See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328967993

Effect Of Rest Interval Between Sets In The Muscle Function During a

Sequence Of Strength Training Exercises For The Upper Body

Article in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · November 2018

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002941

CITATION READS

1 706

6 authors, including:

Filipe Matos Bruna Ferreira

Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro
13 PUBLICATIONS 60 CITATIONS 1 PUBLICATION 1 CITATION

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Francisco Jose Félix Saavedra Victor Machado Reis

Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro
93 PUBLICATIONS 407 CITATIONS 389 PUBLICATIONS 3,696 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

NanoSTIMA - Macro-to-Nano Human Sensing: Towards Integrated Multimodal Health Monitoring and Analytics View project

NanoSTIMA - Macro-to-Nano Human Sensing: Towards Integrated Multimodal Health Monitoring and Analytics, linha 2 de investigação intitulada Health data collection
and visualization View project

All content following this page was uploaded by José Vilaça Alves on 29 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 EFFECT OF REST INTERVAL BETWEEN SETS IN THE
MUSCLE FUNCTION DURING A SEQUENCE OF
STRENGTH TRAINING EXERCISES FOR THE UPPER
BODY
FILIPE MATOS,1 BRUNA FERREIRA,2 JOANA GUEDES,2 FRANCISCO SAAVEDRA,1,2 VICTOR M. REIS,1,2
1,2
AND JOSÉ VILAÇA-ALVES
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 05/29/2021

1
Research Center in Sports Sciences, Health Sciences and Human Development, CIDESD, Vila Real, Portugal; and 2Sport
Sciences Department, University of Tra´s-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal

ABSTRACT etitions in different exercises, especially with shorter rest

Matos, F, Ferreira, B, Guedes, J, Saavedra, F, Reis, VM, and intervals such as 60 and 90 seconds.
Vilaça-Alves, J. Effect of rest interval between sets in the mus- KEY WORDS rest time, number of repetitions, rest time,
cle function during a sequence of strength training exercises fatigue, exercise order
for the upper body. J Strength Cond Res 35(6): 1628–1635,
2021—The objective of this study was to observe the ideal
recovery time between sets and exercises, for both chest INTRODUCTION

S
and back, which allowed for maintaining muscle function with trength training (ST) is the primary form of exer-
the initial load previously established. Sixty young men recrea- cise to obtain muscle hypertrophy. The traditional
tionally trained in strength training (ST) were divided into 2 recommendations are the relative intensities of 75–
groups: (a) 30 subjects were included in the GC group (the 85% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) or to alter-
group that performed ST for the chest) and (b) 30 subjects natively perform 8–12RM, with rest intervals between sets of
30 and 60 seconds, assuming that are the most appropriate
were included in the GB group (the group that performed ST
to obtain the necessary and favorable conditions for muscle
for the back). Each group was submitted to 3 experimental
growth (4,6,8). Previous authors have proposed that rest
sessions, performing an ST sequence with 3 sets of 8 repeti- intervals of 30–60 seconds are optimal because short rest
tion maximum: GC performed a chest barbell press (CBP), an periods augment the growth hormone (GH) response when
inclined CBP, and a chest butterfly; GB performed a lat pull- compared with long rest periods (8,13,19). There might be
down, a back row, and a shoulder extension on the high pulley. higher acute elevations in GH with 30-second to 1-minute
The experimental sessions differed in rest time between sets rest between sets, but this represents one variant that may or
performed (60, 90, and 120 seconds). For both groups in each may not be associated with long-term increases in muscular
sequence, significantly higher numbers of repetitions were hypertrophy (6,19). Other anabolic hormones such as tes-
observed with the rest time of 120 seconds relative to the rest tosterone and insulin-like growth factor-I are not elevated
time of 90 seconds (p = 0.004), 120 seconds in relation to the with short rest intervals between sets but with larger volume
rest time of 60 seconds (p = 0.001), and in the rest interval of training (6,19,20). For example, Rahimi (19) found that for 4
sets of squat and bench press to failure using 85% of 1RM,
90 seconds in relation to the rest time of 60 seconds (p ,
a rest period of 60 seconds results in greater serum GH levels
0.0001). The results showed that 120 seconds was sufficient
and less total training volume than a rest period of 90 and
to maintain muscle function and perform the total number of
120 seconds, but the testosterone response was greater in the
repetitions per set. The data seem to show that for the ST ST sessions with long rest periods (90–120 seconds) and
methodology applied, it is not appropriate to assume that a cer- higher training volumes.
tain relative intensity will translate into a similar number of rep- Strength training volume is commonly defined as the total
amount of work performed and can be expressed in several
ways. A popular method for quantifying ST volume is the
Address correspondence to Filipe Matos, [email protected]. total number of repetitions performed per exercise. How-
35(6)/1628–1635 ever, short rest periods impair physical performance during
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research subsequent sets; increasing the relative intensity of an
! 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association exercise may result in a decrease in the number of repetitions
the TM

