Implications of Impaired Endurance Performance following Single Bouts of Resistance Training: An Alternate Concurrent Training Perspective
Background / Rationale
Classical "interference hypothesis" is framed chronically (strength blunts endurance adaptation over weeks). Doma et al. argue a complementary *acute* mechanism: a single resistance bout induces residual fatigue that can impair the *quality* of a subsequent endurance session for several hours to days if recovery is inadequate; if endurance training quality is consistently compromised across a concurrent program, optimal endurance development may be limited.
Key Findings
A single bout of resistance training induces residual fatigue that may impair performance in a subsequent endurance session when recovery is inadequate
The carry-over lasts "several hours to days" (the abstract gives no hour figures)
The review collects cross-sectional studies reporting impaired endurance performance after a single or multiple bouts of resistance training
The link between acute fatigue responses and chronic adaptation is not fully established; there is "some evidence" that cumulative fatigue may limit optimal endurance development
Coaches can modulate concurrent-training variables — order of training mode, between-mode recovery period, training intensity — to limit the carry-over of fatigue from resistance to endurance sessions
Proposed Mechanisms
1
Impaired neural recruitment patterns
2
Reduced movement efficiency: altered kinematics during endurance exercise and increased energy expenditure
3
Increased muscle soreness
4
Reduced muscle glycogen
Practical Application
A hard strength session degrades the quality of the endurance session that follows it for several hours to days (Doma 2017, narrative review): the mechanisms are impaired neural recruitment, worse movement efficiency and higher energy cost, muscle soreness and reduced muscle glycogen — so protect quality endurance work (VO2max intervals, threshold, race-sim, long rides) by ordering and spacing it away from heavy lower-body strength, not by hoping the athlete "pushes through".
The review's own lever list is order of training mode, the between-mode recovery period and training intensity: change one of these rather than dropping the strength work.
Not from this paper: the base's hour figures for the gap — quality endurance work not within 24 h of a heavy lower-body strength session, 48 h after high-volume or eccentric-heavy sessions, ≥6 h when same-day is unavoidable — are carried by REF-329 (Doma 2019 applied framework) and REF-330 (Schumann 2022 meta-analysis).
Inference, not tested: a low-intensity Z1/Z2 spin is the least affected by the listed mechanisms and is the sensible session to place in the fatigue window; sequence heavy leg day → recovery gap → long ride within the microcycle.
Limitations
Narrative review, not meta-analysis; the abstract gives no study counts, effect sizes or time windows
The authors state the link between acute fatigue and chronic adaptation "has not been fully established"
Individual variability in fatigue/EIMD response not quantified
Does not separate cycling vs running responses
How this entry was checked and changed
Content correction 2026-09-27
"Running economy impaired 6 h after", "submaximal VO2 elevated 24-48 h", "TTE/TT reduced 24-48 h" -> deleted; the abstract says only "several hours to days".
"Impairment scales with intensity + volume + eccentric component" and "largest with measurable EIMD (CK, DOMS)" -> deleted; not in the abstract. Fifth mechanism "low-grade inflammation" -> deleted; the abstract lists four mechanisms.
Practical gap rules (24 h / 48 h / ≥6 h) -> relabelled "Not from this paper", pointed to REF-329 and REF-330 which carry them; lead bullet now states the review's actual thesis and mechanisms.
"Most included studies used untrained or recreationally trained participants" -> deleted; not in the abstract.