See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317832672

The effects of short versus long inter-set rest

intervals in resistance training on measures of
muscle hypertrophy: A...

Article in European Journal of Sport Science · June 2017

DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2017.1340524

CITATIONS READS

0 150

5 authors, including:

Jozo Grgic Pavle Mikulic

Victoria University Melbourne University of Zagreb, Faculty of Kinesiology
6 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS 36 PUBLICATIONS 429 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

James Krieger Brad J Schoenfeld

University of Florida City University of New York City - Lehman Col…
24 PUBLICATIONS 293 CITATIONS 121 PUBLICATIONS 1,137 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

AVALIAÇÃO INDIRETA DA FORÇA DOS MÚSCULOS DO CORE EM INICIANTES DE ACADEMIA (Evaluation

of core muscles strength in beginners of the resistance training)_2015 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Brad J Schoenfeld on 25 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 European Journal of Sport Science

ISSN: 1746-1391 (Print) 1536-7290 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tejs20

The effects of short versus long inter-set rest

intervals in resistance training on measures of
muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review

Jozo Grgic, Bruno Lazinica, Pavle Mikulic, James W. Krieger & Brad Jon
Schoenfeld

To cite this article: Jozo Grgic, Bruno Lazinica, Pavle Mikulic, James W. Krieger & Brad Jon
Schoenfeld (2017): The effects of short versus long inter-set rest intervals in resistance training on
measures of muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review, European Journal of Sport Science, DOI:
10.1080/17461391.2017.1340524

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2017.1340524

Published online: 22 Jun 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 328

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tejs20

Download by: [108.54.197.51] Date: 27 June 2017, At: 03:42

European Journal of Sport Science, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2017.1340524

The effects of short versus long inter-set rest intervals in resistance

training on measures of muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review

JOZO GRGIC1, BRUNO LAZINICA2, PAVLE MIKULIC3, JAMES W. KRIEGER4, & BRAD
JON SCHOENFELD5
1
Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living (ISEAL), Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia; 2Fitness Academy, Zagreb,
Croatia; 3Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia; 4Weightology LLC, Redmond, WA, USA &
5
Department of Health Sciences, Lehman College, Bronx, NY, USA

Abstract
Although the effects of short versus long inter-set rest intervals in resistance training on measures of muscle hypertrophy have
been investigated in several studies, the findings are equivocal and the practical implications remain unclear. In an attempt to
provide clarity on the topic, we performed a systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science,
Cochrane Library, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) electronic databases. Six studies were found to have
met the inclusion criteria: (a) an experimental trial published in an English-language peer-reviewed journal; (b) the study
compared the use of short (≤60 s) to long (>60 s) inter-set rest intervals in a traditional dynamic resistance exercise using
both concentric and eccentric muscle actions, with the only difference in resistance training among groups being the inter-
set rest interval duration; (c) at least one method of measuring changes in muscle mass was used in the study; (d) the
study lasted for a minimum of four weeks, employed a training frequency of ≥2 resistance training days per week, and (e)
used human participants without known chronic disease or injury. Current evidence indicates that both short and long
inter-set rest intervals may be useful when training for achieving gains in muscle hypertrophy. Novel findings involving
trained participants using measures sensitive to detect changes in muscle hypertrophy suggest a possible advantage for the
use of long rest intervals to elicit hypertrophic effects. However, due to the paucity of studies with similar designs, further
research is needed to provide a clear differentiation between these two approaches.

Keywords: Exercise, fatigue, kinesiology, fitness

Highlights
. Resistance training with both short (60 seconds or less) and long (more than 60 seconds) inter-set rest intervals can be
effective when training for muscle hypertrophy.
. The use of long inter-set rest intervals (>60 sec) when training for muscle hypertrophy may be advantageous, as it allows
training with a higher overall volume load. However, the approach may vary based on the level of exertion and exercise
selection.
. For future research on this topic we suggest the following: (a) using a sensitive measure (e.g. ultrasound or MRI) of
hypertrophy for tracking muscle growth, and (b) using participants with previous experience in resistance training.

Introduction
It has been hypothesized that increases in muscle cells required for muscular hypertrophy (Toigo &
mass are brought about by three primary factors: Boutellier, 2006). However, it is possible that all
mechanical tension, metabolic stress, and muscle three components need to be emphasized to optimize
damage (Schoenfeld, 2013b). Mechanical tension the hypertrophic response to resistance training.
may be considered as the most important factor, as Accordingly, coaches and practitioners need to
it has been shown that mechanical tension alone manipulate several training variables, such as inten-
can initiate mechano-chemically transduced molecu- sity, volume, frequency, exercise selection, exercise
lar and cellular responses in myofibres and satellite order, and inter-set rest intervals given that

Correspondence: J. Grgic, Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living (ISEAL), Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia. E-mail:
[email protected]

