Resistance versus concurrent training with three assigned protein targets in middle-aged and older women: a randomized 2 × 3 factorial trial.

Sleep health notes

Sleep health notes will be added by the Sleepatch editorial team.

中文解读

中文解读待补充：本站会优先为失眠研究、睡眠质量改善、昼夜节律等高价值睡眠研究添加中文说明。

Original abstract

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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.<h4>Results</h4>For SMM, no training-condition × protein-target interaction (<i>p</i> = 0.856), marginal protein-target effect (<i>p</i> = 0.726), or marginal training-condition effect (<i>p</i> = 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; <i>p</i> < 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; <i>p</i> < 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; <i>p</i> < 0.001). No detectable marginal protein-target effects or training-condition × protein-target interactions were observed for the key secondary outcomes.<h4>Conclusions</h4>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.

Links and sources

• Official / arXiv page

Comments