Senna - Effect of Different Inter Set Rest Intervals on.96784

Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:http://www.researchgate.net/publication/281641791

EFFECTOFDIFFERENTINTER-SETRESTINTERVALSONPERFORMANCEOFSINGLEANDMULTI-JOINTEXERCISESWITHNEARMAXIMALLOADSARTICLEinTHEJOURNALOFSTRENGTHANDCONDITIONINGRESEARCHSEPTEMBER2015ImpactFactor:1.86DOI:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001142

DOWNLOADS14

VIEWS16

7AUTHORS,INCLUDING:

GilmarSennaUniversidadeFederaldoEstadodoRiodeJ20PUBLICATIONS82CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

EstevoScudeseUniversidadeTiradentes7PUBLICATIONS14CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

RobertoSimoFederalUniversityofRiodeJaneiro210PUBLICATIONS1,083CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

Availablefrom:GilmarSennaRetrievedon:14September2015

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of PrintDOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001142

EFFECT OF DIFFERENT INTER-SET REST INTERVALS ON

PERFORMANCE OF SINGLE AND MULTI-JOINT EXERCISES WITH NEAR

MAXIMAL LOADS

Gilmar Weber Senna1,2 Jeffrey M. Willardson3

Estevo Scudese2,4 Roberto Simo4 Cristiano Queiroz5

Raoni Avelar5

Estlio Henrique Martin Dantas1,2

1 Nursing and Biosciences Post-Graduation Program (PPgEnfBio) Doctorate of Federal University of State of Rio de Janeiro (UNIRIO) RJ Brazil. 2 Biosciences Laboratory of Human Movement (LABIMH) Tiradentes University (UNIT) SE Aracaj.

3 Eastern Illinois University Kinesiology and Sports Studies Department Charleston, IL USA.

4 School of Physical Education and Sports Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (EEFD/UFRJ) RJ Brazil.

5 Health Science Center Catholic University of Petrpolis RJ Brazil

Corresponding Author: Gilmar Senna, MSc.

Federal University of State of Rio de Janeiro (UNIRIO)

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Xavier Sigaud St. - 290 - 401 - Praia Vermelha

55-21-2229-0180 - Rio de Janeiro RJ.

[email protected]

ACCE

PTED

Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to investigate the acute effects of different inter-set rest intervals on performance of single and multi-joint exercises with near maximal loads. Fifteen trained men (26.40 4.94 years, 79.00 7.10 kg, 176.6 6.06 cm, 11.80 2.47 % body fat, and bench press relative strength: 1.26 0.19 kg/kg of body mass) performed eight sessions (two exercises x four inter-set rest intervals), each consisting of five sets with a 3-RM load. The exercises tested were the machine chest fly (MCF) for the single joint exercise and the barbell bench press (BP) for the multi-joint exercise with 1, 2, 3 and 5-minutes of rest between sets. The results indicated that for the MCF, significantly higher total number of repetitions were completed for the 2 (12.60 2.35 reps; p = 0.027), 3 (13.66 1.84 reps; p = 0.001) and 5-minute (12.93 2.25 reps; p = 0.001) versus the 1-minute (10.33 2.60 reps) protocol. For the BP, a significantly higher total number of repetitions were completed for 3 (11.66 2.79 reps; p = 0.002) and 5-minute (12.93 2.25 reps; p = 0.001) versus the 1-minute protocol (7.60 3.52 reps). Additionally, subjects completed significantly higher total number of repetitions for the 5-minute (12.93 2.25 reps; p = 0.016) versus 2-minute (9.53 3.11 reps) protocol. Both exercises presented similar and progressive reductions in repetition performance for all rest protocols along the five sets, starting as soon as the second set for the shorter 1-minute rest protocol. In conclusion, to maintain the best consistency in repetition performance, rest intervals of 2 minutes between sets are sufficient for the MCF and 3 to 5-minutes for the BP. Thus, it appears that longer acute recovery time is needed for a multi-joint (core) exercise like the BP versus a single-joint (assistance) exercise like the MCF. Key-words: muscle strength, weight lifting, physical fitness.

