CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 228Sports Performance and TrainingCardiovascular and exercise physiologyMuscle metabolism and nutrition

Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals

Open access
Dolezal, Brett A., Potteiger, Jeffrey A.·1998·Journal of Applied Physiology
DOI 10.1152/jappl.1998.85.2.695
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Thirty physically active healthy men (20.1 ± 1.6 yr) were randomly assigned to participate for 10 wk in one of the following training groups: endurance trained (ET; 3 days/wk jogging and/or running), resistance trained (RT; 3 days/wk resistance training), or combined endurance and resistance trained (CT). Before and after training, basal metabolic rate (BMR), percent body fat (BF), maximal aerobic power, and one-repetition maximum for bench press and parallel squat were determined for each subject. Urinary urea nitrogen was determined pre-, mid-, and posttraining. BMR increased significantly from pre- to posttraining for RT (7,613 ± 968 to 8,090 ± 951 kJ/day) and CT (7,455 ± 964 to 7,802 ± 981 kJ/day) but not for ET (7,231 ± 554 to 7,029 ± 666 kJ/day). BF for CT (12.2 ± 3.5 to 8.7 ± 1.7%) was significantly reduced compared with RT (15.4 ± 2.7 to 14.0 ± 2.7%) and ET (11.8 ± 2.9 to 9.5 ± 1.7%). Maximal aerobic power increased significantly for ET (13%) but not RT (−0.2%) or CT (7%), whereas the improvements in one-repetition maximum bench press and parallel squat were greater in RT (24 and 23%, respectively) compared with CT (19 and 12%, respectively). Urinary urea nitrogen loss was greater in ET (14.6 ± 0.9 g/24 h) than in RT (11.7 ± 1.0 g/24 h) and CT (11.5 ± 1.0 g/24 h) at the end of 10 wk of training. These data indicate that, although RT alone will increase BMR and muscular strength, and ET alone will increase aerobic power and decrease BF, CT will provide all of these benefits but to a lesser magnitude than RT and ET after 10 wk of training.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In 30 nondieting, physically active young men, 10 weeks of resistance training or combined resistance-plus-endurance training raised basal metabolic rate, while endurance training alone lowered it. Combined training produced benefits across body composition, strength, and aerobic power, but generally to a smaller degree than the single-mode programs.

Key findings

  • BMR rose significantly in the resistance group (7,613 ± 968 to 8,090 ± 951 kJ/day) and combined group (7,455 ± 964 to 7,802 ± 981 kJ/day), but fell significantly in the endurance group (7,231 ± 554 to 7,029 ± 666 kJ/day); the resistance and combined changes did not differ significantly from each other.
  • Body fat decreased in all groups, with a larger reduction in the combined group (−3.5 ± 1.8%) than in resistance (−1.4 ± 0.1%) or endurance (−2.3 ± 1.2%). Fat-free mass increased in resistance (2.7 ± 0.4 kg) and combined (3.2 ± 0.9 kg) but decreased in endurance (−1.4 ± 0.9 kg).
  • Maximal aerobic power increased significantly only in the endurance group (13%); the combined group rose 7% but was not statistically significant from baseline, and resistance changed −0.2%. Strength gains were larger in resistance than combined: bench press 24% vs 12%, and squat 23% vs 19% in the results section.
  • Urinary urea nitrogen at 10 weeks was higher in endurance (14.6 ± 0.9 g/24 h) than in resistance (11.7 ± 1.0 g/24 h) or combined (11.5 ± 1.0 g/24 h). Across all groups, change in fat-free mass correlated with change in BMR (r = 0.74, P < 0.01).

Methods

  • Thirty healthy, physically active men (20.1 ± 1.6 yr) were randomly assigned to endurance training, resistance training, or combined training (n = 10 each) for 10 weeks, training 3 days/week on alternate days.
  • Before and after training, the study measured BMR by indirect calorimetry, body composition by hydrostatic weighing, maximal aerobic power by treadmill test, one-repetition maximum bench press and squat, urinary urea nitrogen, and 3-day dietary intake.
  • Analysis used one-way ANOVA on pre-to-post difference scores with Tukey post hoc tests, repeated-measures ANOVA for urinary urea nitrogen and diet, within-group t-tests, and Pearson correlation; significance was set at P ≤ 0.05.

Limitations

  • The paper does not explicitly list limitations. Evident limitations include the small sample of 30 young, physically active men, the short 10-week training period, and the absence of a nonexercising control group, which restrict generalizability and causal inference.
  • Diet was ad libitum; 3-day food diaries showed no significant changes, but self-reported intake may not fully capture energy balance or dietary compliance.
  • When BMR was normalized to fat-free mass, no group showed significant improvement, and the endurance group had a nonsignificant fat-free mass decline; the authors’ explanation linking BMR changes to fat-free mass changes is therefore partly speculative.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/jappl.1998.85.2.695

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 13 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Across all three groups combined, the change in fat-free mass was significantly correlated with the change in basal metabolic rate (r = 0.74, P < 0.01).

    “a significant correlation existed between the changes in pre-to posttraining values for FFM and BMR (r ϭ 0.74, P Ͻ 0.01).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    When basal metabolic rate was expressed per kilogram of total body mass per hour, it increased significantly from baseline to week 10 in the resistance-training and concurrent-training groups.

    “absolute BMR (kJ/day) and BMR expressed as kJ • kg TM Ϫ1 •h Ϫ1 increased significantly over the 10-wk training period for RT and CT groups”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The increase in basal metabolic rate did not differ significantly between the resistance-training and concurrent-training groups.

    “however, the differences between the two groups were not significant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    All three training groups showed a significant reduction in body fat percentage from baseline to week 10.

    “All groups showed significant decreases in BF from baseline to week 10.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The endurance-training group significantly improved maximal aerobic power from baseline to week 10, by 13%.

    “The ET group significantly improved in V ˙O2max from baseline to week 10 (by 13%)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 15
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 7

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    One-repetition maximum squat increased significantly in the resistance-training group (23%) and the concurrent-training group (19%), while the endurance-training group showed no change (-0.7%).

    “For the 1-RM squat, significant increases in both the RT (23%) and CT (19%) groups occurred, whereas the ET group did not change (Ϫ0.7%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The endurance-training and concurrent-training groups both showed significant reductions in fat mass from baseline to week 10.

    “Both the ET and CT groups showed significant decreases in FM from baseline to week 10.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The resistance-training and concurrent-training groups showed no significant changes in urinary urea nitrogen from pre- to midtraining or from mid- to posttraining.

    “No significant differences in RT and CT groups from pre-to mid-and from mid-to posttraining were observed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The resistance-training and concurrent-training groups significantly increased fat-free mass from baseline to week 10 (by about 2.7 and 3.2 kg, respectively) and had significantly higher fat-free mass than the endurance-training group at week 10.

    “The RT and CT groups significantly increased in FFM from baseline to week 10 (by 2.7 Ϯ 0.4 kg and 3.2 Ϯ 0.9 kg, respectively) and were significantly higher compared with the ET group (Ϫ1.4 Ϯ 0.9 kg) at week 10.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The concurrent-training group had a significantly larger decrease in body fat percentage and fat mass than the resistance-training and endurance-training groups.

    “Comparison among groups showed a significantly greater decrease for BF and FM for the CT group (Ϫ3.5 Ϯ 1.8% and Ϫ2.6 Ϯ 1.8 kg, respectively) than for the RT and ET groups”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Maximal aerobic power increased by 7% in the concurrent-training group, but this change was not statistically significant from baseline.

    “although V ˙O2max increased in the CT group (by 7%) after training, this value was not statistically significant from baseline.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    In the endurance-training group, absolute basal metabolic rate fell significantly over the 10-week training period (from about 7,231 to 7,030 kJ/day).

    “The ET group significantly decreased absolute BMR (kJ/day) over the 10-wk training period.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    One-repetition maximum bench press increased most in the resistance-training group (24%), less in the concurrent-training group (12%), and did not change in the endurance-training group (-0.4%).

    “For the 1-RM bench press, the RT group significantly increased the most (24%), and the CT group improved to a lesser degree (12%), whereas the ET group did not change (Ϫ0.4%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Participants were allocated at random to one of three training conditions.

    “Subjects were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups: an endurance-trained group (ET, n ϭ 10), a resistance-trained group (RT, n ϭ 10), and a combined endurance-and resistance-trained group (CT, n ϭ 10).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals

    After 10 weeks, concurrent resistance and endurance training provided the benefits of both resistance training and endurance training, but each benefit was smaller than with the respective single-mode training.

    “These data indicate that, although RT alone will increase BMR and muscular strength, and ET alone will increase aerobic power and decrease BF, CT will provide all of these benefits but to a lesser magnitude than RT and ET after 10 wk of training.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals

    Resistance training alone increased basal metabolic rate and muscular strength.

    “although RT alone will increase BMR and muscular strength”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals

    Endurance training alone increased aerobic power and decreased body fat.

    “and ET alone will increase aerobic power and decrease BF”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Urea is the main nitrogen-containing product of protein catabolism in humans, and breakdown of fat-free mass raises urinary urea nitrogen.

    “Because urea is the major nitrogen-containing metabolic product of protein catabolism in humans, as FFM is degraded there is a release of nitrogen-derived ammonia that causes urinary urea nitrogen to become elevated (24).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [24] Shaw D. K., 1991, J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Urinary urea nitrogen samples were analyzed in duplicate using standard spectrophotometric techniques, and the average of the duplicates was used.

    “All samples were analyzed in duplicate by using standard spectrophotometric techniques, with the average of the duplicate values used in statistical analysis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    An investigator periodically checked the training sessions.

    “All training was periodically monitored by an investigator.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In healthy older men, resistance training increased basal metabolic rate, accompanied by an increase in fat-free mass.

    “Pratley et al. (21) found that resistance training in healthy older men increased BMR, and this was accompanied by an increase in FFM.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [21] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The metabolic measurement system was calibrated before testing with known gases and a 3-liter syringe.

