• Something wrong with this record ?

Traditional 3- to 5-Minute Interset Rest Periods May Not Be Necessary When Performing Fewer Repetitions Per Set: Using Clean Pulls as an Example

I. Jukic, JJ. Tufano

. 2022 ; 36 (11) : 3015-3022. [pub] 20201204

Language English Country United States

Document type Journal Article

Jukic, I and Tufano, JJ. Traditional 3- to 5-minute interset rest periods may not be necessary when performing fewer repetitions per set: Using clean pulls as an example. J Strength Cond Res 36(11): 3015-3022, 2022-Three to 5 minutes of interset rest is often recommended for power-based exercises, but those recommendations are largely based on performing many repetitions per set, which can induce fatigue and require such lengthy rest periods. If the number of repetitions per set is reduced before fatigue ensues, interset rest periods may also be reduced without sacrificing performance. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of this notion on barbell velocity and power output over multiple sets of clean pulls using different loads in strength-trained men. Fifteen strength-trained men performed 3 extended sets of 6 clean pulls using 80% (EXT80), 100% (EXT100), and 120% (EXT120) of power clean 1 repetition maximum with 180 seconds of interset rest and 9 short sets of 2 using 80% (SHT80), 100% (SHT100), and 120% (SHT120) with 45 seconds of interset rest. Peak velocity was greater during short set protocol than extended set protocol (80%: 1.74 ± 0.16 vs. 1.68 ± 0.15 m/s; 100%: 1.47 ± 0.15 vs. 1.41 ± 0.12 m/s; 120%: 1.21 ± 0.13 vs. 1.16 ± 0.15 m/s; p < 0.05). Furthermore, peak power was greater during SHT100 (1874.6 ± 267.5 vs. 1732.3 ± 250.4 W; p < 0.05) and SHT120 (1777.8 ± 226.1 vs. 1,650.4 ± 249.1 W; p < 0.05) than EXT100 and EXT120, respectively. Therefore, reducing the number of repetitions per set may allow for interset rest periods to also be reduced while better maintaining performance. However, the extent to which rest periods can be shortened warrants further investigation as total rest time was equal in this study.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22032948
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20230131151146.0
007      
ta
008      
230120s2022 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003908 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)33298711
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Jukic, Ivan $u Sport Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ), Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand; and
245    10
$a Traditional 3- to 5-Minute Interset Rest Periods May Not Be Necessary When Performing Fewer Repetitions Per Set: Using Clean Pulls as an Example / $c I. Jukic, JJ. Tufano
520    9_
$a Jukic, I and Tufano, JJ. Traditional 3- to 5-minute interset rest periods may not be necessary when performing fewer repetitions per set: Using clean pulls as an example. J Strength Cond Res 36(11): 3015-3022, 2022-Three to 5 minutes of interset rest is often recommended for power-based exercises, but those recommendations are largely based on performing many repetitions per set, which can induce fatigue and require such lengthy rest periods. If the number of repetitions per set is reduced before fatigue ensues, interset rest periods may also be reduced without sacrificing performance. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of this notion on barbell velocity and power output over multiple sets of clean pulls using different loads in strength-trained men. Fifteen strength-trained men performed 3 extended sets of 6 clean pulls using 80% (EXT80), 100% (EXT100), and 120% (EXT120) of power clean 1 repetition maximum with 180 seconds of interset rest and 9 short sets of 2 using 80% (SHT80), 100% (SHT100), and 120% (SHT120) with 45 seconds of interset rest. Peak velocity was greater during short set protocol than extended set protocol (80%: 1.74 ± 0.16 vs. 1.68 ± 0.15 m/s; 100%: 1.47 ± 0.15 vs. 1.41 ± 0.12 m/s; 120%: 1.21 ± 0.13 vs. 1.16 ± 0.15 m/s; p < 0.05). Furthermore, peak power was greater during SHT100 (1874.6 ± 267.5 vs. 1732.3 ± 250.4 W; p < 0.05) and SHT120 (1777.8 ± 226.1 vs. 1,650.4 ± 249.1 W; p < 0.05) than EXT100 and EXT120, respectively. Therefore, reducing the number of repetitions per set may allow for interset rest periods to also be reduced while better maintaining performance. However, the extent to which rest periods can be shortened warrants further investigation as total rest time was equal in this study.
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a odporový trénink $7 D055070
650    _2
$a odpočinek $7 D012146
650    _2
$a cvičení $7 D015444
650    _2
$a únava $7 D005221
650    _2
$a svalová síla $7 D053580
650    _2
$a kosterní svaly $7 D018482
650    _2
$a vzpírání $7 D014891
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Tufano, James J $u Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00008742 $t Journal of strength and conditioning research $x 1533-4287 $g Roč. 36, č. 11 (2022), s. 3015-3022
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33298711 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20230120 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20230131151142 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1891612 $s 1184283
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2022 $b 36 $c 11 $d 3015-3022 $e 20201204 $i 1533-4287 $m Journal of strength and conditioning research $n J Strength Cond Res $x MED00008742
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20230120

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...