Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 13 (2010) 429433

Original paper

Strength increases in upper and lower body are larger with longer inter-set rest intervals in trained men
Belmiro Freitas de Salles a , Roberto Simo b, , Humberto Miranda b , Martim Bottaro c , Fabio Fontana d , Jeffrey M. Willardson e
a

Laboratory for Clinical and Experimental Research in Vascular Biology (BioVasc), Biomedical Center, State University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil b Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, School of Physical Education and Sports, Brazil c College of Physical Education, University of Braslia, Brazil d School of Health, Physical Education, and Leisure Services, University of Northern Iowa, USA e Kinesiology and Sports Studies Department, Eastern Illinois University, USA Received 22 December 2008; received in revised form 4 June 2009; accepted 19 August 2009

Abstract 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, signicant increases were demonstrated within G3 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 signicantly stronger than G1 (92.5 3.8 kg) at 16 weeks (p < 0.05). For the leg press, signicant 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 signicantly 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 signicantly stronger than G1 (276.7 10.7 kg) at 16 weeks (p < 0.05). The ndings of the current study indicate that utilising 3 or 5 min rest intervals between sets may result in signicantly greater increases in upper and lower body strength beyond the initial weeks of training versus utilising 1-min rest intervals between sets. 2009 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Muscle strength; Weight lifting; Exercise test; Physical tness; Physical education and training

1. Introduction Resistance training can increase strength, hypertrophy, power and localised muscular endurance.1,2 For best results, a number of variables must be periodised throughout the training program. These variables may include: intensity, number of sets and repetitions, frequency, rest between sets and exercises, type of muscle actions, exercises order and repetition velocity.1 These variables are varied periodically to address different training goals and needs.1,2 Although each of the aforementioned variables is important, the rest interval between sets has received relatively less attention in longitudinal research.3,4 In addition, previous

Corresponding author. E-mail address: robertosimao@ufrj.br (R. Simo).

studies have demonstrated inconsistencies in the effectiveness of different rest interval lengths on strength increases.59 For example, two studies demonstrated greater strength increases with longer (i.e. 23 min) versus shorter (i.e. 3040 s) rest intervals between sets.6,7 Conversely, three other studies demonstrated that longer rest intervals between sets (i.e. 1 versus 2 and 2 versus 4 or 5 min) did not result in greater increases in strength and hypertrophy.5,8,9 These inconsistencies might be due to the relatively wide range of what might be considered a relatively long versus a short rest interval. For example, long rest intervals have been typically dened as 25 min between sets, whereas short rest intervals have been dened as 30 s to 2 min between sets.3,4 If the length of the rest interval is viewed from a dose-response perspective for strength increases, previous studies indicated that longer rest intervals (i.e. 23 min)

1440-2440/$ see front matter 2009 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2009.08.002

430

B.F. de Salles et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 13 (2010) 429433

resulted in signicantly greater strength increases versus shorter rest intervals (i.e. 3040 s); however, very long rest intervals (i.e. 45 min) may not provide additional strength increases.8,9 Currently, the few longitudinal studies (i.e. >8 weeks) conducted on different rest interval lengths have focused solely on lower body strength8,9 and did not examine the full spectrum of rest intervals (i.e. from short to long to very long) within the same study. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to examine the inuence of different rest interval lengths (i.e. 1, 3 and 5 min) on upper and lower body strength increases in resistance trained men during a 16-week non-linear periodised training program.

2. Methods Thirty-six recreationally trained men were randomly assigned to 1 min (G1; n = 12; 22.4 1.3 years; 180.1 2.5 cm; 81.2 4.0 kg), 3 min (G3; n = 12; 22.3 1.0 years; 178.2 1.9 cm; 78.1 3.0 kg) or 5 min (G5; n = 12; 22.3 1.0 years; 180.5 2.9 cm; 81.3 3.2 kg) rest interval groups. The inclusion criteria for participation were: (a) minimum of 4 years of resistance training experience practiced three times per week; (b) no medical conditions that could be aggravated by the training program as determined through the physical activity readiness questionnaire (PAR-Q)10 ; and (c) not using any substances that may allow a performance advantage (i.e. creatine, anabolic-androgenic steroids, similar ergogenic aids). The experimental procedures were approved by the Ethics Committee of the University and informed consent was obtained from all participants. Additionally, participants were asked not to perform any other structured exercise program throughout the duration of the study. Prior to the training intervention, baseline maximal strength (1-RM) for the bench press and 45 degree angled leg press was assessed during three sessions conducted at minimum of 48 h between assessments.11 To minimise potential errors in the 1-RM testing, the following strategies were employed: (a) standardised instructions were given on exercise technique; (b) verbal encouragement was provided during testing; (c) the mass of all weight plates and barbells was measured using a calibrated scale (Filizola S.A., So Paulo, Brazil). The 1-RM was determined in a maximum of ve trials with 5 min between 1-RM trials and 10 min between exercises. The heaviest load lifted on any day of 1-RM testing was considered the pre-training 1-RM. Strength testing was repeated using the same procedures at 8 weeks (mid-point) and 16 weeks (post-training). Each group performed the same training program with respect to frequency, exercises, sets, and repetition zones. If the repetitions completed on any given set were outside the prescribed zone (e.g. above or below), then the load was adjusted to keep the repetitions consistently within the prescribed zone.12 Four resistance training sessions were per-

