ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review

The effects of short versus long inter-set rest intervals in resistance training on measures of muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review

Wiley
European Journal of Sport Science
Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Although the effects of short versus long inter-set rest intervals in resistance training on measures of muscle hypertrophy have been investigated in several studies, the findings are equivocal and the practical implications remain unclear. In an attempt to provide clarity on the topic, we performed a systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) electronic databases. Six studies were found to have met the inclusion criteria: (a) an experimental trial published in an English-language peer-reviewed journal; (b) the study compared the use of short (≤60 s) to long (>60 s) inter-set rest intervals in a traditional dynamic resistance exercise using both concentric and eccentric muscle actions, with the only difference in resistance training among groups being the inter-set rest interval duration; (c) at least one method of measuring changes in muscle mass was used in the study; (d) the study lasted for a minimum of four weeks, employed a training frequency of ≥2 resistance training days per week, and (e) used human participants without known chronic disease or injury. Current evidence indicates that both short and long inter-set rest intervals may be useful when training for achieving gains in muscle hypertrophy. Novel findings involving trained participants using measures sensitive to detect changes in muscle hypertrophy suggest a possible advantage for the use of long rest intervals to elicit hypertrophic effects. However, due to the paucity of studies with similar designs, further research is needed to provide a clear differentiation between these two approaches.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tejs20
Download by: [108.54.197.51] Date: 27 June 2017, At: 03:42
European Journal of Sport Science
ISSN: 1746-1391 (Print) 1536-7290 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tejs20
The effects of short versus long inter-set rest
intervals in resistance training on measures of
muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review
Jozo Grgic, Bruno Lazinica, Pavle Mikulic, James W. Krieger & Brad Jon
Schoenfeld
To cite this article: Jozo Grgic, Bruno Lazinica, Pavle Mikulic, James W. Krieger & Brad Jon
Schoenfeld (2017): The effects of short versus long inter-set rest intervals in resistance training on
measures of muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review, European Journal of Sport Science, DOI:
10.1080/17461391.2017.1340524
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2017.1340524
Published online: 22 Jun 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 328
View related articles
View Crossmark data
The effects of short versus long inter-set rest intervals in resistance
training on measures of muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review
JOZO GRGIC
1
, BRUNO LAZINICA
2
, PAVLE MIKULIC
3
, JAMES W. KRIEGER
4
, & BRAD
JON SCHOENFELD
5
1
Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living (ISEAL), Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia;
2
Fitness Academy, Zagreb,
Croatia;
3
Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia;
4
Weightology LLC, Redmond, WA, USA &
5
Department of Health Sciences, Lehman College, Bronx, NY, USA
Abstract
Although the effects of short versus long inter-set rest intervals in resistance training on measures of muscle hypertrophy have
been investigated in several studies, the findings are equivocal and the practical implications remain unclear. In an attempt to
provide clarity on the topic, we performed a systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science,
Cochrane Library, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) electronic databases. Six studies were found to have
met the inclusion criteria: (a) an experimental trial published in an English-language peer-reviewed journal; (b) the study
compared the use of short (60 s) to long (>60 s) inter-set rest intervals in a traditional dynamic resistance exercise using
both concentric and eccentric muscle actions, with the only difference in resistance training among groups being the inter-
set rest interval duration; (c) at least one method of measuring changes in muscle mass was used in the study; (d) the
study lasted for a minimum of four weeks, employed a training frequency of 2 resistance training days per week, and (e)
used human participants without known chronic disease or injury. Current evidence indicates that both short and long
inter-set rest intervals may be useful when training for achieving gains in muscle hypertrophy. Novel findings involving
trained participants using measures sensitive to detect changes in muscle hypertrophy suggest a possible advantage for the
use of long rest intervals to elicit hypertrophic effects. However, due to the paucity of studies with similar designs, further
research is needed to provide a clear differentiation between these two approaches.
Keywords: Exercise, fatigue, kinesiology, fitness
Highlights
.Resistance training with both short (60 seconds or less) and long (more than 60 seconds) inter-set rest intervals can be
effective when training for muscle hypertrophy.
.The use of long inter-set rest intervals (>60 sec) when training for muscle hypertrophy may be advantageous, as it allows
training with a higher overall volume load. However, the approach may vary based on the level of exertion and exercise
selection.
.For future research on this topic we suggest the following: (a) using a sensitive measure (e.g. ultrasound or MRI) of
hypertrophy for tracking muscle growth, and (b) using participants with previous experience in resistance training.
Introduction
It has been hypothesized that increases in muscle
mass are brought about by three primary factors:
mechanical tension, metabolic stress, and muscle
damage (Schoenfeld, 2013b). Mechanical tension
may be considered as the most important factor, as
it has been shown that mechanical tension alone
can initiate mechano-chemically transduced molecu-
lar and cellular responses in myofibres and satellite
cells required for muscular hypertrophy (Toigo &
Boutellier, 2006). However, it is possible that all
three components need to be emphasized to optimize
the hypertrophic response to resistance training.
Accordingly, coaches and practitioners need to
manipulate several training variables, such as inten-
sity, volume, frequency, exercise selection, exercise
order, and inter-set rest intervals given that
© 2017 European College of Sport Science
Correspondence: J. Grgic, Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living (ISEAL), Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia. E-mail:
jozo990@hotmail.com
European Journal of Sport Science, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2017.1340524
programme design is essential to maximize resistance
training benefits (Kraemer, Ratamess, & French,
2002). Of all these variables, evidence-based guide-
lines for rest intervals are most lacking. Rest intervals
denote the time dedicated to recovery between sets
and exercises (Baechle & Earle, 2000) with the
focus being mainly on inter-set rest intervals. Inter-
set rest intervals may be deemed as a key variable of
resistance training, as they directly influence
fatigue, muscle recovery, the training goal, and train-
ing duration (Willardson, 2008).
Early research on inter-set rest intervals focused on
the acute effects of short versus long rest intervals.
Kraemer et al. (1990) showed that limiting rest inter-
vals to 60 s in a whole-body training session resulted
in greater post-exercise anabolic hormone elevations,
mainly growth hormone. As noted in the latest pos-
ition stand (ACSM, 2009), the acute hormonal
responses are purported to be potentially more
important for hypertrophy than chronic changes. In
accordance, limiting rest intervals to 60 s is com-
monly recommended for maximizing hypertrophic
effects (Willardson, 2008). However, it is important
to note that short rest intervals also have been
shown to acutely increase levels of the catabolic hor-
mones corticotropin and cortisol (De Salles et al.,
2009). Considering that West et al. (2010) found
no association between exercise-induced elevations
in the levels of anabolic hormones and muscular
hypertrophy, the hypothesis of superior hypertrophic
effects associated with shorter rest intervals remains
questionable.
Rest intervals are often neglected by the athlete,
coach, and/or practitioner. During a rest period, the
following events take place: (a) replenishment of the
ATP-CP system, (b) buffering of H+ from glycolytic
energy metabolism, and (c) the removal of lactate
accumulated in the muscles (Ratamess et al., 2007).
Intramuscular acidosis may be relevant, as it is signifi-
cantly related to the loss of force and tetanic tension
(Vaughan-Jones, Eisner, & Lederer, 1987). Restrict-
ing the rest intervals may not allow for the full restor-
ation of ATP and CP (McMahon & Jenkins, 2002),
hindering subsequent performance. Shorter rest
intervals may negatively affect performance (i.e.
reduction in training volume (De Salles et al.,
2009) and have a high metabolic demand (Ratamess
et al., 2007). By contrast, longer duration rest inter-
vals allow for a higher training volume, regeneration
of high-energy phosphate bonds, and are also less
metabolically demanding. However, they are more
time consuming.
It is not entirely clear how the rest interval length
may affect muscle hypertrophy responses. The
current findings of the topic are mixed, with, for
example, the study by Schoenfeld et al. (2016)
indicating an advantage for longer duration rest inter-
vals, and, by contrast, the study by Villanueva, Lane,
and Schroeder (2015) supporting the use of shorter
rest periods. The equivocal nature of the existing
data may leave the reader confused and unable to
draw practical conclusions.
While there are several review articles that have
examined the issue of inter-set rest intervals in
resistance training (De Salles et al., 2009; Hensel-
mans & Schoenfeld, 2014; Willardson, 2008),
none of them was a systematic review of longitudi-
nal studies that compared the effectiveness of short
versus long inter-set rest intervals on measures of
muscle hypertrophy. To avoid a selection that is
biased by preconceived ideas, it is important to
adopt a systematic and standardized approach to
the appraisal of studies (i.e. a systematic review)
(National Health and Medical Research Council,
2000). Accordingly, the purpose of this paper was
to systematically review the literature and objectively
assess the effects of short versus long inter-set rest
intervals in resistance training and their impact on
long-term muscle hypertrophy. Based on a critical
examination of the current body of research, evi-
dence-based recommendations are provided for
practitioners striving to optimize training regimens
aimed at maximizing muscle growth.