    “The system was calibrated before testing by using gases of known concentration, whereas the flowmeter was calibrated by using a 3-liter syringe.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals

    Increases in lean body mass are proposed to raise basal metabolic rate and thereby total energy expenditure.

    “It has been proposed that increases in lean body mass will increase BMR, thus increasing total energy expenditure (19).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [19] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Increases in basal metabolic rate from resistance training can be explained by increases in fat-free mass, whereas endurance-training increases in basal metabolic rate appear partly mediated by a higher rate of activity per kilogram of tissue.

    “It has been demonstrated that, whereas the increase in BMR with resistance training can be accounted for by concomitant increases in FFM, elevations in BMR found with endurance training appear to be partially mediated by an increase in the rate of activity per kilogram of tissue (29).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [29] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals

    Prior research indicates that concurrent resistance and endurance training is more detrimental to strength gains than to aerobic power.

    “Moreover, they have demonstrated that the impact of concurrent training appears to be more detrimental to potential strength gains (5, 8, 9, 13, 18, 23) and not aerobic power (2, 5, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, 22, 23).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [5] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [8] Hennessy L. C., 1994, J. Strength Cond. Res.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [9] source

      Not checked in the free run.

20 of 20

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Before this study, no published work had tested how combined resistance and endurance training affects basal metabolic rate in people not dieting.

    “To our knowledge, no studies exist that have addressed the influence of concurrent resistance and endurance training on BMR in nondieting individuals.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Many people take part in combined resistance and endurance training, but little is known about how this training affects metabolic rate.

    “Many individuals participate in concurrent resistance-and endurance-training programs, yet limited information is known about the effect of this type of training on metabolic rate.”
2 of 2

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Resistance but not endurance exercise increases muscle mass and resting metabolic rate, providing better weight loss maintenance in long-term observation.

    “Although both endurance and resistance exercise lead to fat loss (Benito et al, 2015), resistance but not endurance exercise increases muscle mass and resting metabolic rate (Poehlman et al, 1991, 2002; Dolezal & Potteiger, 1998; Hunter et al, 2000), providing better weight loss maintenance in long‐term observation.”

    From Exercise‐induced α‐ketoglutaric acid stimulates muscle hypertrophy and fat loss through OXGR1‐dependent adrenal activation (2020) · cites this paper as Dolezal & Potteiger, 1998

    The BMR and body composition section reports that resistance training increased basal metabolic rate while endurance training decreased it over 10 weeks. The summary also reports increased fat-free mass with resistance training. The paper did not observe long-term weight-loss maintenance, and it describes concurrent training—not resistance training alone—as the most effective strategy for weight loss. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • For the CT vs RT comparison for fat mass, removal of Dolezal 1998 altered the findings.

    “Furthermore, for the CT and RT comparison for fat mass, removal of Dolezal 1998 [25] altered the findings.”

    From Comparison of concurrent, resistance, or aerobic training on body fat loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2025) · cites this paper as [25]

  • For the RT vs AT comparison for FFM, results went from significant to non-significant with the removal of Ghahramanloo 2009, Dolezal 1998, Izquierdo 2005, LeMura 2000, McCarthy 1995, and Villareal 2017.

    “For the RT vs. AT comparison for FFM, results went from significant to non-significant with the removal of Ghahramanloo 2009 [28], Dolezal 1998 [25], Izquierdo 2005 [31], LeMura 2000 [33], McCarthy 1995 [37], and Villareal 2017 [45].”

    From Comparison of concurrent, resistance, or aerobic training on body fat loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2025) · cites this paper as [25]

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Concurrent group's bench-press and squat gains are reversed in the abstract

    Minor

    The abstract assigns 19% to bench press and 12% to squat for the concurrent group. The results assign 12% to bench press and 19% to squat, consistent with the values in Table 3.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Hennessy L. C., 1994, J. Strength Cond. Res., 8, 12
  2. Hortobagyi T., 1991, J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness, 31, 20
  3. Hunter G., 1987, J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness, 27, 269
  4. Kolkhorst F. W., 1994, J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness, 34, 343
  5. Shaw D. K., 1991, J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness, 31, 67

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Dolezal, B. A., & Potteiger, J. A.
Affiliations
University of Kansas (US)
ORCID
Dolezal, Brett A.
Venue
Journal of Applied Physiology
Publisher
American Physiological Society
Published
1998-08-01
Volume
85
Issue
2
Pages
695-700
ISSN
  • 0161-7567 (ISSN-L)
  • 8750-7587
  • 1522-1601
DOI
10.1152/jappl.1998.85.2.695
OpenAlex
W2101541389
Cited by
228
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 15
FWCI
2.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Physiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
Keywords
basal metabolic rate, resistance training, endurance training, fat mass, maximal aerobic capacity, muscle strength, one-repetition maximum, urinary urea nitrogen, healthy men
MeSH terms
Adult, Aerobiosis, Basal Metabolism, Body Composition, Diet, Humans, Male, Metabolism, Oxygen Consumption, Physical Endurance, Physical Fitness, Urea, Weight Lifting

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-02.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-02.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review