Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
To cite this article: Jozo Grgic, Bruno Lazinica, Alessandro Garofolini, Brad J. Schoenfeld,
Nicholas J. Saner & Pavle Mikulic (2019): The effects of time of day-specific resistance training on
adaptations in skeletal muscle hypertrophy and muscle strength: A systematic review and meta-
analysis, Chronobiology International, DOI: 10.1080/07420528.2019.1567524
Article views: 15
CONTACT Jozo Grgic jozo.grgic@live.vu.edu.au Institute for Health and Sport (IHES), Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia
© 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 J. GRGIC ET AL.
Data extraction
Materials and methods
Two authors (JG and AG) independently extracted
Search strategy
the following data from the included studies: (1)
This systematic review was performed in accordance study authors; (2) the participants’ characteristics;
with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic (3) the employed questionnaire for the chronotype
Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (Moher et al. assessment of the participants (if at all used); (4)
CHRONOBIOLOGY INTERNATIONAL 3
characteristics of the resistance training programs; (2) to explore if regular morning training may
(5) muscle strength test(s) employed and the time increase morning performance in a manner so that
of day at which the strength testing sessions were the strength levels become similar to those generally
conducted; (6) details regarding the muscle hyper- observed in the evening (Chtourou and Souissi
trophy assessment; and (7) pre- and post- 2012), we conducted an analysis only focusing on
intervention mean ± SD values for the strength the groups training in the morning while comparing
and hypertrophy data. If the studies presented their post-intervention morning and post-
standard errors (SEs), they intervention evening strength assessment data; and
pffiffiffiwere converted to SDs
using the formula (SE n). All data were tabu- (3) to explore if training in the evening hours main-
lated in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet designed for tains diurnal variation in strength between morning
this review. When raw data were not available, the and evening hours, an additional analysis was con-
Web Plot Digitizer software, version 3.11 (Texas, ducted that only focused on the groups training in
TX, USA: Ankit Rohatgi, 2017) was used to extract the evening hours by comparing their post-
data from figures. Coding sheets were checked intervention morning and post-intervention evening
between the authors for accuracy. strength data.
In the second part of the analysis, the morning
and evening resistance training groups were com-
Methodological quality pared whereby the SMDs and 95% CIs were cal-
culated as the difference between post- and pretest
The Downs and Black (1998) 27-item checklist was scores, divided by the pooled pre- and posttest SD.
used for the assessment of methodological quality of If a study presented multiple data points, such as
the included studies. In this checklist, items 1–10 are the assessment of strength in the morning and
related to reporting, items 11–13 are related to exter- evening hours, the SMDs and variances were cal-
nal validity, items 14–26 are related to internal valid- culated separately and the average values were
ity, and item 27 is related to statistical power. We also used for the main analysis. However, to explore
added two items to the checklist that refer to the the specificity of the timing at which the testing
“adherence to the training programs” (item 28) and sessions were conducted, additional subgroup ana-
“supervision of the training programs” (item 29) as lyses were performed for (1) studies that assessed
per Grgic et al. (2018). Studies that scored 20–29 strength only in the morning hours; and (2) stu-
points were classified as being of “good quality;” stu- dies that assessed strength in the evening hours.
dies that scored 11–20 points were classified as being A meta-analysis was also conducted for studies
of “moderate quality;” and studies that scored <11 that assessed muscle hypertrophy. In this analysis,
points were classified as being of “poor quality.” The both lean body mass values and data from the
quality assessment of the studies was performed by assessment of hypertrophy at the whole muscle
two authors (JG and AG) with discussions and agree- level were combined.
ment to resolve any observed differences. The SMD magnitude was based on the follow-
ing classification: small (<0.2); medium (0.2–0.5);
large (0.5–0.8); and very large (> 0.8) effects. The I²
Statistical analyses statistic was used to assess heterogeneity with
In the first part of the analysis, the morning and values ≤ 50% considered as low levels of heteroge-
evening groups were analyzed separately with the neity; 50–75% considered as moderate levels of
standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% con- heterogeneity; and > 75% considered as high levels
fidence intervals (CIs) calculated based on the mean of heterogeneity. Given that there were less than
± SD values for different strength assessments. The 10 included studies in all analyses, publication bias
following aspects were explored: (1) for the studies could not be explored. The statistical significance
that tested MVC strength in the morning and eve- threshold was set at p < 0.05. All analyses were
ning hours, we examined if there were baseline dif- performed using the random effects model in the
ferences in strength levels within each group Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, version 2
between testing sessions (i.e. morning and evening); (Biostat Inc., Englewood, NJ, USA).
