1
JEPonline
Multi-Joint and Single-Joint Exercise Performance andPerceived Exertionwith Several Different Recoveries
Gilmar Senna1,2, Estevão Scudese2,3, Felipe Carneiro2, Juliana Torres2, Cristiano Queiroz4, Estélio Dantas1,2
1Nursing and Biosciences Post-Graduation Program, Doctorate of Federal University of State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2Biosciences Laboratory of Human Movement, Tiradentes University, Brazil, 3School of Physical Education and Sports, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 4Health Center Science, Catholic of Petrópolis University, Brazil
ABSTRACT
Senna G, Scudese E, Carneiro F, Torres J,Queiroz C, Dantas E. Multi-Joint and Single-Joint ExercisePerformance and Perceived Exertion with Several Different Recoveries.JEPonline2015;18(3):91-100. The purpose of this study was to comparerepetition performance andrate of perceived exertion(RPE) with different rest periods for multi-joint and single-joint exercises. Fourteentrained men (20.93 ± 2.40 yrs; 75.23 ± 9.37 kg; 176.64 ± 7.53 cm; 24.03 ± 1.62 kg·m-2) completed 8sessions with 3 setsof 10RM loads. Barbell bench press (BP) or machine chest fly(MCF) werealternated (one each day) with different rest periodsfor each day (1-min,2-min, 3-min, or 5-min).The results indicatedthat the shorter rest lengthpresented greater reductions in repetition number forthe BP(1-min < 2-min < 3-min, P≤0.0001),but no differences were observed between the 3-min and the 5-min rest conditions. ForMCF, significant differenceswere evidenced for rest periods of 1-min, 2-min, and 3-min compared to 5-(P≤0.0001). No significant differenceswere found between 1-min, 2-min, and 3-min. Both exercisespresented progressive declinesin repetition performance over consecutive sets.Increases in RPE wereevident over the course of the consecutive setsfor bothexercises, withsignificant exertion values at the lowersmaller rest conditions. In conclusion, the findings indicate that both exercisespresentedsimilar patterns in repetition performance and RPE.
Key Words: Muscle Strength, Weight Lifting, Physical Fitness
INTRODUCTION
According to the American College of Sports Medicine (1), the rest interval between sets can influence the outcome of resistance training programs. The most recent position statement (1),indicates that when emphasis is placed onstrength development, power or hypertrophy, a 2-min to 3-min rest period is recommended for multi-joint exercises and recoveries of 1-min to 2-min between sets seems to be sufficient for single-joint exercises. Recently, several experiments have demonstratedthat different rest lengthscould promote distinct repetition performance for multiple sets of multi-joint exercises or over the course of a training session (7,11-15,17-19).
However, after a rigorous search, the authors found few studies that verified the influence of rest interval length between sets for multi-joint and single-joint exercises (14,15). Of these studies, the authors have observed similar patternsover the reduction ofrepetition number in multi-joint and single-joint exercises, regardless of the rest length investigated. Additionally, Senna et al. (15) observed lower elevations in blood lactate concentrations caused by long intervals between sets for single-joint exercise. Further, the perceived exertion (RPE) values were significantly increased over successive sets for both the multi-joint and single-joint exercises with significantly greater values for the 1-min rest condition (14,15).
However, given the current recommendations, there is littlecredible evidence regarding the 2-min rest length window especially for multi-joint and single-joint exercisesin regards to repetition performance (14,15). This specific length (2-min) appears to be fundamental effort to consolidate the current rest recommendation (1). In addition to the importance of adding to the current body of knowledge for future recommendations, the purpose of this study was to compare the repetition performance and RPE with 1-min, 2-min, 3-min, and 5-min rest intervals between sets for multi-joint and single-joint exercises. We hypothesized that multi-joint and single-joint exercises would reveal a similar pattern of repetitions performance output and RPE values.
METHODS
Subjects
Fourteen trained men (20.93 ± 2.40 yrs; 75.23 ± 9.37 kg; 176.64 ± 7.53 cm; 24.03 ± 1.62 kg·m-2; relative strength in BP: 1.57 ± 0.30 kg·kg-1 body mass) participated in the study. All subjects indicated that they had 1-yr experience in resistance training with a minimum of 3 times·wk-1 frequency. Also,each subject confirmed the absence of any medical condition that could influence the training program. None was using anabolic-androgenic steroids, ergogenic substances or drugs that could influence the subject’s exercise performance. In addition, the subjectswere instructed to avoid regular physical activity during the study period. Before data collection, all subjects responded negatively to the PAR-Q (16). The experimental procedurewas approved by the Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Anthropometric variables and body composition were taken to determine the subjects’ height (cm) and weight (kg) for calculation of body mass index (BMI-weight/stature²), using a digital scale, Filizola, model PL 180 (Brazil) with accuracy of 0.01 kg and a stadiometer accurate to 0.1 cm, Sanny, model ES 2020 (Brazil). All procedures followed the recommendations of the International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry (6).