ACCE

PTED


INTRODUCTION

For the past two decades, the rest interval between sets has received much

attention from resistance training researchers. It has already been well established that

the rest interval between sets, independent of other prescriptive variables, has

significant acute effects on repetition performance (11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19); as

well as neuromuscular (19), endocrine (4, 9) and cardiorespiratory responses (10).

Differences in acute responses may result in expression of different adaptations over

time with emphasis on maximal strength, hypertrophy, power, and localized muscular

endurance (1).

Recent studies have shown that longer rest intervals between sets (i.e., 5-minute)

allow for greater recovery and consistency in repetition performance with 8-RM to 15-

RM loads (8, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18,). However, Scudese et al., (11) was the first to

investigate the effects of rest interval manipulation with a near maximum 3-RM load for

the barbell bench press exercise (BP), and observed that 3-minutes rest between sets

allowed for sufficient recovery to maintain consistency in the repetitions completed per

set.

It is recommended that individuals with specific muscular strength development

goals should train with loads ranging from 1- to 6-RM (1). The ability to maintain

consistency in the repetitions completed with a given load over a series of sets may

enhance adaptational processes, leading to greater strength gains over time (13).

Regarding the latest recommendations on strength training for healthy adults, the

American College of Sports and Medicine (1, 2) suggested prescription of inter-set rest

intervals ranging from 2 to 3-minutes for multi-joint (core) exercises and 1 to 2-minutes

for single-joint (assistance) exercises, respectively.

ACCE

PTED


To our knowledge, very few studies have investigated the potential acute

interactions between different rest intervals between sets and single and multi-joint

exercise performance (13, 14). Specifically, Senna et al., (13) observed that for both

single and multi-joint exercises, repetition performance patterns and perceived exertion

were independent of the rest interval between sets. In addition, Senna et al., (14) also

observed similar repetition performance patterns between machine chest fly (MCF) and

bench press (BP) exercises; albeit, for the single-joint exercise (MCF), the blood lactate

response was significantly less for the longer rest interval (3-minute) versus the shorter

rest interval (1-minute) between sets. By contrast, for the multi-joint exercise, there was

no significant difference in the blood lactate response, irrespective of the rest interval

between sets (14). These studies (13, 14) indicate that the time-course of inter-set

recovery might be different between single and multi-joint exercises when utilizing 10-

RM loads.

However, there is a gap in the literature regarding the effect of different rest

intervals between sets on single and multi-joint exercise performance with near

maximal loads (i.e. 3-RM). Such a comparison may improve the efficacy of resistance

training prescription and subsequent strength adaptations over time. Therefore, in order

to increase the growing body of knowledge regarding this theme, the aim of this study

was to investigate the acute effects of different inter-set rest intervals (1, 2, 3, and 5-

minute) on performance of single and multi-joint exercises with near maximal loads

(i.e. 3-RM). The single (assistance) and multi-joint (core) exercises selected for this

study were the MCF and barbell BP, respectively.

METHODS

Experimental Approach to the Problem

ACCE

PTED


Forty-eight to 72 hours after proper familiarization and determination of 3-RM

loads for the MCF and BP, subjects underwent eight different training sessions with 48

hours between sessions. Sessions were performed in random order with a specific

combination of exercise (MCF or BP) and rest interval (1, 2, 3, or 5-minute). Five sets

were performed for maximal repetitions with the pre-determined 3-RM load. The total

repetitions and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were recorded post each exercise set.

