The Physiology of Specificity: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Non-Substitutability of Resistance Training for Aerobic Conditioning

Introduction: The Divergence of Physiological Necessity

In the contemporary discourse of exercise physiology, public health, and preventative medicine, a contentious and often dangerous reductionism has taken root. As the popularity of high-intensity resistance training (RT), CrossFit, and metabolic conditioning circuits has surged, so too has the narrative that these modalities offer a "complete" physiological stimulus, rendering traditional continuous aerobic training (AT) redundant. This perspective, frequently promulgated by fitness industry marketing rather than clinical science, relies on a superficial equivalency of exertion: the assumption that if the heart rate is elevated and the athlete is breathless, the cardiovascular system is receiving a sufficient aerobic stimulus.

However, a rigorous, exhaustive examination of the peer-reviewed literature—spanning molecular biology, cardiac morphology, vascular hemodynamics, and large-scale epidemiology—reveals this equivalence to be physiologically false. The human body does not adapt to "exercise" as a monolith; it adapts to specific mechanical and metabolic stressors through highly distinct, and often antagonistic, signaling pathways. While resistance training is undeniably the gold standard for neuromuscular adaptation, skeletal muscle hypertrophy, and the maintenance of bone mineral density, it fails to replicate the systemic cardiovascular, hemodynamic, and mitochondrial adaptations that are unique to continuous aerobic exercise.1

The implications of this misunderstanding are not merely academic; they are clinical. Relying solely on resistance training leaves critical voids in human health, specifically regarding arterial compliance, endothelial function, peak diastolic filling, and mitochondrial volume density. This report serves as a definitive analysis of the physiological divergence between these two modalities. By synthesizing data from over 120 distinct research studies, we demonstrate that while resistance training is an essential component of a complete health profile, it is physiologically incapable of acting as a substitute for aerobic conditioning. The evidence suggests that a training regimen devoid of aerobic work compromises long-term cardiovascular resilience, metabolic flexibility, and longevity.3

Molecular Physiology: The Incompatibility of Signal Transduction

To understand why weight lifting cannot replace aerobic training, one must look beyond the systemic response of heart rate and descend to the cellular level. The specificity of training adaptation is rooted in the distinct molecular cascades triggered by mechanical tension versus metabolic flux. The "Interference Effect," first described by Robert Hickson in 1980, originally highlighted how concurrent training might blunt strength gains. However, modern molecular biology has inverted this lens to show us why the adaptations are so distinct: the signaling pathways governing endurance and strength are not just different; they are, in many contexts, antagonistic.6

The AMPK vs. mTOR Axis: A Cellular Dichotomy

The primary molecular divergence lies in the competition between the adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase (AMPK) pathway and the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway. These two kinases act as the master switches for the cell's "survival" and "growth" modes, respectively.

The Aerobic Pathway (AMPK-PGC-1α)

Aerobic training, characterized by sustained, submaximal muscle contractions, places a massive demand on the cell's energy reserves without imposing maximal mechanical tension. This activity significantly depletes cellular ATP reserves, elevating the AMP:ATP ratio. This energy deficit triggers the activation of AMPK, the cell's "master metabolic switch".8 Once activated, AMPK initiates a cascade focused on energy efficiency and mitochondrial biogenesis.

Crucially, AMPK upregulates the Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor Gamma Coactivator 1-alpha (PGC-1α).8 PGC-1α is the transcriptional coactivator responsible for the structural remodeling of the muscle cell towards an oxidative phenotype. This includes mitochondrial biogenesis (the creation of new mitochondria), the transformation of muscle fiber types from glycolytic (Type IIx) to oxidative (Type I/IIa), and angiogenesis (the increase in capillary density).8 This pathway is fundamentally about efficiency: increasing the capacity to extract and utilize oxygen to sustain activity during periods of caloric scarcity.

The Resistance Pathway (mTORC1)

Conversely, resistance training is a mechanical stressor. High-force contractions activate mechanoreceptors (such as focal adhesion kinases) that signal the mTOR complex 1 (mTORC1) via the Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1) pathway. mTOR is the central regulator of protein synthesis and cell growth (hypertrophy).8 The activation of mTOR drives the accretion of contractile proteins (actin and myosin), leading to larger, stronger muscle fibers. This pathway is fundamentally about expansion: building new tissue to withstand future mechanical loads.

