What question did this study set out to answer?

To evaluate whether three different daily protein targets alter skeletal muscle mass, body composition, strength, and aerobic capacity responses to resistance training alone versus concurrent training in middle-aged and older women.

September 17, 2026Journal of the International Society of Sports NutritionOpen Access

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

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

RBReza Bagheri HGHamid Ghobadi MMMaryam Mansordehghan

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Randomized trial reveals distinct fitness and body composition adaptations between concurrent and resistance training in middle-aged and older women, suggesting no extra benefit from higher protein.

Key Points

To evaluate whether three different daily protein targets alter skeletal muscle mass, body composition, strength, and aerobic capacity responses to resistance training alone versus concurrent training in middle-aged and older women.
Conducted a 12-week randomized 2 × 3 factorial trial in 108 women aged 40–77 years assigned to supervised resistance training (RT) or concurrent training (CT; RT followed by cycling).
Participants were allocated to daily protein targets of 0.8, 1.6, or 2.2 g·kg⁻¹·d⁻¹, with complete-case analyses performed on 83 participants using baseline-adjusted ANCOVA.
For the primary outcome of skeletal muscle mass, 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.
Concurrent training produced a lower baseline-adjusted week-12 body fat percentage (adjusted difference, −2.04 percentage points; 95% CI, −2.94 to −1.14; p < 0.001) and higher estimated VO₂max (adjusted difference, 4.53 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹; 95% CI, 3.80 to 5.25; p < 0.001) than resistance training.
Resistance training resulted in higher baseline-adjusted leg-press estimated 1-RM strength than concurrent training (CT vs RT adjusted difference, −6.68 kg; 95% CI, −8.32 to −5.04; p < 0.001).

Cite This Study

Bagheri et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6aabb61e5f706d05830e4955 https://doi.org/10.1080/15502783.2026.2720742

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

September 17, 2026Journal of the International Society of Sports NutritionOpen Access

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

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

RBReza Bagheri HGHamid Ghobadi MMMaryam Mansordehghan

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Randomized trial reveals distinct fitness and body composition adaptations between concurrent and resistance training in middle-aged and older women, suggesting no extra benefit from higher protein.

Key Points

To evaluate whether three different daily protein targets alter skeletal muscle mass, body composition, strength, and aerobic capacity responses to resistance training alone versus concurrent training in middle-aged and older women.
Conducted a 12-week randomized 2 × 3 factorial trial in 108 women aged 40–77 years assigned to supervised resistance training (RT) or concurrent training (CT; RT followed by cycling).
Participants were allocated to daily protein targets of 0.8, 1.6, or 2.2 g·kg⁻¹·d⁻¹, with complete-case analyses performed on 83 participants using baseline-adjusted ANCOVA.
For the primary outcome of skeletal muscle mass, 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.
Concurrent training produced a lower baseline-adjusted week-12 body fat percentage (adjusted difference, −2.04 percentage points; 95% CI, −2.94 to −1.14; p < 0.001) and higher estimated VO₂max (adjusted difference, 4.53 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹; 95% CI, 3.80 to 5.25; p < 0.001) than resistance training.
Resistance training resulted in higher baseline-adjusted leg-press estimated 1-RM strength than concurrent training (CT vs RT adjusted difference, −6.68 kg; 95% CI, −8.32 to −5.04; p < 0.001).

Cite This Study

Bagheri et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6aabb61e5f706d05830e4955 https://doi.org/10.1080/15502783.2026.2720742

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark