How to Build a Cardio Base Without Losing Muscle: The Lifter's Guide

There is a version of this article that gets written every January, and it says cardio kills gains, so do twenty minutes of incline walking and go home. There is another version that says cardio is fine, do whatever you want, the interference effect is overblown. Both are lazy, and both leave you without a plan.

Here is the actual situation. The concurrent training literature has moved a long way since Hickson's 1980 paper first showed strength gains stalling in athletes who added heavy endurance work. The current best estimate, from a 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis of 43 studies in Sports Medicine, is that adding aerobic training to a resistance program does not meaningfully reduce hypertrophy or maximal strength. The penalty shows up only in explosive strength, only at a modest standardized mean difference of -0.28, and mostly in studies where both modes were crammed into the same session.

So the question is no longer whether you can do cardio. It is how to build something worth having, in a way that fits around a lifting program you refuse to compromise. That is a programming problem, and this article is the program.

We have already covered the components. The interference effect teardown lives in its own article. Rucking and jump rope each get their own modality deep dive. HIIT versus LISS handles the intensity comparison for fat loss. This is the umbrella they all hang from: a concrete twelve-week build, with the definitions, the anchors, the timing rules, and the weekly minute targets in one place.

What a Cardio Base Actually Is

The phrase gets used loosely enough that it has almost stopped meaning anything. Strip the marketing off and a cardio base is a set of measurable physiological adaptations that make submaximal work cheap.

Central adaptations. These are the heart-and-blood changes, and they arrive fastest. Plasma volume expands within days to weeks of starting regular aerobic work, which increases the volume of blood returning to the heart. The left ventricle responds by filling more completely and ejecting more per beat, which is stroke volume. Higher stroke volume is why your resting heart rate falls and why a given pace produces a lower heart rate after a month. Some of this is measurable in one to two weeks.

Peripheral adaptations. These are the muscle-level changes, and they are the slow, valuable part. Capillary density around the trained fibers increases, which shortens the diffusion distance for oxygen. Mitochondrial content and the enzymes of oxidative metabolism increase, which raises how much work the muscle can do aerobically before it has to lean on glycolysis. This is the machinery that makes easy pace feel genuinely easy rather than merely tolerable, and it takes eight to twelve weeks to accumulate meaningfully.

Substrate handling. A trained aerobic system oxidizes a higher proportion of fat at any given submaximal intensity, which spares muscle glycogen. For a lifter this matters less than the endurance world implies, but it does mean that a base makes low-intensity work less glycogen-expensive, so it competes less with the fuel your lifting needs.

Recovery capacity. The practical payoff most lifters actually feel. Between-set recovery, the ability to clear a hard set of twenty-rep squats without spending four minutes on the floor, and the speed of session-to-session recovery all improve with aerobic conditioning. That is not a folk claim; it follows from the same oxidative machinery.

Notice what is absent from that list. A base is not a fat-loss tool, not a hypertrophy stimulus, and not a substitute for sprint work or plyometrics. Its job is to make everything else cheaper.

Why a Lifter Should Care At All

The persuasive case has nothing to do with looking better and everything to do with the fact that cardiorespiratory fitness is one of the most powerful mortality predictors in medicine, and lifting does not build it.

Kodama and colleagues pooled 33 studies covering 102,980 participants and 6,910 deaths in JAMA in 2009. Each 1-MET increase in maximal aerobic capacity was associated with a 13 percent lower risk of all-cause mortality, risk ratio 0.87, and a 15 percent lower risk of coronary heart disease or cardiovascular events, risk ratio 0.85. One MET is a small amount of fitness. It is the difference between walking briskly and walking slightly more briskly, and a beginner picks up several in a twelve-week block.

Mandsager and colleagues put a harder number on it in JAMA Network Open in 2018, following 122,007 adults who underwent symptom-limited treadmill testing at the Cleveland Clinic between 1991 and 2014, with a median follow-up of 8.4 years. Comparing the lowest fitness quartile to elite performers, the adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 5.04. For calibration, in the same model smoking carried a hazard ratio of 1.41 and diabetes 1.40. Being unfit was associated with a larger mortality signal than either. The study also found no upper limit of benefit, which quietly ends the "too much cardio is bad for you" argument at the doses any lifter will ever accumulate.

