Content uploaded by Eric K O'Neal
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eric K O'Neal on Nov 17, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Original Research
Resistance Training Recovery: Considerations for Single vs. Multi-
joint Movements and Upper vs. Lower Body Muscles
JOHN A. KORAK†1, JAMES M. GREEN‡2, and ERIC K. O’NEAL‡2
1Department of Health and Human Performance, Middle Tennessee State
University, Murfreesboro, TN USA; 2Department of Health and Physical
Education Recreation, University of North Alabama, Florence, AL, USA
†Denotes graduate student author, ‡Denotes professional author
ABSTRACT
International Journal of Exercise Science 8(1) : 85-96, 2015. This study examined
muscle recovery patterns between single-joint (SJ) versus multi-joint (MJ), and upper-body (UB)
versus lower-body (LB) exercises and the utility of perceptual measures (ratings of perceived
exertion (RPE) and perceived recovery scale (PRS)) to assess recovery status. A 10 rep max (10-
RM) was determined for 6 SJ and 4 MJ exercises (5 UB and 5 LB) for male recreational
weightlifters (n = 10). Participants completed a baseline protocol including 8 repetitions at 85% of
10-RM followed by a set to failure with 100% of 10-RM. In a counter-balanced crossover design,
participants returned at 24 or 48 h to repeat the protocol. PRS and RPE were assessed following
the first and second sets of each exercise respectively. Wilcoxon matched pair signed-rank tests
determined performance improved (p < 0.05) for every lift type category from 24 to 48 h, but the
only difference in ∆ repetitions from baseline at the same time point was between MJ (-1.7 ± 1.5
repetitions ) and SJ (-0.5 ± 1.8 repetitions ) at 24 h (p = 0.037). Higher RPE and lower PRS
estimations (p < 0.05) support the utility of perceptual measures to gauge recovery as the only
between group differences were also found between MJ and SJ at 24 h. Eighty percent of
participants completed within 1 repetition of baseline for all exercises at 48 h except bench press
(70%) and deadlift (60%); suggesting 72 h of recovery should be implemented for multi-joint
barbell lifts targeting the same muscle groups in slower recovering lifters.
KEY WORDS: Weight training, RPE, perceived recovery scale, programming
design
INTRODUCTION
Research indicates 1-7 days between
resistance training exercise bouts may be
needed for replication of previous
performance (4, 5, 9-11, 13, 15, 17, 18). As
general guidelines, the National Strength
and Conditioning Association (NSCA)
states that increased recovery time is
needed between heavy lifting days and that
upper body musculatures recovers faster
than lower body musculature and single-
joint lifts require less recovery time than
multi-joint lifts (16 p.389). However, a
careful review of the literature cited in the
NSCA guidelines reveals most of the
references are based on anecdotal evidence
in older review papers or other textbooks
and no quantitative evidence of recovery
patterns were collected in the investigations
cited supporting upper body versus lower
body recovery (6) or single versus multi-
MUSCLE RECOVERY PATTERNS
International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com
86
joint lift recovery (20). Recent investigations
have sought to quantitatively determine the
number of days needed for recovery to
occur (8, 15). While these investigations
have extended the knowledge concerning
lifting recovery as a whole, they have not
delineated if discrepancies exist between
multi-joint, single-joint, upper body, and
lower body.
Studies using repetitions to failure as a
performance measure show recreational
weightlifters are unlikely to be recovered at
24 hours (h), but show significant variance
at 48 and 72 h, which may possibly be
attributed to the inter-individual variability
of delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS)
which typically peaks between 24-72 h (2, 8,
15, 25). In addition to a general
consideration for DOMS (2, 8, 15, 24) the
lifting protocols incorporated in previous
studies likely affects quantitative evaluation
for determining optimal time between
lifting sessions. McLester et al. (15) and
Jones et al. (8) both examined overall
recovery times after resistance training (3
sets of 10 repetitions) repeated at 24, 48, 72,
96, and 120 h to determine time needed to
return or exceed baseline performance
following a full body workout. A limitation
in interpreting these studies is that while
McLester et al. (15) used 8 total and Jones et
al. (8) used 6 different exercises (Table 1)
both examined recovery in terms of
differences in total repetitions.
