See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/281641791

EFFECT OF DIFFERENT INTER-SET REST

INTERVALS ON PERFORMANCE OF SINGLE
AND MULTI-JOINT EXERCISES WITH NEAR
MAXIMAL LOADS
ARTICLE in THE JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH SEPTEMBER 2015
Impact Factor: 1.86 DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001142

DOWNLOADS

VIEWS

14

16

7 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Gilmar Senna

Estevo Scudese

Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de J

Universidade Tiradentes

20 PUBLICATIONS 82 CITATIONS

7 PUBLICATIONS 14 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Roberto Simo
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
210 PUBLICATIONS 1,083 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Gilmar Senna

Retrieved on: 14 September 2015

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001142

EFFECT OF DIFFERENT INTER-SET REST INTERVALS ON

PERFORMANCE OF SINGLE AND MULTI-JOINT EXERCISES WITH NEAR
MAXIMAL LOADS
Gilmar Weber Senna1,2
Jeffrey M. Willardson3

Estevo Scudese2,4
Roberto Simo4
Raoni Avelar5
Estlio Henrique Martin Dantas1,2

TE

Cristiano Queiroz5

1 Nursing and Biosciences Post-Graduation Program (PPgEnfBio) Doctorate of

EP

Federal University of State of Rio de Janeiro (UNIRIO) RJ Brazil.

2 Biosciences Laboratory of Human Movement (LABIMH) Tiradentes University

(UNIT) SE Aracaj.

3 Eastern Illinois University Kinesiology and Sports Studies Department

Charleston, IL USA.

C
C

4 School of Physical Education and Sports Federal University of Rio de Janeiro

(EEFD/UFRJ) RJ Brazil.

5 Health Science Center Catholic University of Petrpolis RJ Brazil

Corresponding Author:
Gilmar Senna, MSc.

Federal University of State of Rio de Janeiro (UNIRIO)

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Xavier Sigaud St. - 290 - 401 - Praia Vermelha
55-21-2229-0180 - Rio de Janeiro RJ.
sennagw@gmail.com

Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

ABSTRACT

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,

TE

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

EP

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

C
C

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.

Key-words: muscle strength, weight lifting, physical fitness.

Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION
For the past two decades, the rest interval between sets has received much
attention from resistance training researchers. It has already been well established that
the rest interval between sets, independent of other prescriptive variables, has
significant acute effects on repetition performance (11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19); as
well as neuromuscular (19), endocrine (4, 9) and cardiorespiratory responses (10).

Differences in acute responses may result in expression of different adaptations over

TE

time with emphasis on maximal strength, hypertrophy, power, and localized muscular
endurance (1).

Recent studies have shown that longer rest intervals between sets (i.e., 5-minute)
allow for greater recovery and consistency in repetition performance with 8-RM to 15-

EP

RM loads (8, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18,). However, Scudese et al., (11) was the first to
investigate the effects of rest interval manipulation with a near maximum 3-RM load for
the barbell bench press exercise (BP), and observed that 3-minutes rest between sets

set.

C
C

allowed for sufficient recovery to maintain consistency in the repetitions completed per

It is recommended that individuals with specific muscular strength development

goals should train with loads ranging from 1- to 6-RM (1). The ability to maintain

consistency in the repetitions completed with a given load over a series of sets may
enhance adaptational processes, leading to greater strength gains over time (13).
Regarding the latest recommendations on strength training for healthy adults, the
American College of Sports and Medicine (1, 2) suggested prescription of inter-set rest
intervals ranging from 2 to 3-minutes for multi-joint (core) exercises and 1 to 2-minutes
for single-joint (assistance) exercises, respectively.

Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

To our knowledge, very few studies have investigated the potential acute
interactions between different rest intervals between sets and single and multi-joint
exercise performance (13, 14). Specifically, Senna et al., (13) observed that for both
single and multi-joint exercises, repetition performance patterns and perceived exertion
were independent of the rest interval between sets. In addition, Senna et al., (14) also
observed similar repetition performance patterns between machine chest fly (MCF) and

bench press (BP) exercises; albeit, for the single-joint exercise (MCF), the blood lactate

TE

response was significantly less for the longer rest interval (3-minute) versus the shorter
rest interval (1-minute) between sets. By contrast, for the multi-joint exercise, there was
no significant difference in the blood lactate response, irrespective of the rest interval
between sets (14). These studies (13, 14) indicate that the time-course of inter-set

RM loads.