The American Heart Association reached the obvious conclusion in its 2016 scientific statement in Circulation, arguing that cardiorespiratory fitness should be treated as a clinical vital sign and measured routinely, because its association with morbidity and mortality is independent of the risk factors clinicians already track.

The second reason is narrower and more immediate: work capacity. A lifter with an aerobic base recovers faster between sets, tolerates higher weekly training volume, and finishes a session with something left. The fastest way to find out whether you have a base is to run a set of twenty-rep breathing squats. If the limiting factor was your lungs and not your legs, you have your answer.

The Real Cost of Cardio, Restated Honestly

The interference effect is real, it has a mechanism, and it is much smaller in practice than the mechanism suggests. The mechanistic story is AMPK signaling from endurance work opposing mTOR signaling from resistance work, which sounds decisive in a diagram and turns out to be one input among many in a human who trains for months.

What the pooled data says:

Read that table as a set of levers rather than a verdict. Whole-muscle size and maximal strength are robust. Explosive qualities are fragile. Modality choice and session separation are the two variables you control that move the numbers most. Nothing in there says do less cardio. It says do cardio that costs less.

There is one cost the meta-analyses do not capture well, and it is the one that actually gets lifters. Fatigue is a shared budget. Ninety minutes of hard cycling on Wednesday does not blunt Thursday's squat through a signaling pathway. It blunts Thursday's squat because your legs are tired, your sleep was worse, and you ate less than you burned. That is a programming failure, not an interference effect, and it is far more common than the molecular version.

Zone 2 Defined Three Ways You Can Actually Use

Zone 2 is the intensity band immediately below the first lactate threshold, where blood lactate sits stable at roughly 2 mmol/L or under. It is where fat oxidation is near its peak, where mitochondrial adaptations accumulate efficiently, and where the recovery cost is low enough that the session does not tax the rest of your week. It is also the intensity almost everybody gets wrong, because it feels too easy to be doing anything.

You do not need a lactate meter. You need two of the following three proxies agreeing with each other.

1. Heart rate

Roughly 60 to 70 percent of maximum heart rate, or 60 to 70 percent of heart rate reserve if you know your true resting heart rate. Estimate maximum with the Tanaka equation from the Journal of the American College of Cardiology in 2001: HRmax = 208 minus (0.7 x age). Tanaka and colleagues built this from a meta-analysis of 351 studies covering 18,712 subjects and cross-validated it in 514 more, and it is meaningfully better than the old 220-minus-age rule of thumb, which systematically underestimates maximum heart rate in older people and overestimates it in the young.

2. The talk test

You can speak a full sentence comfortably without gasping between words. The talk test is not folk wisdom; it has been validated against the first ventilatory threshold across healthy adults and cardiac populations, with the last stage at which comfortable speech is possible corresponding closely to that threshold. It is free, it needs no equipment, and it self-corrects for the days when your heart rate is lying to you.

3. Nasal breathing

Most people can hold nasal-only breathing throughout Zone 2 and cannot hold it above the first threshold. It takes a week or two to become comfortable, and it is the crudest of the three, but as a tiebreaker it works.

Heart Rate Anchors and Where the Formulas Break

Every heart rate zone you have ever been given rests on an estimated maximum, and estimated maximums have a standard deviation of roughly 7 to 11 beats per minute. That means a formula-derived Zone 2 ceiling can be off by 10 beats in either direction for any individual, which is the entire width of the zone. Treat the numbers as a starting bracket that the talk test then corrects.

A worked example. A 38-year-old lifter with a resting heart rate of 58.

• Tanaka HRmax: 208 minus (0.7 x 38) = 208 minus 26.6 = 181 bpm
• Percent-of-max Zone 2: 60 to 70 percent of 181 = 109 to 127 bpm
• Heart rate reserve (Karvonen) Zone 2: HRR = 181 minus 58 = 123. Then 58 + (0.60 x 123) to 58 + (0.70 x 123) = 132 to 144 bpm

Those two methods differ by more than 20 beats, which tells you something important: the method matters as much as the arithmetic. Heart rate reserve is generally the better of the two because it accounts for individual resting heart rate, and it maps more closely onto percentage of VO2 reserve. Use HRR, then check it against the talk test, then trust the talk test when they disagree.