1628 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

of repetitions performed for each exercise during an ST ses-

sion for the upper body. Fourteen recreationally trained men
TABLE 1. Mean values 6 SDs of anthropometric
measurements and 8RM of both experimental with a minimum of 2 years of experience performed 2 ses-
groups.* sions of ST. The 2 sessions consisted of 3 sets of 8RM, for 6
exercises of the upper body (lat pull-down with a wide grip
Variables Mean 6 SD [LPD-WG], lat pull-down with a close grip [LPD-CG],
GC machine seated row [SR-M], barbell row lying on a bench
n 30 [BR-B], dumbbell seated arm curl [SAC-DB], and machine
Age (y) 22.87 6 2.06 seated arm curl [SAC-M]). For all the exercises, significantly
Body mass (kg) 75.24 6 8.60 fewer repetitions were completed when the rest interval
Height (cm) 175.40 6 6.51
between sets was 1 minute. However, there were significant
Estimated body fat (%) 7.11 6 2.45
8RM CBP (kg) 65.50 6 12.40 reductions between the first and third sets in 4 of the 6
R8RM CBP (kg) 67.58 6 12.19 exercises, for both of the rest intervals (16).
8RM ICBP (kg) 54.45 6 9.69 Thus, the aim of this study was to observe in recreation-
R8RM ICBP (kg) 55.67 6 10.38 ally trained young men, through 2 previously defined typical
8RM CF (kg) 15.07 6 3.20
exercise sequences for chest and back, what is the ideal rest
R8RM CF (kg) 15.72 6 3.84
GB period between sets and exercises that allows for maintain-
n 30 ing muscular function with an initial load of 8RM, previously
Age (y) 22.83 6 1.78 defined, for each exercise.
Body mass (kg) 76.30 6 8.82
Height (cm) 178.63 6 6.76 METHODS
Estimated body fat (%) 7.29 6 2.33
8RM LPD (kg) 67.83 6 11.19 Experimental Approach to the Problem
R8RM LPD (kg) 67.33 6 11.65 The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of 3
8RM BR (kg) 55.83 6 10.43 different rest periods (60, 90, and 120 seconds) (6,19)
R8RM BR (kg) 68.00 6 11.34 between sets and exercises that allows for maintaining num-
8RM SEHP (kg) 68.17 6 11.41
ber of repetitions with the pre-established load in 2 different
R8RM SEHP (kg) 56.33 6 9.99
ST sequences for chest and back. The 8RM of all subjects for
*GC = group that performed the chest strength train- all exercises performed was determined on the first day.
ing sequence; 8RM = 8 repetition maximum; CBP = chest Thirty subjects performed the 8RM test for the following
barbell press; R8RM = retest of 8 maximal repetitions;
ICBP = inclined chest barbell press; CF = chest butterfly; exercises: chest barbell press (CBP), inclined chest barbell
GB = group that performed back strength training press (ICBP), and chest butterfly (CF). The other 30 subjects
sequence; LPD = lat pull-down; BR = back row; SEHP performed the 8RM test for lat pull-down (LPD), back row
= shoulders’ extension on the high pulley.
(BR), and shoulders’ extension on the high pulley (SEHP).
On days 2 and 3, separated by 72 hours, the 8 RMs were
retested for all exercises. On days 4, 5, and 6, the experimen-
tal sessions with the 3 different rest periods were performed.
Subjects performed one of the ST sequences in 3 sessions
and training volume (15,26,28,29). Concerning maintaining
separated by 7 days. The 3 sessions comprised the same
the performance of repetitions in consecutive sets, some au-
exercises performed in the same order, but with different rest
thors have demonstrated that rest intervals of less than 3 mi-
periods between sets and exercises (60, 90, and 120 seconds)
nutes can result in a significant decrease in the number of
(6,19). All exercises in both sequences were performed for 3
repetitions performed. A limitation of these and related stud-
sets to 8RM or volitional fatigue (15) with the predetermined
ies was the evaluation of single exercise or movement
8RM of each subject for each exercise. The total number of
(10,21,26–28). The influence of rest intervals between sets
repetitions performed was determined in each set of each
and exercises in a training session remains a controversial
exercise for both sequences.
issue in the literature; to the best of our knowledge, very few
studies have investigated the potential acute interactions Subjects
between different rest intervals and exercises for the same Sixty Caucasian young men who had been ST practitioners
training sessions, especially in typical daily practice, where for at least 6 months composed the sample of this study.
frequently more than one exercise and movement for the Subjects with a known history of cardiovascular disease,
same or distinct muscle groups are used. respiratory disease, diabetes, hypertension, hormone disor-
Only one study to date has compared different rest der, muscle damage (past 12 months), and those who
intervals in the context of a typical ST session consisting of administered medication or supplements in the 6 months
multiple exercises: Miranda et al. (16) compared the effects preceding the start of the study were excluded. All subjects
of 1- and 3-minute rest intervals between sets on the number were informed of the procedures and risks of the study and

VOLUME 35 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2021 | 1629

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Effect of Rest Interval Between Sets in the Muscle

