Sports Medicine

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-1008-z

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Does Aerobic Training Promote the Same Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy

as Resistance Training? A Systematic Review and Meta‑Analysis
Jozo Grgic1 · Luke C. Mcllvenna1 · Jackson J. Fyfe2,3 · Filip Sabol4,5 · David J. Bishop1,6 · Brad J. Schoenfeld7 ·
Zeljko Pedisic1

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Abstract
Background  Currently, there are inconsistencies in the body of evidence for the effects of resistance and aerobic training
on skeletal muscle hypertrophy.
Objective  We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze current evidence on the differences in hypertrophic adapta-
tion to aerobic and resistance training, and to discuss potential reasons for the disparities noted in the literature.
Methods  The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed for
this review. The Downs and Black checklist was used for the assessment of methodological quality of the included studies.
A random-effects meta-analysis was employed. In total, three analyses were performed: (1) for whole-muscle knee extensor
data; (2) for type I fiber cross-sectional area; and (3) for type II fiber cross-sectional area.
Results  The final number of included studies in the present review is 21. All studies were of good or moderate methodo-
logical quality. The meta-analysis for whole-muscle hypertrophy resulted in a significant pooled difference (p < 0.001) in
responses between the aerobic training and resistance training interventions. The pooled Hedge’s g, favoring resistance over
aerobic training, was 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.41–90; I2 = 0%). The meta-analysis for type I fiber cross-sectional area
data resulted in a significant pooled difference (p < 0.001) between the aerobic training and resistance training groups. The
pooled Hedge’s g, favoring resistance training over aerobic training, was 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.44–1.54; I2 = 24%).
The meta-analysis of type II fiber cross-sectional area data resulted in a significant pooled difference (p < 0.001) between
the aerobic training and resistance training groups. The pooled Hedge’s g, favoring resistance training over aerobic training,
was 1.44 (95% confidence interval 0.93–1.95; I2 = 8%).
Conclusions  The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that single-mode aerobic training does not pro-
mote the same skeletal muscle hypertrophy as resistance training. This finding was consistent with measurements of muscle
hypertrophy both at the whole-muscle and myofiber levels. While these results are specific to the knee extensor musculature,
it can be hypothesized that similar results would be seen for other muscle groups as well.

Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this

article (https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4027​9-018-1008-z) contains
supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

4
* Jozo Grgic Fitness Academy, Zagreb, Croatia
jozo.grgic@live.vu.edu.au 5
Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Zagreb, Zagreb,
1 Croatia
Institute for Health and Sport (IHES), Victoria University,
6
Melbourne, VIC, Australia School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan
2 University, Joondalup, WA, Australia
School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin
7
University, Burwood, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Department of Health Sciences, Lehman College, Bronx,
3 NY, USA
Centre for Sport Research, Deakin University, Burwood,
Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Vol.:(0123456789)

Key Points  term aerobic training [16, 17]. Furthermore, some studies
The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis
suggest that single-mode aerobic training does not pro-
mote the same skeletal muscle hypertrophy as resistance
training.
The greater effectiveness of resistance over aerobic
training was consistent when analyzing hypertrophic
responses both at the whole-muscle and myofiber level.
Given the superiority of resistance training for stimulat-
ing knee extensor hypertrophy, it can be hypothesized
that similar results would be observed for other muscle
groups as well.
1 Introduction
Adaptations to exercise training are primarily thought to
occur in a mode-specific manner [1]. In this regard, aerobic
training is considered to be the primary mode of exercise
for improving markers of cardiorespiratory fitness, such
as maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) [2]. Resistance
training, in contrast, is seen as the principal mode of exer-
cise that elicits adaptations such as muscular hypertrophy
[3]. However, it is evident from the literature that there is a
certain degree of crossover in both the early post-exercise
responses and longer term adaptations induced by these two
modes of exercise [1, 4].
Although resistance training can increase VO2max (pre-
dominantly shown in previously untrained individuals), [5]
aerobic training is more effective for enhancing cardiores-
piratory fitness [6–9]. Since the seminal work by DeLorme
in the 1940s [10] and as acknowledged in a recent historical
review, [11] it has been well accepted that resistance training
provides a superior stimulus for skeletal muscle hypertro-
phy compared with aerobic training. However, some authors
have challenged this convention [12]. A recent narrative
review by Konopka and Harber [12] suggested both modes
of training might be equally effective for stimulating knee
extensor muscular hypertrophy. Following the publication
of the review by Konopka and Harber, [12] these conclu-
sions have been reiterated elsewhere [13, 14]. For instance,
Ceccarelli et al. [13] wrote “Notably, also aerobic exercise
has revealed an anabolic potential comparable to resistance
exercise by altering protein metabolism and inducing skel-
etal muscle hypertrophy” and cited Konopka and Harber
[12] to support these claims. Other authors have made simi-
lar claims regarding the hypertrophic potential of aerobic
exercise [14].
Given the increases in protein synthesis with aerobic
exercise, [15] it is not surprising that several studies have
J. Grgic et al.
reported considerable muscle hypertrophy following long-
comparing resistance and aerobic training have observed
that these training modes may produce comparable hypertro-
phy of the knee extensor musculature [18, 19]. However, this
effect has not been corroborated by all studies that compared
these two modes of exercise. For example, superior muscle
hypertrophy has been reported with resistance training com-
pared with aerobic training [20, 21]. Furthermore, in some
cases, muscle growth has been observed with resistance
training, but not aerobic training [6].
In addition to assessing hypertrophic adaptations at the
whole-muscle level, muscular hypertrophy can also be
assessed at the myofiber level. Some studies have reported
increases in type I, but not type II, muscle fiber cross-sec-
tional area (CSA) with aerobic cycling training [16, 17]. By
contrast, resistance training is primarily considered to induce
hypertrophy of type II muscle fibers [22]. However, Kraemer
et al. [23] demonstrated that resistance training increased
both type I and type II fiber CSA, while aerobic running
training decreased the CSA of both fiber types. Contradic-
tory findings have also been noted in the literature, with
one study showing increased type I fiber CSA with aerobic
training, but not resistance training (although both modes
were equally effective for increasing type IIx muscle fiber
CSA) [24].
If we only observe the results from individual studies, the
conclusions regarding the effects of aerobic and resistance
exercise on skeletal muscle hypertrophy might be that: (1)
both modes of exercise are equally effective [18, 19]; (2)
resistance exercise is superior to aerobic exercise [23]; or
(3) aerobic exercise is superior to resistance exercise [24].
This clearly demonstrates the inconsistencies in the current
body of evidence for the effects of resistance and aerobic
training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Such evidence
is important to inform exercise prescription strategies for
maximizing skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Given the lack of
clarity on the effects of single-mode resistance training and
aerobic training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy at both the
whole-muscle and myofiber levels, we aimed to systemati-
cally review and meta-analyze current evidence on the dif-
ferences in hypertrophic adaptation to aerobic and resistance
training, and to discuss potential reasons for the disparities
noted in the literature.
2 Methods
2.1 Literature Search
This review was performed following the PRISMA (Pre-
ferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-
Analyses) guidelines [25] with literature searches conducted
Resistance vs. Aerobic Training for Hypertrophy
through Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE, and SPORTDiscus.
The following syntax was used for the search: (“resistance
training” OR “resistance exercise” OR “strength training”
OR “strength exercise” OR “weight training” OR “weight
exercise” OR “resistive exercise” OR “resistive training”)
AND (“aerobic training” OR “aerobic exercise” OR “endur-
ance training” OR “endurance exercise” OR running OR
cycling) AND (hypertrophy OR “cross-sectional area” OR
“muscle size” OR growth OR “lean body mass” OR “muscle
fiber” OR biopsy OR “skeletal muscle” OR “muscle thick-
ness”). The search was conducted on 28 March, 2018. For
the purpose of study selection, the search results were down-
loaded to the EndNote software (X8; Clarivate Analytics,
New York, NY, USA). The study selection was indepen-
dently performed by two authors (JG and LM) to prevent
selection bias. In the secondary search, the reference lists of
all included publications were screened and the studies that
cited the included studies were examined through the Scopus
database. Furthermore, relevant review papers [12, 26] and
books [27] were searched for additional relevant studies.
2.2 Inclusion Criteria
Studies meeting the following criteria were included: (1)
published in English and in a peer-reviewed journal; (2)
compared single-mode resistance training (an exercise type
that requires exertion of force against a resistance performed
in a dynamic fashion [11]) and single-mode aerobic training
(any form of continuous or interval aerobic training was con-
sidered) provided both types of exercise were performed by
similar muscle groups; (3) muscular hypertrophy was meas-
ured directly at the whole-muscle level (using ultrasound,
magnetic resonance imaging, and/or computed tomography)
or at the myofiber level using histological assessments of
muscle biopsies; (4) the training program lasted a minimum
of 4 weeks; and (5) the participants were apparently healthy
adults without any chronic disease or musculoskeletal injury.
Studies that employed dietary interventions in which the par-
ticipants were in a diet-prescribed caloric deficit during the
training program were not considered for this review. By
contrast, studies with dietary interventions such as protein
supplementation for both groups were considered eligible
and were included in the review.
2.3 Study Coding and Data Extraction
The following data were extracted onto an Excel spread-
sheet from the studies that met the inclusion criteria: (1)
participants’ characteristics, including age, height, sex, and
training status (e.g., trained/untrained); (2) exercise prescrip-
tion details for the resistance training and aerobic training
groups; (3) participants’ compliance with the training pro-
grams; and (4) means and standard deviations for pre- and
post-training muscle hypertrophy measurements. When
required, the Web Plot Digitizer software (Version 3.11;
TX, USA: Ankit Rohatgi, 2017) was used for the extraction
of data from figures. The coding was performed indepen-
dently by two authors (JG and LM). Coding files were cross-
checked between the authors, and any observed differences
were resolved via discussion and agreement.
2.4 Methodological Quality
The Downs and Black checklist [28] was used for the assess-
ment of the methodological quality of the included studies.
The standard checklist has 27 items, which refer to: report-
ing (items 1–10); external validity (items 11–13); internal
validity (items 14–26); and statistical power (item 27). How-
ever, given the specificity of included studies (i.e., exercise
interventions), we added two items that refer to reporting of
compliance (item 28) and supervision of the exercise pro-
grams (item 29), as used in other studies [29–31]. With the
adjusted checklist, the maximum score was 29 points. The
following classification was used for scoring the studies: (1)
good methodological quality (> 20 points); (2) moderate
methodological quality (11–20 points); and (3) poor meth-
odological quality (< 11 points) [29–31]. Two authors (JG
and FS) independently performed the quality assessment,
and any observed differences were resolved via discussion
and agreement.
2.5 Statistical Analysis
Standardized mean differences (Hedge’s g) and 95% confi-
dence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on the following
data: (1) pre- and post-intervention mean muscular hyper-
trophy values; (2) pre- and post-intervention standard devia-
tions; (3) correlations between pre- and post-intervention
measurements; and (4) the number of participants in each
group. If the studies presented standard errors (SEs), they
were √converted to standard deviations using the formula
( SE ⋅ n ). None of the included studies presented pre-to-
post correlation values. Therefore, correlations were esti-
s2 +s2 −s2D
mated with the following formula: r = pre2⋅s post
�
 , where spre
⋅s pre post
is the standard deviation of the pre-intervention score, spost
is the standard deviation of the post-intervention score, and
sD is the standard deviation of the(change score
) (pre- to post-
1∕2
intervention) calculated as: sD =
Ss2pre
+
s2post
 . This pro-
n n
cedure for estimating correlation is explained in detail in the
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
[32]. In total, three analyses were performed: (1) for whole-
muscle knee extensor data; (2) for type I fiber CSA; and (3)
for type II fiber CSA. A meta-analysis for upper-body