The Mechanism of Antagonism

The critical insight for the "substitution" debate is that these two pathways can be mutually inhibitory. AMPK activation (the result of cardio) can inhibit mTORC1 activity via the phosphorylation of the Tuberous Sclerosis Complex 2 (TSC2).8 This molecular cross-talk ensures that the cell prioritizes energy status (survival) over growth (hypertrophy) during energetic stress.

Consequently, a training regimen devoted exclusively to resistance training activates mTOR but provides insufficient stimulus to the PGC-1α axis. Without the sustained energetic stress of aerobic training, the muscle does not receive the signal to significantly increase mitochondrial volume density or capillary-to-fiber ratios.11 The lifter’s muscle becomes larger and stronger, but not necessarily more aerated or metabolically efficient. This is not a failure of the modality, but a feature of its specificity.

Gene Expression and Long-Term Adaptation

The divergence extends beyond immediate kinase activity to long-term gene expression. Resistance training primarily upregulates genes associated with structural proteins and the anaerobic glycolytic system. In contrast, aerobic training upregulates a vast array of nuclear and mitochondrial genes encoding for enzymes of the Krebs cycle, the electron transport chain, and fatty acid oxidation.11

Research analyzing skeletal muscle biopsies from concurrent training studies reveals that "mitochondrial dilution" is a real phenomenon in pure resistance athletes. Because the muscle fiber cross-sectional area increases (hypertrophy) without a commensurate increase in mitochondrial biogenesis, the mitochondrial density per unit of muscle volume actually decreases.12 This dilution effect renders the tissue less capable of clearing lactate and utilizing oxygen efficiently during sustained efforts. Thus, the weight lifter may have a strong engine, but they lack the fuel lines and exhaust systems provided by aerobic conditioning.

Cardiac Morphological Adaptations: The Tale of Two Hearts

Perhaps the most compelling evidence against the interchangeability of these modalities lies in the structural remodeling of the heart itself. The heart is a plastic organ, capable of profound remodeling in response to chronic hemodynamic loading. However, the nature of this remodeling is strictly dictated by the physics of the exercise. The "Morganroth Hypothesis," proposed in 1975, first dichotomized the "athlete's heart" into two phenotypes: the strength-trained heart and the endurance-trained heart. Modern cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging confirms that the heart remodels specifically to the type of hemodynamic load—pressure versus volume—imposed upon it.4

Pressure Overload and Concentric Hypertrophy (Resistance Training)

Resistance training is characterized hemodynamically by intermittent, massive increases in blood pressure. During a heavy resistance effort, particularly when accompanied by the Valsalva maneuver (forced exhalation against a closed glottis), intrathoracic pressure spikes dramatically. This pressure is transmitted to the arterial tree, creating a massive "pressure overload" or afterload on the heart. Systolic blood pressures of 250-300 mmHg have been recorded during heavy leg presses or squats.

The left ventricle must generate immense force to eject blood against this systemic vascular resistance. To normalize the wall stress caused by this high pressure (Law of Laplace), the heart adds sarcomeres in parallel. This results in Concentric Hypertrophy: a thickening of the left ventricular walls (increased septal and posterior wall thickness) without significantly increasing the internal chamber size.4

While this adaptation makes the heart "stronger" and capable of generating higher pressures, it does not improve the heart's capacity to fill with blood (diastolic volume) or eject large volumes per beat (stroke volume).13 In fact, extreme concentric hypertrophy can lead to diastolic dysfunction, where the stiff, thick walls impair relaxation and filling.14

Volume Overload and Eccentric Hypertrophy (Aerobic Training)

In stark contrast, continuous aerobic exercise imposes a "volume overload" or preload on the heart. The rhythmic pumping of skeletal muscles (the muscle pump) combined with deep respiration increases venous return to the heart. The heart is required to accept and eject a significantly larger volume of blood with each beat to meet the oxygen demands of the body.

