4.4 Article

Effects of fixed vs. self-suggested rest between sets in upper and lower body exercises performance

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SPORT SCIENCE
卷 16, 期 8, 页码 927-931

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2016.1161831

关键词

Resistance; training; strength; recovery; performance

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) [444760/2014-8]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In its last position stand about strength training, the American College of Sports Medicine recommends a rest interval (RI) between sets ranging between 1 and 3min, varying in accordance with the objective. However, there is no consensus regarding the optimal recovery between sets, and most studies have investigated fixed intervals. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyse the effects of fixed versus self-suggested RI between sets in lower and upper body exercises performance. Twenty-seven healthy subjects (26 +/- 1.5; 75 +/- 15kg; 175 +/- 12cm) were randomly assigned into two groups: G1: lower body exercises and G2: upper body exercises. Squat and leg press 1 repetition maximum (1RM) were tested for the G1 and bench press and biceps curl 1RM for G2. After the 1RM tests, both groups performed three sets to concentric failure with 75% of 1RM in combination with different RIs (2min or self-suggested) on separate days and the exercises performance was evaluated by the number of repetitions. The results demonstrated no significant differences in the number of repetitions between 2min and self-suggested RIs that presented similar reductions with the sets progression. It was also shown that the self-suggested RI spent less time recovering than the 2min RI group on average. This suggests that for individuals with previous experience, the self-suggested RI can be an effective option when using workloads commonly prescribed aiming hypertrophy. Also, the self-suggested RI can reduce the total training session duration, which can be a more time-effective strategy.

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

4.4
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