The fitness fatigue model suggests that after a workout, both fitness and fatigue exist rather than the cause and effect relationship of fatigue occurring first then fitness suggested by the GAS theory (Turner 2011). The fitness after-effect is a positive physiological response, whereas the fatigue after-effect is a negative physiological response. The interaction between these two after-effects results in the change in performance following the training stimulus (Chiu and Barnes 2003). The fatigue response is large in magnitude but short in duration whereas the fitness response is lower in magnitude but longer in duration. This results in a period of increased “preparedness” following adequate recovery which is nearly identical to the supercompensation effect proposed in the GAS (Chiu and Barnes 2003). The fitness fatigue model also proposes that different stresses provide different responses, implying that fatigue can be exercise-type dependant which is in contrast with the GAS theory (Turner 2011). Consequently, if a player is fatigued from one type of training, they may still be able to perform well in a different type of training. Ultimately, no matter which theory we use, adaptation or improvement in the body’s physical capability will occur if an adequate training stimulus and recovery period are provided to the player.