Figure 1. Estimated marginal means of the number of repetitions performed in both sequences with 3 different rest intervals between sets and exercises (T60,
T90, and T120). *Statistical difference (p , 0.05) between T120 and T60 seconds; †statistical difference (p , 0.05) between T120 and T90 seconds;
#statistical difference (p , 0.05) between T90 and T60 seconds. CBP = chest barbell press; ICBP = inclined chest barbell press; CF = chest butterfly; LPD =
lat pull-down; BR = back row; SEHP = shoulders extension on the high pulley.

provided written informed consent. The study complied 8RM, the rest for the next attempt was 5 minutes, and the
with the Helsinki Declaration and was approved by the value of the previous load was increased or decreased. The
institutional review board of the University of Trás-os- maximum load was the load for which the subjects were able
Montes and Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal. to perform only 8 repetitions. To improve the performance
The 60 Caucasians were divided into 2 groups: (a) 30 of the subject, constant intervention of feedbacks and cor-
Caucasian young men (mean 6 SD: 22.87 6 2.06 years) rections was necessary, so that the exercise was executed
(Table 1) were included in the GC group—the group that per- with the correct technique.
formed the ST sequence for the chest (with 3 different rest
intervals [60, 90, and 120 seconds]); and (b) 30 Caucasian Strength Training Protocol. The ST protocol was characterized
young men (22.83 6 1.78) (Table1) were included in the GB by the performance of 3 sets of each exercise in the following
group—the group that performed the ST sequence for the back sequences: the GC performed the CBP, ICBP, and CF; the
(with 3 different rest intervals [60, 90, and 120 seconds]). GB performed LPD, BR, and SEHP. Both of the sequences
of exercises were performed at 80% of 1RM, with a cadence
Procedures
of 60 b$min21, controlled by a metronome (Pro Metronome,
All trials started at 10 AM The subjects were informed to eat version 0.13.0.) to ensure that all subjects were moving at
similar food during the experiment trials, asked to avoid approximately the same velocity for each repetition and
consuming stimulants, alcohol, tobacco, antioxidants, and each set (23). The rest time alternated randomly throughout
nutritional supplementation for 24 hours preceding all trials, the sessions, with each rest time being used in only one
and informed not to do any strength exercise for 48 hours session (60, 90, and 120 seconds).
before each trial. The entire process was accompanied by a professional
experienced in the area of ST to ensure the implementation
Eight Repetition Maximum Testing. The 8RM test was of the protocol within the established parameters and ensure
calculated using the protocol by Kraemer and Fry (9), where the safety of all subjects.
the subject has 3 to 5 attempts to reach his 8RM. A specific
warm-up consisting of 5–10 repetitions was started at about Muscle Function Assessment. Muscle function was assessed
40–60% of the perceptible maximum of the subject, followed through the ability of the subjects to complete the task,
by a 1-minute rest. After this minute, 8RM perceptible load which comprised performing 3 sets of 8RM pre-established
of the subject was performed. If it is not reached soon at for each exercise. To do that, the number of repetitions
the TM

1630 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

TABLE 2. Mean values 6 SDs (95% CI) of the number of repetitions, in each set of each strength training (ST)
exercise, for GC, and with the different rest intervals between sets (T).*

T Exercise Set 1 Set 2 Set 3

T60 s CBP 8.00 6 0.00 (8.00–8.00) 7.83 6 0.59 (7.61–8.05) 7.30 6 1.09 (6.89–7.71)†
ICBP 6.87 6 1.43 (6.33–7.40)†z 5.83 6 1.51 (5.27–6.40)†z§k 4.90 6 1.45 (4.36–5.44)†z§k¶
CF 7.90 6 0.40 (7.75–8.05)k¶# 7.97 6 0.18 (7.90–8.04)k¶# 7.82 6 0.46 (7.76–8.01)zk¶#
T90 s CBP 8.00 6 0.00 (8.00–8.00) 7.93 6 0.25 (7.84–8.03) 7.70 6 0.75 (7.42–7.98)
ICBP 7.20 6 1.24 (6.74–7.66) 6.47 6 1.53 (5.90–7.04)†z§ 6.10 6 1.80 (5.40–6.74)†z§
CF 8.00 6 0.00 (8.00–8.00)¶# 8.00 6 0.00 (8.00–8.00)¶# 7.93 6 0.25 (7.84–8.03)¶#
T120 s CBP 8.00 6 0.00 (8.00–8.00) 8.00 6 0.00 (8.00–8.00) 7.97 6 0.18 (7.90–8.04)
ICBP 8.00 6 0.00 (8.00–8.00) 8.00 6 0.00 (8.00–8.00) 7.93 6 0.25 (7.84–8.03)
CF 8.00 6 0.00 (8.00–8.00) 8.00 6 0.00 (8.00–8.00) 8.00 6 0.00 (8.00–8.00)

