View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Acute Effect of Concurrent Training on Running Performance over 6 Days

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Acute Effect of Concurrent Training on Running Performance over 6 Days
Language: English
Authors: Doma, Kenji, Deakin, Glen
Source: Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2015 86(4):387-396.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2015
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Physical Activities, Muscular Strength, Exercise, Comparative Analysis, Statistical Analysis
Geographic Terms: Australia
DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2015.1053104
ISSN: 0270-1367
Abstract: Purpose: This study examined the effects of strength training on alternating days and endurance training on consecutive days on running performance for 6 days. Methods: Sixteen male and 8 female moderately trained individuals were evenly assigned into concurrent-training (CCT) and strength-training (ST) groups. The CCT group undertook strength training on alternating days combined with endurance training on consecutive days for 6 days. One week later, the CCT group conducted 3 consecutive days of endurance training only to determine whether fatigue would be induced with endurance training alone (CCT-Con). Endurance training was undertaken to induce endurance-training stimulus and to measure the cost of running (CR), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and time to exhaustion (TTE). The ST group undertook 3 strength-training sessions on alternating days. Maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), rating of muscle soreness (RMS), and rating of muscle fatigue (RMF) were collected prior to each strength and endurance session. Results: For the CCT group, small differences were primarily found in CR and RPE (ES = 0.17-0.41). However, moderate-to-large reductions were found for TTE and MVC (ES = 0.65-2.00), whereas large increases in RMS and RMF (ES = 1.23-2.49) were found prior to each strength- and endurance-training session. Small differences were found in MVC for the ST group (ES = 0.11) and during CCT-Con for the CCT group (ES = 0.15-0.31). Conclusion: Combining strength training on alternating days with endurance training on consecutive days impairs MVC and running performance at maximal effort and increases RMS and RMF over 6 days.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 35
Entry Date: 2015
Accession Number: EJ1081407
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFP4vvzu135gGX86U7U_etiAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHjz1V9HT_0yfXr8JgIBEICBmu7wHUqHlKnFEjg0NLAf3NGPbJg-REzqJxV-_H7xyrlZiQfn_CzPZh2ttqJlW4PSiaWKbQStfKw1lmTPYhlScfMoc9NQxwxUTlkCq0bq62KokTSlpmIqFCtD77qUtUNuQHeCy5i1Xa-oRWNtc9NBvRBP2TCABVRjN9zXjVyTxz5e9M55mF-xBRAfdboJ4qQ2nxVy5aCpfM9QKVU=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0110901625;rqe01dec.15;2019Mar18.14:20;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0110901625-1">The Acute Effect of Concurrent Training on Running Performance Over 6 Days. </title> <p>Purpose: This study examined the effects of strength training on alternating days and endurance training on consecutive days on running performance for 6 days. Methods: Sixteen male and 8 female moderately trained individuals were evenly assigned into concurrent-training (CCT) and strength-training (ST) groups. The CCT group undertook strength training on alternating days combined with endurance training on consecutive days for 6 days. One week later, the CCT group conducted 3 consecutive days of endurance training only to determine whether fatigue would be induced with endurance training alone (CCT-Con). Endurance training was undertaken to induce endurance-training stimulus and to measure the cost of running (C<sub>R</sub>), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and time to exhaustion (TTE). The ST group undertook 3 strength-training sessions on alternating days. Maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), rating of muscle soreness (RMS), and rating of muscle fatigue (RMF) were collected prior to each strength and endurance session. Results: For the CCT group, small differences were primarily found in C<sub>R</sub> and RPE (ES = 0.17–0.41). However, moderate-to-large reductions were found for TTE and MVC (ES = 0.65–2.00), whereas large increases in RMS and RMF (ES = 1.23–2.49) were found prior to each strength- and endurance-training session. Small differences were found in MVC for the ST group (ES = 0.11) and during CCT-Con for the CCT group (ES = 0.15–0.31). Conclusion: Combining strength training on alternating days with endurance training on consecutive days impairs MVC and running performance at maximal effort and increases RMS and RMF over 6 days.</p> <p>Keywords: endurance training; running economy; running time to exhaustion; strength training</p> <p>The incorporation of strength- and endurance-training sessions in the same training program is known as concurrent training (Hickson, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref1">24</reflink>]). Numerous studies have shown that concurrent training induces suboptimal strength (Bell, Syrotuik, Martin, Burnham, & Quinney, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref2">4</reflink>]; Dolezal & Potteiger, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref3">12</reflink>]) and endurance adaptations (Chtara et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref4">9</reflink>]; Nelson, Arnall, Loy, Silvester, & Conlee, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref5">30</reflink>]). The interference in strength development has been attributed to the physiological responses being antagonistic between each mode of training, known as the "chronic hypothesis" (Leveritt, Abernethy, Bary, & Logan, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref6">26</reflink>]). Furthermore, the "acute hypothesis" contends that residual effects of fatigue generated by endurance training may impair muscular contractility essential for optimal strength adaptation (Leveritt et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref7">26</reflink>]). Similarly, the quality of an endurance-training session may be compromised as a result of neuromuscular fatigue induced by preceding strength-training sessions (Chtara et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref8">9</reflink>]). However, the mechanisms associated with interference of endurance adaptation in response to concurrent training have received little attention.</p> <p>Chtara et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref9">9</reflink>]) examined the effects of altering strength- and endurance-training sequence on endurance adaptation during 12 weeks and found that the improvement in running-time trial performance was less for the group that performed strength training prior to endurance training compared with the group that performed the modes of training in reverse. The authors postulated that fatigue generated from strength training may have impaired the quality of the following endurance-training sessions. Consequently, the acute hypothesis explaining the interference of strength adaptation may be similar to mechanisms responsible for suboptimal endurance development. However, the study by Chtara and colleagues evaluated running performance after 12 weeks of training, and it is unknown how strength training prior to endurance training may affect acute running performance. To date, little is known of the acute impact that strength training may have on the quality of subsequent endurance training. This could be confirmed by investigating the acute effects of strength training on endurance performance.</p> <p>Scott, Rozenek, Russo, Crussemeyer, and Lacourse ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref10">32</reflink>]) found that strength training did not affect running economy (RE) with a 24-hr recovery period, indicating a minimal effect of strength training on submaximal running performance. However, it has been shown that acute strength training impaired running-time trial performance although RE was unaffected (Marcora & Bosio, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref11">28</reflink>]). A recent study examined the acute effects of the strength- and endurance-training sequence on running performance the following day (Doma & Deakin, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref12">14</reflink>]). The results showed that RE was impaired the following day when strength training was undertaken prior to endurance training the previous day, although such results were not found with the reverse sequence. Collectively, the extent of the acute detrimental effects that strength training may have on running performance may be dependent on the recovery period between each mode of the training session, intensity of running performed, and the strength- and endurance-training sequence. However, applying such findings to concurrent training is at present difficult because running performance measures were only examined for 1 to 2 days.</p> <p>Examining acute daily responses of endurance measures over a week, rather than 1 to 2 days, would better elucidate the impact that individual training sessions have on the level of chronic endurance response during the course of a current training program. Indeed, it has been recommended that novice and intermediate weightlifters train 2 days to 4 days per week on the same muscle group to develop muscular strength, power, and endurance (Kraemer et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref13">25</reflink>]; i.e., approximately 48 hr of recovery between each strength training session), whereas moderate- to high-intensity endurance-training sessions are commonly prescribed on consecutive days (Faude, Meyer, Urhausen, & Kindermann, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref14">19</reflink>]) or with strength training on the same day (Friel, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref15">20</reflink>]). However, it remains unknown whether strength-training sessions performed on alternating days (i.e., 48 hr of recovery between strength-training sessions) would affect the quality of daily endurance-training sessions on consecutive days (i.e., 24 hr of recovery between endurance-training sessions) as measured by endurance performance. The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of alternating-day strength training coupled with consecutive-day endurance training on RE and running time to exhaustion (TTE) during a 6-day period. It was hypothesized that running performance would be impaired during the entire 6-day period when alternating-day strength training is combined with consecutive-day endurance training.</p> <hd id="AN0110901625-2">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0110901625-3">Participants</hd> <p>Sixteen male and eight female moderately trained runners were assigned to a concurrent-training (CCT) group (<emph>n</emph> = 12, female = 4; <emph>M</emph><subs>age</subs> = 30.8 ± 6.9 years; <emph>M</emph><subs>height</subs> = 1.75 ± 0.1 m; <emph>M</emph><subs>bodymass</subs> = 74.7 ± 13.8 kg; mean maximal oxygen consumption [VO<subs>2</subs>max] = 57.1 ± 8.5 mL·kg<sups>− 1</sups>·min<sups>− 1</sups>; mean six repetition maximum [6RM] leg press = 229.6 ± 83.1 kg; mean 6RM leg extension = 67.7 ± 14.2 kg; mean 6RM leg curls = 34.8 ± 9.0 kg; mean knee extensor torque = 282.5 ± 70.4 Nm) that undertook both strength- and endurance-training sessions, or a strength-training (ST) group (<emph>n</emph> = 12; <emph>M</emph><subs>age</subs> = 27.5 ± 6.3 years; <emph>M</emph><subs>height</subs> = 1.70 ± 0.1 m; <emph>M</emph><subs>bodymass</subs> = 69.4 ± 10.0 kg; mean VO<subs>2</subs>max = 59.5 ± 5. mL·kg<sups>− 1</sups>·min<sups>− 1</sups>; mean 6RM leg press = 251.4 ± 56.8 kg; mean 6RM leg extension = 64.8 ± 12.6 kg; mean 6RM leg curls = 33.6 ± 9.0 kg; mean knee extensor torque = 304.2 ± 67.0 Nm) that only performed strength-training sessions. The participants were matched for gender, fitness level, and muscular strength between the CCT and ST groups. The participants had been participating in high-intensity running sessions (i.e., greater than 85% of predicted maximum heart rate) at least twice a week for the previous 12 months and had not performed high-intensity lower-extremity strength-training exercises (i.e., less than 12 repetition maximum) for 6 months prior to commencement of the study. Biological variations were controlled by conducting the tests at the same time of day, with participants wearing the same shoes for every test, refraining from high-intensity physical activity for at least 24 hr prior to testing, and refraining from caffeine and food intake for at least 2 hr prior to testing. Participants were required to maintain their training intensity and volume during the study. However, participants were required to refrain from any form of physical activity during Weeks 6 and 7 for the CCT group and during Week 4 for the ST group. Each participant completed informed consent before taking part in any testing procedures, which were approved by the Institutional Human Research Ethics Committee and were run in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.</p> <p>An in-house study on the reliability of the RE and maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) tests previously showed a small within-subject coefficient of variation (CV) for cost of running (C<subs>R</subs>), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), torque production, and TTE (CV = 2.5%, 3.6%, 8.3%, and 9.2%, respectively) for endurance-trained men (<emph>n</emph> = 14; Doma, Deakin, Leicht, & Sealey, 2012). Based on a nomogram for the estimation of measurement error via use of CV (statistical power of 90%; Atkinson & Nevill, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref16">2</reflink>]), percentage worthwhile differences of the current sample size (<emph>n</emph> = 12) for C<subs>R</subs>, RPE, torque production, and TTE were found to be 3%, 4.5%, 10%, and 11%, respectively. These numbers are smaller than those in previous reports that have shown statistically significant differences in C<subs>R</subs>, RPE, torque production, and TTE (Doma & Deakin, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref17">13</reflink>]; Doma & Deakin, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref18">15</reflink>]; Doma et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref19">18</reflink>]). In addition, an a-priori power calculation was conducted for the key dependent variables based on previous studies on male and female participants (Braun & Paulson, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref20">5</reflink>]; Doma & Deakin, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref21">14</reflink>]; Marcora & Bosio, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref22">28</reflink>]) and showed that a sample size of 12 is sufficient to provide greater than 80% of power at an alpha level of.05.</p> <hd id="AN0110901625-4">Research Design for the Concurrent-Training Group</hd> <p>The study was conducted during 7 weeks for the CCT group under controlled conditions (i.e., 23°C–24°C). During the 1st 5 weeks, a VO<subs>2</subs>max test, 6RM assessment, three endurance-training sessions, and three strength-training sessions were administered to familiarize the participants with the training and testing protocols. During the 1st week, a familiarization session and VO<subs>2</subs>max test were conducted. The familiarization session consisted of a 6RM assessment for incline leg press, leg extension, and leg curls. The 6RM assessment (Baechle & Earle, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref23">3</reflink>]) and VO<subs>2</subs>max test (Doma, Deakin, & Sealey, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref24">17</reflink>]) were conducted according to previously described methods on a motorized treadmill (Quinton Q65, Milwaukee, WI, USA). Three familiarity sessions for the endurance-training protocol were conducted with at least 1 day of recovery in between during Week 2. During Weeks 3 and 4, three strength-training sessions were conducted with at least 4 days of recovery in between to limit repeated bout effects of strength training (Doma et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref25">18</reflink>]). During Week 5, a fifth endurance-training session was conducted with at least 4 days of recovery following the third strength-training session with performance measures (oxygen C<subs>R</subs>, RPE, and