Peak-time vs trough-time resistance training in older adults: a randomized trial
In this randomized trial with older adults, training at one's individual peak time of day did not clearly outperform training at the trough time or a nontraining control for muscle strength and lean mass. [1]
Automatic summary · not editorially reviewed
The key findings
The trial compared resistance training at individual peak time, at trough time, or a nontraining control in older adults. [1]
The 12-week program included two supervised whole-body resistance sessions weekly plus one 30-minute moderate cycling session. [1]
For peak versus trough, effect estimates were close to zero with confidence intervals overlapping zero across outcomes. [1]
The source at a glance
- Study type / format
- Three-arm, parallel-group, randomized controlled superiority trial (abstract).
- Population / context
- Older adults (mean age 67 years; 41% female) in a single-centre trial.
- Summary based on
- Study abstract
- Original publication
- October 1, 2026
Trial question in older adults
Ageing is linked to loss of skeletal muscle mass and strength, which raises the risk of sarcopenia and functional impairment. Resistance training can counteract these changes, but the time of day is rarely considered. This three-arm randomized superiority trial asked whether training at a person's individual peak time of day produces greater muscle adaptations than training at the trough time or keeping a habitual lifestyle.
Supporting source [1]
Peak, trough or control over 12 weeks
Participants first completed strength tests at four times of day over four days to find their individual peak and trough performance times. They were then randomly assigned in a 2:2:1 ratio to train at peak time, train at trough time, or a nontraining control group. The 12-week program had two supervised whole-body resistance sessions per week plus one 30-minute moderate cycling session. The main outcome was isometric midthigh pull strength; handgrip strength and appendicular lean mass index were secondary.
Supporting source [1]
Near-zero differences and abstract scope
Of 108 randomized participants (41% female; mean age 67 years), 93 entered the analyses. For peak versus trough, effect estimates were close to zero with confidence intervals overlapping zero for isometric midthigh pull strength, handgrip strength and appendicular lean mass index. No intervention-related serious adverse events were reported. The authors conclude that timing training to individual peak performance is unlikely to give clinically meaningful benefit. This explainer is based only on the abstract; the full text was not reviewed.
Supporting source [1]
How to interpret this
Abstract only; the full text was not reviewed. Details such as adherence, dropout reasons and exact group sizes are not reported here.
Based on the study abstract; the full paper, tables and supplementary data were not reviewed.
Source & supporting passages
Bruggisser F, Ritter S, Roth R, Ritter ET, Infanger D, Ledergerber R, Hinrichs T, Scheer FAJL, Handschin C, Hanssen H, Knaier R. · europepmc.org · October 1, 2026