Are strength and endurance training responses mutually exclusive?

Strength training (ST) and endurance training (ET) are common modalities used in many sports and are known to alter the protein synthetic response. Repeated bouts of exercise results in morphological and molecular adaptations and are highly specific to the type of exercise performed. However, the concomitant ST and ET might interfere or inhibit training response leading to conflicting adaptations.

It is well established that ST induce neuromuscular and metabolic adaptations of skeletal muscle. Acute gains in ST are primarily related to neurological adaptations such as motor unit activation, firing rate, synchronization, agonist-antagonist interaction,  increase rate-of-force-development and potential chronic changes at peripheral, supra and spinal level.

The primary morphological adaptation is the increase in the cross-sectional-area (CSA) as a result of the increase in myofibrillar size and number. Hypertrophy on type IIab fibres is more likely to occur as ST has the potential to decrease myosin heavy chain (MHC) IIb leading to a significant increase in MHC IIa resulting in fibre-type IIab conversion. This preferential hypertrophy of type II fibres is due to an increase in myosin-filament density and myofibrillar proliferation. As myofibrillar size increases, the arrays of the A and I bands causes the actin filaments to pull the Z-disks, while the myofibrillar size increases, a lateral displacement occurs initiating a ‘split’ (Figure 1) of the Z-disks leading to a longitudinal division of the myofibril, eventually resulting are two myofibrils. ST is also associated with tendon, connective tissue adaptations and increase in muscle stiffness as well as changes in pennation angle.

Figure 1: The oblique pull of the peripheral actin filaments resulting in myofibrillar splitting. 

The molecular mechanism of ST is initiated by contractile activity that stimulates secretion of insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) resulting in the initiation of a molecular cascade. The binding of IGF-1 leads to activation of intracellular signalling pathways of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3-k)–Akt– mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) cascade. mTORC1 is regarded as a master controller of anabolic metabolism by promoting protein synthesis, lipid syntheses and nucleotide synthesis following both acute and chronic ST.

Conversely, ET predominantly activate type I muscle fibres which are associated with endurance performance. ET promotes a better utilization fuel and oxygen plus cardiovascular and pulmonary adaptations. ET has shown to increase mitochondrial level and the ability to oxidize pyruvate and conversion of type II to type I fibres as a result of high volume ET. Common cardiovascular adaptation after ET are an increase in the left ventricle, improved stroke volume, decrease in heart rate linked with better cardiac output, increase in capillarization, decrease in blood pressure, increase in red blood cell and volume. Respiratory adaptations relate to increase in ventilation, respiratory rate, increased pulmonary diffusion and the (a-v) O2 difference.   

The molecular response to ET increases mRNA expression in a growing number of genes.  Within these transcriptors co-activators are the Peroxisome proliferator receptor-1α  (PGC-1α), known to rapidly increase after a bout of ET. Mitochondrial biogenesis transcription is mediated by (PGC-1α) and also regulates of conversion of fast-to-slow fibre type. Mitochondrial biogenesis elevates adenosine monophosphate (AMP) which activates the enzyme AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK). A decreases in energy levels are likely to activate AMPK resulting in the activation of pathways involved in carbohydrate and fatty acid catabolism to restore ATP levels.

streng2.png

Figure 2: Cascade of intracellular signalling mediating exercise induced responses to ST and ET. 

Concurrent training (CT) is the concomitant integration of ET and ST during a training program. CT has been used to enhance performance in aerobic sports and recovery or work capacity in anaerobic sports. Studies have shown that CT improves strength and endurance in untrained individuals and trained endurance runners. Conversely, for power sports, CT appears to attenuate power production. However, when physical components are stressed concurrently, improvements appear to be substantially lower when compared with training for either exercise mode alone. This incompatibility of strength and endurance is hypothesized to be acute or chronic. That means, CT is affected by fatigue or substrate depletion (acute hypothesis) or metabolic and molecular adaptations are attenuated (chronic hypothesis).