running TTE) collected for baseline (base end) purposes (see the "Endurance Training Sessions" section for further description). The experimental days were conducted during Week 6 and control days were conducted during Week 7 (Figure 1). At least 1 week of recovery was provided between the last endurance-training session of the experimental days to the first endurance-training session of the control days. The experimental days were carried out over 6 days consisting of three strength-training sessions performed on alternating days and endurance-training sessions on consecutive days. On Days 1, 3, and 5 of the 6-day period, strength-training sessions were performed 9 hr prior to the endurance-training sessions. The control days consisted of three endurance-training sessions and an MVC test on the 4th day. The control days were essential to determine whether endurance performance would be impaired as a result of endurance training alone during consecutive days. Rating of muscle soreness (RMS) and rating of muscle fatigue (RMF), using a 1-100 visual analogue scale (Chen, Nosaka, Lin, Chen, & Wu, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref26">7</reflink>]), and MVC were collected prior to base end and prior to each experimental and control session.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1 A schematic of the research design for the concurrent-training group during the experimental and control days and the strength-training group during the experimental days with maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), rating of muscle soreness (RMS), and rating of muscle fatigue (RMF) collected each day prior to the training sessions. Note. ETS = endurance-training sessions; STS = strength-training sessions.</p> <hd id="AN0110901625-5">Research Design for the Strength-Training Group</hd> <p>The study was conducted across 4 weeks for the ST group under controlled conditions (i.e., 23°C–24°C). The 1st 3 weeks consisted of a familiarization session with 6RM assessments, a VO<subs>2</subs>max test, and three strength-training sessions to limit repeated bout effects of strength training (Doma et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref27">18</reflink>]). The ST group did not undertake endurance-training sessions and therefore was not familiarized with the protocol. During Week 4, three strength-training sessions were carried out on alternating days (Figure 1). (RMS and RMF, using a 1-100 visual analogue scale (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref28">7</reflink>]), and MVC were collected prior to every strength session during Week 4.</p> <hd id="AN0110901625-6">Endurance-Training Sessions</hd> <p>The endurance-training session consisted of a discontinuous incremental RE test, running intervals, and TTE on a motorized treadmill (Quinton Q65, Milwaukee, WI, USA). The endurance-training session was constructed in such a way as to elicit an endurance-training stimulus while collecting running performance measures. The protocol was separated into three stages with participants running at 70% and 90% of the second ventilatory threshold (VT<subs>2</subs>) for 10 min each during the first two stages. During the third stage, four sets of intervals were undertaken at 110% of VT<subs>2</subs> with work-to-rest ratios of approximately 1:1 (i.e., 1.5 min of running and 2 min of passive rest) at 110% of VT<subs>2</subs> followed by TTE at 110% of VT<subs>2</subs> (Figure 2). TTE was determined at the participants' point of volitional exhaustion and was incorporated at the end of the endurance-training session to ensure that the participants were able to complete the intervals. The VT<subs>2</subs> for each participant was determined by identifying the inflection point of ventilation with respect to carbon dioxide production on a scatter diagram (Neder & Stein, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref29">29</reflink>]) from the VO<subs>2</subs>max test. Oxygen consumption was collected (Powerlab ML206, Bella Vista, NSW, Australia) to determine the oxygen C<subs>R</subs>, expressed as VO<subs>2</subs> relative to body mass raised to the power of 0.75 and meter (mL.kg<sups>− 0.75</sups>·m<sups>− 1</sups>), which was averaged during the last 5 min of the first two stages. Reporting VO<subs>2</subs> typically expressed relative to body mass per minute (mL.kg<sups>− 1</sups>·min<sups>− 1</sups>) has been suggested to underestimate work capacity of lighter individuals and overestimate the heavier individuals at submaximal workloads (Helgerud, Engen, Wisloff, & Hoff, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref30">23</reflink>]). By expressing VO<subs>2</subs> as C<subs>R</subs> (mL·kg<sups>− 0.75</sups>·m<sups>− 1</sups>), we can control the heterogeneity of trained and moderately trained runners. In fact, when previously examining the heterogeneity of trained and moderately trained runners, we were able to reduce the interindividual variability from 11% to 8% by expressing VO<subs>2</subs> from mL·kg<sups>− 1</sups>·min<sups>− 1</sups> to mL·kg<sups>− 0.75</sups>·m<sups>− 1</sups>, respectively (Doma, Deakin, Leicht, et al., 2012). RPE was collected during the 9th min of the first two stages and every minute during TTE. The RPE of the middle point during the shortest TTE was chosen as the comparison point for all endurance-training sessions (e.g., if 5 min was the shortest TTE of a given endurance-training session during the experimental days, then RPE for the 3rd min of TTE of each endurance-training session was compared to base end). For the subsequent sections of the article, RPE collected during the three stages will be reported as RPE 1, RPE 2, and RPE 3, respectively.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2 The discontinuous incremental endurance-training session consisting of three stages at 70%, 90%, and 110% of the second ventilatory threshold (VT2), respectively, with time to exhaustion (TTE) during Stage 3. Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was collected at the 9th min of the first two stages and at midpoint during the last stage. The dashed lines indicate 2-min passive recovery periods.</p> <hd id="AN0110901625-7">Strength-Training Session</hd> <p>Exercises were performed in the order of incline leg press (Maxim MF701, South Australia, Australia), leg extension (Maxim MF701, South Australia, Australia), and leg curls (Maxim MF701, South Australia, Australia). There were six sets for the incline leg press and four sets for the leg extension and leg curls, respectively, with 3 min of rest between each set and exercise. The intensity of each exercise was set at 6RM.</p> <hd id="AN0110901625-8">Maximal Voluntary Contraction Test</hd> <p>Three 6-s isometric contractions were conducted for extensor torque of the right knee on a custom-built dynamometer chair (James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia). A rest period of 1.5 min was provided between each contraction (Doma & Deakin, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref31">15</reflink>]). The dynamometer chair was calibrated by placing a known weight on the force transducer. The force transducer was attached superior to the medial and lateral malleoli with the knee joint positioned at 110°. Of the three contractions, the largest torque averaged during the 6-s contraction was selected.</p> <hd id="AN0110901625-9">Statistical Analysis</hd> <p>The measures of central tendency and dispersion are expressed as mean ± SD. For within-group comparisons of the CCT group, one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine differences in C<subs>R</subs>, RPE, and TTE between the base end and the endurance sessions during the experimental days and the endurance sessions during the control days with a covariance for gender. Paired <emph>t</emph> tests were used to compare C<subs>R</subs>, RPE, and TTE between base end and the 1st day of the control days to determine whether adaptation or learning effects occurred as a result of the six endurance-training sessions during the experimental days. For the CCT and ST groups, a two-way (Time × Group) repeated-measures ANOVA was used to compare MVC measures, RMS, and RMF with a covariance for age and gender. Unpaired <emph>t</emph> tests were conducted to compare the physical characteristics between the CCT and ST groups. When a statistically significant effect was found, post-hoc analyses with Bonferroni's adjustments were used to determine the location of the difference with the alpha set at.05. Because conclusions based on <emph>p</emph> values are biased by the sample size (Zhu, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref32">35</reflink>]), effect size was also computed to estimate the magnitude of differences either before and after exercise sessions or between groups with.2 considered as a small difference,.5 considered a moderate difference, and ≥ .8 considered a large difference (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref33">10</reflink>]). All data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Version 20).