formed per week with different repetition zones (4-6-RM, and 8-10-RM) that were alternated each session. Program A was performed on Mondays and Thursdays and consisted of the following exercises: barbell bench press, barbell incline press, pronated wide grip lat pull-down, supinated close grip lat pull-down, barbell overhead press, barbell biceps curl, pulley triceps extension with a v shaped handle, and abdominal crunch. Program B was performed on Tuesdays and Fridays and consisted of the following exercises: 45 degree angled leg press, hack squat machine, leg extension machine, leg curl machine and seated calf machine. The machine exercises were performed using Life Fitness equipment (Life Fitness, Inc., Franklin Park, IL, USA). Prior to each training session, participants performed a warm-up consisting of two sets of 20 repetitions with 50% of the load used for the rst exercise of the session. Participants then performed three sets of each exercise to voluntary exhaustion. There was no attempt to control movement velocity. Adherence to the program was 100% for participants in all groups; therefore, a total of 64 sessions were performed by each subject during the 16-week training period. All training sessions were supervised by an experienced strength and conditioning professional. One-way ANOVAs were conducted to compare differences between groups in age, height, body mass and total training volume (load repetitions) performed for the bench press plus the leg press over the 16-week intervention. Intraclass correlations (ICCs) were calculated to assess the reliability of strength testing for the bench press and leg press at baseline, 8 weeks, and 16 weeks. For the bench press and leg press exercises, three by three ANOVAs with repeated measures [i.e. group (1, 3 and 5 min) test (baseline, 8 and 16 weeks)] were conducted to compare strength scores within and between the rest interval groups at each time point. Strength scores were the dependable variable. The GreenhouseGeisser procedure was used in cases that violated the sphericity assumption. Post-hoc analyses were conducted using the Bonferroni correction factor. Effect sizes were provided based on partial 2 . All analyses were conducted using SPSS 16.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).

3. Results The ICCs demonstrated high reliability for strength testing at all time points for the bench press (baseline = .98, 8 weeks = .96, 16 weeks = .98) and leg press (baseline = .98, 8 weeks = .98, 16 weeks = .98). At baseline, there were no signicant differences (p > 0.05) between groups in age, height, or body mass. The total training volume (load repetitions) performed by G3 and G5 was signicantly greater than the total training volume performed by G1 for the bench press plus the leg press over the 16-week intervention (p < 0.05, see Table 1). For the bench press, the group by test interaction was signicant (p < .01; 2 = 0.58). Post-hoc analyses indicated

B.F. de Salles et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 13 (2010) 429433 Table 1 Bench press plus leg press total training volume (load repetitions) per subject in each group. 1-Min group (subjects) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean S.D.
a

431

Volume (kg) 314,462 327,307 406,760 331,263 411,736 323,468 420,430 325,682 325,609 335,239 360,730 417,682 358,364 42,732

3-Min group (subjects) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Volume (kg) 584,412 410,755 541,448 404,278 555,538 447,149 502,438 539,649 439,976 488,625 549,605 519,192 498,588a 60,274

5-Min group (subjects) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Volume (kg) 567,377 586,065 684,396 446,958 569,308 589,308 539,922 688,794 654,353 508,645 631,222 588,794 587,928a 70,713

Total training volume G3 and G5 signicantly greater than G1 (p < 0.05).

