The effects of 12-week progressive strength training on strength,functional capacity,metabolic biomarkers,and serum hormone concentrations in healthy older women: morning versus evening training

ABSTRACT

Previous findings suggest that performing strength training (ST) in the evening may provide greater benefit for young individuals. However, this may not be optimal for the older population. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of a 12-week ST program performed in the morning vs. evening on strength, functional capacity, metabolic biomarker and basal hormone concentrations in older women. Thirty-one healthy older women (66 ± 4 years, 162 ± 4 cm, 75 ± 13 kg) completed the study. Participants trained in the morning (M) (07:30, n = 10), in the evening (E) (18:00, n = 10), or acted as a non-training control group (C) (n = 11). Both intervention groups performed whole-body strength training with 3 sets of 10–12 repetitions with 2–3 minutes rest between sets. All groups were measured before and after the 12-week period with; dynamic leg press and seated-row 6-repetition maximum (6-RM) and functional capacity tests (30-second chair stands and arm curl test, Timed Up and Go), as well as whole-body skeletal muscle mass (SMM) (kg) and fat mass (FM-kg, FM%) assessed by bioelectrical impedance (BIA). Basal blood samples (in the intervention groups only) taken before and after the intervention assessed low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein (HDL-C), blood glucose (GLU), triglycerides (TG), high-sensitive C-reactive protein (hsCRP) concentrations and total antioxidant status (TAS) after a 12 h fast. Hormone analysis included prolactin (PRL), progesterone (P) estradiol (ESTR), testosterone (T), follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), and luteinizing hormone (LH). While C showed no changes in any variable, both M and E significantly improved leg press (+ 46 ± 22% and + 21 ± 12%, respectively; p < 0.001) and seated-row (+ 48 ± 21% and + 42 ± 18%, respectively; p < 0.001) 6-RM, as well as all functional capacity outcomes (p < 0.01) due to training. M were the only group to increase muscle mass (+ 3 ± 2%, p < 0.01). Both M and E group significantly (p < 0.05) decreased GLU (–4 ± 6% and –8 ± 10%, respectively), whereas significantly greater decrease was observed in the E compared to the M group (p < 0.05). Only E group significantly decreased TG (–17 ± 25%, p < 0.01), whereas M group increased (+ 15%, p < 0.01). The difference in TG between the groups favored E compared to M group (p < 0.01). These results suggest that short-term “hypertrophic” ST alone mainly improves strength and functional capacity performance, but it influences metabolic and hormonal profile of healthy older women to a lesser extent. In this group of previously untrained older women, time-of-day did not have a major effect on outcome variables, but some evidence suggests that training in the morning may be more beneficial for muscle hypertrophy (i.e. only M significantly increased muscle mass and had larger effect size (M: g = 2 vs. E: g = 0.5).