</p> <hd id="AN0110901625-10">Results</hd> <p>No differences were found in the physical characteristics between the CCT and ST groups (<emph>p</emph>>.05). For the CCT group, no differences were found in C<subs>R</subs> (<emph>p</emph>>.05) or RPE (i.e., RPE 1 and RPE 2; <emph>p</emph>>.05) during the first two stages between base end and the 1st day of the control days (<emph>p</emph>>.05), indicating minimal effects of learning or adaptation from the experimental days. During the experimental days for the CCT group, no differences were found in C<subs>R</subs> at Stages 1 and 2 (<emph>p</emph>>.05) and for RPE 1 and RPE 2 (<emph>p</emph>>.05; Table 1). However, a statistically significant increase was found in RPE 3 during the 4th and 5th days (<emph>p</emph> < .05). The TTE during the experimental days was statistically significantly less (<emph>p</emph> < .05) compared with base end (Table 1).</p> <p>Table 1 The Mean ± SD of Cost of Running (CR; mL·kg− 0.75·m− 1), Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE), and Time to Exhaustion (TTE) During the Baseline Endurance-Training Session (Base End) and the Endurance Sessions During the Experimental Days (Days 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, Respectively) and Knee Extensor Torque (KET), Rating of Muscle Soreness (RMS), and Muscle Fatigue (RMF) Collected Prior to Each Endurance Training Session</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Base End</td><td>Day 1</td><td>Day 2</td><td>Day 3</td><td>Day 4</td><td>Day 5</td><td>Day 6</td><td>F Test</td><td>df</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>C<sub>R</sub></td></tr><tr><td> Stage 1</td><td>0.76 ± 0.08</td><td>0.77 ± 0.04</td><td>0.75 ± 0.06</td><td>0.76 ± 0.08</td><td>0.74 ± 0.06</td><td>0.76 ± 0.05</td><td>0.70 ± 0.07</td><td>2.24</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td><italic>ES = 0.09 (S)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.09 (S)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.02 (S)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.24 (S)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.54 (M)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.72 (M)</italic></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Stage 2</td><td>0.76 ± 0.07</td><td>0.75 ± 0.04</td><td>0.74 ± 0.05</td><td>0.75 ± 0.08</td><td>0.74 ± 0.07</td><td>0.74 ± 0.04</td><td>0.70 ± 0.08</td><td>1.22</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td><italic>ES = 0.17 (S)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.36 (S)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.19 (S)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.35 (S)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.44 (S)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.93 (L)</italic></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>RPE</td></tr><tr><td> Stage 1</td><td>8 ± 1</td><td>8 ± 2</td><td>8 ± 2</td><td>9 ± 2</td><td>9 ± 2</td><td>9 ± 2</td><td>9 ± 2</td><td>3.40</td><td>2.54</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td><italic>ES = 0.18 (S)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.13 (S)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.67 (M)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.71 (M)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.72 (M)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.44 (S)</italic></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Stage 2</td><td>12 ± 2</td><td>13 ± 2</td><td>13 ± 2</td><td>13 ± 3</td><td>13 ± 3</td><td>14 ± 3</td><td>13 ± 3</td><td>1.04</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td><italic>ES = 0.26 (S)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.31 (S)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.36 (S)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.41 (S)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.50 (M)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.26 (S)</italic></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Stage 3</td><td>18 ± 1</td><td>19 ± 1</td><td>19 ± 1</td><td>19 ± 2</td><td>19 ± 1†</td><td>20 ± 1†</td><td>19 ± 1</td><td>5.05</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td><italic>ES = 0.71 (M)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.66 (M)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.93 (L)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.92 (L)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 2.17 (L)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.78 (M)</italic></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>TTE</td><td>432.6 ± 143.4</td><td>315.7 ± 146.7<sup>*</sup></td><td>320.7 ± 128.2<sup>*</sup></td><td>294.2 ± 119.6<sup>*</sup></td><td>314.9 ± 132.8<sup>*</sup></td><td>273.8 ± 102.1<sup>*</sup></td><td>301.1 ± 100.5<sup>*</sup></td><td>9.45</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>(seconds)</td><td /><td><italic>ES = 0.81 (L)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.83 (L)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 1.05 (L)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.85 (L)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 1.29 (L)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 2.00 (L)</italic></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>KET (Nm)</td><td>321.5 ± 70.6</td><td>277.5 ± 64.1<sup>*</sup></td><td>278.8 ± 64.0<sup>*</sup></td><td>268.9 ± 64.2<sup>*</sup></td><td>267.5 ± 69.1</td><td>265.0 ± 63.6<sup>*</sup></td><td>271.7 ± 67.5<sup>*</sup></td><td>4.93</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td><italic>ES = 0.65 (M)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.63 (M)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.78 (M)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.77 (M)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.84 (L)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.72 (M)</italic></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>RMS</td><td>6.3 ± 10.9</td><td>22.6 ± 15.6†</td><td>48.3 ± 24.0†</td><td>46.3 ± 21.2†</td><td>35.9 ± 24.5†</td><td>36.6 ± 24.9†</td><td>26.9 ± 23.0†</td><td>18.43</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td><italic>ES = 1.23 (L)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 2.41 (L)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 2.49 (L)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 1.68 (L)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 1.69 (L)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 1.22 (L)</italic></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>RMF</td><td>8.1 ± 13.7</td><td>33.2 ± 18.1†</td><td>44.4 ± 22.9†</td><td>49.0 ± 22.7†</td><td>40.5 ± 27.0†</td><td>40.6 ± 20.3†</td><td>33.3 ± 20.6†</td><td>14.62</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td><italic>ES = 1.58 (L)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 1.98 (L)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 2.25 (L)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 1.60 (L)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 1.91 (L)</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 1.47 (L)</italic></td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>5 <sups>*</sups>Statistically significantly less than base end (<emph>p</emph> < .05).</item> <item>6 †Statistically significantly greater than base end (<emph>p</emph> < .05).</item> <item>7 <emph>Note.</emph> Effect size (<emph>ES</emph>) calculations were computed for each parameter against base end with interpretations of small (S), moderate (M), and large (L).