Literature DB >> 29541107

Maximal repetition performance, rating of perceived exertion, and muscle fatigue during paired set training performed with different rest intervals.

Marianna de Freitas Maia1, Gabriel Andrade Paz1, Humberto Miranda1, Vicente Lima2, Claudio Melibeu Bentes3, Jefferson da Silva Novaes1, Patrícia Dos Santos Vigário4, Jeffrey Michael Willardson5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND/
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine rest interval length between agonist-antagonist paired set training (PS) on maximal repetition performance, rating of perceived exertion, and neuromuscular fatigue.
METHODS: Fourteen trained men (age, 24.2 ± 1.1 years; height, 175 ± 5.5 cm; body mass, 76.6 ± 7.0 kg) performed two experimental protocols in random order with 2 minutes (P2) or 4 minutes (P4) between agonist-antagonist PS, which consisted of a bench press set followed immediately by a seated row set with 8-repetition maximum loads, respectively. A total of three PS were performed for each rest interval protocol. The total repetitions performed and the rating of perceived exertion were recorded for each exercise set within each rest interval protocol. Electromyography signals were recorded for the posterior deltoid, biceps brachii, pectoralis major, and triceps brachii muscles during the SR exercise. The electromyography signals were then used to calculate a fatigue index for each rest interval protocol.
RESULTS: No significant differences were identified in the total repetitions completed between rest interval protocols for the bench press (P2 = 22.9 ± 1.3 and P4 = 22.6 ± 0.8) and seated row (P2 = 25.4 ± 1.7 and P4 = 25.1 ± 1.3). However, a significantly higher fatigue index was found for all muscles under the P2 versus the P4 protocol.
CONCLUSION: When performing agonist-antagonist PS, prescribing a shorter rest interval between PS may induce higher levels of fatigue, albeit with similar total repetitions versus a longer rest interval.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Electromyography; Exercise; Recovery; Resistance training

Year:  2015        PMID: 29541107      PMCID: PMC5812862          DOI: 10.1016/j.jesf.2015.08.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exerc Sci Fit        ISSN: 1728-869X            Impact factor:   3.103


  26 in total

1.  The effects of antagonist prefatigue on agonist torque and electromyography.

Authors:  Jeremy Maynard; William P Ebben
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 3.775

2.  Exercise order in resistance training.

Authors:  Roberto Simão; Belmiro Freitas de Salles; Tiago Figueiredo; Ingrid Dias; Jeffrey M Willardson
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 11.136

3.  Physical performance and electromyographic responses to an acute bout of paired set strength training versus traditional strength training.

Authors:  Daniel W Robbins; Warren B Young; David G Behm; Warren R Payne; Marc D Klimstra
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 3.775

4.  The effect of rest interval length on the sustainability of squat and bench press repetitions.

Authors:  Jeffrey M Willardson; Lee N Burkett
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 3.775

5.  Interpretation of EMG integral or RMS and estimates of "neuromuscular efficiency" can be misleading in fatiguing contraction.

Authors:  Todor I Arabadzhiev; Vladimir G Dimitrov; Nonna A Dimitrova; George V Dimitrov
Journal:  J Electromyogr Kinesiol       Date:  2009-02-23       Impact factor: 2.368

6.  Effects of different rest intervals between antagonist paired sets on repetition performance and muscle activation.

Authors:  Marianna F Maia; Jeffrey M Willardson; Gabriel A Paz; Humberto Miranda
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 3.775

7.  Muscle fatigue and metabolic responses following three different antagonist pre-load resistance exercises.

Authors:  Rodrigo Carregaro; Rafael Cunha; Carlos Gomes Oliveira; Lee E Brown; Martim Bottaro
Journal:  J Electromyogr Kinesiol       Date:  2013-06-03       Impact factor: 2.368

8.  The effect of a complex agonist and antagonist resistance training protocol on volume load, power output, electromyographic responses, and efficiency.

Authors:  Daniel W Robbins; Warren B Young; David G Behm; Warren R Payne
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 3.775

9.  Muscle fatigue during dynamic contractions assessed by new spectral indices.

Authors:  George V Dimitrov; Todor I Arabadzhiev; Katya N Mileva; Joanna L Bowtell; Nicola Crichton; Nonna A Dimitrova
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 5.411

10.  EMG spectral indices and muscle power fatigue during dynamic contractions.

Authors:  M González-Izal; A Malanda; I Navarro-Amézqueta; E M Gorostiaga; F Mallor; J Ibañez; M Izquierdo
Journal:  J Electromyogr Kinesiol       Date:  2009-04-29       Impact factor: 2.368

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.