EP

recovery might be different between single and multi-joint exercises when utilizing 10-

However, there is a gap in the literature regarding the effect of different rest

C
C

intervals between sets on single and multi-joint exercise performance with near
maximal loads (i.e. 3-RM). Such a comparison may improve the efficacy of resistance
training prescription and subsequent strength adaptations over time. Therefore, in order
to increase the growing body of knowledge regarding this theme, the aim of this study

was to investigate the acute effects of different inter-set rest intervals (1, 2, 3, and 5minute) on performance of single and multi-joint exercises with near maximal loads
(i.e. 3-RM). The single (assistance) and multi-joint (core) exercises selected for this
study were the MCF and barbell BP, respectively.

METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem

Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

Forty-eight to 72 hours after proper familiarization and determination of 3-RM

loads for the MCF and BP, subjects underwent eight different training sessions with 48
hours between sessions. Sessions were performed in random order with a specific
combination of exercise (MCF or BP) and rest interval (1, 2, 3, or 5-minute). Five sets
were performed for maximal repetitions with the pre-determined 3-RM load. The total
repetitions and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were recorded post each exercise set.

Subjects

TE

Fifteen trained men with at least one year consistent resistance training
experience were asked to participate (26.40 4.94 years, 79.00 7.10 kg, 176.60 6.06
cm, 11.80 2.47% body fat, bench press relative strength: 1.26 0.19 kg/kg of body
mass). The following inclusion criteria were adopted to standardize subject selection: a)

EP

training frequency of at least four times per week, with session duration approximately
one hour, and rest intervals between sets ranging from one to two minutes; b) non-usage
of any ergogenic substance that would enhance repetition performance; c) no acute or

C
C

chronic injuries that would affect MCF and BP performance; and d) did not engage in
intense activity on test days. Before data collection, all subjects answered no to all
questions on the PAR-Q (14). The study procedures had been previously approved
by the Catholic University of Petrpolis ethics committee. Participants read and

signed an informed consent after being informed of the testing procedures

according to the Declaration of Helsinki.

Determination of Three Repetition Maximum

After two familiarization visits, subjects performed four 3-RM load testing
sessions for the MCF and BP exercises. Subjects performed only one exercise per visit,
in alternated order on non-consecutive days for test and retest sessions. The following

Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

strategies were adopted to minimize measurement error: a) standard instructions

concerning the testing procedures and exercise technique were given before all tests; b)
body position was held constant; c) verbal encouragement was given (7); and d) the
mass of all plates and bars were determined through a precision scale. The 3RM test has
been previously described (13). Briefly, the initial loads for 3RM testing were estimated
from loads utilized by each subject during the course of their daily-periodized strength

training routines. From this point, the load modification pattern followed a 2kg for BP

TE

and 2,5kg for MCF (total minimal modification) manipulation for each attempt and it
was held consistent for each subject. The last successful lift was recorded as the 3RM;
the greatest load lifted over the two testing sessions was assumed as the 3RM load. The
greatest load lifted over the two testing sessions for each exercise was recorded as the 3-

EP

RM load. Each testing session was separated by at least 48 hours. Subjects performed a
maximum of five attempts during each visit, with at least 5 to 10-minutes of passive rest
between attempts (13).