Neither study reported recovery patterns
based on individual exercises or single (SJ)
Table 1. Comparisons for lifting protocols between the current study, McLester et al. (15), and Jones et al. 1
(8). Lifts include barbell bench press (BP), dead lift (DL), military dumbbell press (MP), leg press (LP), 2
knee extension (KE), machine chest fly (CF), tricep extension (TE), dumbbell side raises (SR), hip 3
adduction (HipAD), hip abduction (HipAB), lat pull down (LAT), bicep curl (BC), and leg curl (LC). 4
Current Study
McLester et al. (15)
Jones et al. (8)
n
10
10
10 tested twice
Exercises performed
BP, DL, MP, LP, KE, CF,
TE, SR, HipAD/AB
BP, SR, TE, LP, BC,
LAT, LC, KE
BP, TE, LP, BC, LAT, LC
Sets completed per
exercise/total sets
2/20
3/24
3/18
Reps completed per
set
Set 1 = 8
Set 2 = voluntary failure
Voluntary failure
every set
Voluntary failure
every set
Time between
exercises
90 seconds
30 seconds – 1 min
2 min
Time between sets
2 min
30 seconds – 1 min
2 min
Intensity (% 10RM)
Set 1 = 85% of 10RM
Set 2 = 10RM
All sets = 10RM
All sets = 10RM
Recovery time (h)
24, 48
24, 48, 72, 96
48, 72, 96, 120
5
MUSCLE RECOVERY PATTERNS
International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com
87
versus multi-joint movements (MJ) or
upper body (UB) versus lower body (LB)
muscle groups which are key
considerations when programing lifting
sessions.
Determining ideal recovery time allows the
athlete to initiate a subsequent training
bout as soon as possible, limit detraining
and optimize training volume, while
avoiding overtraining to maximize training
adaptations. It is plausible that recovery
time for LB lifts may be shorter than UB
exercises as the legs are involved in
ambulatory tasks during daily living
possibly leading to increased blood flow
(23). Additionally, recovery time between
lifting bouts may need to be extended for
MJ core exercises such as bench press or
squat versus SJ secondary exercises such as
triceps or knee extensions as more total
musculature is recruited and greater motor
control is likely required during MJ lifts
(16). Therefore the current study quantified
muscle recovery patterns between SJ versus
MJ, and UB versus LB exercises at 24 and 48
h. A secondary objective was to examine
the efficacy to self-evaluate recovery using
the classic perceptual subject ratings of
perceived exertion scale (RPE) (22) and the
more novel perceived recovery scale (PRS)
(14).
METHODS
Participants
Ten recreationally strength trained college
age males (26 ± 6 years) served as
participants and all were over the age of 18
years old. All provided written consent
prior to testing. Participants were excluded
if they reported completing fewer than 3
resistance training sessions per week on
average for the previous 12 weeks, were
unfamiliar with any exercises incorporated
in this investigation, or were not
categorized as “low risk” based on PAR-Q
and risk factor stratification questionnaire
(1). Nine participants reported lifting ≥ 4
times per week and the remaining
participant reported lifting 3+ times per
week. Height (Stadiometer, Betco, Webb
City, MO) and weight (BWB800, Tanita
Corps, Japan) were assessed and body fat
was estimated using a 3 site (chest,
abdomen, thigh) skin fold assessment
(Lange Calipers, Cambridge, MD, USA)
(19). Height, weight, and percent body fat
were (176 ± 6 cm, 83.1 ± 8.2 kg, 11.0 ± 3.0%)
respectively. This study was approved by
the local university’s Institutional Review
Board.
Protocol
A 10 repetition maximum (10-RM) was
determined for 10 exercises during an
initial session. Participants reported 5-7
days later for a baseline trial during which
they completed 2 sets on the same 10
exercises. Eight repetitions (reps) at an
intensity equal to 85% of their 10-RM was
completed during the first set for each
exercise. The second set was completed
with 100% of 10-RM and participants lifted
to failure. The purpose of the first set was to
induce standardized fatigue before the
subsequent set to failure. The protocol was
replicated during two additional sessions
with days of rest (either 24 or 48h) between
the next two lifting sessions serving as the
independent variable. A counter-balanced
crossover design was used. Half of the
participants repeated their workout 24 h
after the baseline session and rested for 48 h
before their fourth and final session (e.g.
baseline Monday, 24 h session on Tuesday,
MUSCLE RECOVERY PATTERNS
International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com
88
and 48 h session on Thursday). The other
half completed their third session 48 h after
baseline testing and their fourth and final
session 24 h later (e.g. baseline Monday, 48
h session on Wednesday, and 24 h session
on Thursday). Participants were instructed
to refrain from other exercise, alcohol, and
to maintain regular diet and sleeping
patterns from 48 h prior to their baseline
testing session until completion of the
study.
