The effects of pre-exhaustion, exercise order, and rest intervals in a full-body resistance training intervention

Abstract

Pre-exhaustion (PreEx) training is advocated on the principle that immediately preceding a compound exercise with an isolation exercise can target stronger muscles to pre-exhaust them to obtain greater adaptations in strength and size. However, research considering PreEx training method is limited. The present study looked to examine the effects of a PreEx training programme. Thirty-nine trained participants (male = 9, female = 30) completed 12 weeks of resistance training in 1 of 3 groups: a group that performed PreEx training (n = 14), a group that performed the same exercise order with a rest interval between exercises (n = 17), and a control group (n = 8) that performed the same exercises in a different order (compound exercises prior to isolation). No significant between-group effects were found for strength in chest press, leg press, or pull-down exercises, or for body composition changes. Magnitude of change was examined for outcomes also using effect size (ES). ESs for strength changes were considered large for each group for every exercise (ranging 1.15 to 1.62). In conclusion, PreEx training offers no greater benefit to performing the same exercises with rest between them compared with exercises performed in an order that prioritises compound movements.Key words: strength, muscle, lean mass, body fat.Résumé : Un entraînement physique qui fatigue le muscle au préalable (PreEx) est préconisé selon le principe qu'un exercice isolé précédant immédiatement une chaîne d'exercices permet de cibler des muscles plus forts et de les fatiguer au préalable pour susciter des adaptations supérieures sur le plan de la force et de la grosseur. Toutefois, il y a peu d'études traitant d'entraînement PreEx. Cette étude se propose d'examiner l'effet d'un programme d'entraînement PreEx; trente-neuf sujets dont 9 hommes participent à 12 semaines d'entraînement contre résistance dans l'un des trois groupes : un groupe d'entraînement PreEx (n = 14), un groupe effectuant la série d'exercices selon la même séquence, mais avec un intervalle de repos entre les exercices (n = 17) et un groupe de contrôle (n = 8) effectuant les mêmes exercices, mais selon une séquence différente (la chaîne d'exercices précédant l'exercice isolé). On n'observe pas de différence significative entre les groupes sur le plan de la force au développé couché, au développé des jambes, à la traction vers le bas et de la modification de la masse corporelle. On analyse en outre l'importance du changement par la statistique de l'ampleur de l'effet (« ES »). Les ES de la modification de la force musculaire sont très marquées dans chaque groupe d'exercices (1,15 à 1,62). En conclusion, le programme PreEx ne procure pas plus d'avantages que les mêmes exercices présentés avec un intervalle ou effectués selon une séquence priorisant la chaîne d'exercices. [Traduit par la Redaction]

Reply to “Discussion of ‘The effects of pre-exhaustion, exercise order, and rest intervals in a full-body resistance training intervention’ – Pre-exhaustion exercise and neuromuscular adaptations: an inefficient method?”

“…We reiterate that we did not measure, and made no claims regarding hypertrophy within our study (Fisher et al 2014). In addition the rejection of empirical data in favour of a preconceived hypothesis, without identifying genuine methodological issues that might limit the extent to which said data can be respected, appears demonstrative of considerable bias.…”

“…The primary themes within the authors' letter appear to dispute volume of resistance training (single vs. multiple sets) and hypertrophic adaptations. For clarity, our original paper (Fisher et al 2014) neither compared nor measured either of these variables. However, in the interests of open dialogue we feel readers might benefit from our responding to the letter to clarify any misinterpretations.…”

Discussion of “The effects of pre-exhaustion, exercise order, and rest intervals in a full-body resistance training intervention” − Pre-exhaustion exercise and neuromuscular adaptations: an inefficient method?

“…Dear Editor, we appreciated reading the article by Fisher et al (2014), entitled "The effects of pre-exhaustion, exercise order, and rest intervals in a full-body resistance training intervention", published in the November 2014 issue of Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism (APNM). This article determined the effects of a 12-week pre-exhaustion training intervention on muscular strength and body composition, comparing chronic adaptations between 3 groups: a pre-exhaustion group, a group performing the same exercises in the same order with moderate rest intervals between exercises, and a group performing the same exercises in a different order.…”

“…The conflicting results regarding the hypothesis of the preexhaustion method originally proposed by Jones (1970) and the results of Fisher et al (2014) on muscle performance and body composition changes can be, at least in part, explained by the lack of a gold-standard and/or most appropriate methods to analyze important variables regarding muscle hypertrophy and training. For example, the authors mention the recommendations of the American College of Sport Medicine (ACSM) for trained individuals, a recommendation based on the totality of the research literature.…”

“…The metabolic stress manifested by accumulation of metabolites, such as lactate and H + ions, and acute muscle hypoxia associated with resistance training can mediate hypertrophic adaptations, such as cellular swelling and alterations in local myokines, including interleukin-6 (Schoenfeld 2013). In this sense, considering the possible higher metabolic stress induced by the pre-exhaustion method, it is surprising that no metabolic measures or any other valuable markers of hypertrophy were obtained in the study of Fisher et al (2014). Moreover, to draw precise conclusions regarding muscle hypertrophy, magnetic resonance and ultrasound should be used, while this was not the case.…”