The Effect of Self-Paced and Prescribed Inter-Set Rest Strategies on Performance in Strength Training

Peter IBBOTT, Nick BALL, Marijke WELVAERT, Kevin G Thompson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To assess pacing strategies using prescribed and self-selected inter-set rest periods and their influence on performance in strength trained athletes. Methods:Sixteen strength-trained male athletes completed three randomised heavy-strength training sessions (five sets, five repetitions) with different inter-set rest periods. The inter-set rest periods were: 3 minute (3MIN), 5 minute (5MIN) and Self-Selected (SS). Mechanical (power, velocity, work and displacement), surface muscle activity (sEMG) and subjective (Rating of Perceived Exertion -RPE) and readiness to lift (RTL) data were recorded for each set. Results:SS condition inter-set rest periods increased from sets 1 to 4 (207.52s > 277.71 s; p=0.01). No differences in mechanical performance were shown between the different inter-set rest period conditions. Power output (210 W; 8.03%) and velocity (0.03 m.s-1; 6.73%) decreased as sets progressed for all conditions (p<0.001) from set 1 to set 5. No differences in sEMG activity between conditions were shown, however vastus medialis sEMG decreased as the sets progressed for each condition (1.75%; p=0.005). All conditions showed increases in RPE as sets progressed (set 1: 6.1; set 5: 7.9) (p<0.001). Participants reported greater readiness to lift in the 5MIN condition (7.81) compared to the 3MIN (7.09) and SS (7.20) conditions (p<0.001). Conclusions:Self-selecting inter-set rest periods does not significantly change performance compared to 3MIN and 5 MIN conditions.. Given the opportunity, athletes will vary their inter-set rest periods to complete multiple sets of heavy strength training. Self-selection of inter-set rest periods may be a feasible alternative to prescribed inter-set rest periods.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)980-986
Number of pages7
JournalInternational Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
Volume14
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2019

Fingerprint

Resistance Training
Athletes
Quadriceps Muscle
Muscles

Cite this

@article{acaf3eeeb3f543d4bb2ea955b5b6a891,
title = "The Effect of Self-Paced and Prescribed Inter-Set Rest Strategies on Performance in Strength Training",
abstract = "Purpose: To assess pacing strategies using prescribed and self-selected inter-set rest periods and their influence on performance in strength trained athletes. Methods:Sixteen strength-trained male athletes completed three randomised heavy-strength training sessions (five sets, five repetitions) with different inter-set rest periods. The inter-set rest periods were: 3 minute (3MIN), 5 minute (5MIN) and Self-Selected (SS). Mechanical (power, velocity, work and displacement), surface muscle activity (sEMG) and subjective (Rating of Perceived Exertion -RPE) and readiness to lift (RTL) data were recorded for each set. Results:SS condition inter-set rest periods increased from sets 1 to 4 (207.52s > 277.71 s; p=0.01). No differences in mechanical performance were shown between the different inter-set rest period conditions. Power output (210 W; 8.03{\%}) and velocity (0.03 m.s-1; 6.73{\%}) decreased as sets progressed for all conditions (p<0.001) from set 1 to set 5. No differences in sEMG activity between conditions were shown, however vastus medialis sEMG decreased as the sets progressed for each condition (1.75{\%}; p=0.005). All conditions showed increases in RPE as sets progressed (set 1: 6.1; set 5: 7.9) (p<0.001). Participants reported greater readiness to lift in the 5MIN condition (7.81) compared to the 3MIN (7.09) and SS (7.20) conditions (p<0.001). Conclusions:Self-selecting inter-set rest periods does not significantly change performance compared to 3MIN and 5 MIN conditions.. Given the opportunity, athletes will vary their inter-set rest periods to complete multiple sets of heavy strength training. Self-selection of inter-set rest periods may be a feasible alternative to prescribed inter-set rest periods.",
keywords = "exercise performance, exercise training, pacing, resistance training, rest intervals",
author = "Peter IBBOTT and Nick BALL and Marijke WELVAERT and Thompson, {Kevin G}",
year = "2019",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1123/ijspp.2018-0480",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "980--986",
journal = "International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance",
issn = "1555-0265",
publisher = "Human Kinetics Publishers Inc.",
number = "7",

}

The Effect of Self-Paced and Prescribed Inter-Set Rest Strategies on Performance in Strength Training. / IBBOTT, Peter; BALL, Nick; WELVAERT, Marijke; Thompson, Kevin G .

