Compatibility of concurrent aerobic and resistance training on maximal aerobic capacity in sedentary males

SUMMARY: Aerobic and resistance training are often performed concurrently by inactive individuals and those patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation, despite contradictory findings that this mode of training may impair the development of maximal aerobic capacity (VO(2max)). The aim of the study, therefore, was to compare the effects of 16 weeks of aerobic, resistance and concurrent aerobic or resistance training on VO(2max) development. Fifty apparently healthy males (25 years ± 8 months) were randomly assigned to a non-exercising control group (NonG) (n = 12), an aerobic training group (AerG) (n = 12), a resistance-training group (ResG) (n = 13), or a concurrent aerobic and resistance-training group (ConG) (n = 13). VO(2max) was measured pre- and post-experimentally using a continuous on-line oxygen analyser. Aerobic training consisted of exercise using a combination of treadmills, rowers, steppers and cycle ergometers, whereas resistance training consisted of eight prescribed exercises performed for three sets of 15 repetitions at 60% of the estimated one-repetition maximum (1-RM). In an attempt to equalise exercise duration across all three experimental groups, concurrent aerobic and resistance training consisted of a combination of aerobic training at 60% of heart rate maximum, and resistance training for two sets of 15 repetitions at 60% of the estimated 1-RM. The NonG were found to have decreased their VO(2max) by 3.36%, whereas the ResG increased their mean VO(2max) by 13.16%. The AerG and ConG increased their mean VO(2max) by 34.12 and 29.58%, respectively. In conclusion, concurrent training did not significantly interfere with development of aerobic capacity in sedentary males when compared to aerobic training. Therefore, this investigation did not support the concept of the universal nature of the interference effect that supposes the superiority of a single mode of training.