See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/224915241

Concurrent Training with Different Aerobic Exercises

Article in International Journal of Sports Medicine · May 2012

DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1299698 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

77 2,650

9 authors, including:

Rodrigo Ferrari Eduardo Lusa Cadore

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
61 PUBLICATIONS 805 CITATIONS 295 PUBLICATIONS 9,328 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Matheus Guedes Cristine Lima Alberton

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Universidade Federal de Pelotas
3 PUBLICATIONS 97 CITATIONS 219 PUBLICATIONS 3,384 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Eduardo Lusa Cadore on 17 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Training & Testing 627

Concurrent Training with Di̦erent Aerobic Exercises

Authors R. F. Silva, E. L. Cadore, G. Kothe, M. Guedes, C. L. Alberton, S. S. Pinto, R. S. Pinto, G. Trindade,

L. F. M. Kruel

A̧liation Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Exercise Laboratory Research, Physical Education School, Porto Alegre, Brazil

Key words Abstract ing period: maximal strength (1RM) in knee

̎̂ physical training ̇ extension, bench press and leg press exercises;
̎̂ exercise intensity
The aim of the present study was to compare the local muscular endurance (number of repetitions
̎̂ compatibility
e̥ects of using di̥erent intensities and types of at 70 % of 1 RM) in knee extension and bench
̎̂ strength development
aerobic exercise (i. e., cycle ergometer or run- press exercises; and isometric and isokinetic
ning) during concurrent training on neuromus- peak torque of knee extension. There were sig-
cular adaptations. A total of 44 young women nicant increases in the upper and lower-body
were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups: 1 RM, isometric and isokinetic peak torque in all
concurrent strength and continuous running training groups (p < 0.001), with no di̥erences
training (SCR, n = 10), concurrent strength and between groups. The present results suggest that
interval running training (SIR, n = 11), concurrent in young women, concurrent training performed
strength and continuous cycle ergometer train- twice a week promotes similar neuromuscular
ing (SCE, n = 11), or strength training only (STO, adaptations to strength training alone, regard-
n = 12). Each group trained twice a week during less of the type and the intensity in which the
11 weeks. The following strength measurements aerobic training is performed.
were made on all subjects before and after train-

Introduction Some authors suggest that the intensity of aerobic

accepted after revision ̇ training is a possible cause of this interference,
November 29, 2011 The compatibility of di̥erent modes of exercise, pointing out that it only occurs at intensities close
particularly strength and aerobic training has to the maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) [9, 10].
Bibliography
been investigated over the last 3 decades [10]. Chtara et al. [9] found interference in the strength
DOI http://dx.doi.org/
The simultaneous performance of these 2 forms and power gains in physically active men who
10.1055/s-0031-1299698
Published online: of exercise is called concurrent training. The performed concurrent training when aerobic
May 4, 2012 main question that arises regarding this issue is exercise was performed at a velocity associated to
Int J Sports Med 2012; 33: whether the changes produced by aerobic and VO2max (vVO2max). These authors explain their
627––634 © Georg Thieme strength training are antagonistic or compatible, results as a consequence of the high intensity of
Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York since the performance of aerobic training simul- the aerobic training [9]. In another study, De Souza
ISSN 0172-4622
taneously with strength training might impair et al. [11] investigated the acute e̥ects of 2 aero-
the magnitude of strength increases [3, 4, 6, 27]. bic exercises (one close to the second ventilatory
Correspondence
Rodrigo Ferrari Silva
When this e̥ect occurs, it is denominated the threshold (VT2) and the other at the vVO2max) on
Federal University of Rio ““interference e̥ect””. maximal dynamic strength (one-repetition maxi-
Grande do Sul Studies evaluating the e̥ects of concurrent train- mal test-1 RM) and local muscular endurance per-
Exercise Laboratory Research ing on cardiorespiratory adaptations have shown formance (number of repetitions at 80 % of 1 RM)
Physical Education School the compatibility of both types of training in the and found that only the higher intensity aerobic
750th, Felizardo Street –– Jardim aerobic performance [2, 5, 17, 26, 30]. However, exercise impaired local muscular endurance. If
Botânico
the ndings regarding the strength adaptations high intensity running results in acute impair-
90690-200 Porto Alegre
Brazil
that occur during concurrent training regimes are ment, the chronic interference e̥ect may be more
Tel.: +55/51/9604 0583 controversial since some studies have found inter- pronounced in higher rather than lower aerobic
Fax: +55/51/3308 5843 ference [3, 5, 7, 19, 24], while others found no such intensities. However, data about the e̥ects of dif-
rod.ferrari@terra.com.br interference [15, 16, 30, 35, 38].

Silva RF et al. Concurrent Training with Di̥erent …… Int J Sports Med 2012; 33: 627––634
628 Training & Testing

ferent intensities of aerobic exercise during concurrent training training in the present study was 11 weeks, in which the subjects
in the strength adaptations are scarce. trained 2 times a week. Before the start of the training, subjects
Comparing studies that used di̥erent types of aerobic exercise, completed 2 familiarization sessions to practice the exercises
such as running [2, 9, 20] or cycle ergometer [6, 13, 24, 34], it they would perform during the training period. Before and after
appears that the performance of aerobic exercise on the cycle training, all subjects were tested for each of the following
ergometer results in an interference e̥ect on the development dependent variables: lower-body isometric and isokinetic peak
of strength at lower intensities than those observed during torque, lower and upper-body 1 RM and local muscular endur-
walking or running exercise. This can be explained by the impact ance. All pre- and post-training testing procedures were com-
of cycle ergometer exercise on the neuromuscular function of pleted within 1-week periods. Each subject performed the tests
the lower limbs [28]. However, in the only study we found com- at the same time of day throughout the period of the study and
paring concurrent training regimes using di̥erent types of aer- the di̥erent tests were conducted on di̥erent days to avoid
obic exercise, Gerley [14] observed lower strength increases fatigue. In addition, an incremental treadmill test was performed
after concurrent training, in which aerobic exercise was per- at beginning of the training for all subjects to determine the
formed on the cycle ergometer or inclined treadmill walking, VO2max, vVO2max and heart rate associated to the second ventila-
compared with strength training alone. Moreover, this author tory threshold (HRVT2). Moreover, the same cardiorespiratory
observed higher strength values in the concurrent group that data were determined during an incremental cycling test in the
included cycling than in the other concurrent group that subjects assigned to the SCE group. These measures were
included aerobic exercise on the treadmill. Interestingly, this repeated in the SIR, SCR and SCE groups halfway through the
result was found in men but not in women. Thus, the data training to adjust the intensity of running or cycle ergometer
regarding the e̥ects of concurrent training using di̥erent types training.
of aerobic exercise are controversial.
To the best of our knowledge, there are no studies in the litera- Subjects
ture that compare the e̥ects of concurrent training using di̥er- 48 women agreed to participate in this study. Subjects were all
ent intensities of aerobic exercise on strength adaptations. In physically active but had not engaged in any structured training
addition, there is very little information on the possible conse- program for at least 3 months before the study and they were
quences of using di̥erent types of aerobic exercise during con- free from acute or chronic musculoskeletal disorders. 4 partici-
current training in women. Therefore, the purpose of the present pants dropped out during the training period due to professional
study was to compare the e̥ects of using di̥erent intensities problems. At the end of the study, the number of subjects in each
and types of aerobic exercise (i. e., cycle ergometer or running) group was: SCR = 10; SIR = 11; SCE = 11; and, STO = 12. The study
during concurrent training on strength adaptations in women. was conducted according to the ethical standard of the Interna-
Our hypothesis was that the interference e̥ect, if it occurred, tional Journal of Sports Medicine described by Harriss and
would be more pronounced in the high intensity running and Atkinson [19], and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the
cycle ergometer groups. Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Exclusion criteria
included any history of neuromuscular, metabolic, hormonal
and cardiovascular diseases. Subjects were advised to maintain
Methods their normal dietary intake throughout the study. Besides, all sub-
̇ jects were informed about the procedures and potential risks and
Experimental design gave their written informed consent to participate in the study.
In order to investigate the inuence of intensity and type of aer- The baseline characteristics of the subjects who completed the
obic exercise in the strength adaptations to concurrent training, training period in each group are presented in ̎ ̂ Table 1.

the participants were assigned to one of 4 groups: concurrent

strength and continuous running training (SCR), concurrent Body composition
strength and interval running training (SIR), concurrent strength Body mass and height were measured using an Asimed analog
and continuous cycle ergometer training (SCE), or strength scale (resolution of 0.1 kg) and an Asimed stadiometer (resolu-
training only (STO). The concurrent training groups performed tion of 1 mm), respectively. Body composition was assessed
both the aerobic and strength training programs in a single ses- using the skinfold technique. The same technician obtained all
sion, always beginning with aerobic training. A 2-min recovery anthropometric measurements, on the right side of the subject’’s
period separated the training sessions. The total duration of body. Skinfold thickness was obtained with a Cescorf skinfold

Table 1 Characteristics of the

Strength Strength and continu- Strength and interval Strength and cycle
subjects at baseline.
training ous running training running training ergometer training
(STO n = 12) (SCR n = 10) (SIR n = 11) (SCE n = 11)
age (years) 23.5 ± 2.5 22.3 ± 2.1 24.3 ± 5.0 21.6 ± 1.8
body mass (kg) 59.2 ± 8.3 59.8 ± 6.7 59.0 ± 5.9 60.8 ± 6.5
height (cm) 165.8 ± 6.5 162.2 ± 4.5 166.7 ± 4.0 164.8 ± 2.1
% fat mass 27.7 ± 4.0 27.9 ± 4.0 27.1 ± 4.2 28.3 ± 3.6
VO2max 33.7 ± 3.6 34.0 ± 5.0 34.6 ± 4.0 31.2 ± 4.1
(ml.kg -1.min-1)
Values are means ± SD. No signicant di̥erences between training groups (p > 0.05). VO2max values were measured during a treadmill
maximal test