*CI = confidence interval; GC = the group that performed ST for the chest; CBP = chest barbell press; ICBP = inclined chest
barbell press; CF = chest butterfly.
†p , 0.05 compared with the second set of CBP.
zp , 0.05 compared with the first set of CBP.
§p , 0.05 compared with the third set of CBP.
kp , 0.05 compared with the first set of ICBP.
¶p , 0.05 compared with the second set of ICBP.
#p , 0.05 compared with the third set of ICBP.

completed for each set of each exercise was recorded. The RESULTS
repetition was only considered valid when the exercise In the GC group, a strong ICC was observed between the
technique was not compromised. 8RM test and the retest in the ST exercises used (CBP r =
Statistical Analyses 0.96; ICBP r = 0.97; and ABP r = 0.96).
All data were analyzed using the software SPSS (Statistical A significant set effect (F(8.696) = 72.811, p , 0.0001, h2p =
Package for the Social Sciences, SPSS Science, Chicago, IL) 0.456), a set rest interval interaction (F(16.696) = 19.536, p ,
version 21. 0.0001, h2p = 0.310), and a rest time effect between sets
An exploratory analysis of all the data was performed to (F(2.87) = 29.427, p , 0.0001, h2p = 0.404) were observed.
characterize the values of the different variables in terms of As can be seen in Figure 1, significantly higher numbers of
central tendency and dispersion. A graphical observation repetitions were observed when T120 seconds was per-
was made to detect possible outliers and incorrect data formed, compared with T60 seconds: namely in the third
entries of all the variables used. The interclass correlation CBP set {p = 0.004 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.18–
coefficient (ICC) was used to test the reliability of the 8RM 1.15)}; (p , 0.0001 [95% CI = 0.44–1.82]); (p , 0.0001 [95%
tests and retests in the ST exercises. To perform the CI = 0.75–2.31]); and in the first, second, and third sets of
inferential statistical analysis, it was necessary to evaluate the ICBP (p , 0.0001 [95% CI = 1.02–2.71], respectively).
the normality of the collected data distribution. In this way, Also, a higher number of repetitions were observed with T90
an analysis of the type of distribution was performed using seconds compared to T60 seconds: namely in the third set of
the Shapiro-Wilk test, and the homogeneity and sphericity CBP (p = 0.001 [95% CI = 0.37–1.57]); in the first, second,
were ensured and tested using the Levene and Mauchly and third sets of ICBP (p , 0.0001 [95% CI = 0.19–0.75], p
tests, respectively. After analyzing the assumptions for , 0.0001 [95% CI = 0.51–1.63], and p , 0.0001 [95% CI =
parametric tests, a univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) 0.51–1.63], respectively); and in the third set of CF (p =
was used to observe the existence of statistically significant 0.006 [95% CI = 0.12–0.94]). Similarly, a higher number of
differences between sets and between the different rest repetitions were observed for T120 seconds compared with
interval times in the variable number of repetitions. An T90 seconds: this occurred in the first, second, and third sets
ANOVA was used for repeated measures with the three- of ICBP (p = 0.017 [95% CI = 0.11–1.49], p , 0.0001 [95%
exercise model of 3 sets each 3 3 rest times, with a Bonfer- CI = 0.75–2.31], and p , 0.0001 [95% CI = 1.02–2.71],
roni post hoc. The effect size estimates were presented respectively) (Figure 1).
through the square partial eta (value of h2p ), with cutoffs When we analyzed each rest time individually, a set effect
of 0.10, 0.25, and 0.40 representing small, medium, and high (F(8.232) = 52.103; p , 0.0001; h2p = 0.642) was observed.
effects, respectively (3). The level of significance was main- As shown in Table 2, for T120 seconds, no significant
tained at p # 0.05. differences were observed in the number of repetitions of

VOLUME 35 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2021 | 1631

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Effect of Rest Interval Between Sets in the Muscle

TABLE 3. Mean values 6 SDs (95% CI) of the number of repetitions, in each set of each strength training (ST)
exercise, for GB, and with the different rest intervals between sets (T).*

T Exercise Set 1 Set 2 Set 3

T60 s LPD 8.00 6 0.00 (8.00–8.00) 7.63 6 0.85 (7.44–7.83) 6.53 6 1.25 (6.19–6.88)†z
BR 7.20 6 1.24 (6.74–7.66)†§ 6.47 6 1.53 (5.90–7.04)†z§k 6.10 6 1.80 (5.40–6.74)†z§k
SEHP 7.83 6 0.46 (7.73–7.94)†§¶# 7.57 6 0.90 (7.36–7.77)¶# 7.23 6 1.01 (7.00–7.47)†¶#
T90 s LPD 8.00 6 0.00 (8.00–8.00) 7.93 6 0.37 (7.44–7.83) 6.20 6 1.16 (5.88–6.52)†zk
BR 7.93 6 0.25 (7.30–7.63)§ 7.27 6 1.01 (5.88–6.52)†z§k 7.00 6 0.95 (5.30–5.83)†zk
SEHP 7.97 6 0.18 (7.73–7.94)§¶# 7.90 6 0.40 (7.36–7.77)§¶ 7.77 6 0.50 (7.00–7.47)§¶
T120 s LPD 8.00 6 0.00 (8.00–8.00) 8.00 6 0.00 (7.81–8.19) 8.00 6 0.00 (7.65–8.35)
BR 8.00 6 0.00 (7.84–8.16) 8.00 6 0.00 (7.68–8.32) 8.00 6 0.00 (7.73–8.27)
SEHP 8.00 6 0.00 (7.90–8.10) 8.00 6 0.00 (7.79–8.21) 8.00 6 0.00 (7.77–8.24)

