Like We Really Needed DC Training to be Validated...

[mentalflex]

I came across a new study that proves rest-pause training is more effective than straight sets for increasing motor unit recruitment.

Check it out

Acute neuromuscular and fatigue responses to the rest-pause method.

Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 2011 Sep 20.

Marshall PW, Robbins DA, Wrightson AW, Siegler JC.

Source
School of Biomedical and Health Science, University of Western Sydney, Australia.

Abstract
Objectives. To compare muscle recruitment, maximal force, and rate of force development changes following different resistance exercise protocols with a constant volume-load. Design. Within-subjects randomized crossover trial.

Methods. Fourteen (n=14) resistance trained male participants completed three different resistance exercise protocols involving 20 squat repetitions, prescribed at 80% of 1-repetition-maximum. Protocol A consisted of 5 sets of 4 repetitions with 3min inter-set rest intervals, protocol B was 5 sets of 4 repetitions with 20s inter-set rest intervals, and the rest-pause method was an initial set to failure with subsequent sets performed with a 20s inter-set rest interval. Maximal squat isometric force output and rate of force development (RFD) were measured before, immediately upon completion (IP), and 5min (5P) following each protocol. Muscle activity from 6 different thigh and hip muscles was measured with surface electromyography (EMG) at each time point, and during every squat repetition.

Results. Participants completed the rest-pause method in 2.1±0.4 sets, with a total protocol duration of 103s compared to 140s and 780s for protocols B and A, respectively. All protocols elicited similar decreases (p<0.05) in maximal force and RFD at IP, with full recovery at 5P. Increased motor unit recruitment was observed during the rest-pause method compared to both protocols A and B for all muscles measured (p<0.05).

Conclusions. As a result of the increased EMG during exercise and no greater post-exercise fatigue, it was concluded that the rest-pause method may be an efficacious training method for resistance-trained individuals.

[Michael Travis]

interesting. Thanks for the post

[Shelby Starnes]

So they used the same weight and one group had 3 minute rest breaks and the other had 20 second rest breaks?

Wouldn't the first group be doing something pretty "easy", by comparison then?

[mentalflex]

So they used the same weight and one group had 3 minute rest breaks and the other had 20 second rest breaks?

Wouldn't the first group be doing something pretty "easy", by comparison then?

The study had all groups using 80% of their 1RM.

Kris

[RedSkull]

Would of been more useful/interesting to test RP as they performed it Vs 3 sets to failure @ 80% with 2-3 min rests.

[dakoose]

The study had all groups using 80% of their 1RM.

Kris

To play devil's advocate, if I were to wait three minutes between sets, I would be using a higher weight than if I were to wait just 20 seconds, so the premise of this experiment is a bit flawed. But there definitely is no debating the success people have using DC.

[Shelby Starnes]

So how exactly does this prove anything when the weights are the same? Obviously shorter rest periods are harder / will recruit more muscle... but that doesn't mean it's the be-all, end-all to training.

Am I missing something?

[Shelby Starnes]

Would of been more useful/interesting to test RP as they performed it Vs 3 sets to failure @ 80% with 2-3 min rests.

Exactly.

[SAHD]

It means you can't spend three minutes talking on your phone between sets and think your still smashing the weights. I think it proves that at least.

[RedSkull]

It means you can't spend three minutes talking on your phone between sets and think your still smashing the weights. I think it proves that at least.

Well, it proves high intensity to failure with very low rest periods (R/P) is better than low intensity, several reps from failure, with high rest periods.

[mentalflex]

Would of been more useful/interesting to test RP as they performed it Vs 3 sets to failure @ 80% with 2-3 min rests.

Completely agree with you here. I have just never seen any studies using RP so thought this would open up some discussion.

[RedSkull]

Yeah, it's cool they used R/P for it. Maybe they would accept feedback for a round 2. Would be interested to see that comparison, along with something different like Poliquin's GVT. Comparing various "intense" routines would be really fascinating...

[Andre Gregoire]

I love rest-pause and agree that it's a great intensity technique but this was a poorly designed study.

People that completed the 20 reps with 80% of their 1RM in 104s recruited more muscle fibers then those who did the same workload in 780s = Well no shit

Also 80% of 1RM let's most people complete 7-8 reps and the others were stopping at 4 so not going anywhere close to failure.

I think it's a good study to show that higher intensity is better than lower intensity.

[Andre Gregoire]

Would of been more useful/interesting to test RP as they performed it Vs 3 sets to failure @ 80% with 2-3 min rests.

That would have been interesting.

[Undertow]

Yeah, it's cool they used R/P for it. Maybe they would accept feedback for a round 2. Would be interested to see that comparison, along with something different like Poliquin's GVT. Comparing various "intense" routines would be really fascinating...

Now were talking! It's odd how some of the most popular methods haven't been compared head to head in any studies. How can there be a multi-billion dollar industry with such horrid research, especially with such a passionate base of hobbyists.