RECOVERY BETWEEN SETS IN STRENGTH TRAINING: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Santana, Wilian de Jesus; Bocalini, Danilo Sales; João, Gustavo Allegretti; Caperuto, Erico Chagas; Araujo, Iago Portolani de; Figueira Junior, Aylton

doi:10.1590/1517-8692202430012021_0037i

Systematic Review, Training • Rev Bras Med Esporte 30 • 2024 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1517-8692202430012021_0037i linkcopy

RECOVERY BETWEEN SETS IN STRENGTH TRAINING: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

RECUPERACIÓN ENTRE SERIES EN EL ENTRENAMIENTO DE FUERZA: REVISIÓN SISTEMÁTICA Y META-ANÁLISIS

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Introduction: The recovery interval (RI) between sets and exercises has received attention from strength training (ST) researchers, to understand the relationship of rest on performance maintenance, especially the total load in a training session. It is known that each individual responds in a specific way to the training stimulus. So, what would be the effect of the different recovery interval strategies on the strength performance?

Objective: Compare the different recovery intervals in strength training volume, considering the number of repetitions in healthy adults.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis based on methodological criteria, comparing fixed and self-selected RI on training volume, identified by the number of repetitions performed in a weight training program. Three electronic databases (Pubmed, VHL Virtual Health Library, Ebsco Sportdiscus) were analyzed, combining the expressions “resistance training”, “resistance exercise”, “strength exercise”, “recovery interval”, “rest interval”, “interval auto suggested”, “auto range selected” with “AND” and “OR” combination.

Results: Pooled data from five studies showed a large significant effect in favor of the experimental group (>2 minutes) (MD: 1.24; 95%-CI [0.78; 1.71]; z: 5.25, Q:1.08; p < 0.01), since in the studies, recovery interval allowed a greater training volume.

Conclusion: Longer RI seems be better, for maintaining total training volume, although there is no consensus for different training objectives against the self-selected RI. Thus, we imagine that this strategy may be important in the organizing a bodybuilding exercise program. Level of Evidence I; Systematic Review and Meta Analysis.

Keywords:
Resistance Training; Rest; Health Strategies

	(0-10)	Scale PEDro
Authors		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
Ahtiainen et al,²³ 2005	6	S	N	N	S	N	N	N	S	S	S	S
Ammar et al,³⁶ 2019	6	S	N	N	S	N	N	N	S	S	S	S
De Salles et al,³³ 2016	7	S	S	N	S	N	N	N	S	S	S	S
De Souza et al,0⁹ 2010	7	S	S	N	S	N	N	N	S	S	S	S
Fink et al,²⁷ 2016	7	s	S	N	S	N	N	N	S	S	S	S
Ibbot et al,¹⁵ 2019	7	S	S	N	S	N	N	N	S	S	S	S
Ibbot et al,³⁴ 2019 II	7	S	S	N	S	N	N	N	S	S	S	S
Lemos et al,³⁷ 2018	7	S	S	N	S	N	N	N	S	S	S	S
Machado et al,⁴¹ 2012	7	S	S	N	S	N	N	N	S	S	S	S
Maia et al,³⁹ 2015	7	S	S	N	S	N	N	N	S	S	S	S
Miranda et al,³² 2007	6	S	N	N	S	N	N	N	S	S	S	S
Miranda et al,³⁰ 2009	6	S	N	N	S	N	N	N	S	S	S	S
Paz et al, 2019	7	S	S	N	S	N	N	N	S	S	S	S
Rahimi,²⁹ 2005	6	S	N	N	S	N	N	N	S	S	S	S
Senna et al,0⁸ 2016	7	S	S	N	S	N	N	N	S	S	S	S
Shoenfeld et al,³⁸ 2016	7	S	S	N	S	N	N	N	S	S	S	S
Sosciarelli et al,³⁵ 2019	6	S	N	N	S	N	N	N	S	S	S	S
Tibana et al,³¹ 2013	6	S	N	N	S	N	N	N	S	S	S	S