A protocol similar to that incorporated by
McLester et al. (15) was used to determine
the 10-RM for each exercise and establish
weight to be lifted during baseline and
experimental trials. Five to seven days
before the baseline session, a 10-RM was
obtained for each exercise (described
below) in the lifting protocol. Participants
started with a light 15 rep warm up. Once
the warm up was completed, participants
estimated their 10 RM. Participants lifted to
fatigue with 100% of their self-estimated 10-
RM. Successful determination of 10-RM
was measured by participants lifting the
estimated resistance between 9-11
repetitions. If unsuccessful in an attempt,
participant’s passively recovered three
minutes and resistance was adjusted by 2.3-
9.1 kg based on participant’s perception of
the needed adjustment until fatigue
occurred at 9-11 repetitions during a set.
The same sequence of exercises was
incorporated in the baseline and all
treatment sessions. All participants
completed 10 different exercises. Resistance
exercises included: flat barbell bench press
(BP), seated dumbbell military press (MP),
barbell dead lift (DL), machine leg press
(LP), knee extension (KE), machine triceps
extension (TE), dumbbell side raises (SR),
machine chest fly (CF), and seated machine
hip abduction/adduction (HipAB/AD).
Sets for BP, MP, DL, and LP were
considered core/multi-joint lifts and were
completed first in keeping with the NSCA
guidelines (16). BP and DL were completed
in a counter-balanced order between
participants, but kept constant within
individuals. Single-joint/secondary
exercises were conducted in an order that
allowed the greatest rest time between lifts
incorporating the same muscle groups (i.e.
UB and LB exercises were alternated). The
exercises were chosen to include single-
joint movements (SR, TE, HipAB, HipAD,
KE, CF), and multi-joint movements (BP,
LP, MP, DL). Participants were given 90
seconds of recovery between sets and 2
minutes recovery between different
exercises. The second set for all exercises
was completed to volitional failure at the
individualized 10-RM resistance with
repetitions completed recorded as the
dependent measure. The first set was
implemented to produce a standardized
amount of fatigue and was prescribed at
85% of the 10-RM resistances for 8
repetitions. This approach reduced the
variability in total repetitions between
bouts (outside of the fatiguing second set
that was completed to failure). After
completing the baseline session,
participants returned at 24 and 48 h to
complete the same testing protocol.
Participants that completed their third
session 24 h after their baseline session
returned for their final (fourth) session 48 h
after their 24 h session and vice versa.
Participants estimated their perceived level
of recovery (PRS) on a scale from 0-10 (0
being least recovered, 10 being fully
recovered) (14) after their first set of each
MUSCLE RECOVERY PATTERNS
International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com
89
exercise, and rating of perceived exertion
(RPE) on a scale from 0-10 (0being
extremely easy, 10 being extremely hard)
following the second set to failure of each
exercise (22). Session RPE was recorded 15
minutes after completing the entire
workout protocol.
Statistical Analysis
Due to the non-parametric nature of the
dependent values assessed during the
testing protocol (Δ repetitions from
baseline, RPE, PRS) Wilcoxon matched
sign-ranked tests were used to analyze all
data (SPSS v. 20, Chicago, IL). Data are
expressed in box and whisker plots or as
percentage of participants recovered
excluding session RPE and change in
performance for all lifts combined which
are expressed as mean ± SD since they are
not displayed in a box and whisker plot
form. Statistical significance was
determined when p ≤ 0.05.