Silva RF et al. Concurrent Training with Di̥erent …… Int J Sports Med 2012; 33: 627––634
 Training & Testing 629

caliper. A 7-site skinfold equation was used to estimate body Maximal oxygen consumption and second ventilatory
density [25] and body fat was subsequently calculated using the threshold
Siri equation [21]. In order to measure the VO2max and VT2, all subjects performed
a treadmill maximal test. The treadmill protocol consisted of an
Maximal dynamic strength initial velocity of 5 km.h-1 with 1 % inclination for a period of
Maximal dynamic strength was assessed using the 1 RM on the 2 min. After this warm-up, the velocity was increased each
exercises bench press, leg press and bilateral knee extension. minute by increments of 1 km.h ï 1, and the inclination was
1 week prior to the test day, subjects were familiarized with all maintained until the subjects reached their maximal e̥ort. The
procedures. On the test day, the subjects warmed up for 5 min on assessment was considered valid when some of the following
a cycle ergometer, stretched all major muscle groups, and per- criteria were met at the end of the test [23]: estimated maximal
formed specic movements with 1 set of 15 repetitions with heart rate (HRmax) was reached (220-age), plateau in VO2 with
light load (30 % of the rst test load) in the exercise tests. Each increase in the treadmill velocity and a respiratory exchange
subject’’s maximal load was determined with no more than 5 ratio greater than 1.15 was reached. Indeed, the subjects of SCE
attempts with a 4-min recovery between sets. Performance time group performed a second incremental test on a cycle ergometer
for each contraction (concentric and eccentric) was 2 s, control- (Cybex, USA) that was used to prescribe the intensity of aerobic
led by an electronic metronome (Quartz, CA, USA). The test- exercise. They initially cycled with a 25W load in the rst 2 min,
retest reliability coe̦cients (ICC) were over 0.96 for all exercises. which was progressively increased by 25 W every 1 min, whilst
maintaining a cadence of 70––75 rpm, until exhaustion. The test
Local muscular endurance was halted when subjects were no longer able to maintain a
The local muscular endurance (LME) consisted of the maximal cadence of over 70 rpm.
number of repetitions achieved with 70 % of the 1 RM load on The VO2max and VT2 were measured using a mixing-box-type
the bench press and bilateral knee extension. For this test, the portable gas analyzer (VO2000, Inbramed, Porto Alegre, Brazil).
participants performed the same familiarization, warm-up and The gas analyzer was calibrated prior to each collection session,
execution time procedures as in the 1 RM test. This test was n- according to the manufacturer’’s instructions. The sampling rate
ished when the participants were unable to perform more rep- of the collected values was 10 s. In addition, for the determina-
etitions within the established execution time (2s in each tion of HR at ventilatory threshold (HRVT2), a Polar monitor (FS1,
contraction phase) and/or with full movement amplitude. The Shangai, China) was used. The VT2 was determined using the
post-training LME measurements were performed at the same ventilation curve corresponding to the second point of exponen-
relative load and compared to the pre-training measurements. tial increase in the ventilation in relation to the load [18]. In
The test-retest reliability coe̦cient (ICC) was over 0.87 for both addition, to conrm the data, VT2 was determined using the CO2
exercises. ventilatory equivalent (VE/VCO2). 3 experienced, independent
physiologists determined the corresponding points.
Isometric and isokinetic peak torque
Isometric and isokinetic testing was measured using a Cybex Training programs
Norm II Isokinetic machine (Lumex Co., Ronkonkoma, NY, USA), Subjects of each group took part in a training program that
calibrated according to manufacturing standards prior to each lasted 11 weeks. These subjects trained on Mondays and Thurs-
day of testing. 1 week prior to the test day, subjects were famil- days or on Tuesdays and Fridays. All the training sessions were
iarized with both isometric and isokinetic tests. Each subject carefully supervised by at least 2 experienced personal trainers.
performed a similar warm-up consisting of 5 min of cycling and
stretching. The subjects were maintained in position after Strength training
adjustment of the height of the dynamometer and the length of The same strength-training program was performed for all
the support lever, allowing the axis of rotation of the dynamom- groups and was designed to improve muscular endurance in the
eter to be aligned with the subject’’s knee joint. Each subject was rst 5 weeks and subsequently to stimulate muscular hypertro-
stabilized at the chest, waist, and thigh with a strap. A shin strap phy and maximal strength gains [1, 7]. These individuals per-
was secured to the lower leg proximal to the malleoli; the test formed 7 exercises (inclined leg press, knee extension, leg curl,
was performed on the dominant limb. bench press, inverted y, upright row and sit-ups) 2 times a
Isometric peak torque was determined by measuring peak week on non-consecutive days. In each session, subjects per-
torque produced during a 5-s isometric knee extension at a knee formed muscle specic stretching and a standardized warm-up
angle of 45 ° from full extension (0 °). 3 maximal 5-s isometric with 1 set of 25 repetitions with light load to upper and lower
contractions were performed with 3-min rest intervals between body. During the training program, all the sets were performed
each contraction. The contraction with the highest torque value until failure. In each set the workload was adjusted when the
was used in data analysis. The test-retest reliability coe̦cient repetitions performed were either under or above the repeti-
(ICC) was 0.94. tions established. The recovery time between sets was 120 s. The
To determine the isokinetic concentric peak torque produced at absolute total load of the 4 groups was recorded at the start of
speeds of 60 and 180 °.s ï 1, participants performed a maximal each mesocycle (weeks 1, 3, 6 and 9), and is presented in
set of 5 repetitions at the 2 speeds. The set at 60 °.s ï 1 always the ̎
̂ Table 2. There were no di̥erences between groups in the

preceded the faster set. Between the sets, 5 min intervals were absolute total load in the mesocycles evaluated.
utilized. The test-retest reliability coe̦cients (ICC) were over
0.95 for both velocities. Concurrent training
Subjects performed both strength and aerobic programs on the
same day, in which the aerobic sessions were performed rst
and were immediately followed by the strength session. The

Silva RF et al. Concurrent Training with Di̥erent …… Int J Sports Med 2012; 33: 627––634
630 Training & Testing

Table 2 The total volume performed during the strength sessions (total number of sets × total number of repetitions × overload (kg)/repetition) in the start of
weeks 1 (mesocycle 1), 3 (mesocycle 2), 6 (mesocycle 3) and 9 (mesocycle 4).

