This study investigated the effects of combined aerobic and heavy resistance training on the variables of body composition, muscle hypertrophy, and exercise satisfaction in physically active adults in comparison with heavy resistance training only (predominantly designed for hypertrophy). Twenty-two healthy male adults between the ages of 18 and 35, who had limited previous experience with muscle resistance training, participated in the intervention program while maintaining their physical activity level. The participants were randomly allocated into two groups: the resistance training group (control group) and the combined training group (experimental group), which involved both resistance training and aerobic training. Aerobic training consisted of 30 min aerobic interval training sessions three times a week with a total of 8 min work bouts in each at 60–70% of heart rate reserve (HRR). The intervention training program lasted for eight weeks. Resistance training consisted of a 3-day muscle group split (2–3 exercises per muscle group, 8 sets per muscle group, 6–12 repetition maximum (RM). Upon completion, body composition, muscle hypertrophy, and exercise satisfaction were analyzed using the mixed-design ANOVA. Variables selected for this study as markers of body composition responded differently to the different interventions and time; however, some trends were not statistically significant. Overall, it is not possible to state unequivocally that one training modality was superior to another in the body composition cluster, for significant improvements were observed within the groups from pre- to post-interventions, but no significant differences were observed between the resistance training and combined training groups, while, both interventions showed improvement with time in some variables of muscle hypertrophy. Compared to baseline, the exercise satisfaction post-intervention improved within the groups. From pre- to post-testing, both resistance and combined training groups improved exercise satisfaction (p < 0.05 in both groups). However, there was no significant difference in exercise satisfaction observed between the resistance training and combined training groups after the training intervention (p > 0.05).

While aerobic training and, to a lesser degree, resistance training are known to reduce blood concentrations of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), little is known about the effects of a combination of aerobic and resistance training on LDL-C concentrations. The aim of the investigation was to examine the effects of 16 weeks of no exercise, aerobic training or a combination of aerobic and resistance training on lowering blood concentrations of LDL-C. Thirty-eight healthy, previously untrained men (mean age: 25 years and six months) with borderline high blood LDL-C concentrations volunteered to participate in this investigation. Each subject’s blood LDL-C concentrations were measured following a nine- to 12-hour fasting period and prior to any exercise. Aerobic training consisted of exercise using a combination of treadmills, rowers, steppers and cycle ergometers. Combined aerobic and resistance training consisted of a combination of aerobic training at 60% of heart rate maximum, and resistance training using eight prescribed exercises performed for two sets of 15 repetitions at 60% of the estimated one-repetition maximum (1-RM). The no-exercise group was found to have had no significant (p ≤ 0.05) change in blood LDL-C concentrations (from 4.12 ± 0.27 to 4.21 ± 0.42 mmol.l-1), whereas the aerobic training and combined training groups showed significant and similar (p = 0.123) decreases in blood LDL-C concentrations (from 3.64 ± 2.87 to 2.87 ± 0.64 mmol.l-1 and from 4.39 ± 1.04 to 3.23 ± 0.71 mmol.l-1, respectively). This investigation indicates that a larger dose of aerobic exercise does not necessarily equate to a greater improvement in LDL-C concentrations if the lost aerobic exercise time is replaced with resistance exercise.

IBRA, the world's longest established apicultural research publishers, promotes the value of bees by providing information on bee science and beekeeping worldwide. A not-for-profit organisation founded in 1949

Extensive research has been attempted in sports recently by implementing video/notational analysis, given that its benefits in improving performance have been shown to exist. The present study was conducted to determine whether the taekwondo junior and senior athletes differ in: (1) their attacking techniques of choice and (2) opting for various value groups of scoring kicks during taekwondo match. A total of 38 matches of 11 seniors and 10 juniors during a national level taekwondo competition were recorded for the research on the frequency and variety of the techniques attempted in a match through notational analysis. The results revealed significant differences (p<0.05) between the groups on the preferred attacking techniques used during their matches but no significant differences were found between them on the technique groups used (i.e. 1, 2-, and 3-point scoring techniques). Seniors were superior in performing 1- and 2-point techniques whereas juniors were superior in performing 3-point techniques. Seniors had significantly higher overall techniques efficiency (p<0.05) than juniors. In order to achieve technical efficiency similar to that of seniors, juniors need to improve on their 1- and 2-points techniques while continuing to progress in deploying the 3-point techniques.

Since various sports differ in number of competitions athletes participate in, difference would come in the periodisation patterns as well. For instance, endurance sports such as marathon and long distance running, limit participation of the athletes to few competitions within a year/season. This results in planning long macrocycles of training often equalling a year in duration. This happens when major competitions of the year are grouped together (ie, October–November) and athlete can successfully participate in them within one peaking attempt. In case major competitions are scattered over the year or the gap between them is too long (ie, April–May and October–November), we need to follow double periodisation. Power sports, like sprints, jumps, weightlifting, etc, can have their representatives participating in larger number of competitions a year and their planning pattern could be pretty different. It can well fit into double periodisation pattern, but when three to five major competitions are there to participate within the year (ie, March, July and November), triple or multiple periodisation patterns might be of use. Team games like football, basketball, hockey and others, with traditionally long competitive periods when they play league matches for 4–5 months or even longer, plan their macrocycle in completely different manner. They still follow single periodisation pattern but they change the ratio of periods within the macrocycle. Individual/group games like tennis and badminton follow more or less the multi-peaking patterns with very brief and precisely planned training periods (rather blocks). The reason being, besides participation in the four Grand Slam tournaments and year finale in the form of ATP/WTA world championships (top eight only), players need to play at least four warming up tournaments at various surfaces. Atop of it they need to play good number of ranking tournaments to ensure high ranking and good chances for better seeding in the major tournaments.