© 2017 European College of Sport Science

2 J. Grgic et al.

programme design is essential to maximize resistance indicating an advantage for longer duration rest inter-
training benefits (Kraemer, Ratamess, & French, vals, and, by contrast, the study by Villanueva, Lane,
2002). Of all these variables, evidence-based guide- and Schroeder (2015) supporting the use of shorter
lines for rest intervals are most lacking. Rest intervals rest periods. The equivocal nature of the existing
denote the time dedicated to recovery between sets data may leave the reader confused and unable to
and exercises (Baechle & Earle, 2000) with the draw practical conclusions.
focus being mainly on inter-set rest intervals. Inter- While there are several review articles that have
set rest intervals may be deemed as a key variable of examined the issue of inter-set rest intervals in
resistance training, as they directly influence resistance training (De Salles et al., 2009; Hensel-
fatigue, muscle recovery, the training goal, and train- mans & Schoenfeld, 2014; Willardson, 2008),
ing duration (Willardson, 2008). none of them was a systematic review of longitudi-
Early research on inter-set rest intervals focused on nal studies that compared the effectiveness of short
the acute effects of short versus long rest intervals. versus long inter-set rest intervals on measures of
Kraemer et al. (1990) showed that limiting rest inter- muscle hypertrophy. To avoid a selection that is
vals to 60 s in a whole-body training session resulted biased by preconceived ideas, it is important to
in greater post-exercise anabolic hormone elevations, adopt a systematic and standardized approach to
mainly growth hormone. As noted in the latest pos- the appraisal of studies (i.e. a systematic review)
ition stand (ACSM, 2009), the acute hormonal (National Health and Medical Research Council,
responses are purported to be potentially more 2000). Accordingly, the purpose of this paper was
important for hypertrophy than chronic changes. In to systematically review the literature and objectively
accordance, limiting rest intervals to 60 s is com- assess the effects of short versus long inter-set rest
monly recommended for maximizing hypertrophic intervals in resistance training and their impact on
effects (Willardson, 2008). However, it is important long-term muscle hypertrophy. Based on a critical
to note that short rest intervals also have been examination of the current body of research, evi-
shown to acutely increase levels of the catabolic hor- dence-based recommendations are provided for
mones corticotropin and cortisol (De Salles et al., practitioners striving to optimize training regimens
2009). Considering that West et al. (2010) found aimed at maximizing muscle growth.
no association between exercise-induced elevations
in the levels of anabolic hormones and muscular
hypertrophy, the hypothesis of superior hypertrophic Methodology
effects associated with shorter rest intervals remains
questionable. Inclusion criteria
Rest intervals are often neglected by the athlete, Studies were assessed for eligibility based on the fol-
coach, and/or practitioner. During a rest period, the lowing inclusion criteria: (a) an experimental trial
following events take place: (a) replenishment of the published in an English-language peer-reviewed
ATP-CP system, (b) buffering of H+ from glycolytic journal; (b) the study compared the use of short
energy metabolism, and (c) the removal of lactate inter-set rest intervals (≤60 s) to long inter-set rest
accumulated in the muscles (Ratamess et al., 2007). intervals (>60 s) in a traditional dynamic resistance
Intramuscular acidosis may be relevant, as it is signifi- exercise using both concentric and eccentric muscle
cantly related to the loss of force and tetanic tension actions, with the only difference in resistance training
(Vaughan-Jones, Eisner, & Lederer, 1987). Restrict- among groups being the inter-set rest interval dur-
ing the rest intervals may not allow for the full restor- ation; (c) at least one method of measuring changes
ation of ATP and CP (McMahon & Jenkins, 2002), in muscle mass was used in the study; (d) the study
hindering subsequent performance. Shorter rest lasted for a minimum of four weeks and employed a
intervals may negatively affect performance (i.e. training frequency of ≥2 resistance training days per
reduction in training volume (De Salles et al., week, and (e) used human participants without
2009) and have a high metabolic demand (Ratamess known chronic disease or injury.
et al., 2007). By contrast, longer duration rest inter-
vals allow for a higher training volume, regeneration
of high-energy phosphate bonds, and are also less
Search strategy
metabolically demanding. However, they are more
time consuming. We performed the systematic literature search con-
It is not entirely clear how the rest interval length forming to the guidelines set forth by the PRISMA
may affect muscle hypertrophy responses. The Statement (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, &
current findings of the topic are mixed, with, for PRISMA Group, 2009). We conducted a compre-
example, the study by Schoenfeld et al. (2016) hensive search of the following databases: PubMed/
 Hypertrophy and rest intervals 3

MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane weighing) and the region of the body measured for
Library. The search strategy encompassed the studies that used circumference, ultrasound or
period from the inception of indexing concluding MRI; and (e) pre- and post-treatment mean values
on 20 December 2016. We used the search terms for assessing changes in muscle hypertrophy. The
for rest intervals with the wildcard symbol (“rest coding sheets were crosschecked between coders,
interval”∗ , “inter-set rest interval”) in a combination with any discrepancies resolved by mutual
with Boolean operators (AND, OR) and topic- consensus.
related terms: “resistance training”, “muscle hyper-
trophy”, “muscular hypertrophy”, “muscle mass”,
“training load”, “strength training”, “bodybuilding”, Methodological quality
“cross-sectional area”, “growth”, “muscular For the assessment of methodological quality, we
strength”, “fitness”, “recovery time”, “recovery”, used the 11-point PEDro scale (Maher, Sherrington,
“physiological changes”, “weight-bearing exercise”, Herbert, Moseley, & Elkins, 2003) evaluated inde-
“skeletal muscle”, “muscle fibres”, “measurement”, pendently by the two authors (JG and BL), with an
“training intensity”, “training volume”, “hormonal agreement for any observed discrepancies. The first
response”, “muscle thickness”, “body composition”, item of the PEDro scale concerns external validity
and “fat free mass”. Additionally, we searched the and is not included in the total score; hence, the
PEDro database using the term “rest interval” in values from the PEDro scale range from 0 to 10.
the fitness training and strength training categories. However, as it is impossible to blind the participants
The search strategy was conducted independently in exercise interventions studies, and as the therapists
by two authors (JG and BL) to reduce selection and investigators are rarely blinded, we elected to
bias. Disagreements between the reviewers were remove the scale items 5, 6, and 7. With the
resolved by mutual consensus, and any inter-reviewer removal of these items, the maximum result was 7
disagreements were settled by consensus with the so we used the adjusted ratings, with results ranging
third investigator (PM). As a part of a secondary from 6 to 7 being “excellent quality”, 5 being “good
search, we scanned the reference list in each full quality”, 4 being “moderate quality”, and 0–3 being
text for additional studies. “poor quality”, as done in previous exercise interven-
tion reviews (Kümmel, Kramer, Giboin, & Gruber,
2016).
Study coding and data extraction
Two authors who performed the search process (JG
Results
and BL) performed independent coding of the
studies. Using the Microsoft Excel software (Micro- We evaluated a total of 1960 studies based on the
soft Corporation, WA, USA), the following data initial results of the search; removal of duplicates
were tabulated in a predefined coding sheet: (a) reduced this number to 1115. After scrutinizing the
author(s), title and year of publication; (b) descrip- abstracts for relevance, we considered 46 full texts
tive information of participants by group, including appropriate for detailed reviewing. A review of these
the number of participants in each group, gender, studies revealed that six (Buresh, Berg, & French,
age (for age, the following classification was used: 2009; Fink, Schoenfeld, Kikuchi, & Nakazato,
participants aged 18–35 were classified as young, 2017; Hill-Haas, Bishop, Dawson, Goodman, &
participants aged 36–64 were classified as middle- Edge, 2007; Piirainen et al., 2011; Schoenfeld
aged, whereas the participants aged >65 were classi- et al., 2016; Villanueava et al., 2015) studies met all
fied as older adults), and experience in resistance the inclusion criteria. Papers that cited the six
training (participants with less than one year of included studies were also scanned for additional
experience were defined as untrained, by contrast, studies (an additional 90 results). Finally, we wrote
participants were defined as trained if they had directly to the corresponding authors of the selected
greater than one year of experience); (c) study studies inquiring as to whether they knew of
characteristics (duration of the study, weekly train- additional studies that might meet inclusion criteria.
ing frequency, employed exercises, the set and rep- This action, however, did not yield additional
etition scheme used, and the exact rest intervals for studies. Figure 1 presents a flow diagram of the
both groups); (d) the method used for the assess- search process. Ethics approval from the local insti-
ment of changes in muscle mass (skinfolds, circum- tutional review board was noted in all of the included
ferences, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging – studies.
MRI, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry – DXA, Five of the studies involved untrained (Buresh
bio-impedance analysis – BIA, and/or hydrostatic et al., 2009; Fink et al., 2017; Hill-Haas et al.,
4 J. Grgic et al.

Figure 1. Flow diagram of the search process.

2007; Piirainen et al., 2011; Villanueva et al., 2015) The mean PEDro score was 5.3, indicating high
and one study (Schoenfeld et al., 2016) involved quality of the observed studies. Specifically, three
trained individuals. The total number of participants studies were deemed to be of excellent quality, two
was n = 115, with the sample comprising 97 men and studies were considered to be of good quality, and
18 women. The studies were relatively short in dur- one study was rated to be of moderate quality.
ation with the mean duration of the studies amount-
ing to 8.3 weeks. The length of rest intervals in the
Discussion
short inter-set rest interval groups varied from 20 to
60 s. For the long inter-set rest interval groups, the The purpose of the present study was to systemati-
duration of rest intervals ranged from 80 to 240 s. cally review the effects of short versus long inter-set
The weekly training frequency varied from two to rest intervals on measures of muscle hypertrophy,
three training days per week. None of the studies with the intent of developing evidence-based guide-
reported using very high training intensities (>85% lines for optimization of training regimens. We
of one repetition maximum). A mixture of both free initially intended to quantify results by conducting a
weight and machine-based multi-joint and single- meta-analysis; however, the small number of studies
joint isolation exercises were used in five of the meeting the inclusion criteria and heterogeneous
studies (Buresh et al., 2009; Hill-Haas et al., 2007; designs of studies precluded our ability to obtain
Piirainen et al., 2011; Schoenfeld et al., 2016; Villa- reliable estimates in a random-effects model. A
nueva et al., 2015), while one study (Fink et al., robust variance regression analysis of the per cent
2017) used only free weight multi-joint exercises. changes comparing short and long inter-set rest inter-
The highest adherence (100%) to the programmes vals showed a non-significant advantage to the long
was reported in the study from Villanueva et al. inter-set rest condition (long: 9.2 ± 0.1%; 95% confi-
(2015). All of the training programmes along with dence interval: 7.4%, 10.9%; short: 5.8 ± 1.1%, 95%
the exact duration of the rest intervals for each confidence interval: –8.1%, 19.7%; P = .22).
study including the percent change from pre- to However, these results should be interpreted with
post-training intervention in muscle hypertrophy is extreme caution due to the limited number of
presented in Table I. studies used in the regression.
Table I. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria.

