THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT REST INTERVALS

BETWEEN SETS ON VOLUME COMPONENTS AND

Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

STRENGTH GAINS
JEFFREY M. WILLARDSON1 LEE N. BURKETT2
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 10/18/2023

AND
1
Kinesiology and Sports Studies Department, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois; 2Exercise and Wellness
Department, Arizona State University East, Mesa, Arizona

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

O
The purpose of this study was to compare squat strength gains ver the last 20 years, resistance exercise research
and volume components when resting 2 minutes vs. 4 minutes has focused on the intensity and repetition ranges
between sets over multiple mesocycles. After the first squat that produce the greatest strength increases
1 repetition maximum, 15 trained men were matched and ran- in different populations (2,3,14). However, one
domly assigned to either a 2-minute (n = 7) or a 4-minute (n = 8)
training variable that has received relatively little attention is
the rest interval between sets (20). Including sufficient rest
rest interval group. Each group performed the same training
between sets is essential, particularly when the goal is
program, with the only difference being the length of the rest
maximal strength development (19). The muscles must
interval between sets. Subjects performed two squat workouts
be allowed a period of recovery to resynthesize intramuscular
per week; one was labeled as Heavy and the other was labeled adenosine triphosphate and phosphocreatine and to clear
as Light. The squat workouts varied in the intensity, number of fatigue-producing substances (8). This process allows
sets, and repetitions performed per set in a nonlinear periodized for the restoration of force production, which is essential
manner throughout each mesocycle. Differences in strength for maintenance of training intensity and repetitions within
gains and volume components (the load utilized per set, the the range that allows for maximal strength development
repetitions performed per set, the intensity per set, and the vol- (4,6).
ume performed per workout) were compared between groups. In the past, athletes may have used a subjective approach to
Both groups demonstrated large strength gains; however, determine the rest interval between sets, with the next set
these differences were not significant between groups (P = being performed when they felt ready. A general recommen-
0.47). During all mesocycles, the 4-minute group demonstrated dation when training for maximal strength has been to rest
significantly higher total volumes for the Heavy workouts (P , 2 to 5 minutes between sets (2,3). However, prior research
has demonstrated significant performance differences when
0.05). The findings of the present study indicate that large squat
utilizing longer versus shorter rest intervals during a work-
strength gains can be achieved with a minimum of 2 minutes’
out (9,15,21–23). For example, Kraemer (9), Richmond and
rest between sets, and little additional gains are derived from
Godard (15), and Willardson and Burkett (21–23) demon-
resting 4 minutes between sets. Therefore, athletes attempting strated that when performing multiple sets with 50% to 90%
to achieve specific volume goals may need longer rest intervals of one repetition maximum (1RM), resting 3 or 5 minutes
initially but may later adapt so that shorter rest intervals can be between sets allowed for significantly more repetitions versus
utilized without excessive fatigue, leaving additional time to resting 1 or 2 minutes. However, these studies were limited in
focus on other conditioning priorities. design, and strength gains were not tracked to determine the
KEY WORDS recovery, repetitions, fatigue, sets, intensity significance of performing more repetitions.
Currently, few longitudinal studies exist that have com-
pared strength gains with different rest intervals between
sets. Robinson et al. (16) demonstrated that resting 3
minutes between sets resulted in greater squat strength
increases versus resting 90 seconds or 30 seconds between
Address correspondence to Jeffrey M. Willardson, jmwillardson sets in trained lifters. Pincivero, Lephart, and Karunakara
@eiu.edu. (13) demonstrated that resting 160 seconds between sets
1533-4287/22(1)/146–152 resulted in greater peak torque in the quadriceps and
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research hamstrings versus resting 40 seconds between sets in
Ó 2008, National Strength and Conditioning Association untrained lifters. These authors concluded that longer rest
the TM

