Skip Navigation LinksHome > May 2012 - Volume 26 - Issue 5 > Influence of Different Resistance Exercise Loading Schemes o...
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research:
doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31822e89d0
Original Research

Influence of Different Resistance Exercise Loading Schemes on Mechanical Power Output in Work to Rest Ratio – Equated and – Nonequated Conditions

Paulo, Caetano A.1,2,3; Roschel, Hamilton1; Ugrinowitsch, Carlos1; Kobal, Ronaldo1; Tricoli, Valmor1

Collapse Box

Abstract

Abstract: Paulo CA, Roschel H, Ugrinowitsch C, Kobal R and Tricoli V. Influence of different resistance exercise loading schemes on mechanical power output in work to rest ratio–equated and –nonequated conditions. J Strength Cond Res 26(5): 1308–1312, 2012—It is well known that most sports are characterized by the performance of intermittent high-intensity actions, requiring high muscle power production within different intervals. In fact, the manipulation of the exercise to rest ratio in muscle power training programs may constitute an interesting strategy when considering the specific performance demand of a given sport modality. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of different schemes of rest intervals and number of repetitions per set on muscle power production in the squat exercise between exercise to rest ratio–equated and –nonequated conditions. Nineteen young males (age: 25.7 ± 4.4 years; weight: 81.3 ± 13.7 kg; height: 178.1 ± 5.5 cm) were randomly submitted to 3 different resistance exercise loading schemes, as follows: short-set short-interval condition (SSSI; 12 sets of 3 repetitions with a 27.3-second interval between sets); short-set long-interval condition (SSLI; 12 sets of 3 repetitions with a 60-second interval between sets); long-set long-interval (LSLI; 6 sets of 6 repetitions with a 60-second rest interval between sets). The main finding of the present study is that the lower exercise to rest ratio protocol (SSLI) resulted in greater average power production (601.88 ± 142.48 W) when compared with both SSSI and LSLI (581.86 ± 113.18 W; 578 ± 138.78 W, respectively). Additionally, both the exercise to rest ratio–equated conditions presented similar performance and metabolic results. In summary, these findings suggest that shorter rest intervals may fully restore the individual's ability to produce muscle power if a smaller exercise volume per set is performed and that lower exercise to rest ratio protocols result in greater average power production when compared with higher ratio ones.

© 2012 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 

Login

Article Tools

Share

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.