In: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, Vol. 14, No. 7, 08.2019, p. 980-986.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Effect of Self-Paced and Prescribed Inter-Set Rest Strategies on Performance in Strength Training

AU - IBBOTT, Peter

AU - BALL, Nick

AU - WELVAERT, Marijke

AU - Thompson, Kevin G

PY - 2019/8

Y1 - 2019/8

N2 - Purpose: To assess pacing strategies using prescribed and self-selected inter-set rest periods and their influence on performance in strength trained athletes. Methods:Sixteen strength-trained male athletes completed three randomised heavy-strength training sessions (five sets, five repetitions) with different inter-set rest periods. The inter-set rest periods were: 3 minute (3MIN), 5 minute (5MIN) and Self-Selected (SS). Mechanical (power, velocity, work and displacement), surface muscle activity (sEMG) and subjective (Rating of Perceived Exertion -RPE) and readiness to lift (RTL) data were recorded for each set. Results:SS condition inter-set rest periods increased from sets 1 to 4 (207.52s > 277.71 s; p=0.01). No differences in mechanical performance were shown between the different inter-set rest period conditions. Power output (210 W; 8.03%) and velocity (0.03 m.s-1; 6.73%) decreased as sets progressed for all conditions (p<0.001) from set 1 to set 5. No differences in sEMG activity between conditions were shown, however vastus medialis sEMG decreased as the sets progressed for each condition (1.75%; p=0.005). All conditions showed increases in RPE as sets progressed (set 1: 6.1; set 5: 7.9) (p<0.001). Participants reported greater readiness to lift in the 5MIN condition (7.81) compared to the 3MIN (7.09) and SS (7.20) conditions (p<0.001). Conclusions:Self-selecting inter-set rest periods does not significantly change performance compared to 3MIN and 5 MIN conditions.. Given the opportunity, athletes will vary their inter-set rest periods to complete multiple sets of heavy strength training. Self-selection of inter-set rest periods may be a feasible alternative to prescribed inter-set rest periods.

AB - Purpose: To assess pacing strategies using prescribed and self-selected inter-set rest periods and their influence on performance in strength trained athletes. Methods:Sixteen strength-trained male athletes completed three randomised heavy-strength training sessions (five sets, five repetitions) with different inter-set rest periods. The inter-set rest periods were: 3 minute (3MIN), 5 minute (5MIN) and Self-Selected (SS). Mechanical (power, velocity, work and displacement), surface muscle activity (sEMG) and subjective (Rating of Perceived Exertion -RPE) and readiness to lift (RTL) data were recorded for each set. Results:SS condition inter-set rest periods increased from sets 1 to 4 (207.52s > 277.71 s; p=0.01). No differences in mechanical performance were shown between the different inter-set rest period conditions. Power output (210 W; 8.03%) and velocity (0.03 m.s-1; 6.73%) decreased as sets progressed for all conditions (p<0.001) from set 1 to set 5. No differences in sEMG activity between conditions were shown, however vastus medialis sEMG decreased as the sets progressed for each condition (1.75%; p=0.005). All conditions showed increases in RPE as sets progressed (set 1: 6.1; set 5: 7.9) (p<0.001). Participants reported greater readiness to lift in the 5MIN condition (7.81) compared to the 3MIN (7.09) and SS (7.20) conditions (p<0.001). Conclusions:Self-selecting inter-set rest periods does not significantly change performance compared to 3MIN and 5 MIN conditions.. Given the opportunity, athletes will vary their inter-set rest periods to complete multiple sets of heavy strength training. Self-selection of inter-set rest periods may be a feasible alternative to prescribed inter-set rest periods.

KW - exercise performance

KW - exercise training

KW - pacing

KW - resistance training

KW - rest intervals

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071503810&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/effect-selfpaced-prescribed-interset-rest-strategies-performance-strength-training

U2 - 10.1123/ijspp.2018-0480

DO - 10.1123/ijspp.2018-0480

M3 - Article

VL - 14

SP - 980

EP - 986

JO - International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

JF - International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

SN - 1555-0265

IS - 7

ER -