↓ Skip to main content

Endurance Training Intensity Does Not Mediate Interference to Maximal Lower-Body Strength Gain during Short-Term Concurrent Training

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
119 X users
facebook
10 Facebook pages
video
7 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
290 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Endurance Training Intensity Does Not Mediate Interference to Maximal Lower-Body Strength Gain during Short-Term Concurrent Training
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2016.00487
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jackson J. Fyfe, Jonathan D. Bartlett, Erik D. Hanson, Nigel K. Stepto, David J. Bishop

Abstract

We determined the effect of concurrent training incorporating either high-intensity interval training (HIT) or moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on maximal strength, counter-movement jump (CMJ) performance, and body composition adaptations, compared with single-mode resistance training (RT). Twenty-three recreationally-active males (mean ± SD: age, 29.6 ± 5.5 y; [Formula: see text], 44 ± 11 mL kg(-1)·min(-1)) underwent 8 weeks (3 sessions·wk(-1)) of either: (1) HIT combined with RT (HIT+RT group, n = 8), (2) work-matched MICT combined with RT (MICT+RT group, n = 7), or (3) RT performed alone (RT group, n = 8). Measures of aerobic capacity, maximal (1-RM) strength, CMJ performance and body composition (DXA) were obtained before (PRE), mid-way (MID), and after (POST) training. Maximal (one-repetition maximum [1-RM]) leg press strength was improved from PRE to POST for RT (mean change ± 90% confidence interval; 38.5 ± 8.5%; effect size [ES] ± 90% confidence interval; 1.26 ± 0.24; P < 0.001), HIT+RT (28.7 ± 5.3%; ES, 1.17 ± 0.19; P < 0.001), and MICT+RT (27.5 ± 4.6%, ES, 0.81 ± 0.12; P < 0.001); however, the magnitude of this change was greater for RT vs. both HIT+RT (7.4 ± 8.7%; ES, 0.40 ± 0.40) and MICT+RT (8.2 ± 9.9%; ES, 0.60 ± 0.45). There were no substantial between-group differences in 1-RM bench press strength gain. RT induced greater changes in peak CMJ force vs. HIT+RT (6.8 ± 4.5%; ES, 0.41 ± 0.28) and MICT+RT (9.9 ± 11.2%; ES, 0.54 ± 0.65), and greater improvements in maximal CMJ rate of force development (RFD) vs. HIT+RT (24.1 ± 26.1%; ES, 0.72 ± 0.88). Lower-body lean mass was similarly increased for RT (4.1 ± 2.0%; ES; 0.33 ± 0.16; P = 0.023) and MICT+RT (3.6 ± 2.4%; ES; 0.45 ± 0.30; P = 0.052); however, this change was attenuated for HIT+RT (1.8 ± 1.6%; ES; 0.13 ± 0.12; P = 0.069). We conclude that concurrent training incorporating either HIT or work-matched MICT similarly attenuates improvements in maximal lower-body strength and indices of CMJ performance compared with RT performed alone. This suggests endurance training intensity is not a critical mediator of interference to maximal strength gain during short-term concurrent training.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 119 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 290 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 285 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 54 19%
Student > Master 46 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 11%
Student > Postgraduate 21 7%
Researcher 18 6%
Other 60 21%
Unknown 60 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 148 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 2%
Other 15 5%
Unknown 69 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 94. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 July 2022.
All research outputs
#459,714
of 25,726,194 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#248
of 15,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,751
of 318,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#4
of 199 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,726,194 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,518 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 199 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.