STO SCR SIR SCE P-value

mesocycle 1 1 224.00 ± 315.08 1 210.91 ± 385.05 1 260.00 ± 277.84 1 080.00 ± 304.20 0.391
mesocycle 2 1 857.27 ± 268.08 1 918.64 ± 305.39 1 984.50 ± 345.81 1 845.00 ± 242.71 0.808
mesocycle 3 1 901.45 ± 230.26 1 996.36 ± 346.98 2 030.40 ± 344.90 1 830.00 ± 373.27 0.497
mesocycle 4 1 911.82 ± 224.50 2 059.09 ± 430.82 2 022.00 ± 379.99 1 892.50 ± 343.60 0.543
Values are means ± SD. STO = strength training group, SCR = concurrent strength and continuous running group, SIR = concurrent strength and interval running group, and
SCE = concurrent strength and continuous cycle ergometer group

concurrent groups had their training programs di̥erentiated by in the knee extension isometric torque (p = 0.055) in all training
the intensity or type of aerobic training, in which SCR and SCE groups. There was no time*group interactions in the isometric
(using running and cycle ergometer, respectively) realized con- muscular torque (p = 0.928) and no di̥erences in percent
tinuous training at a heart rate equivalent to 95 % of the VT2 increases between groups (p = 0.906).
( ± 3 bpm) and SIR realized interval running training which con- The LME values (number of repetitions at 70 % of 1 RM) are
sisted of 1 min bouts at vVO2max, with 1 min of active recovery shown in ̎ ̂ Table 4. There were signicant decreases in the

bouts at 50 % of vVO2max. The participants in all groups per- upper (bench press) and lower-body (knee extension) LME in all
formed the same duration of aerobic exercise. In each session, training groups (p < 0.001). The results also showed no
subjects performed a standardized warm-up lasting 5 min at time*group interactions in the bench press (p = 0.793) and knee
comfortable intensity on treadmill or cycle ergometer. The extension exercise (p = 0.473).
whole strength and aerobic training periodization is shown
in ̎̂ Table 3.

Discussion
Statistical analysis ̇
The data are presented as mean ± standard deviation of the mean The primary nding of the present study was the similar results
(SD). The normality of the data distribution was tested using the in all training groups in the maximal strength, isometric and iso-
Shapiro-Wilk’’s test. The training-related e̥ects were assessed kinetic torque and LME, regardless of the type of aerobic exer-
using a 2-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with repeated meas- cise and the intensity at which it was performed. Thus, our
ures (group × time). When a signicant P-value was achieved, hypothesis was rejected since the results showed no interfer-
Bonferroni post-hoc procedures were used to locate the pair- ence e̥ect in the concurrent training groups.
wise di̥erences. Selected relative changes between groups were In the last 3 decades, several studies have evaluated the e̥ects of
compared via one-way ANOVA. An alpha level of 0.05 was used concurrent training on a number of neuromuscular parameters
for all statistical tests, which were performed using the SPSS [2––6, 9, 12, 13, 15––17, 20, 22, 27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37]. Those studies
software (version 15.0). found conicting results, since some found interference in the
group that performed the concurrent training [4, 6, 9, 22, 27],
while others found no such interference [15, 16, 30, 35, 38]. Our
Results ndings corroborate those of studies that reported similar
̇ strength gains in strength and concurrent training groups
All subjects performed at least 90 % of training with no di̥er- [15, 16, 30, 35, 38], since there was no interference in any of the
ence between groups in the number of sessions performed (STO, analyzed variables.
SCE and SIR: 21 of 22 and SCR: 20 of 22 sessions).There were no It has been suggested that di̥erent aerobic modalities (running
di̥erences among groups in any dependent variables studied and cycle ergometer) present di̥erent motor unit recruitment
before the start of the training (p > 0.05). patterns when individuals exercise at the same physiological
The 1 RM values are shown in ̎ ̂ Table 4, ̎
̂ Fig. 1a, b, c. There intensity. The cycle ergometer exercise presents a higher excita-
were signicant increases in the upper (bench press) and lower- tion threshold for motor unit recruitment (responsible for great-
body (leg press and knee extension) 1 RM strength in all training est strength production) when compared to running exercise,
groups (p < 0.001). The results showed no time*group interac- especially at intensities close to the second ventilatory threshold
tions in the bench press (p = 0.955), leg press (p = 0.311) and knee [11, 28]. This fact would lead to a competitive recruitment of
extension exercise (p = 0.212), indicating that the training e̥ect motor units used in both types of training, creating localized
was independent of the group. Moreover, no di̥erences between fatigue in these motor units, resulting in impaired development
groups in percent increases were present (leg press: p = 0.218; of muscular strength [6], especially in individuals performing
knee extension: p = 0.113; and bench press: p = 0.650). aerobic exercise on a cycle ergometer. To answer this question,
The isokinetic muscular torque values are shown in the this study used the same relative physiological intensity of aero-
̎̂ Table 4, ̎ ̂ Fig. 2a, b. There were signicant increases in knee bic exercise, but in di̥erent modalities: running and cycle
extension isokinetic torque at 60 (p < 0.01) and 180 °.s-1 ergometer, in 2 groups (SCR and SCE groups). The di̥erent
(p < 0.001) in all training groups. The results demonstrated no motor unit recruitment patterns produced in running and on
time*group interactions at velocities of 60 (p = 0.516) and the cycle ergometer were not enough to interfere with strength
180 °.s ï 1 (p = 0.951) and no di̥erences in percent increases adaptations from the concurrent training. Our results are in
between groups (60 °.s-1: p = 0.804; 180 °.s ï 1: p = 0.772). accordance with those reported by Gerley [14], who, when com-
The isometric muscular torque values are shown in the paring women in a concurrent group performing cycling with
̎̂ Table 4 and ̎ ̂ Fig. 2c. There was a trend towards time e̥ect another performing aerobic exercise on a treadmill, found no