Methodology
Inclusion criteria
Studies were assessed for eligibility based on the fol-
lowing inclusion criteria: (a) an experimental trial
published in an English-language peer-reviewed
journal; (b) the study compared the use of short
inter-set rest intervals (60 s) to long inter-set rest
intervals (>60 s) in a traditional dynamic resistance
exercise using both concentric and eccentric muscle
actions, with the only difference in resistance training
among groups being the inter-set rest interval dur-
ation; (c) at least one method of measuring changes
in muscle mass was used in the study; (d) the study
lasted for a minimum of four weeks and employed a
training frequency of 2 resistance training days per
week, and (e) used human participants without
known chronic disease or injury.
Search strategy
We performed the systematic literature search con-
forming to the guidelines set forth by the PRISMA
Statement (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, &
PRISMA Group, 2009). We conducted a compre-
hensive search of the following databases: PubMed/
2J. Grgic et al.
MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane
Library. The search strategy encompassed the
period from the inception of indexing concluding
on 20 December 2016. We used the search terms
for rest intervals with the wildcard symbol (rest
interval,inter-set rest interval) in a combination
with Boolean operators (AND, OR) and topic-
related terms: resistance training,muscle hyper-
trophy,muscular hypertrophy,muscle mass,
training load,strength training,bodybuilding,
cross-sectional area,growth,muscular
strength,fitness,recovery time,recovery,
physiological changes,weight-bearing exercise,
skeletal muscle,muscle fibres,measurement,
training intensity,training volume,hormonal
response,muscle thickness,body composition,
and fat free mass. Additionally, we searched the
PEDro database using the term rest intervalin
the fitness training and strength training categories.
The search strategy was conducted independently
by two authors (JG and BL) to reduce selection
bias. Disagreements between the reviewers were
resolved by mutual consensus, and any inter-reviewer
disagreements were settled by consensus with the
third investigator (PM). As a part of a secondary
search, we scanned the reference list in each full
text for additional studies.
Study coding and data extraction
Two authors who performed the search process (JG
and BL) performed independent coding of the
studies. Using the Microsoft Excel software (Micro-
soft Corporation, WA, USA), the following data
were tabulated in a predefined coding sheet: (a)
author(s), title and year of publication; (b) descrip-
tive information of participants by group, including
the number of participants in each group, gender,
age (for age, the following classification was used:
participants aged 1835 were classified as young,
participants aged 3664 were classified as middle-
aged, whereas the participants aged >65 were classi-
fied as older adults), and experience in resistance
training (participants with less than one year of
experience were defined as untrained, by contrast,
participants were defined as trained if they had
greater than one year of experience); (c) study
characteristics (duration of the study, weekly train-
ing frequency, employed exercises, the set and rep-
etition scheme used, and the exact rest intervals for
both groups); (d) the method used for the assess-
ment of changes in muscle mass (skinfolds, circum-
ferences, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging
MRI, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry DXA,
bio-impedance analysis BIA, and/or hydrostatic
weighing) and the region of the body measured for
studies that used circumference, ultrasound or
MRI; and (e) pre- and post-treatment mean values
for assessing changes in muscle hypertrophy. The
coding sheets were crosschecked between coders,
with any discrepancies resolved by mutual
consensus.
Methodological quality
For the assessment of methodological quality, we
used the 11-point PEDro scale (Maher, Sherrington,
Herbert, Moseley, & Elkins, 2003) evaluated inde-
pendently by the two authors (JG and BL), with an
agreement for any observed discrepancies. The first
item of the PEDro scale concerns external validity
and is not included in the total score; hence, the
values from the PEDro scale range from 0 to 10.
However, as it is impossible to blind the participants
in exercise interventions studies, and as the therapists
and investigators are rarely blinded, we elected to
remove the scale items 5, 6, and 7. With the
removal of these items, the maximum result was 7
so we used the adjusted ratings, with results ranging
from 6 to 7 being excellent quality, 5 being good
quality, 4 being moderate quality, and 03 being
poor quality, as done in previous exercise interven-
tion reviews (Kümmel, Kramer, Giboin, & Gruber,
2016).
Results
We evaluated a total of 1960 studies based on the
initial results of the search; removal of duplicates
reduced this number to 1115. After scrutinizing the
abstracts for relevance, we considered 46 full texts
appropriate for detailed reviewing. A review of these
studies revealed that six (Buresh, Berg, & French,
2009; Fink, Schoenfeld, Kikuchi, & Nakazato,
2017; Hill-Haas, Bishop, Dawson, Goodman, &
Edge, 2007; Piirainen et al., 2011; Schoenfeld
et al., 2016;Villanueava et al., 2015) studies met all
the inclusion criteria. Papers that cited the six
included studies were also scanned for additional
studies (an additional 90 results). Finally, we wrote
directly to the corresponding authors of the selected
studies inquiring as to whether they knew of
additional studies that might meet inclusion criteria.
This action, however, did not yield additional
studies. Figure 1 presents a flow diagram of the
search process. Ethics approval from the local insti-
tutional review board was noted in all of the included
studies.
Five of the studies involved untrained (Buresh
et al., 2009; Fink et al., 2017; Hill-Haas et al.,
Hypertrophy and rest intervals 3
2007; Piirainen et al., 2011; Villanueva et al., 2015)
and one study (Schoenfeld et al., 2016) involved
trained individuals. The total number of participants
was n= 115, with the sample comprising 97 men and
18 women. The studies were relatively short in dur-
ation with the mean duration of the studies amount-
ing to 8.3 weeks. The length of rest intervals in the
short inter-set rest interval groups varied from 20 to
60 s. For the long inter-set rest interval groups, the
duration of rest intervals ranged from 80 to 240 s.
The weekly training frequency varied from two to
three training days per week. None of the studies
reported using very high training intensities (>85%
of one repetition maximum). A mixture of both free
weight and machine-based multi-joint and single-
joint isolation exercises were used in five of the
studies (Buresh et al., 2009; Hill-Haas et al., 2007;
Piirainen et al., 2011; Schoenfeld et al., 2016; Villa-
nueva et al., 2015), while one study (Fink et al.,
2017) used only free weight multi-joint exercises.
The highest adherence (100%) to the programmes
was reported in the study from Villanueva et al.
(2015). All of the training programmes along with
the exact duration of the rest intervals for each
study including the percent change from pre- to
post-training intervention in muscle hypertrophy is
presented in Table I.
The mean PEDro score was 5.3, indicating high
quality of the observed studies. Specifically, three
studies were deemed to be of excellent quality, two
studies were considered to be of good quality, and
one study was rated to be of moderate quality.
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to systemati-
cally review the effects of short versus long inter-set
rest intervals on measures of muscle hypertrophy,
with the intent of developing evidence-based guide-
lines for optimization of training regimens. We
initially intended to quantify results by conducting a
meta-analysis; however, the small number of studies
meeting the inclusion criteria and heterogeneous
designs of studies precluded our ability to obtain
reliable estimates in a random-effects model. A
robust variance regression analysis of the per cent
changes comparing short and long inter-set rest inter-
vals showed a non-significant advantage to the long
inter-set rest condition (long: 9.2 ± 0.1%; 95% confi-
dence interval: 7.4%, 10.9%; short: 5.8 ± 1.1%, 95%
confidence interval: 8.1%, 19.7%; P= .22).
However, these results should be interpreted with
extreme caution due to the limited number of
studies used in the regression.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the search process.
4J. Grgic et al.
Table I. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria.
Study
Participants
characteristics;
study design Treatment groups
Duration;
weekly
training
frequency Training programme
Method of
hypertrophy
assessment Relative effects (%)
Adherence to the
programmes
Quality
score
a
Buresh et al.
(2009)
Young untrained
men; RT
Participants were assigned
either to a SHORT (60 s)
rest interval group (n= 6), or
a LONG (150 s) rest interval
group (n= 6) resistance
training programmes with 16
different exercises. A
mixture of both free weight
and machine-based multi-
joint and single-joint
isolation exercises was used
10 weeks; 2
training
days per
week
Both of the group performed
two different resistance
training sessions using the
following set and rep
scheme: 3 × 10 and 2 × 10
repetitions
LBM via hydrostatic
weighing,
circumference and
skinfolds performed
at arm (AMR) and
thigh (TMA)
.3.2% in LBM
for the SHORT
group
.1.9% in LBM
for the LONG
group
.5.0% in AMA
for the SHORT
group
.11.5% in AMA
for the LONG
group
.3.2% in TMA
for the SHORT
group
.6.7% in TMA
for the LONG
group
Mean adherence
to training of 89%
with no changes
between groups.
