Share the post "Combined Strength and Endurance Training for Performance Improvement"
Improving performance sometimes requires crossing disciplines or types of training. In the case of endurance sports like cycling or triathlon, it’s possible to optimize the physiological adaptations generated by combined training between strength work and pure endurance work. Let’s see what works and what doesn’t.
By Sébastien Argentin – Photos: 3bikes.fr / Pixinio.com / Pxhere.com
With the arrival of science in high-level sports since the beginning of this century and with the growing escalation of athletes’ performances, training has had to be rebuilt and rethought, to allow athletes to go ever higher, ever further, and ever faster. This is how, in most aerobic-dominant disciplines (such as cycling or triathlon), strength training sessions (Strength) have been added to traditional aerobic training (Endurance). This different orientation of the work to be done gradually emerged and quickly proved to be an indispensable complement to any aerobic training aimed at achieving great performances.
Many studies have since focused on this combined “Strength + Endurance” training and the adaptations that could result from it. And it seems that the different results obtained are quite inconsistent and often contradictory. Some research has highlighted that combined training inhibited the development of strength and power without affecting the development of aerobic capacities (1), while others (2) have shown, on the contrary, that the development of aerobic power was compromised by this form of combined training.
This inconsistency of results seems linked to the different types of training protocols used.
Contradictorily, other research has also found that combined training had no inhibitory effect on the development of strength and endurance (3). This inconsistency of results seems linked, according to Leveritt et al. (1999), to the different types of training protocols used, which often differ in terms of volume, intensity, as well as the type and speed of muscle contraction.
In view of the results of various research on combined “Strength + Endurance” training, Docherty and Sporer (2000) realized that it was particularly difficult to draw conclusions and correctly interpret the observations and results highlighted. According to them, the training protocols used to train for improvements in aerobic power as well as strength could in some cases interact and generate different levels of interference based on the specificities of physiological and neuromuscular adaptations. They therefore had the idea of proposing a model that would be based on the phenomenon of interference between adaptations related to aerobic training and those related to strength training. Indeed, depending on the type of work performed and the intensity of the exercises, the adaptations specific to aerobic activity are not the same, just as those specific to strength exercises differ according to the number of repetitions and the workload.
Adaptations related to aerobic (endurance) training
Adaptations resulting from aerobic training can appear, according to MacDougall and Sale (1981), at either a central or peripheral level, depending on the training intensity used. At low exercise intensities, below the anaerobic threshold, physiological adaptations primarily appear at the central level (changes in cardio-pulmonary mechanisms), whereas at high intensities, close to or equal to VO2Max, adaptations seem much more localized at the peripheral, i.e., muscular, level (increase in myoglobin content, muscle capillarization, and mitochondrial enzyme activity).
Adaptations related to Strength training
The development of voluntary muscle force (VMF) appears as the result of an increase in muscle cross-sectional area (chronic muscle hypertrophy) and an improvement in the ability to effectively activate the different motor units involved (4). The improvement of this VMF can be achieved through a multitude of strength training protocols, combining intensity (load expressed as a percentage of maximum force over one repetition) and volume (number of sets and repetitions) in different ways.
Loads of 8 to 12 repetitions primarily lead to peripheral adaptations such as a better improvement in muscle cross-sectional area (5), whereas heavier loads mobilized over a smaller number of repetitions (4 to 6 repetitions) generate adaptations of nervous origin such as an improvement in the activation and synchronization of motor units as well as a decrease in co-contraction of antagonistic muscles, and will thus allow for strength improvements without muscle hypertrophy.
Based on the observations noted regarding the specific adaptations to the two forms of training, at central and peripheral levels, Docherty and Sporer (2000) proposed a model to predict the possible degree of interference of different training protocols combining strength and endurance (see Diagram below).
Concretely, and in light of the diagram presented above, interferences are maximal when athletes perform endurance work based on interval training carried out at an intensity close to MAP, combined with strength training involving sets of 8 to 12 repetitions to develop strength. Indeed, in this specific case, endurance training aims to increase the oxidative capacity of the muscle, while strength training, due to the increase in protein synthesis related to the type of work proposed, generates stress at the anaerobic energy system level, which is accompanied by an increase in lactate concentration within the muscle. The muscle thus finds itself in a conflicting position where it must try to adapt simultaneously to two different physiological constraints. This particularly unfavorable scenario inevitably leads to a minimization of adaptations of one or even both systems concerned.
Combined training can minimize the risks of interference at the level of adaptations resulting from the two forms of training.
In contrast to this first example, combined training can minimize the risks of interference at the level of adaptations resulting from the two forms of training. By combining endurance training based on interval training performed at an intensity close to MAP, with strength training offering high-intensity sets of 2 to 5-6 repetitions, the muscle is able to adapt its oxidative capacity without negative repercussions on the neural adaptations generated by the demands of strength training. Similarly, central adaptations related to continuous aerobic training performed at moderate intensity (jogging or a session performed at an intensity below the anaerobic threshold) will have minimal interference with those resulting from strength training (mainly muscle hypertrophy) using low to medium loads and more repetitions.
Based on these conclusions by Docherty and Sporer (2000), coaches in charge of athletes specializing in aerobic disciplines can therefore optimize the adaptations (central or peripheral) they wish to provoke from the sessions implemented throughout their athletes’ training plan.
| TO SUMMARIZE It is necessary to avoid combining aerobic training at intensities close to MAP with strength training that induces lactic acid production (sets of 8 to 12 repetitions in weight training with “medium” load, or strength endurance at I3/I4 on a climb). However, it is possible to combine aerobic training at intensities close to MAP with maximal strength training over shorter repetitions but with heavy loads, or low endurance training with strength training with longer sets aimed at inducing muscle hypertrophy. |
(1) – Hickson, 1980 ; Dudley and Djamil, 1985 ; Craig et al., 1991 ; Hennessy and Watson, 1994 ; Kraemer et al., 1995
(2) – Nelson et al., 1990
(3) – Sale et al., 1990 ; Abernethy and Quigley, 1993 ; Bell et al., 1991 ; MacCarthy et al., 1995
(4) – Sale, 1992
(5) – Houston, 1999 ; Narici et al., 1989 ; 1995 ; Kawakami et al., 1995
=> SEE ALSO : All our Coaching articles
Share the post "Combined Strength and Endurance Training for Performance Improvement"