4 J. GRGIC ET AL.
17:00–18:00 MVC
a
Classification is presented for all participants including the control group.
BIA: bio-electrical impedance analysis; MVC: maximal voluntary contraction; CSA: cross-sectional area; 1RM: one repetition maximum.
5
6 J. GRGIC ET AL.
Methodological quality
Total score
19 – M
19 – M
17 – M
17 – M
17 – M
18 – M
21 – G
21 – G
21 – G
20 – G
Based on the Downs and Black (1998) checklist,
the included studies were classified as being of
good (four studies) or moderate quality (seven
29
0a
0a
0a
0a
1
1
1
1
1
1
19 (range 17–21). Only one study got a point on
item 28 (reporting of training adherence), while
28
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
four studies did not get a point on item 29 (report-
ing the supervision of the training programs). The
27
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
methodological quality ratings for all studies can
26
be found in Table 2.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
24
0a
0a
0a
0a
0a
0a
0a
0a
0a
0a
Results of the meta-analysis
0a
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
22
MVC strength
0a
0a
0a
0a
0a
0a
0a
0a
0a
1
21
0a
0a
0a
0a
0a
1
1
1
1
1
Baseline differences in strength between morning
20
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
and evening
19
0a
0a
0a
0a
0a
0a
0a
0a
0a
1
The analysis focusing on baseline differences in
18
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
strength between morning and evening assess-
17
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ments included seven studies and a total of 16 Table 2. Results of the methodological quality assessment using the modified Downs and Black checklist.
16
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
groups (Chtourou et al. 2012; Küüsmaa-Schildt
13 14 15
1 0 0a
1 0 0a
1 0 0a
1 0 0a
1 0 0a
1 0 0a
1 0 0a
1 0 0a
1 0 0a
1 0 0a
et al. 2017; Sedliak et al. 2007, 2008; Souissi et al.
2002, 2012; Zbidi et al. 2016). The results indicated
(items 11–13)
12
0
0
0
strength assessment (SMD = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.20,
10 11
0 0a
0 0a
0 0a
0 0a
0 0a
0 1
0 1
1 1
0 1
1 1
0.51; I² = 0%).
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
1
0
0
0
1
0
8
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Küüsmaa et al. (2016) and Küüsmaa-Schildt et al. (2017) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a significant difference between the conditions The subgroup analyses for studies that tested
(p < 0.001), with the SMD favoring evening strength either in the morning or in the evening
strength assessment (SMD = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.15, hours included seven studies with a total of 14
0.62; I² = 1%). groups (Chtourou et al. 2012; Sedliak et al. 2007,
2008; Souissi et al. 2002, 2012; Zbidi et al. 2016).
The effectiveness of training in the morning versus These analyses indicated no significant difference
evening hours between the groups training in the morning and
Out of the 11 included studies, 2 did not assess MVC evening when strength was tested in the morning
strength (Krčmárová et al. 2018; Küüsmaa et al. (p = 0.643; SMD = −0.08, 95% CI = −0.40, 0.25;
2016); therefore, 9 studies were included in the I² = 1%; Figure 2) or even when strength was tested
main meta-analysis for MVC strength with a total in the evening hours (p = 0.220; SMD = 0.19, 95%
of 20 groups (Chtourou et al. 2012; Küüsmaa-Schildt CI = −0.11, 0.50; I² = 0%; Figure 3).
et al. 2017; Sedliak et al. 2007, 2008, 2009, 2018;
Souissi et al. 2002, 2012; Zbidi et al. 2016). The
main results of the meta-analysis indicated no sig- RM strength
nificant difference between morning and evening
resistance training on strength when the average There was an insufficient number of studies that used
values of both morning and evening strength assess- RM strength tests, as only two studies examined the
ments were employed for the analysis (p = 0.801; 1RM test and one study used the 6RM test. Therefore,
SMD = 0.04, 95% CI = −0.24, 0.32; I² = 0%). no analysis of RM strength tests was conducted.