ID	Authors	Sample	Objective	Design	Exercises	Rest interval	Output
1	De Souza et al0⁹ (2010)	20 young people trained recreationally	Compare the effect on strength and hypertrophy of 8 weeks of resistance training using constant rest intervals (Cri) and decreasing rest intervals (Dri)	8 training weeks with 6 weekly training sessions, A and B training sessions, with constant and decreasing intervals. 2 first weeks 3x 10 to 12RM with 2 min interval. After 3 weeks, the Constant group used a 2-minute interval and 4x 8 at 10RM.	Dumbbell bench press, dumbbell incline bench press, front pull, Dumbbell Shoulder press, side elevation, biceps curl, tríceps pulley, barbell triceps extension, lever leg extension lying leg curl	constant rest intervals and decreasing rest intervals	The total training volume (resistance series x for all training sessions) during the 8 weeks of training for the bench press, the Cri group (21,257.9 ± 172.7 kg) was significantly higher (p = 0.043) than the group Dri (19,250.4 ± 343.8 kg). Likewise, the total volume of training in the squat performed by the Cri group (27,248.2 ± 293.8 kg) was significantly higher (p = 0.000) than the Dri group (23,453.6 ± 299.4 kg).
2	Ammar et al³⁶ (2019)	9 Olympic weightlifters	Examine the effect of intermaximal repetition of 3 vs. 2-minute rest period in maintaining technical efficiency and the production of energy during 2 successive maximum repetitions of Clean & Jerk (C&J)	2 warm-up sessions 4 clean and jerk lifting sessions with 2 and 3 minutes intervals between attempts, analyzing technique and power	Clean and jerk	2 e 3 minutes	Statistical analysis showed that 1-minute RI improved the maintenance of the ideal pushing technique, evidenced by the reduction of falls in the vertical peak displacement bar (2.74%; p = 0.03), maximum bar speed (2.89% %; p = 0.03) and peak of the knee (1.61%; p = 0.03) and hip extensions (1.59%; p = 0.03) during the push movement phase. In addition, the 3 min IR led to the maintenance of the ideal elevation strategy, reducing the increase in horizontal displacement during the descending (3.85%; p = 0.04) and ascending (5.42%; o = 0, 02).
3	Senna et al0⁸ (2016)	15 trained men	To investigate the acute effects of different rest intervals between sets on the performance of and multi-joint exercises with near maximum loads	8 sessions in total, 2 per week. Each session 5 series of 3RM until exhaustion. Rest intervals 1, 2, 3 and 5min	Chest fly machine and bench press dumbbell	1, 2, 3 and 5 minutes	In the crucifix exercise, there were significantly> total repetitions> completed for 2- (12.60 ± 2.35 repetitions; p = 0.027), 3- (13.66 ± 1.84 repetitions; p = 0.001) and 5 minutes (12.93 ± 2.25 representatives; p = 0.001) vs. 1 minute protocol (10.33 ± 2.60 reps). For BP, a significantly> total number of repetitions was completed for 3- (11.66 6 2.79 repetitions; p = 0.002) and 5 minutes (12.93 ± 2.25 repetitions; p = 0.001) vs. 1 minute (7.60 ± 3.52 reps). In addition, the subjects completed a total number of significantly> repetitions in the 5-minute protocol (12.93 ± 2.25 repetitions; p = 0.016) vs. 2 minutes (9.53 ± 3.11 representatives).
4	Rahimi et al²⁹ (2005)	20 college men	Compare the effect of 3 different rest intervals on the completed squat volume during a workout	4 sets of squats with rest intervals of 1, 2 and 5 min between sets at 85% of 1RM	Squat	1, 2 and 5 minutes	The completed volume for the squat was significantly different between the 1 and 5 minute rest conditions and between the 2 and 5 minute rest (p <0.001, 0.002; however, the completed volume was not significantly different between the resting conditions of 1 and 2 minutes (p = 0.190; intra-class reliability for the squat was 0.97. The 5-minute rest allowed greater volume when training with 85% of 1RM of the load, stimulating greater adaptation of force
5	Miranda et al³⁰ (2009)	12 recreational trained men	Compare the volume exercise (series x load x repetitions per series) completed during two resistance exercise sessions that incorporated rest intervals of 1 minutes vs 3 minutes between sets and exercises	3 training sessions, one for evaluation and 2 for effective training. 5 upper body exercises with a maximum load of 8RM with 1 and 3 minutes of intervals between sets comparing the total training volume related to rest	Bench press, bench press inclined, pec deck, barbell triceps extension, tríceps pulley	1 and 3 minutes	The total volume of training completed (sets x load x repetitions per set) for all exercises was significantly higher for the 3-minute resting condition versus the 1-minute resting condition (p <0.05;). Within each resting condition, there were significant differences in the repetitions completed for each series of exercises (p <0.05;). In addition, there were significant differences between resting conditions in completed repetitions for most sets of exercises (p <0.05)
6	Miranda et al³² (2007)	14 recreational trained men	Compare the effects of 2 different rest periods during a resistance training session with the number of repetitions completed per set of each exercise, the volume completed in 3 sets of each exercise, and the total volume during a training session	2 exercise sessions separated by 48 to 72 hours in a balanced crossover design. 3 sets until exhaustion with a load of 8 RM for each exercise.	Cable pulldown closed handle, Cable pulldown open handle, seated row, barbell bench press, dumbbell biceps curl, biceps curl machine	1 and 3 minutes	The total training volume (total number of repetitions in all sets of all exercises) in SEQ 3 (107.2 3.03 repetitions) was significantly higher than SEQ 1 (78.9 3.28 repetitions). Sequence 1 demonstrated significantly lower values for the number of completed repetitions in all 3 sets for all exercises compared to SEQ 3 As the rest interval increases, the total number of completed repetitions also increases. The number of repetitions was greater in the 3-minute rest compared to 1 minute.
7	De Salles et al³³ (2016)	27 healthy young people	Analyze the effects of the Fixed versus Self Rest Interval Suggested Between Sets on Performance in Lower and Upper Body Exercises	They were divided into 2 groups: G1 squat and leg press, G2 bench press and barbell curl. After the 1RM tests, they trained 3 sets to failure with 75% of 1RM at 2 min intervals and auto suggested on separate days. Performance was assessed for the number of repetitions	squat, leg press, bench pres, bíceps curl	2 minutes, self selected	There were no significant differences between a 2-min recovery interval and self-selected for total repetitions in all exercises. There were significant differences between the intervals for leg press, bench press and biceps curl (p <0.05). No significant differences were found between different RI for all exercises. For squats, the suggested RI results in a significant reduction in the number of repetitions from the first set to the second and third
8	Tibana et al³¹ (2013)	10 recreational trained men	Compare two different rest intervals between sets of resistance exercises	5x smith bench press with 60% 1RM with 1.5m and 3min intervals	Bench press machine	1, 3 and 5 minutes	In general, the performance was better and the fatigue was lower in the IR 3 min, supporting all hypotheses, except Hypothesis 4. Overall, the performance was better and the fatigue was lower in the 3 min. IR, supporting all hypotheses, except Hypothesis 4. The 3-minute interval protocol showed higher values for power, training volumes, average speed and peak power
9	Fink et al²⁷ (2016)	20 young athletes	Compare short rest intervals combined with low-load RT and long rest intervals combined with high-load RT in relation to muscle hypertrophy and strength results.	Two groups of 10 men took two types of intervals, 30s with 20RM and 3 minutes with 8RM, for 8 weeks, 3x a week until failure. Cross section and acute GH effects were evaluated. 3 exercises for biceps and triceps	Bíceps curl and tríceps extension	30 seconds and 3 minutes	Only the SL group showed significant increases in GH (7704.20 11833 49%, P <0 05) and MT (35 2 16 9%, P<0 05) immediately after training. After 8 weeks, the CSAs of the arm in both groups increased significantly [SL: 9 93.4 86% (P <001), LH: 4 73 3 01% (P <0 05)]. No significant correlation between acute elevations in GH and increases in CSA can be observed. The data showed a tendency for greater increases in the muscular CSA in the SL group compared to the LH group, despite the similarity in the training volume.