There has been little elucidation of the mechanisms underlying CT. CT has shown to attenuate strength, hypertrophy and power development. Other studies have found that resistance training has no effect on Vo2Max or either maximise endurance performance. Conversely, CT compromises aerobic capacity versus endurance training alone. The most compelling molecular mechanism proposed to mediate specificity of training and the subsequent interference effect comes from the work of Atherton et al. (2005) who attempted to determine the exercise signalling specific in rats and found that ST increase phosphorylation of the anabolic Akt-mTOR cascade and ET increase AMPK phosphorylation and PGC-1 protein levels. In addition, increases in AMPK-TSC2 activity, PGC1α gene expression elicit inhibition of mTOR. In human studies the result still elusive as the molecular responses reported present an unequal response to exercise because the variability on subjects background. However, it appears that muscle phenotype dictates the molecular response, rather than the mode of exercise. Due to the fact that increases in the myofibrillar content of actin and myosin is the result of ST, whereas the increase in mitochondrial proteins is the result of ET.

In summary, the molecular transcription of ST and ET seems incompatible attributable to their functional outcomes. Adaptations to training are the result of cumulative molecular signaling responses initiating gene expression after exercise bouts and eventually building specific proteins and shifting muscle phenotype.

 

References:

Aagaard, P., Andersen, J. L., Bennekou, M., Larsson, B., Olesen, J. L., Crameri, R., Magnusson, S. P. and Kjaer, M. (2011) “Effects of resistance training on endurance capacity and muscle fiber composition in young top-level cyclists.,” Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 21(6), pp. e298–307.

Aagaard, P., Andersen, J. L., Dyhre-Poulsen, P., Leffers, A.-M., Wagner, A., Magnusson, S. P., Halkjaer-Kristensen, J. and Simonsen, E. B. (2001) “A mechanism for increased contractile strength of human pennate muscle in response to strength training: changes in muscle architecture,” The Journal of Physiology, 534(2), pp. 613–623.

Aagaard, P., Simonsen, E. B., Andersen, J. L., Magnusson, P. and Dyhre-Poulsen, P. (2002) “Neural adaptation to resistance training: changes in evoked V-wave and H-reflex responses.,” Journal of Applied Physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985), 92(6), pp. 2309–18.

Atherton, P. J., Babraj, J., Smith, K., Singh, J., Rennie, M. J. and Wackerhage, H. (2005) “Selective activation of AMPK-PGC-1alpha or PKB-TSC2-mTOR signalling can explain specific adaptive responses to endurance or resistance training-like electrical muscle stimulation.,” FASEB journal: Official Publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 19(7), pp. 786–8.

Balabinis, C. P., Psarakis, C. H., Moukas, M., Vassiliou, M. P. and Behrakis, P. K. (2003) “Early phase changes by concurrent endurance and strength training.,” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 17, pp. 393–401.

Campos, G. E. R., Luecke, T. J., Wendeln, H. K., Toma, K., Hagerman, F. C., Murray, T. F., Ragg, K. E., Ratamess, N. A., Kraemer, W. J. and Staron, R. S. (2002) “Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones.,” European Journal of Applied Physiology, 88(1-2), pp. 50–60.

Chtara, M., Chaouachi, A., Levin, G. T., Chaouachi, M., Chamari, K., Amri, M. and Laursen, P. B. (2008) “Effect of concurrent endurance and circuit resistance training sequence on muscular strength and power development.,” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(4), pp. 1037–45.

Coffey, V. G. and Hawley, J. a (2007) “The molecular bases of training adaptation.,” Sports Medicine, 37(9), pp. 737–63. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17722947.

Duchateau, J. and Baudry, S. (2008). Training Adaptation of the Neuromuscular System. In: Komi, Paavo. (Ed.) The Encyclopaedia of Sports Medicine: An IOC Medical Commission Publication, Neuromuscular Aspects of Sports Performance (Volume XVII). UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. p216-253.

Fernandez-Gonzalo, R., Lundberg, T. R. and Tesch, P. (2013) “Acute molecular responses in untrained and trained muscle subjected to aerobic and resistance exercise training versus resistance training alone.,” Acta Physiologica, 209(4), pp. 283–94.

Folland, J. P. and Williams, A. G. (2007) “The adaptations to strength training : morphological and neurological contributions to increased strength.,” Sports Medicine, 37(2), pp. 145–68. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17241104 (Accessed: October 06, 2014).

Fyfe, J. J., Bishop, D. J. and Stepto, N. K. (2014) “Interference between concurrent resistance and endurance exercise: molecular bases and the role of individual training variables.,” Sports Medicine, 44(6), pp. 743–62.

Gabriel, D. A., Kamen, G. and Frost, G. (2006) “Neural adaptations to resistive exercise: mechanisms and recommendations for training practices.,” Sports Medicine, 36(2), pp. 133–49. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16464122 (Accessed: October 06, 2014).

Glowacki, S. P., Martin, S. E., Maurer, A., Baek, W., Green, J. S. and Crouse, S. F. (2004) “Effects of resistance, endurance, and concurrent exercise on training outcomes in men.,” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 36(12), pp. 2119–27.

Hawley, J. (2009) “Molecular responses to strength and endurance training: are they incompatible?,” Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 34(3), pp. 355–61.

Holloszy, J. O. and Coyle, E. F. (1984) “Adaptations of skeletal muscle to endurance exercise and their metabolic consequences.,” Journal of Applied Physiology: respiratory, environmental and exercise physiology, 56(4), pp. 831–8. Available at: http://jap.physiology.org/content/56/4/831.short (Accessed: October 08, 2014).

Horowitz, J. F., Sidossis, L. S. and Coyle, E. F. (1994) “High efficiency of type I muscle fibers improves performance.,” International Journal of Sports Medicine, 15(3), pp. 152–7.

Huang, K. and Fingar, D. C. (2014) “Growing knowledge of the mTOR signaling network.,” Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology. Elsevier Ltd, pp. 1–12.

Jones, T. W., Howatson, G., Russell, M. and French, D. N. (2013) “Performance and neuromuscular adaptations following differing ratios of concurrent strength and endurance training.,” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 27(12), pp. 3342–51.

Kenney, Wilmore and Costill (2012). Physiology of Sport and Exercise. 5th Ed. USA: Human Kinetics. p248.

Leveritt, M., Abernethy, P. P. J., Barry, B. K. B. and Logan, P. P. A. (1999) “Concurrent strength and endurance training. A review.,” Sports Medicine, 28(6), pp. 413–27. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10623984 (Accessed: September 22, 2014).

Mikkola, J., Rusko, H., Izquierdo, M., Gorostiaga, E. M. and Häkkinen, K. (2012) “Neuromuscular and cardiovascular adaptations during concurrent strength and endurance training in untrained men.,” International Journal of Sports Medicine, 33(9), pp. 702–10.

Rønnestad, B. R., Hansen, E. A. and Raastad, T. (2012) “High volume of endurance training impairs adaptations to 12 weeks of strength training in well-trained endurance athletes.,” European Journal of Applied Physiology, 112(4), pp. 1457–66.

Safdar, A., Little, J. P., Stokl, A. J., Hettinga, B. P., Akhtar, M. and Tarnopolsky, M. A. (2011) “Exercise increases mitochondrial PGC-1alpha content and promotes nuclear-mitochondrial cross-talk to coordinate mitochondrial biogenesis.,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, 286(12), pp. 10605–17.

Schiaffino, S. and Mammucari, C. (2011) “Regulation of skeletal muscle growth by the IGF1-Akt/PKB pathway: insights from genetic models.,” Skeletal Muscle, 1(1), p. 4.

Sedano, S., Marín, P. J., Cuadrado, G. and Redondo, J. C. (2013) “Concurrent training in elite male runners: the influence of strength versus muscular endurance training on performance outcomes.,” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 27(9), pp. 2433–2443.

Wilkinson, S. B., Phillips, S. M., Atherton, P. J., Patel, R., Yarasheski, K. E., Tarnopolsky, M. A. and Rennie, M. J. (2008) “Differential effects of resistance and endurance exercise in the fed state on signalling molecule phosphorylation and protein synthesis in human muscle.,” The Journal of Physiology, 586(15), pp. 3701–17.

Wilson, J. M., Loenneke, J. P., Jo, E., Wilson, G. J., Zourdos, M. C. and Kim, J.-S. (2012) “The effects of endurance, strength, and power training on muscle fiber type shifting.,” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(6), pp. 1724–9.

Wilson, J. M., Marin, P. J., Rhea, M. R., Wilson, S. M. C., Loenneke, J. P. and Anderson, J. C. (2012) “Concurrent training: a meta-analysis examining interference of aerobic and resistance exercises.,” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(8), pp. 2293–2307.

Yamamot, L. M., Lopez, R. M., Klau, J. F., Casa, D. J., Kraemer, W. J. and Maresh, C. M. (2008) “The effects of resistance training on endurance distance running performance among highly trained runners: a systematic review.,” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(6), pp. 2036–44.