Figure 2. Forest plot of the differences between the effects of morning and evening resistance training on maximal voluntary
contraction strength when considering only the morning strength tests. The x-axis denotes Cohen’s d (standardized mean
differences: std diff in means). The whiskers denote the 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Figure 3. Forest plot of the differences between the effects of morning and evening resistance training on maximal voluntary
contraction strength when considering only the evening strength tests. The x-axis denotes Cohen’s d (standardized mean
differences: std diff in means). The whiskers denote the 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
8 J. GRGIC ET AL.
evening training groups; however, in the morning inducing muscle hypertrophy may choose the time
training group, the absolute increases in strength of day to train based on a personal preference.
were higher when tested in the morning (+26%) That said, a degree of caution is warranted when
than when tested in the evening (+19%). By contrast, extrapolating these results into practice given that
in the evening training group, the absolute increases they are based on only five studies. Also, the
in strength were observed to be greater in the evening changes in muscle size observed at the whole
(+22%) than in the morning testing sessions (+17%) muscle level might not be fully comparable to
(Souissi et al. 2002). Indeed, even the pooled SMD those observed at the muscle fiber level (Grgic
values showed slight favoring of the groups training in and Schoenfeld 2018). Out of the 11 included
the morning when only morning testing time was studies, only 1 study (Sedliak et al. 2018) examined
considered (Figure 2), as well as favoring of the groups muscle fiber cross-sectional area (CSA). The
training in the evening hours when only evening results of this study suggested similar increases in
testing time was considered (Figure 3). However, muscle fiber CSA in both the group training in the
overall there were no significant between-group dif- morning (+21%) and the group training in the
ferences in either of these analyses. evening hours (+18%). However, given the paucity
It should be stressed that our findings are spe- of data on the topic, examining changes in muscle
cific only to MVC tests and not to tests such as the size in general, and the changes at the muscle fiber
1RM test. Any generalizability of these findings to level in particular, future research is needed to
1RM tests is limited given that MVC tests and the draw more definitive inferences.
1RM test may not always produce similar results,
and in some cases, may even be conflicting (Gentil
Practical applications
et al. 2017). Future studies exploring this topic and
using 1RM tests are warranted. Also, future studies From a public health perspective, the results pre-
using MVC tests are needed given the overall small sented herein highlight that similar effects on
number of included studies. increases in muscle strength and muscle size may
be produced by training in the morning and in the
evening. Therefore, individuals interested in partici-
Muscle hypertrophy
pating in resistance exercise should choose the time
In several studies, acute increase in the p70 riboso- of the day for training that will ultimately facilitate
mal S6 kinase (p70S6K) signaling pathway following long-term training adherence. For sports coaches
resistance exercise was found to be highly correlated and trainers, it is interesting to note that after
with long-term increases in muscle size following a period of training in the morning hours, strength
resistance training (Mayhew et al. 2011; Terzis et al. levels in these hours appear to become similar to
2008). This high correlation may be relevant given those observed in the evening. However, when train-
the findings by Sedliak et al. (2013) that the phos- ing in the evening hours, the general difference in
phorylation of p70S6K is similar after resistance strength between morning and evening hours does
exercise performed in the morning and in the eve- not change. These findings may be of considerable
ning hours. Indeed, the analysis for muscle hyper- value from a practical standpoint as they highlight
trophy indicated that similar effects for this outcome that if the specific time of competition for an athlete
might be expected regardless of the time of day at is known in advance, at least some of the training
which the training sessions were conducted. These sessions should be organized so that they coincide
results may be explained by the comparable effects of with the competition time of day (to ensure
both morning and evening training conditions on a positive time-specific performance).
post-exercise anabolic signaling (Sedliak et al. 2013).
Our findings support the acute temporal data,
Methodological quality
indicating that similar hypertrophic adaptations
are observed over time regardless of the time Overall, the included studies were classified as
of day during which the training is performed. being of good or moderate methodological quality.