RESULTS
Lifters were operationally defined as
recovered in this study if they were able to
complete within 1 repetition of baseline
performance during the second set to
failure for each exercise. The same criterion
was used for comparisons of all lifts
combined, MJ, SJ, UB, and LB after
averaging the ∆ repetitions from baseline
for all applicable lifts (i.e. -1 or greater =
recovered; -1.1 = not recovered). A
significant difference (p = 0.007) was found
for change in performance when the Δreps
for all exercises were averaged together
between 24 h (-1.0 ± 1.4 repetitions ) and 48
h (0.4 ± 1.2 repetitions ) with 50% of
participants at 24 h and 80% at 48 h
classified as recovered. Significant
differences (p ≤ 0.05) were observed for all
lift type categories between 24 and 48 h, but
the only difference (p = 0.037) detected
between performance of different lift types
at the same time point was between MJ and
SJ at 24 h (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Box and whisker plot comparisons of
cumulative means for Δ in repetitions from baseline
for upper body (UB), lower body (LB), multi-joint
(MJ), and single-joint (SJ) exercises at 24 and 48 h (n
= 10; middle line = median; top and bottom boxes
represent 2nd and 3rd quartiles; error bars represent
min and max scores). * = Significant difference (p <
0.05) between 24 and 48 h within lift type category. †
= Significant difference (p = 0.037) between MJ and
SJ at 24 h.
However MJ and SJ at 48 h approached
significance (Figure 1; p = 0.07). Tables 2
and 3 display the percentages of
participants classified as recovered from
MJ, SJ, UB, and LB and for each individual
exercise at 24 and 48 h respectively.
Collectively, these two tables and figure
reveal that as expected 48 h of recovery
offered marked improvement in
performance, and that while replication of
MJ lifts suffers more greatly at 24 h than SJ
lifts, most MJ and SJ exercises can be
replicated at 48 h for the majority of young
male recreational weightlifters. The
exception to the trend however appears to
occur for MJ barbell lifts with BP and DL
MUSCLE RECOVERY PATTERNS
International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com
90
being the only lifts in which 80% or more of
lifters were not recovered with 10% fewer
participants being recovered for BP versus
MP and DL versus LP at 48 h respectively
(Table 2).
RPE and PRS estimations for all
participants between UB, LB, SJ, and MJ at
24 and 48 h recovery are displayed in
Figures 2 and 3. No differences were
observed within lift category type between
24 and 48 h for RPE, but lifters reported
feeling more recovered (p ≤ 0.05) based on
PRS for all lift category types excluding UB
between 24 and 48 h. Increased RPE (p =
0.021) and lower PRS (p = 0.018) for SJ
versus MJ were both reported at 24 h.
Session RPE ratings (24 h = 7.7 ± 1.5; 48 h =
7.5 ± 1.9) did not differ (p=0.58) between
time points.
DISCUSSION
To our knowledge this is the first study that
has quantified lifting recovery based on lift
type category (LTC). Muscle recovery
patterns were examined between SJ versus
MJ, and UB versus LB exercise. The results
of this study will be compared primarily to
two key foundational studies that have
attempted to quantify resistance training
recovery time based on total changes in
repetitions in protocols incorporating both
MJ, SJ, UB and LB lifts (8, 15). A
description of methodological differences
between these investigations and the
current study is imperative before
comparison of results can be assessed, and
Table 1 details the protocols of each study.
The first major difference between studies
not represented in Table 1 is the criterion
definition for recovery. McLester et al. (15)
and Jones et al. (8) required full replication
of baseline repetitions, while the current
study based recovery on a less conservative
criterion of being able to complete ≤ 1
repetition versus the baseline trial
performance. Our rationale for requiring
completion within only 1 repetition was
primarily based on considerations for the
minor inherent intertrial variability that
exists when lifters are asked to replicate a
lifting protocol. In a practical sense,
completing an extra day of lifting in a week
with 1 less repetition than the previous
bouts efforts would plausibly represent a
transient state of overreaching and with
appropriate periodization would plausibly
lead to greater long term gains than lifting
fewer sessions during the training week.