</item> </ulist> <p>For the MVC collected prior to the endurance-training sessions during the experimental days, torque was statistically significantly reduced during each subsequent day compared with the 1st day (<emph>p</emph> < .05) except for on the 4th day (<emph>p</emph>>.05; Table 1). RMS and RMF collected prior to the endurance-training sessions during the experimental days were statistically significantly greater compared with those collected prior to base end (<emph>p</emph> < .05; Table 1).</p> <p>When comparing C<subs>R</subs>, RPE 1, RPE 2, RPE 3, and TTE (Table 2) between the three endurance-training sessions during the control days for the CCT group, no differences were found (<emph>p</emph>>.05). Furthermore, no differences were found for torque, RMS, or RMF (<emph>p</emph>>.05; Table 2).</p> <p>Table 2 The Mean ± SD of Cost of Running (CR; mL·kg− 0.75·m− 1), Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE), and Time to Exhaustion (TTE) During the Endurance -Training Sessions of the Control Days (Days 1, 2, and 3, Respectively) and Knee Extensor Torque (KET), Rating of Muscle Soreness (RMS), and Rating of Muscle Fatigue (RMF) Collected Prior to Each Endurance-Training Session and KET, RMS, and RMF Collected on Day 4</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Day 1</td><td>Day 2</td><td>Day 3</td><td>Day 4</td><td>F Test</td><td>df</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>C<sub>R</sub></td></tr><tr><td> Stage 1</td><td>0.75 ± 0.06</td><td>0.72 ± 0.10</td><td>0.70 ± 0.06</td><td>—</td><td>2.22</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td><italic>ES = 0.27</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.67</italic></td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Stage 2</td><td>0.74 ± 0.07</td><td>0.71 ± 0.09</td><td>0.70 ± 0.06</td><td>—</td><td>3.40</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td><italic>ES = 0.34</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.69</italic></td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>RPE</td></tr><tr><td> Stage 1</td><td>8 ± 2</td><td>8 ± 2</td><td>8 ± 2</td><td>—</td><td>2.72</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td><italic>ES = 0.27</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.41</italic></td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Stage 2</td><td>12 ± 3</td><td>12 ± 3</td><td>12 ± 3</td><td>—</td><td>2.08</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td><italic>ES = 0.29</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.14</italic></td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Stage 3</td><td>18 ± 2</td><td>18 ± 2</td><td>18 ± 3</td><td>—</td><td>1.19</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td><italic>ES = 0.16</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.17</italic></td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>TTE (seconds)</td><td>403.2 ± 197.6</td><td>416.9 ± 204.3</td><td>437.9 ± 208.2</td><td>—</td><td>1.02</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td><italic>ES = 0.07</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.17</italic></td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>KET (Nm)</td><td>285.9 ± 74.0</td><td>298.1 ± 88.1</td><td>306.7 ± 89.9</td><td>308.3 ± 69.3</td><td>2.08</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td><italic>ES = 0.15</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.25</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.31</italic></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>RMS</td><td>7.8 ± 7.4</td><td>10.2 ± 8.9</td><td>10.0 ± 8.2</td><td>10.7 ± 9.7</td><td>0.47</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td><italic>ES = 0.30</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.30</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.34</italic></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>RMF</td><td>9.6 ± 10.5</td><td>12.8 ± 8.7</td><td>13.8 ± 10.8</td><td>14.8 ± 9.9</td><td>1.12</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td><italic>ES = 0.34</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.39</italic></td><td><italic>ES = 0.51</italic></td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>8 <emph>Note</emph>. Effect size (<emph>ES</emph>) calculations were computed for each parameter against Day 1 with interpretations of small (S), moderate (M), and large (L).</p> <p>For the MVC tests conducted prior to the strength-training sessions, a Group × Time interaction effect was found for torque, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref34">1</reflink>, 2) = 14.68, <emph>p</emph> < .05. Post-hoc analysis showed the CCT group to be statistically significantly reduced prior to the second and third strength-training sessions and statistically significantly greater than the ST group (<emph>p</emph> < .05; Figure 3). Similarly, a Group × Time interaction effect was found for RMS, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref35">1</reflink>, 2) = 5.18, <emph>p</emph> < .05, and RMF, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref36">1</reflink>, 2) = 5.72, <emph>p</emph> < .05). Post-hoc analysis showed that the RMS and RMF prior to the second and third strength-training sessions were statistically significantly greater for the CCT group compared with the ST group (<emph>p</emph> < .05; Figure 3). Additionally in the CCT group, the RMS and RMF were statistically significantly greater when collected prior to the second and third strength-training sessions compared with those collected in the first strength-training session (<emph>p</emph> < .05).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3 Knee extension torque (a), rating of muscle soreness (b), and rating of muscle fatigue (c) measured prior to the first, second, and third strength-training sessions (St 1, St 2, and St 3, respectively) for the concurrent-training (CCT) and strength-training (ST) groups. Effect size calculations were computed for within-group comparisons against first strength-training session shown above the bar graphs and for between-group comparisons shown within the bar graph of the ST group with the magnitude of differences denoted as small (S), moderate (M), and large (L). *Significantly less than St 1 (p < .05). †Significantly greater than St 1 (p < .05). ‡Significantly greater than the ST group (p < .05).</p> <hd id="AN0110901625-11">Discussion</hd> <p>Strength training has been suggested to repetitively impair the quality of subsequent endurance-training sessions during a concurrent-training program, thereby attenuating endurance adaptation (Chtara et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref37">9</reflink>]). The current study is the first to systematically test this hypothesis by examining running performance during 6 days of what would commonly be prescribed as a microcycle of a concurrent-training program. The results showed that strength training on alternating days in conjunction with endurance training on consecutive days impaired running performance at maximum effort (i.e., TTE; ES = 0.81–2.00); however, submaximal running performance (i.e., C<subs>R</subs>) was unaffected for the majority of the days (ES = 0.09–0.44).</p> <p>During the experimental days for the CCT group, TTE was largely reduced when compared with base end (ES = 0.81–2.00) and knee extensor torque showed moderate-to-large reductions during the 6-day period (ES = 0.63–0.84). However, only small differences were found in TTE and knee extensor torque between the endurance-training sessions (ES = 0.07–0.17) and during the control days (ES = 0.15–031), respectively. While knee extensor torque was reduced for the CCT group (ES = 0.61–0.70), such trends were not found for the ST group (ES = 0.11). When compared between groups, RMS and RMF were moderately to largely greater for the CCT group compared with the ST group (ES = 0.77–1.32). Consequently, endurance-training sessions only on consecutive days or strength-training sessions only on alternating days do not appear to affect neuromuscular performance. However, caution should be taken given that a Time × Age interaction effect was found for RMS, indicating that age differences between groups may have influenced the results. In addition, the control week for the CCT group consisted of three endurance-training sessions, which may differ from the cumulative effects of daily endurance training with a greater number of days (e.g., 6 or more) and thus warrants further research.