Thus, we conclude that individuals interested in However, only one study reported the participants’
10 J. GRGIC ET AL.
compliance with the training programs, with all show divergent responses to training at different
the participants attending at least 90% of the train- times of day in the context of both subjective (i.e.
ing sessions (Küüsmaa et al. 2016). Given that the rating of perceived exertion) and physiological
other included studies did not report this informa- responses (i.e. salivary cortisol) (Bonato et al.
tion, it remains unclear if there were any differ- 2017b; Rossi et al. 2015). Therefore, future studies
ences in the adherence to training between the should consider a detailed assessment of chrono-
groups. Also, several studies did not report if the type and habitual sleep–wake cycles so that the
training programs were supervised or not (Table comparison between the groups remains valid.
2). Supervision of the training is an important
factor to consider given that supervised resistance
training programs (as compared to the training Limitations
programs that are unsupervised) generally produce
The primary limitation of the present review is the
greater increases in strength (Gentil and Bottaro
wide age range of the participants across the
2010). Future studies, therefore, should ensure that
included studies. Younger and older individuals
the participants’ adherence to the training pro-
might not experience the same responses to resis-
grams is reported and should also clearly state
tance training; for example, Roth et al. (2000)
whether the resistance training programs were
reported that older women may exhibit higher
supervised.
levels of muscle damage after resistance exercise
From a study design perspective, it needs to be
than their younger counterparts. Therefore, com-
highlighted that most of the included studies did
bining participants from various age groups in the
assess chronotype of the participants, and in gen-
same analysis might confound the pooled results.
eral, these studies report that the included partici-
While we did use the random effects model to
pants did not belong to any extreme chronotype,
account for this age-related heterogeneity across
or that the distribution of these individuals was
the samples in the individual studies (Higgins
similar between the groups (Table 1). However,
2008), it remains unclear to what extent did the
three studies (Krčmárová et al. 2018; Sedliak
inclusion of all these age groups in the same ana-
et al. 2009; Souissi et al. 2012) did not assess the
lysis affect the overall results.
chronotype of the participants which, therefore,
presents a limitation of their study design given
that (at least in aerobic exercise) maximal perfor-
Conclusions
mance is expressed at different times of the day
based on the individual’s chronotype (Facer- In summary, the results presented herein con-
Childs and Brandstaetter 2015). Examining the firm that, at baseline, the expression of strength
individual responses of those with differing chron- in humans is greater in the evening than in the
otypes to resistance training would provide further morning hours. After a period of consistent
insight into the potential influence of time of day training in the morning, strength levels, as
on physical performance. This should be consid- observed in the morning, appear to become simi-
ered imperative for future studies in this area, lar to those observed in the evening. By contrast,
given the previous findings in endurance exercise training in the evening maintains the general
performance and the recent focus on circadian differences in the strength expression across dif-
rhythms in physiological function (Facer-Childs ferent times of the day. Training both in the
and Brandstaetter 2015). Indeed, several studies morning and in the evening hours may produce
from Jacopo Vitale’s laboratory show that chron- similar improvements in strength regardless of
otype should be considered when (1) assessing the time at which the testing sessions are con-
sleep quality (Vitale et al. 2018) and (2) scheduling ducted. This is likely given that training in the
high-intensity interval exercise (Bonato et al. morning and in the evening hours also improves
2017a; Vitale et al. 2017; Vitale and Weydahl strength when assessed in a specific and in
2017). The studies performed by this research a non-training specific time of day. Finally,
group highlight that different chronotypes may increases in muscle hypertrophy are similar
CHRONOBIOLOGY INTERNATIONAL 11
regardless of the time of day at which the resis- Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ. 2018. Are the hypertrophic adapta-
tance training is conducted. tions to high and low-load resistance training muscle fiber
type specific? Front Physiol. 9:402.
Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ, Skrepnik M, Davies TB, Mikulic P.
2018. Effects of rest interval duration in resistance training
Declaration of interest on measures of muscular strength: a systematic review.
Sports Med. 48(1):137–51.
The authors of this study declare that there is no conflict of Guette M, Gondin J, Martin A. 2005. Time-of-day effect on
interest. the torque and neuromuscular properties of dominant
and non-dominant quadriceps femoris. Chronobiol Int.
22(3):541–58.