Silva RF et al. Concurrent Training with Di̥erent …… Int J Sports Med 2012; 33: 627––634
 Training & Testing 631

a
1RM Knee Extension

95 % HRVT2

RM: maximum repetitions; HRVT2 : heart rate at ventilatory threshold; vVO2max: velocity associated to maximal oxygen uptake; min, minutes. STO = strength training group, SCR = concurrent strength and continuous running group, SIR = concurrent
80

Intensity

Pre-Post Percent Change

AT 60

40 41.5 38.1
Volume
20 min 32.9

25 min
25 min

30 min
28.1
20
SCE

0
STO SCR SIR SCE
15––18 RM

12––15 RM
10––12 RM
Intensity

8––10 RM
b
1RM Leg Press
80

Pre-Post Percent Change

ST

60
52.6
Sets

46.8
2

3
3

40 41.1 39.1
at 50 % vVO2max

20
1 min bouts
at vVO2max

1 min rest
Intensity

0
STO SCR SIR SCE
ʭ

c
1RM Bench Press
80

Pre-Post Percent Change

AT
Volume

60
25 min
25 min

30 min
20 min

strength and interval running group, and SCE = concurrent strength and continuous cycle ergometer group. ST: strength training; AT: aerobic training

40
SIR

20 20.8 19.0 17.7 17.3

12––15 RM
10––12 RM
15––18 RM
Intensity

8––10 RM

0
STO SCR SIR SCE
ST

Fig. 1 Percentage changes of lower (Knee Extension and Leg Press)

and upper-body (Bench Press) 1 RM values after 11 weeks of training.
Sets

STO, strength training group; SCR, concurrent strength and continuous

3
3

3
2

running group; SIR, concurrent strength and interval running group; SCE,
concurrent strength and continuous cycle ergometer group. No signi-
95 % HRVT2
Intensity

cant di̥erences between training groups (p > 0.05).

AT

di̥erence in the strength adaptations. The discrepancies

Volume

between the studies that observed an interference e̥ect using a

20 min

25 min
25 min

30 min

cycle ergometer as an aerobic modality during concurrent train-

Table 3 Complete strength and aerobic training periodization by group.

ing and our ndings might be explained by the volume of train-

SCR

ing per week, since the interference e̥ect in these studies was
15––18 RM

12––15 RM
10––12 RM

observed when the number of training sessions in both modali-

Intensity

8––10 RM

ties (i. e., strength and aerobic) was equal to, or higher than 3. For
example, Bell et al. [5], when investigating young women,
ST

showed the interference e̥ect in the concurrent group perform-

ing 3 sessions per week in each modality (i. e., strength and
Sets
2

3
3

cycling aerobic exercise). In the present study, each type of

training was performed twice a week, which was an insu̦cient
15––18 RM

12––15 RM
10––12 RM

volume to induce di̥erences in the increase of the analyzed

Intensity

8––10 RM

strength variables. Another possible explanation could be the

greater time window between training sessions applied in the
STO
ST

present study (~72 h), when compared to other studies of con-

Sets

current training (~48 h) [5, 6], which might have been su̦cient
2

3
3

to allow adequate muscle recovery.

