Effect of Different Interset Rest Intervals on Performance of Single and Multijoint Exercises With Near-Maximal Loads. Issue 3 (March 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Senna, Gilmar W.; Willardson, Jeffrey M.; Scudese, Estevão; Simão, Roberto; Queiroz, Cristiano; Avelar, Raoni; Martin Dantas, Estélio H.
• Is Part Of: Journal of strength and conditioning research. Volume 30:Issue 3(2016)
• Publication Date: 2016-03
• Subjects: muscle strength -- weight lifting -- physical fitness; Physical education and training -- Periodicals; Weight training -- Physiological aspects -- Periodicals; Physical fitness -- Periodicals; 613.7
• DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001142
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1064-8011

Abstract

Abstract : Abstract: Senna, GW, Willardson, JM, Scudese, E, Simão, R, Queiroz, C, Avelar, R, and Dantas, EHM. Effect of different interset rest intervals on performance of single and multijoint exercises with near-maximal loads. J Strength Cond Res 30(3): 710–716, 2016—The aim of this study was to investigate the acute effects of different interset rest intervals on performance of single- and multijoint exercises with near-maximal loads. Fifteen trained men (26.40 ± 4.94 years, 79.00 ± 7.10 kg, 176.6 ± 6.06 cm, 11.80 ± 2.47% body fat, and bench press relative strength: 1.26 ± 0.19 kg·kg −1 of body mass) performed eight sessions (2 exercises × 4 interset rest intervals); each consisting of 5 sets with a 3RM load. The exercises tested were the machine chest fly (MCF) for the single-joint exercise and the barbell bench press (BP) for the multi-joint exercise with 1, 2, 3, and 5 minutes of rest between sets. The results indicated that for the MCF, significantly higher total number of repetitions were completed for the 2- (12.60 ± 2.35 reps; p = 0.027), 3- (13.66 ± 1.84 reps; p = 0.001), and 5-minute (12.93 ± 2.25 reps; p = 0.001) vs. the 1-minute (10.33 ± 2.60 reps) protocol. For the BP, a significantly higher total number of repetitions were completed for 3- (11.66 ± 2.79 reps; p = 0.002) and 5-minute (12.93 ± 2.25 reps; p = 0.001) vs. the 1-minute protocol (7.60 ± 3.52 reps). In addition, subjects completed significantly higher total number of repetitions for the 5-minute (12.93 ± 2.25 reps; p = 0.016) vs. 2-minute (9.53 ± 3.11 reps) protocol. Both exercises presented similar and progressive reductions in repetition performance for all rest protocols along the 5 sets, starting as soon as the second set for the shorter 1-minute rest protocol. In conclusion, to maintain the best consistency in repetition performance, rest intervals of 2 minutes between sets are sufficient for the MCF and 3–5 minutes for the BP. Thus, it appears that longer acute recovery time is needed for a multijoint (core) exercise such as the BP vs. a single-joint (assistance) exercise such as the MCF.