Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol 68, Issue 1 260-270, Copyright © 1990 by American Physiological Society

ARTICLES

Interaction between concurrent strength and endurance training

D. G. Sale, J. D. MacDougall, I. Jacobs and S. Garner
Department of Physical Education, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

To assess the effects of concurrent strength (S) and endurance (E) training on S and E development, one group (4 young men and 4 young women) trained one leg for S and the other leg for S and E (S+E). A second group (4 men, 4 women) trained one leg for E and the other leg for E and S (E+S). E training consisted of five 3-min bouts on a cycle ergometer at a power output corresponding to that requiring 90-100% of oxygen uptake during maximal exercise (VO2 max). S training consisted of six sets of 15-20 repetitions with the heaviest possible weight on a leg press (combined hip and knee extension) weight machine. Training was done 3 days/wk for 22 wk. Needle biopsy samples from vastus lateralis were taken before and after training and were examined for histochemical, biochemical, and ultrastructural adaptations. The nominal S and E training programs were "hybrids", having more similarities as training stimuli than differences; thus S made increases (P less than 0.05) similar to those of S+E in E-related measures of VO2max (S, S+E: 8%, 8%), repetitions with the pretraining maximal single leg press lift [1 repetition maximum (RM)] (27%, 24%), and percent of slow-twitch fibers (15%, 8%); and S made significant, although smaller, increases in repetitions with 80% 1 RM (81%, 152%) and citrate synthase (CS) activity (22%, 51%). Similarly, E increased knee extensor area [computed tomography (CT) scans] as much as E+S (14%, 21%) and made significant, although smaller, increases in leg press 1 RM (20%, 34%) and thigh girth (3.4%, 4.8%). When a presumably stronger stimulus for an adaptation was added to a weaker one, some additive effects occurred (i.e., increases in 1 RM and thigh girth that were greater in E+S than E; increases in CS activity and repetitions with 80% 1 RM that were greater in S+E than S). When a weaker, although effective, stimulus was added to a stronger one, addition generally did not occur. Concurrent S and E training did not interfere with S or E development in comparison to S or E training alone.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M Chtara, K Chamari, M Chaouachi, A Chaouachi, D Koubaa, Y Feki, G P Millet, and M Amri Effects of intra-session concurrent endurance and strength training sequence on aerobic performance and capacity Br. J. Sports Med., August 1, 2005; 39(8): 555 - 560. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. J. Mador, E. Bozkanat, A. Aggarwal, M. Shaffer, and T. J. Kufel Endurance and Strength Training in Patients With COPD Chest, June 1, 2004; 125(6): 2036 - 2045. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. A. Dolezal and J. A. Potteiger Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals J Appl Physiol, August 1, 1998; 85(2): 695 - 700. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. D. MacDougall, A. L. Hicks, J. R. MacDonald, R. S. McKelvie, H. J. Green, and K. M. Smith Muscle performance and enzymatic adaptations to sprint interval training J Appl Physiol, June 1, 1998; 84(6): 2138 - 2142. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]