musculature and other lower body muscle groups, such as
posterior thigh muscles, could not be performed owing to
the small number of studies assessing these muscle groups.
If the studies presented multiple data points, such as the
assessment of hypertrophy on both legs, and CSA values for
different subtypes of type II fibers (i.e., type IIa, type IIx),
the standardized mean differences and variances were cal-
culated separately and the average values were used for the
analysis.
While we did not include studies in which the partici-
pants were in a diet-prescribed caloric deficit, two studies
[7, 33] have reported significant weight loss in the group
performing aerobic exercise, and one study reported signifi-
cant weight loss in the group performing resistance training
[20]. To explore the extent to which these studies impacted
the pooled findings, we conducted two sensitivity analyses.
One sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding the
studies that reported significant weight loss in the group per-
forming aerobic exercise, and the second sensitivity analysis
excluded the study in which a significant weight loss was
observed in the resistance training group. These analyses
were carried out only for whole-muscle knee extensor data
given that the studies reporting significant weight loss did
not measure fiber CSA.
The following effect size scale was used for the classifica-
tion of magnitudes: small (≤ 0.2); medium (0.2–0.5); large
(0.5–0.8); and very large (> 0.8) effects [34]. The I2 statistic
was used to assess heterogeneity. We considered I2 values
of ≤ 50% to indicate low levels of heterogeneity; 50–75% to
indicate moderate levels of heterogeneity; and > 75% to indi-
cate high levels of heterogeneity. SEs were plotted against
Hedge’s g to detect funnel plot asymmetry. The asymmetry
was tested using the trim and fill method [35]. The random-
effects model was used for all analyses. The statistical sig-
nificance threshold was set at p < 0.05. All analyses were
performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis soft-
ware, Version 2 (Biostat Inc., Englewood, NJ, USA).
3 Results
3.1 Search Results
The flow diagram of the literature search is presented in
Fig. 1. The initial search from the three databases resulted
in a total of 2809 search results. After the removal of dupli-
cates, the number of search results was reduced to 1953. Out
of the remaining search results, 1896 studies were excluded
based on title or abstract. Fifty-seven full-text papers were
read, and 19 studies were found that met the inclusion cri-
teria [7–9, 18–21, 23, 33, 36–45]. Forward citation track-
ing and reference list screening included another 2859
J. Grgic et al.
publications, of which, two were included [6, 24]. Therefore,
the final number of included studies in this review is 21.
3.2 Study Characteristics
The pooled number of participants across studies was 509
(median n = 22). The participants’ characteristics from the
included studies can be found in Table 1. The average dura-
tion of the training interventions amounted to 18 weeks
(range 8–36 weeks). The most common training frequency
was three times per week (range 2–4). A summary of the
training programs and study details from individual studies
can be found in Table 2. In two instances, the whole-muscle
and fiber CSA values were reported in separate papers, even
though they were collected in the same sample of partici-
pants [37, 38, 44, 45]. Fourteen studies used whole-muscle
measures of hypertrophy, [6–9, 18–21, 33, 37, 39, 41, 43,
44] while ten studies [6, 23, 24, 36, 38–40, 42, 43, 45] used
histological assessments (five studies [6, 37–39, 43–45] used
both). Five studies used computed tomography, [7, 9, 33,
43, 44], five studies used magnetic resonance imaging, [18,
21, 37, 39, 41] and four studies used ultrasound [6, 8, 19,
20]. All studies that measured muscle fiber CSA used sam-
ples from the vastus lateralis muscle and adenosine triphos-
phatase histochemistry for the identification of muscle fiber
types.
3.3 Methodological Quality
Based on the assessment of methodological quality, the
included studies were classified as being of either good or
moderate quality [Table S1 of the Electronic Supplementary
Material (ESM)]. Specifically, five studies [6, 23, 33, 44, 45]
were classified as being of good quality, while the remaining
studies were classified as being of moderate quality [7–9,
18–21, 24, 36–43]. The median methodological quality score
was 19 (range 15–24). Eight studies [6, 18, 21, 24, 36–39]
did not report participants’ compliance with the training
programs and, thus, did not receive a point on the item 28.
It was unclear in six studies [7, 36–38, 40, 41] whether the
training programs were supervised; therefore, these stud-
ies did not receive a point on item 29 of the checklist. The
methodological quality ratings for all studies can be found
in Table S1 of the ESM.
3.4 Meta‑Analysis Results
The meta-analyses were conducted only for the differences
between the effects of resistance training and aerobic train-
ing on hypertrophy of knee extensors because no or limited
data were available for other muscle groups.
Resistance vs. Aerobic Training for Hypertrophy

Records identified through

Identification
database searching
(n = 2,809)

Excluded based on title or abstract

(n = 1,896)
Records after duplicates
removed
(n = 1,953) Full-text articles excluded, with
reasons (n = 38)
Screening

• No resistance training or
aerobic training group
Records screened (n = 18)
(n = 1,953) • No hypertrophy
assessment (n = 12)
• Duplicate data (n = 4)
• Review paper (n = 2)
• Study conducted among
Full-text articles assessed adolescents (n = 1)
Eligibility

for eligibility (n = 57) • Unequal training

frequency between the
groups (n = 1)

Studies included in the Forward citation tracking

review
(n = 2,859)
(n = 19)
Included

Studies included in the Studies additionally included

review
(n = 2)
(n = 21)

Fig. 1  Flow diagram of the search process

3.4.1 Whole‑Muscle Area of 0.49 (95% CI 0.19–0.78; I2 = 0%). The second sensitivity

Of the 14 studies that assessed whole-muscle hypertro-
phy, ten studies [6, 7, 9, 19, 33, 37, 39, 41, 43, 44] were
included in the final analysis. Four studies were not included
because of the lack of necessary data (i.e., mean ± standard
deviation values) presented in the paper, and the authors
did not present the data upon a written request [8, 18, 20,
21]. The meta-analysis resulted in a significant pooled dif-
ference (p < 0.001) in whole-muscle hypertrophy responses
between the aerobic training and resistance training inter-
ventions (Fig. 2). The pooled Hedge’s g, favoring resistance
over aerobic training, was 0.66 (95% CI 0.41–90; I2 = 0%),
which corresponds to a large effect size. The funnel plot
and trim and fill method did not suggest any funnel plot
asymmetry. The sensitivity analysis, in which the two stud-
ies [7, 33] that reported significant weight loss in the group
performing aerobic exercise were excluded, resulted in a
pooled Hedge’s g, favoring resistance over aerobic training,
analysis, in which the study by Izquierdo et al. [20] report-
ing significant weight loss in the group performing resist-
ance exercise was excluded, resulted in a pooled Hedge’s g,
favoring resistance over aerobic training, of 0.66 (95% CI
0.39–0.93; I2 = 0%).
3.4.2 Myofiber Area
Ten studies [6, 23, 24, 36, 38–40, 42, 43, 45] were included
in the final analysis of type I CSA. The meta-analysis for
type I fiber CSA data resulted in a significant pooled differ-
ence (p < 0.001) between the aerobic training and resistance
training groups (Fig. 3). The pooled Hedge’s g, favoring
resistance training over aerobic training, was 0.99 (95% CI
0.44–1.54; I2 = 24%), which corresponds to a very large
effect size.
One of the ten studies was [40] excluded from the anal-
ysis for type II fiber CSA, as it only reported results for
 J. Grgic et al.

