Concurrent complex and endurance training for recreational marathon runners: Effects on neuromuscular and running performance

What do we Know about Complex-Contrast Training? A Systematic Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

The complex-contrast training (CCT) method utilizes two exercises with different loads and movement velocities in a set-by-set fashion to induce multiple neuromuscular adaptations. The speculated primary mechanism involves the post-activation potentiation or post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) of the muscles used during the heavy load (low velocity) exercise, thereby improving the performance of lower load (high velocity) exercise. However, no previous study has attempted to systematically synthesize the available evidence on CCT (e.g., if post-activation potentiation or PAPE was measured during the training sessions during the intervention period). This study aimed to synthesize the available evidence on CCT using a systematic scoping review approach. More specifically, we identified gaps in the literature using an evidence gap map (EGM), and provided future directions for research.

METHODS

Three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched up to 20th February 2024. Data were extracted under a PICO framework: (a) Participants-related data (e.g., age, sex, type of sport); (b) Intervention-related data (e.g., duration of training); (c) Comparators (when available); and (d) Outcomes (e.g., measures of physical fitness). Interactive EGMs were created using the EPPI mapper software.

RESULTS

From the 5,695 records screened, 68 studies were eligible for inclusion, involving 1,821 participants (only 145 females from 5 studies). All CCT interventions lasted ≤ 16 weeks. More than half of the studies assessed countermovement jump, sprint, and maximal strength performances. No studies were identified which examined upper-body CCT exercises alone, and no study assessed PAPE during the CCT sessions. Overall, the available evidence was rated with a low level of confidence.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, whether CCT produces a PAPE that translates into longitudinal performance gains remains unclear. Moreover, the available evidence on the effects of CCT on various outcomes provides low confidence regarding the most effective way to implement this training method, particularly among females, and beyond long-term interventions.

Lower Extremity Kinematic and Kinetic Characteristics as Effects on Running Economy of Recreational Runners

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine associations between running economy (RE) and running sagittal plane kinematic and kinetic parameters.

METHOD

A total of 30 male recreational runners (age: 21.21 ± 1.22 yr, V̇O 2max : 54.61 ± 5.42 mL·kg -1 ·min -1 ) participated in two separate test sessions. In the first session, the participant's body composition and RE at 10 and 12 km·h -1 were measured. In the second session, measurements were taken for the sagittal plane of hip, knee, and ankle angles and range of motion (ROM), as well as ground reaction force.

RESULTS

Moderate correlations were found between lower energy costs at 12 km·h -1 and smaller hip flexion at toe-off ( r = 0.373) as well as smaller peak hip flexion during stance ( r = 0.397). During the swing phase, lower energy costs at 10 km·h -1 were moderately correlated with smaller peak knee flexion and smaller knee flexion and extension ROM ( r = 0.366-0.443). Lower energy costs at 12 km·h -1 were moderately correlated with smaller peak hip and knee flexion as well as knee extension ROM ( r = 0.369-0.427). In terms of kinetics, there was a moderate correlation between higher energy costs at 10 km·h -1 and larger peak active force, as well as larger peak braking and propulsion force ( r = -0.470-0.488). Lower energy costs at 12 km·h -1 were moderately to largely correlated with smaller peak impact and braking force ( r = 0.486 and -0.500, respectively). Regarding the statistical parametric mapping analysis, most outcomes showed associations with RE at 10 km·h -1 , including knee flexion (42.5%-65.5% of the gait cycle), ankle plantarflexion (32.5%-36% of the gait cycle), active force (30.5%-35% of the stance phase), and propulsion force (68%-72.5% of the stance phase). Lower energy costs at 12 km·h -1 were correlated with smaller hip flexion (5.5%-12% and 66.5%-74%) and smaller knee flexion (57%-57.5%) during the running gait cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that biomechanical factors are associated with RE in recreational runners. To design effective training methods to improve RE, coaches and runners should focus on the sagittal plane kinematics of the hip, knee, and ankle, as well as lower vertical and horizontal kinetic parameters.

