force development and measured body mass.
One Repetition Maximum
Maximal strength in leg extensors was measured as 1RM in half
squat. Before the 1RM squat test, players performed a stan-
dardized specific warm-up consisting of 3 sets with gradually
increasing load (40–75–85% of expected 1RM) and decreasing
number of reps (12–7–3). The depth of squat in the 1RM test
wassettoakneeangleof90°. To assure similar knee angle in all
test sessions for all the players, the squat depth was individually
marked at the pretest depth of the buttock. Thus, the subject
had to reach his individual depth in all test sessions to get the
lift accepted. The first attempt in the test was performed with
a load approximately 5% below the expected 1RM load. After
each successful attempt, the load was increased by 2–5% until
failure in lifting the same load in 2–3 following attempts. The
rest period between each attempt was 3 minutes.
Training
The 10 weeks preparatory period consisted of 2 strength
workouts per week on nonconsecutive days. Each workout
consisted of the half squat exercise only. After a 15-minute
warm-up with light jogging or cycling, players performed 2–3
TABLE 1. Strength training program during the preseason and in-season.*
Preseason In-season
Week 1–3 Week 4–6 Week 7–10 Week 11–22
1 Bout 2 Bout 1 Bout 2 Bout 1 Bout 2 Bout Bout
Half squat 3 310RM 3 36RM 3 38RM 3 35RM 3 36RM 3 34RM 3 34RM
*The strength training program was identical for both the groups. The only difference was the strength training frequency; one group
performed 1 strength maintenance training per week, whereas the other group performed 1 strength maintenance training every second
week.
TABLE 2. Weekly duration (in hours) of the training
distributed into different training intensities and
weekly number of friendly matches during the 10-
week preseason and during the first 12 weeks of
the in-season.*
Intensity distribution
Preseason
(mean 6SE)
In-season
(mean 6SE)
Low intensity 2.4 60.2 2.4 60.2
Medium intensity 3.0 60.4 2.1 60.3
High intensity 4.3 60.3 3.6 60.3
Weekly number of
friendly matches
0.9 60.1 0
Weekly number
of competitive
matches
0 1.8 60.2
*This training was performed by both the group that
performed 1 strength training session per week and the
group that performed 1 strength training session every
second week.
VOLUME 0 | NUMBER 0 | MONTH 2011 | 3
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

warm-up sets with gradually increased load. All players were
supervisedby one of the physical trainers at all strength training
sessions during the entire intervention period. The training
load was 4–10RM and similar for the 2 groups (Table 1).
Players were encouraged to continuously increase their RM
loads during the intervention. Players were allowed assistance
on the last repetition. Based on the assumption that it is
the intended rather than actual velocity that determines
the velocity-specific training response (3), strength training
was conducted with emphasizing maximal mobilization in
concentric phase, while the
eccentric phase had a slower
speed (approximately 2–3 sec-
onds). Number of sets was
always 3. During the in-season,
group 2 + 1 performed 1
strength training session per
week, whereas group 2 + 0.5
performed 1 strength training
session every second week. The
in-season strength training con-
sisted of half squat and 3 sets of
4RM (Table 1). Only the
strength training frequency dur-
ing the competition season dif-
fered between the groups,
whereas the exercise, sets and
number of RM and soccer
sessions were similar in the
2groups.
A regular training week for
both groups consisted of 6–8
soccer sessions lasting approximately 90 minutes focusing on
physical conditioning, and technical and tactical aspects of
the game. The intensity during the soccer sessions was
divided into low, medium, and high intensity. The total
weekly training duration (including strength training) during
the preparatory period was 12.7 61.0 hours (Table 2). The
distribution of weekly duration in low, medium, and high
exercise intensity zones during the intervention period is
presented in Table 2. The mean number of soccer matches
per week during the in-season was 1.8 60.2.
Statistical Analyses
All values given in the text,
figures, and tables are mean 6
SE. During the pre-season, all
players performed the same
strength training protocol twice
per week. The data from this
period is thus pooled in 1 group
of players. Paired t-test was
used to test for changes during
the preseason. To test for
changes within groups from
the start of the in-season to 12
weeks into the in-season,
a paired t-test was used. Un-
paired t-tests were used to
compare relative changes from
before the competitive season
to mid-season between the 2 +
1 and 2 + 0.5 groups. In the
40-m sprint test, there was
a statistical power of 80% to
Figure 2. Forty-meter sprint time before the start of the in-season (Preseason) and after 12 weeks of in-season
(Mid-season) in the group that performed 1 strength maintenance training per week (group 2 + 1) and the group
that performed 1 strength maintenance training every second week (group 2 + 0.5). Individual data points are
shown, and the columns represent the mean value. *Larger than at Preseason (p,0.05).