</p> <p>In contrast, strength training prescribed on alternating days in conjunction with endurance training on consecutive days may generate an accumulation effect of fatigue as indicated by a sustained reduction in torque prior to the endurance-training sessions, and as a result, it may have impaired running performance at maximum effort. Although some studies have shown that submaximal endurance exercises accelerate recovery from exercise-induced fatigue (Faude et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref38">19</reflink>]; Fujita, Koizumi, Sukeno, Manabe, & Nomura, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref39">21</reflink>]), the present findings suggest that a combination of moderate- to high-intensity endurance exercise compromises recovery dynamics and increases the duration of fatigue initiated by strength training.</p> <p>Chtara and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref40">9</reflink>]) examined the effects of strength- and endurance-training order on running performance by incorporating groups that undertook strength training prior to endurance training, endurance training prior to strength training, and endurance training only. The results showed suboptimal improvement in 4-km running-time trial performance for the group that undertook strength training prior to endurance training compared with the group that undertook endurance training only. The authors postulated that fatigue generated from strength training may have impeded on the physiological process of optimizing endurance adaptation. Furthermore, Nelson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref41">30</reflink>]) reported a less-than-optimal increase in VO<subs>2</subs>max, mitochondrial density, and concentration of citrate synthase and myokinase for the group that combined strength and endurance training compared with the group that performed endurance training only. The authors suggested that hypertrophic adaptations may have contributed to diluting proteins essential for optimizing endurance adaptation. In light of the findings by Chtara et al., Nelson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref42">30</reflink>]), and those findings in the current study, the accumulation of fatigue generated by each successive strength- and endurance-training session may impair endurance-training stimuli (Chtara et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref43">9</reflink>]) and thereby cause chronic antagonistic responses between strength and endurance training (Nelson et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref44">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>Studies have shown 20% to 40% of muscle glycogen depletion following typical resistance-training sessions (MacDougall et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref45">27</reflink>]) and following moderate- to high-intensity endurance exercises (Slivka et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref46">33</reflink>]). Thomson, Green, and Houston ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref47">34</reflink>]) also reported muscle glycogen depletion to predominantly occur in fast-twitch fiber subgroups following exercises at supramaximal work bouts for 10 min as opposed to exercising at submaximal intensities (i.e., 60% of VO<subs>2</subs>max) for 2 hr. Because the body is highly dependent on fast-twitch fiber groups when running above anaerobic threshold (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref48">7</reflink>]), it is reasonable to assume that localized energy depletion may have contributed to reduction in TTE as a result of the high-intensity exercises in the current study (i.e., strength- and endurance-training sessions).</p> <p>Muscle glycogen depletion has also been associated with reduction in calcium uptake and calcium adenosine triphosphatase activity (Byrd, Bode, & Klug, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref49">6</reflink>]). It has been speculated that attenuation of the sarcoplasmic reticular function is a major cause of contractile failure due to the inability to maintain calcium concentration essential for activating the contractile properties of the muscle (Green, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref50">22</reflink>]). Thus, the attenuation in TTE with concomitant reductions in torque prior to the endurance-training sessions suggests that an accumulation of neuromuscular fatigue may have been present due to insufficient recovery between each mode of training. Previous studies have shown attenuation in running performance in conjunction with a reduction in muscle force generation capacity (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref51">7</reflink>]; Chen, Nosaka, & Tu, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref52">8</reflink>]; Marcora & Bosio, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref53">28</reflink>]). For example, a previous study (Doma & Deakin, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref54">13</reflink>]) showed impaired RE with a concomitant reduction in maximal isometric force the day after strength- and endurance-training sessions. Furthermore, alterations in lower-extremity kinematics were found, suggesting that strength- and endurance-training sessions on the same day may have caused detrimental effects on neuromuscular function and, as a result, attenuated movement efficiency and concomitantly increased energy C<subs>R</subs>. Although running kinematics was not examined in the present study, the attenuation in running performance at maximum effort (i.e., TTE) may have been caused by an inefficiency in running gait as a result of neuromuscular fatigue generated by strength- and endurance-training sessions.</p> <p>Surprisingly, the combination of strength- and endurance-training sessions did not increase C<subs>R</subs>. In fact, current results showed moderate-to-large reductions in C<subs>R</subs> (ES = 0.54–0.93) on Days 4 to 6 of the experimental days suggesting that contractile damage may improve economy in otherwise lower-economy runners possibly due to glycogen depletion or a greater reliance on Type 1 muscle fibers (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref55">7</reflink>]). Although there were no notable differences in C<subs>R</subs>, TTE was largely reduced (ES = 0.81–2.00) during the experimental days when compared with base end. These findings are similar to those of Marcora and Bosio ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref56">28</reflink>]), who reported a statistically significant reduction in running-time trial performance with no effect on RE 24 hr following repetitive vertical jump exercises. Furthermore, studies have shown that resistive-type exercises caused no effect on RE (Paschalis et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref57">31</reflink>]; Scott et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref58">32</reflink>]), although running TTE was impaired (Doma & Deakin, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref59">15</reflink>]) 24 hr post with a concomitant increase in indirect markers of muscle damage (i.e., creatine kinase and muscle soreness). Collectively, running performance at maximum effort appears to be more susceptible to attenuation than submaximal running performance. Such findings are expected, given that Type 2 fibers are more susceptible to muscle damage than Type 1 fibers (Connolly, Sayers, & McHugh, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref60">11</reflink>]) and that Type 2 fibers are predominantly recruited when running above anaerobic threshold (Abernethy, Thayer, & Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref61">1</reflink>]). Subsequently, strength training may have compromised optimal neural recruitment of Type 2 fibers essential for running above anaerobic threshold in the current study (i.e., TTE at 110% of VT<subs>2</subs>). This is further supported by a large reduction (ES = 0.63–0.84) in torque as well as a moderate-to-large increase (ES = 1.23–2.41) in RMS and RMF during the 6 experimental days in the current study, indicating that muscle damage may have contributed to attenuation in running performance at high intensity (i.e., TTE).