Duration;
Participants weekly Method of
characteristics; training hypertrophy Adherence to the Quality
Study study design Treatment groups frequency Training programme assessment Relative effects (%) programmes scorea

Buresh et al. Young untrained Participants were assigned 10 weeks; 2 Both of the group performed LBM via hydrostatic . 3.2% in LBM Mean adherence 6
(2009) men; RT either to a SHORT (60 s) training two different resistance weighing, for the SHORT to training of 89%
rest interval group (n = 6), or days per training sessions using the circumference and group with no changes
a LONG (150 s) rest interval week following set and rep skinfolds performed . 1.9% in LBM between groups.
group (n = 6) resistance scheme: 3 × 10 and 2 × 10 at arm (AMR) and for the LONG
training programmes with 16 repetitions thigh (TMA) group
different exercises. A . 5.0% in AMA
mixture of both free weight for the SHORT
and machine-based multi- group
joint and single-joint . 11.5% in AMA
isolation exercises was used for the LONG
group
. 3.2% in TMA
for the SHORT
group
. 6.7% in TMA
for the LONG
group
Fink et al. Untrained young Participants were assigned 8 weeks; 2 Both of the group performed MRI preformed at the . 9.1% in the > 90% in both 5
(2017) men; NRT either to a SHORT (30 s) training the same resistance training triceps and thigh triceps CSA for groups.
rest interval group (n = 11), days per sessions using 40% 1 RM (CSA) the SHORT
or a LONG (150 s) rest week preformed to muscular group
interval group (n = 10) failure, for 4 sets . 9.4% in the
resistance training triceps CSA for
programmes preforming two the LONG
exercises (squat and bench group
press) . 5.6% in the
thigh CSA for

Hypertrophy and rest intervals

the SHORT
group
. 8.5% in the
thigh CSA for
the LONG
group

(Continued)

5
Table I. Continued.

6
Duration;

J. Grgic et al.
Participants weekly Method of
characteristics; training hypertrophy Adherence to the Quality
Study study design Treatment groups frequency Training programme assessment Relative effects (%) programmes scorea

Hill-Haas Untrained woman Participants were assigned 5 weeks; 3 Both of the group performed Thigh and mid-thigh . 2.3% in thigh Not reported 6
et al. (exact age is either to a SHORT (20 s) training the same resistance training circumference circumference
(2007) unknown); RT rest interval group (n = 9), or days per sessions using the following for the SHORT
a LONG (80 s) rest interval week set and rep scheme: 2-5 × group
group (n = 9) resistance 15–20 RM . 0.9% in thigh
training programmes with 11 circumference
different exercises. A for the LONG
mixture of both free weight group
and machine-based multi- . 4.4% in mid-
joint and single-joint thigh
isolation exercises was used circumference
for the SHORT
group
. 1.2% in mid-
thigh
circumference
for the LONG
group
Piirainen Untrained young Participants were assigned 7 weeks; 3 Both of the group performed LBM via BIA . 2.6% in LBM No significant 4
et al. men; RT either to recovery time based training the same resistance training for the SHORT differences
(2011) on individual heart rate (on days per sessions using the following group between groups
average 55 s) inter-set rest week set and rep scheme: 3 × 10 . 2.5% in LBM (exact values are
interval group (n = 12), or a repetitions and 3 × 15–20 for the LONG not presented)
LONG (120 s) rest interval repetitions group
group (n = 9) resistance
training programmes with 14
different exercises. A
mixture of both free weight
and machine-based multi-
joint and single-joint
isolation exercises was used
Schoenfeld Trained men Participants were assigned 8 weeks; 3 All of the group performed Ultrasound performed . 2.8% in biceps Overall 5
et al. (exact age is either to a SHORT (60 s) training the same resistance training at the biceps, thickness for the adherence to
(2016) unknown); RT rest interval group (n = 11), days per sessions using the following triceps, anterior SHORT group training of 86%
or a LONG (180 s) rest week set and rep scheme: 3 × 8– quadriceps and . 5.4% in biceps
interval group (n = 10) 12 RM vastus lateralis thickness for the
resistance training LONG group
programmes with seven . 0.5% in triceps
different exercises. A thickness for the
mixture of both free weight SHORT group
and machine-based multi- . 7.0% in the
joint and single-joint triceps thickness
isolation exercises was used for the LONG
group
. 6.9% in anterior
quadriceps
thickness for the
SHORT group
. 13.3% in
anterior
quadriceps
thickness for the
LONG group
. 10.0% in vastus
lateralis
thickness for the
SHORT group
. 11.5% in vastus
lateralis
thickness for the
LONG group
Villanueva Untrained older Participants were assigned 12 weeks; 3 All of the group performed LBM via DXA . 1.7% in LBM 100% for both 6
et al. men; RT either to a SHORT (60 s) training the same resistance training for the SHORT groups
(2015) rest interval group (n = 11), days per sessions with the first 4 group
or a LONG (240 s) rest week weeks considered as a . 0.5% in LBM
interval group (n = 11) preparatory phase for the LONG

