Concurrent Strength and Aerobic Training
Moderator: George Payan
-
George Payan
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2002 9:07 am
Concurrent Strength and Aerobic Training
What Is the Optimal Recovery Time Between Aerobic and Strength Training Sessions?
-
George Payan
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2002 9:07 am
Aerobic and Strength Training
Researchers at the University of Victoria in British Columbia recently investigated concurrent strength and aerobic training. Some questions they looked at were: 1) does aerobic training diminish strength training performance, 2) does aerobic training intensity affect subsequent strength training performance, and 3) are any performance diminishments specific to the muscle groups used for the endurance activity?
Sixteen subjects were randomly assigned to either a high-intensity interval training group, or a submaximal aerobic continuous training group. Both groups performed aerobic training sessions followed by strength training sessions (leg press and bench press), with varying amounts of rest between the training sessions. The subjects also performed a control condition where no aerobic training was performed before strength training.
Both groups were significantly affected by the recovery time between aerobic and strength training sessions. Four and eight hour recovery times produced significantly fewer strength training repetitions when compared to the control condition (25% and 9% decrease in volume respectively). However no difference was seen in the number of repetitions performed at 24 hours of recovery and the control condition.
No significant differences were found between the high-intensity interval group and submaximal continuous group. Also, the aerobic exercise produced no effect on the number of repetitions performed on the bench press.
From the results of this study, the researchers suggest that: 1) 24 hours of recovery occur between aerobic and strength training sessions if optimal performance is desired in the strength training session, 2) both maximal and submaximal aerobic training have similar negative effects on subsequent strength training volume, and 3) decreases in strength performance are specific to the muscle groups used during the prior aerobic training.
Sporer BC, Wenger HA. (2003). Effects of aerobic exercise on strength performance following various periods of recovery. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 17(4): 638 – 644. (12/5/2003)
Sixteen subjects were randomly assigned to either a high-intensity interval training group, or a submaximal aerobic continuous training group. Both groups performed aerobic training sessions followed by strength training sessions (leg press and bench press), with varying amounts of rest between the training sessions. The subjects also performed a control condition where no aerobic training was performed before strength training.
Both groups were significantly affected by the recovery time between aerobic and strength training sessions. Four and eight hour recovery times produced significantly fewer strength training repetitions when compared to the control condition (25% and 9% decrease in volume respectively). However no difference was seen in the number of repetitions performed at 24 hours of recovery and the control condition.
No significant differences were found between the high-intensity interval group and submaximal continuous group. Also, the aerobic exercise produced no effect on the number of repetitions performed on the bench press.
From the results of this study, the researchers suggest that: 1) 24 hours of recovery occur between aerobic and strength training sessions if optimal performance is desired in the strength training session, 2) both maximal and submaximal aerobic training have similar negative effects on subsequent strength training volume, and 3) decreases in strength performance are specific to the muscle groups used during the prior aerobic training.
Sporer BC, Wenger HA. (2003). Effects of aerobic exercise on strength performance following various periods of recovery. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 17(4): 638 – 644. (12/5/2003)