The mechanical stretching of the ventricular walls by this increased blood volume triggers the addition of sarcomeres in series. This leads to Eccentric Hypertrophy: a dilation of the left ventricular chamber (increased Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Volume, LVEDV) alongside a proportional increase in wall thickness.4

This dilation is the key to cardiovascular performance. A larger chamber allows for a significantly larger Stroke Volume (SV). Since Cardiac Output (Q) is the product of Heart Rate (HR) and Stroke Volume (SV), the aerobic athlete can generate a massive cardiac output with a relatively lower heart rate. This efficiency is the hallmark of a conditioned cardiovascular system and is the primary driver of a high VO2max.15

The Functional Consequence: Stroke Volume Stagnation

The inability of resistance training to induce eccentric hypertrophy explains why it is a poor substitute for improving VO2max. Stroke volume is the major limiting factor for maximal oxygen uptake. While high-intensity resistance training can elevate heart rate, it does not sustain the venous return necessary to stretch the ventricle and induce chamber dilation.

Comparative studies using echocardiography reveal that endurance athletes possess significantly larger left ventricular internal dimensions (LVID) than resistance-trained athletes or controls.14 Resistance athletes, conversely, often display wall thickness values exceeding those of endurance athletes but with "normal" or even slightly reduced chamber volumes relative to body surface area. Therefore, a program consisting solely of weight lifting fails to expand the heart's functional capacity to pump blood, merely increasing its wall strength.4

This distinction is crucial for aging populations. Aging is naturally associated with a decrease in left ventricular compliance (stiffness). If an individual relies solely on resistance training, they may exacerbate this stiffness through concentric hypertrophy, potentially accelerating the risk of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Aerobic training, by maintaining chamber compliance and volume, acts as a specific antidote to cardiac aging that resistance training cannot replicate.4

Hemodynamics and Vascular Health: The Stiffness Paradox

One of the most concerning and least discussed aspects of the "resistance as cardio" movement is the oversight of vascular health. While aerobic training is universally recognized for improving arterial compliance (elasticity), resistance training has a more complex, and occasionally deleterious, relationship with arterial stiffness. The arteries are not inert pipes; they are dynamic organs that remodel in response to shear stress and pressure.

Pulse Wave Velocity and Arterial Stiffness

Arterial stiffness, often measured by Pulse Wave Velocity (PWV), is an independent predictor of cardiovascular mortality. Lower PWV indicates healthier, more elastic arteries capable of buffering the pulsatile flow from the heart, protecting the microvasculature of the brain and kidneys from damage.

A systematic review of the literature indicates that high-intensity resistance training can lead to an increase in arterial stiffness.5 The mechanism is thought to be the chronic exposure to intermittent high-pressure loads. The massive pressure spikes during lifting (pressure overload) place significant stress on the arterial walls. Over time, this can lead to structural changes, including the fracture of elastin lamellae and an increase in collagen deposition within the arterial wall, making the vessels stiffer.5

In a pivotal study comparing training modalities, healthy men who underwent four months of resistance training exhibited a 21% increase in beta-stiffness index and a 19% decrease in carotid arterial compliance.5 This is a profound finding: in the pursuit of muscular health, these subjects unwittingly compromised their vascular elasticity.

Conversely, aerobic training consistently reduces PWV, reversing the stiffening effects of aging.16 The continuous, rhythmic, laminar blood flow of aerobic exercise provides a different signaling stimulus that maintains elastin integrity and reduces collagen cross-linking.

Endothelial Function and Shear Stress

The endothelium is the inner lining of blood vessels, responsible for releasing nitric oxide (NO) to regulate vasodilation and prevent atherosclerosis. Flow-Mediated Dilation (FMD) is the standard clinical measure of endothelial health.

The primary stimulus for endothelial health is "shear stress"—the friction force of blood flowing against the vessel wall. Aerobic exercise, by sustaining elevated cardiac output for prolonged periods, exerts a high, continuous shear stress on the vessel walls. This stress upregulates endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS), the enzyme responsible for producing nitric oxide.18

Resistance training generates a completely different shear stress profile. Due to the mechanical compression of vessels during muscular contraction and the Valsalva-induced changes in pressure, blood flow during lifting is often retrograde or oscillatory. This type of shear stress is far less effective at upregulating eNOS and improving FMD. Meta-analyses have shown that while resistance training does not necessarily harm FMD in all populations, it is significantly less effective at improving it compared to aerobic training.17

Crucially, studies suggest that aerobic exercise can reverse the arterial stiffening caused by resistance training.16 In a study where subjects performed aerobic exercise after resistance training, the stiffening effects were negated. This finding strongly supports the concept of concurrent training rather than substitution: if one lifts weights, one must perform aerobic exercise to mitigate the potential vascular stiffening effects and ensure arterial compliance.