Much consideration was also given
concerning the overall fatiguing effect of
Table 2. Percentages of participants recoveredA from barbell bench press (BP), dead lift 1
(DL), military dumbbell press (MP), leg press (LP), leg extension (LE), machine chest fly 2
(CF), tricep extension (TE), dumbbell side raises (SR), hip adduction (HipAD), and hip 3
abduction (HipAB) exercises at 24 and 48 h (n = 10). 4
BP
DL
MP
LP
LE
CF
TriEX
SR
HipAD
HipAB
24 h
60%
50%
60%
60%
60%
60%
70%
50%
80%
80%
48 h
70%
60%
90%
80%
90%
90%
100%
90%
80%
80%
A = Lifters were considered recovered if ∆ in reps from baseline was ≤ 1 repetition of 5
their baseline session repetition max. 6
MUSCLE RECOVERY PATTERNS
International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com
91
the lifting protocol in the current study.
Both previous studies (8, 15) incorporated a
design in which 3 versus 2 sets were used
for each lift, all sets were completed to
fatigue with the dependent variable being
recovery evaluated on the first set of each
exercise, and McLester et al. (15) allowed a
much shorter recovery period between sets
(Table 1). We opted not to lift to fatigue on
every set because of the potential
variability in preceding repetitions to
influence the final set to fatigue, and
because many lifters do not lift to failure
every set. The current study incorporated
more exercises and fewer sets so more
comparisons could be made between LTC.
Because of this consideration all upper
body lifts chosen focused on extensor
muscles (chest, triceps, and deltoids) to
hopefully result in more local fatigue since
each first set was less fatiguing than the
previous 2 investigations that both used
upper body pushing and pulling lifts. These
factors likely explain the reason why some
participants in the current study were able
to replicate some lifts during the 24 h trial.
Nonetheless, based on quantitative session
RPE results from investigators, the protocol
was considerably taxing for participants.
NSCA guideline’s (19) suggest at least 48 h
is needed for muscles to recover, and not
surprisingly significant performance
differences were found for all LTC between
24 h versus 48 h. All LTC exhibited
negative median repetition values at 24 h,
but returned to baseline or were slightly
positive at 48 h (Figure 1). Evaluating
cumulative repetition totals, Jones et al. (8)
found 8 of 10 participants were able to
replicate the numbers of repetitions
completed for 3 sets of 6 exercises at 48 h,
and 7 of the 10 same participants repeated
their performance after a 3 week washout
period. McLester et al. (15) found only 40%
of participants were able to replicate the
same number of repetitions completed
during the first of 3 sets of 8 exercises at 48
h and 0% replication for the 24 h recovery
trial. Recovery using our definition (within
1 repetition of baseline) revealed 50 and
80% of participants were recovered at 24
and 48 h respectively when performances
for all lifts were combined. However using
the McLester et al. (15) and Jones et al. (8)
standard for recovery (matching or
exceeding baseline) dropped the percentage
of participants recovered to 30% (24 h) and
60% (48 h). When examining each of the 10
exercises individually 60+% of participants
at 48 h were able to complete within 1
repetition of their baseline performance. If
the stricter criteria of complete replication
(8, 15) were used in the current study LP,
MP, and TE would have each been dropped
by 30%, as 3 participants in each lifted
completed only 1 less repetition from
baseline, further highlighting the impact
subtle differences (1 repetition) in
definitions can make when interpreting
data. It is plausible the lower recovery
levels in McLester et al. (15) were due to the
shorter recovery time between sets (30-60 s)
which was half of what was provided in
Jones et al. (8) and the current study (2
min). Simply increasing time between sets
may be a strategy that could be
incorporated to decrease the amount of
days rest needed between lifting sessions.
Although our data does not support lifting
on consecutive days, increasing time
between sets could possibly be beneficial
for individuals who require more than 48 h
to recover allowing more total lifting
sessions to be completed within the same
overall time frame.
MUSCLE RECOVERY PATTERNS
International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com
92
The next two important performance trends
that our data reveals are (1) lifters recover
more effectively from SJ versus MJ at 24 h
but even though recovery patterns learn
toward similar results at 48 h, MJ exercises
still appear to be a little more stunted than
SJ exercises and (2) there appears to be no
basis to support UB exercise recovery
occurs more quickly than LB (16) under the
current paradigm. In regards to the first
finding, Table 3 shows 7 of 10 participants
were not able to perform within ≤ 1
repetition from the baseline trial for all MJ
lifts at 24 h rest versus 5 for all SJ exercise at
24 h.
