## 3 Results  
Two participants withdrew from the study due to unrelated injuries, resulting in data from \(n\) = 10 participants being analysed for all the variables other than the IMTP and aerobic data, which included \(n\) = 9 due to technical errors during data collection. Except for the peak force during the CMJ (_p_ = 0.035), all the other variables of interest (body mass: \(p\) = 0.942; bench press: \(p\) = 0.245; leg press: \(p\) = 0.666; IMTP: \(p\) = 0.302; CMJ height: \(p\) = 0.081; and relative \(\mathrm{\dot{V}O_{2}max}\): \(p\) = 0.327) were normally distributed. A non-significant (_p_ = 0.208) increase (0.78%) in the participant's body mass was observed over the 4 weeks.  
The bench press 3 RM strength testing significantly increased (6.39%; \(p\) = 0.0007) to 55.28 \(\pm\) 30.9 kg (range: 22.5-120 kg), and a similar increase (6.73%; \(p\) = 0.0155) was observed for the 3 RM leg press, which increased to 266.1 \(\pm\) 74.7 kg (range: 160-370 kg) (Figure 1). The IMTP peak force (Figure 1) significantly increased (11.14%; \(p\) = 0.0314) to 2362 \(\pm\) 695 N (range: 1677-3685 N). However, the CMJ jump height and peak take-off force (Figure 1) did not change (_p_ = 0.9552 and \(p\) = 0.5684, respectively). Importantly, the relative  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline  & **Day 1** & **Day 2** & **Day 3** & **Day 4** & **Day 5** & **Day 6** & **Day 7** \\ \hline Week 1 & & 1 familiarisation day & & & 1 outcome measure testing day & \\ Week 2–5 & RT & HIIT & REST & RT & HIIT & REST & REST \\ Week 6 & & & 1 outcome measure testing day & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Study overview and training week structure.  
The post-intervention dynamic strength, as represented by improvements in the CMJ height, was strongly correlated to the relative VO2 max (r = 0.6947), but only weakly correlated to the CMJ peak take-off force (r = 0.3837). The IMTP peak force improvement was only weakly correlated to the relative VO2 max (r = 0.2818) (Figure 2). The improvements in the 3 RM leg press were observed to have a moderate (r = 0.5521) correlation with the relative VO2 max, whilst the bench press 3 RM strength had a strong (r = 0.8184) correlation with the relative VO2 max (Figure 2). The VO2 max post-intervention was only observed to significantly affect the bench press (R\({}^{2}\) = 0.6698; \(p\) = 0.0244) and CMJ jump height (R\({}^{2}\) = 0.4827; \(p\) = 0.0558) (Table 3).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & **Bench Press** & **Leg Press** & **CMJ Jump Height** & **CMJ Peak Force** & **IMTP** \\ \hline R squared & 0.6698 & 0.3049 & 0.4827 & 0.1472 & 0.07940 \\
95\% CI & 0.5870 to 5.504 & \(-\)3201 to 11.90 & \(-\)0.02040 to 1.213 & \(-\)16.12 to 34.36 & \(-\)61.38 to 103.5 \\ \(p\)-value & 0.0244 & 0.1987 & 0.0558 & 0.3955 & 0.5404 \\ Equation & Y = 3.045 \(\times\) X \(-\) 54.62 & Y = 4.350 \(\times\) X \(+\) 109.7 & Y = 0.5965 \(\times\) X \(+\) 7.258 & Y = 9.120 \(\times\) X \(+\) 1276 & Y = 21.06 \(\times\) X \(+\) 1710 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Regression comparison between VO2 max and strength assessments.  
Figure 1: Pre-/post-intervention outcome results for dependent variables. Open circles represent excluded paired participant data due to either no post test or equipment malfunction during post testing. Note paired \(t\)-test outcomes: *** \(p\leq\) 0.01; * \(p\leq\) 0.05; ns = non-significant.