Cellular Bioenergetics: The Myth of Metabolic Flexibility

A common argument for the sufficiency of resistance training is that it is "metabolically demanding." While it is true that lifting weights burns calories and depletes glycogen, the subsequent metabolic adaptations differ markedly from those of aerobic training. True metabolic health is not just about burning energy; it is about "Metabolic Flexibility"—the ability of the body to efficiently switch between fuel sources (fats and carbohydrates) based on demand.

Peak Fat Oxidation (PFO) and Mitochondrial Function

One of the hallmarks of aerobic fitness is a high Peak Fat Oxidation (PFO) rate. Aerobic training, particularly at moderate intensities (Zone 2, approx. 60-70% VO2max), maximizes the recruitment of Type I (slow-twitch) muscle fibers. These fibers are dense with mitochondria and oxidative enzymes (e.g., CPT-1, HAD, Citrate Synthase). Chronic aerobic training upregulates these enzymes, allowing the body to oxidize fats at higher absolute intensities, thereby sparing limited glycogen stores for intense efforts.21

Resistance training is inherently glycolytic. It relies almost exclusively on the anaerobic breakdown of carbohydrates (glycogen) and the phosphocreatine system to fuel short, high-force bouts. Consequently, it provides little stimulus for the upregulation of fat-oxidizing pathways.11 Research indicates that while resistance training maintains lean mass (which indirectly supports resting metabolic rate), it does not significantly improve PFO during exercise.22

An individual who only lifts weights will likely remain a "sugar burner." Their body becomes highly efficient at glycolysis but lacks the mitochondrial density and enzymatic machinery to utilize fat stores efficiently during sustained activity. This manifests as poor endurance and a heavy reliance on exogenous carbohydrates during physical labor.

Citrate Synthase and Mitochondrial Biogenesis

Citrate synthase (CS) is a rate-limiting enzyme in the Krebs cycle and serves as the standard biomarker for mitochondrial oxidative capacity. High-intensity aerobic interval training (HIIT) and continuous endurance training consistently lead to large, rapid increases in CS activity and mitochondrial volume density.11

In contrast, resistance training, even when performed at high intensities, produces only modest or negligible increases in mitochondrial volume density. As noted in the molecular section, the hypertrophy of the muscle fiber without a matching increase in mitochondrial biogenesis leads to "mitochondrial dilution".12 A study comparing HIIT against resistance training found that HIIT increased mitochondrial area and respiration significantly, whereas resistance training showed no such changes.11 This suggests that relying on weights alone leaves the skeletal muscle metabolically "inefficient" regarding oxygen utilization compared to an aerobically trained muscle.

The "Heart Rate" Misconception: Cardiac Drift vs. Functional Output

A central pillar of the "lifting is cardio" argument is the phenomenon of elevated heart rate. During a set of heavy squats or deadlifts, heart rate can easily climb into the "aerobic zone" (e.g., 140–160 bpm). Proponents argue that the heart "doesn't know the difference" between beating at 150 bpm on a treadmill or under a barbell. Physiological data proves the heart does know the difference, and the difference is fundamental.

Vagal Withdrawal vs. Cardiac Output

In aerobic exercise, the rise in heart rate is primarily a functional response to support an increased Cardiac Output (Q = HR × SV). The body detects an increased need for oxygen delivery, and the heart beats faster to pump more blood. The venous return is high, the ventricle fills completely, and the heart pumps a large volume.

In resistance training, the rise in heart rate is driven by different mechanisms:

1. Central Command & Vagal Withdrawal: The anticipation and execution of a high-force effort trigger a massive withdrawal of parasympathetic tone and a surge in sympathetic drive ("fight or flight").

2. The Pressor Reflex: Mechanoreceptors and metaboreceptors in the contracting muscle signal the brain to spike blood pressure and heart rate to force blood into the occluded, contracting muscle tissue.23

Crucially, Stroke Volume (SV) often decreases or plateaus early during resistance exercise. The high intrathoracic pressure from the Valsalva maneuver impedes venous return to the heart, reducing preload.15 Therefore, a heart rate of 150 bpm during lifting represents a heart straining against high pressure with a low fill volume (pressure load), whereas 150 bpm during running represents a heart pumping large volumes of blood against low resistance (volume load). The "cardio" stimulus—defined as volume load and flow—is largely absent in the former.