146 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

intervals resulted in greater strength gains as a result of of 4 years for the purpose of gaining maximal strength and
higher training volumes. muscle mass. Therefore, the training programs of the subjects
However, the components that comprise training volume before the experimental training period were similar to the
(i.e., sets, load, repetitions), were never fully broken down one used in the present study. The primary change to their
to determine the precise advantages. Furthermore, these training was the control of the rest interval between sets.
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

interventions were relatively short, lasting 4 weeks (13) and To qualify for inclusion, all subjects were initially screened
5 weeks (16). Clearly, an intervention is necessary to using the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q)
determine whether longer rest intervals are advantageous and determined to be healthy. Before data collection, subjects
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 10/18/2023

over longer time periods. Trained lifters may adapt so that were required to sign a consent form in accordance with
volume goals and strength gains can be achieved with shorter human subject regulations. Subjects were permitted to
rest intervals (12), which would allow more time to focus on continue with their usual upper body strength training
other conditioning priorities. Therefore, the purpose of this throughout the intervention.
study was to compare squat strength gains and volume The lower body strength training, however, was strictly
components when resting 2 minutes versus 4 minutes controlled so that subjects only performed the squat under
between sets over multiple mesocycles. the direct supervision of an experienced strength and con-
ditioning professional. Subjects were not permitted to per-
METHODS form any other strength training exercises that involved the
hip, knee, or trunk extensors (e.g., power clean, deadlift, leg
Experimental Approach to the Problem
press, lunge, leg extension, leg curl). Subjects were contin-
This study compared volume components and squat strength
uously monitored by phone calls and personal interviews to
gains in two groups of trained lifters consequent to a training
ensure compliance.
program that differed only in the amount of rest between sets.
The squat was selected as the exercise to examine because of
Procedures
its extensive use for sports conditioning and functional
Maximal squat testing was conducted before the study for the
relationship to sports skills (2,3). This study was split into
purpose of calculating work loads and matching subjects
three 4-week mesocycles. During week 1 of each mesocycle,
based on initial strength levels. All subjects had previously
1RM squat testing was conducted to determine the load
performed several squat 1RM tests and kept detailed workout
assignments for the succeeding 3 weeks (11). During each
logs for at least 6 months before the study. The most recently
week, two squat workouts were performed, with one being
recorded squat 1RM was used to calculate warm-up sets for
labeled as Heavy and other being labeled as Light. This
the pretest (11).
training program was based on an undulating or nonlinear
For the first warm-up set, 5–10 repetitions were performed
periodized model used by Kraemer et al. (10), with the load
at 40–60% of the most recently recorded squat 1RM. After
and repetitions varying within each week (see Table 1).
a 1-minute rest and light stretching, three to five repetitions
Subjects were performed at 60–80% of the most recently recorded
Fifteen trained men volunteered to participate in this study. squat 1RM. At this point, the resistance was increased to the
All subjects were former high school and collegiate football same level or a level that was 5–10 pounds higher than the
players who had consistently performed the squat a minimum most recently recorded squat 1RM, and a maximal repetition
was attempted. If that repeti-
tion was successful, 5–10 more
pounds were added to the bar,
TABLE 1. Squat study protocol (13 weeks).* and after a 5-minute rest, an-
other maximal repetition was
Week attempted (11).
1 Squat 1RM test 1 This process was repeated
Heavy workouts Light workouts until a failed attempt occurred.
2 8 sets; 70% 1RM; 11–15 repetitions 5 sets; 60% 1RM; 8 repetitions The 1RM was recorded as the
3 7 sets; 80% 1RM; 6–10 repetitions 5 sets; 60% 1RM; 8 repetitions last successfully completed at-
4 6 sets; 90% 1RM; 3–5 repetitions 5 sets; 60% 1RM; 8 repetitions
5 Squat 1RM test 2 tempt. Because the squat 1RM
6–8 Repeat mesocycle values after the first pretest
9 Squat 1RM test 3 were close to the squat 1RM
10–12 Repeat mesocycle values previously recorded in
13 Squat 1RM test 4 the workout logs, a second pre-
*1RM = 1 repetition maximum. test was not deemed necessary
before beginning the training.
Subjects were matched based

VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2008 | 147

 Rest Intervals

on initial strength levels, then randomly assigned to either a conducted to compare differences in age, height, and body
2-minute (n = 7) or a 4-minute (n = 8) rest interval group. mass between groups. The intraclass correlation coefficient
All squat 1RM tests and workouts were performed while between the squat 1RMs previously recorded in the workout
standing inside a lifting cage. Subjects performed the squat logs and the pretest squat 1RMs for this study demonstrated
with an Olympic bar that was supported across the upper high reliability at 0.90. A two (groups) by four (squat 1RM
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

portion of the trapezius muscle. The safety pins were adjusted tests) repeated analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted
in the lifting cage to allow each subject to descend to the point to compare strength scores within subjects (tests) and
at which the tops of the thighs were parallel to the floor (3). If between subjects (groups). Effect sizes were calculated using
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 10/18/2023

the subject was unable to complete a repetition, he was given Cohen’s d statistic to assess the magnitude of the treatment
assistance or instructed to set the weight on the safety pins. effects (5).
For all Heavy and Light workouts, subjects reported to the A series of two (groups) by three (workouts per mesocycle)
university strength facility on a consistent day and time each repeated ANOVAs were conducted to compare volume com-
week. The Heavy and Light workouts were separated by ponents for the Heavy and Light workouts. The load (kg)
exactly 72 hours within each week (10,19,23). For the Heavy utilized per set, the repetitions performed per set, the intensity
workouts, subjects were supervised individually, whereas for (percentage of 1RM) per set, and the total volume (kg) per-
the Light workouts, subjects were supervised in groups. The formed per workout were compared between subjects (groups)
rest interval between sets for the Heavy workouts was timed for each mesocycle. We used an a level of 0.05 to determine
using a hand-held stopwatch (21–23). The stopwatch was significance for all comparisons. In the case of significance,
started immediately after completion of each set. Subjects follow-up comparisons were made using the Bonferroni
were given a verbal cue approximately 10 seconds before the adjustment. Statistical analysis was completed using Microsoft
next set was to begin. The rest interval between sets for the Excel and SPSS version 14.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).
Light workouts was timed using a large clock mounted on
the wall adjacent to the squat racks. Because supervision RESULTS
occurred in groups for the Light workouts, subjects were All subjects within each group completed 90% of the
instructed to watch the clock to determine when the next set workouts and were included in the analysis. A total of three
was supposed to be performed. Light workouts and one Heavy workout were missed by the
For each Heavy workout, subjects performed two warm-up 2-minute group, and a total of three Light workouts and two
sets for 10 repetitions with 50% and 75% of the load that Heavy workouts were missed by the 4-minute group. The
would be used for that workout (21). All sets were performed independent t-tests indicated that the groups did not differ
at 70–90% of 1RM to volitional exhaustion, and subjects were significantly in age, height, or body mass (see Table 2).
encouraged to maintain repetitions within a prescribed range The two (groups) by four (squat 1RM tests) repeated
for each workout (4,14) (see Table 1). If the repetitions ANOVA indicated a significant within-subjects (tests) com-
dropped below the prescribed range on any set, the load was parison for strength gains (P = 0.0001; power = 1.0). The
lowered approximately 5% (4,6,10,12). For each Light work- interaction between group and tests was not significant
out, subjects performed one warm-up set for 10 repetitions (P = 0.39). Follow-up comparisons indicated that strength
with 50% of the load that would be used for that workout. scores were significantly different between all 1RM tests
All sets were performed at 60% of 1RM for eight repeti- (see Table 3). However, the between-subjects comparison
tions, which prevented subjects from reaching volitional indicated that strength gains were not significantly different
exhaustion. The purpose of the Light workouts was to allow between groups (P = 0.47). Cohen’s d statistics indicated
additional training volume but not interfere with the recov- large treatment effects for each group. However, the 4-minute
ery process (10). All volume components (sets, load, and group experienced a larger treatment effect than the 2-minute
repetitions) were recorded for each subject with exactness group (2.96 vs. 1.96).
after each workout. The total
volume per workout was cal-
culated by multiplying the total
number of sets by the mean
load utilized and the mean TABLE 2. Comparison of demographical characteristics.*
number of repetitions per-
2-minute group 4-minute group P value
formed per set (1).
Age (y) 20.71 6 1.38 22.75 6 4.56 0.26
Statistical Analyses Height (cm) 182.52 6 6.46 180.66 6 5.99 0.58
Subjects were required to com- Body mass (kg) 82.27 6 5.56 91.31 6 10.44 0.06
plete 90% of the workouts to *Values are mean 6 SD.
be included in the analysis.
Independent t-tests were
the TM

