Abstract
Specificity has two major components: A strength-endurance continuum (S-EC) and adherence to principles of Dynamic Correspondence. Available evidence indicates the existence of the S-EC continuum from two aspects. Indeed, the S-EC exists, particularly if work is equated as a high load low repetition scheme at one end (strength stimulus) and high volume (HIEE stimulus) at the other. Furthermore, some evidence also indicates that the continuum as a repetition paradigm with high-load, low repetition at one end (strength stimulus) and a high repetition, low load at the other end. The second paradigm is most apparent under three conditions: (1) ecological validity-in the real world, work is not equated, (2) use of absolute loads in testing and (3) a substantial difference in the repetitions used in training (for example 2-5 repetitions versus ≥10 repetitions). Additionally, adherence to the principles and criteria of dynamic correspondence allows for greater "transfer of training" to performance measures. Typically, and logically, in order to optimize transfer, training athletes requires a reasonable development of capacities (i.e., structure, metabolism, neural aspects, etc.) before more specific training takes place.