</p> <p>Although C<subs>R</subs> was unaffected during the experimental days, a moderate increase in RPE was found on the 4th, 5th, and 6th days (ES = 0.71, 0.72, and 0.78, respectively) of the endurance-training sessions at 70% and 90% of anaerobic threshold. These findings suggest that moderately endurance-trained individuals may perceive running to be harder at submaximal intensities during a typical concurrent-training week. Furthermore, the increase in RPE (i.e., RPE 3) at TTE during the 4th and 5th experimental days also suggests that muscle damage may have impaired running performance. Previous studies have shown no differences in RE 24 hr post-strength training, although RPE and RMS increased (Doma et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref62">18</reflink>]; Scott et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref63">32</reflink>]). The authors postulated that local muscle pain could be associated with stiffness, decreased range of motion, and the inability to produce optimal force, which increases perception of effort. Subsequently, muscle soreness may have contributed to an increase in RPE (i.e., RPE 3) and, as a result, impaired running performance at maximum effort in the current study.</p> <hd id="AN0110901625-12">Conclusion</hd> <p>In summary, performing strength-training sessions on alternating days in conjunction with endurance-training sessions on consecutive days does not affect submaximal running measures. In addition, neither strength training alone on alternating days nor endurance training alone on consecutive days impair muscle force generation capacity. However, performing these modes of training in conjunction with each other may induce localized energy depletion or neuromuscular fatigue (reduced MVC, increased RMS and RMF) that would contribute to a reduction in running performance at maximum or near-maximum effort (TTE).</p> <hd id="AN0110901625-13">What Does this Article Add?</hd> <p>Previous studies have shown that concurrent training compromises endurance development (Chtara et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref64">9</reflink>]; Nelson et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref65">30</reflink>]) with speculations that fatigue induced by strength training impairs the quality of subsequent endurance-training sessions (Chtara et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref66">9</reflink>]). This study is the first to report such an accumulation effect of fatigue during a microcycle of a concurrent-training program when resistance training is typically prescribed every other day (Kraemer et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref67">25</reflink>]) and endurance training is prescribed on consecutive days (Faude et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref68">19</reflink>]). According to the present findings, the quality of high-intensity endurance-training sessions may be compromised during concurrent training. Subsequently, greater recovery periods may be required between strength- and endurance-training sessions and/or to manipulate the intensity and volume of training for moderately trained runners. Coaches and health practitioners are encouraged to apply the current findings as an initial basis of a concurrent-training program and to manipulate the training variables in accordance with the athletes' response and training adaptation. However, caution should be taken for untrained individuals given that the current study incorporated moderately endurance-trained runners. Further research is warranted to determine the level of fatigue induced during concurrent training in an untrained population.</p> <hd id="AN0110901625-14">ORCID</hd> <p>Kenji Doma <ulink href="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8903-0067">http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8903-0067</ulink></p> <ref id="AN0110901625-15"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref34" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abernethy, P. J., Thayer, R., & Taylor, A. W. (1990). Acute and chronic responses of skeletal muscle to endurance and sprint exercise: A review. Sports Medicine, 10, 365–389.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref16" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Atkinson, G., & Nevill, A. M. (2006). Sport and exercise physiology testing guidelines: Vol. 1. Sport testing (3rd ed.). London, England: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref23" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Baechle, T. R., & Earle, R. W. (2008). Essentials of strength training and conditioning (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref2" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bell, G. J., Syrotuik, D., Martin, T. P., Burnham, R., & Quinney, H. A. (2000). Effect of concurrent strength and endurance training on skeletal muscle properties and hormone concentrations in humans. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 81, 418–427.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref20" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Braun, W. A., & Paulson, S. (2012). The effects of a downhill running bout on running economy. Research in Sports Medicine, 20, 274–285.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref49" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Byrd, S. K., Bode, A. K., & Klug, G. A. (1989). Effects of exercise of varying duration on sarcoplasmic reticulum function. Journal of Applied Physiology, 66, 1383–1389.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref26" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chen, T. C., Nosaka, K., Lin, M. J., Chen, H. L., & Wu, C. J. (2009). Changes in running economy at different intensities following downhill running. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 1137–1144.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref52" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Chen, T. C., Nosaka, K., & Tu, J. H. (2007). Changes in running economy following downhill running. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25, 55–63.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref4" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Chtara, M., Chamari, K., Chaouachi, M., Chaouachi, A., Koubaa, D., Feki, Y., ... Amri, M. (2005). Effects of intra-session concurrent endurance and strength training sequence on aerobic performance and capacity. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 39, 555–560.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Connolly, D. A., Sayers, S. P., & McHugh, M. P. (2003). Treatment and prevention of delayed onset muscle soreness. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 17, 197–208.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dolezal, B. A., & Potteiger, J. A. (1998). Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals. Journal of Applied Physiology, 85, 695–700.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doma, K., & Deakin, G. B. (2013a). The effects of combined strength and endurance training on running performance the following day. International Journal of Sport & Health Science, 11, 1–9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doma, K., & Deakin, G. B. (2013b). The effects of strength training and endurance training order on running economy and performance. Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism, 38, 651–656.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doma, K., & Deakin, G. B. (2014). The acute effects intensity and volume of strength training on running performance. European Journal of Sport Science, 14, 107–115.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doma, K., Deakin, G. B., Leicht, A. S., & Sealey, R. M. (2012). The reliability of running economy among trained distance runners and field-based players. Journal of Exercise Science and Fitness, 10, 90–96.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doma, K., Deakin, G. B., & Sealey, R. M. (2012). The reliability of lower extremity and thoracic kinematics at various running speeds. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 33, 364–369.