Table 1 - uploaded by Mark De Ste Croix
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
BACKGROUND: Studies in adults have shown benefits in endurance performance by combining aerobic and resistance training. However, whether concurrent strength and aerobic training is beneficial in children remains to be identified. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of a 10 week aerobic training programme compared to a co...
Similar publications
It is important to treat obesity and the related noncommunicable dis-eases. The main objective of this study is the effect of different training types on inflammatory and immune markers in obesity. Seventeen obese men with body mass index (BMI)≥26 kg/m² were randomly divid-ed into two groups: aerobic training group (AT; n=9) and combined aer-obic a...
Background: Obesity, as a chronic disease, is becoming increasingly prevalent especially among women.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of resistance training (RT), concurrent resistance training and aerobic training (RT+AT) on visfatin concentrations and body composition in overweight and obese women.
Me...
The novel myokine irisin has been reported as a therapeutic target for metabolic disease. The objective of this study is to reveal the effects of aerobic training (AT) and resistance training (RT) on circulating irisin levels and their associations with change of body composition in overweight/obese adults. Twenty eight overweight/obese adults (BMI...
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this study was to compare the effects of a combination of aerobic and resistance training to those of isolated aerobic training on blood pressure, body composition, and insulin sensitivity in hypertensive older adults.
METHOD
Forty-four patients were randomly assigned to the aerobic group, resistance and aerobic group,...
Background:
Yoga/Stretching (S) and functional resistance (R) training are popular exercise routines. A protein-pacing (P) diet is a common dietary regimen. Thus, we assessed the effectiveness of a P diet alone and in combination with either S or R to improve body composition and cardiometabolic health.
Methods:
Twenty seven overweight women (ag...
Citations
... After removing duplicate records, records not retrieved, and documents excluded after reading the title and/or abstract, 73 studies were assessed for eligibility. Upon full-text reading, 35 studies were excluded because of the following reasons: participants aged under 16 years [48][49][50][51][52][53] or injured before the intervention [54][55][56]; no comparator group [57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66]; ST method considered not includable (e.g., core strength training; flywheel and isokinetic eccentric training; local muscular endurance training) [67][68][69][70][71][72]; no relevant outcomes included (i.e., VO 2 max, vVO 2 max, MMSS, sprint capacity, running performance) [73][74][75][76]; repeated outcome results derived from secondary analysis publications [77][78][79][80]; or cross-sectional study [81,82]. As a result, 38 studies were included in the meta-analyses. ...
Background
The running performance of middle-distance and long-distance runners is determined by factors such as maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), velocity at VO2max (vVO2max), maximum metabolic steady state (MMSS), running economy, and sprint capacity. Strength training is a proven strategy for improving running performance in endurance runners. However, the effects of different strength training methods on the determinants of running performance are unclear.
Objective
The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to compare the effect of different strength training methods (e.g., high load, submaximal load, plyometric, combined) on performance (i.e., time trial and time until exhaustion) and its determinants (i.e., VO2max, vVO2max, MMSS, sprint capacity) in middle-distance and long-distance runners.
Methods
A systematic search was conducted across electronic databases (Web of Science, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, SCOPUS). The search included articles indexed up to November 2022, using various keywords combined with Boolean operators. The eligibility criteria were: (1) middle- and long-distance runners, without restriction on sex or training/competitive level; (2) application of a strength training method for ≥ 3 weeks, including high load training (≥ 80% of one repetition maximum), submaximal load training (40–79% of one repetition maximum), plyometric training, and combined training (i.e., two or more methods); (3) endurance running training control group under no strength training or under strength training with low loads (< 40% of one repetition maximum); (4) running performance, VO2max, vVO2max, MMSS and/or sprint capacity measured before and after a strength training intervention program; (5) randomized and non-randomized controlled studies. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. A random-effects meta-analysis and moderator analysis were performed using Comprehensive meta-analysis (version 3.3.0.70).
Results
The certainty of the evidence was very low to moderate. The studies included 324 moderately trained, 272 well trained, and 298 highly trained athletes. The strength training programs were between 6 and 40 weeks duration, with one to four intervention sessions per week. High load and combined training methods induced moderate (effect size = − 0.469, p = 0.029) and large effect (effect size = − 1.035, p = 0.036) on running performance, respectively. While plyometric training was not found to have a significant effect (effect size = − 0.210, p = 0.064). None of the training methods improved VO2max, vVO2max, MMSS, or sprint capacity (all p > 0.072). Moderators related to subject (i.e., sex, age, body mass, height, VO2max, performance level, and strength training experience) and intervention (i.e., weeks, sessions per week and total sessions) characteristics had no effect on running performance variables or its determinants (all p > 0.166).