Higgins JP. 2008. Commentary: heterogeneity in meta-analysis
References should be expected and appropriately quantified.
Int J Epidemiol. 37(5):1158–60.
American College of Sports Medicine. 2009. American col-
Horne JA, Ostberg O. 1976. A self-assessment questionnaire
lege of sports medicine position stand. Progression models
to determine morningness-eveningness in human circa-
in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports
dian rhythms. Int J Chronobiol. 4:97–110.
Exerc. 41(3):687–708.
Krčmárová B, Krčmár M, Schwarzová M, Chlebo P,
Atkinson G, Todd C, Reilly T, Waterhouse J. 2005. Diurnal
Chlebová Z, Židek R, Kolesárová A, Zbyňovská K,
variation in cycling performance: influence of warm-up.
Kováčiková E, Walker S. 2018. The effects of 12-week
J Sports Sci. 23(3):321–29.
progressive strength training on strength, functional capa-
Bonato M, Agnello L, Galasso L, Montaruli A, Roveda E,
city, metabolic biomarkers, and serum hormone concen-
Merati G, La Torre A, Vitale JA. 2017a. Acute modification
trations in healthy older women: morning versus evening
of cardiac autonomic function of high-intensity interval train-
training. Chronobiol Int. 35:1490–502.
ing in collegiate male soccer players with different chronotype:
a cross-over study. J Sports Sci Med. 16(2):286–94. Küüsmaa M, Schumann M, Sedliak M, Kraemer WJ,
Bonato M, La Torre A, Saresella M, Marventano I, Merati G, Newton RU, Malinen JP, Nyman K, Häkkinen A,
Vitale JA. 2017b. Salivary cortisol concentration after Häkkinen K. 2016. Effects of morning versus evening
high-intensity interval exercise: time of day and chrono- combined strength and endurance training on physical
type effect. Chronobiol Int. 34(6):698–707. performance, muscle hypertrophy, and serum hormone
Chtourou H, Chaouachi A, Driss T, Dogui M, Behm DG, concentrations. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 41(12):1285–94.
Chamari K, Souissi N. 2012. The effect of training at the Küüsmaa-Schildt M, Eklund D, Avela J, Rytkönen T, Newton R,
same time of day and tapering period on the diurnal Izquierdo M, Häkkinen K. 2017. Neuromuscular adaptations
variation of short exercise performances. J Strength Cond to combined strength and endurance training: order and
Res. 26(3):697–708. time-of-day. Int J Sports Med. 38(9):707–16.
Chtourou H, Souissi N. 2012. The effect of training at Martin A, Carpentier A, Guissard N, van Hoecke J,
a specific time of day: a review. J Strength Cond Res. 26 Duchateau J. 1999. Effect of time of day on force variation
(7):1984–2005. in a human muscle. Muscle Nerve. 22(10):1380–87.
Downs SH, Black N. 1998. The feasibility of creating a checklist Mayhew DL, Hornberger TA, Lincoln HC, Bamman MM.
for the assessment of the methodological quality both of 2011. Eukaryotic initiation factor 2B epsilon induces
randomised and non-randomised studies of health care cap-dependent translation and skeletal muscle
interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 52(6):377–84. hypertrophy. J Physiol. 589(Pt 12):3023–37.
Drust B, Waterhouse J, Atkinson G, Edwards B, Reilly T. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group PRISMA.
2005. Circadian rhythms in sports performance–an update. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and
Chronobiol Int. 22(1):21–44. meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6(7):
Facer-Childs E, Brandstaetter R. 2015. The impact of circa- e1000097.
dian phenotype and time since awakening on diurnal Roenneberg T, Wirz-Justice A, Merrow M. 2003. Life
performance in athletes. Curr Biol. 25(4):518–22. between clocks: daily temporal patterns of human
Folkard S, Monk TH, Lobban MC. 1979. Towards a predictive chronotypes. J Biol Rhythms. 18(1):80–90.
test of adjustment to shift work. Ergonomics. 22(1):79–91. Rossi A, Formenti D, Vitale JA, Calogiuri G, Weydahl A.