Figure 1. One repetition maximum in half squat before the start of the in-season (Preseason) and after 12 weeks of
in-season (Mid-season) in the group that performed 1 strength maintenance training per week (group 2 + 1) and the
group that performed 1 strength maintenance training every second week (group 2 + 0.5). Individual data points are
shown, and the columns represent the mean value. *Smaller than at Preseason (p,0.05).
4
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Strength Maintenance Training in Professional Soccer Players
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

detect differences from start of the in-season to 12 weeks into
the in-season of 0.85%, using a significance level (a) of 0.05
(2 tailed). Test-retest reliabilities (intraclass correlations) for
40-m sprint, 1RM, and SJ was 0.95, 0.97, and 0.97,
respectively, with a coefficient of variation of ,3% for all
parameters. The level of significance was set at p#0.05 for all
statistical analyses.
RESULTS
There were no differences between the groups in anthropo-
metric parameters or the test variables before the in-season.
Adaptations During the
Preparatory Period
Strength measured as 1RM in
half squat increased by 19 65%
during the preparatory period
(from 139 67kgto16368 kg;
p,0.01). Time used on 40-m
sprint decreased during the pre-
paratory period by 1.8% (from
5.39 60.07 seconds to 5.29 6
0.05 seconds; p,0.05). Regard-
ing vertical jump ability, SJ in-
creased by 3.3 61.2% during the
preparatory period (from 37.1 6
1.1 cm to 38.3 61.1 cm; p,
0.05), whereas there was a ten-
dency toward an improved CMJ
performance (from 39.3 61.6
cm to 41.1 61.3 cm; p=0.056).
In-season Adaptations
During the first 12 weeks of the
in-season, the initial gain in strength was maintained in group 2 +
1, whereas the strength was reduced by 10 64% in group 2 + 0.5
(p,0.05; Figure 1). The 40-m sprint performance was
maintained in group 2 + 1, whereas it was reduced by 1.1 60.3%
in group 2 + 0.5 (p,0.05; Figure 2). There was no statistically
significant change in SJ or CMJ in any of the 2 groups during the
first 12 weeks of the in-season (Figures 3 and 4).
DISCUSSION
Two strength training sessions per week during the pre-
paratory period resulted in an
increased strength, sprint, and
vertical jump performance in
professional soccer players. The
novel finding in this study was
that 1 strength training session
per week during the first 12
weeks of the in-season main-
tained the initial gain in
strength, sprint, and jump abil-
ity achieved during the pre-
paratory period. On the other
hand, 1 strength training ses-
sion every second week resulted
in a reduction in strength and
sprint performance, while the
vertical jumping ability was
maintained.
Theincreasein1RMhalfsquat
during the preparatory period is
in line with the 20–25% increase
reportedinotherstudieson
Figure 4. Squat jump height before the start of the in-season (Preseason) and after 12 weeks of in-season (Mid-
season) in the group that performed 1 strength maintenance training per week (group 2 + 1) and the group that
performed 1 strength maintenance training every second week (group 2 + 0.5). Individual data points are shown,
and the columns represent the mean value.
Figure 3. Counter movement jump height before the start of the in-season (Preseason) and after 12 weeks of in-
season (Mid-season) in the group that performed 1 strength maintenance training per week (group 2 + 1) and the
group that performed 1 strength maintenance training every second week (group 2 + 0.5). Individual data points are
shown, and the columns represent the mean value.
VOLUME 0 | NUMBER 0 | MONTH 2011 | 5
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

professional male soccer players with a similar training protocol
(27,35). Maximal strength is a basic quality that influences
power performance, and an increase in maximal strength is
usually connected with an improvement of power abilities.
Significant correlations are observed between maximum
strength in the lower-body performance and sprint and jump
performance (8,24,31,32), and an increased strength is often
followed by an improved sprint and jump performance (e.g.,
Refs. (6,27,35)). The finding of concomitant improvement in
jump and sprint performance during the preparatory period
when the strength increased was therefore expected.