*CI = confidence interval; GB = the group that performed back ST sequence; LPD = lat pull-down; BR = back row; SEHP =
shoulders’ extension on the high pulley.
†p , 0.05 compared with the first set of LPD.
zp , 0.05 compared with the second set of LPD.
§p , 0.05 compared with the third set of LPD.
kp , 0.05 compared with the first set of BR.
¶p , 0.05 compared with the second set of BR.
#p , 0.05 compared with the third set of BR.

each set. However, T60 and T90 seconds showed significant in the number of repetitions of each set. However, T60 and
differences in the repetitions performed in each set (Table 2). T90 seconds showed significant differences in the repetitions
Regarding the GB group, a strong intraclass correlation performed in each set (Table 3).
was observed between the 8RM test and the retest in the ST
exercises (LPD r = 0.92; BR r = 0.89; and SEHP r = 0.89). DISCUSSION
A significant set effect (F(8.696) = 45.092, p , 0.0001, h2p = The data of this study seem to show that in the execution of
0.341), a set 3 rest time interaction (F(16.696) = 16.711, p , typical push and pull ST exercise sequences in young
0.0001, h2p = 0.278), and a rest time effect between sets recreationally trained men, the longer the rest between sets,
(F(2.87) = 51.357; p , 0.0001; h2p = 0.541) were observed. the greater the number of repetitions performed in each set,
Significantly higher numbers of repetitions were observed enabling maintenance of a pre-established load. Regarding
with T120 seconds compared to T60 seconds: these occurred the GC group, it was possible to observe significantly higher
in the second and third sets of the LPD (p = 0.28 [95% CI = numbers of repetitions performed with the rest interval of
0.03–0.64] and p , 0.0001 [95% CI = 0.87–2.07], respectively); 120 seconds in relation to 90 seconds for the first 2 exercises
in the first, second, and third sets of BR (p , 0.0001 [95% CI = of the ST sequence. Moreover, the numbers of repetitions
0.25–0.81], p , 0.0001 [95% CI = 1.24–2.36], and p , 0.0001 were significantly higher with a rest interval of 120 seconds
[95% CI = 1.97–2.90], respectively); and in the second and third in relation to 60 seconds, and significantly higher numbers of
sets of the SEHP (p = 0.012 [95% CI = 0.08–0.79] and p , repetitions were found when the rest interval was 90 seconds
0.001 [95% CI = 0.36–1.18], respectively). Also, a higher num- in relation to 60 seconds. Curiously, the same results were
ber of repetitions were observed when T90 seconds was used observed for the GB group. The data show that the shorter
between sets in relation to T60 seconds: namely in the third set the rest period (60 seconds), the fewer the repetitions
of LPD (p = 0.001 [95% CI = 0.37–1.57]); in the first, second, performed, and there seems to be a higher loss of muscle
and third sets of BR (p , 0.0001 [95% CI = 0.19–0.75], p , function when compared with longer rest (120 seconds) for
0.0001 [95% CI = 0.51–1.63], and p , 0.0001 [95% CI = 0.51– the same load.
1.63], respectively); and in third set of SEHP (p = 0.006 [95% The decrease in physical performance is associated with
CI = 0.12–0.94]). A higher number of repetitions were also the notion of a “break point” and the sudden inability to
observed with T120 seconds compared to T90 seconds: in sustain the exercise. Furthermore, the initial state of the neu-
the second and third sets of BR (p = 0.006 [95% CI = 0.17– romuscular system is altered as soon as exercise starts and
1.29] and p , 0.0001 [95% CI = 0.53–1.46], respectively) then develops progressively until the muscle is no longer
(Figure 1). able to perform the requested task (2). Shorter rest times
When we individually analyzed each rest time, a set effect may induce an increase in training intensity, involving a high
was observed (F(8,232) = 34,627; p , 0.0001; h2p = 0.544). For rate of energy transformation and changes in the intracellu-
the T120 seconds, no significant differences were observed lar environment. Excessive mechanical stress causes muscle
the TM