Ten Repetition Maximum
After two familiarization sessions (similar to the test procedures), the 10RM load was assessed for all subjects over four non-consecutive days with a randomized design. At the first-day,the subjects performed the 10RM test for the bench press exercise (BP). During the second visit, the subjects performed the 10RM test on the machine chest fly (MCF). Two addition visits with similar procedures were necessary to determine the reproducibility of the 10 RM. For all testing sessions, each subject performed a maximum of three attempts for each exercise with 10RM loads and5 min of rest between attempts. The greatest load successfully lifted between the two testing visits was considered as the 10RM value. Standard techniques were used for each exercise (2).
To minimize errors in data collection, the following conditions were followed: (a) standardized instructions concerning testing procedures were given to the subjects; (b) all subjects were properly instructed on the techniques for each exercise; (c) body position was held constant; (d) verbal encouragement was provided during all testing procedures; and (e) mass of all free weights and barbellwere determined using a precision scale.
Experimental Procedures
Seventy-two hrs after the last 10RM test, the subjects completed the first of eight different experimental sessions (2 sessions·wk-1). For each visit, 3 sets with 10RM loads were performed on a random cross-over design in order to determine the exercise (BP or MCF) in combination with a given rest length (1-min, 2-min, 3-min, or 5-min) implemented for each experimental session. The warm-up before each exercise consisted of 2 sets of 12 repetitions with 40% of 10RM loads. A recovery time of 3-min was allowed between the warm-up and the experimental procedure. The subjects were verbally encouraged to perform 3 sets until volitional exhaustion. No attempt was made to control the repetition velocity, however, the subjects were told to use a smooth, controlled movement. All visits were conducted at the same time of day in order to avoid any circadian accumulation effects. The number of repetitions and the RPE (verified by Omni Res Scale) were recorded to each set for purposes of later interpretation (4,5).
Statistical Analysis
The number of repetitions was presented by mean ± standard deviation (SD) and by the median for Omni Res Scale (RPE). An intra-class correlation coefficient was used for verifythe load reproducibility between 10RM tests and retest sessions. The ANOVA (one-way) for repeated measures was used to analyze repetitions performance data between sets and between different rest conditions for each exercise. When necessary, a Bonferronipost-hoc test was applied for pair-wise comparisons. Additionally, to determine the magnitude of the findings, Effect Sizes (ESs) were calculated for each exercise set of each rest condition. The thresholds proposed by Cohen (3) were applied to determine the magnitude of the treatment effects. The Friedman test was used to detect differences in relation to RPE between sets and rest intervals conditions. When necessary, a Dunn post-hocwas implemented for pair-wise comparisons. The level of significance was set at P<0.05. Statistical software 10.0 version was used for statistical analyze (Statsoft, Inc, Tulsa, OK, USA).
RESULTS
Excellent reproducibility for 10RM loads was observed between test and retest in both exercises (BP, r = 0.97; MCF, r = 0.94; P<0.0001). For BP,1-minrest protocol resulted in significant reductions for the total number of repetitions compared with the other rest conditions (2-min, 3-min, and 5-min; P0.002). Similarly, the 2-min protocol showed important decreases in total repetition number when compared with the longer 3-min and 5-min rest intervals (P<0.0001). However, no differences were identified betweenthe 3-min and the 5-min rest conditions. For MCF,1-min, 2-min,and 3-min of rest triggered significant reductions at the total number of repetitions compared to the longer 5-min rest condition (P<0.0001). Repetitions values per set and the total number of repetitions for both exercises for each rest protocol are presented in Table 1. Figures 1 and 2 represent the curve pattern of reductions in the number of repetitions of each set different conditions in the interval exercises multi-joint and single-joint exercises, respectively.
Table 1.Number of Repetition inEach Set and the Total Number of Repetitions with 1-Min, 2-Min, 3-Min, and 5-Min RestIntervals.Data are means ± standard deviation.
