Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Strength and Muscular Adaptations After 6 Weeks of Rest-Pause vs. Traditional Multiple-Sets Resistance Training in Trained Subjects.
J Strength Cond Res. 2019 Jul; 33 Suppl 1:S113-S121.JS

Abstract

Prestes, J, Tibana, RA, de Araujo Sousa, E, da Cunha Nascimento, D, de Oliveira Rocha, P, Camarço, NF, Frade de Sousa, NM, and Willardson, JM. Strength and muscular adaptations after 6 weeks of rest-pause vs. traditional multiple-sets resistance training in trained subjects. J Strength Cond Res 33(7S): S113-S121, 2019-The purpose of this study was to compare the longitudinal effects of 6 weeks of rest-pause vs. traditional multiple-set resistance training (RT) on muscle strength, hypertrophy, localized muscular endurance, and body composition in trained subjects. Eighteen trained subjects (mean ± SD; age = 30.2 ± 6.6 years; weight = 74.8 ± 17.2 kg; height = 171.4 ± 10.3 cm) were randomly assigned to either a traditional multiple-set group (n = 9; 7 men and 2 women; 3 sets of 6 repetitions with 80% of 1-repetition maximum (1RM) and 2-minute rest intervals between sets) or a rest-pause group (n = 9; 7 men and 2 women). The results showed no significant differences (p > 0.05) between groups in 1RM strength (rest-pause: 16 ± 11% for bench press, 25 ± 17% for leg press and 16 ± 10% for biceps curl vs. traditional multiple-set: 10 ± 21% for BP, 30 ± 20% for LP and 21 ± 20% for BC). In localized muscular endurance, the rest-pause group displayed significantly greater (p < 0.05) repetitions, only for the LP exercise (rest pause: 27 ± 8% vs. traditional multiple-set: 8 ± 2%). In muscle hypertrophy, the rest-pause group displayed significantly greater (p < 0.05) thickness, only for the thigh (rest-pause: 11 ± 14% vs. traditional multiple-set: 1 ± 7%). In conclusion, RT performed with the rest-pause method resulted in similar gains in muscle strength as traditional multiple-set training. However, the rest-pause method resulted in greater gains in localized muscular endurance and hypertrophy for the thigh musculature.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Graduate Program on Physical Education, Physical Education Department, Catholic University of Brasilia (UCB), Brasilia, Brazil.Graduate Program on Physical Education, Physical Education Department, Catholic University of Brasilia (UCB), Brasilia, Brazil.Graduate Program on Physical Education, Physical Education Department, Catholic University of Brasilia (UCB), Brasilia, Brazil.Graduate Program on Physical Education, Physical Education Department, Catholic University of Brasilia (UCB), Brasilia, Brazil.Graduate Program on Physical Education, Physical Education Department, Catholic University of Brasilia (UCB), Brasilia, Brazil.Graduate Program on Physical Education, Physical Education Department, Catholic University of Brasilia (UCB), Brasilia, Brazil.Laboratory of Exercise Physiology, Physical Education Department, Faculty Estacio of Vitoria, Vitoria, Brazil.Health and Human Performance Department, Rocky Mountain College, Billings, Montana.

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

28617715

Citation

Prestes, Jonato, et al. "Strength and Muscular Adaptations After 6 Weeks of Rest-Pause Vs. Traditional Multiple-Sets Resistance Training in Trained Subjects." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, vol. 33 Suppl 1, 2019, pp. S113-S121.
Prestes J, A Tibana R, de Araujo Sousa E, et al. Strength and Muscular Adaptations After 6 Weeks of Rest-Pause vs. Traditional Multiple-Sets Resistance Training in Trained Subjects. J Strength Cond Res. 2019;33 Suppl 1:S113-S121.
Prestes, J., A Tibana, R., de Araujo Sousa, E., da Cunha Nascimento, D., de Oliveira Rocha, P., F Camarço, N., Frade de Sousa, N. M., & Willardson, J. M. (2019). Strength and Muscular Adaptations After 6 Weeks of Rest-Pause vs. Traditional Multiple-Sets Resistance Training in Trained Subjects. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 33 Suppl 1, S113-S121. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001923
Prestes J, et al. Strength and Muscular Adaptations After 6 Weeks of Rest-Pause Vs. Traditional Multiple-Sets Resistance Training in Trained Subjects. J Strength Cond Res. 2019;33 Suppl 1:S113-S121. PubMed PMID: 28617715.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Strength and Muscular Adaptations After 6 Weeks of Rest-Pause vs. Traditional Multiple-Sets Resistance Training in Trained Subjects. AU - Prestes,Jonato, AU - A Tibana,Ramires, AU - de Araujo Sousa,Eduardo, AU - da Cunha Nascimento,Dahan, AU - de Oliveira Rocha,Pollyanna, AU - F Camarço,Nathalia, AU - Frade de Sousa,Nuno M, AU - Willardson,Jeffrey M, PY - 2017/6/16/pubmed PY - 2019/11/9/medline PY - 2017/6/16/entrez SP - S113 EP - S121 JF - Journal of strength and conditioning research JO - J Strength Cond Res VL - 33 Suppl 1 N2 - Prestes, J, Tibana, RA, de Araujo Sousa, E, da Cunha Nascimento, D, de Oliveira Rocha, P, Camarço, NF, Frade de Sousa, NM, and Willardson, JM. Strength and muscular adaptations after 6 weeks of rest-pause vs. traditional multiple-sets resistance training in trained subjects. J Strength Cond Res 33(7S): S113-S121, 2019-The purpose of this study was to compare the longitudinal effects of 6 weeks of rest-pause vs. traditional multiple-set resistance training (RT) on muscle strength, hypertrophy, localized muscular endurance, and body composition in trained subjects. Eighteen trained subjects (mean ± SD; age = 30.2 ± 6.6 years; weight = 74.8 ± 17.2 kg; height = 171.4 ± 10.3 cm) were randomly assigned to either a traditional multiple-set group (n = 9; 7 men and 2 women; 3 sets of 6 repetitions with 80% of 1-repetition maximum (1RM) and 2-minute rest intervals between sets) or a rest-pause group (n = 9; 7 men and 2 women). The results showed no significant differences (p > 0.05) between groups in 1RM strength (rest-pause: 16 ± 11% for bench press, 25 ± 17% for leg press and 16 ± 10% for biceps curl vs. traditional multiple-set: 10 ± 21% for BP, 30 ± 20% for LP and 21 ± 20% for BC). In localized muscular endurance, the rest-pause group displayed significantly greater (p < 0.05) repetitions, only for the LP exercise (rest pause: 27 ± 8% vs. traditional multiple-set: 8 ± 2%). In muscle hypertrophy, the rest-pause group displayed significantly greater (p < 0.05) thickness, only for the thigh (rest-pause: 11 ± 14% vs. traditional multiple-set: 1 ± 7%). In conclusion, RT performed with the rest-pause method resulted in similar gains in muscle strength as traditional multiple-set training. However, the rest-pause method resulted in greater gains in localized muscular endurance and hypertrophy for the thigh musculature. SN - 1533-4287 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/28617715/Strength_and_Muscular_Adaptations_After_6_Weeks_of_Rest_Pause_vs__Traditional_Multiple_Sets_Resistance_Training_in_Trained_Subjects_ L2 - http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001923 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -