The present study aimed to investigate the physiological response to CrossFit “workouts of the day” (WODs) based on two different structures of training session: 1) the “as many repetitions as possible” (AMRAP) “Cindy” and 2) the “round for time” (RFT) “Open 18.4” session....

This study investigated the effect of non-periodized training performed at 80, 100 and 120% of the anaerobic threshold intensity (AnT) and a linear periodized training model adapted for swimming rats on the gene expression of monocarboxylate transporters 1 and 4 (MCT1 and 4, in soleus and gastrocnemius muscles), protein contents, blood biomarkers, tissue glycogen, body mass, and aerobic and anaerobic capacities. Sixty Wistar rats were randomly divided into 6 groups (n = 10 per group): a baseline (BL; euthanized before training period), a control group (GC; not exercised during the training period), three groups exercised at intensities equivalent to 80, 100 and 120% of the AnT (G80, G100 and G120, respectively) at the equal workload and a linear periodized training group (GPE). Each training program lasted 12 weeks subdivided into three periods: basic mesocycle (6 weeks), specific mesocycle (5 weeks) and taper (1 week). Although G80, G100 and G120 groups were submitted to monotony workload (i.e. non-modulation at intensity or volume throughout the training program), rodents were evaluated during the same experimental timepoints as GPE to be able comparisons. Our main results showed that all training programs were capable to minimize the aerobic capacity decrease promoted by age, which were compared to control group. Rats trained in periodization model had reduced levels of lipid blood biomarkers and increased hepatic glycogen stores compared to all other trained groups. At the molecular level, only expressions of MCT1 in the muscle were modified by different training regimens, with MCT1 mRNA increasing in rats trained at lower intensities (G80), and MCT1 protein content showed higher values in non-periodized groups compared to pre-training and GPE. Here, training at different intensities but at same total workload promoted similar adaptations in rats. Nevertheless, our results suggested that periodized training seems to be optimize the physiological responses of rats.

We investigated the effects of acute and chronic exercise, prescribed in different intensity zones, but with total load-matched on mitochondrial markers (cytochrome C oxidase subunit IV (COX-IV), mitochondrial transcription factor A (Tfam), and citrate synthase (CS) activity in skeletal muscles, heart, and liver), glycogen stores, aerobic capacity, and anaerobic index in swimming rats. For this, 2 experimental designs were performed (acute and chronic efforts). Load-matched exercises were prescribed below, above, and on the anaerobic threshold (AnT), determined by the lactate minimum test. In chronic programs, 2 training prescription strategies were assessed (monotonous and linear periodized model). Results show changes in glycogen stores but no modification in the COX-IV and Tfam contents after acute exercises. In the chronic protocols, COX-IV and Tfam proteins and CS adaptations were intensity- and tissue-dependent. Monotonous training promoted better adaptations than the periodized model. Training at 80% of the AnT improved both performance variables, emphasizing the anaerobic index, concomitant to CS and COX-IV improvement (soleus muscle). The aerobic capacity and CS activity (gastrocnemius) were increased after 120% AnT training. In conclusion, acute exercise protocol did not promote responses in mitochondrial target proteins. An intensity and tissue dependence were reported in the chronic protocols, highlighting training at 80 and 120% of the AnT. Novelty: Load-matched acute exercise did not enhance COX-IV and Tfam contents in skeletal muscles, heart, and liver. In chronic exercise, COX-IV, Tfam, and CS activity adaptations were intensity- and tissue-dependent. Monotonous training was more efficient than the periodized linear model in adaptations of target proteins and enzymatic activity.

Despite strength training (ST) being well characterized by professional runners, little is known about the inclusion of ST models for recreational runners. Thus, the present study aimed to investigate the presence of ST in the training practices of recreational runners, with a focus on understanding its characteristics and the motivations of recreational athletes for including ST in their routines. To this end, 801 recreational runners (493 male and 308 female) completed a structured questionnaire regarding their training habits, the inclusion of ST, and its characteristics, concerning the type of ST, training volume, and the reasons for including ST in their training programs. To assess the possible associations between categorical variables, data were analyzed using the chi-square test for independent samples. Approximately 625 runners (78.1%) reported that they included ST in their training routine, with a statistically significant difference between the sexes (men: 73.5% vs. women: 85.4%; X² = 14.09; p = 0.01). Traditional strength training (TST) was the predominant type of ST included (78.5%), with most participants performing 2–4 sets and 8–12 repetitions per set at a frequency of 3–4 sessions per week. The importance of ST was primarily attributed to performance improvement (85%). The results suggest that recreational runners incorporate different types of ST into their training routines, with TST being the predominant type perceived by runners as a valuable asset for improving running performance.