Table 1  Characteristics of individual study samples

Study (year) Participants Sex: M/F Age (years) Height (cm) Mass (kg) Train-
ing
status

Ahtiainen et al. (2009) [6] Aerobic training: n = 9 9/0 58 ± 8 175 ± 6 75 ± 7 U
Resistance training: n = 10 10/0 61 ± 5 177 ± 3 80 ± 5 U
Bell et al. (2000) [36] Aerobic training: n = 11 7/4 22 ± 3 176 ± 9 73 ± 12 U
Resistance training: n = 11 7/4 22 ± 3 176 ± 9 73 ± 12 U
De Souza et al. (2013; 2014) [37, 38] Aerobic training: n = 8 8/0 24 ± 8 175 ± 8 72 ± 8 U
Resistance training: n = 11 11/0 26 ± 6 172 ± 4 74 ± 16 U
Farup et al. (2012) [39] Aerobic training: n = 7 7/0 23 ± 2 181 ± 5 78 ± 9 U
Resistance training: n = 7 7/0 23 ± 2 181 ± 5 78 ± 9 U
Ferrara et al. (2006) [7] Aerobic training: n = 9 9/0 50–79 NR 92 ± 4 U
Resistance training: n = 13 13/0 50–79 NR 92 ± 3 U
Hepple et al. (1997) [40] Aerobic training: n = 10 10/0 68 ± 1 NR 85 ± 4 U
Resistance training: n = 10 10/0 68 ± 1 NR 77 ± 3 U
Hudelmaier et al. (2010) [18] Aerobic training: n = 19 0/19 51 ± 3 166 ± 8 73 ± 16 U
Resistance training: n = 16 0/16 51 ± 3 166 ± 8 73 ± 16 U
Izquierdo et al. (2004) [20] Aerobic training: n = 11 11/0 68 ± 2 167 ± 3 77 ± 7 U
Resistance training: n = 10 10/0 65 ± 3 167 ± 4 81 ± 11 U
Izquierdo et al. (2005) [19] Aerobic training: n = 10 10/0 42 ± 3 177 ± 5 86 ± 14 U
Resistance training: n = 11 11/0 44 ± 3 175 ± 3 86 ± 12 U
Jubrias et al. (2001) [41]a Aerobic training: n = 14 NR 69 ± 1 NR NR U
Resistance training: n = 15 NR 69 ± 1 NR NR U
Karavirta et al. (2011) [42]b Aerobic training: n = 25 25/0 54 ± 8 176 ± 6 79 ± 10 U
Resistance training: n = 25 25/0 56 ± 6 178 ± 6 84 ± 10 U
Kraemer et al. (1995) [23] Aerobic training: n = 8 8/0 21 ± 4 178 ± 8 75 ± 7 T
Resistance training: n = 9 9/0 24 ± 5 175 ± 6 77 ± 14 T
McCarthy et al. (2002) [43] Aerobic training: n = 10 10/0 27 ± 2 179 ± 3 85 ± 6 U
Resistance training: n = 10 10/0 28 ± 1 180 ± 1 82 ± 4 U
Mikkola et al. (2012) [21] Aerobic training: n = 11 11/0 37 ± 7 181 ± 8 80 ± 13 U
Resistance training: n = 16 16/0 38 ± 6 178 ± 5 85 ± 16 U
Nelson et al. (1990) [24] Aerobic training: n = 4 4/0 30 ± 5 NR 82 ± 19 U
Resistance training: n = 5 5/0 27 ± 2 NR 70 ± 8 U
Poehlman et al. (2000) [9] Aerobic training: n = 14 0/14 29 ± 5 163 ± 5 59 ± 5 U
Resistance training: n = 17 0/17 28 ± 3 164 ± 7 58 ± 6 U
Sillanpää et al. (2008) [8] Aerobic training: n = 14 14/0 54 ± 8 179 ± 6 76 ± 9 U
Resistance training: n = 13 13/0 55 ± 6 177 ± 7 79 ± 5 U
Sipilä et al. (1995; 1997) [44, 45]c Aerobic training: n = 12 0/12 76–78 157 ± 2 67 ± 3 U
Resistance training: n = 12 0/12 76–78 160 ± 1 67 ± 3 U
Willis et al. (2012) [33] Aerobic training: n = 38 17/21 52 ± 9 88 ± 11 NR U
Resistance training: n = 44 18/26 50 ± 12 88 ± 16 NR U

Age, height, and mass data are reported as mean ± standard deviation or range
F female, M males, F females, NR not reported, T trained, U untrained, T trained
a
 Magnetic resonance imaging scans were obtained from 25 participants
b
 Muscle biopsies were obtained from 18 participants
c
 Muscle biopsies were obtained from 16 participants
Age, height and mass data are reported as mean ± standard deviation or range
Table 2  Summary of studies included in the present meta-analysis that compared hypertrophic adaptations to resistance and aerobic training
Study (year) Resistance training Resistance exercises Aerobic training Aerobic training Study duration; Method of hyper- Adherence Main findings
protocol employed in the protocol modality training frequency trophy assessment
program (site) Aerobic training Resistance training

Ahtiainen et al. (2009) In wks 1–7, the Lower body: leg press, In wks 1–7, the par- Cycling 21 wks; 2 times Ultrasound (vastus Not reported Knee extensor muscle Knee extensor muscle
[6] participants per- knee extension, and ticipants trained for 30 per wk lateralis and vastus thickness: ↔ thickness: ↑
formed 3 sets per knee flexion min per session with intermedius); mus- Type I CSA: ↔ Type I CSA: ↔
exercise for 15–30 Upper body: bench the intensity set under cle biopsies (vastus Type II CSA: ↔ Type II CSA: ↑
repetitions with a press, triceps push- the aerobic threshold. lateralis)
load of 40–60% down, latissimus In wks 8–14, in one
1RM. In wks 8–14, pull-down, and of the two weekly ses-
the participants biceps curl sions, the participants
performed 3 sets per trained for 45 min per
exercise for 6–12 session with the inten-
repetitions with a sity set at 15 min under
load of 60–80% the aerobic threshold,
1RM. In wks 15–21, 10 min between the
Resistance vs. Aerobic Training for Hypertrophy

the participants aerobic-anaerobic

performed 3 sets per thresholds, 5 min
exercise for 5–8 rep- above the anaerobic
etitions with a load threshold, and 15 min
of 70–90% 1RM under the aerobic
threshold. In the sec-
ond weekly session, the
participants trained for
60 min per session with
the intensity set under
the aerobic threshold.
In wks 15–21, in one
of the two weekly ses-
sions, the participants
trained 60 min per
session with the
intensity set at 30 min
under the aerobic
threshold, 2 × 10 min
between the aerobic-
anaerobic thresholds,
and 2 × 5 min above the
anaerobic threshold. In
the other weekly ses-
sion, the participants
trained for 90 min
per session with the
intensity set under the
aerobic threshold


Table 2  (continued)
Study (year) Resistance training Resistance exercises Aerobic training Aerobic training Study duration; Method of hyper- Adherence Main findings
protocol employed in the protocol modality training frequency trophy assessment
program (site) Aerobic training Resistance training

Bell et al. (2000) [36] Progressive increase Lower body: leg press, Continuous aerobic Cycling 12 wks; 3 times Muscle biopsies Not reported Type I CSA: ↔ Type I CSA: ↑
in load by 4% every single leg knee training was performed per wk (vastus lateralis) Type II CSA: ↔ Type II CSA: ↑
3 wks from 72% flexion, single leg two times per wk. The
1RM to 84% 1RM, knee extension, and intensity was set as
performed for 2–6 calf raises power output recorded
sets per exercise and Upper body: bench at the ventilation
4–12 repetitions press, seated threshold. The training
pulldowns, shoulder duration was increased
press, and biceps from 30 to 42 min per
curl session (by 4 min every
4 wks)
Interval training was
done once per wk with
a work to rest ratio of
3:3 min. The intensity
was set as power
output recorded at 90%
VO2max. The interval
training started with 4
sets and was increased
by 1 set each 4 wk
De Souza et al. (2013; In wks 1 and 2, Lower body: leg press, In wks 1 and 2, the par- Running 8 wks; 2 times per wk MRI (knee extensors); Not reported Knee extensor CSA: Knee extensor CSA: ↑
2014) [37, 38]a the participants single leg knee flex- ticipants performed 20 muscle biopsies ↔ Type I CSA: ↑
performed 3 sets ion, and extension bouts at 80% vVO2max (vastus lateralis) Type I CSA: ↔ Type IIa CSA: ↑
per exercise for 12 Upper body: none with a work-to-rest Type IIa CSA: ↔ Type IIx CSA: ↔
repetitions. In wks ratio of 60:45 s. In wks Type IIx CSA: ↔
3 and 4, the partici- 3–4, the participants
pants performed 4 performed 20 bouts at
sets per exercise for 85–90% VO2max with
8–10 repetitions. a work-to-rest ratio
In wks 5 and 6, of 60:60 s. In wks
the participants 5–6, the participants
performed 5 sets performed 20 bouts
per exercise for 6–8 at 95% vVO2max with
repetitions. In wks a work-to-rest ratio
7 and 8, the partici- of 60:60 s. In wks
pants performed 3 7–8, the participants
sets per exercise for performed 15 bouts at
10–12 repetitions 80% vVO2max with a
work-to-rest ratio of
60:90 s
J. Grgic et al.
Table 2  (continued)
Study (year) Resistance training Resistance exercises Aerobic training Aerobic training Study duration; Method of hyper- Adherence Main findings
protocol employed in the protocol modality training frequency trophy assessment
program (site) Aerobic training Resistance training

