The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 13 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
19 Own result · 7 Not checked yet · 5 Own method · 3 Own interpretation
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a significant correlation existed between the changes in pre-to posttraining values for FFM and BMR (r ϭ 0.74, P Ͻ 0.01).”
§ Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals > BMR and body composition.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals > BMR and body composition.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“however, the differences between the two groups were not significant.”
§ Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals > BMR and body composition.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All groups showed significant decreases in BF from baseline to week 10.”
§ Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals > RESULTS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ET group significantly improved in V ˙O2max from baseline to week 10 (by 13%)”
§ Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals > RESULTS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“BMR increased significantly from pre-to posttraining for RT (7,613 Ϯ 968 to 8,090 Ϯ 951 kJ/day)”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and in fact there was a slight, nonsignificant decrease found in the ET group.”
§ Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals > BMR and body composition.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and CT (7,455 Ϯ 964 to 7,802 Ϯ 981 kJ/day)”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Maximal aerobic power increased significantly for ET (13%) but not RT (Ϫ0.2%) or CT (7%)”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“when BMR was normalized to FFM (kJ • kg FFM Ϫ1 •h Ϫ1 ), there were no significant improvements in BMR for any of the three groups”
§ Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals > BMR and body composition.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 15
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- Probably not a substantial claim. 7
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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%).”
§ Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals > RESULTS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both the ET and CT groups showed significant decreases in FM from baseline to week 10.”
§ Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals > RESULTS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No significant differences in RT and CT groups from pre-to mid-and from mid-to posttraining were observed.”
§ Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals > RESULTS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals > RESULTS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“although V ˙O2max increased in the CT group (by 7%) after training, this value was not statistically significant from baseline.”
§ Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ET group significantly decreased absolute BMR (kJ/day) over the 10-wk training period.”
§ Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals > BMR and body composition.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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%).”
§ Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals > RESULTS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals > Subjects.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“although RT alone will increase BMR and muscular strength”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and ET alone will increase aerobic power and decrease BF”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals > BMR and body composition.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [24] Shaw D. K., 1991, J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All samples were analyzed in duplicate by using standard spectrophotometric techniques, with the average of the duplicate values used in statistical analysis.”
§ Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals > V ˙O2max .
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All training was periodically monitored by an investigator.”
§ Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals > Training program.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Pratley et al. (21) found that resistance training in healthy older men increased BMR, and this was accompanied by an increase in FFM.”
§ Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals > BMR and body composition.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The system was calibrated before testing by using gases of known concentration, whereas the flowmeter was calibrated by using a 3-liter syringe.”
§ Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals > Subjects.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It has been proposed that increases in lean body mass will increase BMR, thus increasing total energy expenditure (19).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals > BMR and body composition.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [29] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals
“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).”
§ Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals > RESULTS
“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%).For the 1-RM bench press, the RT group significantly increased the most (24%), and the CT group improved to a lesser degree (12%)”
Citations
Cites
Kraemer, W. J., Patton, J. F., Gordon, S. E., Harman, E. A., Deschenes, M. R., Reynolds, K., Newton, R. U., Triplett, N. T., & Dziados, J. E. (1995) · Journal of Applied Physiology · doi:10.1152/jappl.1995.78.3.976 · Cited by 782 · cited 1×
“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).”
BackgroundInterference of strength development by simultaneously training for strength and endurance.
Hickson, R. C. (1980) · European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology · doi:10.1007/bf00421333 · Cited by 753
Familial Dependence of the Resting Metabolic Rate
Bogardus, C., Lillioja, S., Ravussin, E., Abbott, W., Zawadzki, J. K., Young, A., Knowler, W. C., Jacobowitz, R., & Moll, P. P. (1986) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198607103150205 · Cited by 398
Incompatibility of endurance- and strength-training modes of exercise
Dudley, G. A., & Djamil, R. (1985) · Journal of Applied Physiology · doi:10.1152/jappl.1985.59.5.1446 · Cited by 324
Pratley, R., Nicklas, B., Rubin, M., Miller, J., Smith, A., Smith, M., Hurley, B., & Goldberg, A. (1994) · Journal of Applied Physiology · doi:10.1152/jappl.1994.76.1.133 · Cited by 299
Potential for strength and endurance training to amplify endurance performance
Hickson, R. C., Dvorak, B. A., Gorostiaga, E. M., Kurowski, T. T., & Foster, C. (1988) · Journal of Applied Physiology · doi:10.1152/jappl.1988.65.5.2285 · Cited by 295
Weinsier, R., Schutz, Y., & Bracco, D. (1992) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/55.4.790 · Cited by 262
Strength training effects on aerobic power and short-term endurance
Hickson, R. C., ROSENKOETTER, M. A., & BROWN, M. M. (1980) · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · doi:10.1249/00005768-198012050-00006 · Cited by 236
Interaction between concurrent strength and endurance training
SALE, D. G., MacDOUGALL, J. D., Jacobs, I. A., & Garner, S. (1990) · Journal of Applied Physiology · doi:10.1152/jappl.1990.68.1.260 · Cited by 230
Compatibility of adaptive responses with combining strength and endurance training
McCARTHY, J. P., AGRE, J. C., GRAF, B. K., POZNIAK, M. A., & VAILAS, A. C. (1995) · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · doi:10.1249/00005768-199503000-00021 · Cited by 228
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Hennessy L. C., 1994, J. Strength Cond. Res., 8, 12
- Hortobagyi T., 1991, J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness, 31, 20
- Hunter G., 1987, J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness, 27, 269
- Kolkhorst F. W., 1994, J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness, 34, 343
- Shaw D. K., 1991, J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness, 31, 67
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Progression Models in Resistance Training for Healthy Adults
(2009) · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e3181915670 · Cited by 4,332
“In addition to sport-specific training (112,140,147,154), periodized resistance training has been shown to be effective for recreational (47,118,238) and rehabilitative (62) training goals.”
BackgroundProgression Models in Resistance Training for Healthy Adults
(2002) · Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise · doi:10.1097/00005768-200202000-00027 · Cited by 2,979
“In addition to sportspecific training, periodized RT has been shown to be effective for recreational (54) and rehabilitative (67) objectives and is supported through a meta-analytical investigation to be superior to nonperiodized RT (223).”
BackgroundSelf-citationWilson, J. M., Marin, P. J., Rhea, M. R., Wilson, S. M., Loenneke, J. P., & Anderson, J. C. (2012) · Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · doi:10.1519/jsc.0b013e31823a3e2d · Cited by 587
“Concurrent training, relative to resistance training alone, has been shown to result in decrements in strength (13,21,25,29), hypertrophy (25,29,39), and power (21,24,26,29,31).”
BackgroundWillis, L. H., Slentz, C. A., Bateman, L. A., Shields, A. T., Piner, L. W., Bales, C. W., Houmard, J. A., & Kraus, W. E. (2012) · Journal of Applied Physiology · doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.01370.2011 · Cited by 496
“Recruited 4 Month Run-In Period 196 Randomized 8 Month Exercise Intervention Aerobic (73) Aerobic + Resistance (57) Included (44) Exercise Dropouts (14) Excluded from Analysis (8) Included (38) Exercise Dropouts (25) Excluded from Analysis (10) Included (37) Exercise Dropouts (13) Excluded from Analysis (7) Reasons fo…”
InfluentialPescatello, L. S., MacDonald, H. V., Lamberti, L., & Johnson, B. T. (2015) · Current Hypertension Reports · doi:10.1007/s11906-015-0600-y · Cited by 431
Metadata
- 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
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Applied Physiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-02, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-02 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
