Long term adaptations and mechanisms of different protocols of ''concurernt'' training in recreationally trained male adults.

Abstract

The combination of resistance and endurance solicitations within the same training program or session appears to be a compulsory path to achieving high performance in many sports. Those performances are highly dependent on multiple physical qualities that must be developed simultaneously, whereas having appropriate concurrent training allows for better neuromuscular adaptation. Thus, the identification of a single form of physical training that promotes broad physical fitness adaptations within less time would be of great benefit to physical training specialists. Therefore, the general objective was to evaluate and compare the neuromuscular, metabolic, cardiorespiratory, structural (body composition and muscle architecture), and mechanical long-term adaptations between the three different concurrent training methods; Traditional Concurrent Training (TCT), Sprint Interval Training (SIT), and High-intensity Resistance Circuit-based training (HRC) in young recreationally training athletes. In addition, the specific objectives were to identify the long-term neuromuscular, metabolic, cardiorespiratory, structural (body composition and muscle architecture), and mechanical adaptation and mechanism following three different concurrent training (HRC, SIT, and TCT) in the same sample.

To achieve these objectives, the convenience sampling method was used for a single-blinded randomized controlled trial experimental research design to recruit thirty-four young recreationally training male athletes (24±5.8 years, 174.9±5.9 cm height, and 73.4±7.9 kg) and randomly assigned to three training groups (HRC: 13, SIT: 10, and TCT: 11). The study consisted of five total visits to the laboratory: Visit #1 – Initial assessment for requirement test and familiarization session, Visit #2 – pre-training evaluation, Visit #3 – continuation of pre-training evaluation, Visit #4 – post-training testing, and Visit #5 – continuation of post-training testing. The entire study has taken approximately ten weeks but all subjects exercised twice a week for 8 weeks during the intervention. During Visits # 2, 3, 4, and #5 neuromuscular, metabolic, cardiorespiratory, structural (body composition and muscle architecture), and mechanical variables were assessed. Standard descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study population. A mixed analysis of variance with repeated measures and the Bonferroni post hoc test were used to investigate the interaction effect and significant differences within and between groups.

The findings of the study are explained through five sections and the main findings of section 01 showed each training procedure had a unique neuronal adaptation that was most particular to its training character. Whereas SIT and TCT protocols demonstrated spinal adaptation throughout the intervention, HRC demonstrated supraspinal and spinal adaptation. It follows that while theoretically all of these adaptations exhibit both quantitatively positive and negative changes, both changes are crucial to improving athletic performance. Furthermore, the main findings of section 02 revealed that although no training approach is superior to the others, following three distinct concurrent training regimens caused different metabolic improvements in blood lipid profiles. Particularly, the TCT protocol was an ideal training method to lower total cholesterol levels and increase HDL-C, but SIT protocol is a time-effective method for performance-based programs that induced a decrease in cholesterol, triglycerides, and LDL-C, whereas HRC also induced positive and negative alterations. Thus, each user could be able to select any training protocol following their needs.

Moreover, section 03 exposed that the TCT protocol is much better than the other two concurrent training methods (HRC and SIT); in terms of enhancing the cardiorespiratory variables in recreationally trained individuals. However, following HRC and SIT also induced an increase in VO2 max and RMR, but the time consumed by the training sessions is lesser than TCT. Since HRC and SIT are very time efficient and contribute to enhancing cardiorespiratory adaptations, it would be advantageous to use a single mode of an exercise training protocol to improve cardiorespiratory variables. Hence, it is depending on the needs and desires of each individual in terms of their available time for exercising as well as the training plans.

In addition, section 04 observed that HRC, SIT, and TCT offered different body composition and muscle architecture benefits after the 8 weeks training period but no single program was better than another, but the time spent on the training sessions differed. Hence, depending on the necessity of the subjects they can select the training method for their training schedule. Need to write about the body composition

Interestingly, section 05 revealed that the HRC training program is better than other concurrent training protocols (SIT and TCT) for enhancing force and power in young recreational male athletes. Although HRC is recommended since it is so time-effective, the athlete's or coach's preferences may also call for the use of the other two training protocols throughout their training sessions.

Finally, it revealed that all training protocols enhance more or less adaptation respective to each other but some training methods are very time efficient than other training protocols. Thus, depending on the necessity of each athlete and their coaches they can select the training protocol for their training schedule.