Hypertrophy and rest intervals

resistance training performing 2–4 sets with 8– group
programmes with seven 15 repetitions, the reaming
different exercises. A 8 weeks were performed
mixture of both free weight using the following set and
and machine-based multi- rep scheme: 2–3 × 4–6
joint and single-joint repetitions. None of the
isolation exercises was used repetitions were to failure

Note: SHORT: short inter-set; LONG: long inter-set; RT: randomized trial; NRT: non-randomized trail; RM: repetition maximum; MRI: magnetic resonance imaging; BIA: bio-impedance
analysis; AMR: arm muscle area; TMA: thigh muscle area; DXA: dual energy X-ray absorptiometry; LBM: lean body mass.
a
The total score on the PEDro scale.

7
8 J. Grgic et al.

On the surface, evaluation of the per cent change response, thus refuting the hypothesis that short rest
for both groups indicates similar effects of short and intervals are needed to optimize muscle hypertrophy
long inter-set rest intervals on changes in hypertro- due to the post-exercise anabolic hormonal response.
phy, suggesting that both strategies can be used inter- Given these findings, the results obtained from
changeably to maximize muscle growth. However, it Schoenfeld et al. (2016) are not surprising. While
is unclear if the differences in hypertrophic responses shorter rest intervals have long been recommended
to a rest interval duration may vary between trained for hypertrophy-oriented resistance training proto-
and untrained individuals. A closer scrutiny of the cols, there seems to be a paradigm shift, as longer
study by Schoenfeld et al. (2016) indicates an advan- duration inter-set rest intervals might provide more
tage for the use of longer rest intervals. Specifically, benefits not only for strength, but also for muscular
the study showed a greater effect size for increases hypertrophy. That said, the lack of studies using
in muscle mass for the long (3 min) rest interval direct measures of muscular hypertrophy diminishes
group, in three out of four sites used in the assess- our ability to draw strong evidence-based inferences
ment. Results from Fink et al. (2017) support these on the topic.
findings (in untrained individuals) for lower body The prescription of inter-set rest intervals depends
hypertrophy, with the effect size for thigh cross-sec- greatly on the effort expended, as it may be advan-
tional area favouring long versus short inter-set rest tageous to use longer rest intervals when training
interval (Cohen’s d: 0.93 vs. 0.58, respectively). Rata- with maximal and near-maximal efforts (Wernbom,
mess et al. (2007) showed that training with longer Augustsson, & Thomeé, 2007). As high levels of
inter-set rest intervals allows an individual to train force and maximum recruitment of motor units are
with higher overall volume. This may help to important factors in stimulating muscle hypertrophy,
provide a possible mechanistic reason for a hyper- it appears beneficial to use longer inter-set rest inter-
trophic benefit to longer rest intervals, as training vals between sets of very high levels of effort
with higher volume has been shown to enhance (Wernbom et al., 2007). However, when a sub-
both the acute anabolic response (Burd et al., 2010; maximal load is used, and repetitions are not per-
Terzis et al., 2010) and long-term muscular adap- formed to momentary muscular failure, the use of
tations (Schoenfeld, Ogborn, & Krieger, 2017) to shorter rest intervals may be adequate. It is important
resistance training. Higher volumes are speculated to note that regular use of shorter rest intervals
to be necessary for trained individuals, and, accord- attenuates decreases in performance, and increases
ingly, it may be hypothesized that training status the ability to train with a higher percent of 1 RM
might play a role when planning rest interval dur- (Kraemer, Noble, Clark, & Culver, 1987), possibly
ation. Limiting rest intervals to 60 s or less ultimately due to an increase in the number of capillaries per
impairs recovery, and, consequently, results in a fibre with training (Campos et al., 2002). In that
lower number of repetitions per set at a given load regard, de Souza et al. (2010) reported that decreas-
(Ratamess et al., 2007). Thus, short rest periods ing rest intervals over time (i.e. from 2 min to 30 s)
may be suboptimal for a trained individual seeking did not hinder hypertrophic effects, at least over a
to maximize hypertrophy. This hypothesis merits short-term training intervention (i.e. 6 weeks).
further robust research. In addition to the level of exertion, the use of either
A recent study from McKendry et al. (2016) pro- type of rest intervals also depends on the exercise
vides further insights into the topic. Sixteen men selection, as multi-joint free weight exercises induce
were randomized to resistance training using either a greater amount of fatigue and, as such, require
1-min (n = 8) or 5-min (n = 8) inter-set rest intervals, more time to recover from than single-joint,
with each group performing four sets of bilateral leg machine-based exercises (Senna et al., 2011). This
press and knee extension exercises at 75% of one rep- hypothesis is supported by the recent findings of
etition maximum (1 RM) to momentary muscular Senna et al. (2016). The possible hypertrophy-
failure. Biopsy results showed that the 5-min rest related benefits of this approach were observed in
interval group increased myofibrillar protein syn- the study by Fink, Kikuchi, and Nakazato (2016),
thesis by 152%, while the group that rested for who reported similar hypertrophic effects in a group
1 min increased by only 76%. This lends support to that trained with a 30-second rest intervals compared
a hypertrophic benefit of longer rest periods, as an with a group that trained with a 3-min rest intervals.
increase in myofibrillar protein synthesis that Both training groups trained only the arm muscles
exceeds muscle protein breakdown theoretically using single-joint exercises. However, a caveat to
leads to a net gain in protein pool size (i.e. hypertro- the study is the use of different training loads
phy) (Phillips, 2014). Importantly, the 1-min rest between the groups (20 RM in the short rest group
group displayed significantly greater acute elevations vs. 8 RM in the long rest group), which may have
in testosterone despite the blunted protein synthetic confounded results. Still, this raises the possibility
 Hypertrophy and rest intervals 9

