Search

Concurrent training, commonly acknowledged as a training method where strength and endurance training are completed complementary to each other, is a strategy often implemented in endurance cyclists' and runners' programs to improve physiological determinants of success such as exercise economy. Although concurrent training methods and strategies have been examined to a large extent in endurance cyclists and runners, literature examining optimal concurrent training methods to improve physiological variables in long-distance triathletes is minimal, leaving optimal programming relatively unknown. This practical applications paper identifies and outlines current concepts and considerations regarding concurrent training for long-distance triathletes including mechanisms contributing to improved performance, muscle and movement patterns used, exercise selection, load, velocity of movement, scheduling, frequency, and duration of training. Common misconceptions related to concurrent training are also identified and practical considerations for the application of concurrent training for coaches, athletes, and other professionals to improve all 3 disciplines of triathlon are discussed.

Bradbury, DG, Landers, GJ, Benjanuvatra, N, and Goods, PS. Comparison of linear and reverse linear periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for endurance running performance. J Strength Cond Res 34(5): 1345-1353, 2020-This investigation examined the effectiveness of 2 periodization methods on endurance running performance. Thirty recreational runners (25.2 ± 7.4 years; 175.4 ± 8.1 cm; 69.0 ± 9.8 kg) were assigned to 3 groups based on preintervention test results: linear periodization group (LPG, n = 10), reverse linear periodization group (RPG, n = 10), and control group (CG, n = 10). The LPG and RPG completed 3 training sessions (2 supervised and 1 unsupervised) per week in two 6-week blocks. The LPG went through a high-volume training program while the RPG performed higher intensity, lower volume training in the initial block. Training volume and intensity was reversed in the second 6-week training block. All subjects completed pre-training (week 0), midpoint (week 7), and post-training (week 14) testing, which included anthropometric measurements (body mass and sum of 8 skinfolds), treadmill tests for running economy (RE) and V[Combining Dot Above]O2max, and a 5,000-m time trial (TT) on a 400-m grass track. Greater improvements in the 5,000-m TT were observed in the LPG (76.8 ± 55.8 seconds, p = 0.009, d = 1.27) and the RPG (112.8 ± 83.4 seconds, p = 0.002, d = 1.51) than the CG (3.6 ± 59 seconds). No significant differences were found between the LPG and RPG (p = 0.321, d = 0.51). No group differences were found for V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak (p = 0.955) or RE at 9 km·h (p = 0.329) or 11 km·h (p = 0.558), respectively. However, significant improvements were seen in these variables after training: V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak (p = 0.010), RE 9 km·h (p < 0.001), and RE 11 km·h (p = 0.004). These results do not support linear periodization or reverse linear periodization as a superior method; however, periodized training elicited greater improvements

This investigation examined the oxidative stress (F2-Isoprostane; F2-IsoP) and inflammatory (interleukin-6; IL-6) responses to repeat-sprint training in hypoxia (RSH). Ten trained male team sport athletes performed 3(sets)*9(repetitions)*5 s cycling sprints in simulated altitude (3000 m) and sea-level conditions. Mean and peak sprint power output (MPO and PPO) were recorded, and blood samples were collected pre-exercise, and again at 8 and 60 min post-exercise. Both MPO and PPO were significantly reduced in hypoxia (compared to sea-level) in the second (MPO: 855 ± 89 vs. 739 ± 95 W, p = .006; PPO: 1024 ± 114 vs. 895 ± 112 W, p = .010) and third (MPO: 819 ± 105 vs. 686 ± 83 W, p = .008; PPO: 985 ± 125 vs. 834 ± 99 W, p = .008) sets, respectively. IL-6 was significantly increased from pre- to 1 h post-exercise in both hypoxia (0.7 ± 0.2 vs. 2.4 ± 1.4 pg/mL, p = .004) and sea-level conditions (0.7 ± 0.2 vs. 1.6 ± 0.3 pg/mL, p < .001), with a large effect (d = 0.80) suggesting higher IL-6 levels of post-hypoxia. F2-IsoP was significantly lower 1 h post-exercise in both the hypoxic (p = .005) and sea-level (p = .002) conditions, with no differences between trials. While hypoxia can impact on exercise intensity and may result in greater post-exercise inflammation, it appears to have little effect on oxidative stress. These results indicate that team sport organisations with ready access to hypoxic training facilities could confidently administer RSH without significantly increasing the post-exercise inflammatory or oxidative stress response.

