Efeito do intervalo de recuperação fixo e autossugerido entre séries do exercício resistido sobre o comportamento cardiovascular pós-esforço

Abstract

-This study aimed to compare differences in the number of repetitions after exercises with different rest intervals and to analyze cardiovascular parameters after resistance training. The sample comprised 10 physically active men (23±2 years). The one-repetition maximum (1RM) test was performed in the following order: bench press, guided squat bar, biceps curl and leg curl. After the 1RM test, the individual held three sessions of resistance training, on different days, with rest intervals of 1 minute, 2 minutes, and self-suggested intervals, randomized for each day. We calculated 75% of the load of the 1RM test, with three series of maximum repetitions performed to exhaustion. Cardiovascular variables were measured at rest and during 30 minutes after exercise. In the self-suggested interval, which showed an average time of rest (157±37 seconds) similar to the 2-minute interval, more repetitions were performed compared to the 1-minute interval session, with no difference in relation to the 2 minute-interval session. No difference was found in systolic blood pressure and in the high frequency (HF) component between the intervals, but post-exercise hypotension was observed in diastolic blood pressure after 10 minutes' recovery in all intervals, with a longer duration in the 2-minute interval session. After 30 minutes' recovery, an increase in the low frequency (LF) component was registered for the 2-minute interval session, and an increase in LF/HF was found at 10, 20 and 30 minutes of recovery after sessions with 1-and 2-minute intervals, demonstrating a possible predominance of sympathetic action. The self-suggested interval did not show changes in the components of heart rate variability. These findings suggest that intervals of at least 2 minutes between sets may be interesting to provide more repetitions and reduce the post-exercise sympathetic effect. Key words: Cardiovascular system; Exercise; Interval. Resumo -O objetivo do estudo foi comparar a diferença no número de repetições após exercícios realizados com diferentes intervalos de recuperação e analisar o comportamento cardiovascular pós-esforço. A amostra foi composta de 10 homens (23 ± 2 anos) fisicamente ativos. Foi realizado o teste de uma repetição máxima (1RM) nos exercícios supino horizon

Effects of fixed vs. self‐suggested rest between sets in upper and lower body exercises performance

“…In its last position stand, the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM, 2009) recommended different RIs for single‐joint (auxiliary) and multi‐joint exercises (basic). Several previous studies compared the effect of different RIs on ST performance (Goessler & Polito, 2013; Miranda et al, 2009; Ratamess et al, 2007; Senna, de Salles, Prestes, Mello, & Simão, 2009, 2011; Tibana et al, 2013; Weir, Wagner, & Housh, 1994; Willardson & Burkett, 2005, 2006). However, the only study that examined the effects of different RIs in single‐ and multi‐joint exercises does not support ACSM recommendation (Senna et al, 2011).…”

“…Considering this possibility, a recent study showed that lower RI (1 min) resulted in fewer repetitions performed when compared to a 2 min and self‐suggested RI (rest according to the perception of effort). Additionally, self‐suggested RI did not result in different responses from 2 min fixed RI in duration or in number of repetitions performed(Goessler & Polito, 2013).…”

The effects of short versus long inter‐set rest intervals in resistance training on measures of muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review

“…As demonstrated by De Salles et al ( 2016), a possible benefit of using an SS approach to rest intervals may be a greater time efficiency, with no decrease in the number of repetitions per set. However, the findings of De Salles et al ( 2016) are in contrast with the results of Goessler and Polito (2013), who found that an SS approach compared to fixed rest intervals lasting 1 and 2 min resulted in a longer rest interval (157 ± 37 s). The differences may be attributed to the applied resistance training protocols, as De Salles et al ( 2016) separated the protocol in sessions targeting upper and lower body, while Goessler and Polito (2013) employed a whole-body resistance training session.…”

“…However, the findings of De Salles et al ( 2016) are in contrast with the results of Goessler and Polito (2013), who found that an SS approach compared to fixed rest intervals lasting 1 and 2 min resulted in a longer rest interval (157 ± 37 s). The differences may be attributed to the applied resistance training protocols, as De Salles et al ( 2016) separated the protocol in sessions targeting upper and lower body, while Goessler and Polito (2013) employed a whole-body resistance training session. It may be hypothesized that resistance-trained individuals may efficiently auto-regulate their rest intervals and successfully maintain performance, rather than using a predetermined rest interval.…”

Autoregulation in Resistance Training for Lower Limb Tendinopathy: A Potential Method for Addressing Individual Factors, Intervention Issues, and Inadequate Outcomes

“…The modification of training volume with autoregulation has typically been the training variable successfully adopted in studies; however, other training variables have also been examined. The effectiveness of autoregulation of rest intervals in trained men compared to fixed rest intervals has been successfully demonstrated, resulting in greater performance outcomes (Goessler and Polito, 2013). A recent systematic review also concluded that autoregulated rest periods were as good as/better than the structured ones for strength and muscle gain (Henselmans and Schoenfeld, 2014).…”