Purpose: To compare the effects of 2 different intensity distribution training programs (threshold [THR] and polarized [POL]) on fat metabolism and neuromuscular variables. Methods: Twenty ultrarunners were allocated to POL (n = 11; age 40.6 [9.7] y, weight 73.5 [10.8] kg, VO2max 55.8 [4.9] mL·kg−1·min−1) or THR group (n = 9; age 36.8 [9.2] y, weight 75.5 [10.4] kg, VO2max 57.1 [5.2] mL·kg−1·min−1) and performed a 12-week training program that consisted of 5 running sessions, 2 strength sessions, and 1 day of full rest per week. Both groups performed similar total training duration and load but with different intensity distribution during running sessions. Resting metabolic rate, fat metabolism, isometric rate of force development (RFD; N·s−1) and maximal voluntary contraction in the knee extensor, and electromyographic amplitude were measured before and after each program. Results: A significant decrease in RFD0–100 ms (Δ −13.4%; P ≤ .001; effect size [ES] = 1.00), RFD0–200 ms (Δ −11.7%; P ≤ .001; ES = 1.4), and RFDpeak (Δ −18%; P ≤ .001; ES = 1.4) were observed in the POL group. In THR group, a significant increase in mean electromyographic amplitude (Δ 24.4%; P = .02; ES = 1.4) was observed. There were no significant differences between groups in any of the variables. Conclusions: Similar adaptations in fat metabolism and neuromuscular performance can be achieved after 12 weeks of POL or THR intensity distribution. However, THR distribution appears to better maintain strength (RFD) and improve mean electromyographic amplitude. Nevertheless, the combination of both running and maximum strength training could influence on results because of the residual fatigue thus inducing suboptimal adaptations in the POL group.
Andrés Pérez, Domingo J. Ramos-Campo, Cristian Marín-Pagan, Francisco J. Martínez-Noguera, Linda H. Chung and Pedro E. Alcaraz
Marcos A. Soriano, Amador García-Ramos, Antonio Torres-González, Joaquín Castillo-Palencia, Pedro J. Marín, Pilar Sainz de Baranda and Paul Comfort
Objective: To (1) compare the 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) performance between the push press, push jerk, and split jerk and (2) explore these differences between weightlifters, CrossFit athletes, and a mixed group of athletes. Methods: Forty-six resistance-trained males (age 28.8 [6.4] y; height 180.0 [6.0] cm; body mass 84.1 [10.2] kg; weightlifting training experience 3.64 [3.14] y) participated in this study. The 1RM performance of the push press, push jerk, and split jerk was assessed during the same session in a sequential order (ie, combined 1RM assessment method). Thirty-six participants were retested to determine between-sessions reliability of the 1RM values. Results: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) showed a high between-sessions reliability for the push press (ICC = .98; 95% CI, .95–.99), push jerk (ICC = .99; 95% CI, .98–1.00), and split jerk (ICC = .99; 95% CI, .98–1.00). There was a significant main effect of exercise (η 2 = .101) and exercise × group interaction (η 2 = .012) on 1RM performance (P < .001), whereas the main effect of group did not reach statistical significance (P = .175). Conclusions: This study provides evidence that the weightlifting overhead press derivatives affect 1RM performance. In addition, the interaction of exercise and sport group was caused by the higher differences in 1RM performance between exercises for weightlifters compared with CrossFit and a mixed group of athletes. Therefore, strength and conditioning professionals should be aware that the differences in 1RM performance between weightlifting overhead-press derivatives may be affected by sport group.