Search

Background: Current recommendations for physical exercise include information about the frequency, intensity, type, and duration of exercise. However, to date, there are no recommendations on what time of day one should exercise. The aim was to perform a systematic review with meta-analysis to investigate if the time of day of exercise training in intervention studies influences the degree of improvements in physical performance or health-related outcomes. Methods: The databases EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and SPORTDiscus were searched from inception to January 2023. Eligibility criteria were that the studies conducted structured endurance and/or strength training with a minimum of two exercise sessions per week for at least 2 weeks and compared exercise training between at least two different times of the day using a randomized crossover or parallel group design. Results: From 14,125 screened articles, 26 articles were included in the systematic review of which seven were also included in the meta-analyses. Both the qualitative synthesis and the quantitative synthesis (i.e., meta-analysis) provide little evidence for or against the hypothesis that training at a specific time of day leads to more improvements in performance-related or health-related outcomes compared to other times. There was some evidence that there is a benefit when training and testing occur at the same time of day, mainly for performance-related outcomes. Overall, the risk of bias in most studies was high. Conclusions: The current state of research provides evidence neither for nor against a specific time of the day being more beneficial, but provides evidence for larger effects when there is congruency between training and testing times. This review provides recommendations to improve the design and execution of future studies on this topic. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42021246468). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Optimal prescription of resistance exercise load (kg) is essential for the development of maximal strength. Two methods are commonly used in practice with no clear consensus on the most effective approach for the improvement of maximal strength. Objective: The primary aim of this review was to compare the effectiveness of percentage 1RM (% 1RM) and repetition maximum targets (RM) as load prescription methods for the development of maximal strength. Methods: Electronic database searches of MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, and CINAHL Complete were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies were eligible for inclusion if a direct measure of maximal strength was used, a non-training control group was a comparator, the training intervention was > 4 weeks in duration and was replicable, and participants were defined as healthy and between the ages of 18–40. Methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using a modified Downs and Black checklist. Percentage change (%) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all strength-based training groups were calculated. Statistical significance (p < 0.05) was reported from each study. Results: Twenty-two studies comprising a total of 761 participants (585 males and 176 females) were found to meet the inclusion criteria. 12 studies were returned for % 1RM, with 10 for RM. All studies showed statistically significant improvements in maximal strength in the training groups (31.3 ± 21.9%; 95% CI 33.1–29.5%). The mean quality rating for all studies was 17.7 ± 2.3. Four studies achieved a good methodological rating, with the remainder classified as moderate. Conclusions: Both % 1RM and RM are effective tools for improving maximal strength. % 1RM appears to be a better prescriptive method than RM potentially due to a more sophisticated management of residual fatigue. However, large heterogeneity was present within this data. Lower body and multi-joint exercises appear to be more appropriate for developing maximal strength. Greater consensus is required in defining optimal training prescriptions, physiological adaptations, and training status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]