The Order of Exercise during Concurrent Training for Rehabilitation Does Not Alter Acute Genetic Expression, Mitochondrial Enzyme Activity or Improvements in Muscle Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concurrent exercise combines different modes of exercise (e.g., aerobic and resistance) into one training protocol, providing stimuli meant to increase muscle strength, aerobic capacity and mass. As disuse is associated with decrements in strength, aerobic capacity and muscle size concurrent training is an attractive modality for rehabilitation. However, interference between the signaling pathways may result in preferential improvements for one of the exercise modes. We recruited 18 young adults (10 ♂, 8 ♀) to determine if order of exercise mode during concurrent training would differentially affect gene expression, protein content and measures of strength and aerobic capacity after 2 weeks of knee-brace induced disuse. Concurrent exercise sessions were performed 3x/week for 6 weeks at gradually increasing intensities either with endurance exercise preceding (END>RES) or following (RES>END) resistance exercise. Biopsies were collected from the vastus lateralis before, 3 h after the first exercise bout and 48 h after the end of training. Concurrent exercise altered the expression of genes involved in mitochondrial biogenesis (PGC-1α, PRC, PPARγ), hypertrophy (PGC-1α4, REDD2, Rheb) and atrophy (MuRF-1, Runx1), increased electron transport chain complex protein content, citrate synthase and mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase enzyme activity, muscle mass, maximum isometric strength and VO 2peak. However, the order in which exercise was completed (END>RES or RES>END) only affected the protein content of mitochondrial complex II subunit. In conclusion, concurrent exercise training is an effective modality for the rehabilitation of the loss of skeletal muscle mass, maximum strength, and peak aerobic capacity resulting from disuse, regardless of the order in which the modes of exercise are performed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".