Dataset Information

Development of Maximal Dynamic Strength During Concurrent Resistance and Endurance Training in Untrained, Moderately Trained, and Trained Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The effect of concurrent training on the development of maximal strength is unclear, especially in individuals with different training statuses.

Objective

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis study was to compare the effect of concurrent resistance and endurance training with that of resistance training only on the development of maximal dynamic strength in untrained, moderately trained, and trained individuals.

Methods

On the basis of the predetermined criteria, 27 studies that compared effects between concurrent and resistance training only on lower-body 1-repetition maximum (1RM) strength were included. The effect size (ES), calculated as the standardised difference in mean, was extracted from each study, pooled, and analysed with a random-effects model.

Results

The 1RM for leg press and squat exercises was negatively affected by concurrent training in trained individuals (ES = - 0.35, p < 0.01), but not in moderately trained ( - 0.20, p = 0.08) or untrained individuals (ES = 0.03, p = 0.87) as compared to resistance training only. A subgroup analysis revealed that the negative effect observed in trained individuals occurred only when resistance and endurance training were conducted within the same training session (ES same session = - 0.66, p < 0.01 vs. ES different sessions = - 0.10, p = 0.55).

Conclusion

This study demonstrated the novel and quantifiable effects of training status on lower-body strength development and shows that the addition of endurance training to a resistance training programme may have a negative impact on lower-body strength development in trained, but not in moderately trained or untrained individuals. This impairment seems to be more pronounced when training is performed within the same session than in different sessions. Trained individuals should therefore consider separating endurance from resistance training during periods where the development of dynamic maximal strength is prioritised.

SUBMITTER: Petre H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8053170 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The load in resistance training is considered to be a critical variable for neuromuscular adaptations. Therefore, it is important to assess the effects of applying different loads on the development of maximal strength and muscular hypertrophy. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature and compare the effects of resistance training that was performed with low loads versus moderate and high loads in untrained and trained healthy adult males on the development of maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy during randomized experimental designs. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (2021) were followed with the eligibility criteria defined according to participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and study design (PICOS): (P) healthy males between 18 and 40 years old, (I) interventions performed with low loads, (C) interventions performed with moderate or high loads, (O) development of maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy, and (S) randomized experimental studies with between- or within-subject parallel designs. The literature search strategy was performed in three electronic databases (Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science) on 22 August 2021. Results: Twenty-three studies with a total of 563 participants (80.6% untrained and 19.4% trained) were selected. The studies included both relative and absolute loads. All studies were classified as being moderate-to-high methodological quality, although only two studies had a score higher than six points. The main findings indicated that the load magnitude that was used during resistance training influenced the dynamic strength and isometric strength gains. In general, comparisons between the groups (i.e., low, moderate, and high loads) showed higher gains in 1RM and maximal voluntary isometric contraction when moderate and high loads were used. In contrast, regarding muscle hypertrophy, most studies showed that when resistance training was performed to muscle failure, the load used had less influence on muscle hypertrophy. The current literature shows that gains in maximal strength are more pronounced with high and moderate loads compared to low loads in healthy adult male populations. However, for muscle hypertrophy, studies indicate that a wide spectrum of loads (i.e., 30 to 90% 1RM) may be used for healthy adult male populations.

Project description:We determined the effect of concurrent training incorporating either high-intensity interval training (HIT) or moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on maximal strength, counter-movement jump (CMJ) performance, and body composition adaptations, compared with single-mode resistance training (RT). Twenty-three recreationally-active males (mean ± SD: age, 29.6 ± 5.5 y; [Formula: see text], 44 ± 11 mL kg-1·min-1) underwent 8 weeks (3 sessions·wk-1) of either: (1) HIT combined with RT (HIT+RT group, n = 8), (2) work-matched MICT combined with RT (MICT+RT group, n = 7), or (3) RT performed alone (RT group, n = 8). Measures of aerobic capacity, maximal (1-RM) strength, CMJ performance and body composition (DXA) were obtained before (PRE), mid-way (MID), and after (POST) training. Maximal (one-repetition maximum [1-RM]) leg press strength was improved from PRE to POST for RT (mean change ± 90% confidence interval; 38.5 ± 8.5%; effect size [ES] ± 90% confidence interval; 1.26 ± 0.24; P < 0.001), HIT+RT (28.7 ± 5.3%; ES, 1.17 ± 0.19; P < 0.001), and MICT+RT (27.5 ± 4.6%, ES, 0.81 ± 0.12; P < 0.001); however, the magnitude of this change was greater for RT vs. both HIT+RT (7.4 ± 8.7%; ES, 0.40 ± 0.40) and MICT+RT (8.2 ± 9.9%; ES, 0.60 ± 0.45). There were no substantial between-group differences in 1-RM bench press strength gain. RT induced greater changes in peak CMJ force vs. HIT+RT (6.8 ± 4.5%; ES, 0.41 ± 0.28) and MICT+RT (9.9 ± 11.2%; ES, 0.54 ± 0.65), and greater improvements in maximal CMJ rate of force development (RFD) vs. HIT+RT (24.1 ± 26.1%; ES, 0.72 ± 0.88). Lower-body lean mass was similarly increased for RT (4.1 ± 2.0%; ES; 0.33 ± 0.16; P = 0.023) and MICT+RT (3.6 ± 2.4%; ES; 0.45 ± 0.30; P = 0.052); however, this change was attenuated for HIT+RT (1.8 ± 1.6%; ES; 0.13 ± 0.12; P = 0.069). We conclude that concurrent training incorporating either HIT or work-matched MICT similarly attenuates improvements in maximal lower-body strength and indices of CMJ performance compared with RT performed alone. This suggests endurance training intensity is not a critical mediator of interference to maximal strength gain during short-term concurrent training.