Conclusions
Strength training with high loads can improve performance (i.e., time trial, time to exhaustion) in middle-distance and long-distance runners. A greater improvement may be obtained when two or more strength training methods (i.e., high load training, submaximal load training and/or plyometric training) are combined, although with trivial effects on VO2max, vVO2max, MMSS, or sprint capacity.
... Eleven studies were carried out among team sports [25, 31-34, 36, 38, 39, 41-43], and nine in individual sports [26-30, 35, 37, 40, 44]. Of those studies, 11 considered only male participants [26,27,29,31,33,36,[38][39][40]42], five used exclusively female participants [25,30,34,35,37], and four used both male and female participants [28,32,43,44]. ...
... All interventions showed positive outcomes, which varied according to the objectives and data collection instruments. The most commonly evaluated functional capacity was strength/power (n = 17) [25, 26, 28-34, 36-39, 41-44], mainly related to the lower limbs (n = 14) [25, 28-30, 32-34, 37-39, 41-44], followed by speed (n = 10) [27, 29, 31, 33-36, 40, 42, 43], change of direction and/or agility (n = 4) [34][35][36]43[, balance (n = 3) [30,35,36], and aerobic capacity (n = 2) [28,33]. The outcomes of some programs were also reported regarding sports-specific skills performance [27,31,35,40]. ...
... Regarding the training programs used in the various studies, RT and PT were the most frequently implemented. Individually, RT was applied in eight studies [25,26,30,31,33,39,40,44]. From the RT interventions, two programs were based on isoinertial flywheel training [25,39], and two studies combined this RT with speed training [32) and aerobic training [28]. On the other hand, PT was individually used in one study [27]. ...
Purpose
The relationship between strength, power, and sports performance may have long-term effects on the development pathways of youth athletes. This study systematically reviewed the current evidence of strength and conditioning interventions among youngsters in competitive sports.
Methods
The research was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines.
Results
A total of 415 articles were identified, and 20 remained for analysis. All studies reported resistance training (RT) and/or plyometric training (PT) interventions as beneficial to improving youngsters’ overall physical fitness. The lower-body explosive strength, speed, and agility improvements were more evident in training plans that combined heavy RT and PT programs. The training frequency of twice a week was sufficient to induce strength gains. The results indicate that strength and conditioning programs positively influence sport-specific skills performance.
Conclusions
PT and RT should not be implemented as single exercise interventions but as complementary programs to optimise physical and game performance. This study contributes to creating awareness among sports agents and coaches for integrating planned strength and conditioning programs with qualified instruction at least two times per week to improve young athletes’ physical development.
... The full-text versions for the remaining 34 articles were screened and an additional nine studies were removed. Studies were excluded for: (1) not investigating distance runners [19,[46][47][48]; (2) failing to include a running-only control group [22]; (3) not assessing at least one biomechanical or neuromuscular variable for the intervention and control groups [49,50]; or (4) examining participants under the age of 15 years old [51,52]. The final number of studies included was 25. ...
Background
Concurrent strength and endurance (CSE) training improves distance running performance more than endurance training alone, but the mechanisms underpinning this phenomenon are unclear. It has been hypothesised that biomechanical or neuromuscular adaptations are responsible for improvements in running performance; however, evidence on this topic has not been synthesised in a review.
Objective
To evaluate the effect of CSE training on biomechanical and neuromuscular variables in distance runners.
Methods
Seven electronic databases were searched from inception to November 2018 using key terms related to running and strength training. Studies were included if the following criteria were met: (1) population: ‘distance’ or ‘endurance’ runners of any training status; (2) intervention: CSE training; (3) comparator: running-only control group; (4) outcomes: at least one biomechanical or neuromuscular variable; and, (5) study design: randomised and non-randomised comparative training studies. Biomechanical and neuromuscular variables of interest included: (1) kinematic, kinetic or electromyography outcome measures captured during running; (2) lower body muscle force, strength or power outcome measures; and (3) lower body muscle–tendon stiffness outcome measures. Methodological quality and risk of bias for each study were assessed using the PEDro scale. The level of evidence for each variable was categorised according to the quantity and PEDro rating of the included studies. Between-group standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for studies and meta-analyses were performed to identify the pooled effect of CSE training on biomechanical and neuromuscular variables.