6
Fink et al.
(2017)
Untrained young
men; NRT
Participants were assigned
either to a SHORT (30 s)
rest interval group (n= 11),
or a LONG (150 s) rest
interval group (n= 10)
resistance training
programmes preforming two
exercises (squat and bench
press)
8 weeks; 2
training
days per
week
Both of the group performed
the same resistance training
sessions using 40% 1 RM
preformed to muscular
failure, for 4 sets
MRI preformed at the
triceps and thigh
(CSA)
.9.1% in the
triceps CSA for
the SHORT
group
.9.4% in the
triceps CSA for
the LONG
group
.5.6% in the
thigh CSA for
the SHORT
group
.8.5% in the
thigh CSA for
the LONG
group
> 90% in both
groups.
5
(Continued)
Hypertrophy and rest intervals 5
Table I. Continued.
Study
Participants
characteristics;
study design Treatment groups
Duration;
weekly
training
frequency Training programme
Method of
hypertrophy
assessment Relative effects (%)
Adherence to the
programmes
Quality
score
a
Hill-Haas
et al.
(2007)
Untrained woman
(exact age is
unknown); RT
Participants were assigned
either to a SHORT (20 s)
rest interval group (n= 9), or
a LONG (80 s) rest interval
group (n= 9) resistance
training programmes with 11
different exercises. A
mixture of both free weight
and machine-based multi-
joint and single-joint
isolation exercises was used
5 weeks; 3
training
days per
week
Both of the group performed
the same resistance training
sessions using the following
set and rep scheme: 2-5 ×
1520 RM
Thigh and mid-thigh
circumference
.2.3% in thigh
circumference
for the SHORT
group
.0.9% in thigh
circumference
for the LONG
group
.4.4% in mid-
thigh
circumference
for the SHORT
group
.1.2% in mid-
thigh
circumference
for the LONG
group
Not reported 6
Piirainen
et al.
(2011)
Untrained young
men; RT
Participants were assigned
either to recovery time based
on individual heart rate (on
average 55 s) inter-set rest
interval group (n= 12), or a
LONG (120 s) rest interval
group (n= 9) resistance
training programmes with 14
different exercises. A
mixture of both free weight
and machine-based multi-
joint and single-joint
isolation exercises was used
7 weeks; 3
training
days per
week
Both of the group performed
the same resistance training
sessions using the following
set and rep scheme: 3 × 10
repetitions and 3 × 1520
repetitions
LBM via BIA .2.6% in LBM
for the SHORT
group
.2.5% in LBM
for the LONG
group
No significant
differences
between groups
(exact values are
not presented)
4
6J. Grgic et al.
Schoenfeld
et al.
(2016)
Trained men
(exact age is
unknown); RT
Participants were assigned
either to a SHORT (60 s)
rest interval group (n= 11),
or a LONG (180 s) rest
interval group (n= 10)
resistance training
programmes with seven
different exercises. A
mixture of both free weight
and machine-based multi-
joint and single-joint
isolation exercises was used
8 weeks; 3
training
days per
week
All of the group performed
the same resistance training
sessions using the following
set and rep scheme: 3 × 8
12 RM
Ultrasound performed
at the biceps,
triceps, anterior
quadriceps and
vastus lateralis
.2.8% in biceps
thickness for the
SHORT group
.5.4% in biceps
thickness for the
LONG group
.0.5% in triceps
thickness for the
SHORT group
.7.0% in the
triceps thickness
for the LONG
group
.6.9% in anterior
quadriceps
thickness for the
SHORT group
.13.3% in
anterior
quadriceps
thickness for the
LONG group
.10.0% in vastus
lateralis
thickness for the
SHORT group
.11.5% in vastus
lateralis
thickness for the
LONG group
Overall
adherence to
training of 86%
5
Villanueva
et al.
(2015)
Untrained older
men; RT
Participants were assigned
either to a SHORT (60 s)
rest interval group (n= 11),
or a LONG (240 s) rest
interval group (n= 11)
resistance training
programmes with seven
different exercises. A
mixture of both free weight
and machine-based multi-
joint and single-joint
isolation exercises was used
12 weeks; 3
training
days per
week
All of the group performed
the same resistance training
sessions with the first 4
weeks considered as a
preparatory phase
performing 24 sets with 8
15 repetitions, the reaming
8 weeks were performed
using the following set and
rep scheme: 23×46
repetitions. None of the
repetitions were to failure
LBM via DXA .1.7% in LBM
for the SHORT
group
.0.5% in LBM
for the LONG
group
100% for both
groups
6
Note: SHORT: short inter-set; LONG: long inter-set; RT: randomized trial; NRT: non-randomized trail; RM: repetition maximum; MRI: magnetic resonance imaging; BIA: bio-impedance
analysis; AMR: arm muscle area; TMA: thigh muscle area; DXA: dual energy X-ray absorptiometry; LBM: lean body mass.
a
The total score on the PEDro scale.
Hypertrophy and rest intervals 7
On the surface, evaluation of the per cent change
for both groups indicates similar effects of short and
long inter-set rest intervals on changes in hypertro-
phy, suggesting that both strategies can be used inter-
changeably to maximize muscle growth. However, it
is unclear if the differences in hypertrophic responses
to a rest interval duration may vary between trained
and untrained individuals. A closer scrutiny of the
study by Schoenfeld et al. (2016) indicates an advan-
tage for the use of longer rest intervals. Specifically,
the study showed a greater effect size for increases
in muscle mass for the long (3 min) rest interval
group, in three out of four sites used in the assess-
ment. Results from Fink et al. (2017) support these
findings (in untrained individuals) for lower body
hypertrophy, with the effect size for thigh cross-sec-
tional area favouring long versus short inter-set rest
interval (Cohensd: 0.93 vs. 0.58, respectively). Rata-
mess et al. (2007) showed that training with longer
inter-set rest intervals allows an individual to train
with higher overall volume. This may help to
provide a possible mechanistic reason for a hyper-
trophic benefit to longer rest intervals, as training
with higher volume has been shown to enhance
both the acute anabolic response (Burd et al., 2010;
Terzis et al., 2010) and long-term muscular adap-
tations (Schoenfeld, Ogborn, & Krieger, 2017)to
resistance training. Higher volumes are speculated
to be necessary for trained individuals, and, accord-
ingly, it may be hypothesized that training status
might play a role when planning rest interval dur-
ation. Limiting rest intervals to 60 s or less ultimately
impairs recovery, and, consequently, results in a
lower number of repetitions per set at a given load
(Ratamess et al., 2007). Thus, short rest periods
may be suboptimal for a trained individual seeking
to maximize hypertrophy. This hypothesis merits
further robust research.
A recent study from McKendry et al. (2016) pro-
vides further insights into the topic. Sixteen men
were randomized to resistance training using either
1-min (n= 8) or 5-min (n= 8) inter-set rest intervals,
with each group performing four sets of bilateral leg
press and knee extension exercises at 75% of one rep-
etition maximum (1 RM) to momentary muscular
failure. Biopsy results showed that the 5-min rest
interval group increased myofibrillar protein syn-
thesis by 152%, while the group that rested for
1 min increased by only 76%. This lends support to
a hypertrophic benefit of longer rest periods, as an
increase in myofibrillar protein synthesis that
exceeds muscle protein breakdown theoretically
leads to a net gain in protein pool size (i.e. hypertro-
phy) (Phillips, 2014). Importantly, the 1-min rest
group displayed significantly greater acute elevations
in testosterone despite the blunted protein synthetic
response, thus refuting the hypothesis that short rest
intervals are needed to optimize muscle hypertrophy
due to the post-exercise anabolic hormonal response.
Given these findings, the results obtained from
Schoenfeld et al. (2016) are not surprising. While
shorter rest intervals have long been recommended
for hypertrophy-oriented resistance training proto-
cols, there seems to be a paradigm shift, as longer
duration inter-set rest intervals might provide more
benefits not only for strength, but also for muscular
hypertrophy. That said, the lack of studies using
direct measures of muscular hypertrophy diminishes
our ability to draw strong evidence-based inferences
on the topic.
