Give it a rest: a systematic review with Bayesian meta-analysis on the effect of inter-set rest interval duration on muscle hypertrophy.
muscle cross-sectional area
muscle development
muscle growth
muscle thickness
recovery interval
rest period
Journal
Frontiers in sports and active living
ISSN: 2624-9367
Titre abrégé: Front Sports Act Living
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101765780
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2024
2024
Historique:
received:
08
05
2024
accepted:
30
07
2024
medline:
31
8
2024
pubmed:
31
8
2024
entrez:
29
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We systematically searched the literature for studies with a randomized design that compared different inter-set rest interval durations for estimates of pre-/post-study changes in lean/muscle mass in healthy adults while controlling all other training variables. Bayesian meta-analyses on non-controlled effect sizes using hierarchical models of all 19 measurements (thigh: 10; arm: 6; whole body: 3) from 9 studies meeting inclusion criteria analyses showed substantial overlap of standardized mean differences across the different inter-set rest periods [binary: short: 0.48 (95%CrI: 0.19-0.81), longer: 0.56 (95%CrI: 0.24-0.86); Four categories: short: 0.47 (95%CrI: 0.19-0.80), intermediate: 0.65 (95%CrI: 0.18-1.1), long: 0.55 (95%CrI: 0.15-0.90), very long: 0.50 (95%CrI: 0.14-0.89)], with substantial heterogeneity in results. Univariate and multivariate pairwise meta-analyses of controlled binary (short vs. longer) effect sizes showed similar results for the arm and thigh with central estimates tending to favor longer rest periods [arm: 0.13 (95%CrI: -0.27 to 0.51); thigh: 0.17 (95%CrI: -0.13 to 0.43)]. In contrast, central estimates closer to zero but marginally favoring shorter rest periods were estimated for the whole body [whole body: -0.08 (95%CrI: -0.45 to 0.29)]. Subanalysis of set end-point data indicated that training to failure or stopping short of failure did not meaningfully influence the interaction between rest interval duration and muscle hypertrophy. In conclusion, results suggest a small hypertrophic benefit to employing inter-set rest interval durations >60 s, perhaps mediated by reductions in volume load. However, our analysis did not detect appreciable differences in hypertrophy when resting >90 s between sets, consistent with evidence that detrimental effects on volume load tend to plateau beyond this time-frame.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39205815
doi: 10.3389/fspor.2024.1429789
pmc: PMC11349676
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
1429789Informations de copyright
© 2024 Singer, Wolf, Generoso, Arias, Delcastillo, Echevarria, Martinez, Androulakis Korakakis, Refalo, Swinton and Schoenfeld.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
BJS formerly served on the scientific advisory board for Tonal Corporation, a manufacturer of fitness equipment. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Références
J Sports Sci. 2022 Sep;40(18):2047-2054
pubmed: 36184114
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2016 Jul 1;121(1):129-38
pubmed: 27174923
Sci Rep. 2019 Jul 11;9(1):10028
pubmed: 31296891
J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Jul;24(7):1843-50
pubmed: 20543741
Exp Physiol. 2016 Jul 1;101(7):866-82
pubmed: 27126459
Int J Sports Med. 2017 Feb;38(2):118-124
pubmed: 27984843
Sports Med. 2005;35(4):339-61
pubmed: 15831061
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009 Mar;41(3):687-708
pubmed: 19204579
Am J Physiol. 1999 Sep;277(3):E489-95
pubmed: 10484361
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Jan;68(1):52-60
pubmed: 25304503
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2019 Jan 1;126(1):30-43
pubmed: 30335577
J Sports Sci. 2007 Apr;25(6):619-28
pubmed: 17454528
Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2018 Mar;38(2):261-268
pubmed: 28032435
J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2020 Jul;60(7):992-998
pubmed: 32597616
Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2017 Aug;26(4):364-368
pubmed: 27790968
Heart Lung Vessel. 2015;7(2):133-42
pubmed: 26157739
J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Jan;23(1):62-71
pubmed: 19077743
J Strength Cond Res. 2005 Aug;19(3):572-82
pubmed: 16095405
J Strength Cond Res. 2011 Nov;25(11):3157-62
pubmed: 21993029
Psychol Methods. 2017 Jun;22(2):240-261
pubmed: 26690773
J Strength Cond Res. 2016 Jul;30(7):1805-12
pubmed: 26605807
Sports Med. 2021 Mar;51(3):405-421
pubmed: 33512698
Psychon Bull Rev. 2018 Feb;25(1):178-206
pubmed: 28176294
Psychol Methods. 2002 Mar;7(1):105-25
pubmed: 11928886
J Sports Sci. 2017 Jun;35(11):1073-1082
pubmed: 27433992
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Feb;64(2):163-71
pubmed: 20688472
Eur J Sport Sci. 2017 Sep;17(8):983-993
pubmed: 28641044
Sports Med Open. 2022 Jul 30;8(1):99
pubmed: 35907047
J Sports Sci. 2023 Dec;41(24):2193-2200
pubmed: 38369845
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2021 Jun 1;53(6):1206-1216
pubmed: 33433148
BMJ. 2005 Nov 5;331(7524):1064-5
pubmed: 16230312
J Sports Sci. 2019 Jun;37(11):1286-1295
pubmed: 30558493
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2008 Dec;62(12):1372-8
pubmed: 17684523
Sports Med. 2023 Mar;53(3):649-665
pubmed: 36334240
Front Physiol. 2018 Oct 09;9:1373
pubmed: 30356739
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2015 Feb;115(2):295-308
pubmed: 25294666
J Strength Cond Res. 2011 Aug;25(8):2265-73
pubmed: 21606858
J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2011 Oct 27;8(1):17
pubmed: 22032491
J Strength Cond Res. 2023 Jul 1;37(7):1350-1357
pubmed: 37347940
J Strength Cond Res. 2022 Jun 1;36(6):1554-1559
pubmed: 35622106