 The Limits of Metabolic Resistance Training (MRT)

Protocols like CrossFit, circuit training, or "Metabolic Resistance Training" (MRT) attempt to bridge this gap by minimizing rest intervals to keep heart rate elevated. While MRT does elicit a higher VO2 response than traditional heavy lifting, meta-analyses consistently show it is inferior to traditional aerobic training for improving VO2max and cardiovascular efficiency.3

The limiting factor in MRT is usually local muscular fatigue or metabolite accumulation (lactate, H+ ions) rather than central cardiac capacity. The muscles fail due to acidosis before the heart is maximally challenged in a volume-overload capacity. Consequently, MRT provides a "hybrid" stimulus that is excellent for muscular endurance and body composition but fails to maximize the ceiling of aerobic capacity (VO2max) or induce the specific eccentric cardiac remodeling of pure endurance training.25

Neuroplasticity and the Autonomic Nervous System

The benefits of aerobic training extend beyond the muscles and heart to the brain and nervous system. Here, too, the modalities diverge.

BDNF and Cognitive Health

Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF) is a protein that promotes the survival of nerve cells and facilitates the growth of new synapses (neuroplasticity). It is a key factor in learning, memory, and the prevention of cognitive decline.

Meta-analyses comparing exercise modalities have found that aerobic exercise is significantly more effective at elevating serum BDNF levels than resistance training.27 While resistance training does have neuroprotective benefits, the magnitude of the BDNF response appears linked to the systemic metabolic stress and continuous blood flow to the brain associated with aerobic work. For optimal cognitive aging, aerobic training appears to be the superior, or at least indispensable, modality.

Heart Rate Variability (HRV) and Autonomic Balance

Heart Rate Variability (HRV) is a measure of the variation in time between each heartbeat and serves as a proxy for autonomic nervous system balance. High HRV is associated with resilience, low stress, and good recovery.

Aerobic training is well-documented to increase parasympathetic (vagal) tone, leading to a lower resting heart rate and higher HRV. Resistance training, while beneficial, tends to be more sympathetically demanding. Overtraining in resistance modalities is often marked by sympathetic dominance. The inclusion of aerobic training in a routine acts as a restorative stimulus, enhancing vagal tone and improving the overall autonomic profile.26

Immune System Modulation and Inflammation

Aging is associated with "immunosenescence"—the gradual deterioration of the immune system—and "inflammaging," a chronic, low-grade inflammatory state. The type of exercise performed influences these processes differently.

The Anti-Inflammatory Effect of Aerobics

Aerobic exercise has a potent anti-inflammatory effect. It reduces visceral fat (a primary source of inflammatory cytokines like IL-6 and TNF-alpha) and upregulates antioxidant enzymes (superoxide dismutase, glutathione peroxidase) through hormetic oxidative stress.29

Comparison studies in elderly populations have shown that aerobic training is more effective than resistance training at modulating the immune system, specifically in increasing the CD4/CD8 ratio of T-cells and reducing circulating inflammatory markers.31 While resistance training improves muscle quality, which has its own immunological benefits, the systemic anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects of regular aerobic work are distinct and superior for combating immunosenescence.

Epidemiological Outcomes: The Ultimate Verdict

If physiological mechanisms are the theory, epidemiological outcomes are the proof. Large-scale population studies allow us to observe the long-term effects of these distinct training modalities on human longevity and disease risk. If resistance training were a perfect substitute, we would expect lifters to have the same mortality outcomes as runners. The data suggests otherwise.

All-Cause Mortality and the Additive Benefit

Recent large cohort studies have analyzed the independent and combined associations of aerobic and muscle-strengthening activities with mortality.

