4.6 Article

Strength increases in upper and lower body are larger with longer inter-set rest intervals in trained men

期刊

JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE IN SPORT
卷 13, 期 4, 页码 429-433

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2009.08.002

关键词

Muscle strength; Weight lifting; Exercise test; Physical fitness; Physical education and training

资金

  1. Brazilian National Board for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)
  2. Research and Development Foundation of Rio de Janeiro State (FAPERJ)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of the current study was to compare different rest interval durations on upper and lower body strength. Thirty-six recreationally trained men were randomly assigned to 1 min (G1; n = 12), 3 min (G3; n = 12) or 5 min (G5; n = 12) rest interval groups. Each group performed the same resistance training program. Maximal strength was assessed at baseline. mid-point (8 weeks) and post-training (16 weeks) for the bench press and leg press exercises. For the bench press, significant increases were demonstrated within 03 and G5 at 8 weeks and at 16 weeks versus baseline (p < 0.05). Additionally, for the bench press, G5 (98.2 +/- 3.7 kg) was significantly stronger than G1 (92.5 +/- 3.8 kg) at 16 weeks (p < 0.05). For the leg press. significant increases were demonstrated within all groups at 8 weeks and at 16 weeks versus baseline (p < 0.05). Additionally, for the leg press. G5 (290.8 +/- 23.5 kg) was significantly stronger than G1 (251.0 +/- 15.8 kg) at 8 weeks (p<0.01) and G3 (305.0 +/- 23.9 kg) and G5 (321.7 +/- 21.7 kg) were significantly stronger than G1 (276.7 +/- 10.7 kg) at 16 weeks (p < 0.05). The findings of the current study indicate that utilising 3 or 5 min rest intervals between sets may result in significantly greater increases in upper and lower body strength beyond the initial weeks of training versus utilising 1-min rest intervals between sets. (C) 2009 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据