Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32407361›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2020

Order of same-day concurrent training influences some indices of power development, but not strength, lean mass, or aerobic fitness in healthy, moderately-active men after 9 weeks of training.

Matthew J-C Lee, James K Ballantyne, Javier Chagolla, William G Hopkins, Jackson J Fyfe, Stuart M Phillips, David J Bishop, Jonathan D Bartlett

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Effects of concurrent training sequence on VOFrontiers in physiology · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Resistance Training for Cyclists: Scientific Evidence and Practical Recommendations.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Matthew J-C LeeInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9937-3445
James K BallantyneInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.
Javier ChagollaInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.
William G HopkinsInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.
Jackson J FyfeCentre for Sport Research, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Australia.
Stuart M PhillipsDepartment of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1956-4098
David J BishopInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6956-9188
Jonathan D BartlettInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe importance of concurrent exercise order for improving endurance and resistance adaptations remains unclear, particularly when sessions are performed a few hours apart. We investigated the effects of concurrent training (in alternate orders, separated by ~3 hours) on endurance and resistance training adaptations, compared to resistance-only training. MATERIALS AND

methodsTwenty-nine healthy, moderately-active men (mean ± SD; age 24.5 ± 4.7 y; body mass 74.9 ± 10.8 kg; height 179.7 ± 6.5 cm) performed either resistance-only training (RT, n = 9), or same-day concurrent training whereby high-intensity interval training was performed either 3 hours before (HIIT+RT, n = 10) or after resistance training (RT+HIIT, n = 10), for 3 d.wk-1 over 9 weeks. Training-induced changes in leg press 1-repetition maximal (1-RM) strength, countermovement jump (CMJ) performance, body composition, peak oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]), aerobic power ([Formula: see text]), and lactate threshold ([Formula: see text]) were assessed before, and after both 5 and 9 weeks of training.

resultsAfter 9 weeks, all training groups increased leg press 1-RM (~24-28%) and total lean mass (~3-4%), with no clear differences between groups. Both concurrent groups elicited similar small-to-moderate improvements in all markers of aerobic fitness ([Formula: see text] ~8-9%; [Formula: see text] ~16-20%; [Formula: see text] ~14-15%). RT improved CMJ displacement (mean ± SD, 5.3 ± 6.3%), velocity (2.2 ± 2.7%), force (absolute: 10.1 ± 10.1%), and power (absolute: 9.8 ± 7.6%; relative: 6.0 ± 6.6%). HIIT+RT elicited comparable improvements in CMJ velocity only (2.2 ± 2.7%). Compared to RT, RT+HIIT attenuated CMJ displacement (mean difference ± 90%CI, -5.1 ± 4.3%), force (absolute: -8.2 ± 7.1%) and power (absolute: -6.0 ± 4.7%). Only RT+HIIT reduced absolute fat mass (mean ± SD, -11.0 ± 11.7%).

conclusionsIn moderately-active males, concurrent training, regardless of the exercise order, presents a viable strategy to improve lower-body maximal strength and total lean mass comparably to resistance-only training, whilst also improving indices of aerobic fitness. However, improvements in CMJ displacement, force, and power were attenuated when RT was performed before HIIT, and as such, exercise order may be an important consideration when designing training programs in which the goal is to improve lower-body power.

Indexed as

Resistance TrainingAdultBody CompositionBody WeightExerciseHumansMaleMotor ActivityMuscle StrengthPhysical Fitness

Identifiers

PMID32407361
PMCPMC7224562

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.