4.4 Article

EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS AFTER EITHER RESISTANCE TRAINING OR SPRINT INTERVAL-BASED CONCURRENT TRAINING

Journal

JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH
Volume 30, Issue 11, Pages 3057-3065

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001412

Keywords

strength; power; HIIT; interference

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this investigation was to examine the effects of concurrent sprint interval and resistance training (CST) vs. resistance training (RT) on measures of strength, power, and aerobic fitness in recreationally active women. Twenty-eight women (20.3 +/- 1.7 years; 63.0 +/- 9.1; 51.1 6 7.1 1 repetition maximum (1-RM) back squat (kg); (V)over dotO(2)max: 35.4 +/- 4.1 ml.kg(-1).min(-1)) were recruited to complete an 11-week training program. Participants were matched-pair assigned to CST or RT cohorts after preliminary testing, which consisted of 1-RM back squats, maximal isometric squats, anaerobic power evaluations, and maximal oxygen consumption. All subjects trained 3 days per week with sprint-interval training occurring at least 4 hours after RT in the CST cohort. Both CST and RT resulted in significant improvements (p <= 0.05) in the 1-RM back squat (37.5 6 7.8; 40.0 +/- 9.6 kg), maximal isometric force (55.7 +/- 51.3; 53.7 +/- 36.7 kg), average peak anaerobic power testing (7.4 6 6.2; 7.6 +/- 6.4%), and zero-incline treadmill velocity, resulting in maximal oxygen consumption (1.8 +/- 0.6; 0.8 +/- 0.6 km.h(-1)). Only zero-incline treadmill velocity demonstrated a group-by-time interaction with a greater improvement after CST (p < 0.01). Rate of force development was not altered in either group. Results provide no evidence of interference to the adaptive process by CST. Coaches desiring improvements in strength, power, and endurance may want to evaluate how spring and high-intensity interval training might supplement programs already in place.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available