Concurrent Training Programming: The Acute Effects of Sprint Interval Exercise on the Subsequent Strength Training

Impact of a 12-wk physical conditioning program on the aerobic capacity of aviation cadets

BACKGROUND

Flight cadets need to have good physical fitness to cope with the challenges of flying missions. The continuous development of science and technology has led to the constant upgrading of fighter jets and the improvement of their performance, which has resulted in new and higher requirements for the physical fitness of flight personnel. The traditional physical training mode, method, and assessment have been used for many years and do not meet current fitness needs.

AIM

To investigate the impact of a 12-wk comprehensive anti-G fitness training program on the aerobic capacity of aviation cadets and to evaluate its effectiveness.

METHODS

Fifty-five cadets were randomly assigned to control and experimental groups using a randomized, single-blind design. The control group maintained their existing training regimen, while the experimental group participated in a 12-wk comprehensive training intervention. The training program comprised strength training twice per week, high-intensity interval training three times per week, and supplemental nutritional and psychological support. Maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), lower limb strength, and hemoglobin levels were measured at baseline, at 6 wk and 12 wk post-intervention.

RESULTS

Repeated measures analysis of variance revealed significant differences of both VO2max and relative VO2 in both groups across time points (P < 0.05). However, no significant time-group interaction was observed (P > 0.05). Paired t-tests comparing baseline and 12-wk results showed that VO2max and relative VO2 were significantly higher in the experimental group than the control group (P < 0.05). This suggests that the training program effectively enhanced the aerobic capacity of the experimental group. Key indicators of aerobic capacity, bilateral lower limb strength and hemoglobin levels, were also significantly different over time and between groups (P < 0.05). No significant differences were noted in heart-rate metrics (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

A 12-wk comprehensive anti-G fitness training program significantly improved the aerobic capacity of aviation cadets, thereby enhancing their overall capacity and laying a physiological foundation for enduring high-G flights.

Optimizing exercise prescription during breast cancer rehabilitation in women: Analysis of the load-velocity relationship in the box squat exercise

The aims of this study were to assess (i) the load-velocity relationship during the box squat exercise in women survivors of breast cancer, (ii) which velocity variable (mean velocity [MV], mean propulsive velocity [MPV], or peak velocity [PV]) shows stronger relationship with the relative load (%1RM), and (iii) which regression model (linear [LA] or polynomic [PA]) provides a greater fit for predicting the velocities associated with each %1RM. Nineteen women survivors of breast cancer (age: 53.2 ± 6.9 years, weight: 70.9 ± 13.1 kg, and height: 163.5 ± 7.4 cm) completed an incremental load test up to one-repetition maximum in the box squat exercise. The MV, MPV, and the PV were measured during the concentric phase of each repetition with a linear velocity transducer. These measurements were analyzed by regression models using LA and PA. Strong correlations of MV with %1RM (R2 = 0.903/0.904; the standard error of the estimate (SEE) = 0.05 m.s-1 by LA/PA) and MPV (R2 = 0.900; SEE = 0.06 m.s-1 by LA and PA) were observed. In contrast, PV showed a weaker association with %1RM (R2 = 0.704; SEE = 0.15 m.s-1 by LA and PA). The MV and MPV of 1RM was 0.22 ± 0.04 m·s-1, whereas the PV at 1RM was 0.63 ± 0.18 m.s-1. These findings suggest that the use of MV to prescribe relative loads during resistance training, as well as LA and PA regression models, accurately predicted velocities for each %1RM. Assessing and prescribing resistance exercises during breast cancer rehabilitation can be facilitated through the monitoring of movement velocity.

The Effect of Time-Equated Concurrent Training Programs in Resistance-Trained Men

The purpose of this investigation was to compare the effects of three different concurrent training (CT) programs and a resistance training (RT) program. Twenty-three resistance trained men (age: 24 ± 3 years) were randomized into four groups: concurrent RT and high intensity interval cycling (CTH, n = 6), concurrent RT and moderate intensity continuous cycling (CTM, n = 5), RT and barbell circuit training (RTC, n = 6), or RT only (RT, n = 6). Back squat and bench press strength, quadriceps, and pectoralis muscle thickness, VO2peak, and maximum workload (Wmax, Watts) were assessed. Squat strength gains were meaningful in all groups and comparable among CTH (16.88 kg [95% CrI: 11.15, 22.63]), CTM (25.54 kg [95% CrI: 19.24, 31.96]), RTC (17.5 kg [95% CrI: 11.66, 23.39]), and RT (20.36 kg [95% CrI: 15.29, 25.33]) groups. Bench press strength gains were meaningful in all groups and comparable among CTH (11.86 kg [95% CrI: 8.28, 15.47]), CTM (10.3 kg [95% CrI: 6.49, 14.13]), RTC (4.84 kg [95% CrI: 1.31, 8.47]), and RT (10.16 kg [95% CrI: 7.02, 13.22]) groups. Quadriceps hypertrophy was meaningful in all groups and comparable among CTH (2.29 mm [95% CrI: 0.84, 3.76]), CTM (3.41 mm [95% CrI: 1.88, 4.91]), RTC (2.6 mm [95% CrI: 1.17, 4.05]), and RT (2.83 mm [95% CrI: 1.55, 4.12]) groups. Pectoralis hypertrophy was meaningful in CTH (2.29 mm [95% CrI: -0.52, 5.1]), CTM (5.14 mm [95% CrI: 2.1, 8.15]), and RTC (7.19 mm [95% CrI: 4.26, 10.02]) groups, but not in the RT group (1 mm [95% CrI: -1.59, 3.59]); further, between-group contrasts indicated less pectoralis growth in the RT compared to the RTC group. Regarding cardiovascular outcomes, only the RTH and RTM groups experienced meaningful improvements in either measure (VO2peak or Wmax). These data suggest that the interference effect on maximal strength and hypertrophy can be avoided when the aerobic training is moderate intensity cycling, high intensity cycling, or a novel barbell circuit for ~one hour per week and on non-RT days. However, the barbell circuit failed to elicit meaningful cardiovascular adaptations.

Comparative efficacy of concurrent training types on lower limb strength and muscular hypertrophy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective

This study aims to compare, through quantitative analysis, the effectiveness of different endurance training types on increasing lower limb strength and muscle cross-sectional area (MCSA) in concurrent training.

Methods

This systematic literature search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) [PROSPERO ID: CRD42023396886]. Web of Science, SportDiscuss, Pubmed, Cochrane, and Scopus were systematically searched from their inception date to October 20, 2023.

Results

A total of 40 studies (841 participants) were included in this meta-analysis. MCSA analysis showed that, compared to resistance training alone, concurrent high-intensity interval running training and resistance training and concurrent moderate-intensity continuous cycling training and resistance training were more effective (SMD = 0.15, 95% CI = -0.46 to 0.76, and SMD = 0.07, 95% CI = -0.24 to 0.38 respectively), while other modalities of concurrent training not. Lower body maximal strength analysis showed that all modalities of concurrent training were inferior to resistance training alone, but concurrent high-intensity interval training and resistance training showed an advantage in four different concurrent training modalities (SMD = -0.08, 95% CI = -0.25 to 0.08). For explosive strength, only concurrent high-intensity interval training and resistance training was superior to resistance training (SMD = 0.06, 95% CI = -0.21 to 0.33).

Conclusion

Different endurance training types have an impact on the effectiveness of concurrent training, particularly on lower limb strength. Adopting high-intensity interval running as the endurance training type in concurrent training can effectively minimize the adverse effects on lower limb strength and MCSA.