It has been well established that the utilisation of a stretch-shorten cycle (SSC) results in more powerful movements. Extensive investigation has focused on how concentric phase variables (i.e. maximal power) respond to training interventions. However, there is little research that reports the impact of training on eccentric phase variables of SSC movements. 1) Examine if training status affects power absorption (i.e. negative work, energy flow into the muscles) and production (i.e. positive work, energy flow to the rigid segments); and 2) identify if factors commonly associated with a SSC (i.e. time between eccentric and concentric phases, rate and magnitude of stretch) affect power absorption and production. Thirty-two men with previous resistance training experience were randomized into one of four groups based on their squat one repetition maximum to body weight ratio (1RM:BM): stronger power training group (SP, n = 8,1RM:BM = 1.97), weaker power training group (WP, n = 8,1RM:BM = 1.32), weaker strength training group (WS, n = 8,1RM:BM = 1.28), or control group (C, n = 8,1RM:BM = 1.37). The experimental groups completed 10 weeks of either explosive jump squat training (SP & WP) or heavy squat training (WS) with the control group maintaining their normal level of activity. One week prior to initiating training all subjects underwent a familiarization and testing session involving a squat 1RM, 40m sprint, static jump and countermovement jump. Testing was conducted again after week 5 (mid-test) and week 10 (post-test). Data was collected utilizing a digital camera as well as a linear position transducer and a force plate sampling at 1000Hz and analyzed using previously validated protocols. Power production (average concentric power) improved significantly (p ≤ 0.05) for each experimental group following training (SPbaseline = 32 ± 4 W/kg, SPpost = 41 ± 3 W/kg; WPbaseline = 26 ± 3 W/kg, WPpost = 34±3 W/kg; WSbaseline = 26 ± 4W/kg, WSpost = 32 ± 3 W/kg). More pronounced improvements (p ≤ 0.05) in power absorption (average eccentric power) were observed (SPbaseline = −11 ± 3 W/kg, SP-post = −15 ± 2W/kg;WPbaseline = −8 ± 1 W/kg, WPpost = −15 ± 1 W/kg; WSbaseline = −9 ± 3 W/kg, WSpost = −14 ± 3 W/kg). Changes to power absorption and production appeared to be driven in some part by significant decreases in time to take off and significant changes to force throughout the movement. Non-significant trends towards increased rate of stretch and decreased magnitude of stretch were also observed. Following training, significant differences existed between the experimental and control groups in both power absorption and production. SP displayed a nonsignificant but practically relevant decrease in 1 RM:BM (0.10; effect size = 0.91) after the 10 weeks. Power training in both strong and weak individuals resulted in changes to power absorption and production. Increased strength was also associated with an enhanced ability to absorb and produce power in the absence of any specific power training. The decrease in maximal strength of the SP group may have resulted in a diminished response to the power training. It remains unclear whether the SP group would have displayed even greater improvements if strength maintenance sessions were included in the 10 week program. A foundation of strength prior to initiation of power training may allow for greater improvement in SSC performance.