Original Research

Volume Load Rather Than Resting Interval

Influences Muscle Hypertrophy During High-
Intensity Resistance Training
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

Ariel Roberth Longo,1 Carla Silva-Batista,2,3 Kelly Pedroso,1 Vitor de Salles Painelli,1 Thiago Lasevicius,2
Brad Jon Schoenfeld,4 André Yui Aihara,5 Bergson de Almeida Peres,1 Valmor Tricoli,2 and
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 05/05/2023

Emerson Luiz Teixeira1,2

1
Paulista University, UNIP, São Paulo, SP, Brazil; 2School of Physical Education and Sport, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP,
Brazil; 3School of Arts, Sciences and Humanities, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil; 4Department of Health Sciences,
CUNY Lehman College, Bronx, New York; and 5America’s Diagnostics S/A, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

Abstract
Longo, AR, Silva-Batista, C, Pedroso, K, de Salles Painelli, V, Lasevicius, T, Schoenfeld, BJ, Aihara, AY, de Almeida Peres,
B, Tricoli, V, and Teixeira, EL. Volume load rather than resting interval influences muscle hypertrophy during high-intensity
resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 36(6): 1554–1559, 2022—Interset rest interval has been proposed as an important
variable for inducing muscle mass and strength increases during resistance training. However, its influence remains unclear,
especially when protocols with differing intervals have equalized volume. We aimed to compare the effects of long (LI) vs.
short rest interval (SI) on muscle strength (one repetition maximum [1RM]) and quadriceps cross-sectional area (QCSA), with
or without equalized volume load (VL). Twenty-eight subjects trained twice a week for 10 weeks. Each subject’s leg was
allocated to 1 of 4 unilateral knee extension protocols: LI, SI, SI with VL -matched by LI (VLI-SI), and LI with VL-matched by SI
(VSI-LI). A 3-minute rest interval was afforded in LI and VSI-LI protocols, while SI and VLI-SI employed a 1-minute interval. All
subjects trained with a load corresponding to 80% 1RM. One repetition maximum and QCSA were measured before and
after training. All protocols significantly increased 1RM values in post-training (p , 0.0001; LI: 27.6%, effect size [ES] 5 0.90;
VLI-SI: 31.1%, ES 5 1.00; SI: 26.5%, ES 5 1.11; and VSI-LI: 31.2%, ES 5 1.28), with no significant differences between
protocols. Quadriceps cross-sectional area increased significantly for all protocols in post-training (p , 0.0001). However,
absolute changes in QCSA were significantly greater in LI and VLI-SI (13.1%, ES: 0.66 and 12.9%, ES: 0.63) than SI and VSI-
LI (6.8%, ES: 0.38 and 6.6%, ES: 0.37) (both comparisons, p , 0.05). These data suggest that maintenance of high loads is
more important for strength increases, while a greater VL plays a primary role for hypertrophy, regardless of interset rest
interval.
Key Words: recovery period, rest between sets, volume, strength, muscular adaptations

Introduction (2,4,8,16) and hypertrophy (2,13,18) between LI and SI. Such

discrepancies may be attributed to heterogeneity in the ex-
Resistance training (RT) has been widely applied as a primary
perimental designs. For example, Hill-Hass et al. (13) com-
strategy for increases in muscle strength and mass. These mus-
pared rest intervals of 20 and 80 seconds; Fink et al. (8)
cular adaptations are influenced by the correct manipulation of
compared 30 seconds vs. 3 minutes; Schoenfeld et al. (23)
main variables such as training frequency, intensity, volume, and
compared 60 seconds vs. 3 minutes, and Ahtiainen et al. (2)
interset rest interval (1). Regarding the rest interval, long rest
compared 2 minutes vs. 5 minutes. Moreover, various issues
intervals (LI, 2–3 minutes) for strength increases and short rest
may have confounded some of these studies. Specifically, Fink
intervals (SI, ,1 minute) for muscle hypertrophy have been
et al. (8) manipulated the intensity of the load in addition to the
commonly recommended (1,11,12,24,25). These recom-
rest intervals, whereby the shorter rest group trained with
mendations are based on the premise that LI would allow for an
lighter loads while the longer rest interval group trained with
optimal recovery to maintain high intensity and volume load
heavier loads. In addition, the study by Ahtiainen et al. (2) used
(VL), while SI would result in a higher systemic elevation of an-
a crossover design whereby subjects trained with short rest for
abolic hormones concentration (mainly growth hormone) related
3 months and long rest for 3 months without a washout period.
to muscle hypertrophy (1,10,24).
Other factors such as age and study duration also differed
However, results of longitudinal studies on the topic are
between many of the trials (2,8,13,23).
conflicting, with some studies showing advantage for LI on
Importantly, studies that observed better results in muscle
strength increases (13,23) and hypertrophy (4,8,23), while
hypertrophy for LI tended to be performed with repetitions until
others failing to demonstrate any difference for strength
muscle failure, which is likely to result in a higher VL (4,8,23).
Address correspondence to Emerson Luiz Teixeira, emerson_teixeira2014@usp.br. Indeed, increases in muscle hypertrophy resulting from RT have
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 36(6)/1554–1559 been shown to be closely related to VL (1,14,20,21). Thus, RT
ª 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association interventions that use similar intensities performed with higher

1554

Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Long vs. Short Resting Intervals (2022) 36:6
VL with LI could conceivably promote greater increases in hy-
pertrophy. On the other hand, not all studies using LI, leading to
a higher VL, have shown additional effects on muscle strength
compared with SI (4,8). This could be related to a training-related
specificity, whereby higher RT intensities are known to promote
greater muscle strength increases, regardless of the VL or interset
rest interval (15–17,22,25).
Considering the influence of RT volume on muscle adap-
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
tations, especially muscle hypertrophy, it is essential that
different interset rest intervals are compared with both
equalized and nonequalized RT volumes to adequately assess
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 05/05/2023
the role of the interset rest interval on muscle adaptations.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the effects of
a LI (3 minutes) vs. a SI (1 minute) interset rest interval, with
and without equalized VL, on muscle strength and hypertro-
phy in response to a 10-week RT program. We hypothesized
that (a) greater changes in muscle hypertrophy would be ob-
served with LI due to the associated higher VL, and (b) muscle
strength would not be influenced by the different interset rest
intervals.
Methods
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This was longitudinal design that compared the effects of 10
weeks of RT with LI (3 minutes) vs. a SI (1 minute) with or
without equalized VL, on strength and hypertrophy. After
a period of familiarization, the unilateral inclined (45°) leg
press maximum dynamic strength test (one repetition maxi-
mum [1RM]) was evaluated for both lower extremities.
Seventy-two hours after this initial assessment, subjects re-
peated the 1RM test. One repetition maximum testing was
repeated every 72 hours until 1RM outcomes were within 5%
of the previous session for each lower limb. All subjects were
able to complete 1RM testing within 4 attempts. At least 72
hours after the final 1RM test, the quadriceps cross-sectional
area (QCSA) was obtained by magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI). Each subject’s lower limb was then allocated to 1 of the
4 unilateral training protocols in a randomized, counter-
balanced fashion according to 1RM and QCSA values as fol-
lows: (a) long rest interval (LI, using a 3-minute interval
between sets; N 5 14); (b) short rest interval (SI, using a 1-
minute interval between sets; N 5 14); (c) LI, but performing
the same VL of the SI protocol (VSI-LI; N 5 14); and (d) SI, but
performing the same VL of the LI protocol (VLI-SI; N 5 14).
Figure 1 describes the randomization process; Table 1 provides
baseline data for strength and hypertrophy. As documented
Figure 1. Illustration of randomization process in the experi-
mental protocols.
1555
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
with the use of the unilateral model (16), each limb of a subject
is randomized to 1 of 2 treatments that can be applied con-
currently, which increases the study’s statistical power by re-
ducing the degree of between-subject variability. The average
number of sets and repetitions performed per set throughout
the training period was controlled, and the VL was calculated
as the sum of the training volume (number of sets 3 number of
repetitions 3 external load) performed throughout the train-
ing period.
Resistance training was performed for 10 weeks twice per
week. The 1RM was reassessed 72 hours after the tenth RT ses-
sion to adjust training load in the following weeks (6–10 weeks).
The QCSA was also assessed 72 hours after completion of the last
training session to ensure there were no confounding effects of
edema, with subsequent assessment of 1RM performed 48 hours
later. Subjects were requested to abstain from alcohol and un-
accustomed exercise in 48 hours before the testing sessions, as
well as caffeine in the 24 hours preceding the tests. In addition,
they were required to maintain their diet pattern. Subjects arrived
at the laboratory at least 2 hours after their last meal and im-
mediately began their warm-up.
Subjects
Thirty-four healthy, young, and recreationally active indi-
viduals participated in the study (18–34 years old). Subjects
were not engaged in any kind of regular RT and/or aerobic
training for at least 6 months before the experimental period
and were free from cardiovascular and/or neuromuscular
disorders. All subjects signed the free and informed consent
term before participation. Exclusion criteria included the us-
age of any dietary supplements for at least 2 months before the
study, as well as any previous administration of anabolic
steroids. Six subjects withdrew from the study due to personal
reasons; therefore, data from 28 (18 men, 10 women) (mean 6
