Corpus

Corpus is the dump and the study notes. Published targets use our synthesis — see Home and Method. The board uses what we publish.

Study note — Tan et al. 2023 Healthcare (Malaysia jog 2 / recover 4 ×4 + lifting)

Shelf: Other studies (Miles Running “Now” protocol source — not Siim-cited)
Full-text access: Yes — PMC open access (PMC10487730).
Fetched 2026-09-18 from Europe PMC / MDPI PDF
doi:10.3390/healthcare11172443 · PMID 37685476 · PMC PMC10487730
Labels: [Paper] · [Inference] · vs Miles


Citation

Tan J, Krasilshchikov O, Kuan G, Hashim HA, Aldhahi MI, Al-Mhanna SB, Badicu G.
The Effects of Combining Aerobic and Heavy Resistance Training on Body Composition, Muscle Hypertrophy, and Exercise Satisfaction in Physically Active Adults.
Healthcare (Basel). 2023;11(17):2443.
doi:10.3390/healthcare11172443

Malaysia: workout studio in Kuala Lumpur; ethics USM/JEPeM/19090542 (Universiti Sains Malaysia). Lead author affiliated Fitness Innovations Malaysia + USM.

Related thesis (same protocol family): Jerrican Tan Aik Ling, MSc USM 2023 — The effects of combining aerobic and hypertrophy oriented resistance training… (eprints.usm.my).


Methods [Paper]

Population

Design

Exact aerobic interval protocol (combined group only) — Table 4 [Paper]

Phase Intensity Duration Rounds
Warm-up up to 60% HRR 5 min
Jog (work) 60–70% HRR 2 min ×4
Recovery 50–60% HRR 4 min (between jogs)
Cool-down (easy) 5 min

Key results (numbers) [Paper]

Within combined group (time effects; no significant between-group interactions on body composition):

Resistance-only group: fewer significant within-group body-composition changes than combined.


Limitations / catch [Paper] + [Inference]

  1. Small n (11/group analyzed); authors note power/generalizability limits.
  2. Hypertrophy via girths, not MRI/DEXA.
  3. Outcomes are body composition / girth / satisfactionnot VO2max, race performance, or longevity endpoints.
  4. Aerobic frequency in study = 3×/week stacked on 3×/week lifting — denser than Miles’s calendar.
  5. Recovery modality: Table 4 says 50–60% HRR × 4 min, not the word “walk”; Miles uses treadmill walk @ 2.7 (speeds are Miles’s, not paper’s).
  6. Population phrasing: paper = physically active men with limited hypertrophy history — close to Miles’s “moderately trained,” not elite runners.

vs Miles’s use

Miles (Running Now / ladder) Paper
Malaysia-style jog 2 min / walk 4 min ×4 [Paper] Jog 2 min @ 60–70% HRR + recovery 4 min @ 50–60% HRR ×4 (+ 5 min WU/CD) — Yes on structure
Treadmill jog @ 6 / walk @ 2.7 [Inference] Miles’s speed mapping — not in paper (HRR only)
1–2×/week [Paper] aerobic 3×/week (+ RT 3×/week) — Miles lower frequency
Often with lifting elsewhere in week [Paper] concurrent RT 3×/week same program — Yes concurrent context
Build-up / Running ladder “Current” [Inference] protocol template — outcomes studied = composition/girth/satisfaction, not marathon readiness

Match to Miles’s remembered study: Yes — Malaysia / Malaysian authors, physically active men, 2 min jog / 4 min easy recovery ×4, 3×/week with resistance training.


Paywall note

Open access MDPI Healthcare; PMC10487730 PDF used for this pass.