148 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

TABLE 3. Comparison strength gains.*

Test 2-minute group 4-minute group Post hoc test P value

Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

1 145.13 6 24.17 150.00 6 18.54 1 vs. 2 0.001†

2 156.82 6 22.88 162.78 6 19.28 1 vs. 3 0.0001†
3 162.34 6 22.26 172.73 6 18.42 1 vs. 4 0.0001†
4 171.43 6 25.34 182.10 6 21.44 2 vs. 3 0.0001†
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 10/18/2023

2 vs. 4 0.0001†
3 vs. 4 0.0001†
*Values are mean 6 SD. One repetition maximum loads are represented in kilograms.
†P value ,0.05.

For the Heavy workouts, the series of two (groups) by three DISCUSSION
(workouts per mesocycle) repeated ANOVAs indicated The primary finding of this study was that squat strength
significant between-subjects (groups) comparisons for the gains were not significantly different between groups that
total volume performed per workout (see Table 4). However, rested 2 minutes or 4 minutes between sets. Cohen’s
when compared independently, none of the volume d statistics indicated that the 4-minute group experienced
components were significantly different, but the 4-minute a larger treatment effect than the 2-minute group. Cohen
group demonstrated higher scores for the load utilized per set defined a large effect size as d . 0.8, indicating a mean
and the repetitions performed per set. For the Light difference greater than 0.8 of a standard deviation. Thus, the
workouts, there were no significant between-subjects treatment effects for the 4-minute group (i.e., 2.96) and the
(groups) comparisons, but the 4-minute group demonstrated 2-minute group (i.e., 1.96) were considered large and 1 stan-
higher scores for the load utilized per set and the volume dard deviation apart. However, quantitatively, this difference
performed per workout (see Table 5). in effect sizes (d = 2.96 vs. 1.96) was actually quite small

TABLE 4. Comparison of heavy workouts.*

2-minute group 4-minute group P value

Load per set (kg)

Mesocycle
1 109.48 6 7.04 113.63 6 6.59 0.67
2 118.70 6 6.75 123.87 6 6.32 0.59
3 126.93 6 6.10 132.45 6 5.71 0.52
Repetitions per set
Mesocycle
1 8.12 6 0.80 9.55 6 0.75 0.21
2 7.47 6 0.56 8.75 6 0.53 0.12
3 6.88 6 0.39 7.75 6 0.36 0.13
Intensity per set (%1RM)
Mesocycle
1 75 6 0.01 76 6 0.01 0.69
2 76 6 0.01 76 6 0.01 0.63
3 78 6 0.01 77 6 0.01 0.76
Volume per workout (kg)
Mesocycle
1 5892.32 6 376.71 7302.84 6 352.38 0.02†
2 5723.70 6 369.52 7452.37 6 345.65 0.01†
3 5606.67 6 394.10 6866.40 6 368.65 0.04†

*Values are mean 6 SE. Comparisons are between subjects (groups) for each mesocycle.
†P , 0.05.

VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2008 | 149

 Rest Intervals

TABLE 5. Comparison of light workouts.*

2-minute group 4-minute group P value

Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

Load per set (kg)

Mesocycle
1 86.70 6 4.94 90.34 6 4.62 0.60
2 95.28 6 4.48 97.94 6 4.19 0.67
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 10/18/2023

3 98.14 6 4.29 102.87 6 4.01 0.44

Volume per workout (kg)
Mesocycle
1 3467.53 6 197.70 3613.64 6 184.93 0.60
2 3810.97 6 179.28 3917.75 6 167.70 0.67
3 3925.69 6 171.64 4114.72 6 160.55 0.44
*Values are mean 6 SE. Comparisons are between subjects (groups) for each mesocycle. The repetitions performed per set and
the intensity utilized per set did not vary for all Light workouts. Each group performed eight repetitions at a constant intensity of 60% of
1 repetition maximum.

because Cohen’s d statistic is not normally distributed (5). multiplied, the result was a significantly higher total volume
Therefore, from a practical standpoint, there was little added per workout for the 4-minute group, but this did not produce
benefit derived from resting 4 minutes between sets. statistically greater strength gains.
An analysis of the Heavy workout data demonstrated that Previous studies have hypothesized that longer rest
the squat mean intensity levels for the 2-minute group (i.e., intervals may result in significantly greater strength gains as
75%, 76%, and 78% 1RM) and the 4-minute group (i.e., 76%, a result of a lifter’s ability to perform a higher training volume
76%, and 77% 1RM) were nearly equal for each of the three (13,16). In support of this hypothesis, Robinson et al. (16)
4-week mesocycles (see Table 4). These mean intensity levels demonstrated that squat strength gains were significantly
are comparable to those reported by Häkkinen et al. (7) for greater in trained men who rested 3 minutes vs. 90 or 30
elite weightlifters who performed the squat during three seconds between sets. Likewise, Pincivero, Lephart, and
4-month mesocycles (77%, 77%, and 79% 1RM). Similar to Karunakara (13) demonstrated that resting 160 seconds
the present study, Robinson et al. (16) compared squat mean between sets resulted in significantly greater peak torque in
intensity levels in groups that trained with different rest in- the quadriceps and hamstrings versus resting 40 seconds
tervals between sets. between sets for untrained lifters. The authors in both studies
The group that rested 3 minutes between sets maintained suggested that the greater strength gains in the longer rest
higher intensity levels vs. two other groups that rested 90 or groups were the result of a higher training volume.
30 seconds between sets (16). For example, during week 5 of Similar to the present study, Ahtiainen et al. (1) did not find
that study, the 3-minute group maintained a mean squat significant differences in maximal isometric leg extension
intensity of 80% 1RM, whereas the 90-second and 30-second force, 1RM dynamic right leg extension, and quadriceps
groups were much lower (72% and 66% 1RM, respectively). cross-sectional area in groups that rested 2 or 5 minutes
Based on the results of the present study and those of between sets. Training volume (sets 3 load 3 repetitions)
Robinson et al. (16), resting a minimum of 2 minutes between was equalized so that the 2-minute group performed more
sets might be ideal to prevent intensity levels from dropping sets at a lower intensity, whereas the 5-minute group per-
and thus allow greater gains in strength. formed fewer sets at a higher intensity. The authors hypothe-
In the present study, the 4-minute group demonstrated sized that after a certain threshold volume, the length of the
significantly higher total volumes for the Heavy workouts rest period between sets does not make a systematic contri-
(Table 4). As stated previously, the total volume per workout bution to the neuromuscular response.
was calculated by multiplying the total number of sets by the Both groups in the current study may have reached the
mean load utilized and the mean number of repetitions threshold volume necessary to gain a certain amount of
performed per set. When compared independently, the mean strength (based on training age), which reduced the impor-
load utilized and the mean repetitions performed per set were tance of including longer rest intervals between sets. Kraemer
not significantly different between groups (the total number et al. (12) found that specific training practices may reduce
of sets performed per workout was equal). However, the the amount of rest needed between sets. In this study, nine
4-minute group demonstrated higher scores for both of these male bodybuilders and eight male power lifters performed a
variables. Consequently, when these variables were 10-station circuit that included resistance exercises for the
the TM

