## 4 Discussion  
The reports on the endocrine responses to AEL, despite the limited amount of research, are conflicting. Some evidence suggests differences in acute responses of hormones between TRAD and AEL [37]; however, the majority of studies reported little difference between these two modes of training [32,38,39]. Despite these findings, chronic differences in hormones resulting from these types of training are largely unknown. The current study challenges the notion that there are similar endocrine responses to AEL and TRAD resistance training. Even though there were no statistically significant differences, based on the effect sizes and the magnitude of changes, the AEL group appeared to experience more favorable endocrine shifts overall. There was a moderate effect in the testosterone change magnitude between AEL and TRAD (AEL = 9.12% and g = 0.30; TRAD = \(-\)11.24% and g = \(-\)0.34) and similar increases in cortisol for AEL but with a stronger magnitude of cortisol increase for the TRAD group (AEL = 10.14% and g = 0.18; TRAD = 12.85% and g = 0.29). However, surprisingly, the T:C ratio decreased in both groups similarly (AEL = \(-\)12.18%; TRAD = \(-\)11.90%) when the individual T:C ratio per subject was calculated and averaged for each group. There were observations worth noting when sex was considered. The males in the AEL group experienced an increase in both T and C, while the males in the TRAD experienced a decrease in T while maintaining similar C levels. Surprisingly, similar changes in the T:C ratio were observed between the two groups (AEL males = \(-\)11.86%; TRAD males = \(-\)12.77%), despite the different hormonal responses observed in the two groups. Additionally, the females in the TRAD group experienced a 10.73% increase in T:C, whilst the females in the AEL group showed a 31.12% decrease. Given the lower concentration of testosterone in females compared to males, the T:C in females is sensitive to any testosterone changes that occur in response to training. Additionally, these results should be considered with caution given the low sample size of females within this study. Figure 2: Hormonal changes in response to 4 weeks of accentuated eccentric loading in males (AEL-M) and females (AEL-F) in comparison with traditional training in males (TRAD-M) and females (TRAD-F). (**a**) Testosterone; (**b**) cortisol; (**c**) testosterone-to-cortisol ratio (T/C); and (**d**) creatinine. It is within reason to speculate that the greater volume load in the AEL group would stimulate an increase in endocrine activity [2]. The greater work conducted by the AEL group and the increase in testosterone suggests that AEL combined with CSs allows for a superior workload that could lead to superior training adaptations without the endocrine system being taxed by the greater work [1; 26], even with the increase in C levels. This observation (more work but smaller homeostatic disturbance) is consistent with the acute findings of [PERSON] et al. [7; 8]. Although statistically nonsignificant, the results in Figure 2 support this suggestion that AEL paired with CSs produces higher training volumes resulting in a superior T:C response, even with a greater training strain. Based on FFM alterations [40], muscle hypertrophy responses between groups appeared to be similar but with effect size magnitudes slightly favoring the AEL group. It is possible that there was not enough training volume or a long enough time period to stimulate a statistically significant hypertrophy response, even with the eccentric overload for the AEL group. It is also possible that the subjects did not consume enough calories and protein in their diet to facilitate adequate levels of muscle growth [41; 42]. Future research should aim to track dietary intake as this factor can affect the magnitude of adaptations to training stimuli. FFM was shown to have very large (r = 0.7-0.9) correlations with strength metrics both pre- and post-training. The correlations were stronger post-test compared to pre-test, albeit marginally so.