signicant strength increases within G3 and G5 at 8 weeks and 16 weeks versus baseline (p < 0.05). Post-hoc analyses also indicated that there were no signicant differences between groups at baseline and at 8 weeks (p > 0.05); however, G5 was signicantly stronger than G1 at 16 weeks (p < 0.05; see Fig. 1). For the leg press, the group by test interaction was signicant (p < .01, 2 = 0.57). Post-hoc analyses indicated signicant increases within all groups at 8 weeks and 16 weeks versus baseline (p < 0.05). However, only the G3 and G5 groups demonstrated signicant increases at 16 weeks versus 8 weeks (p < 0.01). Post-hoc analyses also indicated that there were no signicant differences between groups at baseline (p > 0.05); however, there were signicant differences between groups at 8 weeks (i.e. G5 signicantly stronger than G1; p < 0.01) and 16 weeks (i.e. G3 and G5 signicantly stronger than G1; p < 0.05; see Fig. 2).

4. Discussion The key nding from the current study was that after 16 weeks, G3 and G5 were signicantly stronger versus G1 for the leg press, and G5 was signicantly stronger versus G1 for the bench press. Furthermore, after 8 weeks, leg press

strength was signicantly greater for G5 versus G1. A recent study compared 1 versus 3 min rest intervals between sets over an 8-week resistance training program.13 The exercises examined included the bench press, 45 angled leg press, and biceps curl. In each session, three sets of each exercise were performed using a 10-RM load. At the conclusion of the study, no signicant differences in 10-RM loads were demonstrated between groups for any exercise. These results were consistent with the bench press results of the current study, and may be related to the relatively short training intervention (i.e. 8 weeks). Therefore, the advantage of utilising longer rest intervals between sets may be manifested over greater durations of training. However, in the current study, the leg press strength scores were signicantly different at 8 weeks when comparing G5 versus G1. These results were consistent with Pincivero et al.6 and Robinson et al.7 for short term training programs. Pincivero et al.6 examined 4 weeks of isokinetic training with 40 or 160 second rest intervals on quadriceps function. The 160 second rest group demonstrated signicantly greater increases in peak torque, average power, and total work at 180 /s. Similarly, Robinson et al.7 examined 5 weeks of isoinertial resistance training with 30, 90 s, and 3 min rest intervals

Fig. 1. Bench press strength (kg) after 8- and 16-weeks (mean S.D.). *p < 0.05 versus baseline. p < 0.05 versus 1-min group.

Fig. 2. Leg press strength (kg) after 8- and 16-weeks (mean S.D.). *p < 0.05 versus baseline. # p < 0.05 versus 8 weeks. p < 0.05 versus 1-min group.

432

B.F. de Salles et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 13 (2010) 429433

on barbell back squat strength. The 3-min rest group demonstrated signicantly greater increases in maximal back squat strength versus the 90 and 30 s rest groups. Both studies6,7 demonstrated that longer rest intervals were more effective than shorter rest intervals when applied during short term training programs (i.e. 5 weeks). The authors attributed these results to a higher volume completed over the duration of the study for the longer rest groups. These results were consistent with the current study in that the total training volume performed for the bench press plus the leg press was signicantly greater for G3 and G5 versus G1. Total training volume was calculated as the product of the load multiplied by the repetitions performed. Since the training sessions performed by all groups were conducted within the same repetition zones, the signicantly greater volume achieved by G3 and G5 indicated the use of greater loads over the 16-week intervention. Therefore, the advantage of longer rest intervals between sets might be the ability to maintain greater training loads, which results in greater strength increases. Willardson and Burkett9 also compared 2 versus 4 min rest intervals on barbell back squat strength increases in recreationally trained lifters. They demonstrated that over 13 weeks of undulating periodised training, there were no signicant differences between groups. However, the 4-min group accomplished a signicantly greater volume during the higher intensity workouts (i.e. 7090% 1-RM). Therefore, athletes attempting to achieve specic volume goals may need longer rest intervals initially, but may later adapt so that shorter rest intervals can be utilised, while still achieving the same strength increases. Similarly, Ahtiainen et al.8 did not nd signicant differences in maximal isometric leg extension strength, leg extension 1-RM, and quadriceps cross-sectional area in groups of recreationally trained lifters that rested 2 versus 5 min between sets. The differences in results between Ahtiainen et al.8 versus the current study might be due to differences in the experimental designs. For example, Ahtiainen et al.8 equalised training volume (load repetitions) based on the nding that the 4-min rest group maintained a higher training intensity (approximately 15% higher) and consequently performed less repetitions per set, while the 2-min rest group maintained a lower training intensity and consequently performed more repetitions per set. Thus, if training volume is intentionally equalised through manipulation of training variables (e.g. load, repetitions per set) then shorter rest intervals may result in similar strength increases. However, a high training intensity is still the most important factor for maximal strength increases due to the need for greater recruitment of highest threshold motor units.3,4 A key difference between the current study and previous studies8,9 was the wider spectrum of rest interval lengths examined (i.e. 1, 3, and 5 min). Conversely, Willardson and Burkett9 and Ahtiainen et al.8 both compared relatively long rest intervals (i.e. 2 versus 4 or 5 min). From a physiological standpoint, resting 3 min between sets might be sufcient dur-