Exercise and Rest Conditions / Set 1 / Set 2 / Set 3 / Total Number of RepetitionsBench Press
1-min / 10.07 ± 0.26 / 7.00 ± 1.11*§‡ / 5.21 ± 1.12*†§‡ / 22.28 ± 1.12#§‡
2-min / 10.71 ± 1.13 / 8.07 ± 1.14* / 6.43 ± 1.22*†‡ / 25.21 ± 2.86§‡
3-min / 10.21± 0.57 / 9.36 ± 0.93 / 8.07 ± 0.92*† / 27.64 ± 1.86
5-min / 10.14 ± 0.36 / 9.42 ± 0.75 / 8.50 ± 0.65*† / 28.07 ± 1.31
Machine Chest Fly
1-min / 10.57 ± 0.93 / 7.35 ± 1.01*‡ / 5.86 ± 0.66 *†‡ / 23.78 ± 1.25‡
2-min / 10.28 ± 0.61 / 8.35 ± 1.27* / 6.35 ± 1.39*†‡ / 25.00 ± 2.85‡
3-min / 10.21 ± 0.69 / 8.35 ± 1.08* / 7.21 ± 1.05*†‡ / 25.78 ± 2.45‡
5-min / 10.50 ± 0.65 / 9.85 ± 0.66 / 9.50 ± 1.09* / 29.85 ± 1.95
Values are Expressed in Repetition maximum (RM). *Significant difference compared with set 1; †Significant difference compared with set 2; #Significant difference compared with 2-min; §Significant difference compared with 3-min; ‡Significant difference compared with 5-min.
Figure 1.Number of Repetitions in Each Set with Rest Intervals for Bench Press of 1-Min, 2-Min, 3-Min, and 5-Min.*Significant difference compared withSet 1; †Significant difference compared with Set 2; #Significant difference compared with 2-min (P<0.05); §Significant difference compared with 3-min (P<0.05); ‡Significant difference compared with 5-min (P<0.05).
Figure 2.Number of Repetitions in Each Set with 1-Min, 2-Min, 3-Min, and 5-Min Rest Intervals for Machine Chest Fly.*Significant difference compared withSet 1; †Significant difference compared with Set 2; #Significant difference compared with 2-min (P<0.05); §Significant difference compared with 3-min (P<0.05); ‡Significant difference compared with 5-min (P<0.05).
The effect size datapresented large magnitudefor repetition reduction on both exercises and rest conditions (Table 2). The magnitude of reductions was more evident over the completion of the consecutive sets for all exercises in all rest interval conditions.
Table 2.Effect Size from the Second Set of Each Exercise with the 1-Min, 2-Min, 3-Min, and 5-Min Rest Intervals.
Exercise and Rest Conditions / Set 2 / Set 3Bench Press
1-Min / 3.42 (large) / 5.02 (large)
2-Min / 1.22 (large) / 2.48 (large)
3-Min / 0.80 (large) / 1.23 (large)
5-Min / 1.98 (large) / 1.53 (large)
Machine Chest Fly
1-Min / 3.42 (large) / 5.02 (large)
2-Min / 3.15 (large) / 6.42 (large)
3-Min / 2.65 (large) / 4.29 (large)
5-Min / 0.98 (large) / 1.53 (large)
For the RPE data, significant increases were observedover the course of sets completion independently of the exercise modality. Moreover, higher values were found for the 1-min and the 2-minrest intervals starting as soon as the second set for the BP exercise (Table 2). For all other rest conditions in both exercises, significant values in RPE were evident only at last set.
Table 3. Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) for Each Set and Exercise for 1-Min, 3-Min, 5-Min Rest Interval (Median).
Exercise and Rest Conditions / Set 1 / Set 2 / Set 3Bench press
1-Min / 7 / 7.5* / 8*‡
2-Min / 6.5 / 7* / 8*
3-Min / 6 / 7 / 8*
5-Min / 6 / 7 / 7*
Machine Chest Fly
1-Min / 6 / 7 / 8*†‡
2-Min / 6 / 6.5 / 8*†
3-Min / 6 / 6 / 7*
5-Min / 6 / 6 / 7*
*Significant difference to set 1; †Significant difference to set 2; ‡Significant difference to 5-min rest interval.
DISCUSSION
The findings in this study indicate that with regards to multi-joint BP exercise,longer rest periods (such as 3-min and 5-min) promote better consistency and ahigher number of repetitions when compared with the shorter intervals (such as the 1-min and 2-min rest periods). Also, in regards to the MCF exercise, the 1-min, 2-min, and 3-min rest intervals resulted in significant reductions in total number of repetitions compared with the 5-min rest period. As to RPE, significant increases were shown over the succession of sets independent of the exercise modality. These findings can contribute for future recommendations due to the scarce multiple rest comparisonsperformed between multi-joint and single-joint exercises (BP and MCF).