Subjects

Fifteen trained men with at least one year consistent resistance training

experience were asked to participate (26.40 4.94 years, 79.00 7.10 kg, 176.60 6.06

cm, 11.80 2.47% body fat, bench press relative strength: 1.26 0.19 kg/kg of body

mass). The following inclusion criteria were adopted to standardize subject selection: a)

training frequency of at least four times per week, with session duration approximately

one hour, and rest intervals between sets ranging from one to two minutes; b) non-usage

of any ergogenic substance that would enhance repetition performance; c) no acute or

chronic injuries that would affect MCF and BP performance; and d) did not engage in

intense activity on test days. Before data collection, all subjects answered no to all

questions on the PAR-Q (14). The study procedures had been previously approved

by the Catholic University of Petrpolis ethics committee. Participants read and

signed an informed consent after being informed of the testing procedures

according to the Declaration of Helsinki.

Determination of Three Repetition Maximum

After two familiarization visits, subjects performed four 3-RM load testing

sessions for the MCF and BP exercises. Subjects performed only one exercise per visit,

in alternated order on non-consecutive days for test and retest sessions. The following

ACCE

PTED


strategies were adopted to minimize measurement error: a) standard instructions

concerning the testing procedures and exercise technique were given before all tests; b)

body position was held constant; c) verbal encouragement was given (7); and d) the

mass of all plates and bars were determined through a precision scale. The 3RM test has

been previously described (13). Briefly, the initial loads for 3RM testing were estimated

from loads utilized by each subject during the course of their daily-periodized strength

training routines. From this point, the load modification pattern followed a 2kg for BP

and 2,5kg for MCF (total minimal modification) manipulation for each attempt and it

was held consistent for each subject. The last successful lift was recorded as the 3RM;

the greatest load lifted over the two testing sessions was assumed as the 3RM load. The

greatest load lifted over the two testing sessions for each exercise was recorded as the 3-

RM load. Each testing session was separated by at least 48 hours. Subjects performed a

maximum of five attempts during each visit, with at least 5 to 10-minutes of passive rest

between attempts (13).

Rate of Perceived Exertion Procedures

The OMNI Resistance Exercise Scale (6) was implemented to obtain the RPE

values. Subjects were familiarized with the OMNI Scale the week prior to load tests.

Subjects were asked to choose a number based on their perceived exertion or subjective

intensity of effort, strain, discomfort, and/or fatigue experienced during the exercise

session (6). The MCF and BP were practiced during the familiarization sessions for

three sets of 15 repetitions with 3-minute rest intervals between sets with estimated

loads based on subjects daily training routines.

Immediately post each exercise set, subjects were asked to identify their RPE in

order to provide a subjective measure of the exertion level (11, 13).

Experimental Procedures

ACCE

PTED


Forty-eight to 72 hours after the last 3-RM test, subjects completed the first of

eight different visits (two sessions per week). In each session, subjects performed five

sets with 3-RM loads in a randomized design that was implemented to combine each

exercise (MCF or BP) with a given rest interval (1, 2, 3 or 5-minutes). Prior to each

protocol, subjects engaged in a warm-up consisting of two sets of 12 repetitions with

40% of the 3-RM load for the given exercise for that session. Then, a 3-minute rest was

allowed between the warm-up sets and training protocol. Subjects were verbally

encouraged (7) to perform five sets until voluntary exhaustion and no attempt was made

to control the repetition velocity. Each subject was instructed to use a smooth and

controlled movement. Additionally, the total number of repetitions completed and RPE

Omni-Res scale values (6) were recorded after each exercise set completion.

Statistical Analysis

An alpha value of p 0.05 was used to establish the significance of

comparisons. To verify test and re-test reproducibility, the intra class correlation

coefficient was implemented (ICC). One-way ANOVAs were conducted in order to

analyze differences in total number of repetitions completed for each exercise,

repetitions completed on each individual set (for every exercise) and on distinct rest

conditions. If necessary, further comparisons were made via Bonferroni post-hoc test.