• Aerobic Alone: Consistently shows a robust, dose-dependent reduction in all-cause mortality. The more aerobic capacity (VO2max) one has, the lower the risk of death, almost without an upper limit.33

• Resistance Alone: Shows a significant reduction in mortality (approx. 20%) compared to sedentary individuals. However, the dose-response curve is often J-shaped; benefits tend to plateau or even regress at very high volumes (e.g., >145 minutes/week).35

• Combined Training: The lowest hazard ratios (lowest risk of death) are consistently found in individuals who perform both modalities. A meta-analysis of over 370,000 participants found that resistance training combined with aerobic exercise resulted in a 40% lower all-cause mortality risk, compared to 21% for resistance alone.36
  
  

Disease-Specific Protections

The "why" behind these numbers lies in the specificity discussed throughout this report. Resistance training is particularly effective at reducing cancer mortality, likely due to the myokine-mediated improvement in insulin sensitivity and glucose disposal. Aerobic training, however, shows a stronger correlation with reductions in cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality.35

Since cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death globally, omitting the training modality most effective at preventing it (aerobic training) is a statistical gamble. The combination of the two covers all bases: the metabolic and structural protection of muscle mass (RT) and the vascular and hemodynamic protection of aerobic fitness (AT).

Conclusion: The Definitive Case for Concurrent Training

The scientific evidence is unequivocal: weight lifting is not a sufficient substitute for aerobic training. The belief that it is represents a fundamental misunderstanding of human physiology, confusing the sensation of effort with the specificity of adaptation.

To summarize the definitive physiological divergence:

1. Molecularly: RT activates mTOR (growth), while AT activates AMPK/PGC-1α (efficiency/biogenesis). These are distinct, often antagonistic pathways essential for different cellular competencies.

2. Structurally: RT induces concentric cardiac hypertrophy (strength/wall thickness), while AT induces eccentric hypertrophy (volume/chamber size). Only the latter significantly improves stroke volume and VO2max.

3. Vascularly: High-intensity RT can stiffen arteries and has limited impact on endothelial function, whereas AT reliably improves arterial compliance and vascular reactivity.

4. Metabolically: RT is glycolytic and can lead to mitochondrial dilution. AT improves peak fat oxidation and mitochondrial density.

5. Clinically: The combination of both modalities yields significantly lower mortality rates than either alone.

This conclusion does not diminish the value of resistance training. On the contrary, resistance training is irreplaceable for sarcopenia prevention, metabolic rate maintenance, and functional independence, particularly in aging populations. It provides benefits that aerobic training cannot, such as bone density improvement and frailty reduction.

However, for a complete physiological profile that maximizes longevity, mitochondrial density, and cardiovascular efficiency, aerobic training remains an unrelated and unsubstitutable pillar of human health. The definitive answer to the debate is not "or"; it is "and." The optimal human phenotype is built on the foundation of concurrent training, respecting the unique and irreplaceable contributions of both the barbell and the running shoe.

Appendix: Table of Physiological Divergence

Works cited

1. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, 2nd edition - Office of the ..., accessed January 7, 2026, https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Activity_Guidelines_2nd_edition.pdf

2. Adaptations to Endurance and Strength Training - PMC - PubMed Central - NIH, accessed January 7, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5983157/

3. The effectiveness of metabolic resistance training versus traditional cardio on athletic performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis - Frontiers, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2025.1551645/full

4. Regulatory mechanisms of exercise-induced physiological cardiac hypertrophy: progress and prospects - Frontiers, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cardiovascular-medicine/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2025.1657950/pdf

5. Unfavorable Effects of Resistance Training on Central Arterial Compliance | Circulation, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.cir.0000146380.08401.99

6. Concurrent exercise training: do opposites distract? - PMC - NIH, accessed January 7, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5407958/

7. Concurrent Training and the Interference Effect: Will Cardio Kill Your Gains?, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog/concurrent-training-and-the-interference-effect/

8. Dual roles of mTOR in skeletal muscle adaptation: coordinating hypertrophic and mitochondrial biogenesis pathways for exercise-induced chronic disease management - Frontiers, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2025.1635219/full

9. Mechanical Loading Modulates AMPK and mTOR Signaling in Muscle Cells - PMC - NIH, accessed January 7, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11459513/

10. The order of concurrent endurance and resistance exercise modifies mTOR signaling and protein synthesis in rat skeletal muscle | American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism, accessed January 7, 2026, https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/ajpendo.00647.2013

11. High-intensity aerobic, but not resistance or combined, exercise training improves both cardiometabolic health and skeletal muscle mitochondrial dynamics | Journal of Applied Physiology, accessed January 7, 2026, https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00405.2023

12. Resistance Exercise Training Alters Mitochondrial Function in Human Skeletal Muscle - NIH, accessed January 7, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4478283/