150 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

entire body. Each exercise was performed with load and rest REFERENCES
intervals conducive to the training practices of competitive 1. Ahtiainen, JP, Pakarinen, A, Alen, M, Kraemer, WJ, and
bodybuilders. Three consecutive sets for each exercise were Häkkinen, K. Short vs. long rest periods between the sets in
performed with 10-RM load that was progressively lowered to hypertrophic resistance training: influence on muscle strength, size,
and hormonal adaptations in trained men. J Strength Cond Res 19:
allow for 10 repetitions on each set. Subjects rested 10 seconds 572–582, 2005.
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

between sets and 30–60 seconds between exercises. 2. American College of Sports Medicine. Position stand: progression
The key finding was that the bodybuilders were able to models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc
sustain a significantly higher mean intensity during perfor- 34: 364–380, 2002.
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 10/18/2023

mance of the bench press and leg press sets (12). Kraemer 3. Baechle, TR, Earle, RW, and Wathen, D. Resistance training.
In: Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. T.R. Beachle
et al. (12) concluded that the bodybuilders were able to resist and R.W. Earle, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2000.
the effects of fatigue because of adaptations associated with pp. 395–425.
the bodybuilding style of training (e.g., high volume with 4. Campos, GER, Luecke, TJ, Wendeln, HK, Toma, K, Hagerman, FC,
short rest intervals). These adaptations might include Murray, TF, Ragg, KE, Ratamess, NA, Kraemer, WJ, and Staron, RS.
increases in capillary and mitochondrial density and in the Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-
training regimens: Specificity of repetition maximum training zones.
ability to buffer and transport hydrogen ions out of the Eur J Appl Physiol 88: 50–60, 2002.
muscles. 5. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).
For continued gains in maximal strength, advanced lifters Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, 1988.
must perform increasingly higher volumes of training (2,3,14). 6. Goto, K, Nagasawa, M, Yanagisawa, O, Kizura, T, Ishii, N, and
The rest interval between sets can be varied based on the Takamatsum, K. Muscular adaptations to combinations of high
and low intensity resistance exercises. J Strength Cond Res 18:
training age of the individual. To achieve a given volume goal, 730–737, 2004.
longer rest intervals (e.g., 4–5 minutes) might be necessary 7. Häkkinen, K, Komi, PV, Alen, M, and Kauhanen, H, EMG,
initially, until an individual has adapted psychologically and muscle fibre and force production characteristics during a 1 year
physiologically and is able to perform the same volume with training period in elite weight lifters. Eur J Appl Physiol 56:
shorter rest intervals between sets (2–3 minutes). 419–427, 1987.
The length of the rest interval may also depend on whether 8. Harris, RC, Edwards, RHT, Hultman, E, Nordesjo, LO, Nylind, B,
and Sahlin, K. The time course of phosphocreatine resynthesis
an exercise is performed at the beginning or end of a workout. during the recovery of quadriceps muscle in man. Pflugers Arch
Sforzo and Touey (17) demonstrated a 22% decline in total 97: 392–397, 1976.
work (resistance 3 repetitions) on the first set of squats 9. Kraemer, WJ. A series of studies: The physiological basis for strength
when preceded by leg curls and leg extensions. Similarly, training in American football: Fact over philosophy. Experiment 1:
Can more than one set be performed at 10-RM load? J Strength Cond
Spreuwenberg et al. (18) demonstrated a 32% decline in total Res 11: 131–142, 1997.
repetitions on the first set of squats when preceded by a total 10. Kraemer, WJ. A series of studies: The physiological basis for
body circuit that included the lunge, stiff-leg deadlift, and strength training in American football: Fact over philosophy.
