Acute Effect of Fixed vs. Self-Selected Rest Interval Between Sets on Physiological and Performance-Related Responses.

IF 2.6 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES
Diego A Alonso-Aubin, Juan Hernández-Lougedo, Alberto Cavero-Haro, Ismael Martínez-Guardado
{"title":"Acute Effect of Fixed vs. Self-Selected Rest Interval Between Sets on Physiological and Performance-Related Responses.","authors":"Diego A Alonso-Aubin, Juan Hernández-Lougedo, Alberto Cavero-Haro, Ismael Martínez-Guardado","doi":"10.3390/jfmk9040200","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Although the comparison between self-managed rest and fixed rest periods in subjects experienced in lower-limb strength training has been investigated, the results remain unclear due to controversies among some studies. Therefore, the present study aimed to analyze the role of self-managed rest versus fixed rest in athletic performance, mean propulsive velocity, velocity loss, muscle oxygen saturation, and rest time in trained subjects; <b>Methods:</b> Thirteen subjects with a minimum of one year of training experience (age (years): 26.31 ± 3.84; height (cm): 175.46 ± 5.61; weight (kg): 79.24 ± 6.83) were randomly assigned to two groups (self-selected rest group [SR] = 7 and fixed rest group [FR] = 6). The subjects underwent a session for evaluation (one maximum repetition (1RM) estimation, familiarization, and data collection) and another day for a traditional strength training session for the back squat, consisting of five sets of four repetitions at 80% of 1RM. One group took a fixed 2 min break, while the other group managed their breaks autonomously (resuming when they felt ready to perform the next set at maximum velocity). Mean propulsive velocity (MPV) was monitored using a linear position transducer, and muscle oxygen saturation (SmO<sub>2</sub>) was measured with a near-infrared spectroscopy device; <b>Results:</b> Significant differences between the groups were found for the rest time between the first and second sets (SR 97.29 ± 23.70 seg vs. FR 120 ± 0.00 seg). However, no differences were found for MPV, velocity loss, or SmO<sub>2</sub>; <b>Conclusions:</b> Given the similarities in performance and physiological outcomes between fixed and self-selected rest conditions, both can be used equally depending on the preferences and training goals of coaches and athletes.</p>","PeriodicalId":16052,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology","volume":"9 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11503322/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk9040200","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Although the comparison between self-managed rest and fixed rest periods in subjects experienced in lower-limb strength training has been investigated, the results remain unclear due to controversies among some studies. Therefore, the present study aimed to analyze the role of self-managed rest versus fixed rest in athletic performance, mean propulsive velocity, velocity loss, muscle oxygen saturation, and rest time in trained subjects; Methods: Thirteen subjects with a minimum of one year of training experience (age (years): 26.31 ± 3.84; height (cm): 175.46 ± 5.61; weight (kg): 79.24 ± 6.83) were randomly assigned to two groups (self-selected rest group [SR] = 7 and fixed rest group [FR] = 6). The subjects underwent a session for evaluation (one maximum repetition (1RM) estimation, familiarization, and data collection) and another day for a traditional strength training session for the back squat, consisting of five sets of four repetitions at 80% of 1RM. One group took a fixed 2 min break, while the other group managed their breaks autonomously (resuming when they felt ready to perform the next set at maximum velocity). Mean propulsive velocity (MPV) was monitored using a linear position transducer, and muscle oxygen saturation (SmO2) was measured with a near-infrared spectroscopy device; Results: Significant differences between the groups were found for the rest time between the first and second sets (SR 97.29 ± 23.70 seg vs. FR 120 ± 0.00 seg). However, no differences were found for MPV, velocity loss, or SmO2; Conclusions: Given the similarities in performance and physiological outcomes between fixed and self-selected rest conditions, both can be used equally depending on the preferences and training goals of coaches and athletes.

固定组间休息时间与自选组间休息时间对生理和成绩相关反应的急性影响。
背景:虽然已有研究对有下肢力量训练经验的受试者的自我管理休息与固定休息时间进行了比较,但由于一些研究之间存在争议,结果仍不明确。因此,本研究旨在分析自我管理休息与固定休息对受训者运动表现、平均推进速度、速度损失、肌肉氧饱和度和休息时间的影响;方法:13 名受训者进行了至少一年的下肢力量训练:13 名至少有一年训练经验的受试者(年龄26.31 ± 3.84;身高(厘米): 175.46 ± 5.61175.46 ± 5.61;体重(公斤): 79.24 ± 6.83):79.24 ± 6.83)被随机分配到两组(自选休息组 [SR] = 7 和固定休息组 [FR] = 6)。受试者先进行一次评估(估算最大重复次数(1RM)、熟悉情况和收集数据),然后在另一天进行传统的后蹲力量训练,包括以 80% 的 1RM 重复 5 组 4 次。其中一组固定休息 2 分钟,而另一组则自主安排休息时间(当他们觉得可以以最大速度进行下一组训练时再继续休息)。用线性位置传感器监测平均推进速度(MPV),用近红外光谱设备测量肌肉氧饱和度(SmO2);结果:第一组和第二组之间的休息时间在组间存在显著差异(SR 97.29 ± 23.70 seg vs. FR 120 ± 0.00 seg)。但是,在 MPV、速度损失或 SmO2 方面没有发现差异;结论:鉴于固定休息时间和自选休息时间在成绩和生理结果上的相似性,两者可根据教练员和运动员的偏好和训练目标平等使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology
Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology Health Professions-Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
94
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信