Effects of endurance training only versus same-session combined endurance and strength training on physical performance and serum hormone concentrations in recreational endurance runners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of endurance training only (E, n = 14) and same-session combined training, when strength training is repeatedly preceded by endurance loading (endurance and strength training (E+S), n = 13) on endurance (1000-m running time during incremental field test) and strength performance (1-repetition maximum (1RM) in dynamic leg press), basal serum hormone concentrations, and endurance loading-induced force and hormone responses in recreationally endurance-trained men. E was identical in the 2 groups and consisted of steady-state and interval running, 4-6 times per week for 24 weeks. E+S performed additional mixed-maximal and explosive-strength training (2 times per week) immediately following an incremental running session (35-45 min, 65%-85% maximal heart rate). E and E+S decreased running time at week 12 (-8% ± 5%, p = 0.001 and -7% ± 3%, p < 0.001) and 24 (-13% ± 5%, p < 0.001 and -9% ± 5%, p = 0.001). Strength performance decreased in E at week 24 (-5% ± 5%, p = 0.014) but was maintained in E+S (between-groups at week 12 and 24, p = 0.014 and 0.011, respectively). Basal serum testosterone and cortisol concentrations remained unaltered in E and E+S but testosterone/sex hormone binding globulin ratio decreased in E+S at week 12 (-19% ± 26%, p = 0.006). At week 0 and 24, endurance loading-induced acute force (-5% to -9%, p = 0.032 to 0.001) and testosterone and cortisol responses (18%-47%, p = 0.013 to p < 0.001) were similar between E and E+S. This study showed no endurance performance benefits when strength training was performed repeatedly after endurance training compared with endurance training only. This was supported by similar acute responses in force and hormonal measures immediately post-endurance loading after the training with sustained 1RM strength in E+S.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".