↓ Skip to main content

Chronotype, Physical Activity, and Sport Performance: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
Chronotype, Physical Activity, and Sport Performance: A Systematic Review
Published in
Sports Medicine, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40279-017-0741-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jacopo Antonino Vitale, Andi Weydahl

Abstract

Many variables related to sport have been shown to have circadian rhythms. Chronotype is the expression of circadian rhythmicity in an individual, and three categories of chronotype are defined: morning types (M-types), evening types (E-types), and neither types (N-types). M-types show earlier peaks of several psychophysiological variables during the day than E-types. The effect of chronotype on athletic performance has not been extensively investigated. The objective of the present review was to study the effect of chronotype on athletic performance and the psychophysiological responses to physical activity. The present review adheres to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) reporting guidelines. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for scientific papers using the keywords "chronotype", "circadian typology", "morningness", and "eveningness" in combination with each of the words "sport", "performance", and "athletic." Relevant reference lists were inspected. We limited the search results to peer-reviewed papers published in English from 1985 to 2015. Ten papers met our inclusion criteria. Rating of perceived exertion and fatigue scores in relation to athletic performances are influenced by chronotype: M-types perceived less effort when performing a submaximal physical task in the morning than did N- and E-types. In addition, M-types generally showed better athletic performances, as measured by race times, in the morning than did N- and E-types. Other results concerning chronotype effect on physiological responses to physical activity were not always consistent: heterogeneous samples and different kinds of physical activity could partially explain these discrepancies. Sports trainers and coaches should take into account the influence of both the time of day and chronotype effect when scheduling training sessions into specific time periods.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Singapore 1 1%
Unknown 74 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 15 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Master 8 11%
Other 23 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 24 32%
Unspecified 23 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 8%
Neuroscience 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Other 12 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 July 2019.
All research outputs
#1,526,431
of 13,693,174 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#1,057
of 2,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,163
of 263,765 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#34
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,693,174 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,765 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.