Farup et al. (2012) In sessions 1–4, the Lower body: leg press, The first session of the Cycling 10 wks; 3 times MRI (knee extensors, Not reported Knee extensor CSA: Knee extensor CSA: ↑
[39] participants per- knee extension, and week was performed per wk knee flexors, and ↔ Type I CSA: ↔
formed 4–5 sets per knee flexion for 30–45 min at hip adductors, these Type I CSA: ↔ Type II CSA: ↑
exercise for 8–10 Upper body: none 60–75% of watt max. components were Type II CSA: ↔
repetitions. In ses- The second session summed for total
sions 5–10, the par- of the week was per- thigh CSA); muscle
ticipants performed formed for 2 × 20 min biopsies (vastus
4–5 sets per exercise at 60–85% of watt lateralis)
for 6–10 repetitions. max with a 5-min rest
In sessions 11–15, interval. The third
the participants session of the week
performed 5 sets per was performed for
Resistance vs. Aerobic Training for Hypertrophy

exercise for 6–8 rep- 8 × 4 min at 70–90% of

etitions. In sessions watt-max with a 1-min
16–20, the partici- rest interval
pants performed 5
sets per exercise
for 4–8 repetitions.
In sessions 21–25,
the participants
performed 5 sets per
exercise for 4–8 rep-
etitions. In sessions
26–29, the partici-
pants performed 5
sets per exercise for
4–6 repetitions
Ferrara et al. (2006) The participants Lower body: leg press, The training sessions Walking or running 36 wks; 3 times CT (knee extensors) Aerobic training Knee extensor CSA: Knee extensor CSA:
[7] performed 1 set knee extension, and lasted for 55–60 min per wk group: 75% ↔ ↔
for the upper-body knee flexion and included a 5-min Resistance training
exercises and 2 sets Upper body: chest warm-up, 45–50 min group: 74%
for the lower-body press, latissimus training at 75–80%
exercises with a pull-down, and maximal heart rate
load of 80% 1RM shoulder press reserve, and a 5-min
for 8–12 repetitions cool down
Hepple et al. (1997) The participants Lower body: four The training sessions Cycling 9 wks; 3 times per wk Muscle biopsies Not reported Type I CSA: ↔ Type I CSA: ↑
[40] performed 3 sets per exercises on Univer- lasted for 30 min. The (vastus lateralis) Type II CSA: not Type II CSA: not
exercise for 6–12 sal weight machines training intensity was reported reported
repetitions (not specified on not fully described
which)
Upper body: none.


Table 2  (continued)
Study (year) Resistance training Resistance exercises Aerobic training Aerobic training Study duration; Method of hyper- Adherence Main findings
protocol employed in the protocol modality training frequency trophy assessment
program (site) Aerobic training Resistance training

Hudelmaier et al. In wk 1, the load was Lower body: back The training sessions Cycling 12 wks; 3 times MRI Not reported Knee extensor CSA: ↑ Knee extensor CSA: ↑
(2010) [18] set at 60% 1RM and squat, leg press, lasted for 60 min per wk (knee extensors, knee Knee flexor CSA: ↔ Knee flexor CSA: ↑
was increased by knee flexion, knee and consisted of a flexors, hip adduc- Adductor CSA: ↔ Adductor CSA: ↑
5–10% each week extension, hip 10-min warm-up, tors, and sartorius) Sartorius CSA: ↑ Sartorius CSA: ↑
to 80% 1RM in wks adduction, hip 40 min of continuous
5 and 6. In wk 7, abduction, and hip cycling, and a 10-min
the load was set at extension cooldown. In wks 1–3,
65–70% 1RM and Upper body: none the participants trained
was increased to with the intensity set at
70–75% 1RM for 55–85% of the VO2max
wks 8 and 9. In wks threshold. The intensity
10–12 the load was was increased by 5%
set at 75–80% 1RM. every 3 wks
The participants
performed either
3 sets per exercise
for 8–12 repetitions
done in 2–4 s total
repetition time or
1 set per exercise
for 6–12 repetitions
done in a 20-s total
repetition time.
Izquierdo et al. (2004) In wks 1–8, the par- Lower body: bilateral The training sessions Cycling 16 wks; 2 times Ultrasound (rectus Minimum of 90% Knee extensor CSA: Knee extensor CSA: ↑
[20] ticipants performed leg press, bilateral lasted for 30–40 min per wk femoris, vastus ↔
3–4 sets per exercise knee extension, per session. In wks lateralis, vastus
for 10–15 repeti- standing leg curl, 1–8, the participants medialis, and vastus
tions with a load of and/or hip adduc- trained with the intermedialis)
50–70% 1RM. In tion-abduction intensity that resulted
wks 9–16, the par- Upper body: bench in blood lactate levels
ticipants performed press, chest press, of 2–4 mmol·L−1. In
3–5 sets per exercise latissimus pull- wks 9–16, the partici-
for 5–6 repetitions down, and shoulder pants trained with the
with a load of press intensity that resulted
70–80% 1RM. Dur- in blood lactate levels
ing wks 9–16, one of 2–5 mmol·L−1. For
session per wk was blood lactate levels
performed using up to 4 mmol·L−1, the
a load of 30–50% training was performed
1RM for 3–4 sets continuously, whereas
and 6–8 repetitions the training for
(repetition cadence blood lactate levels
was as fast as pos- of 5 mmol·L−1 was
sible) performed for 30 s
interspersed with 30 s
of rest
J. Grgic et al.
Table 2  (continued)
Study (year) Resistance training Resistance exercises Aerobic training Aerobic training Study duration; Method of hyper- Adherence Main findings
protocol employed in the protocol modality training frequency trophy assessment
program (site) Aerobic training Resistance training

Izquierdo et al. (2005) In wks 1–8, the par- Lower body: bilateral The training sessions Cycling 16 wks; 2 times Ultrasound (rectus Minimum of 90% Knee extensor CSA: ↑ Knee extensor CSA: ↑
[19] ticipants performed leg press, bilateral lasted for 30–40 min per wk femoris, vastus
3–4 sets per exercise knee extension, per session. In wks lateralis, vastus
for 10–15 repeti- standing leg curl 1–8, the participants medialis, and vastus
tions with a load of and/or hip adduc- trained with the intermedialis)
50–70% 1RM. In tion-abduction intensity that resulted
wks 9–16, the par- Upper body: bench in blood lactate levels
ticipants performed press, chest press, of 2–4 mmol·L−1. In
3–5 sets per exercise latissimus pull- wks 9–16, the partici-
for 5–6 repetitions down, and shoulder pants trained with the
with a load of press intensity that resulted
70–80% 1RM. Dur- in blood lactate levels
Resistance vs. Aerobic Training for Hypertrophy

ing wks 9–16, one of 2–5 mmol·L−1. For

session per wk was blood lactate levels
performed using up to 4 mmol·L−1, the
a load of 30–50% training was performed
1RM for 3–4 sets continuously, whereas
and 6–8 repetitions the training for
(repetition cadence blood lactate levels
was as fast as pos- of 5 mmol·L−1 was
sible) performed for 30 s
interspersed with 30 s
of rest
Jubrias et al. (2001) In wks 1–4, the par- Lower body: leg press The training sessions One-legged press 24 wks; 3 times MRI (knee extensors) 94% in both groups Knee extensor CSA: Knee extensor CSA: ↑
[41] ticipants performed Upper body: exercises lasted for 40 min exercise and a per wk ↔
3 sets per exercise for shoulders and per session and were kayaking-type
for 10–15 repeti- arms (not specified performed at 80–85% exercise (20 min
tions with a load of which) of heart rate reserve on each mode per
60–70% 1RM. In session)
wks 5–24, the par-
ticipants performed
3–5 sets per exercise
for 8 repetitions
with a load of
70–85% 1RM


Table 2  (continued)
Study (year) Resistance training Resistance exercises Aerobic training Aerobic training Study duration; Method of hyper- Adherence Main findings
protocol employed in the protocol modality training frequency trophy assessment
program (site) Aerobic training Resistance training

Karavirta et al. (2011) In wks 1–7, the par- Lower body: leg press, In wks 1–7, the par- Cycling 21 wks; 2 times Muscle biopsies 99% in both groups Type I CSA: ↔ Type I CSA: ↔
[42] ticipants performed knee extension, ticipants trained for per wk (vastus lateralis) Type II CSA: ↔ Type II CSA: ↑
3 sets per exercise knee flexion, seated 30 min per session with
for 12–20 repeti- calf raise, hip the intensity set under
tions with a load of abduction, and hip the aerobic threshold.
40–60% 1RM. In adduction In wks 8–14, in one
wks 8–14, the par- Upper body: bench of the two weekly ses-
ticipants performed press, biceps curl, sions, the participants
2–4 sets per exercise triceps pushdown, trained for 45 min per
for 5–12 repetitions and latissimus pull- session with the inten-
with a load of down sity set at 15 min under
60–80% 1RM. In the aerobic threshold,
wks 15–21, the par- 10 min between the
ticipants performed aerobic-anaerobic
2–4 sets per exercise thresholds, 5 min
for 5–8 repetitions above the anaerobic
with a load of threshold, and 15 min
70–85% 1RM. under the aerobic
Twenty percent of threshold. In the sec-
the total work on the ond weekly session, the
leg press and knee participants trained for
extension exercises 60 min per session with
was performed with the intensity set under
40–50% 1RM for the aerobic threshold.
5–8 repetitions (rep- In wks 15–21, in one
etition cadence was of the two weekly ses-
as fast as possible) sions, the participants
trained 60 min per
session with the
intensity set at 30 min
under the aerobic
threshold, 2 × 10 min
between the aerobic-
anaerobic thresholds,
and 2 × 5 min above the
anaerobic threshold. In
the other weekly ses-
sion, the participants
trained for 90 min
per session with the
intensity set under the
aerobic threshold
J. Grgic et al.
Table 2  (continued)
Study (year) Resistance training Resistance exercises Aerobic training Aerobic training Study duration; Method of hyper- Adherence Main findings
protocol employed in the protocol modality training frequency trophy assessment
program (site) Aerobic training Resistance training