In other team sports like handball and volleyball, it has been
observed that 6–7 weeks without strength training in the
competitive season resulted in a reduced maximal strength
and power output (12), as well as a reduced ball throw
velocity, despite normal training sessions and competitions
were maintained (18). These findings highlight the quest for
strength maintenance training during the in-season. In the
present study, it was observed that 1 strength training session
per week during the first 12 weeks of the in-season
maintained the initial gain in strength achieved during the
preparatory period. This is in line with the previous findings
in recreationally strength-trained subjects, collegiate soccer
players, and cyclists (11,26,28). The present finding supports
the suggestion that high-intensity muscle actions and low
weekly training volume and frequency are capable of
maintaining initial strength gain (11,21). Interestingly, by
performing in-season strength training twice per week during
an 11-week soccer season, a reduction in strength, jump
height, and sprint performance was observed (15). In the
latter study, a predominance of catabolic processes was
observed leading the authors to suggest that the players got
too large stress resulting in an acute overtraining. Because of
the increased demands of competition, and technical and
tactical training, in-season strength training is usually
intended to maintain the fitness level achieved during the
preparatory period. The in-season strength training should
therefore aim to maintain the initial strength gain and, on the
other hand, to avoid a too large stimulus, thereby causing an
acute overtraining. The finding of Kraemer et al. (15)
indicates that 2 in-season strength training sessions per week
may in some cases be too much, at least when combined with
the heavy match load in that study. Furthermore, the present
study indicates that 1 strength training session every second
week is not enough to maintained the initial gain in strength
in professional soccer players.
The present finding of reduced strength after 1 strength
training session every second week is in contrast with the
finding of maintained strength by training once every second
week during an 8-week maintenance period (20). However,
this discrepancy may be explained by the fact that the latter
study was conducted on college students with no prior
strength training experience, and there was no report of any
concurrent endurance training during the maintenance period.
Professional soccer players have a larger strength training
experience and thus needs a larger strength training frequency
to maintain the initial strength, and they perform a relative
large volume of endurance training. Large volumes of
endurance training may inhibit adaptations to strength training
(17) and thus potential quest for a larger frequency of strength
maintenance training. Indeed, endurance training has been
shown to lower the maximum shortening velocity of type II
fibers, reduce motor unit discharge rates, and slightly reduce
peak tension development in all fiber types (9,10,30,33,34). In
accordance with the latter findings, endurance training has
been associated with a reduced vertical jumping ability (5),
strength (5,19), and unchanged or slightly reduced cross
sectional area (CSA) of muscle fibers (9,17,33,34). Based on the
negative effects of endurance training on explosive abilities,
and the observed reduction in strength, the impaired sprint
performance when performing strength training only once
every second week was not unexpected.
Vertical jump ability was preserved during the first 12 weeks
of the in-season in both the groups. The reason to why
strength training every second week was enough to maintain
vertical jump performance but not strength and sprint
performance remains unclear. However, 6–7 weeks without
strength training has been observed not to reduce vertical
jump ability in both recreationally strength-trained partic-
ipants and professional handball players (16,18). Further-
more, 12 weeks without strength training have been shown
to only slightly reduce jump ability despite more pronounced
reduction in strength (4). It has been suggested that
maintenance of vertical jump ability despite reduction in
other performance measurements may be because of the
importance of jump technique (16). Furthermore, it has also
been suggested that maintenance of explosive jumping
performance may be more dependent on training frequency
when more explosive-type strength or plyometric training
programs have been performed in advance (16). The present
data indicate that strength maintenance training once every
second week in addition to specific soccer practices
(including plyometric muscle actions) and matches maintains
the vertical jump ability in professional soccer players during
the first 12 weeks of the in-season.
To our knowledge, the present study is the first to
demonstrate that professional soccer players can maintain
the initial strength, sprint, and jump improvements attained
during the preparatory period with just a single low-volume
heavy strength training session per week during the first 12
weeks of the in-season, while 1 session every second week do
not maintain strength and sprint performance. It is important
to note that the present findings were done in a short
maintenance period of 12 weeks. If the maintenance period is
of a longer duration or the initial strength level is higher, then
it might be necessary with a higher strength training
frequency to maintain strength and sprint performance.
In conclusion, performing 1 weekly strength maintenance
session during the first 12 weeks of the in-season allowed
professional soccer players to maintain the improved leg
6
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Strength Maintenance Training in Professional Soccer Players
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

strength that were attained during a preceding 10-week
preparatory period. Of even greater practical importance, the
in-season maintenance of the strength training adaptations
resulted in maintenance of performance-related factors like
40-m sprint and vertical jump ability. On the other hand,
performing 1 strength maintenance session every second
week during the in-season resulted in a reduction in leg
strength and 40-m sprint performance but maintained the
jump performance.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Our data indicate that strength training twice a week during
the preparatory period can be an important factor in
increasing maximal strength and jump and 40-m sprint
performance in professional soccer players. During the first 12
weeks of the in-season, strength maintenance training once
a week was enough to maintain the initial gain in strength,
jump, and sprint performance. On the contrary, strength
maintenance training every second week did not maintain the
initial gain in strength and sprint performance. To maintain
initial gain in strength and explosive movements achieved
during the preparatory period, we recommend using
1 strength maintenance session per week during the
in-season. Depending on the number of matches per week,
this strength maintenance session are recommended to be
performed between 1 and 2 days after a match and 2–3 days
before the next match. The specific mechanisms responsible
for the observed findings cannot be determined from the
current study. It is important to note that the present findings
were done in a short maintenance period of 12 weeks. If the
maintenance period is of a longer duration or the initial
strength level is higher, then it might be necessary with
a higher strength training frequency to maintain strength and
sprint performance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank P. T. Hans Noet for his assistance with
training procedures during the study. They also thank the
participants for their time and effort. No funding was obtained
for the present study. The authors have no professional
relationships with companies or manufacturers who will
benefit from the results of the present study and the results of
the present study do not constitute endorsement of the
product by the authors or the National Strength and
Conditioning Association.
REFERENCES
1. Andersen, LL, Andersen, JL, Magnusson, SP, Suetta, C, Madsen, JL,
Christensen, LR, and Aagaard, P. Changes in the human muscle
force-velocity relationship in response to resistance training and
subsequent detraining. J Appl Physiol 99: 87–94, 2005.
2. Bangsbo, J, Mohr, M, and Krustrup, P. Physical and metabolic
demands of training and match-play in the elite football player.
J Sports Sci 24: 665–674, 2006.
3. Behm, DG and Sale, DG. Velocity specificity of resistance training.
Sports Med 15: 374–388, 1993.
4. Colliander, EB and Tesch, PA. Effects of detraining following short
term resistance training on eccentric and concentric muscle strength.
Acta Physiol Scand 144: 23–29, 1992.
5. Costill, DL. The relationship between selected physiological
variables and distance running performance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness
7: 61–66, 1967.
6. Delecluse, C, Van Coppenolle, H, Willems, E, Van Leemputte, M, Diels,
R, and Goris, M. Influence of high-resistance and high-velocity training
on sprint performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 27: 1203–1209, 1995.
7. DeRenne, C, Hetzler, RK, Buxton, BP, and Ho, KW. Effects of
training frequency on strength maintenance in pubescent baseball
players. J Strength Cond Res 10: 8–14, 1996.
8. Dowson, MN, Nevill, M E, Lakomy, HK, Nevill, AM, and Hazeldine,
RJ. Modelling the relationship between isokinetic muscle strength
and sprint running performance. J Sports Sci 16: 257–265, 1998.
9. Fitts, RH, Costill, DL, and Gardetto, PR. Effect of swim exercise training
on human muscle fiber function. J Appl Physiol 66: 465–475, 1989.
10. Fitts, RH and Holloszy,JO. Contractile properties of rat soleus muscle:
Effects of training and fatigue. Am J Physiol 233: C86–C89, 1977.
11. Graves, JE, Pollock, ML, Leggett, S H, Braith, RW, Carpenter, DM,
and Bishop, LE. Effect of reduced training frequency on muscular
strength. Int J Sports Med 9: 316–319, 1988.
12. Ha
¨kkinen, K. Changes in physical fitness profile in female volleyball
players during the competitive season. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 33:
223–232, 1993.
13. Ha
¨kkinen, K and Komi, PV. Electromyographic changes during
strength training and detraining. Med Sci Sports Exerc 15: 455–460,
1983.
14. Hoff, J and Helgerud, J. Endurance and strength training for soccer
players: Physiological considerations. Sports Med 34: 165–180, 2004.
15. Kraemer, WJ, French, DN, Paxton, NJ, Ha
¨kkinen, K, Volek, JS,
Sebastianelli, WJ, Putukian, M, Newton, RU, Rubin, MR, Go
´mez,
AL, Vescovi, JD, Ratamess, NA, Fleck, SJ, Lynch, JM, and Knuttgen,
HG. Changes in exercise performance and hormonal concentrations
over a big ten soccer season in starters and nonstarters. J Strength
Cond Res 18: 121–128, 2004.
