Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2026
Resistance versus concurrent training with three assigned protein targets in middle-aged and older women: a randomized 2 × 3 factorial trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bagheri Reza, Ghobadi Hamid, Mansordehghan Maryam, M Camera Donny, Kargarfard Mehdi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Evidence is limited regarding whether assigned protein targets modify responses to resistance training (RT) alone or to the same RT program plus cycling (concurrent training [CT]) in middle-aged and older women. This randomized 2 × 3 factorial trial examined bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)-derived skeletal muscle mass (SMM; primary outcome), other body composition outcomes, muscular and functional performance, and cycle-derived estimated VO₂max.
METHODS: In this randomized 2 × 3 factorial trial, 108 women aged 40-77 years were assigned to 12 weeks of supervised RT or CT (identical RT followed by cycling) and protein targets of 0.8, 1.6, or 2.2 g·kg-1·d-1. Baseline-adjusted ANCOVA tested training × protein interactions and marginal training and protein effects. Complete-case analyses included 83 participants.
RESULTS: For SMM, no training-condition × protein-target interaction (p = 0.856), marginal protein-target effect (p = 0.726), or marginal training-condition effect (p = 0.273) was detected. CT had a lower baseline-adjusted week-12 BFP than RT (adjusted difference, -2.04 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.94 to -1.14; p < 0.001). RT had a higher baseline-adjusted week-12 leg-press estimated 1-RM than CT (CT - RT: -6.68 kg; 95% CI, -8.32 to -5.04; p < 0.001), whereas CT had a higher baseline-adjusted week-12 cycle-derived estimated VO₂max (adjusted difference, 4.53 mL·kg-1·min-1; 95% CI, 3.80 to 5.25; p < 0.001). No detectable marginal protein-target effects or training-condition × protein-target interactions were observed for the key secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: No detectable differences in SMM or key secondary outcomes were attributable to assigned protein target. Compared with RT, CT favored estimated aerobic fitness and BFP, whereas RT favored leg-press strength. Because CT included additional cycling and greater exercise exposure, these differences cannot be attributed solely to training modality. Null protein findings do not establish equivalence among doses.
METHODS: In this randomized 2 × 3 factorial trial, 108 women aged 40-77 years were assigned to 12 weeks of supervised RT or CT (identical RT followed by cycling) and protein targets of 0.8, 1.6, or 2.2 g·kg-1·d-1. Baseline-adjusted ANCOVA tested training × protein interactions and marginal training and protein effects. Complete-case analyses included 83 participants.
RESULTS: For SMM, no training-condition × protein-target interaction (p = 0.856), marginal protein-target effect (p = 0.726), or marginal training-condition effect (p = 0.273) was detected. CT had a lower baseline-adjusted week-12 BFP than RT (adjusted difference, -2.04 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.94 to -1.14; p < 0.001). RT had a higher baseline-adjusted week-12 leg-press estimated 1-RM than CT (CT - RT: -6.68 kg; 95% CI, -8.32 to -5.04; p < 0.001), whereas CT had a higher baseline-adjusted week-12 cycle-derived estimated VO₂max (adjusted difference, 4.53 mL·kg-1·min-1; 95% CI, 3.80 to 5.25; p < 0.001). No detectable marginal protein-target effects or training-condition × protein-target interactions were observed for the key secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: No detectable differences in SMM or key secondary outcomes were attributable to assigned protein target. Compared with RT, CT favored estimated aerobic fitness and BFP, whereas RT favored leg-press strength. Because CT included additional cycling and greater exercise exposure, these differences cannot be attributed solely to training modality. Null protein findings do not establish equivalence among doses.