Effect of neuromuscular resistance training on the performance of 5-km runners

Abstract

The study aimed to identify the effect of a neuromuscular resistance training protocol (NRTP) on the performance of 5-km distance runners. This study included 18 male runners (age=29.3±3.2 years, fat percentage=11.3±2.6%, body height=1.77±.04 m, body mass=73.4±4.4 kg, time in 5 km=20.6±2.4 min, training years=4.3±0.7 years). First, volunteers were anthropometrically evaluated, and they performed one-repetition maximum (1RM) 45º leg press (LP) strength test. Second, they performed an incremental protocol in the 45º LP to acquire the electromyographic threshold. Third, they completed a 5-km time trial run (5 km basal). In the fourth session, they performed NRTP in LP. And fifth, the 5-km time trial run was performed at 30 min, 48 h, 96 h, and 144 h post the NRTP intervention. A significant decrease (p≤.05) was observed when baseline values were compared with post 30 min and post 48 h (p=.02 and p=.04, respectively). However, there were significant positive differences in performance (p=.04 for time) when baseline values and post 144 h were analyzed. Therefore, it is concluded that the NRTP can be used by 5-km distance runners to improve their performance with a break of one week between the intervention and test.

Acute Neuromuscular, Physiological and Performance Responses After Strength Training in Runners: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Ten studies [ 4 , 23 , 25 – 28 , 33 – 37 ] analyzed the outcome immediately after the intervention. Eleven [ 19 – 21 , 25 , 27 , 29 – 31 , 33 – 35 , 37 ] also analyzed outcomes 24 h later, whereas 9 [ 19 – 22 , 27 , 31 , 33 – 35 ] also included outcomes 48 h later. The funnel plot shows symmetrical results and high concentration at the top of the pyramid indicating low risk of bias of studies included in the meta-analysis (Fig.…”

“…The time to complete one kilometer was evaluated in two studies. Low [ 23 ] used a PAP protocol in which a significant reduction in time was observed, whereas in Guimarães [ 35 ] there was an increase in the time to complete 5 km when comparing the values pre vs post 30 min and post 48 h ( p = 0.02 and p = 0.04, respectively). As for the distance covered, Taipale [ 28 ] used combined training protocols and reported that there was no significant difference between control or experimental conditions (11.6 ± 0.9 / 11.7 ± 1.0 km).…”

“…Regarding direct performance measures, few studies have evaluated this variable. Of the selected articles, although statistically different values were observed between the experimental and control groups for speed (km/h) during treadmill running at 1% incline in one study [ 22 ]; stride length [ 19 , 28 ]; and in the time to finish a 5 km run, in absolute values this difference was relevant immediately after the session, but irrelevant after 48 h (20.63 ± 2.42 min before intervention; 22.40 ± 2.86 min after 30 min and 21.26 ± 2.56 min after 48 h) [ 35 ].…”

“…The experimental approach of 4 studies [19][20][21][22] presented as specific intervention protocols that aim to generate maximum "exercise-induced muscle damage" (EIMD), whereas 2 [23,24] used characteristic protocols in order to generate post-activation potentiation (PAP). Other studies presented the intervention as a ST session, in which one used plyometrics combined with ST [25], five performed the intervention with combined training (combined strength exercises in the same session with aerobics) [26][27][28][29][30] and seven used a traditional ST session [31][32][33][34][35][36][37]. The summary of the characteristics of the studies included in the review is described in Ten studies [4,23,[25][26][27][28][33][34][35][36][37] analyzed the outcome immediately after the intervention.…”

“…Other studies presented the intervention as a ST session, in which one used plyometrics combined with ST [25], five performed the intervention with combined training (combined strength exercises in the same session with aerobics) [26][27][28][29][30] and seven used a traditional ST session [31][32][33][34][35][36][37]. The summary of the characteristics of the studies included in the review is described in Ten studies [4,23,[25][26][27][28][33][34][35][36][37] analyzed the outcome immediately after the intervention. Eleven [19-21, 25, 27, 29-31, 33-35, 37] also analyzed outcomes 24 h later, whereas 9 [19-22, 27, 31, 33-35] also included outcomes 48 h later.…”