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

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11510%2F22%3A10450126" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11510/22:10450126 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=BqTIlv4DIx" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=BqTIlv4DIx</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003908" target="_blank" >10.1519/JSC.0000000000003908</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

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

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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

Název v anglickém jazyce

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

Popis výsledku anglicky

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

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30306 - Sport and fitness sciences

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2022

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

ISSN

1064-8011

e-ISSN

1533-4287

Svazek periodika

36

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

11

Stát vydavatele periodika

US - Spojené státy americké

Počet stran výsledku

8

Strana od-do

3015-3022

Kód UT WoS článku

000872673600006

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85139417183