10	Lemos et al³⁷ (2018)	15 trained men	To compare the effect of a strength training session performed with different exercise orders and rest intervals in BP and HRV in a normotensive trained man	6 exercises with a load of 15RM in two sequences of exercise execution, with Seq A from large to small and Seq B from small to large, both with 40 and 90 sec of rest interval between sets	Bench press, front pulldown, seated row, Upright row, triceps extension, biceps curl	40 and 90 seconds	The total load volume did not differ significantly between protocols, therefore, the total amount of work performed in all sequences was similar (p> 0.05). A comprehensive upper body TF session, with 90 sec IR between sets and exercises promoted a longer HPE, specifically in SBP, compared to a 40-second rest interval between sets and exercises regardless of the order of exercise
11	Shoenfeld et al³⁸ (2016)	21 trained university men	To investigate the effects of short rest intervals normally associated with training hypertrophy versus long rest intervals traditionally used in TF on muscle adaptations in a cohort of young lifters	Separated into two groups, one with 1 min and the other with 3 min intervals. 8 weeks with 3x training per week and 3x from 8 to 12 RM 7 exercises	Bech press and squat	1 and 3 minutes	The total volume of aggregate load in the 8 weeks was higher on an absolute basis for LONG compared to SHORT (51,385 x 9420 vs 44,755 x 12,166 kg, respectively): These results were not significantly different between groups (p = 0.18),
12	Maia et al³⁹ (2015)	14 recreational trained men	Examine the length of the rest interval between agonist-antagonist (PS) training, maximum repetition performance, classification of perceived exertion and neuromuscular fatigue.	2 strength training protocols using the agonist vs. antagonist method. With two intervals (2 and 4 minutes of rest) with a load of 8RM until failure.	Dumbell inverted fly, bíceps curl, bench press, tríceps extension	2 and 4 minutes	No significant differences were found in the total number of repetitions completed between the rest interval protocols for the bench press (P2 ¼ 22.9 ± 1.3 and P4 ¼ 22.6 ± 0.8) and sitting row (P2 ¼ 25.4 ± 1.7 and P4 ¼ 25.1 ± 1.3). At the However, a significantly higher fatigue index was found for all muscles under the P2 versus P4 protocol. The current study demonstrated similar repetition performance with PS agonist-antagonist training protocols that used 2 or 4 minute rest intervals between the OS with a moderate load (for example, 8-RM)
13	Paz et al⁴⁰ (2019)	15 recreational trained men	To investigate the effect of different paired joint rest intervals (PS) on the total volume of work and training, efficiency (training volume load / session duration time) and myoelectric activity.	4 protocols of training with 30, 60, 90 and 120 sec intervals with 10 RM load	Bench press (BP)/lat pull downl (LPD), bench press inclined (BP30)/seated row (SR), and triceps extension (TE)/ Bíceps curl (BC).	30, 60, 90 e 120 seconds	The volume load (repetitions x series x loads) was significantly lower at P30 (5385.8 ± 1224 kg) versus P60 (6755.6 ± 1398.5 kg), P90 (7358.3 ± 1490.3 kg) and P120 Protocols (7463 ± 1310 kg). There were no significant differences in sEMG activity between the protocols. The efficiency (kg $ min 1) of P30 (633.6 ± 144) was significantly higher compared to P60 (397.4 ± 82.2), P90 (288.5 ± 58.4) and P120 (219.5 ± 38.5) significantly less total work in protocols P30 versus P60, P90 and P120 for all exercises, (b) lower total volume of training observed in P30 versus protocols P60, P90 and P120; and (c) a similar total volume was observed for the P60, P90 and P120 protocols. However, higher efficiency (TTV / time) was observed at P30 versus protocols P60, P90 and P120.
14	Sociarelli et al³⁵ (2019)	12 trained men	Compare the effect of fixed and self-suggested recovery intervals during bench press exercise under the number of repetitions and training density in trained men	4 series until exhaustion at 70% of 1RM with intervals of 1 to 2 min, 2 to 3 and self suggested	Bench press	1 a 2, 2 a 3, self suggested	The analysis of the results showed that INT1 had a lower number of repetitions (28.9 ± 4.7) only in relation to the AS interval (34.0 ± 7.2; P = 0.02). On the other hand, the training density of INT1 was higher (5.6 ± 1.8) than INT2 (4.5 ± 1.3; P = 0.002) and AS (3.8 ± 1.4; P = 0.004) There was no difference for PSE