C
C

Rate of Perceived Exertion Procedures

The OMNI Resistance Exercise Scale (6) was implemented to obtain the RPE

values. Subjects were familiarized with the OMNI Scale the week prior to load tests.
Subjects were asked to choose a number based on their perceived exertion or subjective

intensity of effort, strain, discomfort, and/or fatigue experienced during the exercise
session (6). The MCF and BP were practiced during the familiarization sessions for
three sets of 15 repetitions with 3-minute rest intervals between sets with estimated
loads based on subjects daily training routines.
Immediately post each exercise set, subjects were asked to identify their RPE in
order to provide a subjective measure of the exertion level (11, 13).
Experimental Procedures

Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

Forty-eight to 72 hours after the last 3-RM test, subjects completed the first of
eight different visits (two sessions per week). In each session, subjects performed five
sets with 3-RM loads in a randomized design that was implemented to combine each
exercise (MCF or BP) with a given rest interval (1, 2, 3 or 5-minutes). Prior to each
protocol, subjects engaged in a warm-up consisting of two sets of 12 repetitions with
40% of the 3-RM load for the given exercise for that session. Then, a 3-minute rest was

allowed between the warm-up sets and training protocol. Subjects were verbally

TE

encouraged (7) to perform five sets until voluntary exhaustion and no attempt was made
to control the repetition velocity. Each subject was instructed to use a smooth and
controlled movement. Additionally, the total number of repetitions completed and RPE

Statistical Analysis

EP

Omni-Res scale values (6) were recorded after each exercise set completion.

An alpha value of p 0.05 was used to establish the significance of

comparisons. To verify test and re-test reproducibility, the intra class correlation

C
C

coefficient was implemented (ICC). One-way ANOVAs were conducted in order to

analyze differences in total number of repetitions completed for each exercise,
repetitions completed on each individual set (for every exercise) and on distinct rest
conditions. If necessary, further comparisons were made via Bonferroni post-hoc test.

Additionally, to determine the magnitude of the findings, the effect size (ESs;

the difference between the pretest score and the posttest score divided by the pretest SD)
statistics were calculated for each exercise set of every rest condition, and the thresholds
proposed by Cohen (5) were applied to determine the magnitude of effects. The
Friedman test was used to analyze RPE scores and compare differences post each
exercise set within and between rest interval protocols. If necessary, a Dunn post hoc

Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

test was applied for multiple comparisons. The SPSS software 21.0 version was used for
statistical analyzes (IBM, Inc).

RESULTS
An excellent test/re-test correlation was found for the 3-RM loads using the ICC (MCF
r = 0.98; BP r = 0.99) and no differences were found between the test/re-test loads via

paired Student t test (p < 0.05). The results indicated that for the MCF, significantly

TE

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

EP

(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.

C
C

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. Briefly, in MCF significant reductions in repetition numbers
were evident from the second set for 1, 2 and 3-minute rest conditions. For the 5-

minute rest condition, reductions were evident at the fourth set compared to the
initial set. For BP exercise, significant reductions in repetition numbers appeared
at the second set for 1-minute, the third set for 2-minute and the fourth set for 3
and 5-minute rest conditions. In addition, for MCF and BP significant differences
were observed between the shorter 1-minute rest condition as early as the second
set compared to the longer 3 and 5-minute rest conditions. Data is clearly presented
on Table 1, Figures 1 and 2.

Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

INSERT TABLE 1, FIGURE 1 AND FIGURE 2

The ESs were calculated using the repetition number executed in the first set (as
the pre-test value), and repetition number throughout the second and between the fifth
set (as the post-test scores), along with standard derivation of the first set (as the pre-test
standard derivation). The majority of ES data indicated large magnitude declines in
repetition performance for both exercises across rest conditions. The magnitude of

declines increased over successive sets in all rest interval conditions independent of the

TE

exercise mode. For both exercises, the declines were larger with lesser rest between sets
(see Table 2).
INSERT TABLE 2

For the MCF, the 1-minute rest protocol evidenced significantly greater RPE

EP

values versus the other longer rest conditions (i.e. 2, 3 and 5-minute). For the other rest
protocols (2, 3 and 5-minute), MCF differences in the RPE were only evident between
the first and fifth sets. For the BP, significant increases in the RPE were significantly

C
C

greater from the third through fifth sets for all rest conditions (see Table 3).
INSERT TABLE 3

