It remains unclear whether different training modalities, such as strength training (ST) and cross-training (CT), induce distinct musculoskeletal adaptations. In this cross-sectional study, thirty-seven males with at least 2 years of experience in the respective modality participated (ST = 20; CT = 17). After anthropometric assessment, vastus lateralis (VL) muscle architecture and stiffness were evaluated, determining fascicle length (FL), muscle thickness (MT), pennation angle (PA), and shear-wave velocity. Knee extensor peak torque was measured in an isokinetic dynamometer at 60°/s, 180°/s, and 300°/s and normalized to the maximum voluntary isometric contraction. One-repetition maximum (1RM) in the barbell back squat was estimated within three trials with knee flexion standardized at 120° (0°= full extension) and normalized to body mass. Specific tension was calculated based on MT and peak torque. Statistical significance was set at α = 0.05, and Cohen's D effect size was calculated. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess muscle architecture reliability. An independent sample t-test revealed a higher training experience (ES = 1.02) and weekly training volume (ES = 0.88; p 0.05). The peak torque in all tested velocities and 1RM was higher for CT compared to ST (ES = 1.03-1.38; p < 0.05). Interrater reliability ranged from good to excellent (ICC = 0.841-0.992; p < 0.05). Although the cross-sectional design adopted, the current study provides important insights into musculoskeletal differences between training modalities, in accordance with the principle of specificity.
Viera et al. (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: