## 4 Discussion  
This study sought to test the hypothesis that there would be an increase in strength and aerobic performance parameters when resistance training in the form of full-body dynamic compound movements was performed first and combined with HIIT in a CT program. The proposed hypotheses was not supported through the observations of synergistic enhancements in the aerobic (relative VO2 max) and strength (3 RMs and IMTP) parameters following the four-week CT program; however, there was no relationship between  
Figure 2: Post-intervention Pearson correlations (black solid showing line of best fit) with 95% confidence intervals (dashed lines with grey shading) between relative VO2 max and countermovement jump height (cm); countermovement jump peak take-off force (N); IMTP peak force (N); 3 RM leg press (kg); and 3 RM bench press (kg). improvements in aerobic power and the measures of dynamic explosive movement. The lack of synergistic enhancements observed in the aerobic and strength outcome measures are in line with some previous literature [9, 10, 11], whilst in contrast to others [2, 5, 6, 7, 8]. These contradictory findings most likely reflect the exploratory study design, training program, exercise selection choices for both ET and RT, and recovery time. Significant strength improvements were observed for the bench press (6.39%), leg press (6.73%), and IMTP peak force (11.14%), representing the degree of the participant's full-body strength adaptation that was observed following this holistic resistance-training approach. Strength increases were observed regardless of the discrepancy between the selection/number of exercises in the training program between the upper (bench press and Pendlay row) and lower (squat, deadlift, rack pull, and weighted squat jump) body. Our data suggest that the exercise selection percentages are representative of the body percentage of muscle mass involved. Our reported data also support the idea that training exercises should specifically target or replicate the testing variable of interest (e.g., testing bench press and training bench press), rather than indirectly targeting a variable of interest (e.g., testing leg press and training squats) and therefore adding unnecessary volume. As a group, the participants' relative VO2 max remained unchanged; however, the intense, but brief, nature of the HIIT protocol appeared to be an insufficient stimulus to increase the relative VO2 max of the participants that undertook the training intervention when starting with a higher baseline position. Three participants who recorded the highest relative VO2 max results (range: 46.78-56.90 mL/kg/min) did not observe an improvement; in fact, they decreased or were unchanged. The observed small gains for the other participants (\(n=5\)) is surprising considering that this adaptation was observed following such a minimal dose of endurance training (a total of only 640 s of high-intensity training). The increased post-intervention relative VO2 max values are in line with the findings of [PERSON] et al. [14], who reported that two weekly sessions for each training mode were sufficient to observe synergistic enhancements without interference in novice individuals. However, this stimulus (two sessions per week) may be insufficient for individuals with a higher (>40 mL/kg/min) relative VO2 max. This suggests that, for higher-trained individuals, the HIIT protocol employed here was insufficient to induce an aerobic adaptation. Therefore, training status should be considered when designing the intensity/duration of the HIIT program to optimise the aerobic power response. While the dose of aerobic exercise training used in this pilot study appeared to be insufficient to stimulate adaptations in participants with a greater starting aerobic capacity baseline, the very minimal overall volume did appear to be sufficient for those participants starting from a low-capacity baseline.