Effects of complex training compared to resistance training alone on physical fitness of healthy individuals: A systematic review with meta-analysis

Combining traditional resistance and ballistic exercises in a complex training (CT) format has shown improved physical fitness compared to the control conditions. However, no meta-analysis has directly compared CT with traditional resistance training (RT) alone. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and WoS. Thirty-two studies involving 726 participants were included. Both RT and CT similarly improved one-repetition maximum (1RM) squat and bench press, 10 m and 30-60 m linear sprint time, squat jump height, jump power, reactive strength index, and standing long jump distance. Compared to RT, CT favoured 5-m (ES = 0.96) and 20-m linear sprint (ES = 0.52), change-of-direction speed (CODS; ES = 0.39), and countermovement jump height (CMJ; ES = 0.36). Furthermore, moderating effects of training frequency, duration, and complex training type were reported. Certainty of evidence was considered low for 5-m and 20-m linear sprints and CODS and very low for other outcomes. Compared to traditional resistance training, complex training may improve 5-m and 20-m linear sprints, CODS, and CMJ height. The effects of complex training may be optimised by longer interventions (≥7 weeks), with ~ 3 weekly training sessions, and using ascending and contrast training formats. However, the certainty of evidence ranges from very low to low.

Effects of Complex Training on Jumping and Change of Direction Performance, and Post-Activation Performance Enhancement Response in Basketball Players

Exercise order is one of the significant factors modulating training effects. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of an 8-week complex (CPX) training program utilizing intra-CPX active recovery with compound training (CMP) on bilateral and single-leg jumping performance, change of direction test time (shuttle test), and the post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) response in a group of basketball players. Thirteen participants were performing CPX bi-weekly combined with regular pre-season basketball practice, while eleven participants were performing CMP for 8 weeks. Before and after the interventions, the following fitness tests were assessed: (i) bilateral countermovement jump, (ii) single-leg countermovement jump, (iii) shuttle run test. All tests were performed pre- and post-conditioning activity (CA-three sets of five drop jumps). The results showed a statistically significant increase in non-dominant (p = 0.019) and dominant single-leg jump relative peak power (p = 0.001), and in non-dominant single-leg jump height (p = 0.022) post-training compared to pre-training. The CA was significantly and similarly effective in eliciting a PAPE response in all tests before and after each intervention (p < 0.039; for all). However, the magnitude of improvement in CMJ and shuttle test time was trivial to small and did not reach statistical significance. Both 8 weeks of CPX and CMP training led to significant improvements in the SLJ power output of both the dominant and non-dominant limbs as well as the height of the non-dominant SLJ. Neither of the training methods had significant impacts on the magnitude of the PAPE response.

Predictors of half-marathon performance in male recreational athletes

Few research has been conducted on predictors of recreational runners' performance, especially in half-marathon running. The purpose of our study was (a) to investigate the relationship of half-marathon race time with training, anthropometry and physiological characteristics, and (b) to develop a formula to predict half-marathon race time in male recreational runners. Recreational runners (n=134, age 44.2±8.7 years; half-marathon race time 104.6±16.2 min) underwent a physical fitness battery consisting of anthropometric and physiological tests. The participants were classified into five performance groups (fast, 73-92 min; above average, 93-99 min; average 100-107 min; below average, 108-117 min; slow group, 118-160 min). A prediction equation was developed in an experimental group (EXP, n=67), validated in a control group (CON, n=67) and prediction bias was estimated with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). Performance groups differed in half-marathon race time, training days, training distance, age, weight, (body mass index) BMI, body fat (BF) and maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max) (p≤0.001, η2≥0.132), where faster groups had better scores than the slower groups. Half-marathon race time correlated with physiological, anthropometric and training characteristics, with the faster the runner, the better the score in these characteristics (e.g., VO2max, r=0.59; BMI, r=-0.55; weekly running distance, r=-0.53, p<0.001). Race time in EXP might be calculated (R2=0.63, standard error of the estimate=9.9) using the equation 'Race time (min)=80.056+2.498×BMI-0.594×VO2max-0.191×weekly training distance in km'. Validating this formula in CON, no bias was shown (difference between observed and predicted value 2.3±12.8 min, 95 % CI -0.9, 5.4, p=0.153). Half-marathon race time was related to and could be predicted by BMI, VO2max and weekly running distance. Based on these relationships, a prediction formula for race time was developed providing a practical tool for recreational runners and professionals working with them.