To assess the impact of ‘top-up’ normoxic or hypoxic repeat-sprint training on sea-level repeat-sprint ability, thirty team sport athletes were randomly split into three groups, which were matched in running repeat-sprint ability (RSA), cycling RSA and 20 m shuttle run performance. Two groups then performed 15 maximal cycling repeat-sprint training sessions over 5 weeks, in either normoxia (NORM) or hypoxia (HYP), while a third group acted as a control (CON). In the post-training cycling RSA test, both NORM (13.6%; p = 0.0001, and 8.6%; p = 0.001) and HYP (10.3%; p = 0.007, and 4.7%; p = 0.046) significantly improved overall mean and peak power output, respectively, whereas CON did not change (1.4%; p = 0.528, and -1.1%; p = 0.571, respectively); with only NORM demonstrating a moderate effect for improved mean and peak power output compared to CON. Running RSA demonstrated no significant between group differences; however, the mean sprint times improved significantly from pre- to post-training for CON (1.1%), NORM (1.8%), and HYP (2.3%). Finally, there were no group differences in 20 m shuttle run performance. In conclusion, ‘top-up’ training improved performance in a task-specific activity (i.e. cycling); however, there was no additional benefit of conducting this ‘top-up’ training in hypoxia, since cycle RSA improved similarly in both HYP and NORM conditions. Regardless, the ‘top-up’ training had no significant impact on running RSA, therefore the use of cycle repeat-sprint training should be discouraged for team sport athletes due to limitations in specificity.

Contains fulltext : 137963.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: This investigation compared the effects of an extended period of weight-bearing (running) vs. non-weight-bearing (cycling) exercise on hepcidin production and its implications for iron status. METHODS: Ten active males performed two separate exercise training blocks with either running (RTB) or cycling (CTB) as the exercise mode. Each block consisted of five training sessions (Day 1, 2, 4, 5, 6) performed over a seven day period that were matched for exercise intensity. Basal venous blood samples were obtained on Day 1 (D1), and on Recovery Days 3 (R3) and 7 (R7) to assess iron status, while basal and 3 h post-exercise urinary hepcidin levels were measured on D1, D2, D6, as well as R3 and R7 (basal levels only) for each condition. RESULTS: Basal urinary hepcidin levels were significantly elevated (p

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the impact of 3 heights of simulated altitude exposure on repeat-sprint performance in teamsport athletes. Methods: Ten trained male team-sport athletes completed 3 sets of repeated sprints (9 × 4 s) on a nonmotorized treadmill at sea level and at simulated altitudes of 2000, 3000, and 4000 m. Participants completed 4 trials in a random order over 4 wk, with mean power output (MPO), peak power output (PPO), blood lactate concentration (Bla), and oxygen saturation (SaO2) recorded after each set. Results: Each increase in simulated altitude corresponded with a significant decrease in SaO2. Total work across all sets was highest at sea level and correspondingly lower at each successive altitude (P < .05; sea level < 2000 m < 3000 m < 4000 m). In the first set, MPO was reduced only at 4000 m, but for subsequent sets, decreases in MPO were observed at all altitudes (P < .05; 2000 m < 3000 m < 4000 m). PPO was maintained in all sets except for set 3 at 4000 m (P < .05; vs sea level and 2000 m). BLa levels were highest at 4000 m and significantly greater (P < .05) than at sea level after all sets. Conclusions: These results suggest that “higher may not be better,” as a simulated altitude of 4000 m may potentially blunt absolute training quality. Therefore, it is recommended that a moderate simulated altitude (2000–3000 m) be employed when implementing intermittent hypoxic repeat-sprint training for team-sport athletes.