Timing of Resistance Training During Ramadan Fasting and Its Effects on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: During Ramadan month, Muslims often continue training to maintain their muscle performance. However, trainers should stress the importance of the time of day chosen for practicing resistance training (RT) during Ramadan fasting to avoid health and performance alteration. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the effects of the timing of RT during Ramadan intermittent fasting (RIF) on muscle strength and hypertrophy in healthy male adults. METHODS: Forty men were randomly allocated to 2 matched groups: 20 practicing whole-body RT in the late afternoon in a fasted state and 20 training in the late evening in a fed state (FED). Both groups performed 4 days per week of whole-body RT (∼75%-85% 1-repetition maximum, 12 repetitions/3-4 sets) during RIF. Anthropometric measurements and 1-repetition-maximum test for the squats, deadlift, and bench press were measured. A cross-sectional area of the quadriceps and biceps brachii was examined using ultrasound scans. All measurements were taken at 4 time points: 24 hours before the start of Ramadan, on the 15th day of Ramadan, on the 29th day of Ramadan, and 21 days after Ramadan. RESULTS: Post hoc tests indicated significant preimprovement to postimprovement in FED at the 29th day of Ramadan for the 1-repetition-maximum test for the squats (P = .02; effect size = 0.21) and deadlift (P = .03; effect size = 0.24) when compared to 24 hours before the start of Ramadan. No significant changes were observed in the fasted-state group or for cross-sectional area for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Practicing RT during RIF appears not to have adverse effects on muscle hypertrophy and strength no matter whether it is practiced in FED or fasted state. However, RT had greater effects on muscle strength when applied in FED. Our findings suggest that training sessions should be scheduled after breaking the fast during Ramadan.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".