1632 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

damage in the excitation-contraction coupling system (EC of barbell bench press, incline barbell bench press, pec deck
coupling), altering the contraction kinetics and reducing the fly, barbell lying triceps extension, and triceps pushdown)
capacity for generating force and functional performance demonstrated that for each exercise, the training volume is
(1,31). A decreased efficiency or block of EC coupling will significantly higher when a rest interval of 3 minutes was
lead to a decrease or disappearance of contractile force. applied between sets (p , 0.05). These results indicate that
Intense activity is a decrease in the propagation velocity of during an ST session, if there is enough time, resting 3 mi-
the action potentials along the sarcolemma (7). Changes in nutes between sets allows for a greater volume of exercise to
transmembrane electrolyte concentration are particularly be completed compared with a shorter rest interval. These
prone to appear; as a result, action potential propagation data corroborate other studies conducted to date, which also
becomes gradually more blocked during intense activity found more repetitions performed when longer rest periods
(7,31), leading to an inhibition of muscle fiber activation. were applied (10,21,26–28).
The high and constant energy transformation to with- Another concomitant finding of this study is the fact that
stand repeated contractions along with the increased intra- for both groups (GC and GB), 120 seconds of rest interval
muscular pressure imposed by hyperemia (25) may also between sets seemed to be sufficient to perform all repeti-
impose hypoxic stress on the muscle fibers, promoting an tions per set in all exercises, indicating that muscle function
accumulation of metabolites. In a fatigue state, the muscle was maintained throughout the exercise sequence. This
uses anaerobic glycolysis to withstand the energy required particular result is not in agreement with previous studies
for contraction, causing a production of hydrogen ions, of recreationally trained young men; however, it is necessary
a decrease in pH, and an accumulation of lactic acid in these to take into consideration some methodological aspects.
muscle fibers. Increasing the hydrogen ions and the acidify- Richmond and Godard (21), for example, verified that in
ing environment decreases the calcium level in the myofi- bench press series, 75% of 1RM, at least 3 minutes was
brils, which delays the inductive connection in calcium and needed to complete the total work. However, this study
troponin adhesion. However, the increase of the hydrogen did not test any period between 1 minute and 3 minutes.
ions avoids actions of phosphofructokinase (anaerobic gly- In addition, the load was evaluated using 1RM, not 8RM,
colysis enzyme) leading to slowing of the glycolysis path- which allowed the subjects to perform more repetitions in
way. In addition, this factor prevents the production of ATP the first set until voluntary exhaustion, which causes differ-
to support muscle contractions (1). The accumulation of ences between the intensity, volume, and possibly the fatigue
metabolites within the muscle cell, caused by a high meta- of the subjects, compared with our study. These differences
bolic rate, also increases the osmolality of the cell, which, were also noted in the study by Willardson and Bucket (28),
when paired with a greater cellular permeability, causes the which found that 2-minute rest over 5 sets of 80% of 1RM
potential appearance of swelling and cellular edema. was not sufficient to maintain consistent repetitions.
Sarcolemma rupture improves cellular permeability and Willardson and Burkett (29) also verified that when 4 sets
causes muscle swelling, whereas interruption of the EC of the squat and bench press were performed with an 8RM,
coupling system impairs the ability to produce force, and 5-minute rest conditions resulted in the highest volume com-
both contribute to loss of function (1,25). Also, central pleted, followed in descending order by the 2- and 1-minute
changes cause a less efficient central drive of the motor neu- rest conditions. This study also highlights that more intense
rons, and prolonged and intense bouts of motor exercise training requires longer recovery times to maintain the same
may also cause qualitative changes in the central nervous volume. Although more than 2 minutes was necessary to
system control of movement, e.g., loss of coordination and complete the total work, we need to account for the speed
increased correction errors. The sensation of fatigue is a psy- of movement in this study, which consisted of a 3-second
chophysical quantity that will eventually change the subjects’ eccentric phase followed by a 1-second concentric phase,
behavior “for their own safety” (2). From a physiological point which is different from that used in our study. This may be
of view, the awareness of these sensations has 3 effects: a preponderant fact that directly affects the intensity of the
a decrease of the firing frequency of the motor neuron (12), exercises and the ability to maintain the repetitions by each
an inhibition or facilitation of the motor neuron (12), and an set.
inhibition of the motor cortex neuron (11). Regarding the rest intervals between sets of 60 and 90
Scientifically, longer rest periods between ST sets seem to seconds, when analyzed individually, for the GC group, we
be needed to compensate for the disadvantageous effects and found that the number of repetitions significantly decreased
facilitate the recovery of muscle function. In addition, a study until the last set of ICBP, in relation to the first set of the ST
by Schwendner et al. (24) indicated that the ability to sequence. Curiously, an interesting fact is that for the last 3
recover neuromuscular actions, active muscle tension, and sets of the sequence, referring to CF, the subjects were able
hemostatic metabolic processes is a time-related procedure. to complete the total repetitions established. Similarly, the
Miranda et al. (15) verified that when compared, the training number of repetitions became significantly reduced until the
volume completed by 12 trained men during 2 sessions of 5 last set of BR in relation to the first set of the ST sequence,
ST exercises for upper body (3 sets of 8RM for the exercises clearly showing that rest times of 60 and 90 seconds between

