Specific Training Effects of Concurrent Aerobic and Strength Exercises Depend on Recovery Duration

Abstract

This study aimed to determine whether the duration (0, 6, or 24 hours) of recovery between strength and aerobic sequences influences the responses to a concurrent training program. Fifty-eight amateur rugby players were randomly assigned to control (CONT), concurrent training (C-0h, C-6h, or C-24h), or strength training (STR) groups during a 7-week training period. Two sessions of each quality were proposed each week with strength always performed before aerobic training. Neuromuscular and aerobic measurements were performed before and immediately after the overall training period. Data were assessed for practical significance using magnitude-based inference. Gains in maximal strength for bench press and half squat were lower in C-0h compared with that in C-6h, C-24h, and STR. The maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) during isokinetic knee extension at 60°·s(-1) was likely higher for C-24h compared with C-0h. Changes in MVC at 180°·s(-1) was likely higher in C-24h and STR than in C-0h and C-6h. Training-induced gains in isometric MVC for C-0h, C-6h, C-24h, and STR were unclear. V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak increased in C-0h, C-6h, and C-24h. Training-induced changes in V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak were higher in C-24h than in C-0h and C-6h. Our study emphasized that the interference on strength development depends on the recovery delay between the 2 sequences. Daily training without a recovery period between sessions (C-0h) and, to a lesser extent, training twice a day (C-6h), is not optimal for neuromuscular and aerobic improvements. Fitness coaches should avoid scheduling 2 contradictory qualities, with less than 6-hour recovery between them to obtain full adaptive responses to concurrent training.

Caffeine supplementation affects the immunometabolic response to concurrent training

“…Concurrent exercise is the combination of strength and aerobic exercise during the same session or training program (Leveritt and Abernethy, 1999), and it has been shown to impair long-term strength development (Hickson, 1980; Robineau et al, 2016). Studies suggest that the reduction in performance during a session of strength training (i.e., maximum number of repetitions, intensity, or total volume) after aerobic activity, especially high-intensity intermittent exercise (de Souza et al, 2007; Inoue et al, 2016), can contribute to a long-term impairment compared to strength training performed solely (Cadore et al, 2011; Leveritt and Abernethy, 1999).…”

Magnitude‐based Inference is not Bayesian and is not a valid method of inference

“…In the literature we reviewed, MBI practitioners predominantly used small studies (median effect size for single group studies was 14 and for multi-group studies was 10 per group), set the maximum risk of harm at 5%, and treated both directions equivalently. 2 The 90% confidence interval for muscle strain is: 39…”

“…In reviewing numerous MBI papers, we have noticed that authors commonly log-transform their data with little explanation given other than that they did so to "deal with the non-uniformity of errors." [38][39][40][41][42][43] This phrase is not conventional statistical language at all: a Google search reveals that it is used on www.sport sci.org and then almost exclusively in MBI papers in the sports medicine literature. In most cases, there is no indication that authors have actually examined their data distributions or checked assumptions such as normality and homogeneity of variances to warrant a log transformation.…”

Efeitos da caminhada em declive na aptidão aeróbia e neuromuscular em adultos jovens

“…Two major problems, at least, arise from this training model. Firstly, when endurance and strength training are performed simultaneously, there are fewer gains of both strength and skeletal muscle mass 6,7 . Moreover, a greater training volume in each session and/or a higher weekly frequency is necessary to perform endurance and strength training concurrently 4 .…”