Compatibility of concurrent aerobic and strength training for skeletal muscle size and function: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

ObjectiveThis systematic review assessed the compatibility of concurrent aerobic and strength training compared to sole strength training regarding adaptations in muscle function (maximal and explosive strength) and muscle mass. Subgroup analyses were conducted to examine the impact of training modality, exercise type, exercise order, training frequency, age, and training status.DesignA systematic literature search was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). PROSPERO: CRD42020203777Data sourcesPubMed/MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and Scopus were systematically searched (12th of August 2020, updated on the 15th of March 2021).Eligibility criteriaPopulation: Healthy adults of any sex and age; Intervention: Supervised, concurrent aerobic and strength training of at least 4 weeks; Comparison: Sole strength training with matched strength training volume; Outcome: maximal strength, explosive strength and muscle hypertrophy. ResultsA total of 43 studies were included. The estimated average standardised mean differences (SMD) based on the random-effects model were -0.06 (95% CI: -0.20, 0.09, p=0.446), -0.28 (95% CI: -0.48, - 0.08, p=0.007) and -0.01 (95% CI: -0.16, 0.18, p=0.919) for maximal strength, explosive strength and muscle hypertrophy, respectively. The attenuation in explosive strength was more pronounced when concurrent training was performed within the same session (p=0.043) compared with separating the sessions by at least 3 h (p>0.05). Summary/ConclusionConcurrent aerobic and strength training does not compromise muscle hypertrophy and maximal strength development. However, explosive strength gains may be attenuated, especially when aerobic and strength training are performed within the same session.

Resistance Training Recommendations to Maximize Muscle Hypertrophy in an Athletic Population: Position Stand of the IUSCA

“…More recently, alongside further considerations of the exact nature of the concurrent training programs design, others have discussed possible participant level characteristics (e.g., training status, sex, nutritional practices) or other methodological factors (e.g., measurement approaches used for outcomes) that might also explain some of the heterogeneity across studies Despite the historical variation in findings of individual concurrent training studies, and the contrasting conclusions of earlier reviews and meta-analyses, a recent updated systematic review and meta-analysis offers insight into the existence, or lack thereof, for an 'interference' effect. Schumann et al (223) identified 15 studies that employed concurrent aerobic and RT (including 201 participants) and RT alone (including 188 participants). Their overall random effects model found a standardized between condition treatment effect of -0.01 [95% CI -0.16 to 0.18] suggesting no more than a trivial difference at best.…”