Additionally, to determine the magnitude of the findings, the effect size (ESs;

the difference between the pretest score and the posttest score divided by the pretest SD)

statistics were calculated for each exercise set of every rest condition, and the thresholds

proposed by Cohen (5) were applied to determine the magnitude of effects. The

Friedman test was used to analyze RPE scores and compare differences post each

exercise set within and between rest interval protocols. If necessary, a Dunn post hoc

ACCE

PTED


test was applied for multiple comparisons. The SPSS software 21.0 version was used for

statistical analyzes (IBM, Inc).

RESULTS

An excellent test/re-test correlation was found for the 3-RM loads using the ICC (MCF

r = 0.98; BP r = 0.99) and no differences were found between the test/re-test loads via

paired Student t test (p < 0.05). The results indicated that for the MCF, significantly

higher total number of repetitions were completed for the 2 (12.60 2.35 reps; p =

0.027), 3 (13.66 1.84 reps; p = 0.001) and 5-minute (12.93 2.25 reps; p = 0.001)

versus the 1-minute (10.33 2.60 reps) protocol. For the BP, a significantly higher total

number of repetitions were completed for 3 (11.66 2.79 reps; p = 0.002) and 5-minute

(12.93 2.25 reps; p = 0.001) versus the 1-minute protocol (7.60 3.52 reps).

Additionally, subjects completed significantly higher total number of repetitions for the

5-minute (12.93 2.25 reps; p = 0.016) versus 2-minute (9.53 3.11 reps) protocol.

Both exercises presented similar and progressive reductions in repetition performance

for all rest protocols along the five sets, starting as soon as the second set for the shorter

1-minute rest protocol. Briefly, in MCF significant reductions in repetition numbers

were evident from the second set for 1, 2 and 3-minute rest conditions. For the 5-

minute rest condition, reductions were evident at the fourth set compared to the

initial set. For BP exercise, significant reductions in repetition numbers appeared

at the second set for 1-minute, the third set for 2-minute and the fourth set for 3

and 5-minute rest conditions. In addition, for MCF and BP significant differences

were observed between the shorter 1-minute rest condition as early as the second

set compared to the longer 3 and 5-minute rest conditions. Data is clearly presented

on Table 1, Figures 1 and 2.

ACCE

PTED


INSERT TABLE 1, FIGURE 1 AND FIGURE 2

The ESs were calculated using the repetition number executed in the first set (as

the pre-test value), and repetition number throughout the second and between the fifth

set (as the post-test scores), along with standard derivation of the first set (as the pre-test

standard derivation). The majority of ES data indicated large magnitude declines in

repetition performance for both exercises across rest conditions. The magnitude of

declines increased over successive sets in all rest interval conditions independent of the

exercise mode. For both exercises, the declines were larger with lesser rest between sets

(see Table 2).

INSERT TABLE 2

For the MCF, the 1-minute rest protocol evidenced significantly greater RPE

values versus the other longer rest conditions (i.e. 2, 3 and 5-minute). For the other rest

protocols (2, 3 and 5-minute), MCF differences in the RPE were only evident between

the first and fifth sets. For the BP, significant increases in the RPE were significantly

greater from the third through fifth sets for all rest conditions (see Table 3).

INSERT TABLE 3

DISCUSSION

In general, the findings of this study indicated that when implementing a 3-RM

load for the MCF and BP, a 1-minute rest interval between sets resulted in a significant

reduction in the total repetitions completed and a greater RPE (pre and post-set values)

over five consecutive sets. This outcome is in contrast to the increased total repetitions

completed and significantly lower RPE for the protocols that involved a longer rest

interval between sets (2, 3 and 5-minute), regardless of exercise mode (MCF and BP).

However, the overall repetition reductions observed for the MCF were less evident

ACCE

PTED


versus the overall repetition reductions for the BP with 2, 3, and 5-minutes rest between

sets. The same trend was observed in RPE values between exercises at these rest

interval lengths.