DISCUSSION

In general, the findings of this study indicated that when implementing a 3-RM

load for the MCF and BP, a 1-minute rest interval between sets resulted in a significant
reduction in the total repetitions completed and a greater RPE (pre and post-set values)
over five consecutive sets. This outcome is in contrast to the increased total repetitions
completed and significantly lower RPE for the protocols that involved a longer rest
interval between sets (2, 3 and 5-minute), regardless of exercise mode (MCF and BP).
However, the overall repetition reductions observed for the MCF were less evident

Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

versus the overall repetition reductions for the BP with 2, 3, and 5-minutes rest between
sets. The same trend was observed in RPE values between exercises at these rest
interval lengths.
Therefore, it appears that at rest interval lengths greater than or equal to 2minutes between sets, differences between the MCF and BP became increasingly
apparent in the overall reduction in repetition performance and RPE. From a practical

standpoint, this study suggests that for adequate maintenance of repetitions over five

TE

sets, a 2-minute rest interval might be sufficient for the MCF; whereas, a 3-minute rest
interval might be suitable for the BP exercise. Thereby, longer rest periods between sets
(i.e. 5-minute) will increase the total duration of a training session, apparently without
providing additional benefits to repetition performance when implementing 3-RM

EP

loads.

According to the American College of Sports Medicine (1), in order to

maximize the muscular strength development, the ideal load intensity must range

C
C

between 1-RM and 6-RM. In addition, the latest recommendations (1, 2) suggests that
for muscle strength development purposes, rest lengths should be 1 to 2-minutes
between sets for single-joint (assistance) exercises and 2 to 3-minutes between sets for
multi-joint (core) exercises. However, the current study is the first to assess acute

repetition performance in the context of a single (i.e. MCF) and multi-joint exercise (i.e.
BP) when utilizing a near maximal load (i.e. 3-RM). Thus, we can state based on our
findings that the current study agrees with the current rest recommendation. Our data
suggest that to maximize repetition performance, at least 2-minutes of rest between sets
was sufficient for the MCF and at least 3-minutes was sufficient for the BP.
Recently, two studies investigated the influence of different rest intervals in
single and multi-joint exercises (13, 14) in other intensity zones. Senna et al. (13)

Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

compared repetition performance in single and multi-joint exercises, for exercises

incorporating the pectoralis major and quadriceps with a 10-RM load. Repetition
performance and RPE were compared with 1, 3, and 5-minute rest intervals between
sets of single-joint (MCF and leg extension) and multi-joint (BP and leg press)
exercises. The results indicated that for the BP, significantly greater total repetitions
were completed for the 3 and 5-minute protocol versus the 1-minute protocol. No

significant differences were evident between the 3 and 5-minute rest conditions for the

TE

BP. For the other exercises (i.e., leg press, leg extension, and MCF), significant
differences were evident between all rest conditions (1 < 3 < 5-minute rest). For all
exercises, consistent declines in repetition performance (relative to the first set) were
observed for all rest conditions, starting as early as the second set for the 1-minute and

EP

by the third set for the 3 and 5-minute conditions.

In another study, Senna et al. (14) compared the effect of different intervals on
single and multi-joint exercise repetition performance, perceived exertion and blood

C
C

lactate. Twelve trained men completed five sets of the BP and MCF with 10-RM loads
to failure with 1 or 3-minute rest intervals between sets. It was found that significantly
greater total repetitions were completed for the 3-minute rest protocol versus the 1minute rest protocol for both exercises. Regarding the RPE, progressive increases

occurred after the third set for all conditions tested. For blood lactate concentrations, the
BP demonstrated significant increases immediately following and fifteen minutes postexercise versus baseline for both conditions (1 and 3-minute). Conversely, for the MCF,
significantly greater increases in blood lactate were observed for the 1-minute versus the
3-minute condition at the same time points post-exercise.
The studies conducted by Senna et al. (13, 14) resembled the current study
with similar performance decreases found in both exercises (BP and MCF) for the 1-

Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

minute rest condition. In addition, another key similarity was the lower RPE values for
the single-joint exercises, indicating a decreased fatigue status associated with the use of
lesser muscle mass. However, one of the major differences in the current study versus
Senna et al., (13, 14), was the load range (i.e. 3-RM versus 10-RM). This indicates that
performance will be similarly affected by the rest interval condition, irrespective of the
load intensity.

