540
Views
4
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Physiological and Anthropometric Differences Among Endurance, Strength, and High-Intensity Functional Training Participants: A Cross-Sectional Study

Pages 131-142 | Received 10 Nov 2020, Accepted 10 Jun 2021, Published online: 18 Mar 2022
 

ABSTRACT

Purpose: We compared aerobic capacity (V˙O2max), mitochondrial capacity (mV˙O2), anaerobic power, strength, and muscle endurance in healthy, active men from strength (STR), endurance (END) and high-intensity functional training (HIFT) backgrounds. Methods: Twenty-four men (n = 8/group) completed a cycle ergometer test to determine V˙O2max, followed by a 3-min all-out test to determine peak (PP) and end power (EP), and to estimate anaerobic [work done above EP (WEP)] and aerobic work capacity. Strength was determined by knee extensor maximal voluntary contraction at various flexion angles. The endurance index (EI) of the vastus lateralis (VL) was assessed by measuring muscle contraction acceleration during electrical twitch mechanomyography. mV˙O2max of the VL was assessed using near-infrared spectroscopy to estimate muscle oxygen consumption during transient femoral artery occlusions. Results: V˙O2max was significantly different among groups (p < .05). PP was significantly higher in HIFT and STR versus END (p < .05). EP was significantly higher in HIFT and END compared to STR (p < .05). WEP was significantly higher in STR compared to END (p < .05), whereas total work done was significantly higher in HIFT and END compared to STR (p < .05). mV˙O2max and EI were comparable between HIFT and END but significantly lower in STR versus END (p < .05). Torque production was significantly lower in END compared to STR and HIFT at all flexion angles (p < .05), with no difference between STR and HIFT. Conclusion: HIFT participants can exert similar power outputs and absolute strength compared to strength focused participants but exhibit fatigue resistance and mitochondrial capacity comparable to those who train for endurance.

Acknowledgments

Authors would like to thank Kelsey Rasheed, Kayla Waycaster, and William Dufour for help with subject recruitment and data collection. We thank Dr Kevin McCully for advice on study design, methods, and use of laboratory space and equipment.

IRB approval

University of Georgia Institutional Review Board approved all study procedures (Study ID: STUDY00005545), which conformed to Declaration of Helsinki standards, and participants provided written informed consent prior to participation.

Additional information

Funding

This work was not supported by any funding agency.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 61.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 213.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.