Two more sources of error worth knowing. Wrist-based optical heart rate monitors are unreliable during activities with wrist movement or grip tension, which includes rowing, jump rope, and anything holding a handle, and they are prone to cadence lock where the reported rate matches your step rate rather than your pulse. A chest strap solves this for about $50. Second, heart rate drifts upward at a constant workload over a long session, a phenomenon called cardiac drift, driven mainly by plasma volume loss and rising core temperature. On a 60-minute Zone 2 session expect 5 to 10 beats of upward drift with no change in effort. Do not slow down to chase the number.

Choosing a Modality by Interference Cost

The most consequential single decision in this entire article is what you do for the cardio, and the reason is eccentric loading.

Wilson's 2012 meta-analysis found that resistance training combined with running produced significant decrements in hypertrophy and strength, while resistance training combined with cycling produced no significant decrement. The leading explanation is that running involves repeated high-force eccentric contractions in the quadriceps and calves, which overlaps directly with the muscle damage produced by squatting and deadlifting. Cycling is close to concentric-only. The muscle does not have to absorb landing forces, so the damage does not stack.

That gives a usable ranking.

This is a cost table, not a prohibition list. If running is the only cardio you will do consistently, run, and accept that you are spending a bit more of your recovery budget. A modality you enjoy at three sessions a week beats a theoretically optimal modality you do once a month. But if you are indifferent between options, take the cheap ones. The rucking guide and the jump rope guide cover two of these in depth.

The Session Timing Decision Rule

This is where the evidence is unusually clean, so the rule can be unusually specific.

Robineau and colleagues randomized 58 amateur rugby players into control, strength-only, or one of three concurrent training groups distinguished only by the recovery interval between the strength and aerobic sequences: 0 hours, 6 hours, or 24 hours. Seven weeks. Gains in maximal strength for bench press and half squat were significantly lower in the zero-hour group than in the 6-hour group, the 24-hour group, and the strength-only group. The 6-hour and 24-hour groups were not meaningfully different from strength-only. The authors' own recommendation was to avoid scheduling two contradictory qualities with less than six hours of recovery between them.

Six hours. That is the number, and it lines up with the Schumann finding that the explosive strength penalty was concentrated in same-session designs.

The decision rule that falls out of it:

Two supporting rules. First, if you are combining, put at least 24 hours between hard interval work and heavy lower body lifting in either direction. Second, if you have to lose sleep to hit the six-hour separation, do not. Sleep is a larger lever than session timing, and the sleep evidence is not close.

How Hard, How Often: The 80/20 Split

Stephen Seiler's work tracking elite endurance athletes across rowing, cycling, running, and skiing found a consistent pattern he named polarized training: roughly 80 percent of sessions performed at low intensity below the first lactate threshold, and the remaining 15 to 20 percent at high intensity above the second threshold, with very little time in the middle. Athletes training 10 to 13 sessions a week converged on this distribution independently, across sports and countries.

That distribution is a gift to lifters, because the expensive part of cardio for a lifter is the intensity, and the model says most of it should be cheap.

Translated to someone training three to five cardio sessions a week:

• Weeks with 3 cardio sessions: all three easy. Do not add intensity until the volume is stable.
• Weeks with 4 cardio sessions: three easy, one hard. That is 75/25 by session count and closer to 88/12 by minutes, since the hard session is short.
• Weeks with 5 cardio sessions: four easy, one hard. Only worth doing if you are lifting three days or fewer.

The reason to count by minutes rather than sessions is that a 20-minute interval session and a 60-minute Zone 2 session are not comparable units. Seiler's 80/20 is a distribution of training time. If you run a 45-minute easy ride three times and one 20-minute interval session, your minute distribution is 87 percent easy, which is exactly right.

What about the middle? Zone 3 has a defensible role in a dedicated endurance program with a race on the calendar. In a lifter's program it is the worst value on the menu, for the reason in the callout above. Skip it.