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doma, K., Schumann, M., Sinclair, W. H., Leicht, A. S., Deakin, G. B., & Häkkinen, K. (2015). The repeated bout effect of typical lower body strength training sessions on sub-maximal running performance and hormonal response. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 115, 1789–1799. doi:10.1007/s00421-015-3159-z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faude, O., Meyer, T., Urhausen, A., & Kindermann, W. (2009). Recovery training in cyclists: Ergometric, hormonal and psychometric findings. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 19, 433–441.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friel, J. (1998). The triathlete's training bible. Boulder, CO: VeloPress.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fujita, Y., Koizumi, K., Sukeno, S., Manabe, M., & Nomura, J. (2009). Active recovery effects by previously inactive muscles on 40-s exhaustive cycling. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 1145–1151.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green, H. J. (1990). How important is endogenous muscle glycogen to fatigue in prolonged exercise? Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, 69, 290–297.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Helgerud, J., Engen, L. C., Wisloff, U., & Hoff, J. (2001). Aerobic endurance training improves soccer performance. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 33, 1925–1931.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hickson, R. C. (1980). The interference effects of training for strength and endurance simultaneously. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 45, 255–263.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kraemer, W. J., Adams, K., Cafarelli, E., Dudley, G. A., Dooly, C., Feigenbaum, M. S., ... Triplett-McBride, T. (2002). American College of Sports Medicine position stand: Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 34, 364–380.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leveritt, M., Abernethy, P. J., Bary, B. K., & Logan, P. A. (1999). Concurrent strength and endurance training. Sports Medicine, 28, 413–427.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacDougall, J. D., Ray, S., Sale, D. G., McMarteny, N., Lee, P., & Garner, S. (1999). Muscle substrate utilization and lactate production during weightlifting. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology, 24, 209–215.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marcora, S. M., & Bosio, A. (2007). Effect of exercise-induced muscle damage on endurance running performance in humans. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 17, 662–671.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neder, J. A., & Stein, R. (2006). A simplified strategy for the estimation of the exercise ventilatory thresholds. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 38, 1007–1013.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nelson, A. G., Arnall, D. A., Loy, S. F., Silvester, L. J., & Conlee, R. K. (1990). Consequences of combining strength and endurance training regimens. Physical Therapy, 70, 287–294.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paschalis, V., Koutedakis, Y., Baltzopoulos, V., Mougios, V., Jamurtas, A. Z., & Theoharis, V. (2005). The effects of muscle damage on running economy in healthy males. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 26, 827–831.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott, K. E., Rozenek, R., Russo, A. C., Crussemeyer, J. A., & Lacourse, M. G. (2003). Effects of delayed onset muscle soreness on selected physiological responses to submaximal running. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 17, 652–658.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slivka, D., Heesch, M., Dumke, C., Cuddy, J., Hailes, W., & Ruby, B. (2013). Effects of post-exercise recovery in a cold environment on muscle glycogen, PGC-1α, and downstream transcription factors. Cryobiology, 66, 250–255.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomson, J. A., Green, H. J., & Houston, M. E. (1979). Muscle glycogen depletion patterns in fast twitch fibre subgroups of man during submaximal and supramaximal exercise. Pflügers Archives, 379, 105–108.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhu, W. (2012). Sadly, the earth is still round (p < 0.05). Journal of Sport and Health Science, 1, 9–11.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Kenji Doma and Glen Deakin</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref60"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1081407
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Acute Effect of Concurrent Training on Running Performance over 6 Days
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Doma%2C+Kenji%22">Doma, Kenji</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Deakin%2C+Glen%22">Deakin, Glen</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Research+Quarterly+for+Exercise+and+Sport%22"><i>Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport</i></searchLink>. 2015 86(4):387-396.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Activities%22">Physical Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Muscular+Strength%22">Muscular Strength</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Exercise%22">Exercise</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Statistical+Analysis%22">Statistical Analysis</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/02701367.2015.1053104
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0270-1367
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Purpose: This study examined the effects of strength training on alternating days and endurance training on consecutive days on running performance for 6 days. Methods: Sixteen male and 8 female moderately trained individuals were evenly assigned into concurrent-training (CCT) and strength-training (ST) groups. The CCT group undertook strength training on alternating days combined with endurance training on consecutive days for 6 days. One week later, the CCT group conducted 3 consecutive days of endurance training only to determine whether fatigue would be induced with endurance training alone (CCT-Con). Endurance training was undertaken to induce endurance-training stimulus and to measure the cost of running (CR), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and time to exhaustion (TTE). The ST group undertook 3 strength-training sessions on alternating days. Maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), rating of muscle soreness (RMS), and rating of muscle fatigue (RMF) were collected prior to each strength and endurance session. Results: For the CCT group, small differences were primarily found in CR and RPE (ES = 0.17-0.41). However, moderate-to-large reductions were found for TTE and MVC (ES = 0.65-2.00), whereas large increases in RMS and RMF (ES = 1.23-2.49) were found prior to each strength- and endurance-training session. Small differences were found in MVC for the ST group (ES = 0.11) and during CCT-Con for the CCT group (ES = 0.15-0.31). Conclusion: Combining strength training on alternating days with endurance training on consecutive days impairs MVC and running performance at maximal effort and increases RMS and RMF over 6 days.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 35
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1081407
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1081407
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/02701367.2015.1053104
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 387
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Muscular Strength
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Exercise
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Statistical Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Acute Effect of Concurrent Training on Running Performance over 6 Days
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Doma, Kenji
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Deakin, Glen
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2015
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0270-1367
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 86
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport
              Type: main
ResultId 1