Heavy Resistance Training Versus Plyometric Training for Improving Running Economy and Running Time Trial Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As an adjunct to running training, heavy resistance and plyometric training have recently drawn attention as potential training modalities that improve running economy and running time trial performance. However, the comparative effectiveness is unknown. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine if there are different effects of heavy resistance training versus plyometric training as an adjunct to running training on running economy and running time trial performance in long-distance runners.

METHODS

Electronic databases of PubMed, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus were searched. Twenty-two studies completely satisfied the selection criteria. Data on running economy and running time trial performance were extracted for the meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were performed with selected potential moderators.

RESULTS

The pooled effect size for running economy in heavy resistance training was greater (g = - 0.32 [95% confidence intervals [CIs] - 0.55 to - 0.10]: effect size = small) than that in plyometric training (g = -0.13 [95% CIs - 0.47 to 0.21]: trivial). The effect on running time trial performance was also larger in heavy resistance training (g = - 0.24 [95% CIs - 1.04 to - 0.55]: small) than that in plyometric training (g = - 0.17 [95% CIs - 0.27 to - 0.06]: trivial). Heavy resistance training with nearly maximal loads (≥ 90% of 1 repetition maximum [1RM], g = - 0.31 [95% CIs - 0.61 to - 0.02]: small) provided greater effects than those with lower loads (< 90% 1RM, g = - 0.17 [95% CIs - 1.05 to 0.70]: trivial). Greater effects were evident when training was performed for a longer period in both heavy resistance (10-14 weeks, g = - 0.45 [95% CIs - 0.83 to - 0.08]: small vs. 6-8 weeks, g = - 0.21 [95% CIs - 0.56 to 0.15]: small) and plyometric training (8-10 weeks, g = 0.26 [95% CIs - 0.67 to 0.15]: small vs. 4-6 weeks, g = - 0.06 [95% CIs 0.67 to 0.55]: trivial).

CONCLUSIONS

Heavy resistance training, especially with nearly maximal loads, may be superior to plyometric training in improving running economy and running time trial performance. In addition, running economy appears to be improved better when training is performed for a longer period in both heavy resistance and plyometric training.

Not Lower-Limb Joint Strength and Stiffness but Vertical Stiffness and Isometric Force-Time Characteristics Correlate With Running Economy in Recreational Male Runners

Neuromuscular characteristics, such as lower-limb joint strength, the ability to reuse elastic energy, and to generate force are essential factors influencing running performance. However, their relationship with running economy (RE) remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlations between isokinetic lower-limb joint peak torque (PT), lower-limb stiffness, isometric force-time characteristics and RE among recreational-trained male runners. Thirty male collegiate runners (aged 20–22 years, VO2max: 54.02 ± 4.67 ml·kg−1·min−1) participated in test sessions on four separate days. In the first session, the body composition and RE at 10 km·h−1 were determined. In the second session, leg and vertical stiffness (Kleg and Kvert), knee and ankle stiffness (Kknee and Kankle) were evaluated. In the third session, isokinetic knee and ankle joint PT at velocity of 60°s−1 were tested. The force-time characteristics of isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) were evaluated in the final session. The Pearson’s product-moment correlations analysis shows that there were no significant relationships between knee and ankle joint concentric and eccentric PT, Kknee and Kankle, Kleg, and RE at 10 km·h−1. However, Kvert (r = −0.449, p &lt; 0.05) and time-specific rate of force development (RFD) for IMTP from 0 to 50 to 0–300 ms (r = −0.434 to −0.534, p &lt; 0.05) were significantly associated with RE. Therefore, superior RE in recreational runners may not be related to knee and ankle joint strength and stiffness. It seems to be associated with vertical stiffness and the capacity to rapidly produce force within 50–300 ms throughout the lower limb.