15	Machado et al⁴¹ (2012)	50 adult men	Examine creatine kinase (CK) activity after resistance exercise sessions in subjects classified as high (HiR), medium (MeR) or low responders (LoR).	4 x direct thread to failure with 85% 1RM with 1 and 3 minutes interval between sets	Biceps curl	1 and 3 minutes	For all groups (ie LoR, MeR and HiR), the number of repetitions and volume decreased similarly in the 3 groups indicated by the main non-significant effect for the group (F2.376 = 1.58, p = 0.208 for repetitions; F2.376 = 2.31, p = 0.101 for completed volume), non-significant interaction for group3 rest interval (F2.376 = 0.542, p = 0.582 for repetitions; F2.376 = 0.376, p = 0.687 for the completed volume) and the non-significant interaction for group 3 (F6.376 = 1.06, p = 0.385 for repetitions; F6.376 = 0.537, p = 0.780 for completed volume).
16	Ahtiainen et al²³ (2005)	13 recreational trained men	Investigate acute hormonal and neuromuscular responses and recovery 2 protocols of hypertrophic heavy resistance performed with a similar general volume of exercise;	Two training sessions, with 3 months for each group to carry out the two protocols. 5x leg press, 4x squat, with 2 minutes rest. The second session was 4x leg press and 3 squat loads of 10RM	Leg press and squat	2 and 5 minutes	No significant changes occurred in body mass (from 83.9 ± 11.7 kg to 84.6 ± 12.9 kg) or body fat percentage (from 14.8 ± 3.9% to 15.3 ± 3.6 %) during the 6-month experimental training period in the total group of subjects. There were no statistically significant differences in the total training load. In 6 months, a significant increase of 6.8 ± 8.7% (from 3,370 6 748 to 3,613 6 949 N) (p, 0.05) was recorded in the maximum isometric extension of the leg strength in the total group of subjects
17	Ibbot et al¹⁵ (2019)	16 male athletes	Evaluate stimulation strategies using rest periods between prescribed and self-selected intervals and their influence on performance in trained athletes in strength.	3 5x 5rep training sessions with different intervals 3 and 5 and self suggested	squat	3, 5 and self suggested	Self suggested rest time between sets increased from sets 1 to 4 (207.52s> 277.71 s; p = 0.01). There is not differences in mechanical performance was shown between the different conditions of the rest period between sets. Power (210 W; 8.03%) and speed (0.03 m.s-1; 6.73%) decreased as the sets progressed for all the conditions (p <0.001) from set 1 to set 5.
18	Ibbot et al³⁴ (2019b)	16 male athletes	To investigate the variability of self-selected rest periods for strength-trained athletes between squat training sets heavy	2 training sessions with self selected 5x5RM squat intervals. At the end of each series, the individual indicated his / her perceived effort scale	squat	Self selected	Only one participant was unable to complete the necessary repetitions until the end. The average duration of rest was 283 ± 101 for session 01 and 249 ± 76 for session 02. The average rest was shorter in AS2 than in AS1. The rest period increased significantly after series 3 and 4 in relation to series 1 There was no significant difference between sessions for PSE

location_on

Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina do Exercício e do Esporte Av. Brigadeiro Luís Antônio, 278, 6º and., 01318-901 São Paulo SP, Tel.: +55 11 3106-7544, Fax: +55 11 3106-8611 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: atharbme@uol.com.br

rss_feed Stay informed of issues for this journal through your RSS reader

[TFN1] Chart 1. PEDro Scale scores of articles selected for systematic review. * Y = yes; N = no - Scores of 6 or more are considered indicative of high quality; scores below 6 considered to indicate low quality. - PEDro scale items: (a) eligibility criteria and source of participants; (b) random allocation; (c) hidden allocation; d) Baseline comparability; (e) blind subjects; (f) blind therapists; (g) blind advisors; (h) adequate follow-up; (i) intention to treat; (j) comparisons between groups; k) point estimates and variability.