Kraemer et al. (1995) In 2 out of the 4 Lower body: squats, Continuous aerobic train- Running 12 wks; 4 times Muscle biopsies 100% in both groups Type I CSA: ↓ Type I CSA: ↑
[23] weekly training leg press, deadlift, ing was performed 2 per wk (vastus lateralis) Type IIa CSA: ↔ Type IIa CSA: ↑
sessions, the partici- knee extensions, times per wk with the Type IIc CSA: ↓ Type IIc CSA: ↑
pants performed 2–3 knee flexion, split intensity set at 80–85% Type IIx CSA: ↔ Type IIx CSA: ↔
sets per exercise for squats, and calf VO2max. The training
10–15 repetitions. raises duration was 40 min
In the remaining Upper body: bench per session
2 weekly training press, shoulder Interval training was
sessions, the partici- press, upright row, performed two times
pants performed 4–5 seated row, and per wk; the intervals
sets per exercise for biceps curl ranged from 200 to
5–6 repetitions 800 m with a work-to-
Resistance vs. Aerobic Training for Hypertrophy

rest ratio of 1:4 min,

which progressed to
a 1:0.5 min ratio. The
intensity was set at
95–100% VO2max.
McCarthy et al. The participants Lower body: squats, The training consisted Cycling 10 wks; 3 times CT (knee extensors 97% in both groups Knee extensor CSA: ↑ Knee extensor CSA: ↑
(2002) [43] performed 3 sets knee extensions, of a 5-min warm-up per wk and flexors); muscle Knee flexor CSA: ↔ Knee extensor CSA: ↑
per exercise for 5–7 knee flexion, and and of 45 min of con- biopsies (vastus Type I CSA: ↔ Type I CSA: ↑
repetitions calf raises tinuous training at 70% lateralis) Type II CSA: ↔ Type II CSA: ↑
Upper body: bench heart rate reserve
press, latissimus
pull-down, and
shoulder press


Table 2  (continued)
Study (year) Resistance training Resistance exercises Aerobic training Aerobic training Study duration; Method of hyper- Adherence Main findings
protocol employed in the protocol modality training frequency trophy assessment
program (site) Aerobic training Resistance training

Mikkola et al. (2012) In wks 1–7, the par- Lower body: leg press, In wks 1–7, the par- Cycling and Nordic 21 wks; 2 times MRI (knee extensors) Minimum of 90% Knee extensor CSA: ↑ Knee extensor CSA: ↑
[21] ticipants performed knee extension and ticipants trained for walking (one per per wk
3–4 sets per exercise knee flexion, calf 30 min per session with session)
for 10–15 repeti- raises, and/or hip the intensity set under
tions with a load of adduction-abduction the aerobic threshold.
50–70% 1RM. In Upper body: bench In wks 8–14, in one
wks 8–14, the par- press, biceps curl, of the two weekly ses-
ticipants performed triceps pushdown, sions, the participants
2–5 sets per exercise and latissimus pull- trained for 45 min per
for 5–12 repetitions down session with the inten-
with a load of sity set at 15 min under
50–80% 1RM. In the aerobic threshold,
wks 15–21, the par- 10 min between the
ticipants performed aerobic-anaerobic
2–5 sets per exercise thresholds, 5 min
for 3–12 repetitions above the anaerobic
with a load of threshold, and 15 min
50–80% 1RM. under the aerobic
Twenty percent of threshold. In the sec-
the total work on the ond weekly session, the
leg press and knee participants trained for
extension exercises 60 min per session with
was performed with the intensity set under
40–50% 1RM for the aerobic threshold.
5–8 repetitions (rep- In wks 15–21, in one
etition cadence was of the two weekly ses-
as fast as possible) sions, the participants
trained 60 min per
session with the
intensity set at 30 min
under the aerobic
threshold, 2 × 10 min
between the aerobic-
anaerobic thresholds,
and 2 × 5 min above the
anaerobic threshold. In
the other weekly ses-
sion, the participants
trained for 60–90 min
per session with the
intensity set under the
aerobic threshold
J. Grgic et al.
Table 2  (continued)
Study (year) Resistance training Resistance exercises Aerobic training Aerobic training Study duration; Method of hyper- Adherence Main findings
protocol employed in the protocol modality training frequency trophy assessment
program (site) Aerobic training Resistance training

Nelson et al. (1990) The participants per- Lower body: knee In the first week, the Cycling 20 wks; 4 times Muscle biopsies Not reported Type I CSA: ↑ Type I CSA: ↔
[24] formed 3 sets for 6 extension and knee participants trained per wk (vastus lateralis) Type IIa CSA: ↑ Type IIa CSA: ↔
repetitions at 30°/s flexion for 30 min at 75% Type IIx CSA: ↑ Type IIx CSA: ↑
Upper body: none maximum heart rate.
In the second week,
the duration stayed the
same but the intensity
was increased to 80%
maximum heart rate.
The training duration
increased to 40, 50,
and 60 min for wks 3,
Resistance vs. Aerobic Training for Hypertrophy

4, and 5, respectively.
From wks 6 to 20, the
intensity increased to
85% maximum heart
rate and the training
duration was 60 min
Poehlman et al. The participants Lower body: leg press, In wks 1–4, the training Walking and running 28 wks; 3 times CT (knee extensors) A minimum of 90% Knee extensor CSA: Knee extensor CSA:
(2000) [9] performed 3 sets per knee extensions, and sessions lasted for per wk ↔ ↔
exercise with a load knee flexion 25 min. Every 4 wks
of 80% 1RM for 10 Upper body: bench (up to wk 16), the
repetitions press, shoulder training duration was
press, seated row, increased by 5 min.
triceps extensions, The training intensity
and biceps curls varied from 75 to 90%
of maximum heart
rate and consisted of
a continuous form of
training. In wks 16–28,
an interval training
session was added. In
wks 16–28, on the first
and third weekly ses-
sion, the participants
performed 45 min at
80% heart rate maxi-
mum. On the second
weekly session, the
participants performed
4 × 5 min at 95% heart
rate maximum with a
3-min rest


Table 2  (continued)
Study (year) Resistance training Resistance exercises Aerobic training Aerobic training Study duration; Method of hyper- Adherence Main findings
protocol employed in the protocol modality training frequency trophy assessment
program (site) Aerobic training Resistance training

Sillanpää et al. (2008) In wks 1–7, the Lower body: leg press, In wks 1–7, the par- Cycling 21 wks; 2 times Ultrasound (vastus 100% in both groups Knee extensor muscle Knee extensor muscle
[8] participants per- knee extension, and ticipants trained for per wk lateralis and vastus thickness: ↑ thickness: ↑
formed 3 sets per knee flexion 30 min per session with intermedius)
exercise for 15–30 Upper body: bench the intensity set under
repetitions with a press, triceps the aerobic threshold.
load of 40–60% pushdown, and latis- In wks 8–14, in one
1RM. In wks 8–14, simus pull-down of the two weekly ses-
the participants sions, the participants
performed 3 sets per trained for 45 min per
exercise for 6–12 session with the inten-
repetitions with a sity set at 15 min under
load of 60–80% the aerobic threshold,
1RM. In wks 15–21, 10 min between the
the participants aerobic-anaerobic
performed 3 sets per thresholds, 5 min
exercise for 5–8 rep- above the anaerobic
etitions with a load threshold, and 15 min
of 70–90% 1RM under the aerobic
threshold. In the sec-
ond weekly session, the
participants trained for
60 min per session with
the intensity set under
the aerobic threshold.
In wks 15–21, in one
of the two weekly ses-
sions, the participants
trained 60 min per
session with the
intensity set at 30 min
under the aerobic
threshold, 2 × 10 min
between the aerobic-
anaerobic thresholds,
and 2 × 5 min above the
anaerobic threshold. In
the other weekly ses-
sion, the participants
trained for 90 min
per session with the
intensity set under the
aerobic threshold
Sipilä et al. (1995; In wk 1, the load was Lower body: leg press, Progressive increase in Walking (twice per 18 wks; 3 times CT (knee extensors, Aerobic training Knee extensor CSA: Knee extensor CSA: ↑
1997) [44, 45]a set at 60% 1RM. In knee extension, walking duration from wk) and step aero- per wk knee flexors, and group: 87% ↔ Knee flexor CSA: ↔
wks 2–11, the load knee flexion, and 1500 m to 2700 m per bics (once per wk) calves); muscle Resistance training Knee flexor CSA: ↔ Calves CSA: ↑
was increased to calf raises session. Step aerobics biopsies (vastus group: 83% Calves CSA: ↑ Type I CSA: ↑
70% 1RM. In wks Upper body: none sessions lasted for lateralis) Type I CSA: ↔ Type IIa CSA: ↔
12–16, the load was 40 min. Training Type IIa CSA: ↔ Type IIx CSA: ↔
increased to 75% intensity progressively Type IIx CSA: ↔
1RM. The partici- increased from 50%,
pants performed 3–4 60–70%, to 80% of
sets per exercise and heart rate reserve
8–10 repetitions
J. Grgic et al.
 Resistance vs. Aerobic Training for Hypertrophy

cross-sectional area VO2peak peak oxygen consumption MRI magnetic resonance imaging CT computed tomography VO2max velocity at maximal oxygen uptake, ↑ indicates significant increase
1RM one-repetition maximum, CSA cross-sectional area, CT computed tomography, MRI magnetic resonance imaging, VO2 oxygen consumption, VO2max maximal oxygen consumption, CSA
Knee extensor CSA: ↑
type I fiber CSA. Therefore, the analysis of type II CSA
Resistance training
included nine studies [6, 23, 24, 36, 38, 39, 42, 43, 45].
The meta-analysis of type II fiber CSA data resulted in a
significant pooled difference (p < 0.001) between the aerobic
training and resistance training groups (Fig. 4). The pooled
Hedge’s g, favoring resistance training over aerobic training,
Knee extensor CSA:

was 1.44 (95% CI 0.93–1.95; I2 = 8%), which corresponds to

Aerobic training
Main findings

a large effect size. The funnel plots and trim and fill method
did not suggest any funnel plot asymmetry in either of the
↔

analyses for fiber CSA.