Results
The search resulted in 1578 potentially relevant articles, of which 25 met the inclusion criteria and were included. There was strong evidence that CSE training significantly increased knee flexion (SMD 0.89 [95% CI 0.48, 1.30], p < 0.001), ankle plantarflexion (SMD 0.74 [95% CI 0.21–1.26], p = 0.006) and squat (SMD 0.63 [95% CI 0.13, 1.12], p = 0.010) strength, but not jump height, more than endurance training alone. Moderate evidence also showed that CSE training significantly increased knee extension strength (SMD 0.69 [95% CI 0.29, 1.09], p < 0.001) more than endurance training alone. There was very limited evidence reporting changes in stride parameters and no studies examined changes in biomechanical and neuromuscular variables during running.
Conclusions
Concurrent strength and endurance training improves the force-generating capacity of the ankle plantarflexors, quadriceps, hamstrings and gluteal muscles. These muscles support and propel the centre of mass and accelerate the leg during running, but there is no evidence to suggest these adaptations transfer from strength exercises to running. There is a need for research that investigates changes in biomechanical and neuromuscular variables during running to elucidate the effect of CSE training on run performance in distance runners.
... These results suggest that body fat can be reduced in young people by performing strength training as well as aerobic training. In studies assess- ing fat percentage in young athletes [75,91,92] both concurrent (−1.6% to +4.0%) and aerobic training (0.2-6.0%) seemed to increase, rather than decrease percentage body fat. Although a similar trend as in non-athletic populations was found, it is arguable that young athletes usually have normal or low levels of body fat and that further reductions are not desired. ...
This chapter provides an overview of the literature on both singular and concurrent aerobic and strength training in children and adolescents. While adaptations to training may depend on physical development, models of physical development in youth will be discussed first. Thereafter, the effects of single-mode aerobic and strength training in children and adolescents are described and finally the effects of combined training are elucidated. The findings are reported in light of theories derived from studies in adult populations and with regard to potentially relevant factors such as (biological) age and training volume. Based on that, recommendations are proposed for the implementation of aerobic and strength training in young populations.
... A recent study by Blagrove et al. (17) found that two weekly sessions of ST (mainly PT and RT) added to the programme of post-pubertal adolescent distance runners (17 years) for ten weeks was 'possibly beneficial' for RE (effect size: 0.31-0.51) and Bluett and associates (18) found that ten weeks of concurrent aerobic and ST provided little strength advantage and no change in 3 km time trial performance in 10-13 year old competitive runners compared to running only. This study utilized mainly single joint machine-based RT and did not measure any physiological parameters, which may explain the lack of effect observed. ...
... This study utilized mainly single joint machine-based RT and did not measure any physiological parameters, which may explain the lack of effect observed. The authors speculated that excessive fatigue resulting from the concurrent training regimen may have compromised both strength and endurance adaptations (18). Interestingly, the blunting of strength adaptation which is often observed in adult performers when both strength-and endurance-training are included in the same training session (90) appears not to occur in children (53) and adolescents (75,76). ...
For the adolescent athlete who chooses to specialize in endurance running, strength and conditioning (S&C) activities provide a means of enhancing several important determinants of performance and may reduce the risk of overuse injury. It is recommended that adolescent endurance runners include at least 2 S&C sessions per week that comprise movement skills training, plyometric and sprint training, resistance training, plus exercises designed to target specific tissues that are vulnerable to injury. This article describes how these modalities of training can be integrated into the routine of adolescent endurance runners.
... That is, the physiological processes associated with growth and maturation make the application of adult data to children untenable. For instance, Spurrs et al. (2003) found positive effects of CT compared to ET on 3 km performance {CT: −10 s [1.6%]; ET: −3 s [0.5%]} and running economy at running velocities above 12 km/h (CT: 4-7%; ET: <1%) in 25-year-old distance runners, whereas Bluett et al. (2015) reported a slight decrease in 3 km performance in 10-13 year old distance runners in the CT group ( : 6 s, 0.8%), but a slight improvement in the ET group ( : −17 s, 2.1%). Further, ST designed to induce hypertrophy in adults (Fleck and Kraemer, 2014) failed to produce hypertrophy in prepubescent children (Ozmun et al., 1994;Granacher et al., 2011). ...
... Whereas the study using the longest distance (i.e., 3,000 m) in running showed only a trivial effect (SMD = −0.12) (Bluett et al., 2015). ...
Combining training of muscle strength and cardiorespiratory fitness within a training cycle could increase athletic performance more than single-mode training. However, the physiological effects produced by each training modality could also interfere with each other, improving athletic performance less than single-mode training. Because anthropometric, physiological, and biomechanical differences between young and adult athletes can affect the responses to exercise training, young athletes might respond differently to concurrent training (CT) compared with adults. Thus, the aim of the present systematic review with meta-analysis was to determine the effects of concurrent strength and endurance training on selected physical fitness components and athletic performance in youth. A systematic literature search of PubMed and Web of Science identified 886 records. The studies included in the analyses examined children (girls age 6–11 years, boys age 6–13 years) or adolescents (girls age 12–18 years, boys age 14–18 years), compared CT with single-mode endurance (ET) or strength training (ST), and reported at least one strength/power—(e.g., jump height), endurance—(e.g., peak V°O2, exercise economy), or performance-related (e.g., time trial) outcome. We calculated weighted standardized mean differences (SMDs). CT compared to ET produced small effects in favor of CT on athletic performance (n = 11 studies, SMD = 0.41, p = 0.04) and trivial effects on cardiorespiratory endurance (n = 4 studies, SMD = 0.04, p = 0.86) and exercise economy (n = 5 studies, SMD = 0.16, p = 0.49) in young athletes. A sub-analysis of chronological age revealed a trend toward larger effects of CT vs. ET on athletic performance in adolescents (SMD = 0.52) compared with children (SMD = 0.17). CT compared with ST had small effects in favor of CT on muscle power (n = 4 studies, SMD = 0.23, p = 0.04). In conclusion, CT is more effective than single-mode ET or ST in improving selected measures of physical fitness and athletic performance in youth. Specifically, CT compared with ET improved athletic performance in children and particularly adolescents. Finally, CT was more effective than ST in improving muscle power in youth.
... Five additional records were identified as being potentially relevant via manual searches of previously published reviews on this topic and the individual study citations. These 52 studies were considered in detail for appropriateness, resulting in a further 26 papers [34,37, being excluded (IRR: 94.2%, Cohens k = 0.88) for the following reasons: not published in full in a peer-reviewed journal [50,52,60,61], absence of a running only control group [48,49,54,57,59,[62][63][64][65][66][67]69], participants were non-runners [51,53,56,68], no physiological parameters were measured [55], dissimilar running training was applied between groups [71], the ST intervention was poorly controlled [54], and ST did not involve one of the aforementioned types [34,37,58,70]. ...
Background
Middle- and long-distance running performance is constrained by several important aerobic and anaerobic parameters. The efficacy of strength training (ST) for distance runners has received considerable attention in the literature. However, to date, the results of these studies have not been fully synthesized in a review on the topic. Objectives
This systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive critical commentary on the current literature that has examined the effects of ST modalities on the physiological determinants and performance of middle- and long-distance runners, and offer recommendations for best practice. Methods
Electronic databases were searched using a variety of key words relating to ST exercise and distance running. This search was supplemented with citation tracking. To be eligible for inclusion, a study was required to meet the following criteria: participants were middle- or long-distance runners with ≥ 6 months experience, a ST intervention (heavy resistance training, explosive resistance training, or plyometric training) lasting ≥ 4 weeks was applied, a running only control group was used, data on one or more physiological variables was reported. Two independent assessors deemed that 24 studies fully met the criteria for inclusion. Methodological rigor was assessed for each study using the PEDro scale. ResultsPEDro scores revealed internal validity of 4, 5, or 6 for the studies reviewed. Running economy (RE) was measured in 20 of the studies and generally showed improvements (2–8%) compared to a control group, although this was not always the case. Time trial (TT) performance (1.5–10 km) and anaerobic speed qualities also tended to improve following ST. Other parameters [maximal oxygen uptake (\(\dot{V}{\text{O}}_{{2{ \hbox{max} }}}\)), velocity at \(\dot{V}{\text{O}}_{{2{ \hbox{max} }}}\), blood lactate, body composition] were typically unaffected by ST. Conclusion
Whilst there was good evidence that ST improves RE, TT, and sprint performance, this was not a consistent finding across all works that were reviewed. Several important methodological differences and limitations are highlighted, which may explain the discrepancies in findings and should be considered in future investigations in this area. Importantly for the distance runner, measures relating to body composition are not negatively impacted by a ST intervention. The addition of two to three ST sessions per week, which include a variety of ST modalities are likely to provide benefits to the performance of middle- and long-distance runners.
Objective: This study aimed to compare the effects of two concurrent training (CT)protocols on the physical fitness of middle school students.