Figure 2. Hypothetical display of possible benefits of combining both short- and long-duration inter-set rest intervals during one training
session on three factors contributing to muscle growth.

of a benefit to using long rest intervals when perform- interval may be an erroneous method due to differ-
ing multi-joint exercises while employing shorter rest ences among individuals and different performance
intervals when using single-joint exercises. Namely, behaviour for upper and lower body exercises (De
the use of longer rest intervals enhances volume Salles et al., 2016). As demonstrated by De Salles
accumulation and directly impacts mechanical et al. (2016), a possible benefit of using an SS
tension and muscle damage, while the use of short approach to rest intervals may be a greater time effi-
inter-set rest intervals influences metabolic stress. ciency, with no decrease in the number of repetitions
By limiting rest intervals, the body is not able to re- per set. However, the findings of De Salles et al.
establish homeostasis (Henselmans & Schoenfeld, (2016) are in contrast with the results of Goessler
2014), resulting in a heightened build-up of lactate, and Polito (2013), who found that an SS approach
inorganic phosphate, and hydrogen ions (Schoenfeld, compared to fixed rest intervals lasting 1 and 2 min
2013a) possibly stimulating increased fibre recruit- resulted in a longer rest interval (157 ± 37 s). The
ment, elevated systemic hormonal production, altera- differences may be attributed to the applied resist-
tions in local myokines, heightened production of ance training protocols, as De Salles et al. (2016) sep-
reactive oxygen species, and cell swelling (Schoen- arated the protocol in sessions targeting upper and
feld, 2013b; Henselmans & Schoenfeld, 2014). lower body, while Goessler and Polito (2013)
Hypothetically, the combination of these factors employed a whole-body resistance training session.
may have a synergistic effect on enhancing muscle It may be hypothesized that resistance-trained indi-
growth. A graphical display of the hypothesis may be viduals may efficiently auto-regulate their rest inter-
observed in Figure 2. It should also be noted that vals and successfully maintain performance, rather
the use of shorter rest intervals is certainly more than using a predetermined rest interval. Possible
time-efficient, which may allow a greater adherence benefits of an SS approach, as it relates to muscle
to exercise in individuals with limited time to train. hypertrophy, other than increased time efficiency,
Additionally, shorter rest intervals may be more ben- remain unclear and warrant further investigation.
eficial to females, as they seem to demonstrate better The most apparent drawback of the current body
inter-set recovery compared to men (Ratamess of literature relates to the total number of studies
et al., 2012). This may explain to an extent the (and with small sample sizes) meeting the inclusion
superior hypertrophy observed for the short inter-set criteria, and the methods used to assess changes in
rest interval group in the study from Hill-Haas et al. muscle mass. Except for two studies, the proxy
(2007), which employed women as participants. measurements for hypertrophy were all global
A rather novel topic in the research literature is the measures (i.e. skinfolds, DXA, circumference).
use of a self-suggested (SS) approach to inter-set rest While measures such as DXA and hydrostatic weigh-
intervals. It has been suggested that using a fixed rest ing do provide useful insights in changes in lean body
10 J. Grgic et al.