Resistance training
Aerobic training

4 Discussion
group: 89%

group: 84%
Adherence

The majority of included studies comparing hypertrophic

responses to aerobic and resistance training examined
CT (knee extensors)

hypertrophy of the knee extensor musculature. There-

trophy assessment
Method of hyper-

fore, the results of this systematic review and meta-

analysis suggest that single-mode resistance training is
more effective for inducing knee extensor skeletal muscle
(site)

hypertrophy compared with single-mode aerobic exercise.

This finding was consistent when analyzing hypertrophic
training frequency

Treadmill (not speci- 32 wks; 3 times

Study duration;

responses both at the whole-muscle and myofiber level.

Therefore, the results of this meta-analysis do not support
per wk

the assertions by Konopka and Harber [12] that resist-

ance training and aerobic training undertaken in isolation
from baseline, ↔ indicates no change from baseline, ↓ indicates significant decrease from baseline
intensity set at 65–80% trainers, and cycling
walking), elliptical

are equally effective at stimulating knee extensor mus-

fied as running or
Aerobic training

cle hypertrophy. While some of the studies included in

this meta-analysis show that aerobic training may indeed
modality

stimulate lower body muscle hypertrophy, [17–21, 43]

our results indicate a favoring of resistance over aerobic
training. Given the results for knee extensor hypertrophy,
lasted for 45 min (on
The training sessions

it seems likely that similar results would be observed for

machines (not speci- average) with the
Aerobic training

other muscle groups as well. Furthermore, these results

of peak ­VO2

are based on analyses with low heterogeneity and on stud-

protocol

ies that were classified as having moderate or good meth-

odological quality.
machines (not speci-

Because of the lack of available data for other muscle

performed 3 sets per exercises on Cybex

exercises on Cybex
Resistance exercises

groups, the meta-analyses were conducted only for the knee

employed in the

Lower body: 4

Upper body: 4
fied which)

fied which)

extensor muscles. Nevertheless, two out of three studies that

program

assessed other lower body muscle groups, such as posterior

thigh musculature (e.g., knee flexors), also reported that
resistance training resulted in greater hypertrophy of this
↓ Significant decrease from baseline
↑ Significant increase from baseline
 Two studies from the same dataset
exercise for 8–12
Resistance training

muscle group as compared with aerobic training [18, 43].

The participants

Resistance training allows for the incorporation of multiple

repetitions

↔ No change from baseline

exercises involving distinct movement patterns that enable

protocol

activation of different muscle groups (and regions within

Table 2  (continued)

the active musculature), which is rarely the case with the

common types of aerobic exercise (e.g., running or cycling).
Willis et al. (2012)

Therefore, it is likely that the effects of resistance training for

Study (year)

inducing muscle hypertrophy as compared to aerobic exer-

[33]

cise extend to muscle groups other than the knee extensors.

a
 J. Grgic et al.

Study Hedges' g Lower limit Upper limit p-value Hedges' g and 95% CI Statistical weight (%)
Ahtiainen et al. (2009) [6] 0.69 -0.21 1.59 0.132 7.12
De Souza et al. (2013) [37] 0.15 -0.73 1.03 0.737 7.46
Farup et al. (2012) [39] 0.86 -0.18 1.90 0.104 5.39
Ferrara et al. (2006) [7] 1.07 0.19 1.95 0.017 7.46
Izquierdo et al. (2004) [20] 0.53 -0.30 1.36 0.212 8.26
Jubrias et al. (2001) [41] 0.62 -0.16 1.40 0.121 9.24
McCarthy et al. (2002) [43] 1.18 0.26 2.10 0.012 6.81
Poehlman et al. (2000) [9] 0.00 -0.68 0.68 1.000 12.14
Sipilä and Suominen (1995) [44] 0.37 -0.41 1.15 0.355 9.24
Willis et al. (2012) [33] 0.95 0.51 1.39 < 0.001 26.86
Pooled effect 0.66 0.41 0.90 < 0.001

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Favors aerobic Favors resistance

Fig. 2  Forest plot of the differences between the effects of aerobic and resistance training on whole-muscle measures of muscle size. The x-axis
denotes Hedge’s g (standardized mean differences). The whiskers denote the 95% confidence intervals (CIs)

Study Hedges' g Lower limit Upper limit p-value Hedges' g and 95% CI Statistical weight (%)
Ahtiainen et al. (2009) [6] 0.60 -0.28 1.48 0.180 11.06
Bell et al. (2000) [36] 0.88 0.03 1.72 0.042 11.37
De Souza et al. (2014) [38] 2.70 1.48 3.93 < 0.001 8.72
Farup et al. (2012) [39] 0.67 -0.34 1.69 0.192 9.98
Hepple et al. (1997) [40] 1.36 0.42 2.30 0.004 10.65
Karavirta et al. (2011) [42] 0.54 -0.38 1.45 0.254 10.76
Kraemer et al. (1995) [23] 2.07 0.93 3.22 < 0.001 9.19
McCarthy et al. (2002) [43] 1.33 0.39 2.26 0.005 10.69
Nelson et al. (1990) [24] -1.43 -2.77 -0.09 0.037 7.44
Sipilä et al. (1997) [45] 1.02 0.02 2.01 0.046 10.15
Pooled effect 0.99 0.44 1.54 < 0.001

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Favors aerobic Favors resistance

Fig. 3  Forest plot of the differences between the effects of aerobic and resistance training on type I muscle fiber cross-sectional area. The x-axis
denotes Hedge’s g (standardized mean differences). The whiskers denote the 95% confidence intervals (CIs)

With aerobic cycling training, a large number of muscular
contractions (from 118,000 to 145,000 contractions per leg)
has been suggested as a requirement to impart a sufficient
stimulus for muscle hypertrophy [12]. Such training sessions
usually last from 30 to 45 min. In comparison, with resist-
ance training, protocols involving three sets performed at
80% of one repetition maximum and lasting approximately
5–10 min per session have been shown to result in a robust
growth of the knee extensor musculature [46]. Therefore,
regardless of the potential for aerobic training to induce
some degree of muscle hypertrophy, resistance training is
likely a more time-efficient mode of exercise for achieving
this outcome. This may be important given that the lack of
time for exercise is commonly proposed as an important
perceived barrier to exercise participation [47, 48].
While resistance training likely provides a greater (and
more time-efficient) stimulus for inducing muscle hypertro-
phy compared with aerobic training modalities, it is possible
the time courses of muscular growth induced by these two
exercise modes are different. As little as 2 weeks of resist-
ance training has been shown to result in significant hyper-
trophy of the knee extensor muscle group [49]. However, it
is possible that the hypertrophy rate is slower in response to
aerobic training [26]. Therefore, Konopka and Harber sug-
gested that to achieve similar muscular growth, aerobic train-
ing frequency should be higher than the resistance training
frequency [12]. These authors suggested that four to five
sessions of aerobic training per week might be needed to
achieve comparable muscle growth to ‘traditional’ resist-
ance exercise programs [12]. Nineteen out of the 21 stud-
ies included in the present meta-analysis employed aerobic
training frequencies of two and three times per week. There-
fore, it is possible that greater increases in muscle size with
aerobic training would be observed if the included studies
had employed higher training frequencies.
The differential effects of aerobic and resistance exercise
stimuli for inducing muscle hypertrophy might be explained
Resistance vs. Aerobic Training for Hypertrophy

Study Hedges' g Lower limit Upper limit p-value Hedges' g and 95% CI Statistical weight (%)
Ahtiainen et al. (2009) [6] 1.95 0.89 3.01 < 0.001 11.20
Bell et al. (2000) [36] 0.88 0.03 1.73 0.044 13.39
De Souza et al. (2014) [38] 3.08 1.77 4.39 < 0.001 8.87
Farup et al. (2012) [39] 1.07 0.01 2.13 0.047 11.20
Karavirta et al. (2011) [42] 1.62 0.56 2.68 0.003 11.20
Kraemer et al. (1995) [23] 2.09 0.95 3.23 < 0.001 10.35
McCarthy et al. (2002) [43] 1.74 0.74 2.74 0.001 11.78
Nelson et al. (1990) [24] 0.21 -0.97 1.39 0.726 10.04
Sipilä et al. (1997) [45] 0.73 -0.25 1.71 0.144 11.98
Pooled effect 1.44 0.93 1.95 < 0.001

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Favors aerobic Favors resistance