Recent studies have found interference in di̥erent strength
weeks 1 and 2

weeks 9––11

parameters [9, 11] and suggested that the intensity of aerobic

weeks 3––5
weeks 6––8

training is crucial to the appearance of such interference. Chtara

et al. [9] found interference in strength gains and muscle power
in men who performed a concurrent training twice a week dur-

Silva RF et al. Concurrent Training with Di̥erent …… Int J Sports Med 2012; 33: 627––634
632 Training & Testing

ing 12 weeks, in which aerobic exercise was performed at high the SCR and SIR groups. The ndings of the present study do not
intensity interval training (close to VO2max). These authors sug- support the explanation put forward by the aforementioned
gested that this high intensity may be responsible for the results, authors, since di̥erent running intensities were used in the
and that fatigue in the muscles involved in both training modes aerobic exercise, including a group (SIR) which performed high-
was crucial to the impairment of these adaptations. To answer intensity interval training (vVO2max) and no interference was
this question, the present study used di̥erent intensities (one found.
corresponding to 95 % of HRVT2 and the other to the vVO2max) in Some studies [11, 29] have demonstrated that strength might be
acutely compromised when the concurrent training session
a starts with an aerobic exercise. This interference is explained by
Peak torque 60.s–1
the existence of residual fatigue resulting from the rst activity
80
Pre-Post Percent Change

(aerobic exercise), resulting in reduced performance during the

60 second activity (strength training). These authors suggested that
40 this sharp drop in force production after aerobic exercise could
chronically compromise strength development. In the present
20 study, the sessions always began with aerobic exercise in order
7.0 8.0 10.1
0 4.3 to maximize any potential acute interference based on the
hypothesis suggested by the above-mentioned authors. How-
–20 STO SCR SIR SCE ever, no interference was found in the groups that underwent
b concurrent training, a fact that rules out this hypothesis related
Peak torque 180.s–1
80 to the order of training as an explanation for the lower gains in
Pre-Post Percent Change

neuromuscular variables found in these studies.

60
Some authors suggest that the interference e̥ect in concurrent
40 training mainly occurs in muscle power gains [13, 15], and this
may be associated with the neural mechanisms of strength pro-
20
8.4 13.5 duction [17]. Dudley and Djamil [13] and Glowacki et al. [15]
6.3 7.6
0 found increases in isokinetic torque at high (180 °.s ï 1) and low
(60 °.s ï 1) speeds in all training groups, but the magnitude of the
–20
STO SCR SIR SCE response was smaller at the higher speed in the concurrent
c training group when compared to the strength group. In the
Isometric peak torque
present study, the isokinetic torque was assessed at di̥erent
80
Pre-Post Percent Change

speeds in order to verify if the pattern reported in the above

60 study was repeated. However, no interference was observed in
40 this variable, regardless of speed. This discrepancy between the
results of the present study and those reported by Dudley &
20 Djamil [13] and Glowacki et al. [15] may be due to methodologi-
4.1 3.5 6.6 3.0 cal di̥erences between the studies. These ndings suggest that
0
even in rapid manifestations of strength (torque at 180 °.s ï 1), the
–20 methodology adopted in our study for the groups that under-
STO SCR SIR SCE
went concurrent training was adequate to obtain results similar
Fig. 2 Percentage changes of isokinetic peak torque at 60 and 180 °.sï1 to those found when strength training is performed alone.
and isometric peak torque after 11 weeks of training. STO, strength train- It is important to note that the subjects of the present study
ing group; SCR, concurrent strength and continuous running group; were physically active women and it is unclear if the same
SIR, concurrent strength and interval running group; SCE, concurrent strength development pattern would be observed in athletes,
strength and continuous cycle ergometer group. No signicant di̥er-
since the initial level of physical tness seems to be one of the
ences between training groups (p > 0.05).
factors that might inuence the strength adaptations to concur-

Table 4 One repetition maximum test (1RM), LME (number of repetitions at 70 % of 1 RM), peak torque of knee extension (isometric and isokinetic at 60 and
180 °.s ï 1) pre and post-training in strength group (STO), concurrent strength and continuous running group (SCR), concurrent strength and interval running
group (SIR) and concurrent strength and continuous cycle ergometer group (SCE).

STO SCR SIR SCE

pre post pre post pre post pre post
1RM knee extension (kg) 74.7 ± 10.8 104.7 ± 10.9* 86.3 ± 12.9 109.8 ± 13.4* 81.0 ± 12.7 111.4 ± 16.5* 81.4 ± 12.5 105.9 ± 12.4*
1RM leg press (kg) 89.8 ± 16.8 135.3 ± 29.0* 100.5 ± 16.3 144.5 ± 23.9* 104.2 ± 19.6 152.3 ± 26.3* 100.1 ± 21.7 137.3 ± 21.9*
1RM bench press (kg) 29.5 ± 6.5 35.4 ± 6.9* 30.2 ± 5.3 35.8 ± 5.6* 32.0 ± 5.5 37.5 ± 5.9* 28.8 ± 5.0 34.6 ± 3.4*
LME knee extension (nº rep.) 10.1 ± 1.2 9.1 ± 1.3* 9.0 ± 1.5 8.3 ± 1.1* 10.5 ± 1.8 8.8 ± 0.8* 10.3 ± 1.2 8.7 ± 0.8*
LME bench press (nº rep.) 12.1 ± 1.7 11.6 ± 1.8* 12.7 ± 2.3 11.5 ± 3.2* 13.0 ± 2.3 10.9 ± 1.8* 12.3 ± 2.0 10.9 ± 1.8*
isometric peak torque (Nm) 180.0 ± 24.7 188.8 ± 24.3 177.8 ± 37.1 181.9 ± 29.5 188.4 ± 40.7 198.1 ± 40.6 182.2 ± 37.0 188.8 ± 33.4
isokinetic peak torque 146.8 ± 19.3 147.9 ± 21.6* 141.9 ± 30.7 151.6 ± 41.6* 154.6 ± 34.0 166.4 ± 33.4* 131.6 ± 38.0 141.5 ± 30.0*
60 °.s ï 1 (Nm)
isokinetic peak torque 107.2 ± 18.9 111.6 ± 21.6* 98.3 ± 37.3 107.4 ± 31.7* 123.8 ± 29.3 131.9 ± 31.0* 97.2 ± 31.3 108.2 ± 26.8*
180 °.s-1 (Nm)
Values are means ± SD. *Signicant di̥erence from pre training values (P < 0.01)

