## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & & **Effect:** & **Effect:** & & & \\  & & & & **Group** & **Time** & **F** & **F** & **Post-Hoc** & **ES** \\
**Variable** & **Group** & **Pre** & **Post** & **F** & **F** & **P** & **P** & **Post-Hoc** & **ES** \\  & & & & **pP2** & **np2** & **np2** & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} P\({}_{\text{VI2}}\) \\ (W) \\ \end{tabular} } & CON & 136 \(\pm\) 19.42 & 136.3 \(\pm\) 26.1 & 9.34 & 1.94 & 0.78 & 1.0 & 0.01 \\  & ST & 130 \(\pm\) 37.03 & 134 \(\pm\) 33.76 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.17 & 0.46 & 0.98 & 0.11 \\  & AIT & 164.93 \(\pm\) 19.42 & 175.53 \(\pm\) 26.08 & 0.31 & 0.04 & 0.04 & 0.51 & 0.47 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} P\({}_{\text{max}}\) \\ [\%] \\ \end{tabular} } & CON & 54.7 \(\pm\) 8.62 & 56.7 \(\pm\) 8.2 & 0.71 & 0.001 & 0.98 & 0.97 & 0.24 \\  & ST & 55.33 \(\pm\) 13.12 & 52.6 \(\pm\) 10.46 & 0.49 & 0.97 & 0.39 & 0.88 & 0.23 \\  & AIT & 58.07 \(\pm\) 8.62 & 59 \(\pm\) 8.2 & 0.03 & 0.03 & 0.04 & 0.99 & 0.11 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} HR\({}_{\text{VI2}}\) \\ [bpm] \\ \end{tabular} } & CON & 136.8 \(\pm\) 13.2 & 137.3 \(\pm\) 16.65 & 3.14 & 0.16 & 0.01 & 0.99 & 0.03 \\  & ST & 139.33 \(\pm\) 14.39 & 141.2 \(\pm\) 16.15 & 0.05 & 0.69 & 0.91 & 0.99 & 0.12 \\  & AIT & 148.93 \(\pm\) 13.19 & 148.8 \(\pm\) 16.65 & 0.13 & 0.003 & 0.005 & 1.0 & 0.01 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} HR\({}_{\text{max}}\) \\ [\%] \\ \end{tabular} } & CON & 72.93 \(\pm\) 6.21 & 74.73 \(\pm\) 6.25 & 4.47 & 0.43 & 0.37 & 0.89 & 0.29 \\  & ST & 75.47 \(\pm\) 7.35 & 75.8 \(\pm\) 7.93 & 0.02 & 0.51 & 0.69 & 0.99 & 0.04 \\  & AIT & 80.4 \(\pm\) 6.22 & 80.2 \(\pm\) 6.25 & 0.17 & 0.01 & 0.02 & 0.99 & 0.03 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} VO2\({}_{\text{VI2}}\) \\ [L/min] \\ \end{tabular} } & CON & 1.84 \(\pm\) 0.26 & 1.87 \(\pm\) 0.33 & 11.08 & 6.67 & 1.11 & 0.99 & 0.10 \\  & ST & 1.78 \(\pm\) 0.42 & 1.89 \(\pm\) 0.38 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.01 & 0.34 & 0.65 & 0.28 \\  & AIT & 2.19 \(\pm\) 0.26 & 2.38 \(\pm\) 0.33 & 0.34 & 0.14 & 0.05 & 0.04 & 0.64 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} VO2\({}_{\text{max}}\) \\ [\%] \\ \end{tabular} } & CON & 58.1 \(\pm\) 10.1 & 60.6 \(\pm\) 8.5 & 1.35 & 0.63 & 0.61 & 0.86 & 0.27 \\  & ST & 58 \(\pm\) 8.63 & 57.13 \(\pm\) 9.57 & 0.27 & 0.43 & 0.55 & 0.99 & 0.10 \\ \cline{1-1}  & AIT & 61.73 \(\pm\) 10.07 & 63.13 \(\pm\) 8.5 & 0.06 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 0.99 & 0.15 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Effects of strength training on parameters noted at the second ventilatory threshold (data are presented as mean \(\pm\) SD). induced significant changes in the indicators studied at the maximal intensity level (Pmax and VO2 max), while it did not affect their submaximal level, i.e., the second ventilation threshold. Only AIT training had a significant effect on increasing oxygen uptake at VT2. Thus, it can be concluded that ST did not significantly affect endurance capacity assessed by ventilation thresholds and only the maximum level of the variables tested in the graded test. The effect of strength training on anaerobic capacity is not surprising and the data obtained confirm previous data [6; 7; 8], in which strength training was shown to increase peak power during the Wingate test. [PERSON] et al. [7] showed that a 2.7% increase in anaerobic capacity was recorded after 12 weeks of resistance training. It is likely that the improvement in peak power in the Wingate test is most likely due to an increase in muscle strength in the ST group. Although a previous study [7] has also reported a positive effect of strength training on VO2 max, the undoubted novelty of this study is the demonstration that strength training does not affect the submaximal level of the indicators tested (i.e., at VT2), but only their maximal level. Only AIT significantly affected oxygen uptake at VT2. The present data contradicts previously reported results. [PERSON] et al.