Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29127601›Full record

ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2018

Interpreting Adaptation to Concurrent Compared with Single-Mode Exercise Training: Some Methodological Considerations.

Jackson J Fyfe, Jeremy P Loenneke

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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 30 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  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

2 authors.

Jackson J FyfeSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Melbourne, VIC, 3125, Australia. jackson.fyfe@deakin.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9541-2336
Jeremy P LoennekeKevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Incorporating both endurance and resistance training into an exercise regime is termed concurrent training. While there is evidence that concurrent training can attenuate resistance training-induced improvements in maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy, research findings are often equivocal, with some suggesting short-term concurrent training may instead further enhance muscle hypertrophy versus resistance training alone. These observations have questioned the validity of the purported 'interference effect' on muscle hypertrophy with concurrent versus single-mode resistance training. This article aims to highlight some methodological considerations when interpreting the concurrent training literature, and, in particular, the degree of changes in strength and muscle hypertrophy observed with concurrent versus single-mode resistance training. Individual training status clearly influences the relative magnitude and specificity of both training adaptation and post-exercise molecular responses in skeletal muscle. The training status of participants is therefore likely a key modulator of the degree of adaptation and interference seen with concurrent training interventions. The divergent magnitudes of strength gain versus muscle hypertrophy induced by resistance training also suggests most concurrent training studies are likely to observe more substantial changes in (and in turn, any potential interference to) strength compared with muscle hypertrophy. Both the specificity and sensitivity of measures used to assess training-induced changes in strength and muscle hypertrophy also likely influence the interpretation of concurrent training outcomes. Finally, the relative importance of any modulation of hypertrophic versus strength adaptation with concurrent training should be considered in context with the relevance of training-induced changes in these variables for enhancing athletic performance and/or functional capacity. Taken together, these observations suggest that aside from various training-related factors, additional non-training-related variables, including participant training status and the measures used to assess changes in strength and muscle hypertrophy, are important considerations when interpreting the outcomes of concurrent training interventions.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalExerciseResistance TrainingAthletic PerformanceHumansHypertrophyMuscle, SkeletalPhysical Endurance

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.