Silva RF et al. Concurrent Training with Di̥erent …… Int J Sports Med 2012; 33: 627––634
 Training & Testing 633

rent training and could partially explain the variability found in 9 Chtara M, Chaouachi A, Levin GT, Chaouachi M, Chamari K, Amri M,
Laursen PB. E̥ect of concurrent endurance and circuit resistance
the results regarding the interference phenomenon [15, 30]. training sequence on muscular strength and power development.
Therefore, the present concurrent training protocol, using high- J Strength Cond Res 2008; 22: 1037––1045
intensity aerobic training and a longer time window between 10 Davis JW, Wood DT, Andrews RG, Elkind LM, Davis WB. Concurrent
training sessions should be investigated in well-conditioned training enhances athletes’’ strength, muscle endurance, and other
measures. J Strength Cond Res 2008; 22: 1487––1552
subjects or athletes as a way of avoiding the interference e̥ect. 11 De Souza EO, Tricoli V, Franchini E, Paulo AC, Regazzini M, Ugrinowitsch
The reduction seen in all the groups in the number of repetitions C. Acute e̥ect of two aerobic exercise modes on maximum strength
performed at 70 % of 1 RM in the knee extension and bench press and strength endurance. J Strength Cond Res 2007; 21: 1286––1290
12 Docherty D, Sporer BA. Proposed model for examining the interfer-
exercises was unexpected, since Shimano et al. [33] suggest that
ence phenomenon between concurrent aerobic and strength training.
the number of repetitions performed at di̥erent percentages of Sports Med 2000; 30: 385––394
1 RM does not vary with the level of training. Even though these 13 Dudley GA, Djamil R. Incompatibility of endurance and strength train-
results show a di̥erent response from that found in the litera- ing modes of exercise. J Appl Physiol 1985; 59: 1446––1451
14 Gerley JC. Comparison of two lower-body modes of endurance train-
ture, it is important to note that this pattern was similar in all
ing on lower-body strength development while concurrently training.
the training groups, so that any possible interference in the J Strength Cond Res 2009; 23: 979––987
responses of muscle resistance related to concurrent training 15 Glowacki SP, Martin SE, Maurer A, Baek W, Green JS, Crouse SF. E̥ects
can be discarded. of resistance, endurance, and concurrent exercise on training out-
comes in men. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2004; 36: 2119––2127
In conclusion, our ndings do not support the existence of an 16 Gravelle BL, Blessing DL. Physiological adaptation in women concur-
““interference e̥ect”” between concurrent strength and aerobic rently training for strength and endurance. J Strength Cond Res 2000;
training with respect to strength gains. The results of this study 14: 5––13
17 Häkkinen K, Alen M, Kraemer WJ, Gorostiaga E, Izquierdo M, Rusko H,
suggest that in young women, concurrent training performed
Mikkola J, Häkkinen A, Valkeinen H, Kaarakainen E, Romu S, Erola V,
twice a week does not seem to ḁect the changes that occur in Ahtiainen J, Paavolainen L. Neuromuscular adaptations during concur-
terms of strength development in response to 11 weeks of train- rent strength and endurance training versus strength training. J Appl
ing, regardless of the type of aerobic exercise and the intensity at Physiol 2003; 89: 42––52
18 Hansen D, Dendale P, Berger J, Meeusen R. Low agreement of ventila-
which it is performed. It should be highlighted that the volume
tory threshold between training modes in cardiac patients. Eur J Appl
performed per week and the time window between training ses- Physiol 2007; 101: 547––554
sions applied in the present study (~72 h) appear to be appropri- 19 Harriss DJ, Atkinson G. Update –– Ethical standards in sport and exer-
ate to avoid the interference e̥ect. These ndings have cise science research. Int J Sports Med 2011; 32: 819––821
20 Hendrickson NR, Sharp MA, Alemany JA, Walker LA, Harman EA, Spier-
important implications for professionals designing exercise pro- ing BA, Hateld DL, Yamamoto LM, Maresh CM, Kraemer WJ, Nindl
grams to improve health and tness in the general population. BC. Combined resistance and endurance training improves physical
capacity and performance on tactical occupational tasks. Eur J Appl
Physiol 2010; 109: 1197––1208
21 Heyward VH, Stolarczyc LM. Applied Body Composition. Human
Acknowledgements Kinetics, Champaign: 1996
̇ 22 Hickson RC. Interference of strength development by simultaneously
We thank specially to CAPES and CNPq government associations training for strength and endurance. Eur J Appl Physiol 1980; 45:
255––263
for their support to this project. We also gratefully acknowledge
23 Howley ET, Basset DR Jr, Welch HG. Criteria for maximal oxygen
to all the subjects who participated in this research and made uptake: review and commentary. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995; 27:
this project possible. 1292––1301
24 Izquierdo M, Häkkinen K, Ibañez J, Kraemer WJ, Gorostiaga EM. E̥ects
of combined resistance and cardiovascular training on strength, power,
References muscle cross-sectional area, and endurance markers in middle-aged
1 American College of Sports Medicine. Progression models in resistance men. Eur J Appl Physiol 2005; 94: 70––75
training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009; 41: 687––708 25 Jackson AS, Pollock ML, Ward A. Generalized equations for predicting
2 Balabinis CP, Psarakis CH, Moukas M, Vassiliou MP, Behrakis PK. body density of women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1980; 12: 175––182
Early phase changes by concurrent endurance and strength training. 26 Kelly C, Burnett A, Newton J. The e̥ect of strength training on three-
J Strength Cond Res 2003; 17: 393––401 kilometer performance in recreacional women endurance runners.
3 Bell GJ, Peterson S, Wassel J, Bagnall K, Quinney HA. Physiological adap- J Strength Cond Res 2008; 22: 396––403
tations to concurrent endurance and low velocity resistance training. 27 Kraemer WJ, Patton JF, Gordon SE, Harman EA, Deschenes MR, Reynolds
Int J Sports Med 1991; 4: 384––390 K, Newton RU, Tripplet NT, Dziados JE. Compatibility of high-intensity
4 Bell GJ, Syrotuik D, Martin TP, Burnham R, Quinney HA. E̥ect of con- strength and endurance training on hormonal and skeletal muscle
current strength and endurance training on skeletal muscle properties adaptations. J Appl Physiol 1995; 78: 976––989
and hormone concentrations in humans. Eur J Appl Physiol 2000; 28 Lepers R, Millet GY, Ma̧uletti NA. E̥ect of cycling cadence on con-
81: 418––427 tractile and neural properties of knee extensors. Med Sci Sports Exerc
5 Bell GJ, Syrotuik D, Socha T, Maclean I, Quinney HA. E̥ect of strength 2001; 33: 1882––1888
and endurance training on strength, testosterone, and cortisol. 29 Leveritt M, Abernethy PJ. Acute e̥ects of high-intensity endurance
J Strength Cond Res 1997; 11: 57––64 exercise on subsequent resistance activity. J Strength Cond Res 1999;
6 Cadore EL, Pinto RS, Lhullier FLR, Correa CS, Alberton CL, Pinto SS, 13: 47––51
Almeida APV, Tartaruga MP, Silva EM, Kruel LFM. Physiological e̥ects 30 McCarthy JP, Agre JC, Graf BK, Pozniak MA, Vailas AC. Compatibility of
of concurrent training in elderly men. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: adaptive responses with combining strength and endurance training.
689––697 Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995; 27: 429––436
7 Campos GE, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, Toma K, Hagerman FC, Murray TF, 31 McCarthy JP, Pozniak MA, Agre JC. Neuromuscular adaptations to
Ragg K, Ratamess NA, Kraemer WJ, Staron RS. Muscular adaptations concurrent strength and endurance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc
in response to three di̥erent resistance-training regimens: specicity 2002; 34: 511––519
of repetition maximum training zones. Eur J Appl Physiol 2002; 88: 32 Millet GP, Jaouen B, Borani F, Candau R. E̥ect of concurrent endurance
50––60 and strength training on running economy and VO2 kinetics. Med Sci
8 Chromiak J, Mulvaney D. A Review: The e̥ects of combined strength Sports Exerc 2002; 34: 1351––1359
and endurance training on strength development. J Appl Sport Sci 33 Nader GA. Concurrent strength and endurance training: from mol-
Res 1990; 4: 55––60 ecules to man. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2006; 38: 1965––1970

