The Effect of Training at the Same Time of Day and Tapering Period on the Diurnal Variation of Short Exercise Performances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this investigation was to assess the effects of training and tapering at the same time of the day on the diurnal variations of short exercise performances. Thirty-one physically active men underwent 12 weeks of lower-extremity resistance training and 2 weeks of tapering. These subjects were matched and randomly assigned to a morning training group (MTG, training times 0700-0800 hours, n = 10), an evening training group (ETG, training times 1700-1800 hours, n = 11), and a control group (CG, completed all tests but did not train, n = 10). Muscular strength and power testing was conducted before (T0) and after 12 weeks of training (T1) and after 2 weeks of tapering (T2) in the morning (0700-0800 hours) and in the evening (1700-1800 hours). All morning and evening tests were performed in separate sessions (minimum interval = 36 hours) in a randomized design. In T0, the oral temperature and performances during the Wingate, vertical jump (squat jump and countermovement jump), and maximal voluntary contraction tests were higher in the evening than in the morning for all the groups. In T1, these diurnal variations were blunted in the MTG and persisted in the ETG and CG. In T2, the 2 weeks of tapering resulted in further time of day-specific adaptations and increases in short-term maximal performances. However, there was no significant difference in the relative increase between the MTG and the ETG after both training and tapering. From a practical point of view, if the time of competition is known, training and tapering sessions before a major competition must be conducted at the same time of the day at which one's critical performance is programmed. Moreover, if the time of the competition is not known, a tapering phase after resistance training program could be performed at any time of the day with the same benefit.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".