The 12-Week Cardio Base Build

Twelve weeks is the planning horizon because that is roughly how long the peripheral adaptations take to accumulate. Bacon and colleagues, pooling 37 studies covering 334 subjects in PLOS ONE, found a mean VO2max increase of 0.51 L/min from 6 to 13 week programs in sedentary or recreationally active adults, with the largest changes coming from protocols using longer intervals. Twelve weeks is inside that window with room to spare.

The program below assumes you are lifting three to four days a week and starting from very little cardio. All sessions are Zone 2 unless marked otherwise. Minutes are working minutes, excluding warm-up and cool-down.

Read the structure rather than the specific numbers. Three things are doing the work here.

Volume before intensity. Nothing hard happens until week 9. Eight weeks of purely easy work builds the peripheral machinery that makes the intervals productive rather than merely exhausting. Adding intensity in week 2 is the single most common way people blow up a base build.

A deload every fourth week. Weeks 4, 8, and 12 cut volume by roughly 40 percent. The logic is identical to the logic behind lifting deloads, and the fact that cardio feels easier does not exempt it from accumulated fatigue.

Roughly 10 to 15 percent weekly progression. Week 1 to week 3 goes 60, 75, 90 minutes. Week 5 to week 7 goes 105, 120, 140. That rate is conservative on purpose, because the tissue that limits you in cardio is usually connective rather than metabolic, and connective tissue adapts more slowly than your cardiovascular system does. This is the same logic behind progressive overload in the weight room, applied to minutes instead of kilos.

Weekly Layouts by Lifting Split

The twelve-week table gives you volume. This gives you placement. Each layout assumes week 10 of the build: four cardio sessions, one of them hard.

Upper/Lower, 4 lifting days

• Monday: Upper A. Optional 20 min easy Zone 2 after.
• Tuesday: Lower A. Nothing after.
• Wednesday: Cardio only. 45 min Zone 2.
• Thursday: Upper B. 45 min Zone 2 after or in the evening.
• Friday: Lower B. Nothing after.
• Saturday: Hard session. 8 x 2 min Zone 4. Full 48 hours before and after any lower body work.
• Sunday: 50 min Zone 2 or a ruck. Fully easy.

The principle: nothing lands on lower body days, and the hard session gets the biggest buffer in the week. If you cannot give the hard session 48 hours on both sides, move it to Wednesday and make Saturday easy.

Push/Pull/Legs, 6 lifting days

This is the hardest split to add cardio to, because there is no clean day. The answer is to accept shorter sessions and stack them on upper body days.

• Push day 1: 30 min Zone 2 after lifting.
• Pull day 1: 30 min Zone 2 after lifting.
• Legs day 1: Nothing.
• Push day 2: 30 min Zone 2 after lifting.
• Pull day 2: 40 min Zone 2 after lifting.
• Legs day 2: Nothing.
• Rest day: Optional easy walk. No intervals in this layout at all.

Note what is missing: the hard session. On a six-day PPL split there is nowhere to put interval work that does not collide with heavy lower body training, so you either drop the intervals or you drop a lifting day. That is a real trade-off and it is worth stating plainly rather than pretending the calendar has more room than it does.

Full body, 3 lifting days

The easiest split to build a base around, and the reason many lifters who want serious conditioning move to it.

• Monday: Full body lift.
• Tuesday: 50 min Zone 2.
• Wednesday: Full body lift.
• Thursday: Hard session, 4 x 4 min Zone 4-5.
• Friday: Full body lift.
• Saturday: 50 min Zone 2 or a long ruck.
• Sunday: 45 min Zone 2 or complete rest.

Every cardio session gets its own day. Nothing is combined. This is the layout that produces the fastest base development with the least interference, and if building a base is genuinely a priority for the next twelve weeks, the three-day full body template is the split that makes it easy.

The Minimum Effective Dose for Cardiovascular Health

Everything above is a build. This section is the floor, for the reader who wants the health return and none of the project.

Public health guidance across the United States, the United Kingdom, and the World Health Organization converges on 150 to 300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity per week, or 75 to 150 minutes of vigorous activity, or an equivalent combination, plus two days of muscle-strengthening activity. You already have the second half covered.