ing typical training scenarios in previously trained lifters to allow for sufcient recovery between sets. Despite the additional volume that might be achieved with 5 min rest intervals, there does not appear to be added strength increases. Conversely, resting 1 min between sets appears to hinder strength increases, especially over training periods that exceed 8 weeks. In the current study, more pronounced strength increases were demonstrated for the leg press versus the bench press at all time points; this result was reective of prior resistance training participation during which the lifters reported to have emphasised bench press more than leg press. Therefore, the muscles of the lower body exhibited greater adaptation potential for strength increases when consistent (and probably more intense) training was instituted during the current study.

5. Conclusion The results of the current study suggest that longer rest intervals (i.e. 35 min) become increasingly important as the potential for continued strength increases diminishes over time for a given exercise. Conversely, shorter rest intervals (i.e. 1 min) may sufce when an exercise has not been consistently performed as part of a training program and the potential for strength increases is great.

Practical implications Longer rest intervals (i.e. 35 min) results in signicantly greater increases in upper and lower body strength versus shorter rest intervals (i.e. 1 min). Shorter rest intervals can be effective for strength increases in less trained muscles or exercises; this may apply to advanced athletes following a layoff or novice athletes beginning a resistance training program. Longer rest intervals (up to 5 min) are best applied in highly trained muscles and exercises as the window for adaptation narrows.

Conict on interest The authors have no conicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.

Acknowledgments Dr. Roberto Simo would like to thank the Brazilian National Board for Scientic and Technological Development (CNPq) and Research and Development Foundation of Rio de Janeiro State (FAPERJ) for the research grant support.

B.F. de Salles et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 13 (2010) 429433

433

References
1. American College of Sports Medicine. Position stand: progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009;41:687708. 2. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA. Fundamentals of resistance training: progression and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2004;36:67488. 3. de Salles BF, Simo R, Ribeiro FM, et al. Rest interval between sets in strength training. Sports Med 2009;39: 76577. 4. Willardson JM. A brief review: factors affecting the length of the rest interval between resistance exercise sets. J Strength Cond Res 2006;20:97884. 5. Buresh R, Berg K, French J. The effect of resistive exercise rest interval on hormonal response, strength, and hypertrophy with training. J Strength Cond Res 2009;23:6271. 6. Pincivero DM, Lephart SM, Karunakar RG. Effects of rest interval on isokinetic strength and functional performance after short-term high intensity training. Br J Sports Med 1997;31: 22934.

7. Robinson JM, Stone MH, Johnson RL, et al. Effects of different weight training exercise/rest intervals on strength, power, and high intensity exercise endurance. J Strength Cond Res 1995;9:21621. 8. Ahtiainen JP, Pakarinen A, Alen M, et al. Short vs. long rest period between the sets in hypertrophic resistance training: inuence on muscle strength, size, and hormonal adaptations in trained men. J Strength Cond Res 2005;19:57282. 9. Willardson JM, Burkett LN. The effect of different rest intervals between sets on volume components and strength gains. J Strength Cond Res 2008;22:14652. 10. Shephard RJ. PAR-Q, Canadian home tness test and exercise screening alternatives. Sports Med 1988;5:18595. 11. Levinger I, Goodman C, Hare DL, et al. The reliability of the 1RM strength test for untrained middle-aged individuals. J Sci Med Sport 2009;12:3106. 12. Willardson JM, Burkett LN. The effect of rest interval length on the sustainability of squat and bench press repetitions. J Strength Cond Res 2006;20:3969. 13. Simo R, Polito MD, Monteiro W. Effects of different rest intervals in a resistance training program for trained individuals. Braz J Sport Med 2008;14:3536.