Intra-session exercise ORDER in concurrent training: strength-then-endurance protects lower-body dynamic strength
Key Findings
Resistance→endurance gave +6.91% greater lower-body dynamic-strength change vs endurance→resistance (95% CI 1.96–11.87; p=0.006).
NO order effect on lower-body hypertrophy (+1.15%, 95% CI −1.56 to 3.87; p=0.40), static strength (−0.04%, 95% CI −3.19 to 3.11; p=0.98), maximal aerobic capacity or body-fat percentage (p>0.05).
Pooled studies: prolonged (≥5 weeks) concurrent training programmes in healthy adults.
Order matters specifically for lower-body dynamic strength; the other outcomes tested were unaffected by order.
Practical Application
Meta-analysis of 10 studies: lifting before endurance in the same session produced a +6.91% greater gain in lower-body dynamic strength than the reverse order (95% CI 1.96-11.87, p=0.006); order had no effect on hypertrophy, isometric strength, aerobic capacity or body fat. It says nothing about exercise selection or which lifts come first within the strength part.
When strength and endurance must share a session and lower-body dynamic strength is the priority (sled, wall-ball drive, jumps), lift first.
When the session's primary goal is the endurance quality itself (a key threshold or VO2max run), order made no difference to maximal aerobic capacity here. Inference, not tested: a key endurance session done after lifting is done on tired legs, so let it lead — REF-329 argues the same from the muscle-damage side.
Not from this paper: separating the two in time is the stronger lever — in REF-330 the explosive-strength penalty was concentrated in same-session designs rather than sessions at least 3 h apart. This order rule is the fallback for when separation is impossible.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: treat order as a secondary lever next to total load and separation — do not reorganise a week around it.
Limitations
10 studies; strength and hypertrophy outcomes are lower-body only; healthy adults, training status not stated in the abstract.
The abstract does not report the size of the included trials or their heterogeneity.
How this entry was checked and changed
Content correction 2026-09-27
"Running fatigued degrades the endurance stimulus" and "the order effect is small next to total load and separation" were stated as findings -> not in the abstract (order had no effect on aerobic capacity); now labelled as inference / the base's practice.
"Lower-body dynamic (explosive) strength, the quality most vulnerable to interference" -> the abstract measured dynamic strength, not explosive power; wording narrowed to what the meta-analysis found. Added the abstract's null results for hypertrophy (+1.15%, p=0.40) and static strength (−0.04%, p=0.98).
Sport "strength, running, hybrid" -> strength, general: the abstract does not name the endurance modality.
Full text (checked 2026-10-12)
The ten studies (20 groups, 1993 to 2016) pooled 245 subjects with a mean age of 31 ± 16 years; one study was in professional athletes, three in recreationally active cohorts and six in untrained subjects (full text).
The 20 groups were male (8 groups), female (6 groups) and mixed (6 groups) cohorts (full text).
Inclusion required ≤15 min between the two exercise modes, at least 2 days of concurrent sessions per week and at least 5 weeks of training; dynamic strength was 1-repetition maximum in a squat, leg press or leg extension variation (full text).
Included programmes lasted 5 to 24 weeks at 2-3 days/week, with resistance work from 2 × 3–12 (50–90% 1-RM) to 5 × 8–10 (80% 1-RM) and endurance by cycling, running or water-based exercise for roughly 18–50 min (full text, Table 3).
Maximal aerobic capacity did not differ by order (weighted mean difference −0.27% change; 95% CI −2.74, 2.20; p = 0.83), nor did body fat percentage (0.68% change; 95% CI −0.97, 2.33; p = 0.42) (full text).
Heterogeneity (I2) was 66% for lower-body dynamic strength, 17% for static strength, 72% for hypertrophy, 11% for body fat % and 0% for maximal aerobic capacity (full text).
Sample sizes per outcome were 227 subjects for lower-body dynamic strength, 155 for static strength, 137 for hypertrophy, 167 for body fat and 184 for maximal aerobic capacity; seven studies were rated strong and three moderate quality (full text).
There were not enough data to compare the effect of exercise sequence on lower-body power (2 studies) (full text).