Therefore, it appears that at rest interval lengths greater than or equal to 2-

minutes between sets, differences between the MCF and BP became increasingly

apparent in the overall reduction in repetition performance and RPE. From a practical

standpoint, this study suggests that for adequate maintenance of repetitions over five

sets, a 2-minute rest interval might be sufficient for the MCF; whereas, a 3-minute rest

interval might be suitable for the BP exercise. Thereby, longer rest periods between sets

(i.e. 5-minute) will increase the total duration of a training session, apparently without

providing additional benefits to repetition performance when implementing 3-RM

loads.

According to the American College of Sports Medicine (1), in order to

maximize the muscular strength development, the ideal load intensity must range

between 1-RM and 6-RM. In addition, the latest recommendations (1, 2) suggests that

for muscle strength development purposes, rest lengths should be 1 to 2-minutes

between sets for single-joint (assistance) exercises and 2 to 3-minutes between sets for

multi-joint (core) exercises. However, the current study is the first to assess acute

repetition performance in the context of a single (i.e. MCF) and multi-joint exercise (i.e.

BP) when utilizing a near maximal load (i.e. 3-RM). Thus, we can state based on our

findings that the current study agrees with the current rest recommendation. Our data

suggest that to maximize repetition performance, at least 2-minutes of rest between sets

was sufficient for the MCF and at least 3-minutes was sufficient for the BP.

Recently, two studies investigated the influence of different rest intervals in

single and multi-joint exercises (13, 14) in other intensity zones. Senna et al. (13)

ACCE

PTED


compared repetition performance in single and multi-joint exercises, for exercises

incorporating the pectoralis major and quadriceps with a 10-RM load. Repetition

performance and RPE were compared with 1, 3, and 5-minute rest intervals between

sets of single-joint (MCF and leg extension) and multi-joint (BP and leg press)

exercises. The results indicated that for the BP, significantly greater total repetitions

were completed for the 3 and 5-minute protocol versus the 1-minute protocol. No

significant differences were evident between the 3 and 5-minute rest conditions for the

BP. For the other exercises (i.e., leg press, leg extension, and MCF), significant

differences were evident between all rest conditions (1 < 3 < 5-minute rest). For all

exercises, consistent declines in repetition performance (relative to the first set) were

observed for all rest conditions, starting as early as the second set for the 1-minute and

by the third set for the 3 and 5-minute conditions.

In another study, Senna et al. (14) compared the effect of different intervals on

single and multi-joint exercise repetition performance, perceived exertion and blood

lactate. Twelve trained men completed five sets of the BP and MCF with 10-RM loads

to failure with 1 or 3-minute rest intervals between sets. It was found that significantly

greater total repetitions were completed for the 3-minute rest protocol versus the 1-

minute rest protocol for both exercises. Regarding the RPE, progressive increases

occurred after the third set for all conditions tested. For blood lactate concentrations, the

BP demonstrated significant increases immediately following and fifteen minutes post-

exercise versus baseline for both conditions (1 and 3-minute). Conversely, for the MCF,

significantly greater increases in blood lactate were observed for the 1-minute versus the

3-minute condition at the same time points post-exercise.

The studies conducted by Senna et al. (13, 14) resembled the current study

with similar performance decreases found in both exercises (BP and MCF) for the 1-

ACCE

PTED


minute rest condition. In addition, another key similarity was the lower RPE values for

the single-joint exercises, indicating a decreased fatigue status associated with the use of

lesser muscle mass. However, one of the major differences in the current study versus

Senna et al., (13, 14), was the load range (i.e. 3-RM versus 10-RM). This indicates that

performance will be similarly affected by the rest interval condition, irrespective of the

load intensity.