VOLUME 35 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2021 | 1633

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Effect of Rest Interval Between Sets in the Muscle

sets were not enough to restore muscle function from set to The data from this study should be considered with
set. Curiously, also in GB, referring to SEHP, the subjects caution and cannot be extrapolated to other populations or
were able to complete more repetitions than established in other testing conditions. In addition, it is important to note
the previous exercises LPD and BR. that it is not known what effect the prescription model tested
In another study, Miranda et al. (16) compared the func- on the number of repetitions would have when performed
tional performance through the number of repetitions per- by less experienced individuals using distinct cadences of
formed by each set, applying 1-minute vs. 3-minutes rest movement or even female subjects. Thus, it is important to
intervals between sets, in 2 different ST sequences for the highlight that future studies addressing these aspects are
upper body. Sixteen recreationally trained men completed 4 necessary to extend this knowledge to populations and
experimental sessions of ST exercises. All sessions consisted testing conditions with different characteristics from those
of 3 sets with a maximum load of 8 repetitions for 6 exercises tested and discussed here.
of the upper body: relative to sequence A, the exercises of
LPD-WG, LPD-CG, SR-M, BR-B, SAC-DB, and SAC-M were PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
performed, whereas in sequence B, the same exercises were Maintaining performance within a specified repetition range
performed but in the opposite order. Both sequences has been shown to be essential for achieving muscular
were tested with the rest times of 1 and 3 minutes. The adaptations conducive to different training goals. However,
results suggested that exercises for the upper body involving maintaining repetition performance can be difficult, espe-
muscle groups and similar neural recruitment patterns are cially with shorter rest intervals such as 60 and 90 seconds. It
negatively affected in terms of repetitive performance when is possible to verify that for recreationally trained men, the
performed at the end of a sequence. preferred methodology for the upper body with longer rest
Authors share the opinion that due to muscle groups and intervals (120 seconds) allows for more repetitions and
neural recruitment patterns of CBP and ICBP exercises being workout volume compared to shorter rest intervals (60 and
similar, the muscle function of the subjects in the ICBP sets was 90 seconds). Moreover, maintaining repetition performance
directly affected by the fatigue arising from the CBP exercise, with a pre-established load might require longer rest interval
and that shorter rest intervals were not enough to restore the periods between sets and exercises. Also, the exercise order
muscle for the task. We speculate that the difference in muscle seems to affect the repetition performance.
groups and neural pattern recruitment of CBP and ICBP for It is possible that a load reduction over each set with
CF may cause the subjects to have successfully completed all shorter intervals would be beneficial for repetition perfor-
repetitions in the CF exercise. Regarding the GB group, we also mance (30). Although the amount of load reduction that
speculated that due to muscle groups and neural recruitment might be necessary to maintain repetition performance has
patterns of LPD and BR exercises being similar, the muscle received limited attention in previous studies, addressing this
function of the subjects in the BR sets was directly affected by concept under controlled conditions would contribute valu-
the fatigue arising from the LPD exercise, and that shorter rest able information for resistance exercise prescriptions.
intervals were not enough to restore the muscle for the task.
The difference in muscle groups and neural pattern recruitment ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
of LPD and BR for SEHP may cause the subjects to have NanoSTIMA: Macro-to-Nano Human Sensing: Towards
successfully completed more repetitions in the exercise of Integrated Multimodal Health Monitoring and Analytics of
SEHP. operation NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000016, cofinanced by
Recently, there has been evidence against the theory that the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through
shorter rest intervals promote better muscle hypertrophy the NORTE 2020 (North Regional Operational Program
(4,5,22). There are also studies that do not support the the- 2014/2020). The authors have no conflicts of interest to
ory of training until the concentric failure for the same goal disclose.
(14,18). Therefore, our study showed that for recreationally
trained men to maintain a higher volume of work with a pre- REFERENCES
established load, longer rest intervals may be required (at 1. Armstrong, RB. Initial events in exercise-induced muscular injury.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 22: 429–435, 1990.
least 120 seconds for 8RM, for chest and back), and the
2. Boyas, S, Guével, A. Neuromuscular fatigue in healthy muscle:
order of exercises may play an important role in repetition Underlying factors and adaptation mechanisms. Ann Phys Rehabil
performance. In addition, there is another question regarding Med 54: 88–108, 2011.
the safety of the ST practitioner, due to the loss of muscular 3. Cohen, J. Statistical power analysis. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 1: 98–101,
function, neuromuscular control, proprioception, and pos- 1992.
ture throughout the body, as has been seen in studies where 4. de Salles, BF, Oliveira, N, Ribeiro, FM, Simão, R, da Silva Novaes, J.
concerns have been raised about the ability to adhere to the Comparison of the pre-exhaustion method and the reverse order in
lower limb exercises. J Phys Educ 19: 85–92, 2008.
correct exercise technique when very short rest periods are
5. de Souza, TP Jr, Fleck, SJ, Simão, R, et al. Comparison between
used, especially during the performance of exercise with constant and decreasing rest intervals: Influence on maximal
heavy loads (16,17). strength and hypertrophy. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1843–1850, 2010.
the TM

