3.8 Article

Minimum rest period for strength recovery during a common isokinetic testing protocol

Journal

MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
Volume 34, Issue 6, Pages 1018-1022

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00005768-200206000-00018

Keywords

fatigue; knee extension; rest interval

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PARCELL, A. C., R. D. SAWYER, V. A. TRICOLL and T. D. CHINEVERE. Minimum rest period for Strength recovery during a common isokinetic testing protocol. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 34, No. 6, pp. 1018-1022. 2002. Purpose: The intent of this investigation was to determine the minimal time for a between sets rest period during a common isokinetic knee extension strength-testing protocol. Based on a review of the literature, a set was considered a group of four maximal Coupled contractions at a specific velocity. Methods: Eleven normal, healthy college-age men underwent unilateral knee extension testing to determine their individual isokinetic peak torque at 60, 120, 180, 240, and 300degrees.s(-1). Velocities were administered in ascending order. Between sets, rest periods of 15, 60, 180, and 300 s were assigned to Subjects in a Counterbalanced fashion. Results: There were no differences in peak torque at the beginning velocity of 60degrees.s(-1) among any of the rest periods. At 120degrees.s(-1), peak torque production during the 15-s rest period trial was similar to 60 s but lower than 180 and 300 s. Peak torques at 180, 240 and 300degrees.s(-1) produced during the 15-s rest period test were significantly lower than measured torques at the same velocities during the 60, 180, and 300-s rest period tests (P < 0.05). There were no differences in peak torque production between the 60 180, and 300-s rest period tests. Conclusion: These data demonstrate that during a common isokinetic strength testing protocol a between set rest period of at least 60 s is sufficient for recovery before the next test set.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available