This tendency is further exemplified when
looking at the differences in medians when
comparing SJ versus MJ at 24 h. While the
median change in repetitions is more
similar at 48 h, the distribution of scores for
MJ at 48 h trended downward towards
poorer performance versus upwards for SJ
(Figure 1). An additional consideration
revealed by the data is that all MJ exercises
are not equal in regards to time between
bout recovery needs. Heavy barbell
exercises are a clear exception to the rule in
terms of recovery as even MJ free weight
exercise with lighter resistance (e.g. MP)
and machine MJ exercises (LP) recovered at
a faster trend when compared to heavy
barbell exercises.
The NSCA (16) suggests UB musculature
recovers more quickly than LB exercises.
However, no differences in performance
were noted between the LTC at the same
time points when using Wilcoxon signed
rank tests (Figure 1). Table 3 also shows
that the same percentages of lifters were
recovered at 48 hours rest for UB vs. LB
exercises and 2 more participants were
considered recovered from combined LB
than UB exercises at 24 h. The hypothesis
that blood flow to the legs from daily
activities improves recovery time in LB
versus UB lifts was not supported under
the current paradigm. However, because
two of the ten participants seemed to
recover faster from LB lifts vs UB lifts at 24
h, further research should be conducted to
examine this variable. It is plausible that
future studies might indicate blood flow to
the legs from daily activities improves
recovery time in LB lifts vs UB lifts.
The efficacy of perceptual measures (RPE
and PRS) were also observed as both have
been promoted as tools to encourage
optimal strength and conditioning
programing by determining whether
athletes are adequately recovered.
Perceptual measures efficacy in resistance
training paradigms have received relatively
less consideration than for intermittent high
intensity sport or endurance type exercise.
For example, Impellizzeri et al. (7)
concluded that session-RPE is a good
Table 3. Percentages of participants classified as recoveredA from multi-joint (MJ), single-joint (SJ), upper 1
body (UB), and lower body (LB) exercises at 24 and 48 h when ∆ in reps from baseline was averaged 2
based on exercise type. (n = 10). 3
MJ24
MJ48
SJ24
SJ48
UB24
UB48
LB24
LB48
Recovered
30%
70%
50%
80%
40%
80%
60%
80%
A = Lifters were considered recovered if the mean ∆ in reps from baseline was ≤ 1 repetition of their
baseline session repetition max.
4
MUSCLE RECOVERY PATTERNS
International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com
93
indicator of global internal load of soccer
training and high intensity interval training
(HIIT). Similar finding were concluded by
Wallace et al. (21) who found session RPE
provided a practical training load intensity
in 12 highly conditioned swimmers.
However, few studies have implemented
perceptual measures into resistance
training protocols. When lifting to failure,
post-lift RPE has been evidenced to not
differ even when participants have
completed fewer repetitions concurrent
with caffeine ingestion (3) or when lifting
occurs following dehydration of 3% body
mass (12). Although more repetitions were
completed for all LTC between 48 versus 24
h, and general trends of lower RPE were
observed at 48h, particularly for MJ vs. SJ,
no statistical differences were exhibited for
RPE. It is also worth noting that at least one
participant reported maximal average RPE
response that approached 10 for every LTC
and time point, but at least one participant
also averaged below 6 for all 48 h LTC
while no lifter responded with an average
RPE less than 7.5 for each LTC at 24 h
(Figure 2).
Figure 2. Box and whisker plot comparisons of
cumulative means for rate of perceived exertion
(RPE) ratings for upper body (UB), lower body (LB),
multi-joint (MJ), and single-joint (SJ) at 24 and 48 h
(n=10; middle line = median; top and bottom boxes
represent 2nd and 3rd quartiles; error bars represent
min and max scores). † = Significant difference (p =
0.021) between MJ and SJ at 24 h.
Unlike RPE which is typically collected
during or after activity, the PRS scale was
developed to predict recovery prior to a
pending workout (14). Briefly, prior to
exercise, participants use a numerical scale
with verbal descriptors to assign a value
(higher number = more recovered)
regarding feelings of recovery. Laurent et
al. (14) developed the scale and initially
showed that using the PRS scale
participants were able to accurately predict
performance with a high degree of accuracy
(80% of trials). In the current study PRS
estimations differed within LTC between 24
and 48 h, and the only difference between
LTC within time period occurred between
MJ and SJ at 24 h (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Box and whisker plot comparisons of
cumulative means for perceived recovery scale
(PRS) ratings for upper body (UB), lower body (LB),
multi-joint (MJ), and single-joint (SJ) at 24 and 48 h
(n=10; middle line = median; top and bottom boxes
represent 2nd and 3rd quartiles; error bars represent
min and max scores). * = Significant difference (p <
0.05) between 24 and 48 h. † = Significant difference
(p = 0.018) between MJ and SJ at 24 h.