The prescription of inter-set rest intervals depends
greatly on the effort expended, as it may be advan-
tageous to use longer rest intervals when training
with maximal and near-maximal efforts (Wernbom,
Augustsson, & Thomeé, 2007). As high levels of
force and maximum recruitment of motor units are
important factors in stimulating muscle hypertrophy,
it appears beneficial to use longer inter-set rest inter-
vals between sets of very high levels of effort
(Wernbom et al., 2007). However, when a sub-
maximal load is used, and repetitions are not per-
formed to momentary muscular failure, the use of
shorter rest intervals may be adequate. It is important
to note that regular use of shorter rest intervals
attenuates decreases in performance, and increases
the ability to train with a higher percent of 1 RM
(Kraemer, Noble, Clark, & Culver, 1987), possibly
due to an increase in the number of capillaries per
fibre with training (Campos et al., 2002). In that
regard, de Souza et al. (2010) reported that decreas-
ing rest intervals over time (i.e. from 2 min to 30 s)
did not hinder hypertrophic effects, at least over a
short-term training intervention (i.e. 6 weeks).
In addition to the level of exertion, the use of either
type of rest intervals also depends on the exercise
selection, as multi-joint free weight exercises induce
a greater amount of fatigue and, as such, require
more time to recover from than single-joint,
machine-based exercises (Senna et al., 2011). This
hypothesis is supported by the recent findings of
Senna et al. (2016). The possible hypertrophy-
related benefits of this approach were observed in
the study by Fink, Kikuchi, and Nakazato (2016),
who reported similar hypertrophic effects in a group
that trained with a 30-second rest intervals compared
with a group that trained with a 3-min rest intervals.
Both training groups trained only the arm muscles
using single-joint exercises. However, a caveat to
the study is the use of different training loads
between the groups (20 RM in the short rest group
vs. 8 RM in the long rest group), which may have
confounded results. Still, this raises the possibility
8J. Grgic et al.
of a benefit to using long rest intervals when perform-
ing multi-joint exercises while employing shorter rest
intervals when using single-joint exercises. Namely,
the use of longer rest intervals enhances volume
accumulation and directly impacts mechanical
tension and muscle damage, while the use of short
inter-set rest intervals influences metabolic stress.
By limiting rest intervals, the body is not able to re-
establish homeostasis (Henselmans & Schoenfeld,
2014), resulting in a heightened build-up of lactate,
inorganic phosphate, and hydrogen ions (Schoenfeld,
2013a) possibly stimulating increased fibre recruit-
ment, elevated systemic hormonal production, altera-
tions in local myokines, heightened production of
reactive oxygen species, and cell swelling (Schoen-
feld, 2013b; Henselmans & Schoenfeld, 2014).
Hypothetically, the combination of these factors
may have a synergistic effect on enhancing muscle
growth. A graphical display of the hypothesis may be
observed in Figure 2. It should also be noted that
the use of shorter rest intervals is certainly more
time-efficient, which may allow a greater adherence
to exercise in individuals with limited time to train.
Additionally, shorter rest intervals may be more ben-
eficial to females, as they seem to demonstrate better
inter-set recovery compared to men (Ratamess
et al., 2012). This may explain to an extent the
superior hypertrophy observed for the short inter-set
rest interval group in the study from Hill-Haas et al.
(2007), which employed women as participants.
A rather novel topic in the research literature is the
use of a self-suggested (SS) approach to inter-set rest
intervals. It has been suggested that using a fixed rest
interval may be an erroneous method due to differ-
ences among individuals and different performance
behaviour for upper and lower body exercises (De
Salles et al., 2016). As demonstrated by De Salles
et al. (2016), a possible benefit of using an SS
approach to rest intervals may be a greater time effi-
ciency, with no decrease in the number of repetitions
per set. However, the findings of De Salles et al.
(2016) are in contrast with the results of Goessler
and Polito (2013), who found that an SS approach
compared to fixed rest intervals lasting 1 and 2 min
resulted in a longer rest interval (157 ± 37 s). The
differences may be attributed to the applied resist-
ance training protocols, as De Salles et al. (2016) sep-
arated the protocol in sessions targeting upper and
lower body, while Goessler and Polito (2013)
employed a whole-body resistance training session.
It may be hypothesized that resistance-trained indi-
viduals may efficiently auto-regulate their rest inter-
vals and successfully maintain performance, rather
than using a predetermined rest interval. Possible
benefits of an SS approach, as it relates to muscle
hypertrophy, other than increased time efficiency,
remain unclear and warrant further investigation.
The most apparent drawback of the current body
of literature relates to the total number of studies
(and with small sample sizes) meeting the inclusion
criteria, and the methods used to assess changes in
muscle mass. Except for two studies, the proxy
measurements for hypertrophy were all global
measures (i.e. skinfolds, DXA, circumference).
While measures such as DXA and hydrostatic weigh-
ing do provide useful insights in changes in lean body
Figure 2. Hypothetical display of possible benefits of combining both short- and long-duration inter-set rest intervals during one training
session on three factors contributing to muscle growth.
Hypertrophy and rest intervals 9
mass (and, consequently, in muscle hypertrophy),
they are only a gross estimate and lack the sensitivity
and specificity for a precise estimation of muscle
growth (Nelson et al., 1996). Some measures, such
as circumference and BIA, might be unpredictable
when assessing changes in muscle mass. Accordingly,
caution is needed when extrapolating the presented
findings to practical settings. Finally, only one study
involved resistance-trained individuals. While most
of the studies were categorized as being of either
good or excellent methodological quality, it is impor-
tant to note that we did not include the items con-
cerning blinding when assessing the methodological
quality of the studies. While we do realize the chal-
lenges that the researchers face when conducting
longitudinal studies, for future research, we suggest
the following: (a) using a sensitive measure (e.g.
ultrasound or MRI) of hypertrophy for tracking
muscle growth, and (b) using participants with pre-
vious experience in resistance training.
Practical applications
The observed findings may suggest the use of longer
inter-set rest durations (>60 s) when the goal is to
maximize muscle hypertrophy, as it allows training
with a higher overall volume load. However, the
approach may vary based on the level of exertion and
exercise selection. When the exertion is maximal or
near maximal, a longer rest interval may be necessary
to maintain the level of performance. By contrast, a
sub-maximal exertion may allow training with
shorter rest intervals. Exercise selection is also one of
the key components that dictates optimal rest dur-
ation. Multi-joint free weight exercises are more
demanding and more fatiguing, therefore warranting
longer inter-set rest intervals. By contrast, single-
joint machine-based exercises are less taxing and
reduce the need for a long rest interval. The use of
shorter rest intervals may be beneficial for metabolic
stress accumulation an important aspect to muscle
growth. On a final note, the best approach to a hyper-
trophy-based resistance training session may be to
focus on training volume by performing complex,
multi-joint exercises and incorporating longer inter-
set rest intervals in the first part of the training
session, and then shift the focus to inducing a greater
metabolic stress by performing isolation exercises
and incorporating shorter inter-set rest intervals
towards the end of the training session. This hypoth-
esis requires further study.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
American College of Sports Medicine. (2009). American college of
sports medicine position stand. Progression models in resist-
ance training for healthy adults. Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise,41(3), 687708.
Baechle, T. R., & Earle, R. W. (2000). Essentials of strength and con-
ditioning (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Burd, N., Holwerda, A. M., Selby, K. C., West, D. W. D., Staples,
A. W., Cain, N. E., Phillips, S. M. (2010). Resistance exer-
cise volume affects myofibrillar protein synthesis and anabolic
signalling molecule phosphorylation in young men. The
Journal of Physiology,588(16), 31193130.
Buresh, R., Berg, K., & French, J. (2009). The effect of resistive
exercise rest interval on hormonal response, strength, and
hypertrophy with training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research,23(1), 6271.
Campos, G. E. R., Luecke, T. J., Wendeln, H. K., Toma, K.,
Hagerman, F. C., Murray, T. F., Staron, R. S. (2002).
Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-
training regimens: Specificity of repetition maximum training
zones. European Journal of Applied Physiology,88(12), 5060.
De Salles, B. F., Polito, M. D., Goessler, K. F., Mannarino, P.,
Matta, T. T., & Simão, R. (2016). Effects of fixed vs. self-
suggested rest between sets in upper and lower body exercises
performance. European Journal of Sport Science,16(8), 927931.
De Salles, B. F., Simao, R., Miranda, F., Da Silva Novaes, J.,
Lemos, A., & Willardson, J. M. (2009). Rest interval between
sets in strength training. Sports Medicine,39(9), 765777.
de Souza, T. P., Fleck, S. J., Simao, R., Dubas, J. P., Pereira, B., de
Brito Pacheco, E. M., de Oliveira, P. R. (2010). Comparison
between constant and decreasing rest intervals: Influence on
maximal strength and hypertrophy. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research,24(7), 18431850.
Fink, J. E., Kikuchi, N., & Nakazato, K. (2016). Effects of rest
intervals and training loads on metabolic stress and muscle
hypertrophy. Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging.
doi:10.1111/cpf.12409
Fink, J. E., Schoenfeld, B. J., Kikuchi, N., & Nakazato, K. (2017).