The American College of Sports Medicine (1) recommends a minimum of a 2-min to 3-min recovery between sets for multi-joint exercises and a minimum of 1-min to 2-min rest between sets for single-joint exercise. However, our data do not support the ACSM statementdue to the very similar performance reduction pattern that we found on repetitionnumber for both exercises modalities (multi-joint and single-joint). While ACSM recommends the 2-min rest condition when the goal is the development of strength or hypertrophy (1), the present study showed dramatic performance reductions with 2-min of recoverybetween sets for both exercises (multi-joint and single-joint exercise).
Number of Repetitions
Recently, only two studies investigated the influence of different rest intervals between sets for multi-joint and single-joint exercises (14,15). Senna et al. (14) compared repetition performance between multi-joint and single-joint exercises and analyzed the same muscles (pectoralis major and quadricepsfemoris) for both methods. Fifteen trained men completed 12 sessions (4 exercises x 3 rest intervals). Each session consisted of 5 sets of 10RM loads for the BP, leg press, MCF, and leg extension exercises with 1-min, 3-min, and 5-min rest periods between sets. The results indicated a significantly higher value with 3-min and 5-min versus 1-min between sets for the BP. No significant differenceswere evident between 3-min and 5-min rest conditions. For other exercises (i.e., leg press, MCF, and machine leg extension), significant differences were reported between all rest conditions (1-min < 3-min < 5-min). For all exercises, consistent decreases in repetition performance (relative to the first set) were observed for all rest conditions, starting early from the second set for 1-min rest condition and late by the third set for the 3-min and 5-min rest periods.
Senna et al. (15) compared the influence of different rests on multi-joint and single-joint exercises on repetition performance, perceived exertion, and blood lactate. All subjects completed four different experimental sessions. During each session, five sets of each exercise were executed with 10RM loads to failure with the 1-min or 3-min rest interval. The authors found that 3-min rest protocol promoted greater total number of repetitions for BP and MCF compared to the shorter 1-min rest condition. Regarding the RPE, progressive elevations occurred after the third set of all conditions tested. For blood lactate concentrations, the multi-joint exercise (BP) elicited significant elevations immediately after and 15 min post-exercise compared to the baseline condition for both rest conditions (1-min and 3-min). As for the single-joint exercise (MCF), the authors found higher blood lactate values with the 1-min rest interval compared to the 3-min rest interval.
The studies conducted by Senna et al. (14,15) partially corroborate the findings in the current studydue to the similar pattern of repetitions performance found for different exercises with either the 1-min, 3-min, and 5-min recovery. Several rest periodswereverified (1-min, 2-min, 3-min, and 5-min) and no important differences were observed in the performance patterns between both exercises (BC and MCF). However, we did found that the 3-min rest condition did not trigger a significant reduction in total number of repetitions for the single-joint exercise, which contrasted with Senna et al. (14,15). This outcome might have occurred due to the accumulated fatigue effect found by the previous 5 set protocol compared to the much shorter 3 set protocol from the current investigation.
Several other previous studies focused onanalyzingdistinct rest periods on multi-joint exercises (8-12,17-19). The majority of these investigations found significant reductions in performance for several different recovery times (i.e., 1-min, 2-min, 3-min, and 5-min). For instance, Ratamess et al. (9) examined the effects of different rest periods on intensity, volume, and metabolic responses in the BP exercise. Eight trained men performed 10 randomized protocols with 5 BP sets at 75% or 85% of 1RM for 10 repetitions and 5 repetitions, respectively. The authors then implemented several rest periods between sets (30-sec, 1-min, 2-min, 3-min, and 5-min) and found thatthe 30-sec and 1-min rest periodsresulted in 15 to 55% reductions in the subjects’ intensity and volume (fifth < fourth < third < second < first set). For the 2-min rest period, the performance was maintained during the first and second sets, but decrease 8 to 29% from the third, fourth, and fifth sets. For the 3-min rest period, a volume reduction was noted in the fourth and fifth sets, (~21% lower than the first, second, and third sets). At 5-min, a reduction was observed only for the final fifth set. The authors found that the greatest reductions in performance occurred with the shortest recoveries and performance was maintained during third to fourth sets when a longer 3-min to 5-min rest period was conducted. These data are in accordance with the overall result of the present study when taking into account the multi-joint exercise outcomes. Moreover, a very similar pattern was found for the single-joint exercise, allowing for the observation of the same performance pattern between exercise modalities.