1634 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

6. Henselmans, M, Schoenfeld, BJ. The effect of inter-set rest intervals 20. Rahimi, R, Rohani, H, Ebrahimi, M. Effects of very short rest
on resistance exercise-induced muscle hypertrophy. Sports Med 44: periods on testosterone to cortisol ratio during heavy resistance
1635–1643, 2014. exercise in men. Apunts Med Esport 46: 145–149, 2011.
7. Juel, C. Muscle action potential propagation velocity changes during 21. Richmond, SR, Godard, MP. The effects of varied rest periods
activity. Muscle Nerve 11: 714–719, 1988. between sets to failure using the bench press in recreationally
8. Kraemer, PWJ, Ratamess, NA. Hormonal responses and adaptations trained men. J Strength Cond Res 18: 846–849, 2004.
to resistance exercise and training. Sports Med 35: 339–361, 2012. 22. Schoenfeld, BJ, Contreras, B, Vigotsky, AD, Peterson, M. Differential
9. Kraemer, W, Fry, A. Development and evaluation of methology. effects of heavy versus moderate loads on measures of strength and
Phyological assessment of human fitness. Hum Kinet 2:115–138, 1995. hypertrophy in resistance-trained men. J Sports Sci Med 15: 715–722,
10. Kraemer, WJ. A series of studies-the physiological basis for strength 2016.
training in American football: Fact over philosophy. J Strength Cond 23. Schoenfeld, BJ, Ogborn, DI, Krieger, JW. Effect of repetition
Res 11: 131–142, 1997.
duration during resistance training on muscle hypertrophy: A
11. Martin, PG, Smith, JL, Butler, JE, Gandevia, SC, Taylor, JL. Fatigue- systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med Auckl NZ 45: 577–
sensitive afferents inhibit extensor but not flexor motoneurons in 585, 2015.
humans. J Neurosci 26: 4796–4802, 2006.
24. Schwendner, KI, Mikesky, AE, Wigglesworth, JK, Burr, DB.
12. Martin, PG, Weerakkody, N, Gandevia, SC, Taylor, JL. Group III Recovery of dynamic muscle function following isokinetic fatigue
and IV muscle afferents differentially affect the motor cortex and
testing. Int J Sports Med 16: 185–189, 1995.
motoneurones in humans. J Physiol 586: 1277–1289, 2008.
25. Tidball, JG. Inflammatory processes in muscle injury and repair. Am
13. Martins, B, Veloso, J, Franca, JdeB, Bottaro, M. Effects of the
recovery interval between resistance exercise sets in the growth J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 288: R345–R353, 2005.
hormone in young women. Rev Bras Med Esporte 14: 171–175, 2008. 26. Willardson, JM, Burkett, LN. A comparison of 3 different rest
14. Martorelli, S, Cadore, EL, Izquierdo, M, et al. Strength training with intervals on the exercise volume completed during workout.
repetitions to failure does not provide additional strength and J Strength Cond Res 19: 23–26, 2005.
muscle hypertrophy gains in young women. Eur J Transl Myol 27: 27. Willardson, JM, Burkett, LN. The effect of rest interval lenght on
6339, 2017. bench press performance with heavy vs. Light loads. J Strength Cond
15. Miranda, H, Simao, R, Moreira, LM, et al. Effect of rest interval Res 20: 396–399, 2006.
length on the volume completed during upper body resistance
28. Willardson, JM, Burkett, LN. The effect of rest interval length on the
exercise. J Sports Sci Med 8: 388–392, 2009.
sustainability of squat and bench press repetitions. J Strength Cond
16. Miranda, H, Simão, R, dos Santos Vigário, P, et al. Exercise order Res 20: 400–403, 2006.
interacts with rest interval during upper-body resistance exercise.
J Strength Cond Res 24: 1573–1577, 2010. 29. Willardson, JM, Burkett, LN. The effect of different rest intervals
between sets on volume components and strength gains. J Strength
17. Myers, JB, Guskiewicz, KM, Schneider, RA, Prentice, WE.
Cond Res 22: 146–152, 2008.
Proprioception and neuromuscular control of the shoulder after
muscle fatigue. J Athl Train 34: 362–367, 1999. 30. Willardson, JM, Kattenbraker, MS, Khairallah, M, Fontana, FE.
18. Nóbrega, SR, Libardi, CA. Is resistance training to muscular failure Research note: Effect of load reductions over consecutive sets on
necessary? Front Physiol 7: 10, 2016. repetition performance. J Strength Cond Res 24: 879–884, 2010.
19. Rahimi, R, Qaderi, M, Faraji, H, Boroujerdi, SS. Effects of very short 31. Zaja˛c, A, Chalimoniuk, M, Gołaś, A, Lngfort, J, Maszczyk, A.
rest periods on hormonal responses to resistance exercise in men. Central and peripheral fatigue during resistance exercise—A critical
J Strength Cond Res 24: 1851–1859, 2010. review. J Hum Kinet 49: 159–169, 2015.

VOLUME 35 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2021 | 1635

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

View publication stats