Acute and long-term responses to different rest intervals in low-
load resistance training. International Journal of Sports Medicine,
38(2), 118124.
Goessler, K. F., & Polito, M. D. (2013). Effect of fixed and self-
suggested rest intervals between sets of resistance exercise on
post-exercise cardiovascular behavior. Revista Brasileira de
Cineantropometria e Desempenho Humano,15(4), 467475.
Henselmans, M., & Schoenfeld, B. J. (2014). The effect of inter-set
rest intervals on resistance exercise-induced muscle hypertro-
phy. Sports Medicine,44(12), 16351643.
Hill-Haas, S., Bishop, D., Dawson, B., Goodman, C., & Edge, J.
(2007). Effects of rest interval during high-repetition resistance
training on strength, aerobic fitness, and repeated-sprint ability.
Journal of Sports Sciences,25(6), 619628.
Kraemer, W. J., Marchitelli, L., Gordon, S. E., Harman, E.,
Dziados, J. E., Mello, R., Fleck, S. J. (1990). Hormonal
and growth factor responses to heavy resistance exercise proto-
cols. Journal of Applied Physiology,69(4), 14421450.
Kraemer, W. J., Noble, B. J., Clark, M. J., & Culver, B. W. (1987).
Physiologic responses to heavy-resistance exercise with very
short rest periods. International Journal of Sports Medicine,8(4),
247252.
Kraemer, W. J., Ratamess, N. A., & French, D. N. (2002).
Resistance training for health and performance. Current Sports
Medicine Reports,1(3), 165171.
Kümmel, J., Kramer, A., Giboin, L. S., & Gruber, M. (2016).
Specificity of balance training in healthy individuals: A systema-
tic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine,46(9), 12611271.
10 J. Grgic et al.
Maher, C. G., Sherrington, C., Herbert, R. D., Moseley, A. M., &
Elkins, M. (2003). Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating
quality of randomized controlled trials. Physical Therapy,83
(8), 713721.
McKendry, J., Pérez-López, A., McLeod, M., Luo, D., Dent, R.,
Smeuninx, B., Breen, L. (2016). Short inter-set rest blunts
resistance exercise-induced increases in myofibrillar protein
synthesis and intracellular signaling in young males.
Experimental Physiology,101(7), 866882.
McMahon, S., & Jenkins, D. (2002). Factors affecting the rate of
phosphocreatine resynthesis following intense exercise. Sports
Medicine,32(12), 761784.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA
Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic
reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of
Internal Medicine,151(4), 264269.
National Health and Medical Research Council. (2000). How to
review the evidence: Systematic identification and review of the scien-
tific literature. Canberra: NHMRC.
Nelson, M. E., Fiatarone, M. A., Layne, J. E., Trice, I., Economos,
C. D., Fielding, R. A., Evans, W. J. (1996). Analysis of body-
composition techniques and models for detecting change in soft
tissue with strength training. The American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition,63(5), 678686.
Phillips, S. M. (2014). A brief review of critical processes in exer-
cise-induced muscular hypertrophy. Sports Medicine,44(Suppl.
1), 7177.
Piirainen, J. M., Tanskanen, M., Nissilä, J., Kaarela, J., Väärälä,
A., Sippola, N., & Linnamo, V. (2011). Effects of a heart
rate-based recovery period on hormonal, neuromuscular, and
aerobic performance responses during 7 weeks of strength train-
ing in men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,25(8),
22652273.
Ratamess, N. A., Chiarello, C. M., Sacco, A. J., Hoffman, J. R.,
Faigenbaum, A. D., & Kang, J. (2012). The effects of rest inter-
val length on acute bench press performance: The influence of
gender and muscle strength. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research,26, 18171826.
Ratamess, N. A., Falvo, M. J., Mangine, G. T., Hoffman, J. R.,
Faigenbaum, A. D., & Kang, J. (2007). The effect of rest inter-
val length on metabolic responses to the bench press exercise.
European Journal of Applied Physiology,100(1), 117.
Schoenfeld, B. J. (2013a). Postexercise hypertrophic adaptations:
A reexamination of the hormone hypothesis and its applicability
to resistance training program design. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research,27(6), 17201730.
Schoenfeld, B. J. (2013b). Potential mechanisms for a role of meta-
bolic stress in hypertrophic adaptations to resistance training.
Sports Medicine,43(3), 179194.
Schoenfeld, B. J., Ogborn, D., & Krieger, J. W. (2017). Dose-
response relationship between weekly resistance training
volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review
and meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences,35(11), 10731082.
Schoenfeld, B. J., Pope, Z. K., Benik, F. M., Hester, G. M.,
Sellers, J., Nooner, J. L., Krieger, J. W. (2016). Longer
inter-set rest periods enhance muscle strength and hypertrophy
in resistance-trained men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research,30(7), 18051812.
Senna, G., Willardson, J. M., de Salles, B. F., Scudese, E.,
Carneiro, F., Palma, A., & Simão, R. (2011). The effect of
rest interval length on multi and single-joint exercise perform-
ance and perceived exertion. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research,25(11), 31573162.
Senna, G. W., Willardson, J. M., Scudese, E., Simão, R., Queiroz,
C., Avelar, R., & Dantas, E. H. M. (2016). Effect of different
interset rest intervals on performance of single and multijoint
exercises with near-maximal loads. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research,30(3), 710716.
Terzis, G., Spengos, K., Mascher, H., Georgiadis, G., Manta, P.,
& Blomstrand, E. (2010). The degree of p70S6k and S6 phos-
phorylation in human skeletal muscle in response to resistance
exercise depends on the training volume. European Journal of
Applied Physiology,110(4), 835843.
Toigo, M., & Boutellier, U. (2006). New fundamental resistance
exercise determinants of molecular and cellular muscle
adaptations. European Journal of Applied Physiology,97(6),
643663.
Vaughan-Jones, R. D., Eisner, D. A., & Lederer, W. J. (1987).
Effects of changes of intracellular pH on contraction in sheep
cardiac purkinje fibres. The Journal of General Physiology,89
(6), 10151032.
Villanueva, M. G., Lane, C. J., & Schroeder, E. T. (2015). Short
rest interval lengths between sets optimally enhance body com-
position and performance with 8 weeks of strength resistance
training in older men. European Journal of Applied Physiology,
115(2), 295308.
Wernbom, M., Augustsson, J., & Thomeé, R. (2007). The influ-
ence of frequency, intensity, volume and mode of strength train-
ing on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans. Sports
Medicine,37(3), 225264.
West, D. W., Burd, N. A., Tang, J. E., Moore, D. R., Staples, A.
W., Holwerda, A., Phillips, S. M. (2010). Elevations in
ostensibly anabolic hormones with resistance exercise enhance
neither training-induced muscle hypertrophy nor strength
of the elbow flexors. Journal of Applied Physiology,108(1),
6067.
Willardson, J. M. (2008). A brief review: How much rest between
sets? Strength and Conditioning Journal,30(3), 4450.
Hypertrophy and rest intervals 11

Supplementary resource (1)

... The duration of rest between sets can also affect the stimulus provided to the muscles as well as the level of fatigue experienced by the individual. A study by (Grgic et al., 2017) showed that shorter rest durations between exercise sets tend to increase maximal muscle strength, while longer rest durations tend to increase exercise volume. Therefore, the rest duration between sets also needs to be carefully considered when designing an optimal resistance training program. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background: Muscle strength is an essential factor in maintaining one's health and quality of life. Resistance training programs have been known to be effective in improving muscle strength. However, their success can be affected by various factors, including exercise variety, volume, intensity, frequency, and duration. To optimize the effects of a resistance training program, a comprehensive planning approach is essential. Study Objective: This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of the literature to explore a comprehensive planning approach in optimizing resistance exercise programs to improve muscle strength. Materials and Methods: A systematic method was used to identify relevant studies from various scientific databases. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established to select studies that fit the research objectives. Data from the selected studies were extracted and analyzed to evaluate the effectiveness and planning approaches used in resistance exercise programs. Results: The results of this systematic review indicate that a comprehensive planning approach, including individualization of the program, progressive and adaptive, integration of functional exercises, and periodic monitoring and evaluation, are critical factors in optimizing resistance exercise programs. Studies showed differences in the effectiveness of resistance training programs based on these factors. Conclusion: By integrating a comprehensive planning approach, resistance exercise programs can be optimized to achieve maximal muscle strength gains. Practical implications of these findings include relevance to specific populations and application in the context of rehabilitation. Future research should focus more on understanding the interactions between these factors and explore more specific planning approaches to improve the effectiveness of resistance training programs.
... Rather the other way around, too short rests can negatively affect the hypertrophic response such as muscle protein synthesis (MPS) [106]. This is why new trends, guided by scientific evidence, recommend longer rest times, seeing that hypertrophy generated with 3-minute rests is superior to 1 minute [107] and that, in general, 2-minute rests can be optimal for hypertrophy [108]. There is no scientific support for shortening rests when hypertrophy is the goal. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
The present chapter delves into the topic of muscle hypertrophy in detail, focusing on defining what muscle hypertrophy is, the types of hypertrophy, the mechanisms, and the relationship with resistance training, as well as the variables affecting hypertrophy such as nutrition, rest, exercise selection, training volume, and training frequency, among others. The importance of mechanical tension, metabolic stress, and muscle damage as triggers for muscle hypertrophy is emphasized. Various types of muscle hypertrophy are explored, including connective tissue hypertrophy and sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar hypertrophy. The text also delves into how hypertrophy mechanisms relate to resistance training, highlighting the significance of mechanical tension and metabolic stress as stimuli for muscle hypertrophy. In a practical point of view, the text also discusses factors like nutrition and recovery, highlighting the importance of maintaining a positive energy balance and adequate protein intake to promote muscle growth optimally. Training variables such as exercise selection, exercise order, intensity, volume, frequency, and tempo of execution are discussed in detail, outlining their impact on muscle hypertrophy. The text provides a comprehensive overview of muscle hypertrophy, analyzing various factors that influence the ability to increase muscle mass. It offers detailed information on the biological mechanisms, types of hypertrophy, training strategies, and nutritional and recovery considerations necessary to achieve optimal results in terms of muscle hypertrophy.
... The resting period was 60 seconds between each set to minimise accumulated fatigue and enable higher training volumes in subsequent sets. [11] The set was terminated when the full range of motion of exercise could not be conducted. In the third and fourth weeks, the training volume set was progressively doubled; in the fifth and sixth weeks, the set was increased again to eight sets ( Figure 1B). ...
Article
Full-text available
Background: Resistance training often increases muscle size, a phenomenon known as muscle hypertrophy. These morphological adaptations were typically documented to occur in a non-uniform pattern. Investigating the specific morphological adaptations to different training programs was of interest. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate two resistance training programs, a high-intensity program (HI) and a combined high-intensity with low-intensity blood flow restriction program (MIX), on morphological adaptations of vastus lateralis muscle in healthy young men. Methods: Eighteen active participants were recruited and randomly assigned to the HI (n = 10) or MIX (n = 8) groups, undergoing different 6-week resistance training programs. The training volume set was equated and progressively increased from three sets in weeks 1 and 2 to six sets, and eight sets in weeks 3-4 and 5-6, respectively. Three specific regions of vastus lateralis were assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound imaging (US) during pre-and post-intervention. Results: Statistical analysis revealed statistically significant increases in muscle area at the proximal (HI: ∆12%, MIX: ∆9.2%), middle (HI: ∆8.7%, MIX: ∆9.0%), and distal (HI: ∆14%, MIX: ∆13%) regions. Additionally, both HI and MIX groups showed statistically significant increases in the sum of muscle thickness post-intervention (HI: ∆12%, MIX: ∆19%) and in the sum of fascia thickness post-intervention (HI: ∆27%, MIX: ∆54%). Despite the MIX group training with higher volume load, no statistical differences were observed between groups for any week. Conclusion: These findings suggested that both HI and MIX programs effectively induced increases in muscle area and sums of muscle and fascia thickness in healthy young men, allowing practitioners to choose either program based on individual preferences and constraints.
... The scale's reliability, validity, and agreement with the Cochrane risk of bias tool are well established [51,52]. Since blinding of participants, therapists, and assessors is difficult to employ in supervised SS interventions and thus is rarely implemented, items 5-7 were removed per recent systematic reviews [9,53,54]. Further, item 3 (i.e., "allocation was concealed") was removed for studies using within-subject design interventions, as each participant receives the intervention as well as the control treatment. Accordingly, methodological quality was judged based on the percent of satisfied items (PEDro percent), to allow comparability of studies using within-and between-subject designs [9]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background The chronic effect of static stretching (SS) on muscle hypertrophy is still unclear. This study aimed to examine the chronic effects of SS exercises on skeletal muscle hypertrophy in healthy individuals. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and SPORTDiscus databases up to July 2023. Included studies examined chronic effects of SS exercise compared to an active/passive control group or the contralateral leg (i.e., utilizing between- or within-study designs, respectively) and assessed at least one outcome of skeletal muscle hypertrophy in healthy individuals with no age restriction. Results Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, findings indicated an unclear effect of chronic SS exercises on skeletal muscle hypertrophy with a trivial point estimate (standardised mean difference [SMD] = 0.118 [95% prediction interval [95% PI] = − 0.233 to 0.469; p = 0.017]) and low heterogeneity (I² = 24%). Subgroup analyses revealed that trained individuals (β = 0.424; 95% PI = 0.095 to 0.753) displayed larger effects compared to recreationally trained (β = 0.115; 95% PI = − 0.195 to 0.425) and sedentary individuals (β = − 0.081; 95% PI = − 0.399 to 0.236). Subanalysis suggested the potential for greater skeletal muscle hypertrophy in samples with higher percentages of females (β = 0.003, [95% confidence interval [95% CI] = − 0.000 to 0.005]). However, the practical significance of this finding is questionable. Furthermore, a greater variety of stretching exercises elicited larger increases in muscle hypertrophy (β = 0.069, [95% CI = 0.041 to 0.097]). Longer durations of single stretching exercises (β = 0.006, [95% CI = 0.002 to 0.010]), time under stretching per session (β = 0.006, [95% CI = 0.003 to 0.009]), per week (β = 0.001, [95% CI = 0.000 to 0.001]) and in total (β = 0.008, [95% CI = 0.003 to 0.013]) induced larger muscle hypertrophy. Regarding joint range of motion, there was a clear positive effect with a moderate point estimate (β = 0.698; 95% PI = 0.147 to 1.249; p < 0.001) and moderate heterogeneity (I² = 43%). Moreover, findings indicated no significant association between the gains in joint range of motion and the increase in muscle hypertrophy (β = 0.036, [95% CI = − 0.123 to 0.196]; p = 0.638). Conclusions This study revealed an overall unclear chronic effect of SS on skeletal muscle hypertrophy, although interpretation across the range of PI suggests a potential modest beneficial effect. Subgroup analysis indicated larger stretching-induced muscle gains in trained individuals, a more varied selection of SS exercises, longer mean duration of single stretching exercise, increased time under SS per session, week, and in total, and possibly in samples with a higher proportion of females. From a practical perspective, it appears that SS exercises may not be highly effective in promoting skeletal muscle hypertrophy unless a higher duration of training is utilized. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022331762.
... Training intervention trials cannot blind subjects to an exercise program; thus, researchers were rarely blinded in the included studies. The maximum score was reduced to 7 when the researchers eliminated PEDro scale items 5, 6, and 7. Considering previous analyses of exercise-related interventions (17,32), the scored studies were categorized according to these standards: 0 to 3 (poor quality), 4 (medium quality), 5 (good quality), and 6 to 7 (great quality). However, the standard achieved was not a requirement for inclusion or exclusion. ...
Article
Akbar, S, Kim Geok, S, Bashir, M, Jazaily Bin Mohd, NN, Luo, S, and He, S. Effects of different exercise training on physical fitness and technical skills in handball players. A systematic review. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2024-This review aimed to assess the effects of exercise training on handball players' performance. A thorough search was conducted in 5 online databases (ProQuest, PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost (SPORTDiscus), as well as on Google Scholar and other gray literature references starting on April 11, 2022. The methodological quality of the included research was evaluated using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. This systematic review includes 16 studies. Eight studies received "excellent" ratings (≥6 points), 5 received "good" ratings (5 points), and 3 received "moderate" ratings (4 points). The findings showed that the most frequently examined performance factors in exercise training intervention strategies with handball players were balance (n = 5), agility (n = 8), speed (n = 9), and jumping performance (n = 10). Muscular strength (n = 4), shooting and dribbling skill (n = 3), and muscular endurance (n = 4) were the second most frequently investigated performance factors. Regarding speed and agility, exercise training considerably improved the physical fitness of handball players. However, evidence related to muscular strength, shooting ability, and dribbling skills was limited. To achieve the optimum standard, handball players must have strong physical and physiological qualities. Meanwhile, no evidence was found related to the impacts of exercise training on power, endurance, flexibility, body composition, cardiovascular fitness, and cardiorespiratory fitness. Regarding limitations, there is a need for more research with solid evidence to determine the impacts of exercise training interventions on athletes' performance in handball.
