Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28917030›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2018

The Role of Intra-Session Exercise Sequence in the Interference Effect: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

Lee Eddens, Ken van Someren, Glyn Howatson

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Lee EddensDepartment of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1135-7024
Ken van SomerenDepartment of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Glyn HowatsonDepartment of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. glyn.howatson@northumbria.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8494-2043
Northumbria University · GBNorth-West University · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a necessity for numerous sports to develop strength and aerobic capacity simultaneously, placing a significant demand upon the practice of effective concurrent training methods. Concurrent training requires the athlete to perform both resistance and endurance exercise within a training plan. This training paradigm has been associated with an 'interference effect', with attenuated strength adaptation in comparison to that following isolated resistance training. The effectiveness of the training programme rests on the intricacies of manipulating acute training variables, such as exercise sequence. The research, in the most part, does not provide a clarity of message as to whether intra-session exercise sequence has the potential to exacerbate or mitigate the interference effect associated with concurrent training methods.

objectiveThe aim of the systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess whether intra-session concurrent exercise sequence modifies strength-based outcomes associated with the interference effect.

methodsTen studies were identified from a systematic review of the literature for the outcomes of lower-body dynamic and static strength, lower-body hypertrophy, maximal aerobic capacity and body fat percentage. Each study examined the effect of intra-session exercise sequence on the specified outcomes, across a prolonged (≥5 weeks) concurrent training programme in healthy adults.

resultsAnalysis of pooled data indicated that resistance-endurance exercise sequence had a positive effect for lower-body dynamic strength, in comparison to the alternate sequence (weighted mean difference, 6.91% change; 95% confidence interval 1.96, 11.87 change; p = 0.006), with no effect of exercise sequence for lower-body muscle hypertrophy (weighted mean difference, 1.15% change; 95% confidence interval -1.56, 3.87 change; p = 0.40), lower-body static strength (weighted mean difference, -0.04% change; 95% confidence interval -3.19, 3.11 change; p = 0.98), or the remaining outcomes of maximal aerobic capacity and body fat percentage (p > 0.05).

conclusionThese results indicate that the practice of concurrent training with a resistance followed by an endurance exercise order is beneficial for the outcome of lower-body dynamic strength, while alternating the order of stimuli offers no benefit for training outcomes associated with the interference effect.

Indexed as

ExerciseMuscle StrengthPhysical EnduranceResistance TrainingAdolescentAdultFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleMiddle AgedMuscle, SkeletalReproducibility of ResultsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28917030
PMCPMC5752732
OpenAlexW2756131155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.