English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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

Endurance Training Intensity Does Not Mediate Interference to Maximal Lower-Body Strength Gain during Short-Term Concurrent Training