Comparative efficacy of concurrent training types on lower limb strength and muscular hypertrophy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare, through quantitative analysis, the effectiveness of different endurance training types on increasing lower limb strength and muscle cross-sectional area (MCSA) in concurrent training.

METHODS

This systematic literature search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) [PROSPERO ID: CRD42023396886]. Web of Science, SportDiscuss, Pubmed, Cochrane, and Scopus were systematically searched from their inception date to October 20, 2023.

RESULTS

A total of 40 studies (841 participants) were included in this meta-analysis. MCSA analysis showed that, compared to resistance training alone, concurrent high-intensity interval running training and resistance training and concurrent moderate-intensity continuous cycling training and resistance training were more effective (SMD = 0.15, 95% CI = -0.46 to 0.76, and SMD = 0.07, 95% CI = -0.24 to 0.38 respectively), while other modalities of concurrent training not. Lower body maximal strength analysis showed that all modalities of concurrent training were inferior to resistance training alone, but concurrent high-intensity interval training and resistance training showed an advantage in four different concurrent training modalities (SMD = -0.08, 95% CI = -0.25 to 0.08). For explosive strength, only concurrent high-intensity interval training and resistance training was superior to resistance training (SMD = 0.06, 95% CI = -0.21 to 0.33).

CONCLUSION

Different endurance training types have an impact on the effectiveness of concurrent training, particularly on lower limb strength. Adopting high-intensity interval running as the endurance training type in concurrent training can effectively minimize the adverse effects on lower limb strength and MCSA.