Comparing subjective estimations with
actual performance results supports the
utility of using the PRS after a warm up to
determine if an extra day of recovery may
be needed. The validity of the PRS is
further strengthened when examining
changes in performance of individual lifts.
MUSCLE RECOVERY PATTERNS
International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com
94
The DL exercise experienced the lowest
percentage of participants returning to
baseline performance and concurrently
received the lowest mean PRS estimations
of any lift at 24 h (4.7 ± 2.0) and 48 h (6.3 ±
1.8) at 48 h recovery. The highest PRS
values (reflecting feelings of well-
recovered) were estimated for Hip AB and
HipAD which mirrored highest lift
replication levels. When lifting to failure
RPE appears to be less useful than PRS, but
measuring RPE after a lighter warm-up set
versus after a final set to failure may
increase the utility of using RPE in the
strength training paradigm. Furthermore, if
a participant completes a warm up set and
reports a low RPE rating, this should
indicate high performance on the
subsequent set. However, the PRS scale
seemed to be a greater predictor of
performance when compared to the RPE
scale (Figures 2 &3).
Coaches of high school and collegiate
athletes often are limited to weekday
strength and conditioning sessions only,
particularly during season. Jones et al. (8)
provide evidence that an acute assessment
period in which athletes are asked to
replicate lifting routines with different
between bout recovery period lengths (e.g.
24, 48, 72 h) can be used to reliably identify
how many days are required for
individuals to recover. With a
consideration that quality remains the
same, the more sessions that can be
completed within this time frame should
result in greater long term strength gains.
The present study suggests that the
majority of recreational weightlifters can
replicate within 1 repetition of baseline
work within 48 h for lifting protocols
incorporating 2 sets of repetitions for 10
exercises. However, free weight, multi-
joint exercises, and possibly lower body
lifts are less likely to be recovered than
single-joint or machine based exercises.
Identifying lifters who recover “slowly” or
“quickly” could allow program design to
incorporate the minimal amount of
recovery time needed and offer adjustments
such as incorporating exercises that require
less recovery time for individuals who
recover more slowly. Additionally, the
utility of PRS estimations corresponded
well with changes in performance and may
be beneficial in making on the fly decisions
concerning whether an extra period of
recovery is needed before a following
through with an entire low quality lifting
session.
Certain limitations should be considered
when interpreting current results. The
primary concerns involve the goal and
proficiency level of the participants. Only
recreational lifters participated in this study
and both upper body pushing movements
and lower body lifts were incorporated in
the same lifting session. The protocol is
unlikely to resemble a lifting regiment for a
body builder where more focus would
likely be placed on distinct muscle groups
and include greater volume. Power sport
athletes would also likely include Olympic
style lifts, and depending on periodization
phase include lifts at a higher % of 1-RM.
Future studies examining recovery during
body building or power sport type training
at 48 h are warranted as are additional
investigations regarding the utility of
perceptual measures (i.e. PRS) for assessing
recovery status.
MUSCLE RECOVERY PATTERNS
International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com
95
REFERENCES
1. American College of Sports Medicine. Guidelines
for exercise testing and prescription, 8th edition.
Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
PP 20-28, 2010.
2. Armstrong RB. Mechanisms of exercise-induced
delayed onset muscle soreness: A brief review. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 16: 529-538, 1984.
3. Green JM, Wickwire PJ, McLester JR, Gendle S,
Hudson G, Pritchett RC, Laurent CM. Effects of
Caffeine on Repetitions to Failure and Ratings of
Perceived Exertion During Resistance Training. Int J
of Sports Physiol and Perf 2:250-259, 2007.
4. Hakkinen K. Neuromuscular fatigue and recovery
in male and female athletes during heavy resistance
exercise. Int J Sports Med 14:53-59, 1993.