The important structural feature of the dose-response curve is that it is steepest at the bottom. The difference between zero and 60 minutes a week is larger, in mortality terms, than the difference between 150 and 300. Kodama's 13 percent per MET and Mandsager's hazard ratio of 5.04 for the lowest fitness quartile both describe a relationship where the worst outcomes cluster at the very bottom, and where climbing off the floor buys more than optimizing at the top.

If you take one number from this article, take 120 to 150 easy minutes a week. Three 45-minute easy sessions. That is the dose that clears the health floor, builds a genuine base over twelve weeks, and costs a lifter close to nothing when the sessions are placed on non-lifting days or six hours from the barbell.

Measuring Progress Without a Lab

You will not get a metabolic cart, and you do not need one. Four measures track a base build well enough to make decisions with.

Resting heart rate. Measure it the same way every time: first thing in the morning, before getting out of bed, over 60 seconds or from a wearable's overnight low. Expect a drop of 3 to 10 beats over twelve weeks in someone starting untrained. A sudden jump of 5 or more beats above your recent average usually means accumulated fatigue, poor sleep, or illness, and it is the best cheap warning signal you have.

Heart rate at a fixed workload. The most direct proxy for aerobic improvement available to a home user. Pick a fixed benchmark: 20 minutes on the same bike at the same resistance and cadence, or 20 minutes at 3.5 mph and 8 percent incline on the same treadmill. Record average heart rate. Repeat every four weeks under similar conditions. A falling heart rate at identical output is unambiguous evidence the base is building. This single test is worth more than any wearable's estimated VO2max.

Heart rate recovery. Note your heart rate at the end of a hard effort, then again 60 seconds later. The drop is heart rate recovery, and it reflects parasympathetic reactivation. Untrained people often drop 12 to 20 beats; trained people frequently drop 25 to 40 or more. It improves with base training, and it is easy to test at the end of a session.

The subjective test. Does a flight of stairs still register? Can you finish a hard set of squats and be breathing normally within 90 seconds? Do you get through a full training session without the last two exercises feeling like a slog? These are not rigorous, and they are the reason anybody does this in the first place.

Building a Base While Cutting

The short version: do not. Build the base in maintenance or a small surplus, then hold it through the cut.

The reason is that a base build and a cut are competing for the same limited resource. Both demand recovery capacity. A calorie deficit reduces it. Adding new aerobic volume while eating less means you are increasing the demand and decreasing the supply simultaneously, and the thing that usually breaks is your lifting performance, which is the exact thing that protects muscle during a deficit.

If you are already cutting and want cardio anyway, the rules change:

• Hold volume, do not build it. Whatever weekly minutes you were doing entering the cut, keep them. This is a maintenance block for the aerobic system, not a development block.
• Keep intensity low. Drop the hard session entirely, or reduce it to one short interval session every other week. Intensity is where the recovery cost concentrates.
• Protein first. 1.6 to 2.2 g/kg is the range that protein research supports, and it moves toward the top of that range in a deficit.
• Watch the working weights. Your lifts in the 5 to 10 rep range are the canary. If they are falling faster than your bodyweight is, cut cardio before you cut anything else.
• Prefer walking. Low-intensity walking adds energy expenditure at almost no recovery cost, which is exactly what a deficit needs.

The full framework for holding muscle through a deficit lives in Cutting 101. The relevant point here is that cardio is not what costs you muscle during a cut. The deficit is, and cardio simply makes the deficit deeper than you accounted for.

Fueling and Recovery Around Cardio

Three practical points, all of which get ignored.

Zone 2 does not need special fueling under 60 minutes. At that intensity and duration, a normally fed person has ample glycogen. There is no need for intra-workout carbohydrate, and the fasted-versus-fed debate for fat loss resolves to a wash when total daily calories are equated. Do whichever you tolerate better.

Interval sessions do. Zone 4 and 5 work is glycogen-dependent, and going into it underfueled produces a worse session at the same perceived effort. Eat carbohydrate within a few hours before. The general case for adequate carbohydrate around hard training is in carbs and performance.

Sodium and fluid losses are real over an hour. A 60-minute Zone 2 session in a warm room can cost a liter of sweat and a meaningful amount of sodium, and the losses accumulate across a week of sessions in a way single sessions do not reveal. Our electrolytes guide covers the measurement protocol, and the short version is to weigh yourself before and after one session to find out what you actually lose rather than guessing.