Fig. 4  Forest plot of the differences between the effects of aerobic and resistance training on type II muscle fiber cross-sectional area. The x-axis
denotes Hedge’s g (standardized mean differences). The whiskers denote the 95% confidence intervals (CIs)

by differences in their capacity to activate post-exercise ana-
bolic signaling responses in skeletal muscle. For example,
the degree of post-exercise p70S6 K (p70 kDa ribosomal
protein subunit kinase 1) phosphorylation in skeletal mus-
cle is in some studies highly correlated (r = 0.82–0.99) with
muscular hypertrophy consequent to long-term resistance
training [50–52]. It has been reported that the phospho-
rylation of p70S6 K is increased immediately following
both aerobic and resistance exercise [53]. However, when
assessed 4 h after training, the phosphorylation of p70S6 K
remained increased only with resistance exercise, and simi-
lar results were seen for muscle protein synthesis [53]. These
acute differences in signaling responses between aerobic and
resistance exercise might also reflect potential differences in
the time course of muscular growth induced by both exercise
modes. Future long-term studies might consider exploring
this topic further by incorporating measurements of mus-
cle hypertrophy at multiple time points during aerobic and
resistance training interventions.
One additional matter worthy of discussion when com-
paring these two modes of exercise is motor unit recruit-
ment. Henneman’s size principle suggests that motor units
are recruited in an orderly fashion [54]. During exercise,
smaller motor units are recruited first and, as force produc-
tion requirements increase, larger units are sequentially
recruited as well [55]. Therefore, resistance exercise per-
formed to momentary muscular failure ultimately elicits
activation of the entire motor unit pool, which, in turn,
should stimulate increases in muscle size. However, dur-
ing long-lasting submaximal exercise, such as continuous
cycling (the most common form of aerobic exercise across
the included studies), the highest threshold motor units are
not necessarily activated [55]. Therefore, it is possible that
the greater muscular hypertrophy observed with resistance
training is, at least partially, explained by these differences
in recruitment.
The meta-analysis results for type I and type II fiber CSA
support those seen for whole-muscle measures of hyper-
trophy. Given that the present meta-analysis favored resist-
ance training for increasing both type I and type II fiber
CSA, there appears to be no fiber-type specific hypertrophy
response to aerobic vs. resistance training. Some of the dif-
ferences in results between the studies for muscle fiber CSA
could be the result of the modality of aerobic training. For
instance, Kraemer et al. [23] reported that aerobic training,
in the form of running, induced a decrease in type I and type
II fiber CSA.
The majority of remaining studies included in this meta-
analysis employed cycling as opposed to running. Cycling
may have a more localized stress on the knee extensor mus-
culature than running, and, thus, might have a more pro-
nounced effect on the hypertrophic response of this muscle
group. That said, Coggan and colleagues measured fiber
CSA of the gastrocnemius muscle and reported that walking/
running was sufficient for increasing muscle fiber CSA, [56]
albeit in untrained older adults. Running involves concen-
tric actions coupled with eccentric actions and, thus, it may
result in higher levels of muscle damage than cycling (likely
owing to the shock waves associated with the loading pattern
of running), which is a concentric-only mode of exercise
[57]. In that regard, some studies show that, during the initial
phases of training, in the presence of damage, muscle protein
synthesis may be directed more towards restoring this dam-
age than to building the contractile protein pool [58].
The study by Nelson et al. [24] is the only study to show
an advantage for aerobic training over resistance training
for type I fiber CSA hypertrophy. However, it needs to be
acknowledged that in this study there were considerable
differences between the groups at baseline. For instance,
the group performing resistance training had on aver-
age 8% body fat, while the aerobic training group had on
average 20% body fat. Furthermore, the group performing

resistance training had a relative VO2max of on average
55 mL·kg−1·min−1, while the aerobic training group had an
average value of 44 mL·kg−1·min−1. It might be that these
differences between the groups at baseline influenced the
results of the study.
While it seems that resistance training is more efficient
for inducing hypertrophy of both type I and type II muscle
fibers compared with aerobic training, given the relatively
small number of studies undertaken thus far, further work is
warranted on this topic. An aspect that makes it difficult to
compare aerobic exercise training to resistance training on
a single outcome (in this case, muscle hypertrophy) is the
various characteristics of the training programs (e.g., inten-
sity, duration) across the included studies. Many resistance
training programs in the included studies were designed to
induce hypertrophy. On the contrary, most aerobic training
programs were mainly focused on examining VO2max or met-
abolic changes within the muscle, with muscle growth being
a secondary or tertiary measure. Therefore, future studies
should consider matching different exercise modalities based
on effort and duration, as the acute physiological responses
(i.e., oxygen consumption, blood lactate, energy expendi-
ture, muscle swelling, and electromyography outcomes) may
be quite similar between these two modes of exercise [59]. It
is currently unclear whether matching resistance and aerobic
training on the basis of effort and duration results in similar
long-term adaptations.
4.1 Limitations
Most of the studies conducted to date employed untrained
individuals (Table 1) and these individuals are much more
likely to positively respond to both aerobic and resistance
exercise. The specificity of adaptive responses to aerobic and
resistance training becomes more clear over time. This has
also been shown in terms of protein synthetic responses to
exercise, which become more specific (i.e., mitochondrial
vs. myofibrillar) after a training period [53]. The study by
Kraemer et al. [23] is the only study to include resistance-
trained individuals. Therefore, it may be expected that an
even greater effect of resistance training (as compared to
aerobic) would be seen in trained individuals. However,
future studies in a resistance-trained population are needed.
In the present analysis, we pooled different forms of aero-
bic exercise such as cycling and walking/running, which
may not have the same hypertrophic potential, as previ-
ously discussed. Additionally, the participants across the
included studies ranged from young to older adults, and the
responses to these modes of exercise might not be uniform
across populations of different ages. Although we did use the
random-effects model to address heterogeneity between the
study designs, it remains unclear to what extent these factors
influenced the pooled findings.
J. Grgic et al.
4.2 Methodological Quality
Based on the methodological quality assessment, we can
conclude that the results of the present meta-analysis were
likely not confounded by poor study designs, as all included
studies were deemed to be of moderate or good quality. The
study by Nelson and colleagues [24] had the lowest score on
the Downs and Black checklist. However, this study is the
earliest of all included studies in the present meta-analysis,
and older studies often lack detail in their methodology sec-
tions. The two items added to the checklist (i.e., items 28
and 29) captured some important limitations in several of the
included studies that are specific to exercise interventions.
Studies that reported training adherence showed similar
compliance between both types of training interventions.
That said, it is important to highlight that several studies did
not report participant adherence to the training intervention.
This is a point of concern, given that any between-group dif-
ferences in training adherence may have a pronounced effect
on the muscular adaptations associated with each training
intervention. Future studies should, therefore, ensure that
training adherence is clearly reported for each training inter-
vention, so that the comparison between training modes
remains valid.
Furthermore, in several of the included studies, it was not
clear if the training programs had been supervised or not.
This is an important consideration, as compared to unsu-
pervised training, supervision has been shown to improve
training outcomes such as gains in strength and lean body
mass [60]. Studies should, therefore, explicitly state whether
training programs were performed under supervision, to
allow better interpretation of study methods and ultimately
greater practical applicability.
5 Conclusions
The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis
confirm the common belief that resistance training is more
effective than aerobic training for promoting skeletal mus-
cle hypertrophy and challenge recent suggestions that both
forms of exercise are equally effective. This finding was con-
sistent with measurements of muscle hypertrophy both at
the whole-muscle and myofiber levels. While these results
are specific to the knee extensor musculature, it could be
hypothesized that similar results would likely be seen for
other muscle groups as well. Although the identified studies
were of moderate-to-good quality, future research comparing
hypertrophic responses to resistance and aerobic training
should include assessments of not only the knee extensors
but also other muscle groups. Future studies should also con-
sider incorporating different modalities of aerobic exercise
Resistance vs. Aerobic Training for Hypertrophy
(e.g., cycling vs. running) and including trained individuals,
which likely show divergent adaptive responses to exercise
compared with untrained individuals.
Compliance with Ethical Standards  16. Harber MP, Konopka AR, Douglass MD, et al. Aerobic exer-
Funding  No external sources of funding were used to assist in the
preparation of this article.
Conflict of interest  Jozo Grgic, Luke C. Mcllvenna, Jackson J. Fyfe,
Filip Sabol, David J. Bishop, Brad J. Schoenfeld, and Zeljko Pedisic
have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the contents of
this review.
References
1. Fyfe JJ, Loenneke JP. Interpreting adaptation to concurrent com-
pared with single-mode exercise training: some methodological
considerations. Sports Med. 2018;48(2):289–97.
2. Garber CE, Blissmer B, Deschenes MR, et al. American Col-
lege of Sports Medicine position stand: quantity and quality
of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory,
musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy
adults: guidance for prescribing exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2011;43(7):1334–59.
3. American College of Sports Medicine. American College
of Sports Medicine position stand: progression models in
resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2009;41(3):687–708.
4. Fyfe JJ, Bishop DJ, Stepto NK. Interference between concurrent
resistance and endurance exercise: molecular bases and the role
of individual training variables. Sports Med. 2014;44(6):743–62.
5. Ozaki H, Loenneke JP, Thiebaud RS, et al. Resistance training
induced increase in VO 2 max in young and older subjects. Eur
Rev Aging Phys Act. 2013;10(2):107.
6. Ahtiainen JP, Hulmi JJ, Kraemer WJ, et al. Strength, endurance
or combined training elicit diverse skeletal muscle myosin heavy
chain isoform proportion but unaltered androgen receptor concen-
tration in older men. Int J Sports Med. 2009;30(12):879–87.
7. Ferrara CM, Goldberg AP, Ortmeyer HK, et al. Effects of aerobic
and resistive exercise training on glucose disposal and skeletal
muscle metabolism in older men. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci.
2006;61(5):480–7.
8. Sillanpaa E, Hakkinen A, Nyman K, et al. Body composition and
fitness during strength and/or endurance training in older men.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(5):950–8.
9. Poehlman ET, Dvorak RV, DeNino WF, et al. Effects of resistance
training and endurance training on insulin sensitivity in nonobese,
young women: a controlled randomized trial. J Clin Endocrinol
Metab. 2000;85(7):2463–8.
10. DeLorme TL. Technics of progressive resistance exercise. Arch
Phys Med Rehabil. 1948;29(5):263–73.
11. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA, Flanagan SD, et al. Understanding
the science of resistance training: an evolutionary perspective.
Sports Med. 2017;47(12):2415–35.
12. Konopka AR, Harber MP. Skeletal muscle hypertrophy after aero-
bic exercise training. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2014;42(2):53–61.
13. Ceccarelli G, Benedetti L, Arcari ML, et al. Muscle stem cell and
physical activity: what point is the debate at? Open Med (Wars).
2017;12:144–56.
14. Rutkowska-Kucharska A, Szpala A. The use of electromyo-
graphy and magnetic resonance imaging to evaluate a core
strengthening exercise programme. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil.
2018;31(2):355–62.
15. Short KR, Vittone JL, Bigelow ML, et al. Age and aerobic exer-
cise training effects on whole body and muscle protein metabo-
lism. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2004;286(1):E92–101.
cise training improves whole muscle and single myofiber size
and function in older women. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp
Physiol. 2009;297(5):R1452–9.
17. Harber MP, Konopka AR, Undem MK, et al. Aerobic exercise
training induces skeletal muscle hypertrophy and age-dependent
adaptations in myofiber function in young and older men. J Appl
Physiol. 2012;113(9):1495–504.
18. Hudelmaier M, Wirth W, Himmer M, et al. Effect of exercise
intervention on thigh muscle volume and anatomical cross-sec-
tional areas: quantitative assessment using MRI. Magn Reson
Med. 2010;64(6):1713–20.
19. Izquierdo M, Hakkinen K, Ibanez J, et al. Effects of combined
resistance and cardiovascular training on strength, power, muscle
cross-sectional area, and endurance markers in middle-aged men.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2005;94(1–2):70–5.
20. Izquierdo M, Ibanez J, Häkkinen K, et al. Once weekly combined
resistance and cardiovascular training in healthy older men. Med
Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(3):435–43.
21. Mikkola J, Rusko H, Izquierdo M, et al. Neuromuscular and car-
diovascular adaptations during concurrent strength and endurance
training in untrained men. Int J Sports Med. 2012;33(9):702–10.
22. Folland JP, Williams AG. The adaptations to strength train-
ing: morphological and neurological contributions to increased
strength. Sports Med. 2007;37(2):145–68.
23. Kraemer WJ, Patton JF, Gordon SE, et al. Compatibility of high-
intensity strength and endurance training on hormonal and skeletal
muscle adaptations. J Appl Physiol. 1995;78(3):976–89.
24. Nelson AG, Arnall DA, Loy SF, et al. Consequences of com-
bining strength and endurance training regimens. Phys Ther.
1990;70(5):287–94.
25. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items
for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.
Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9.
26. Ozaki H, Loenneke JP, Thiebaud RS, et al. Cycle training induces
muscle hypertrophy and strength gain: strategies and mechanisms.
Acta Physiol Hung. 2015;102(1):1–22.
27. Schoenfeld B. Science and development of muscle hypertrophy.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Inc. 2016.
28. Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the
assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and
non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol
Community Health. 1998;52(6):377–84.
29. Davies TB, Kuang K, Orr R, et al. Effect of movement velocity
during resistance training on dynamic muscular strength: a system-
atic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2017;47(8):1603–17.
30. Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ, Skrepnik M, et al. Effects of rest interval
duration in resistance training on measures of muscular strength:
a systematic review. Sports Med. 2018;48(1):137–51.
31. Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ, Davies TB, et al. Effect of resistance train-
ing frequency on gains in muscular strength: a systematic review
and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2018;48(5):1207–20.
32. Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Altman DG, on behalf of the Cochrane
Statistical Methods Group, editors. Chapter 16.1.3.2. Imputing
standard deviations for changes from baseline. In: Higgins JP,
Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of
interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). Cochrane Col-
laboration, Chichester, UK; 2011.
33. Willis LH, Slentz CA, Bateman LA, et al. Effects of aerobic and/
or resistance training on body mass and fat mass in overweight or
obese adults. J Appl Physiol. 2012;113(12):1831–7.

34. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
Hilsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 1988.
35. Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based
method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-anal-
ysis. Biometrics. 2000;56(2):455–63.
36. Bell GJ, Syrotuik D, Martin TP, et  al. Effect of concurrent
strength and endurance training on skeletal muscle properties
and hormone concentrations in humans. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2000;81(5):418–27.
37. de Souza EO, Tricoli V, Roschel H, et al. Molecular adaptations
to concurrent training. Int J Sports Med. 2013;34(3):207–13.
38. de Souza EO, Tricoli V, Aoki MS, et al. Effects of concurrent
strength and endurance training on genes related to myostatin
signaling pathway and muscle fiber responses. J Strength Cond
Res. 2014;28(11):3215–23.
39. Farup J, Kjolhede T, Sorensen H, et al. Muscle morphological
and strength adaptations to endurance vs. resistance training. J
Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(2):398–407.
40. Hepple RT, Mackinnon SL, Goodman JM, et  al. Resist-
ance and aerobic training in older men: effects on VO2peak
and the capillary supply to skeletal muscle. J Appl Physiol.
1997;82(4):1305–10.
41. Jubrias SA, Esselman PC, Price LB, et al. Large energetic adap-
tations of elderly muscle to resistance and endurance training. J
Appl Physiol. 2001;90(5):1663–70.
42. Karavirta L, Hakkinen A, Sillanpaa E, et al. Effects of combined
endurance and strength training on muscle strength, power and
hypertrophy in 40-67-year-old men. Scand J Med Sci Sports.
2011;21(3):402–11.
43. McCarthy JP, Pozniak MA, Agre JC. Neuromuscular adaptations
to concurrent strength and endurance training. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 2002;34(3):511–9.
44. Sipila S, Suominen H. Effects of strength and endurance training
on thigh and leg muscle mass and composition in elderly women.
J Appl Physiol. 1995;78(1):334–40.
45. Sipila S, Elorinne M, Alen M, et al. Effects of strength and endur-
ance training on muscle fibre characteristics in elderly women.
Clin Physiol. 1997;17(5):459–74.
46. Mitchell CJ, Churchward-Venne TA, West DW, et al. Resistance
exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic
gains in young men. J Appl Physiol. 2012;113(1):71–7.
47. Gibala MJ. High-intensity interval training: a time-efficient strat-
egy for health promotion? Curr Sports Med Rep. 2007;6(4):211–3.
J. Grgic et al.
48. Siddiqi Z, Tiro JA, Shuval K. Understanding impediments and
enablers to physical activity among African American adults:
a systematic review of qualitative studies. Health Educ Res.
2011;26(6):1010–24.
49. Counts BR, Buckner SL, Mouser JG, et al. Muscle growth: to
infinity and beyond? Muscle Nerve. 2017;56(6):1022–30.
50. Terzis G, Georgiadis G, Stratakos G, et  al. Resistance exer-
cise induced increase in muscle mass correlates with p70S6
kinase phosphorylation in human subjects. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2008;102(2):145–52.
51. Baar K, Esser K. Phosphorylation of p70(S6 k) correlates with
increased skeletal muscle mass following resistance exercise. Am
J Physiol. 1999;276(1 Pt 1):C120–7.
52. Mayhew DL, Hornberger TA, Lincoln HC, et al. Eukaryotic ini-
tiation factor 2B epsilon induces cap-dependent translation and
skeletal muscle hypertrophy. J Physiol. 2011;589(Pt 12):3023–37.
53. Wilkinson SB, Phillips SM, Atherton PJ, et al. Differential effects
of resistance and endurance exercise in the fed state on signalling
molecule phosphorylation and protein synthesis in human muscle.
J Physiol. 2008;586(Pt 15):3701–17.
54. Duchateau J, Enoka RM. Human motor unit recordings: ori-
gins and insight into the integrated motor system. Brain Res.
2011;1409:42–61.
55. Edström L, Grimby L. Effect of exercise on the motor unit. Muscle
Nerve. 1986;9(2):104–26.
56. Coggan AR, Spina RJ, King DS, et al. Skeletal muscle adaptations
to endurance training in 60- to 70-yr-old men and women. J Appl
Physiol. 1992;72(5):1780–6.
57. Millet GY, Lepers R. Alterations of neuromuscular function after
prolonged running, cycling and skiing exercises. Sports Med.
2004;34(2):105–16.
58. Damas F, Phillips SM, Libardi CA, et al. Resistance training-
induced changes in integrated myofibrillar protein synthesis are
related to hypertrophy only after attenuation of muscle damage. J
Physiol. 2016;594(18):5209–22.
59. Steele J, Butler A, Comerford Z, et al. Similar acute physiological
responses from effort and duration matched leg press and recum-
bent cycling tasks. PeerJ. 2018;6:e4403.
60. Mazzetti SA, Kraemer WJ, Volek JS, et al. The influence of direct
supervision of resistance training on strength performance. Med
Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32(6):1175–84.