However, this wasn't the first study that compared multi-joint exercise repetition

TE

performance and RPE values with near maximum loads. In fact, the study conducted by
Scudese et al., was the first study (11) to analyze the effects of different rest interval
lengths on 3-RM BP performance and RPE values. Sixteen trained men performed four
visits for 1, 2, 3, and 5-minute rest intervals between five consecutive sets. Scudese et

EP

al., (11) found increased total BP repetitions completed with 2, 3 and 5-minutes versus
1-minute rest between sets. Declines in performance (relative to the first set) were
observed starting as early as the second for the shorter 1-minute and only at the fifth set

C
C

for all of the other rest conditions (2, 3 and 5-minute). The current study resembled
Scudese et al., (11) in the load range implemented (3-RM). Also, the outcomes for the
BP exercise followed similar repetition patterns of decline over consecutive sets.
However, the current study went further by investigating the MCF with a 3-RM load.

The current study showed a distinct difference between the MCF and BP specifically
beginning at the 2-minute rest condition, at which significantly greater total repetitions
were performed over five sets for the MCF versus the BP.
Others studies have verified the differences in repetition performance with
different rest interval lengths between sets (8, 12). Specifically, Senna et al., (12)
compared repetition performance during four sessions that included three exercises for
the lower body (i.e., leg press, leg extension and leg curl) and three exercises for the

Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

upper body (i.e., BP, MCF, and triceps pushdown), performed for three sets with a
10RM load, and either 2 or 5-minute rest intervals between sets. For the 2-minute
sessions, the majority of exercises presented declines in repetition performance as early
at the second set versus the first set (excluding the MCF); and for the third set versus the
first and second sets (excluding leg extension). For the 5-minute sessions, three of the
six exercises presented declines in repetitions from the third set versus the first set (leg

press, leg curl, and triceps pushdown); and two of the six exercises presented declines

TE

from the third set versus the second set (leg curl and triceps pushdown). The total
repetitions completed at the end of the session were significantly greater for 5-minute
when versus 2-minute rest protocol (12).

This study (12) differed from the current study, in that the accumulated fatigue

EP

from the initial exercises performed during an entire training session, probably impacted
the repetition performance of the exercises conducted later in the session. In addition,
our study was designed with only one exercise per visit and implemented a higher load

C
C

(3-RM). However, consistent with this study, the BP and MCF, presented distinct
repetition performance patterns with a key threshold for differences being exhibited
with 2-minutes rest between sets.

The RPE values have been used for assessing the relative intensity of resistance

exercise (6). Prior studies (12, 13) reported that the RPE increased over the course of
consecutive sets when comparing 1-minute versus 3 or 5-minute rest between sets when
utilizing a 10-RM load. More recently, Scudese et al. (11) the RPE was also lower when
longer rest intervals were applied between sets when utilizing a 3-RM load.
In the current study, significant increases were also evident in RPE for the 1minute rest condition starting from the third set through the fifth set for both exercises.
For the other rest conditions (2, 3 and 5-minute), the BP exercise triggered significant

Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

increases starting from the third set through the fifth set. For the MCF exercise, a
significant increase in RPE was observed only at the fifth set for the 2, 3 and 5-minute
rest conditions. This outcome suggested a greater fatigue rate perceived when under the
1-minute condition versus the longer rest conditions, independent of the exercise mode
(multi or single-joint) implemented.

PRATICAL APLICATIONS

TE

Our results seems to be in accordance with the current state of the art in
resistance training, suggesting that distinct rest interval lengths between sets will trigger
different acute performance outcomes tending toward reductions in repetition
performance over multiple sets with shorter versus longer rest lengths (11, 12, 13, 16,

EP

17, 18). More specifically, when utilizing a near maximal load (i.e. 3-RM), we observed
a similar pattern of performance reduction for both exercises modalities (multi and
single -joint) with a key subtle difference. Our data suggest that to maximize repetition

C
C

performance, at least 2 minutes of rest between sets was sufficient for the MCF and at
least 3-minutes was sufficient for the BP.
Thus, for different exercise modes (single and multi-joint), the main difference

in repetition performance became evident around the 2-minute mark. This data might

contribute to future recommendations focused on strength development for single and

multi-joint exercises performed with near-maximal loads. However, we strongly
recommend future studies should evaluate distinct exercise schemes, other nearmaximal load ranges (1- to 6-RM) and whole-body training sessions.

Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES
1. American College of Sports Medicine. Position stand on progression models in
resistance exercise for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41: 687-708, 2009.
2. American College of Sports Medicine. Position stand on progression models in
resistance exercise for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34: 364-380, 2002.

2nd edition. Illinois: Human Kinetics, 2000.

3. Baechle TR, and Earle RW. Essentials of strength training and conditioning.

TE

4. Bottaro M, Martins B, Gentil P, and Wagner D. Effects of rest duration between

sets of resistance training on acute hormonal responses in trained women. J Med
Sci Sports 12: 73-78,2009.

5. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edition.

EP

Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988.

6. Lagally KM, and Robertson RJ. Construct validity of the OMNI resistance
exercise scale. J Strength Cond Res 20: 252-256, 2006.

C
C

7. McNair PJ, Depledge J, Brettkelly M, and Stanley SN. Verbal encouragement:

effect on maximum effort voluntary muscle action. Br J Sports Med 30: 243245, 1996.

8. Miranda H, Fleck SJ, Simo R, Barreto AC, Dantas EH, and Novaes J. Effect of

two different rest interval lengths on the number of repetitions performed during
resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 21: 1032-1036, 2007.

9. Rahimi R, Qaderi M, Faraji H, and Boroujerdi SS. Effects of very short rest
intervals on hormonal responses to resistance exercise in men. J Strength Cond
Res 24: 1851-1859, 2010.

Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

10. Ratamess NA, Falvo MJ, Mangine GT, Hoffman JR, Faigenbaum AD, and Kang
J. Theeffect rest interval length on metabolic responses to the bench press
exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol 100: 1-17, 2007.
11. Scudese E, Willardson JM, Simo R, de Salles BF, Senna G, and Miranda H.
The effect of rest interval length on repetition consistency and perceived
exertion during near maximal loaded bench press sets. J Strength Cond Res Nov,

2013 [Epub ahead of print].

TE

12. Senna G, de Salles BF, Prestes J, Mello RA, and Simo R. Influence of two
different rest interval lengths in resistance training sessions for upper and lower
body. J Sports Sci Med 8: 197-202, 2009.

13. Senna G, Willardson JM, de Salles BF, Scudese E, Palma A, and Simo R. The

EP

effect of rest interval length on multi and single-joint exercise performance and
perceived exertion. J Strength Cond Res 25: 3157-3162, 2011.
14. Senna G, Figueiredo T, Scudese E, Baffi M, Carneiro F, Moraes E, Miranda H,

C
C

and Simo R. Influence of different rest interval length in multi-joint and singlejoint exercises on repetition performance, perceived exertion, and blood lactate.
J Exerc Physiol online 15: 96-106, 2012.

15. Shephard RJ. Par-Q, Canadian home fitness test and exercise screening

alternatives. Sports Med 5: 185-195, 1988.

16. Willardson JM, and Burkett LN. A comparison of 3 different rest intervals on
the exercise completed volume during a workout. J Strength Cond Res 19: 2326, 2005.
17. Willardson JM, and Burkett LN. The effect of rest interval length on bench press
performance with heavy vs. light load. J Strength Cond Res 20: 396-399, 2006.

Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

18. Willardson JM, and Burkett LN. The effect of rest interval length on the
sustainability of squat and bench press repetitions. J Strength Cond Res 20: 400403, 2006.
19. Willardson JM, and Burkett LN. The effect of different rest intervals between
sets on volume components and strength gains. J Strength Cond Res 22: 146-52,

C
C

EP

TE

2008.

Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

TABLES

1.60 0.82 *

1.33 0.97 *

2 min

2.86 0.35

2.27 0.88

1.93 0.79 *

3 min

3.00 0.51

2.86 0.61

2.40 0.49

5 min

3.06 0.25

2.73 0.70

2.73 0.45 #

1 min

2.93 0.45

2.46 0.51 *

2 min

3.06 0.25

2.80 0.41 *

3 min

3.20 0.41

2.93 0.25 *

5 min

3.36 0.41

2.93 0.25

0.80 0.67 *

7.60 3.52

1.33 1.04 *

1.13 0.99 *

9.53 3.11

1.93 0.85 * #

1.46 0.88 *

11.66 2.69

2.33 0.72 * #

2.06 0.59 *

12.93 2.25 #

2.00 0.75 *

1.80 1.15 *

1.13 0.64 *

10.33 2.60

2.53 0.74 *

2.26 0.70 *

1.93 0.80 *

12.60 2.35

2.86 0.35 *

2.53 0.74 *

2.13 0.83 *

13.66 1.84

2.86 0.35

2.93 0.45 *

2.53 0.52 * #

14.53 1.35

C
C

MCF

0.80 1.01 *

TE

3.06 0.45

EP

1 min

Table 1.Number of repetitions in each set and the total number of repetitions in each exercise with 1, 2, 3, and 5 minutes rest intervals (mean
SD).
Total number
Set 1
Set 2
Set3
Set 4
Set 5
of repetitions
BP

Values were expressed in maximal repetitions (RM). BP = bench press; MCF = machine chest fly.
difference to set 1.
Significant difference to set 2.
Significant difference to set3.
Significant difference to 1 minute rest interval.
# Significant difference to 2 minute rest interval.

* Significant

Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

TABLE 2. Effect size from the second set of each exercise with 1, 2, 3 and 5 minutes
rest intervals.*
Set 2
Set 3
Set 4
Set 5
BP
1 min

3.20 (large)

3.78 (large)

4.95 (large)

4.95 (large)

2 min

0.68 (moderate)

1.05 (large)

1.73 (large)

1.96 (large)

3 min

0.25 (small)

1.16 (large)

2.06 (large)

2.96 (large)

5 min

1.29(large)

1.29 (large)

2.84 (large)

3.87 (large)

1 min

1.01 (large)

2.03 (large)

2.47 (large)

3.93 (large)

2 min

1.03 (large)

2.06 (large)

3.09 (large)

4.38 (large)

3 min

0.64 (moderate)

0.80 (moderate)

1.61 (large)

2.57 (large)

5 min

0.48 (moderate)

0.80 (moderate)

0.64 (moderate)

1.61 (large)

TE

EP

BP = bench press; MCF = machine chest fly.

MCF

C
C

TABLE 3. Rating of perceived exertion for each exercise and each rest
interval (median).
Set 1
Set 2
Set 3
Set 4
Set 5
BP
10 *
10 *
1 min
8
9
10 *
2 min
8
9
9*
10 *
10 *
3 min
8
9
10 *
10 *
10 *
5 min
8
8
9*
9 * #
9*
MCF
10 *
10 *
1 min
8
9
9*
7
8
10 *
2 min
8
8
8
9
9
3 min
9
8
5 min
8
8
8
9
10 *
BP = Bench press; MCF = Machine Chest Fly;
* Significant difference to set 1.
Significant difference to set 2.
Significant difference to 1 minute rest interval.
# Significant difference to 2 minute rest interval.

Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

FIGURES
FIGURE 1. Number of repetitions in BP for each set with 1, 2, 3 and 5 minutes rest

C
C

EP

TE

intervals.

* Significant difference to set 1.

Significant difference to set 2.
Significant difference to set3.
Significant difference to 1 minute rest interval.
# Significant difference to 2 minute rest interval.

Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

FIGURE 2. Number of repetitions in MCF for each set with 1, 2, 3 and 5 minutes rest

EP

TE

intervals.

C
C

* Significant difference to set 1.

Significant difference to set 2.
Significant difference to set3.
Significant difference to 1 minute rest interval.

Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.