5. Hakkinen K, Kauhanen, H Komi PV. Effects of
fatiguing loading with variable resistance
equipment on neural activation and force
production of the knee extensor muscles.
Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 28:79-87, 1988.
6. Hoffman JR, Kraemer WJ, Fry AC, Deschenes M,
Kemp M. The Effects of Self-selection for Frequency
of Training in a Winter Conditioning Program for
Football. J Appl Sport Sci Res 4:76-82, 1990.
7. Impellizzeri FM, Rampinin E, Coutts AJ, Sassi A,
Marcora SM. Use of RPE-Based Training Load in
Soccer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36(6): 1042-1047, 2004.
8. Jones EJ, Bishop PA, Richardson MT, Smith JF.
Stability of a practical measure of recovery from
resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 20(4): 756-
759, 2006.
9. Komi PV, Buskirk ER. Effect of eccentric and
concentric muscle conditioning on tension and
electrical activity of human muscles. Ergonomic
15:417-434, 1972.
10. Komi PV, Viitasalo JT. Changes in motor activity
and metabolism in human skeletal muscle during
and after repeated eccentric and concentric
contractions. Acta Physiol Scand 100:246-254, 1977.
11. Kraemer W, Gordon S, Fleck S, Marchitelli LJ,
Mello R, Dziados JE, Friedl K, Harman E, Maresh C,
Fry AC. Endogenous anabolic hormonal and growth
factor responses to heavy resistance exercise in
males and females. Int J Sports Med 12:228-235,
1991.
12. Kraft JA, Green JM, Bishop PA, Richardson MT,
Neggers YH, Leeper JD. Impact of Dehydration on a
Full Body Resistance Exercise Protocol. Eur J Appl
Physiol 109:259-267, 2010.
13. Kroon GW, Naeije M. Recovery of human biceps
electromyogram after heavy eccentric, concentric or
isometric exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol 63:444-448,
1991.
14. Laurent CM, Green JM, Bishop PA, Sjokvist J,
Schumacker RE, Richardson MT, Curtner-Smith M.
A practical approach to monitoring Recovery:
Development of a perceived recovery. J Strength
Cond Res 3: 620-628, 2011.
15. McLester JR, Bishop PA, Smith J, Wyers L, Dale
B, Kozusko J, Richardson M, Nevett ME, Lomax R. A
series of studies-a practical protocol for testing
muscular endurance recovery. J Strength Cond Res
17(2):259-273, 2003.
16. National Strength and Conditioning Association.
Essentials of Strength and Conditioning-3rd Edition.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008.
17. Newham DJ, Mills KR, Quigley BM, Edwards
RHT. Pain and fatigue after concentric and eccentric
muscle contractions. Clin Sci 64:45-52, 1983.
18. Pierrynowskik MR, Tudus PM, Plyley MJ. Effects
of downhill or uphill training prior to a downhill
run. Eur J Appl Physiol 56:668-672, 1987.
19. Pollock ML, Schmidt DH, Jackson AS.
Measurement of cardiorespiratory fitness and body
composition in the clinical setting. Comprehensive
Therapy 6: 12-27, 1980.
20. Staron RS, Malicky ES, Leonardi MJ, Falkel JE,
Hagerman FC, Dudley GA. Muscle Hypertrophy
and Fast Fiber Type Conversions in Heavy
Resistance-Trained Women. Eur J Appl Physiol Occ
Physiol 60:71-79, 1989.
MUSCLE RECOVERY PATTERNS
International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com
96
21. Wallace LK, Slattery KM, Coutts AJ. The
Ecological Validity and Application of the Session-
RPE Method for Quantifying Training loads in
Swimming. J Strength Cond Res 23(1):33-38, 2009.
22. Utter AC, Roberson RJ, Green JM. Validation of
the adult OMNI scale of perceived exertion for
walking/running exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 195:
1775-1780, 2004
23. Weerapong P, Hume PA, Kolt GS. The
Mechanisms of Massage and Effects on
Performance, Muscle Recovery and Injury
Prevention. Sports Med 35 (3): 235-256, 2005.
24. Yates JW, Armbruster WJ. Concentric and
eccentric strength loss and recovery following
exercise-induced muscle soreness. Int J Sports Med
11:403, 1990.