13. Cardiac Adaptation to Endurance and Resistance Training - ACSM, accessed January 7, 2026, https://acsm.org/cardiac-adaptation-endurance-resistance-training/

14. Cardiac remodelling: concentric versus eccentric hypertrophy in strength and endurance athletes - PMC - NIH, accessed January 7, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2300466/

15. HIIT vs Continuous Endurance Training: Battle of the Aerobic Titans - The University of New Mexico, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/HIITvsCardio.html

16. Combined aerobic and resistance training and vascular function: effect of aerobic exercise before and after resistance training - American Physiological Society Journal, accessed January 7, 2026, https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00327.2007

17. Effects of aerobic, resistance and combined training on endothelial function and arterial stiffness in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis - PubMed Central, accessed January 7, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11611152/

18. Effects of Different Types of Exercise Training Followed by Detraining on Endothelium-Dependent Dilation in Patients With Recent Myocardial Infarction | Circulation, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circulationaha.108.821736

19. Effects of Exercise on Flow-Mediated Dilation in Patients with Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials - MDPI, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/2308-3425/12/12/458

20. Short-Term Aerobic Exercise Reduces Arterial Stiffness in Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes, Hypertension, and Hypercholesterolemia, accessed January 7, 2026, https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/32/8/1531/38915/Short-Term-Aerobic-Exercise-Reduces-Arterial

21. Understanding the factors that effect maximal fat oxidation - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed January 7, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5766985/

22. A Combination of Aerobic Exercise at Fatmax and Low Resistance Training Increases Fat Oxidation and Maintains Muscle Mass, in Women Waiting for Bariatric Surgery - PMC - NIH, accessed January 7, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8933381/

23. Exercise Standards for Testing and Training | Circulation - American Heart Association Journals, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/hc3901.095960

24. (PDF) The effectiveness of metabolic resistance training versus traditional cardio on athletic performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis - ResearchGate, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390044975_The_effectiveness_of_metabolic_resistance_training_versus_traditional_cardio_on_athletic_performance_a_systematic_review_and_meta-analysis

25. Comparison of Metabolic Characteristics of Physically Active Individuals with Different Training Habits during Incremental Treadmill Test - MDPI, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/1/70

26. Aerobic Training Is Better Than Resistance Training on Cardiac Function and Autonomic Modulation in Female ob/ob Mice - Frontiers, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2019.01464/full

27. Effects of three aerobic exercise modalities (walking, running, and cycling) on circulating brain-derived neurotrophic factor in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis - Frontiers, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/aging-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnagi.2025.1673786/full

28. The Effect of Exercise Training on Resting Concentrations of Peripheral Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF): A Meta-Analysis | PLOS One - Research journals, accessed January 7, 2026, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163037

29. Effects of High Intensity Exercise on Oxidative Stress and Antioxidant Status in Untrained Humans: A Systematic Review - PMC - NIH, accessed January 7, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8698973/

30. Exercise Training and Skeletal Muscle Antioxidant Enzymes: An Update - MDPI, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3921/12/1/39

31. Inflammatory cytokines and immune system modulation by aerobic versus resisted exercise training for elderly - NIH, accessed January 7, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6016983/

32. Inflammatory cytokines and immune system modulation by aerobic versus resisted exercise training for elderly - PubMed, accessed January 7, 2026, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29977265/

33. Controlled endurance exercise training and VO2max changes in older adults: a meta-analysis - PubMed, accessed January 7, 2026, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16230876/

34. Associations Between Resistance Training and All-Cause Mortality: NHANES 1999-2006 - PMC - NIH, accessed January 7, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11562137/

35. Strength Training and All‐Cause, Cardiovascular Disease, and Cancer Mortality in Older Women: A Cohort Study | Journal of the American Heart Association, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.117.007677?doi=10.1161/JAHA.117.007677

36. Muscle-strengthening activities are associated with lower risk and mortality in major non-communicable diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies | British Journal of Sports Medicine, accessed January 7, 2026, https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/56/13/755

37. The association of resistance training with mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis, accessed January 7, 2026, https://mayoclinic.elsevierpure.com/en/publications/the-association-of-resistance-training-with-mortality-a-systemati/

Long-term Weight Training and Mortality in U.S. Male Health Professionals With and Without Type 2 Diabetes - NIH, accessed January 7, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9797653/