Effects of morning versus evening combined strength and endurance training on physical performance, muscle hypertrophy, and serum hormone concentrations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of 24 weeks of morning versus evening same-session combined strength (S) and endurance (E) training on physical performance, muscle hypertrophy, and resting serum testosterone and cortisol diurnal concentrations. Forty-two young men were matched and assigned to a morning (m) or evening (e) E + S or S + E group (mE + S, n = 9; mS + E, n = 9; eE + S, n = 12; and eS + E, n = 12). Participants were tested for dynamic leg press 1-repetition maximum (1RM) and time to exhaustion (T exh ) during an incremental cycle ergometer test both in the morning and evening, cross-sectional area (CSA) of vastus lateralis and diurnal serum testosterone and cortisol concentrations (0730 h; 0930 h; 1630 h; 1830 h). All groups similarly increased 1RM in the morning (14%–19%; p < 0.001) and evening (18%–24%; p < 0.001). CSA increased in all groups by week 24 (12%–20%, p < 0.01); however, during the training weeks 13–24 the evening groups gained more muscle mass (time-of-day main effect; p < 0.05). T exh increased in all groups in the morning (16%–28%; p < 0.01) and evening (18%–27%; p < 0.001), however, a main effect for the exercise order, in favor of E + S, was observed on both testing times (p < 0.051). Diurnal rhythms in testosterone and cortisol remained statistically unaltered by the training order or time. The present results indicate that combined strength and endurance training in the evening may lead to larger gains in muscle mass, while the E + S training order might be more beneficial for endurance performance development. However, training order and time seem to influence the magnitude of adaptations only when the training period exceeded 12 weeks.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".