Resistance‐only and concurrent exercise induce similar myofibrillar protein synthesis rates and associated molecular responses in moderately active men before and after training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aerobic and resistance exercise (RE) induce distinct molecular responses. One hypothesis is that these responses are antagonistic and unfavorable for the anabolic response to RE when concurrent exercise is performed. This thesis may also depend on the participants' training status and concurrent exercise order. We measured free‐living myofibrillar protein synthesis (MyoPS) rates and associated molecular responses to resistance‐only and concurrent exercise (with different exercise orders), before and after training. Moderately active men completed one of three exercise interventions (matched for age, baseline strength, body composition, and aerobic capacity): resistance‐only exercise ( RE , n = 8), RE plus high‐intensity interval exercise ( RE+HIIE , n = 8), or HIIE+RE ( n = 9). Participants trained 3 days/week for 10 weeks; concurrent sessions were separated by 3 h. On the first day of Weeks 1 and 10, muscle was sampled immediately before and after, and 3 h after each exercise mode and analyzed for molecular markers of MyoPS and muscle glycogen. Additional muscle, sampled pre‐ and post‐training, was used to determine MyoPS using orally administered deuterium oxide (D 2 O). In both weeks, MyoPS rates were comparable between groups. Post‐exercise changes in proteins reflective of protein synthesis were also similar between groups, though MuRF1 and MAFbx mRNA exhibited some exercise order‐dependent responses. In Week 10, exercise‐induced changes in MyoPS and some genes ( PGC‐1ɑ and MuRF1 ) were dampened from Week 1. Concurrent exercise (in either order) did not compromise the anabolic response to resistance‐only exercise, before or after training. MyoPS rates and some molecular responses to exercise are diminished after training.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".