On recovery: the additional weekly load from a base build is not trivial even when each session feels easy. Twelve weeks of adding 150 minutes to your training week is roughly a 30 to 50 percent increase in total training time for most lifters. Sleep requirements go up, not down. If you find yourself sleeping less to fit the cardio in, you have inverted the priority and the base build will cost you more than it returns.

The Seven Mistakes That Ruin Base Building

1. Going too hard on the easy days. The dominant error, by a wide margin. Zone 2 feels insultingly easy for the first two weeks, and the instinct to push it up into Zone 3 is nearly universal. Resist it. The stimulus is the duration at low intensity, and drifting up converts a cheap session into an expensive one with no added benefit.

2. Adding intensity before volume is stable. Intervals are seductive because they are short and they feel like training. Eight weeks of boring easy work first is what makes the intervals productive later, and skipping that is how people end up injured or burned out in week four.

3. Stacking cardio onto leg day. A 45-minute ride after squats is not the same as a 45-minute ride on Wednesday. It lands on already-damaged tissue, extends the recovery window, and is precisely the same-session pattern where the Schumann data found the explosive strength penalty concentrated.

4. Choosing running by default. Running is the highest-eccentric, highest-interference option on the menu and most lifters pick it because it is the first thing that comes to mind. If you love running, run. If you are indifferent, a bike buys you the same adaptations for less.

5. No deloads. Cardio fatigue accumulates quietly because no single session feels hard. Twelve weeks of uninterrupted progression, with no reduction weeks, ends the same way it does in the weight room.

6. Treating cardio as a fat-loss tool. A 45-minute Zone 2 session costs a 180-pound lifter somewhere in the region of 350 to 450 kcal, and appetite compensates for a meaningful fraction of that. Cardio is a cardiovascular health and work capacity tool. Fat loss is a diet outcome. Confusing the two leads to doing far more cardio than the base actually requires.

7. Quitting at week six. The central adaptations show up fast, plateau, and then nothing obvious happens for a few weeks while the peripheral adaptations build in the background. Week six to week nine is where most base builds get abandoned, immediately before the part that pays. This is the same pattern as every other training adaptation, and the answer is the same one in consistency over intensity.

Troubleshooting: When to Cut Cardio

Some concrete decision rules for when the base build is costing more than it returns.

• Your top sets drop for two consecutive weeks at the same bodyweight and same sleep. Cut cardio volume by a third before changing anything about your lifting.
• Resting heart rate is elevated 5+ bpm for three or more consecutive mornings. Take a deload week now rather than at week 8.
• You are sore on days you should not be. Almost always a modality problem. Move from running or stairs to cycling or incline walking.
• Zone 2 heart rate requires you to walk when you used to jog. This is either fatigue or heat. Check the other markers before concluding you have lost fitness.
• Joint pain, particularly knees, shins, or Achilles. A volume ramp problem, a modality problem, or both. The injury management framework applies.
• You are dreading the sessions. Adherence is the whole game over twelve weeks. Change the modality, change the environment, put on a podcast, or shorten the sessions and add one. Any of those beats stopping.

The Bottom Line

The evidence base has shifted underneath the folklore. The 2022 Sports Medicine meta-analysis of 43 studies found no meaningful blunting of hypertrophy or maximal strength from adding aerobic work to a lifting program, and the one outcome that did suffer was explosive strength at a standardized mean difference of -0.28, concentrated in same-session designs. The lever that fixed most of that in Robineau's trial was six hours of separation. The lever that fixed most of the rest, in Wilson's meta-analysis, was choosing cycling over running.

That means the lifter's cardio problem is a scheduling problem and a modality problem, not a biological one.

The build is twelve weeks. Eight of them are purely easy work, because the peripheral adaptations that make a base worth having take that long to accumulate. Intensity enters in week nine, once a week, never within 48 hours of heavy lower body work. Deload every fourth week. Progress weekly minutes by 10 to 15 percent. Hold 80 percent or more of your minutes at an intensity where you can speak in full sentences, and stay out of the middle zone entirely.

