Give it a rest: a systematic review with Bayesian meta-analysis on the effect of inter-set rest interval duration on muscle hypertrophy.

IF 2.3 Q2 SPORT SCIENCES Frontiers in Sports and Active Living Pub Date : 2024-08-14 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fspor.2024.1429789
Alec Singer, Milo Wolf, Leonardo Generoso, Elizabeth Arias, Kenneth Delcastillo, Edwin Echevarria, Amaris Martinez, Patroklos Androulakis Korakakis, Martin C Refalo, Paul A Swinton, Brad J Schoenfeld
{"title":"Give it a rest: a systematic review with Bayesian meta-analysis on the effect of inter-set rest interval duration on muscle hypertrophy.","authors":"Alec Singer, Milo Wolf, Leonardo Generoso, Elizabeth Arias, Kenneth Delcastillo, Edwin Echevarria, Amaris Martinez, Patroklos Androulakis Korakakis, Martin C Refalo, Paul A Swinton, Brad J Schoenfeld","doi":"10.3389/fspor.2024.1429789","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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. <b>Systematic Review Registration:</b> OSF, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YWEVC.</p>","PeriodicalId":12716,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Sports and Active Living","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11349676/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Sports and Active Living","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2024.1429789","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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. Systematic Review Registration: OSF, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YWEVC.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
让肌肉休息一下:利用贝叶斯荟萃分析法对组间休息间隔时间对肌肉肥大的影响进行系统回顾。
我们系统地检索了相关文献,这些文献采用随机设计,在控制所有其他训练变量的情况下,比较了不同组间休息间隔时间对健康成人瘦肉/肌肉质量的前后变化的估计值。贝叶斯荟萃分析使用分层模型对符合纳入标准的 9 项研究中的全部 19 项测量(大腿:10;手臂:6;全身:3)进行了非控制效应大小分析,结果显示,不同组间休息时间的标准化平均差异有很大重叠[二元:短:0.48 (95%CrI: 0.19-0.81),长:0.56 (95%CrI: 0.24-0.86);四类:短:0.47 (95%CrI: 0.19-0.80),中:0.65 (95%CrI: 0.24-0.86),长:0.56 (95%CrI: 0.24-0.86)]:0.65(95%CrI:0.18-1.1),长:0.55(95%CrI:0.15-0.90),极长:0.50(95%CrI:0.14-0.89)],结果存在很大的异质性。对受控二元(较短与较长)效应大小的单变量和多变量配对荟萃分析显示,手臂和大腿的结果相似,中心估计值倾向于较长的休息时间[手臂:0.13(95%CrI:-0.27 至 0.51);大腿:0.17(95%CrI:-0.13 至 0.43)]。相比之下,全身的中心估计值更接近零,但略微倾向于缩短休息时间[全身:-0.08 (95%CrI: -0.45 to 0.29)]。对一组终点数据进行的子分析表明,训练至衰竭或停止至衰竭并不会对休息间歇时间与肌肉肥大之间的相互作用产生有意义的影响。总之,研究结果表明,组间休息间歇时间大于 60 秒对肥大有微小的益处,这可能是通过减少运动量负荷来实现的。然而,当组间休息时间大于 90 秒时,我们的分析并未发现明显的肥大差异,这与有证据表明超过此时间范围后,对运动量负荷的不利影响趋于稳定的观点一致。系统综述注册:OSF, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YWEVC.
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
7.40%
发文量
459
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Effects of conservative treatment strategies for iliotibial band syndrome on pain and function in runners: a systematic review. Identification of distinct physical activity profiles through adolescence: a longitudinal qualitative description study. Performing performance: young aspiring athletes' presentation of athletic identity. Validation of the basic need satisfaction for sport scale in Ethiopian athletes. Unlocking high-value football fans: unsupervised machine learning for customer segmentation and lifetime value.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1