mass (and, consequently, in muscle hypertrophy), References

they are only a gross estimate and lack the sensitivity American College of Sports Medicine. (2009). American college of
and specificity for a precise estimation of muscle sports medicine position stand. Progression models in resist-
growth (Nelson et al., 1996). Some measures, such ance training for healthy adults. Medicine and Science in Sports
as circumference and BIA, might be unpredictable and Exercise, 41(3), 687–708.
Baechle, T. R., & Earle, R. W. (2000). Essentials of strength and con-
when assessing changes in muscle mass. Accordingly,
ditioning (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
caution is needed when extrapolating the presented Burd, N., Holwerda, A. M., Selby, K. C., West, D. W. D., Staples,
findings to practical settings. Finally, only one study A. W., Cain, N. E., … Phillips, S. M. (2010). Resistance exer-
involved resistance-trained individuals. While most cise volume affects myofibrillar protein synthesis and anabolic
of the studies were categorized as being of either signalling molecule phosphorylation in young men. The
Journal of Physiology, 588(16), 3119–3130.
good or excellent methodological quality, it is impor-
Buresh, R., Berg, K., & French, J. (2009). The effect of resistive
tant to note that we did not include the items con- exercise rest interval on hormonal response, strength, and
cerning blinding when assessing the methodological hypertrophy with training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
quality of the studies. While we do realize the chal- Research, 23(1), 62–71.
lenges that the researchers face when conducting Campos, G. E. R., Luecke, T. J., Wendeln, H. K., Toma, K.,
Hagerman, F. C., Murray, T. F., … Staron, R. S. (2002).
longitudinal studies, for future research, we suggest
Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-
the following: (a) using a sensitive measure (e.g. training regimens: Specificity of repetition maximum training
ultrasound or MRI) of hypertrophy for tracking zones. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 88(1–2), 50–60.
muscle growth, and (b) using participants with pre- De Salles, B. F., Polito, M. D., Goessler, K. F., Mannarino, P.,
vious experience in resistance training. Matta, T. T., & Simão, R. (2016). Effects of fixed vs. self-
suggested rest between sets in upper and lower body exercises
performance. European Journal of Sport Science, 16(8), 927–931.
De Salles, B. F., Simao, R., Miranda, F., Da Silva Novaes, J.,
Practical applications Lemos, A., & Willardson, J. M. (2009). Rest interval between
sets in strength training. Sports Medicine, 39(9), 765–777.
The observed findings may suggest the use of longer
de Souza, T. P., Fleck, S. J., Simao, R., Dubas, J. P., Pereira, B., de
inter-set rest durations (>60 s) when the goal is to Brito Pacheco, E. M., … de Oliveira, P. R. (2010). Comparison
maximize muscle hypertrophy, as it allows training between constant and decreasing rest intervals: Influence on
with a higher overall volume load. However, the maximal strength and hypertrophy. Journal of Strength and
approach may vary based on the level of exertion and Conditioning Research, 24(7), 1843–1850.
Fink, J. E., Kikuchi, N., & Nakazato, K. (2016). Effects of rest
exercise selection. When the exertion is maximal or
intervals and training loads on metabolic stress and muscle
near maximal, a longer rest interval may be necessary hypertrophy. Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging.
to maintain the level of performance. By contrast, a doi:10.1111/cpf.12409
sub-maximal exertion may allow training with Fink, J. E., Schoenfeld, B. J., Kikuchi, N., & Nakazato, K. (2017).
shorter rest intervals. Exercise selection is also one of Acute and long-term responses to different rest intervals in low-
load resistance training. International Journal of Sports Medicine,
the key components that dictates optimal rest dur-
38(2), 118–124.
ation. Multi-joint free weight exercises are more Goessler, K. F., & Polito, M. D. (2013). Effect of fixed and self-
demanding and more fatiguing, therefore warranting suggested rest intervals between sets of resistance exercise on
longer inter-set rest intervals. By contrast, single- post-exercise cardiovascular behavior. Revista Brasileira de
joint machine-based exercises are less taxing and Cineantropometria e Desempenho Humano, 15(4), 467–475.
Henselmans, M., & Schoenfeld, B. J. (2014). The effect of inter-set
reduce the need for a long rest interval. The use of
rest intervals on resistance exercise-induced muscle hypertro-
shorter rest intervals may be beneficial for metabolic phy. Sports Medicine, 44(12), 1635–1643.
stress accumulation – an important aspect to muscle Hill-Haas, S., Bishop, D., Dawson, B., Goodman, C., & Edge, J.
growth. On a final note, the best approach to a hyper- (2007). Effects of rest interval during high-repetition resistance
trophy-based resistance training session may be to training on strength, aerobic fitness, and repeated-sprint ability.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(6), 619–628.
focus on training volume by performing complex,
Kraemer, W. J., Marchitelli, L., Gordon, S. E., Harman, E.,
multi-joint exercises and incorporating longer inter- Dziados, J. E., Mello, R., … Fleck, S. J. (1990). Hormonal
set rest intervals in the first part of the training and growth factor responses to heavy resistance exercise proto-
session, and then shift the focus to inducing a greater cols. Journal of Applied Physiology, 69(4), 1442–1450.
metabolic stress by performing isolation exercises Kraemer, W. J., Noble, B. J., Clark, M. J., & Culver, B. W. (1987).
Physiologic responses to heavy-resistance exercise with very
and incorporating shorter inter-set rest intervals
short rest periods. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 8(4),
towards the end of the training session. This hypoth- 247–252.
