## 4 Discussion
[15] who reported, regardless of intensity (60% = 80% 1 RM), a greater impairment in rowing ergometer performance when preceded by VBT protocols with high velocity loss in the set (30% > 10%). Such discrepancies regarding the effect of the relative load with the [PERSON]'s study [15] could be partly explained by the endurance performance indicator (MAS estimated from RTT vs. 2000 m rowing ergometer time trial), or the level of the study sample (recreationally trained adults vs. competitive rowers). More specifically, the muscles groups involved (back squat in our study vs. prone bench pull in [PERSON]'s study [15]) may explain potential differences between studies. Indeed, our results are in line with [PERSON] et al. [13] who reported a higher detriment to running performance when subjects completed threefull-squat sets at 60% 1 RM with a magnitude of 40% but not 20% velocity loss. It is therefore not surprising that, due to the higher fatigue levels and slower rates of recovery, a higher MAS has been reported following a concurrent running and VBT program with a lower velocity loss threshold in the set (15% vs. 45%) [14]. It has been shown that men have a higher muscle mass and proportion of type I fibers than women [31]. Such sex differences might explain the greater muscle fatigability in women compared to men [31]. [PERSON] et al. [17] recently observed that women require a greater velocity loss (40%) than men to maximize strength and power gains after an eight-week resistance training program. More specifically, [PERSON] et al. [19] reported a greater amount of fatigue, in terms of decreased maximal and explosive strength, in men than in women after a concurrent training session. In disagreement with those studies [17; 19], our hypothesis was rejected since men not only reported a comparable number of repetitions during VBT protocols, but also a comparable MAS performance deterioration after VBT protocols than women. It is possible to speculate that the greater muscular fatigability in the women may be offset by the greater muscular strength (back squat 1 RM relative to body mass = 1.8 vs. 1.6) and VO2 max (46 vs. 37 mL\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\cdot\)min\({}^{-1}\)) reported in the men. Of note, research has reported that resistance-untrained individuals present a greater magnitude of muscle damage and attenuation in muscle function than resistance-trained individuals [32]. Taken together, our results suggest that there is a comparable impairment of running performance (MAS) immediately after VBT between recreationally trained men and women. Several issues need to be acknowledged when interpreting the findings from the present study. First, it should be taken into account the training status and history of our sample before generalizing the results of this crossover study. For example, [PERSON] et al. [18] revealed that men were more susceptible to acute loss in force production capacity after different VBT protocols, but there were no signs of females being less fatigable after the eight-week velocity-based intervention. Second, we have examined the impact of resistance training-induced fatigue on endurance performance following a single bout of resistance training. In this regard, [PERSON] et al. [33] reported that the magnitude of the increase in muscle damage markers was attenuated following a second resistance training bout in resistance-untrained runners and, therefore, it has been speculated that repeated resistance training bouts during concurrent training could minimize RT-SEP [8]. Finally, it is important to highlight that the subjects performed both training modalities (VBT and RTT) in the same session.