However, this wasn't the first study that compared multi-joint exercise repetition

performance and RPE values with near maximum loads. In fact, the study conducted by

Scudese et al., was the first study (11) to analyze the effects of different rest interval

lengths on 3-RM BP performance and RPE values. Sixteen trained men performed four

visits for 1, 2, 3, and 5-minute rest intervals between five consecutive sets. Scudese et

al., (11) found increased total BP repetitions completed with 2, 3 and 5-minutes versus

1-minute rest between sets. Declines in performance (relative to the first set) were

observed starting as early as the second for the shorter 1-minute and only at the fifth set

for all of the other rest conditions (2, 3 and 5-minute). The current study resembled

Scudese et al., (11) in the load range implemented (3-RM). Also, the outcomes for the

BP exercise followed similar repetition patterns of decline over consecutive sets.

However, the current study went further by investigating the MCF with a 3-RM load.

The current study showed a distinct difference between the MCF and BP specifically

beginning at the 2-minute rest condition, at which significantly greater total repetitions

were performed over five sets for the MCF versus the BP.

Others studies have verified the differences in repetition performance with

different rest interval lengths between sets (8, 12). Specifically, Senna et al., (12)

compared repetition performance during four sessions that included three exercises for

the lower body (i.e., leg press, leg extension and leg curl) and three exercises for the

ACCE

PTED


upper body (i.e., BP, MCF, and triceps pushdown), performed for three sets with a

10RM load, and either 2 or 5-minute rest intervals between sets. For the 2-minute

sessions, the majority of exercises presented declines in repetition performance as early

at the second set versus the first set (excluding the MCF); and for the third set versus the

first and second sets (excluding leg extension). For the 5-minute sessions, three of the

six exercises presented declines in repetitions from the third set versus the first set (leg

press, leg curl, and triceps pushdown); and two of the six exercises presented declines

from the third set versus the second set (leg curl and triceps pushdown). The total

repetitions completed at the end of the session were significantly greater for 5-minute

when versus 2-minute rest protocol (12).

This study (12) differed from the current study, in that the accumulated fatigue

from the initial exercises performed during an entire training session, probably impacted

the repetition performance of the exercises conducted later in the session. In addition,

our study was designed with only one exercise per visit and implemented a higher load

(3-RM). However, consistent with this study, the BP and MCF, presented distinct

repetition performance patterns with a key threshold for differences being exhibited

with 2-minutes rest between sets.

The RPE values have been used for assessing the relative intensity of resistance

exercise (6). Prior studies (12, 13) reported that the RPE increased over the course of

consecutive sets when comparing 1-minute versus 3 or 5-minute rest between sets when

utilizing a 10-RM load. More recently, Scudese et al. (11) the RPE was also lower when

longer rest intervals were applied between sets when utilizing a 3-RM load.

In the current study, significant increases were also evident in RPE for the 1-

minute rest condition starting from the third set through the fifth set for both exercises.

For the other rest conditions (2, 3 and 5-minute), the BP exercise triggered significant

ACCE

PTED


increases starting from the third set through the fifth set. For the MCF exercise, a

significant increase in RPE was observed only at the fifth set for the 2, 3 and 5-minute

rest conditions. This outcome suggested a greater fatigue rate perceived when under the

1-minute condition versus the longer rest conditions, independent of the exercise mode

(multi or single-joint) implemented.

PRATICAL APLICATIONS

Our results seems to be in accordance with the current state of the art in

resistance training, suggesting that distinct rest interval lengths between sets will trigger

different acute performance outcomes tending toward reductions in repetition

performance over multiple sets with shorter versus longer rest lengths (11, 12, 13, 16,

17, 18). More specifically, when utilizing a near maximal load (i.e. 3-RM), we observed

a similar pattern of performance reduction for both exercises modalities (multi and

single -joint) with a key subtle difference. Our data suggest that to maximize repetition

performance, at least 2 minutes of rest between sets was sufficient for the MCF and at

least 3-minutes was sufficient for the BP.

Thus, for different exercise modes (single and multi-joint), the main difference

in repetition performance became evident around the 2-minute mark. This data might

contribute to future recommendations focused on strength development for single and

multi-joint exercises performed with near-maximal loads. However, we strongly

recommend future studies should evaluate distinct exercise schemes, other near-

maximal load ranges (1- to 6-RM) and whole-body training sessions.

ACCE

PTED


REFERENCES

1. American College of Sports Medicine. Position stand on progression models in

resistance exercise for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41: 687-708, 2009.

2. American College of Sports Medicine. Position stand on progression models in

resistance exercise for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34: 364-380, 2002.

3. Baechle TR, and Earle RW. Essentials of strength training and conditioning.

2nd edition. Illinois: Human Kinetics, 2000.

4. Bottaro M, Martins B, Gentil P, and Wagner D. Effects of rest duration between

sets of resistance training on acute hormonal responses in trained women. J Med

Sci Sports 12: 73-78,2009.

5. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edition.

Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988.

6. Lagally KM, and Robertson RJ. Construct validity of the OMNI resistance

exercise scale. J Strength Cond Res 20: 252-256, 2006.

7. McNair PJ, Depledge J, Brettkelly M, and Stanley SN. Verbal encouragement:

effect on maximum effort voluntary muscle action. Br J Sports Med 30: 243-

245, 1996.

8. Miranda H, Fleck SJ, Simo R, Barreto AC, Dantas EH, and Novaes J. Effect of

two different rest interval lengths on the number of repetitions performed during

resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 21: 1032-1036, 2007.

9. Rahimi R, Qaderi M, Faraji H, and Boroujerdi SS. Effects of very short rest

intervals on hormonal responses to resistance exercise in men. J Strength Cond

Res 24: 1851-1859, 2010.

ACCE

PTED


10. Ratamess NA, Falvo MJ, Mangine GT, Hoffman JR, Faigenbaum AD, and Kang

J. Theeffect rest interval length on metabolic responses to the bench press

exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol 100: 1-17, 2007.

11. Scudese E, Willardson JM, Simo R, de Salles BF, Senna G, and Miranda H.

The effect of rest interval length on repetition consistency and perceived

exertion during near maximal loaded bench press sets. J Strength Cond Res Nov,

2013 [Epub ahead of print].

12. Senna G, de Salles BF, Prestes J, Mello RA, and Simo R. Influence of two

different rest interval lengths in resistance training sessions for upper and lower

body. J Sports Sci Med 8: 197-202, 2009.

13. Senna G, Willardson JM, de Salles BF, Scudese E, Palma A, and Simo R. The

effect of rest interval length on multi and single-joint exercise performance and

perceived exertion. J Strength Cond Res 25: 3157-3162, 2011.

14. Senna G, Figueiredo T, Scudese E, Baffi M, Carneiro F, Moraes E, Miranda H,

and Simo R. Influence of different rest interval length in multi-joint and single-

joint exercises on repetition performance, perceived exertion, and blood lactate.

J Exerc Physiol online 15: 96-106, 2012.

15. Shephard RJ. Par-Q, Canadian home fitness test and exercise screening

alternatives. Sports Med 5: 185-195, 1988.

16. Willardson JM, and Burkett LN. A comparison of 3 different rest intervals on

the exercise completed volume during a workout. J Strength Cond Res 19: 23-

26, 2005.

17. Willardson JM, and Burkett LN. The effect of rest interval length on bench press

performance with heavy vs. light load. J Strength Cond Res 20: 396-399, 2006.

ACCE

PTED


18. Willardson JM, and Burkett LN. The effect of rest interval length on the

sustainability of squat and bench press repetitions. J Strength Cond Res 20: 400-

403, 2006.

19. Willardson JM, and Burkett LN. The effect of different rest intervals between

sets on volume components and strength gains. J Strength Cond Res 22: 146-52,

2008.

ACCE

PTED


TABLES

Table 1.Number of repetitions in each set and the total number of repetitions in each exercise with 1, 2, 3, and 5 minutes rest intervals (mean SD). Set 1 Set 2 Set3 Set 4 Set 5 Total number

of repetitions BP

1 min 3.06 0.45 1.60 0.82 * 1.33 0.97 * 0.80 1.01 * 0.80 0.67 * 7.60 3.52 2 min 2.86 0.35 2.27 0.88 1.93 0.79 * 1.33 1.04 * 1.13 0.99 * 9.53 3.11 3 min 3.00 0.51 2.86 0.61 2.40 0.49 1.93 0.85 * # 1.46 0.88 * 11.66 2.69 5 min 3.06 0.25 2.73 0.70 2.73 0.45 # 2.33 0.72 * # 2.06 0.59 * 12.93 2.25 # MCF

1 min 2.93 0.45 2.46 0.51 * 2.00 0.75 * 1.80 1.15 * 1.13 0.64 * 10.33 2.60 2 min 3.06 0.25 2.80 0.41 * 2.53 0.74 * 2.26 0.70 * 1.93 0.80 * 12.60 2.35 3 min 3.20 0.41 2.93 0.25 * 2.86 0.35 * 2.53 0.74 * 2.13 0.83 * 13.66 1.84 5 min 3.36 0.41 2.93 0.25 2.86 0.35 2.93 0.45 * 2.53 0.52 * # 14.53 1.35

Values were expressed in maximal repetitions (RM). BP = bench press; MCF = machine chest fly. * Significant difference to set 1. Significant difference to set 2. Significant difference to set3. Significant difference to 1 minute rest interval. # Significant difference to 2 minute rest interval.

ACCE

PTED


TABLE 2. Effect size from the second set of each exercise with 1, 2, 3 and 5 minutes rest intervals.*

Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Set 5

BP

1 min 3.20 (large) 3.78 (large) 4.95 (large) 4.95 (large)

2 min 0.68 (moderate) 1.05 (large) 1.73 (large) 1.96 (large)

3 min 0.25 (small) 1.16 (large) 2.06 (large) 2.96 (large)

5 min 1.29(large) 1.29 (large) 2.84 (large) 3.87 (large)

MCF 1 min 1.01 (large) 2.03 (large) 2.47 (large) 3.93 (large)

2 min 1.03 (large) 2.06 (large) 3.09 (large) 4.38 (large)

3 min 0.64 (moderate) 0.80 (moderate) 1.61 (large) 2.57 (large)

5 min 0.48 (moderate) 0.80 (moderate) 0.64 (moderate) 1.61 (large)

BP = bench press; MCF = machine chest fly.

TABLE 3. Rating of perceived exertion for each exercise and each rest interval (median). Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Set 5 BP 1 min 8 9 10 * 10 * 10 * 2 min 8 9 9 * 10 * 10 * 3 min 8 9 10 * 10 * 10 * 5 min 8 8 9 * 9 * # 9 * MCF 1 min 8 9 9 * 10 * 10 * 2 min 7 8 8 8 10 * 3 min 8 9 8 9 9 5 min 8 8 8 9 10 * BP = Bench press; MCF = Machine Chest Fly; * Significant difference to set 1. Significant difference to set 2. Significant difference to 1 minute rest interval. # Significant difference to 2 minute rest interval.

ACCE

PTED


FIGURES

FIGURE 1. Number of repetitions in BP for each set with 1, 2, 3 and 5 minutes rest

intervals.

* Significant difference to set 1. Significant difference to set 2. Significant difference to set3. Significant difference to 1 minute rest interval. # Significant difference to 2 minute rest interval.

ACCE

PTED


FIGURE 2. Number of repetitions in MCF for each set with 1, 2, 3 and 5 minutes rest

intervals.

* Significant difference to set 1. Significant difference to set 2. Significant difference to set3. Significant difference to 1 minute rest interval.

ACCE

PTED


Documents

Senna - Effect of Different Inter Set Rest Intervals on.96784