Review findings suggest cardio and lifting produce similar overall strength gains, while power goals and lifting experience may make session spacing matter.
An October 14, 2026 article in The Conversation reported reassuring findings for athletes who combine cardio and resistance training. Across the reviews it summarized, average muscle and overall strength gains were generally similar to those from lifting alone. Combined training also improved aerobic fitness.
The useful distinction is between adding cardio at all and deciding how close to lifting it belongs. The findings support a more specific discussion of power and training experience, rather than a blanket warning against combining the two.
The 2026 review described by The Conversation found that concurrent training improved aerobic fitness while producing similar overall strength and muscle outcomes to resistance training alone. In plain language, adding cardio generally did not cancel the benefits of lifting.
That finding matters because “strength gains” can become an overly broad label. Muscle growth concerns changes in muscle size. Overall strength concerns the ability to produce force. Explosive strength concerns producing force quickly, which makes it a different outcome from muscle size or general strength.
Keeping those outcomes separate changes the interpretation. A finding about explosive strength should not automatically become a claim that cardio reduces muscle growth. Equally, similar average strength gains do not mean every performance outcome followed the same pattern.
The report also draws a useful distinction between compatibility and added benefit. Cardio fitted alongside resistance training without generally reducing its main outcomes. It was not shown to increase muscle or strength gains beyond lifting alone.
According to The Conversation, explosive-strength gains were slightly lower when cardio and weights were performed within 20 minutes of one another. That difference was not observed when sessions were separated by at least three hours.
This was a timing finding about explosive strength. It was not evidence of a general loss of muscle or overall strength whenever cardio followed lifting. For athletes interested in sprinting or jumping, however, that distinction gives session spacing more relevance.
The report described another qualification across 27 studies. Experienced gym-goers had lower leg-strength gains when cardio and weights took place in the same session. Beginners showed no clear difference.
The wording matters here too: lower gains are not the same claim as losing existing strength. The subgroup result suggests that lifting experience deserves attention when interpreting the broad average. It does not justify treating every athlete who combines endurance and strength work as equally affected.
The article was written by Liam T. Pearson-Noseworthy, a Distinguished Teaching Fellow in Northumbria University’s School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation. It is a report explaining review findings, not a newly reported training trial.
The 2026 review it summarizes covered 17 earlier analyses encompassing 144 studies. The article also described a 2022 review that pooled 43 studies involving 1,090 people. That earlier review found no meaningful average difference in muscle growth or strength between lifting alone and lifting combined with running or cycling.
Those findings provide a broad picture of concurrent training. They do not directly settle the narrower question suggested by a short post-lifting cardio routine. Pearson-Noseworthy noted that the literature he reviewed contained no studies directly comparing a 15-minute finisher with cardio performed in a separate session.
Other limits belong in the same picture. The report described the available studies as medium quality on average and noted very little research on elite athletes. It supplied no numerical effect sizes or confidence intervals for the reported differences, so “slightly lower” cannot be translated into a precise performance cost from this account.
The findings summarized here also do not establish an age-specific schedule for athletes over 35. And the reported timing categories do not identify a precise boundary for every possible workout arrangement. The practical application is therefore about choosing priorities, not extracting an exact personal timetable from a review summary.
For an endurance athlete over 35, this report is most useful as a way to sort competing goals. Building overall strength is not identical to maximizing explosive power. Keeping a convenient training schedule is another consideration, but it should not be confused with evidence that one arrangement produces superior results.
Reendure’s focus is performance today alongside an athletic life that lasts. Here, that means matching the interpretation to the outcome being measured rather than turning a qualified finding into another rigid training rule.
For athletes seeking aerobic development alongside overall strength and muscle gains, the broad findings are reassuring. The report does not support removing cardio simply because it appears in the same training program as lifting.
The practical implication is modest: concurrent training remains a reasonable framework for pursuing both goals. There is no need to assume that the presence of endurance work makes strength training unproductive. Nor does this report create a requirement to reorganize a workable week solely to keep the two activities apart.
That perspective fits the longer-term question of making strength part of a lasting athletic plan. The relevant issue is how strength serves the athlete’s priorities, not whether cardio must disappear from the schedule.
Pearson-Noseworthy’s practical interpretation was more cautious for people prioritizing power or pursuing a personal best. In those circumstances, the article suggested placing cardio in a separate session a few hours later.
A related 2026 review in the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports supports considering separation for cyclists. It judged separating same-day endurance and resistance sessions likely advisable to reduce acute fatigue and potentially limit interference. That is a programming recommendation, rather than a requirement that every cyclist must follow.
For a power-focused training phase, the evidence therefore gives a reason to consider more space between demanding sessions. For a phase centered on broader aerobic and strength development, the overall findings give less reason to make spacing the dominant concern. The goal determines how much weight to place on timing.
The experienced-gym-goer finding is relevant to athletes who have an established resistance-training background. It concerns experience with lifting, not simply years spent participating in endurance sport. An experienced runner and an experienced lifter are not interchangeable descriptions.
That distinction helps prevent an age-based shortcut in interpreting the research. The useful question is whether the reported subgroup resembles the athlete’s strength-training background and current priority. Chronological age alone does not answer that question.
For athletes considering a larger change in the balance of their week, the separate question of trading some running time for strength work deserves its own assessment. Evidence about session spacing should not automatically become a reason to replace endurance volume.
Pearson-Noseworthy’s interpretation was that people who enjoy a short cardio finisher can continue doing it. Its role is a convenient contribution to aerobic activity, rather than an extra stimulus for muscle or strength gains.
The report also framed a finisher as an addition rather than a substitute for a complete cardio program. That distinction is especially important for endurance athletes. Keeping some aerobic work attached to a lifting session and meeting the needs of an endurance program are different objectives.
The practical choice is therefore about the role that session serves. Convenience can be a valid reason to retain it. A claim of superior muscle growth or strength development is not the reason supported by this report.
The reviews summarized by The Conversation support keeping cardio and resistance training in the same overall plan. Average muscle and overall strength outcomes were generally similar to lifting alone, while aerobic fitness improved.
For endurance athletes over 35, that is reassurance rather than a demand to change practice. When explosive power or advanced leg-strength development becomes the main priority, session spacing deserves more attention. Otherwise, the clearest lesson is to stop treating cardio and lifting as inherently incompatible and judge the arrangement against the outcome that matters.
Follow ReEndure for practical insights on endurance training, recovery, nutrition and healthy aging. Stay connected for new articles, research led guidance and ideas to help you perform better for longer.
Read practical ideas on endurance training, recovery, nutrition and healthy aging to keep progressing for years to come.
Read the Blog