An Adequate Interset Rest Period for Strength Recovery During a Common Isokinetic Test

Abstract

Isokinetic testing is used in rehabilitation settings on a regular basis; yet, there is a lack of consistency in rest period usage among protocols. Furthermore, the allotment of rest periods has been arbitrary (e.g., 30, 60, 90 seconds or more). This investigation examines the work:rest ratio as an effective method of standardizing rest periods in isokinetic testing. The purpose of this study was to establish an adequate rest period that would allow reproducibility of strength during a common isokinetic strength test. Twenty-seven healthy college-aged men (age, 23 ± 3.8 years; body weight, 79.54 ± 11.09 kg) were tested on 5 separate occasions: 2 familiarization sessions and 3 experimental sessions. Each subject performed a knee extension/flexion isokinetic strength protocol (Cybex NORM; Lumex, Inc., Ronkonkoma, NY, USA) to determine peak torque by performing 5 maximal reciprocal repetitions at each ascending velocity of 60, 180, and 300°·s. Work:rest ratios of 1:3, 1:8, and 1:12 were counterbalanced between sets. A 3 × 3 repeated measures analysis of variance was used to analyze the data. A significance level of α ≤ 0.05 was used for all tests. There was no significant difference in either knee extension or knee flexion peak torque when comparing work:rest ratios. These findings suggest that a 1:3 work:rest ratio is sufficient during a common isokinetic strength test.

The Effects of Angular Velocity and Training Status on the Dynamic Control Equilibrium

“…The return of the involved leg into the starting position always occurred passively at 120°/s. The interset rest interval was set at 1 min [8]. Strong verbal encouragement promoted maximum effort.…”

Kinesiology tape does not facilitate muscle performance: A deceptive controlled trial

“…The participants were allowed to have 90-s rest periods between each set (Blazquez et al, 2013). Five trials of sub-maximal effort were performed before each set of measurement to ensure familiarity of the evaluation.…”

The Effects of Ramp Gradients and Pushing–Pulling Techniques on Lumbar Spinal Load in Healthy Workers

“…The participants completed all tasks in the same degree of the ramp before changing to perform another degree. A 5-minute was provided between tasks [ 42 , 43 ]. They were instructed to move the cart at their preferred speed and posture, continuously moving the cart on the ramp without stopping, and moving the cart with two hands as shown in Fig.…”