esis requires further study. Kraemer, W. J., Ratamess, N. A., & French, D. N. (2002).
Resistance training for health and performance. Current Sports
Medicine Reports, 1(3), 165–171.
Kümmel, J., Kramer, A., Giboin, L. S., & Gruber, M. (2016).
Disclosure statement
Specificity of balance training in healthy individuals: A systema-
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. tic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 46(9), 1261–1271.
 Hypertrophy and rest intervals 11
Maher, C. G., Sherrington, C., Herbert, R. D., Moseley, A. M., & Schoenfeld, B. J., Ogborn, D., & Krieger, J. W. (2017). Dose-
Elkins, M. (2003). Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating response relationship between weekly resistance training
quality of randomized controlled trials. Physical Therapy, 83 volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review
(8), 713–721. and meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(11), 1073–1082.
McKendry, J., Pérez-López, A., McLeod, M., Luo, D., Dent, R., Schoenfeld, B. J., Pope, Z. K., Benik, F. M., Hester, G. M.,
Smeuninx, B., … Breen, L. (2016). Short inter-set rest blunts Sellers, J., Nooner, J. L., … Krieger, J. W. (2016). Longer
resistance exercise-induced increases in myofibrillar protein inter-set rest periods enhance muscle strength and hypertrophy
synthesis and intracellular signaling in young males. in resistance-trained men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Experimental Physiology, 101(7), 866–882. Research, 30(7), 1805–1812.
McMahon, S., & Jenkins, D. (2002). Factors affecting the rate of Senna, G., Willardson, J. M., de Salles, B. F., Scudese, E.,
phosphocreatine resynthesis following intense exercise. Sports Carneiro, F., Palma, A., & Simão, R. (2011). The effect of
Medicine, 32(12), 761–784. rest interval length on multi and single-joint exercise perform-
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA ance and perceived exertion. Journal of Strength and
Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic Conditioning Research, 25(11), 3157–3162.
reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Senna, G. W., Willardson, J. M., Scudese, E., Simão, R., Queiroz,
Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269. C., Avelar, R., & Dantas, E. H. M. (2016). Effect of different
National Health and Medical Research Council. (2000). How to interset rest intervals on performance of single and multijoint
review the evidence: Systematic identification and review of the scien- exercises with near-maximal loads. Journal of Strength and
tific literature. Canberra: NHMRC. Conditioning Research, 30(3), 710–716.
Nelson, M. E., Fiatarone, M. A., Layne, J. E., Trice, I., Economos, Terzis, G., Spengos, K., Mascher, H., Georgiadis, G., Manta, P.,
C. D., Fielding, R. A., … Evans, W. J. (1996). Analysis of body- & Blomstrand, E. (2010). The degree of p70S6k and S6 phos-
composition techniques and models for detecting change in soft phorylation in human skeletal muscle in response to resistance
tissue with strength training. The American Journal of Clinical exercise depends on the training volume. European Journal of
Nutrition, 63(5), 678–686. Applied Physiology, 110(4), 835–843.
Phillips, S. M. (2014). A brief review of critical processes in exer- Toigo, M., & Boutellier, U. (2006). New fundamental resistance
cise-induced muscular hypertrophy. Sports Medicine, 44(Suppl. exercise determinants of molecular and cellular muscle
1), 71–77. adaptations. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 97(6),
Piirainen, J. M., Tanskanen, M., Nissilä, J., Kaarela, J., Väärälä, 643–663.
A., Sippola, N., & Linnamo, V. (2011). Effects of a heart Vaughan-Jones, R. D., Eisner, D. A., & Lederer, W. J. (1987).
rate-based recovery period on hormonal, neuromuscular, and Effects of changes of intracellular pH on contraction in sheep
aerobic performance responses during 7 weeks of strength train- cardiac purkinje fibres. The Journal of General Physiology, 89
ing in men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(8), (6), 1015–1032.
2265–2273. Villanueva, M. G., Lane, C. J., & Schroeder, E. T. (2015). Short
Ratamess, N. A., Chiarello, C. M., Sacco, A. J., Hoffman, J. R., rest interval lengths between sets optimally enhance body com-
Faigenbaum, A. D., & Kang, J. (2012). The effects of rest inter- position and performance with 8 weeks of strength resistance
val length on acute bench press performance: The influence of training in older men. European Journal of Applied Physiology,
gender and muscle strength. Journal of Strength and 115(2), 295–308.
Conditioning Research, 26, 1817–1826. Wernbom, M., Augustsson, J., & Thomeé, R. (2007). The influ-
Ratamess, N. A., Falvo, M. J., Mangine, G. T., Hoffman, J. R., ence of frequency, intensity, volume and mode of strength train-
Faigenbaum, A. D., & Kang, J. (2007). The effect of rest inter- ing on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans. Sports
val length on metabolic responses to the bench press exercise. Medicine, 37(3), 225–264.
European Journal of Applied Physiology, 100(1), 1–17. West, D. W., Burd, N. A., Tang, J. E., Moore, D. R., Staples, A.
Schoenfeld, B. J. (2013a). Postexercise hypertrophic adaptations: W., Holwerda, A., … Phillips, S. M. (2010). Elevations in
A reexamination of the hormone hypothesis and its applicability ostensibly anabolic hormones with resistance exercise enhance
to resistance training program design. Journal of Strength and neither training-induced muscle hypertrophy nor strength
Conditioning Research, 27(6), 1720–1730. of the elbow flexors. Journal of Applied Physiology, 108(1),
Schoenfeld, B. J. (2013b). Potential mechanisms for a role of meta- 60–67.
bolic stress in hypertrophic adaptations to resistance training. Willardson, J. M. (2008). A brief review: How much rest between
Sports Medicine, 43(3), 179–194. sets? Strength and Conditioning Journal, 30(3), 44–50.

View publication stats