Fabrício Miranda

Rest Interval between Sets in Strength Training

Strength training has become one of the most popular physical activities for increasing characteristics such as absolute muscular strength, endurance, hypertrophy and muscular power. For efficient, safe and effective training, it is of utmost importance to understand the interaction among training variables, which might include the intensity, number of sets, rest interval between sets, exercise modality and velocity of muscle action. Research has indicated that the rest interval between sets is an important variable that affects both acute responses and chronic adaptations to resistance exercise programmes. The purpose of this review is to analyse and discuss the rest interval between sets for targeting specific training outcomes (e.g. absolute muscular strength, endurance, hypertrophy and muscular power). The Scielo, Science Citation Index, National Library of Medicine, MEDLINE, Scopus, Sport Discus and CINAHL databases were used to locate previous original scientific investigations. The 35 studies reviewed examined both acute responses and chronic adaptations, with rest interval length as the experimental variable. In terms of acute responses, a key finding was that when training with loads between 50% and 90% of one repetition maximum, 3–5 minutes’ rest between sets allowed for greater repetitions over multiple sets. Furthermore, in terms of chronic adaptations, resting 3–5 minutes between sets produced greater increases in absolute strength, due to higher intensities and volumes of training. Similarly, higher levels of muscular power were demonstrated over multiple sets with 3 or 5 minutes versus 1 minute of rest between sets. Conversely, some experiments have demonstrated that when testing maximal strength, 1-minute rest intervals might be sufficient between repeated attempts; however, from a psychological and physiological standpoint, the inclusion of 3- to 5-minute rest intervals might be safer and more reliable. When the training goal is muscular hypertrophy, the combination of moderate-intensity sets with short rest intervals of 30–60 seconds might be most effective due to greater acute levels of growth hormone during such workouts. Finally, the research on rest interval length in relation to chronic muscular endurance adaptations is less clear. Training with short rest intervals (e.g. 20 seconds to 1 minute) resulted in higher repetition velocities during repeated submaximal muscle actions and also greater total torque during a high-intensity cycle test. Both of these findings indirectly demonstrated the benefits of utilizing short rest intervals for gains in muscular endurance. In summary, the rest interval between sets is an important variable that should receive more attention in resistance exercise prescription. When prescribed appropriately with other important prescriptive variables (i.e. volume and intensity), the amount of rest between sets can influence the efficiency, safety and ultimate effectiveness of a strength training programme.

Effects of linear vs. daily undulatory periodized resistance training on maximal and submaximal strength gains.

Miranda, F, Simão, R, Rhea, M, Bunker, D, Prestes, J, Leite, RD, Miranda, H, de Salles, BF, and Novaes, J. Effects of linear vs. daily undulatory periodized resistance training on maximal and submaximal strength gains. J Strength Cond Res 25(7): 1824-1830, 2011—The objective of this study was to verify the effect of 2 periodized resistance training (RT) methods on the evolution of 1-repetition maximum (1RM) and 8RM loads. Twenty resistance trained men were randomly assigned to 2 training groups: linear periodization (LP) group and daily undulating periodization (DUP) group. The subjects were tested at baseline and after 12 weeks for 1RM and 8RM loads in leg press (LEG) and bench press (BP) exercises. The training program was performed in alternated sessions for upper (session A: chest, shoulder and triceps) and lower body (session B: leg, back and biceps). The 12-week periodized training was applied only in the tested exercises, and in the other exercises, 3 sets of 6-8RM were performed. Both groups exhibited significant increases in 1RM loads on LEG and BP, but no statistically significant difference between groups was observed. The same occurred in 8RM loads on LEG and BP. However, DUP group presented superior effect size (ES) in 1RM and 8RM loads for LEG and BP exercises when compared to the LP group. In conclusion, periodized RT can be an efficient method for increasing the strength and muscular endurance in trained individuals. Although there was no statistically significant difference between periodization models, DUP promoted superior ES gains in muscular maximal and submaximal strength.

Influence of Exercise Order on Maximum Strength and Muscle Volume in Nonlinear Periodized Resistance Training

Spineti, J, Freitas de Salles, B, Rhea, MR, Lavigne, D, Matta, T, Miranda, F, Fernandes, L, and Simão, R. Influence of exercise order on maximum strength and muscle volume in nonlinear periodized resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 24(11): 2962-2969, 2010-The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of exercise order on strength and muscle volume (MV) after 12 weeks of nonlinear periodized resistance training. The participants were randomly assigned into 3 groups. One group began performing large muscle group exercises and progressed to small muscle group exercises (LG-SM), whereas another group started with small muscle group exercises and advanced to large muscle group exercises (SM-LG). The exercise order for LG-SM was bench press (BP), machine lat pull-down (LPD), triceps extension (TE), and biceps curl (BC). The order for the SM-LG was BC, TE, LPD, and BP. The third group did not exercise and served as a control group (CG). Training frequency was 2 sessions per week with at least 72 hours of rest between sessions. Muscle volume was assessed at baseline and after 6 weeks and 12 weeks of training by ultrasound techniques. One repetition maximum strength for all exercises was assessed at baseline and after 12 weeks of training. Effect size data demonstrated that differences in strength and MV were exhibited based on exercise order. Both training groups demonstrated greater strength improvements than the CG, but only BP strength increased to a greater magnitude in the LG-SM group as compared with the SM-LG. In all other strength measures (LPD, TE, and BC), the SM-LG group showed significantly greater strength increases. Triceps MV increased in the SM-LG group; however, biceps MV did not differ significantly between the training groups. In conclusion, if an exercise is important for the training goals of a program, then it should be placed at the beginning of the training session, regardless of whether or not it is a large muscle group exercise or a small muscle group exercise.