The use of aerobic exercise in combination with resistance training in a training session in order to improve aerobic capacity and muscle strength, is called Competitor Training (KRAMER et al., 1995).

How to make use of such a method is a constant dilemma in gyms, therefore the use needs to be analyzed so as not to prejudice the results of the practitioner.

The use of this method can adversely affect the gain of strength and hypertrophy compared to conventional training with weights (KRAEMER et al, 1995;. Puttman et al., 2004). For Kraemer et al. (1995), the reductions of these variable gains are dependent on the choice of the frequency, volume and is performed continuously or with intervals, another interference raised by Leveritt et al. (2003) is to use the method preceding the resistance training.

Some studies raise the molecular hypothesis that the interference caused by concurrent training be given by reason of competing pathways, in which, cause conflicting intracellular adaptations (ATHERTON et al, 2005;. NADER, 2006; COFEY E HAWLEY, 2007).

Atherton et al. (2005) compared high stimuli against low stimuli on stimulating protein synthesis (Akt / mTOR / p70 S6K1). The authors report their findings in the concurrent training have lower values of protein synthesis and increase the degradation of ATP, consequently inhibiting the anabolic process.

Hickson et al. (1980) and Kraemer et al. (1995) found significant differences in their studies in strength gains between weight training and concurrent training (30% and 19.5%, and 35% and 24%, respectively). However, in the studies cited have used race remains moderate, 10 and 12 weeks of the experiment and 4:05 weekly training sessions, which generated difficulty in muscle recovery and may explain the lower strength gain.

Since McCarthy et al. (2002) and Glowacki et al. (2004) used weekly frequency of sessions 2:03 and found no significant differences between the groups, which underlines the hypothesis of weekly frequency interfere in the relevant results to strength gains.

Regarding hypertrophy, McCarthy et al. (2002) found similar increases in cross-sectional area of the quadriceps muscle, however, when assessing changes in

muscle fibers, noted increase in slow twitch fibers in TP while the TC did not cause changes.

The increased cross-sectional area of the muscle of a sequence of events which leads to the intracellular protein synthesis. Regarding this done, the way Akt / mTOR / p70 S6K1 has been associated with hypertrophy induced by overload in skeletal muscle (DELDICQUE et al. 2008). The mTOR is known to forforilar the p70S6K1 protein and stimulate the beginning of the process. Leger et al. (2006), concomitantly observed hypertrophy and phosphorylation of p70 S6K1, reinforcing the hypothesis.

In the current study, Sousa et al. (2012) evaluated the cross-sectional area of muscle, muscle strength, and the signs of AMPK, Akt and p70 S6K1 in conditions of aerobic training (AT) training with weights (TP) and Competitor Training (CT). The authors found no differences in hypertrophy and muscle strength between TP and TC, and only two showed significant increases in these variables. The same occurred in relation to signaling AKT and p70 S6K1. In the AMPK activation analysis, TA had significant increases while the other methods did not show these values.

Frosig et al. (2004) study produced which analyzed the effects of activation after three weeks of endurance training where noted increased AMPK activation. Studies highlight that activation of AMPK inhibits the hypertrophic pathways (BOLSTER et al, 2002;. ATHERTON et al, 2005;. AGUILAR et al., 2007). We should emphasize that training with intense weights do not cause increases in activation of AMPK (Dreyer et al., 2006), such a feat has only increased immediately after brief training session, leaving then to have effect and leading to phosphorylation of mTOR-p70 S6K1.

It is plausible to consider that the effects of intense training overlaps the results of aerobic training when effected concurrent training, thus making the most effective results and without damage (SOUSA et al., 2012).