You could be reading the full-text of this article now if you...

If you have access to this article through your institution,
you can view this article in

Concurrent Training: A Meta-Analysis Examining Interference of Aerobic and Resistance Exercises

Wilson, Jacob M.1; Marin, Pedro J.2,3; Rhea, Matthew R.4; Wilson, Stephanie M.C.1; Loenneke, Jeremy P.5; Anderson, Jody C.1

Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research:
doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31823a3e2d
Brief Review
Abstract

Abstract: Wilson, JM, Marin, PJ, Rhea, MR, Wilson, SMC, Loenneke, JP, and Anderson, JC. Concurrent training: A meta-analysis examining interference of aerobic and resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res 26(8): 2293–2307, 2012—The primary objective of this investigation was to identify which components of endurance training (e.g., modality, duration, frequency) are detrimental to resistance training outcomes. A meta-analysis of 21 studies was performed with a total of 422 effect sizes (ESs). Criteria for the study included were (a) compare strength training alone to strength plus endurance training (concurrent) or to compare combinations of concurrent training; (b) the outcome measures include at least one measure of strength, power, or hypertrophy; and (c) the data necessary to calculate ESs must be included or available. The mean ES for hypertrophy for strength training was 1.23; for endurance training, it was 0.27; and for concurrent training, it was 0.85, with strength and concurrent training being significantly greater than endurance training only. The mean ES for strength development for strength training was 1.76; for endurance training, it was 0.78; and for concurrent training, it was 1.44. Strength and concurrent training was significantly greater than endurance training. The mean ES for power development for strength training only was 0.91; for endurance training, it was 0.11; and for concurrent training, it was 0.55. Significant differences were found between all the 3 groups. For moderator variables, resistance training concurrently with running, but not cycling, resulted in significant decrements in both hypertrophy and strength. Correlational analysis identified significant negative relationships between frequency (−0.26 to −0.35) and duration (−0.29 to −0.75) of endurance training for hypertrophy, strength, and power. Significant relationships (p < 0.05) between ES for decreased body fat and % maximal heart rate (r = −0.60) were also found. Our results indicate that interference effects of endurance training are a factor of the modality, frequency, and duration of the endurance training selected.

Author Information

1Department of Health Sciences and Human Performance, The University of Tampa, Tampa, Florida

2Laboratory of Physiology, European University Miguel de Cervantes, Valladolid, Spain

3Research Center on Physical Disability, Valladolid, Spain

4Human Movement Program, A. T. Still University, Mesa, Arizona

5Department of Health and Exercise Science, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma

Address correspondence to Dr. Jacob M. Wilson, jmwilson@ut.edu.

© 2012 National Strength and Conditioning Association