Gentil P, Bottaro M. 2010. Influence of supervision ratio on 2015. The effect of chronotype on psychophysiological
muscle adaptations to resistance training in nontrained responses during aerobic self-paced exercises. Percept
subjects. J Strength Cond Res. 24(3):639–43. Mot Skills. 121(3):840–55.
Gentil P, Del Vecchio FB, Paoli A, Schoenfeld BJ, Bottaro M. Roth SM, Martel GF, Ivey FM, Lemmer JT, Metter EJ,
2017. Isokinetic dynamometry and 1RM tests produce Hurley BF, Rogers MA. 2000. High-volume,
conflicting results for assessing alterations in muscle heavy-resistance strength training and muscle damage in
strength. J Hum Kinet. 56:19–27. young and older women. J Appl Physiol. 88(3):1112–18.
12 J. GRGIC ET AL.
Sale D, MacDougall D. 1981. Specificity in strength training: exercise performances in 10- to 11-year-old boys. Pediatr
a review for the coach and athlete. Can J Appl Sport Sci. 6 Exerc Sci. 24(1):84–99.
(2):87–92. Souissi N, Gauthier A, Sesboüé B, Larue J, Davenne D. 2002.
Schroder EA, Esser KA. 2013. Circadian rhythms, skeletal Effects of regular training at the same time of day on
muscle molecular clocks, and exercise. Exerc Sport Sci diurnal fluctuations in muscular performance. J Sports
Rev. 41(4):224–29. Sci. 20(11):929–37.
Sedliak M, Finni T, Cheng S, Kraemer WJ, Häkkinen K. 2007. Teo W, Newton MJ, McGuigan MR. 2011. Circadian
Effect of time-of-day-specific strength training on serum rhythms in exercise performance: implications for hor-
hormone concentrations and isometric strength in men. monal and muscular adaptation. J Sports Sci Med. 10
Chronobiol Int. 24(6):1159–77. (4):600–06.
Sedliak M, Finni T, Cheng S, Lind M, Häkkinen K. 2009. Effect of Terzis G, Georgiadis G, Stratakos G, Vogiatzis I, Kavouras S,
time-of-day-specific strength training on muscular hypertro- Manta P, Mascher H, Blomstrand E. 2008. Resistance
phy in men. J Strength Cond Res. 23(9):2451–57. exercise-induced increase in muscle mass correlates with
Sedliak M, Finni T, Peltonen J, Häkkinen K. 2008. Effect of p70S6 kinase phosphorylation in human subjects. Eur
time-of-day-specific strength training on maximum J Appl Physiol. 102(2):145–52.
strength and EMG activity of the leg extensors in men. Vitale JA, Banfi G, La Torre A, Bonato M. 2018. Effect of
J Sports Sci. 26(10):1005–14. a habitual late-evening physical task on sleep quality in
Sedliak M, Zeman M, Buzgó G, Cvecka J, Hamar D, Laczo E, neither-type soccer players. Front Physiol. 9:1582.
Okuliarova M, Vanderka M, Kampmiller T, Häkkinen K, Vitale JA, La Torre A, Baldassarre R, Piacentini MF,
et al. 2018. Morphological, molecular and hormonal adap- Bonato M. 2017. Ratings of perceived exertion and
tations to early morning versus afternoon resistance self-reported mood state in response to high intensity
training. Chronobiol Int. 35(4):450–64. interval training. A crossover study on the effect of
Sedliak M, Zemanb M, Buzgó G, Cvečka J, Hamar D, chronotype. Front Psychol. 8:1232.
Laczo E, Zelko A, Okuliarová M, Raastad T, Nilsen TS, Vitale JA, Weydahl A. 2017. Chronotype, physical activity,
et al. 2013. Effects of time of day on resistance and sport performance: a systematic review. Sports Med.
exercise-induced anabolic signaling in skeletal muscle. 47(9):1859–68.
Biol Rhythm Res. 44(5):756–70. Zbidi S, Zinoubi B, Vandewalle H, Driss T. 2016. Diurnal
Souissi H, Chtourou H, Chaouachi A, Dogui M, Chamari K, rhythm of muscular strength depends on temporal speci-
Souissi N, Amri M. 2012. The effect of training at a specific ficity of self-resistance training. J Strength Cond Res. 30
time-of-day on the diurnal variations of short-term (3):717–24.