REF-329 · Doma et al., 2019 · Sports Medicine, Vol. · Paper · PubMed

Training Considerations for Optimising Endurance Development: An Alternate Concurrent Training Perspective

B+moderate evidenceMeasured on a mixed groupWritten before October 2026, being re-checked

Purpose

Turns the "acute hypothesis" around: the interference usually discussed is resistance training's cost to strength development, but the same processes can compromise endurance adaptation. The review collects the evidence that typical resistance exercise impairs neuromuscular function and endurance performance while resistance-training-induced muscle damage is present, and derives prescription considerations for endurance development. Mechanistic basis in REF-328.

Key Findings — core recommendations (what the abstract supports)

The abstract names five training variables that modulate how much resistance-training-induced muscle damage attenuates endurance performance: exercise intensity, exercise mode, exercise sequence, recovery, and contraction velocity of the resistance training. From those:

1

Recovery between modes is a lever: give endurance-quality sessions enough distance from damaging resistance work. The abstract gives no hours.

2

Sequence: order the two modes so the endurance session is not done on freshly damaged muscle — in practice, endurance before strength when both fall on one day.

3

Mode and intensity: resistance exercise that produces more muscle damage (heavy, eccentric-biased, lower-body) costs the next endurance session more than less damaging work.

4

Contraction velocity: faster, lower-volume explosive resistance work is described as less damaging than traditional slow, high-volume schemes.

5

Prescribe concurrent training so that fatigue between modes is minimised and the quality of endurance sessions is protected; the review also lists variables for future research.

Programming heuristic

Not from this paper; the base's own practice (the review supports the direction, not these hours):

≥24 h after a heavy lower-body or eccentric-biased strength session before a high-quality endurance session (VO2max, threshold, long); up to 48 h after heavy eccentric, drop-set or high-volume plyometric work. Not from this paper; the base's own practice.
Same day: endurance first, then strength, with ≥3 h between — the ≥3 h figure is the meta-analytic condition in REF-330 (Schumann 2022) under which the explosive-strength penalty of same-session training stopped being significant; ≥6 h is preferred when the endurance session is the priority. Not from this paper.
Upper-body-only or trunk work can sit closer to an endurance session (little lower-limb damage). Not from this paper; the base's own practice.
Low-volume, high-velocity strength (few sets of few reps, long rests) needs a shorter buffer than hypertrophy-style volume. Not from this paper; the base's own practice.

Practical Application

Narrative review (Doma, Deakin, Schumann, Bentley 2019): resistance exercise impairs neuromuscular function and endurance performance for as long as the muscle damage it causes lasts, and the size of that cost depends on the resistance session's intensity, mode, sequence relative to the endurance session, recovery between them and contraction velocity — so plan strength around the endurance sessions that matter, not the other way round, and expect a heavy leg session to blunt the next quality ride or run.
The review gives directions, not durations: it does not specify how many hours to leave. The base's 24 h / 48 h / ≥3 h buffers above are practice built on that direction and on REF-330. Not from this paper; the base's own practice.
Inference, not tested: athletes new to strength training or returning after a break will carry more muscle damage per session and need the longer end of any buffer.

Limitations

Narrative review; no systematic search or pooled effect sizes in the abstract
The abstract states the moderating variables but gives no quantities (hours, loads, sets)
Individual variation in muscle-damage response is large; recommendations need individual calibration
Sex differences in recovery not addressed
How this entry was checked and changed
Content correction 2026-09-27
Authors "Kenji Doma, Matthew Nicholls, Anthony Leicht, Jonathan Connor" -> Doma, Deakin, Schumann, Bentley (PubMed).
"Separate modalities by ≥24 h", "minimum 3 h, preferably 6 h", "up to 48 h", the set/rep/%1RM table and "≥60 contacts" -> the abstract gives no hours or loads; the buffers are kept as the base's own practice (with the ≥3 h pointed to REF-330), the set/rep/%1RM table is deleted.
Core recommendations rewritten around the five moderators the abstract actually names (intensity, mode, sequence, recovery, contraction velocity).