Method: A 12-week quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test study was conducted with157 middle school students (age= 12.48 ± 0.34, n = 90 females) divided into threegroups: CT group A (CT-Oh) received combined resistance training (RT) and aerobictraining (AT) in each physical education session, CT group B (CT-48h) received RT and AT across two separate physical education classes 48 h apart, and a control group(Con) received no training. Training occurred twice a week. Test indicators included cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) measured by estimated VO2max and 20 m shuttle run (laps), as well as muscle strength assessed through long jump, vertical jump, and handgrip strength.
Results: The intervention groups exhibited significant increases in estimated VO2max and muscle strength compared to their baseline values (p < 0.05). Both CT-Oh and CT-48h groups demonstrated significant improvements in 20 m shuttle run(laps) (mean difference: 8.88 laps, p< 0.01; mean difference: 4.81 laps, p< 0.01, respectively), standing long jump (mean difference: 6.20 cm, p < 0.01; mean difference: 3.68 cm, p < 0.01, respectively), vertical jump (mean difference: 4.95 cm, p< 0.01; mean difference: 4.04 cm, p< 0.01, respectively), and handgrip strength(mean difference: 11.17 kg, p< 0.01; mean difference: 6.99 kg, p < 0.01, respectively).CT-Oh group exhibited significantly increased estimated VO2max (mean difference:1.47 ml/kg/min, p< 0.01) compared to the CT-48h group.
Conclusion: Both CT programs effectively improved adolescents' physical fitness indicators. However, the program that integrated RT and AT within the same physical education class demonstrated superior enhancement in adolescents' CRF.
Background
Running economy is defined as the energy demand at submaximal running speed, a key determinant of overall running performance. Strength training can improve running economy, although the magnitude of its effect may depend on factors such as the strength training method and the speed at which running economy is assessed.
Aim
To compare the effect of different strength training methods (e.g., high loads, plyometric, combined methods) on the running economy in middle- and long-distance runners, over different running speeds, through a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Methods
A systematic search was conducted across several electronic databases including Web of Science, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and SCOPUS. Using different keywords and Boolean operators for the search, all articles indexed up to November 2022 were considered for inclusion. In addition, the PICOS criteria were applied: Population: middle- and long-distance runners, without restriction on sex or training/competitive level; Intervention: application of a strength training method for ≥ 3 weeks (i.e., high loads (≥ 80% of one repetition maximum); submaximal loads [40–79% of one repetition maximum); plyometric; isometric; combined methods (i.e., two or more methods); Comparator: control group that performed endurance running training but did not receive strength training or received it with low loads (< 40% of one repetition maximum); Outcome: running economy, measured before and after a strength training intervention programme; Study design: randomized and non-randomized controlled studies. Certainty of evidence was assessed with the GRADE approach. A three-level random-effects meta-analysis and moderator analysis were performed using R software (version 4.2.1).
Results
The certainty of the evidence was found to be moderate for high load training, submaximal load training, plyometric training and isometric training methods and low for combined methods. The studies included 195 moderately trained, 272 well trained, and 185 highly trained athletes. The strength training programmes were between 6 and 24 weeks’ duration, with one to four sessions executed per week. The high load and combined methods induced small (ES = − 0.266, p = 0.039) and moderate (ES = − 0.426, p = 0.018) improvements in running economy at speeds from 8.64 to 17.85 km/h and 10.00 to 14.45 km/h, respectively. Plyometric training improved running economy at speeds ≤ 12.00 km/h (small effect, ES = − 0.307, p = 0.028, β1 = 0.470, p = 0.017). Compared to control groups, no improvement in running economy (assessed speed: 10.00 to 15.28 and 9.75 to 16.00 km/h, respectively) was noted after either submaximal or isometric strength training (all, p > 0.131). The moderator analyses showed that running speed (β1 = − 0.117, p = 0.027) and VO2max (β1 = − 0.040, p = 0.020) modulated the effect of high load strength training on running economy (i.e., greater improvements at higher speeds and higher VO2max).
Conclusions
Compared to a control condition, strength training with high loads, plyometric training, and a combination of strength training methods may improve running economy in middle- and long-distance runners. Other methods such as submaximal load training and isometric strength training seem less effective to improve running economy in this population. Of note, the data derived from this systematic review suggest that although both high load training and plyometric training may improve running economy, plyometric training might be effective at lower speeds (i.e., ≤ 12.00 km/h) and high load strength training might be particularly effective in improving running economy (i) in athletes with a high VO2max, and (ii) at high running speeds.
Protocol Registration
The original protocol was registered (https://osf.io/gyeku) at the Open Science Framework.