16. Kraemer, WJ, Koziris, LP, Ratamess, NA, Hakkinen, K, Triplett-
McBride, NT, Fry, AC, Gordon, SE, Volek, JS, French, DN, Rubin,
MR, Gomez, AL, Sharman, MJ, Lynch, MJ, Izquierdo, M, Newton,
RU, and Fleck, SJ. Detraining produces minimal changes in physical
performance and hormonal variables in recreationally strength-
trained men. J Strength Cond Res 16: 373–382, 2002.
17. Kraemer, WJ, Patton, JF, Gordon, SE, Harman, EA, Deschenes, MR,
Reynolds, K, Newton, RU, Triplett, NT, and Dziados, JE.
Compatibility of high-intensity strength and endurance training on
hormonal and skeletal muscle adaptations. J Appl Physiol 78: 976–
989, 1995.
18. Marques, MC and Gonza
´lez-Badillo, JJ. In-season resistance training
and detraining in professional team handball players. J Strength Cond
Res 20: 563–571, 2006.
19. McCarthy, JP, Pozniak, MA, and Agre, JC. Neuromuscular
adaptations to concurrent strength and endurance training. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 34: 511–519, 2002.
20. Morehouse, CA. Development and maintenanceof isometric strength
of subjects with diverse initial strengths. Res Q 38: 449–456, 1967.
21. Mujika, I and Padilla, S. Detraining: Loss of training-induced
physiological and performance adaptations. Part II: Long term
insufficient training stimulus. Sports Med 30: 145–154, 2000.
22. Narici, MV, Roi, GS, Landoni, L, Minetti, AE, and Cerretelli, P.
Changes in force, cross-sectional area and neural activation during
strength training and detraining of the human quadriceps. Eur J Appl
Physiol Occup Physiol 59: 310–319, 1989.
23. Oberg, BE, Mo
¨ller, MH, Ekstrand, J, and Gillquist, J. Exercises for
knee flexors and extensors in uninjured soccer players: Effects of two
different programs. Int J Sports Med 6: 151–154, 1985.
VOLUME 0 | NUMBER 0 | MONTH 2011 | 7
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

24. Pa
¨a
¨suke, M, Ereline, J, and Gapeyeva, H. Knee extension strength
and vertical jumping performance in nordic combined athletes.
J Sports Med Phys Fitness 41: 354–361, 2001.
25. Reilly, T and Gilbourne, D. Science and football: A review of applied
research in the football codes. J Sports Sci 21: 693–705, 2003.
26. Rønnestad, BR, Hansen, EA, and Raastad, T. In-season strength
maintenance training increases well-trained cyclists’ performance.
Eur J Appl Physiol 110: 1269–1282, 2010.
27. Rønnestad, BR, Kvamme, NH, Sunde, A, and Raastad, T. Short-term
effects of strength and plyometric training on sprint and jump
performance in professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 22:
773–780, 2008.
28. Silvestre, R, Kraemer, WJ, West, C, Judelson, DA, Spiering, BA,
Vingren, JL, Hatfield, DL, Anderson, JM, and Maresh, CM. Body
composition and physical performance during a National Collegiate
Athletic Association Division I men’s soccer season. J Strength Cond
Res 20: 962–970, 2006.
29. Thorstensson, A. Observations on strength training and detraining.
Acta Physiol Scand 100: 491–493, 1977.
30. Vila-Cha
˜, C, Falla, D, and Farina, D. Motor unit behavior during
submaximal contractions following six weeks of either endurance or
strength training. J Appl Physiol 109: 1455–1466, 2010.
31. Wisløff, U, Castagna, C, Helgerud, J, Jones, R, and Hoff, J. Strong
correlation of maximal squat strength with sprint performance and
vertical jump height in elite soccer players. Br J Sports Med 38:
285–288, 2004.
32. Wisløff, U, Helgerud, J, and Hoff, J. Strength and endurance of elite
soccer players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 30: 462–467, 1998.
33. Widrick,JJ,Trappe,SW,Blaser,CA,Costill,DL,andFitts,RH.
Isometric force and maximal shortening velocity of single muscle fibers
from elite master runners. Am J Physiol 271: C666–C675, 1996.
34. Widrick, JJ, Trappe, SW, Costill, DL, and Fitts, RH. Force-velocity
and force-power properties of single muscle fibers from elite master
runners and sedentary men. Am J Physiol 271: C676–C683, 1996.
35. Wong, PL, Chaouachi, A, Chamari, K, Dellal, A, and Wisloff, U.
Effect of preseason concurrent muscular strength and high-intensity
interval training in professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res
24: 653–660, 2010.
8
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Strength Maintenance Training in Professional Soccer Players
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.