Project description:Accommodation resistance is a training technique that may improve strength and power gains beyond those achieved by traditional free weights. In this method, chains are either added on a free-weight bar and combined with traditional plates or added to the bar as the entire load. Purpose. The aim of the current study was to compare the effectiveness of accommodation and constant resistance training methods during a four-week period on maximal strength and power in trained athletes. Methods. This study was comprised of 24 trained athletes, including 16 trained males [8 Wushu athletes (Kung-Fu) and 8 wrestlers, age: 20.5 ± 2.00 yrs. old]. Participants were initially tested on weight, body circumference, fat percent, upper and lower body maximal strength, determined by the 1-repetition maximum (1RM) test, which determines the greatest amount of weight a person can successfully lift, and upper and lower body power. Participants were equally randomized to either accommodation or constant resistance training groups. Both groups underwent resistance training for a four-week period that consisted of three sessions per week. Multivariate repeated-measures analyses of variance of the data were used to verify significant differences in strength and power between groups. The modified Bonferroni post hoc test was used to compare the obtained results in pre-, mid-, and post test. Results. In the accommodation resistance group, there was a significant difference in lower body maximal strength compared to the constant group (163.12 ± 18.82 kg in the accommodation group vs. 142.25 ± 20.04 kg in the constant group, P = 0.04). No significant differences were found in upper body power, lower body power, and upper body maximal strength between the two groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion. Although there was only a significant difference in lower body maximal strength between groups, accommodation resistance training may induce a physiological training response by improving the strength and power of stabilizing muscle groups required to balance the bar if consistently used over time.

Project description:BackgroundWe assessed the relationship of changes in upper and lower body lean mass with muscle strength, endurance and power responses following two high protein diets (1.6 or 3.2 g.kg-1.d-1) during 16 weeks of either concurrent training (CT) or resistance training (RT) in resistance-trained young males.MethodsForty-eight resistance-trained young males (age: 26 ± 6 yr., body mass index: 25.6 ± 2.9 kg.m-2) performed 16 weeks (four sessions·wk.-1) of CT or RT with either 1.6 g.kg-1.d-1 protein (CT + 1.6; n = 12; RT + 1.6; n = 12) or 3.2 g.kg-1.d-1 protein (CT + 3.2; n = 12; RT + 3.2; n = 12). Relationships between upper (left arm + right arm + trunk lean mass) and lower body (left leg + right leg lean mass) lean mass changes with changes in muscle performance were assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficients.ResultsFor upper body, non-significant weak positive relationships were observed between change in upper body lean mass and change in pull-up (r = 0.183, p = 0.234), absolute chest press strength (r = 0.159, p = 0.302), chest press endurance (r = 0.041, p = 0.792), and relative chest press strength (r = 0.097, p = 0.529) while non-significant weak negative relationships were observed for changes in absolute upper body power (r = -0.236, p = 0.123) and relative upper body power (r = -0.203, p = 0.185). For lower body, non-significant weak positive relationships were observed between the change in lower body lean mass with change in vertical jump (r = 0.145, p = 0.346), absolute lower body power (r = 0.109, p = 0.480), absolute leg press strength (r = 0.073, p = 0.638), leg press endurance (r < 0.001, p = 0.998), relative leg press strength (r = 0.089, p = 0.564), and relative lower body power (r = 0.150, p = 0.332).ConclusionChanges in muscle strength, endurance and power adaptation responses following 16 weeks of either CT or RT with different high protein intakes were not associated with changes in lean mass in resistance-trained young males. These findings indicate that muscle hypertrophy has a small, or negligible, contributory role in promoting functional adaptations with RT or CT, at least over a 16-week period.