Concurrent training in team sports: A systematic review

Abstract

Background: Concurrent strength and endurance training could interfere with adaptation, which primarily affects long-term strength development. However, so far, research on this theme has rarely focused on ways to optimize concurrent strength and endurance training in team sports. Objectives: This paper aims to summarize the literature on the effects of concurrent training on aerobic and anaerobic energy pathways as well as strength and jump performance measures in team sports (invasion games) to provide recommendations for its application. Methods: A systematic literature review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was conducted. Various reliable sources with only experimental studies investigating the effect of concurrent training on sport-specific performance measures in team sports (invasion games) were included. Two researchers independently evaluated the risk of bias with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. Results: From 1649 records, 24 were included: 12 in children/adolescents ( n = 428; aged up to 18 years) and 12 in adults ( n = 620; aged 19–30 years), respectively. Thirteen of 24 studies reported improved endurance (V˙O2max, YoYoIR) and strength (CMJ, SJ and 1RM) performance by adding additional resistance training in young and adult team sport players with different training status, and nine of 24 studies reported more pronounced interference effects in older and more experienced players. Discussion: Concurrent training can improve endurance and strength performance in team sports athletes. However, it is revealed that concurrent training can lead to diminished effects, which might be minimized by extended recovery time between sessions, adapted sequencing order and endurance exercise modality. With maturity and developing training status, an increased importance of these variables was documented.

Microdosing: Old Wine in a New Bottle? Current State of Affairs and Future Avenues

“…Training experience, performance level, and other interindividual variations are powerful moderators of how individuals respond to different training loads. 12,18,24 In general populations (although it is unclear in athletes), endurance levels can be maintained for up to 15 weeks with only 2 weekly training sessions, but strength levels can be preserved for up to 32 weeks with only a single weekly training session as long as the intensity is not lowered. 19 This detraining antagonist microdosing loses efficacy when the maintenance session or bout occurs only every second week.…”

“…23 In addition, according to the principle of specificity, 1,26 load orientation and exercise mode reflect what the load is targeting and is the main driver of training adaptations. 10,12,24,26 However, microdosing mainly focuses on resistance and endurance training, 6,7,13,14 although additional parameters, such as change of direction, range of motion, repeated sprint ability, or maximal sprinting speed, could also be, in principle, microdosed. Of course, microdosing of maximal efforts should not be performed by reducing intensity but by reducing daily volume while increasing weekly frequency.…”

“…1,5 However, opportunities to engage in general athletic development during the competitive phase may be scarce and require a trade-off with short-term performance, 5,6 particularly in sports with long seasons or multiple competitions per week. [4][5][6][7][8][9] Load management is complex, and there is a risk that high or excessive training loads might produce adverse interference effects 10,11 (eg, as in concurrent training, the simultaneous development of resistance and endurance training), 10,[12][13][14] but the literature suggests that it is possible to avoid such effects through appropriate manipulation of load parameters (eg, intensity, sequencing, contraction mode). [10][11][12][13][14] Conversely, low or insufficient training loads may result in detraining.…”

“…[4][5][6][7][8][9] Load management is complex, and there is a risk that high or excessive training loads might produce adverse interference effects 10,11 (eg, as in concurrent training, the simultaneous development of resistance and endurance training), 10,[12][13][14] but the literature suggests that it is possible to avoid such effects through appropriate manipulation of load parameters (eg, intensity, sequencing, contraction mode). [10][11][12][13][14] Conversely, low or insufficient training loads may result in detraining. 15,16 Microdosing (or microtraining, microloading) has emerged as a strategy to mitigate these challenges and has been applied by spacing out training stimuli, delivering a smaller daily (or session) dose but totaling a similar weekly volume while keeping intensity high.…”

“…Furthermore, proponents of microdosing currently manipulate load distribution and frequency, 6,7,19 neglecting the total volume, intensity, complexity, monotony, ordering/sequencing, timing of exercise presentation, and other relevant parameters. 1, [10][11][12]18,24 In sports, one proposal equated microdosing with 15-to 25-minute sessions, 7 but the duration is not always an accurate proxy for volume. 24 A better alternative would be to reduce the training load to a specific fraction of the initial dose (eg, 1 / 3 or 1 / 9 ), as proposed in a resistance training study 20 wherein such fractions were termed "the minimum dose required.…”