Silva RF et al. Concurrent Training with Di̥erent …… Int J Sports Med 2012; 33: 627––634
634 Training & Testing

34 Sale DG, Jacobs I, Macdougall JD, Garner S. Comparison of two regi- 37 Sillanpää E, Laaksonen DE, Häkkinen A, Karavirta L, Jensen B, Kraemer
mens of concurrent strength and endurance training. Med Sci Sports WJ, Nyman K, Häkkinen K. Body composition, tness, and metabolic
Exerc 1990; 22: 348––356 health during strength and endurance training and their combina-
35 Shaw BS, Shaw I, Brown GA. Comparison of resistance and concur- tion in middle-aged and older women. Eur J Appl Physiol 2009; 106:
rent resistance and endurance training regimes in the development 285––296
of strength. J Strength Cond Res 2009; 23: 2507––2514 38 Volpe SL, Walberg-Rankin J, Rodman K, Sebolt DR. The e̥ect of endur-
36 Shimano T, Kraemer WJ, Spiering BA, Volek JS, Hateld DL, Silvestre R, ance running on training adaptations in women participating in a
Vingren JL, Fragala MS, Maresh C, Fleck SJ, Newton RU, Spreuwenberg weight lifting program. J Strength Cond Res 1993; 7: 101––107
LPB, Hakkinen K. Relationship between the number of repetitions
and selected percentages of one repetition maximum in free weight
exercises in trained and untrained men. J Strength Cond Res 2006;
20: 819––823

Silva RF et al. Concurrent Training with Di̥erent …… Int J Sports Med 2012; 33: 627––634
View publication stats