The floor, if you want the health return and nothing else, is 120 to 150 easy minutes a week. Three 45-minute sessions on non-lifting days. That clears the public health guideline, moves you off the steep part of a mortality curve where low fitness carried a hazard ratio of 5.04 against elite fitness in a cohort of 122,007 people, and costs your lifting essentially nothing.

What you are building is not visible. It is plasma volume, stroke volume, capillary density, and mitochondria. It shows up as a lower number on a heart rate monitor at the same workload, a faster recovery between sets, and a decades-long reduction in the probability of the thing that is statistically most likely to kill you. For twelve weeks of easy riding, that is the best trade in training.

References

1. Schumann, M., Feuerbacher, J.F., Sunkeler, M., Freitag, N., Ronnestad, B.R., Doma, K., & Lundberg, T.R. (2022). Compatibility of concurrent aerobic and strength training for skeletal muscle size and function: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 52(3), 601-612.
2. Robineau, J., Babault, N., Piscione, J., Lacome, M., & Bigard, A.X. (2016). Specific training effects of concurrent aerobic and strength exercises depend on recovery duration. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 30(3), 672-683.
3. Wilson, J.M., Marin, P.J., Rhea, M.R., Wilson, S.M.C., Loenneke, J.P., & Anderson, J.C. (2012). Concurrent training: a meta-analysis examining interference of aerobic and resistance exercises. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(8), 2293-2307.
4. Hickson, R.C. (1980). Interference of strength development by simultaneously training for strength and endurance. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 45(2-3), 255-263.
5. Kodama, S., Saito, K., Tanaka, S., Maki, M., Yachi, Y., Asumi, M., Sugawara, A., Totsuka, K., Shimano, H., Ohashi, Y., Yamada, N., & Sone, H. (2009). Cardiorespiratory fitness as a quantitative predictor of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events in healthy men and women: a meta-analysis. JAMA, 301(19), 2024-2035.
6. Mandsager, K., Harb, S., Cremer, P., Phelan, D., Nissen, S.E., & Jaber, W. (2018). Association of cardiorespiratory fitness with long-term mortality among adults undergoing exercise treadmill testing. JAMA Network Open, 1(6), e183605.
7. Ross, R., Blair, S.N., Arena, R., Church, T.S., Despres, J.P., Franklin, B.A., Haskell, W.L., Kaminsky, L.A., Levine, B.D., Lavie, C.J., Myers, J., Niebauer, J., Sallis, R., Sawada, S.S., Sui, X., & Wisloff, U. (2016). Importance of assessing cardiorespiratory fitness in clinical practice: a case for fitness as a clinical vital sign: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 134(24), e653-e699.
8. Tanaka, H., Monahan, K.D., & Seals, D.R. (2001). Age-predicted maximal heart rate revisited. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 37(1), 153-156.
9. Bacon, A.P., Carter, R.E., Ogle, E.A., & Joyner, M.J. (2013). VO2max trainability and high intensity interval training in humans: a meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 8(9), e73182.
10. MacInnis, M.J., & Gibala, M.J. (2017). Physiological adaptations to interval training and the role of exercise intensity. The Journal of Physiology, 595(9), 2915-2930.
11. Seiler, S. (2010). What is best practice for training intensity and duration distribution in endurance athletes? International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 5(3), 276-291.
12. Stoggl, T., & Sperlich, B. (2015). The training intensity distribution among well-trained and elite endurance athletes. Frontiers in Physiology, 6, 295.
13. Reed, J.L., & Pipe, A.L. (2014). The talk test: a useful tool for prescribing and monitoring exercise intensity. Current Opinion in Cardiology, 29(5), 475-480.
14. Zanettini, R., Centeleghe, P., Franzelli, C., Mori, I., Benna, S., Penati, C., & Sorlini, N. (2013). Validity of the talk test for exercise prescription after myocardial revascularization. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 20(2), 376-382.
15. Lundberg, T.R., Feuerbacher, J.F., Sunkeler, M., & Schumann, M. (2022). The effects of concurrent aerobic and strength training on muscle fiber hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 52(10), 2391-2403.
16. Piercy, K.L., Troiano, R.P., Ballard, R.M., Carlson, S.A., Fulton, J.E., Galuska, D.A., George, S.M., & Olson, R.D. (2018). The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. JAMA, 320(19), 2020-2028.