## 3 Results
### Aerobic Capacity and Second Vertilatory Threshold  
Training in the ST and AIT groups resulted in a significant increase in absolute VO\({}_{2}\)max (\(p<0.001\), ES = 0.50 and \(p=0.02\), ES = 0.55, Figure 2, respectively). Relative maximal oxygen uptake increased after training in the ST and AIT groups (\(p<0.02\), ES = 0.35 and \(p<0.03\), ES = 0.42, Table 4). Absolute maximal power increased significantly in the ST group (\(p<0.001\), ES = 0.52; Figure 3). Comparing the ST and AIT groups, significant changes in relative maximal power were observed only in the ST group (\(p<0.01\), ES = 0.05) (Table 4). Figure 2: Effect of strength training on absolute maximal oxygen uptake (VO\({}_{2}\)max) (*: \(p<0.05\); NS: non-significant; CON: control group; ST: strength training; AIT: aerobic interval training; vertical bars indicate a 0.95 confidence interval). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & & \begin{tabular}{c} **Effect:** \\ **Group** \\ **F** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Effect:** \\ **Post** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Effect:** \\ **F** \\ **P** \\ **nP2** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Interaction** \\ **F** \\ **P** \\ **nP2** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Post-Hoc** \\ **ES** \\ **nP2** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **ES** \\ **nP2** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} rel\_MP \\ [W/kg] \\ \end{tabular} } & CON & 8.74 \(\pm\) 0.72 & 8.69 \(\pm\) 0.75 & 3.02 & 2.54 & 2.48 & 0.99 & 0.07 \\  & ST & 8.12 \(\pm\) 0.96 & 8.37 \(\pm\) 0.76 & 0.06 & 0.12 & 0.1 & 0.12 & 0.29 \\  & AIT & 8.94 \(\pm\) 0.75 & 9.01 \(\pm\) 1.05 & 0.12 & 0.06 & 0.1 & 0.98 & 0.08 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} FP \\ [W] \\ \end{tabular} } & CON & 810.57 \(\pm\) 132.39 & 796.79 \(\pm\) 137.79 & 4.27 & 13.65 & 10.74 & 0.73 & 0.10 \\  & ST & 894.15 \(\pm\) 112.28 & 944.15 \(\pm\) 116.19 & 0.02 & \(<\)0.001 & \(<\)0.001 & 0.44 \\  & AIT & 896.07 \(\pm\) 121.14 & 922.91 \(\pm\) 106.29 & 0.17 & 0.24 & 0.34 & 0.09 & 0.24 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} rel\_PP \\ [W/kg] \\ \end{tabular} } & CON & 11.06 \(\pm\) 1.07 & 10.83 \(\pm\) 1.22 & 3.26 & 7.04 & 7.39 & 0.64 & 0.20 \\  & ST & 10.8 \(\pm\) 0.95 & 11.32 \(\pm\) 1.02 & 0.05 & 0.01 & 0.002 & \(<\)0.001 & 0.53 \\  & AIT & 11.66 \(\pm\) 1.03 & 12.02 \(\pm\) 1.15 & 0.13 & 0.14 & 0.26 & 0.15 & 0.33 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} FI \\ [\%] \\ \end{tabular} } & CON & 21.61 \(\pm\) 6.69 & 20.39 \(\pm\) 4.46 & 5.14 & 0.79 & 2.01 & 0.87 & 0.22 \\  & ST & 25.97 \(\pm\) 4.79 & 27.45 \(\pm\) 5.87 & 0.01 & 0.38 & 0.15 & 0.75 & 0.28 \\  & AIT & 24.02 \(\pm\) 5.94 & 25.42 \(\pm\) 4 & 0.2 & 0.02 & 0.09 & 0.78 & 0.28 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} FI \\ [W/s] \\ \end{tabular} } & CON & 14.16 \(\pm\) 4.12 & 14.37 \(\pm\) 3.59 & 9.38 & 5.83 & 0.8 & 0.99 & 0.05 \\  & ST & 18.79 \(\pm\) 3.08 & 19.92 \(\pm\) 3.25 & \(<\)0.001 & 0.02 & 0.46 & 0.4 & 0.36 \\ \cline{1-1}  & AIT & 16.8 \(\pm\) 4.09 & 17.9 \(\pm\) 1.99 & 0.31 & 0.12 & 0.04 & 0.42 & 0.36 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
\begin{tabular}{c} MP: mean power; PP: peak power; FI: fatigue index; CON: control group; ST: strength training: AIT: aerobic interval training.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: _Cont._The applied training increased absolute VO\({}_{2}\) at VT2 only in the AIT group (\(p<0.04\); ES = 0.64) and this was a moderate effect (Table 5). No significant changes were observed in the other groups.