hang pull. These studies suggest that including longer rest Experiment 4: Nonlinear periodization vs. high intensity
intervals at the end of a workout might be advantageous to single-set program. J Strength Cond Res 11: 131–142, 1997.
maintain the repetitions performed for each set as fatigue 11. Kraemer, WJ and Fry, AC. Strength testing: development and
evaluation of methodology. In: Physiological Assessment of Human
accumulates. Fitness. P. Maud and C. Foster, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,
1995. pp. 115–138.
12. Kraemer, WJ, Noble, BJ, Clark, MJ, and Culver, BW. Physiologic
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS responses to heavy-resistance exercise with very short rest periods.
Int J Sports Med 8: 247–252, 1987.
Including sufficient rest between sets is essential when
13. Pincivero, DM, Lephart, SM, and Karunakara, RG. Effects of rest
training for maximal strength. The findings of the present interval on isokinetic strength and functional performance after
study indicate that large gains in squat strength can be short-term high intensity training. Br J Sports Med 31: 229–234, 1997.
achieved with a minimum of 2 minutes’ rest between sets and 14. Rhea, MR, Alvar, BA, Burkett, LN, and Ball, SD. A meta-analysis to
that little additional gains are derived from resting 4 minutes determine the dose response for strength development. Med Sci
between sets. A limitation of this study is that the results may Sports Exerc 35: 456-464, 2003.
not apply to other exercises, especially those for the upper 15. Richmond, SR and Godard, MP. The effects of rest periods between
sets to failure using the bench press in recreationally trained men.
body, and additional research is necessary. Furthermore, J Strength Cond Res 18: 846–849, 2004.
several factors may lengthen or shorten the rest interval, such 16. Robinson, JM, Stone, MH, Johnson, RL, Penland, CM, Warren, BJ,
as the training age or whether the squat is performed at the and Lewis, RD. Effects of different weight training exercise/rest
beginning or end of a workout. Athletes attempting to achieve intervals on strength, power, and high intensity exercise endurance.
J Strength Cond Res 9: 216–221. 1995.
specific volume goals may need longer rest intervals (e.g., 4
17. Sforzo, G and Touey, PR. Manipulating exercise order affects
minutes) initially but may later adapt so that shorter rest
muscular performance during a resistance exercise training session.
intervals (e.g., 2 minutes) can be utilized without excessive J Strength Cond Res 10: 20–24, 1996.
fatigue, leaving additional time to focus on other conditioning 18. Spreuwenberg, LPB, Kraemer, WJ, Spiering, BA, Volek, JS, Hatfield,
priorities. DL, Silvestre, R, Vingren, JL, Fragala, MS, Häkkinen, K, Newton, RU,

VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2008 | 151

 Rest Intervals

Maresh, CM, and Fleck, SJ. Influence of exercise order in 21. Willardson, JM and Burkett, LN. A comparison of three different rest
a resistance-training exercise session. J Strength Cond Res 20: intervals on the exercise volume completed during a workout.
141–144, 2006. J Strength Cond Res 19: 23–26, 2005.
19. Weiss, LW. The obtuse nature of muscular strength: The 22. Willardson, JM and Burkett, LN. The effect of rest interval length on
contribution of rest to its development and expression. J Appl Sports the sustainability of squat and bench press repetitions. J Strength
Sci Res 5: 219–227, 1991. Cond Res 20: 396–399, 2006.
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

20. Willardson, JM. A brief review: Factors affecting the length of 23. Willardson, JM and Burkett, LN. The effect of rest interval length on
the rest interval between resistance exercise sets. J Strength Cond Res bench press performance with heavy versus light loads. J Strength
20: 978–984, 2006. Cond Res 20: 400–403, 2006.
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 10/18/2023

the TM

152 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research