... Longitudinal research investigating the influence of rest intervals on muscle hypertrophy has been largely equivocal. A systematic review by Grgic et al. (15) concluded that both short and long inter-set rest periods are viable options for untrained individuals seeking to optimize hypertrophy, but that longer durations may be advantageous for those with previous RT experience. It should be noted that this review was published in 2017 and additional research has been conducted on the topic since that time. ...
Article
Full-text available
We systematically searched the literature for studies with a randomized design that compared different inter-set rest interval durations for estimates of pre-/post-study changes in lean/muscle mass in healthy adults while controlling all other training variables. Bayesian meta-analyses on non-controlled effect sizes using hierarchical models of all 19 measurements (thigh: 10; arm: 6; whole body: 3) from 9 studies meeting inclusion criteria analyses showed substantial overlap of standardized mean differences across the different inter-set rest periods [binary: short: 0.48 (95%CrI: 0.19–0.81), longer: 0.56 (95%CrI: 0.24–0.86); Four categories: short: 0.47 (95%CrI: 0.19–0.80), intermediate: 0.65 (95%CrI: 0.18–1.1), long: 0.55 (95%CrI: 0.15–0.90), very long: 0.50 (95%CrI: 0.14–0.89)], with substantial heterogeneity in results. Univariate and multivariate pairwise meta-analyses of controlled binary (short vs. longer) effect sizes showed similar results for the arm and thigh with central estimates tending to favor longer rest periods [arm: 0.13 (95%CrI: −0.27 to 0.51); thigh: 0.17 (95%CrI: −0.13 to 0.43)]. In contrast, central estimates closer to zero but marginally favoring shorter rest periods were estimated for the whole body [whole body: −0.08 (95%CrI: −0.45 to 0.29)]. Subanalysis of set end-point data indicated that training to failure or stopping short of failure did not meaningfully influence the interaction between rest interval duration and muscle hypertrophy. In conclusion, results suggest a small hypertrophic benefit to employing inter-set rest interval durations >60 s, perhaps mediated by reductions in volume load. However, our analysis did not detect appreciable differences in hypertrophy when resting >90 s between sets, consistent with evidence that detrimental effects on volume load tend to plateau beyond this time-frame. Systematic Review Registration: OSF, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YWEVC .
... There is substantial evidence that lengthening inter-set rest periods increases the number of repetitions that can be completed until failure (De Salles et al., 2009;Gonzalez, 2016;Grgic et al., 2017Grgic et al., , 2018. These findings are not surprising given that longer rest intervals allow for superior replenishment of energy substrates and removal of metabolic waste products, resulting in better performance in subsequent sets (Kraemer and Ratamess, 2005;Ratamess et al., 2007). ...
Article
This study aimed to determine the optimal inter-set rest periods that maximize the number of repetitions completed before surpassing various minimum velocity thresholds (MVT) during the prone bench pull exercise. Twenty-three physically active individuals, 15 men and 8 women, participated in six random testing sessions. Each session included four sets of the prone bench pull exercise performed with maximum intent in a Smith machine at 75% of the one-repetition maximum. The length of the inter-set rest time (1 [R1], 3 [R3], and 5 [R5] minutes) and MVT used (0.65 ms-1 [MVT0.65] and 0.55 ms-1 [MVT0.55]) varied between sessions. Longer inter-set rest periods led to a higher volume of repetitions (R5 > R3 > R1), whereas the differences between the rest protocols were larger for MVT0.55 (R1: 28.4 ± 6.0 repetitions; R3: 36.4 ± 9.4 repetitions; R5: 41.1 ± 11.4 repetitions) compared to MVT0.65 (R1: 24.2 ± 7.3 repetitions; R3: 25.4 ± 10.1 repetitions; R5: 28.3 ± 9.7 repetitions). Increasing the number of sets negatively impacted the number of completed repetitions for R1 using both MVT0.65 and MVT0.55, as well as for R3 using MVT0.55. The fastest velocity of the set (MVfastest) did not differ between the inter-set rest protocols for MVT0.65, while for MVT0.55, R3 and R5 provided a greater MVfastest than R1 for sets 2-4. These findings suggest that the duration of inter-set rest periods is an important factor to consider when aiming to maximize mechanical performance across multiple sets of the prone bench pull exercise.
... According to previous research, effective sports training must be planned and programmed (Antara et al., 2023;Firdaus et al., 2023;Umar et al., 2023;Welis et al., 2023). In weight training, it is important to know the following: intensity and volume of training, sequence of exercises, number of repetitions, sets, tempo of movement, rest time between sets, and type of exercise (Ralston et al., 2018), Weight training with short (60 seconds or less) and long (more than 60 seconds) rest intervals can help in training muscle strength (Grgic et al., 2017). According to Dimyati, Setiawati, et al., 2023;Ndayisenga et al., 2021;Yendrizal et al., 2023) to produce optimal muscle strength, you must pay attention to motor skills in weight training. ...
Article
Full-text available
The aim of this study was to find out whether soybean flour and lunge training can have a significant effect on muscle strength. This research method is a pre-test-post-test design (quasi-experiment). Using a total sampling technique, 14 Indonesian PPLP West Sumatra Pencak Silat athletes were used as research samples. The research procedure included measuring muscle strength (leg dynamometer) before administering 29g protein after lunges training (pre-test). Then the treatment was given in 16 meetings, with a frequency of 2 sessions per week for 8 weeks. The intensity of the training/intervention given was submaximal (80% to 90% of maximum capacity). Giving soy flour to athletes 30 minutes after training is in accordance with the protein requirements given to athletes in each session, namely 29 grams of protein equivalent to 73 grams of soy flour with the addition of 1 tablespoon of granulated sugar and 200 ml of water. The results of statistical tests using the t test showed that testing the data resulted in (p<0.05) a percentage increase of 6.91%. In conclusion, adding protein supplementation to support weight training can increase muscle strength. Planned, structured and consistent exercise is necessary for any protein supplement to work. The use of this protein supplement must be adjusted to the needs of each participant to get the best preparation results. The findings of this research can be used by athletes who want to or are currently implementing a training program, as well as coaches as evaluation material, and nutritionists as material experts. Keywords: Muscle Strength, Soybean Flour, Lunges, Pencak Silat
... Although one can reduce inter-set rest intervals to shorten the duration of a training session, limiting inter-set rest to sixty seconds or less may limit performance in subsequent sets due to insufficient recovery, and consequently reduce muscle hypertrophy (1, [3][4][5][6]. ...
... The SMART-LD tool consists of 20 questions that address a combination of study bias and reporting quality as follows: general (items 1-2); participants (items 3-7), training program (items 8-11), outcomes (items [12][13][14][15][16], and statistical analyses (17)(18)(19)(20). Each item in the checklist is given 1 point if the criterion is sufficiently displayed or 0 points if the criterion is insufficiently displayed. ...
Article
Full-text available
We investigated the effects of low load resistance training to failure performed with different rest intervals on acute hormonal responses and long-term muscle and strength gains. In the acute study, 14 participants were assigned to either a short rest (S, 30 s) or long rest (L, 150 s) protocol at 40% one-repetition maximum. Blood samples were taken before and after workout. Both groups showed significant (p<0.05) increases in growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor 1 immediately postworkout. In the longitudinal study, the same protocol as in the acute study was performed 2 times/week for 8 weeks by 21 volunteers. Both groups showed significant increases in triceps (S: 9.8±8.8%, L: 10.6±9.6%, p<0.05) and thigh (S: 5.7±4.7%, L: 8.3±6.4%, p<0.05) cross-sectional area. Onerepetition maximum also significantly increased for the bench press (S: 9.9±6.9%, L: 6.5±5.8%, p<0.05) and squat (S: 5.2±6.7%, L: 5.4±3.5%, p<0.05). In conclusion, our results suggest that acute hormonal responses, as well as chronic changes in muscle hypertrophy and strength in low load training to failure are independent of the rest interval length.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this paper was to systematically review the current literature and elucidate the effects of total weekly resistance training (RT) volume on changes in measures of muscle mass via meta-regression. The final analysis comprised 34 treatment groups from 15 studies. Outcomes for weekly sets as a continuous variable showed a significant effect of volume on changes in muscle size (P = 0.002). Each additional set was associated with an increase in effect size (ES) of 0.023 corresponding to an increase in the percentage gain by 0.37%. Outcomes for weekly sets categorised as lower or higher within each study showed a significant effect of volume on changes in muscle size (P = 0.03); the ES difference between higher and lower volumes was 0.241, which equated to a percentage gain difference of 3.9%. Outcomes for weekly sets as a three-level categorical variable (<5, 5-9 and 10+ per muscle) showed a trend for an effect of weekly sets (P = 0.074). The findings indicate a graded dose-response relationship whereby increases in RT volume produce greater gains in muscle hypertrophy.
Article
Full-text available
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 3 min, 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 ± 15 kg; 175 ± 12 cm) 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 (2 min 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 2 min 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 2 min 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.
Article
Full-text available
Background It has become common practice to incorporate balance tasks into the training program for athletes who want to improve performance and prevent injuries, in rehabilitation programs, and in fall prevention programs for the elderly. However, it is still unclear whether incorporating balance tasks into a training program increases performance only in these specific tasks or if it affects balance in a more general way. Objectives The objective of this systematic literature review and meta-analysis was to determine to what extent the training of balance tasks can improve performance in non-trained balance tasks. Data SourcesA systematic literature search was performed in the online databases EMBASE, PubMed, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science. Articles related to balance training and testing in healthy populations published between January 1985 and March 2015 were considered. Study Eligibility CriteriaA total of 3093 articles were systematically evaluated. Randomized controlled trials were included that (i) used only balance tasks during the training, (ii) used at least two balance tests before and after training, and (iii) tested performance in the trained balance tasks and at least one non-trained balance task. Six studies with a total of 102 subjects met these criteria and were included into the meta-analysis. Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods The quality of the studies was evaluated by means of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. A random effect model was used to calculate the between-subject standardized mean differences (SMDbs) in order to quantify the effect of balance training on various kinds of balance measures relative to controls. The tested balance tasks in each study were classified into tasks that had been trained and tasks that had not been trained. For further analyses, the non-trained balance tasks were subdivided into tasks with similar or non-similar body position and similar or non-similar balance perturbation direction compared to the trained task. ResultsThe effect of balance training on the performance of the trained balance tasks reached an SMDbs of 0.79 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.48–1.10], indicating a high effect in favor for the trained task, with no notable heterogeneity (I2 = 0 %). The SMDbs in non-trained categories reached values between −0.07 (95 % CI −0.53 to 0.38) and 0.18 (95 % CI −0.27 to 0.64), with non-notable to moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 0–32 %), indicating no effect of the balance training on the respective non-trained balance tasks. LimitationsWith six studies, the number of studies included in this meta-analysis is rather low. It remains unclear how the limited number of studies with considerable methodological diversity affects the outcome of the SMD calculations and thus the general outcome of the meta-analysis. Conclusion In healthy populations, balance training can improve the performance in trained tasks, but may have only minor or no effects on non-trained tasks. Consequently, therapists and coaches should identify exactly those tasks that need improvement, and use these tasks in the training program and as a part of the test battery that evaluates the efficacy of the training program. Generic balance tasks—such as one-leg stance—may have little value as overall balance measures or when assessing the efficacy of specific training interventions.
Article
Full-text available
Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of short rest intervals normally associated with hypertrophy-type training versus long rest intervals traditionally used in strength-type training on muscular adaptations in a cohort of young, experienced lifters. Twenty-one young resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to either a group that performed a resistance training (RT) program with 1-minute rest intervals (SHORT) or a group that employed 3-minute rest intervals (LONG). All other RT variables were held constant. The study period lasted 8 weeks with subjects performing 3 total body workouts a week comprised of 3 sets of 8-12 repetition maximum (RM) of 7 different exercises per session. Testing was carried out pre- and post-study for muscle strength (1RM bench press and back squat), muscle endurance (50% 1RM bench press to failure), and muscle thickness of the elbow flexors, triceps brachii, and quadriceps femoris via ultrasound imaging. Maximal strength was significantly greater for both 1RM squat and bench press for LONG compared to SHORT. Muscle thickness was significantly greater for LONG compared to SHORT in the anterior thigh and a trend for greater increases was noted in the triceps brachii,(p = 0.06) as well. Both groups saw significant increases in local upper body muscle endurance with no significant differences noted between groups. The present study provides evidence that longer rest periods promote greater increases in muscle strength and hypertrophy in young resistance-trained men.
Article
Full-text available
The aim of this study was to investigate the acute effects of different inter-set rest intervals on performance of single and multi-joint 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 of body mass) performed eight sessions (two exercises x four inter-set rest intervals), each consisting of five sets with a 3-RM 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) versus 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) versus the 1-minute protocol (7.60 ± 3.52 reps). Additionally, subjects completed significantly higher total number of repetitions for the 5-minute (12.93 ± 2.25 reps; p = 0.016) versus 2-minute (9.53 ± 3.11 reps) protocol. Both exercises presented similar and progressive reductions in repetition performance for all rest protocols along the five 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 to 5-minutes for the BP. Thus, it appears that longer acute recovery time is needed for a multi-joint (core) exercise like the BP versus a single-joint (assistance) exercise like the MCF.
Article
Background and purpose: Assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is common practice in systematic reviews. However, the reliability of data obtained with most quality assessment scales has not been established. This report describes 2 studies designed to investigate the reliability of data obtained with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale developed to rate the quality of RCTs evaluating physical therapist interventions. Method: In the first study, 11 raters independently rated 25 RCTs randomly selected from the PEDro database. In the second study, 2 raters rated 120 RCTs randomly selected from the PEDro database, and disagreements were resolved by a third rater; this generated a set of individual rater and consensus ratings. The process was repeated by independent raters to create a second set of individual and consensus ratings. Reliability of ratings of PEDro scale items was calculated using multirater kappas, and reliability of the total (summed) score was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC [1,1]). Results: The kappa value for each of the 11 items ranged from.36 to.80 for individual assessors and from.50 to.79 for consensus ratings generated by groups of 2 or 3 raters. The ICC for the total score was.56 (95% confidence interval=.47-.65) for ratings by individuals, and the ICC for consensus ratings was.68 (95% confidence interval=.57-.76). Discussion and conclusion: The reliability of ratings of PEDro scale items varied from "fair" to "substantial," and the reliability of the total PEDro score was "fair" to "good."
Article
We investigated the effects of volume-matched resistance training (RT) with different training loads and rest intervals on acute responses and long-term muscle and strength gains. Ten subjects trained with short rest (30 s) combined with low load (20 RM) (SL) and ten subjects performed the same protocol with long rest (3 min) and high load (8 RM) (LH). Cross-sectional area (CSA) of the upper arm was measured by magnetic resonance imaging before and after 8 weeks of training. Acute stress markers such as growth hormone (GH) and muscle thickness (MT) changes have been assessed pre and post a single RT session. Only the SL group demonstrated significant increases in GH (7704·20 ± 11833·49%, P<0·05) and MT (35·2 ± 16·9%, P<0·05) immediately after training. After 8 weeks, the arm CSA s in both groups significantly increased [SL: 9·93 ± 4·86% (P<0·001), LH: 4·73 ± 3·01% (P<0·05)]. No significant correlation between acute GH elevations and CSA increases could be observed. We conclude that short rest combined with low-load training might induce a high amount of metabolic stress ultimately leading to improved muscle hypertrophy while long rest with high-load training might lead to superior strength increases. Acute GH increases seem not to be directly correlated with muscle hypertrophy.
Article
Background: Manipulating rest-recovery interval between sets of resistance exercise may influence training-induced muscle remodeling. The aim of this study was to determine the acute muscle anabolic response to resistance exercise performed with short or long inter-set rest intervals. Methods: In a parallel-group designed study, 16 males completed 4 sets of bilateral leg press and knee extension exercise at 75% of 1RM to momentary muscular failure, followed by ingestion of 25 g of whey protein. Resistance exercise sets were interspersed by 1 min (1 M; n = 8) or 5 min of passive rest (5 M; n = 8). Muscle biopsies were obtained at rest, 0, 4, 24 and 28 h post-exercise during a primed-continuous infusion of L-[ring-(13) C6 ]phenylalanine to determine myofibrillar protein synthesis (MPS) and intracellular signaling. Results: MPS rate increased above resting values over 0-4 h post-exercise in 1 M (76%; P = 0.047) and 5 M (152%; P < 0.001), and was significantly greater in 5 M (P = 0.001). MPS rates at 24-28 h post-exercise remained elevated above resting values (P < 0.05) and were indistinguishable between groups. Post-exercise p70S6K(Thr389) and rpS6(Ser240/244) phosphorylation were reduced in 1 M compared with 5 M, whereas eEF2(Thr56) , TSC2(Thr1462) , AMPK(Thr172) phosphorylation and REDD1 protein were greater in 1 M compared with 5 M. Serum testosterone was greater at 20-40 min post-exercise and plasma lactate greater immediately post-exercise for 1 M vs. 5 M. Conclusions: Resistance exercise with short (1 M) inter-set rest duration attenuated myofibrillar protein synthesis during the early post-exercise recovery period compared with longer (5 M) rest duration, potentially through compromised activation of intracellular signalling. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.