SD, 22.5 6 5.7 years, 169.5 6 9.5 cm, and 65.6 6 13 kg) were
included in the analysis. Informed consent was received from
all individuals who met the inclusion criteria before partici-
pation in the study. The study was conducted according to the
Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by research ethics
committee of the University of São Paulo.
Procedures
Maximum Dynamic Strength Test Procedures. The maximum
dynamic strength was determined as the maximum weight lifted
in a single and complete repetition of unilateral leg press 45°
exercise according to the guidelines of the American Society of
Exercise Physiologists (3). The test was performed on an in-
clined leg press machine (45° leg press, G-001, Gervasport,
TABLE 1
Baseline data for strength and hypertrophy.*†
Groups 1RM (kg) p QCSA (cm2) p
LI (n 5 14) 168.6 6 44.7 .0.05 76.7 6 14.2 .0.05
VLI-SI (n 5 14) 168.2 6 45.2 .0.05 76.5 6 14.7 .0.05
SI (n 5 14) 171.1 6 35.9 .0.05 77.2 6 13.3 .0.05
VSI-LI (n 5 14) 170.4 6 35.6 .0.05 75.8 6 12.9 .0.05
*1RM 5 one repetition maximum; QCSA 5 quadriceps cross-sectional area.
†Long rest interval (LI, using a 3-minute interval between sets); short rest interval (SI, using a 1-
minute interval between sets); LI, but performing the same VL of the SI protocol (VSI-LI); SI, but
performing the same VL of the LI protocol (VLI-SI). Corresponding p-values between limbs.
 Long vs. Short Resting Intervals (2022) 36:6
Cotia, SP, Brazil) for both right and left legs. The knee joint
amplitude was set at 90° using a goniometer (the lateral femoral
condyle was used as the point of intersection, while the lateral
malleolus and the greater trochanter were fixed as the extrem-
ities). The subjects performed a general 5-minute warm-up
running on a treadmill at 9 km·h21, followed by 3 minutes of
light stretching of the lower limbs. A specific warm-up was
performed using 1RM outcomes measured during the initial
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
assessment session. Subjects performed one set of 8 repetitions
with approximately 50% 1RM and one set of 3 repetitions with
approximately 70% 1RM. Warm-up sets were separated by a 2-
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 05/05/2023
minute rest interval. Three minutes after the specific warm-up,
subjects began 1RM testing by performing single repetitions of
progressively heavier loads until failure. The heaviest load lifted
during the trials with proper technique was considered as the
1RM. Subjects rested 3 minutes between attempts, and all sub-
jects reached their 1RM within 5 attempts. All tests were su-
pervised by two-experienced researchers (A.R.L. and K.P.) who
provided strong verbal encouragement during all attempts. The
coefficient of variation between 1RM values performed 72
hours apart was 3.7%.
Quadriceps Cross-Sectional Area. The QCSA was obtained
through MRI (Signa LX 9.1; GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI).
Subjects were positioned supine with straps used to restrain
lower limb movements during image acquisition. The position
of the straps were standardized and placed such that they did
not influence the QCSA measures. An initial reference image
was captured to determine the perpendicular distance from the
greater trochanter of the femur to the inferior border of the
lateral epicondyle of the femur, which was defined as the seg-
ment length. Quadriceps cross-sectional area was measured at
50% of the segment length with 0.8-cm slices for 3 seconds. The
pulse sequence was performed with a field of view between 400
and 420 mm, time of repetition of 350 ms, eco time from 9 to 11
ms, 2 signal acquisitions, and a matrix of reconstruction of 256
3 256 mm. The images were then transferred to a computer
(Mac OS X, version 10.5.4; Apple, Cupertino, CA) and ana-
lyzed using open-source software (OsiriX, version 3.2.1;
OsiriX Imaging Software, Geneva, Switzerland). The quadri-
ceps images were traced in triplicates by a specialized in-
dependent researcher, and the mean values were used for
further analysis. The segment slice was divided into skeletal
muscle, subcutaneous fat tissue, bone, and residual tissue.
Quadriceps cross-sectional area was calculated by subtracting
the bone and subcutaneous fat from the total area. The co-
efficient of variation between 2 QCSA measures performed 72
hours apart was 0.95%.
Resistance Training Program. All subjects completed 2 training
sessions per week for 10 weeks. Each training session began
with a general (treadmill running at 9 km·h 21 for 5 minutes)
and specific (1 set of 5 repetitions of unilateral inclined leg
press with 50% 1RM) warm-up. After a 1-minute rest, sub-
jects in the LI and SI groups performed 3 sets of unilateral
inclined leg press to 90° knee flexion until concentric failure
(not able to perform another concentric repetition using
correct technique) with 80% 1RM. Subjects in the LI group
rested 3 minutes between sets and subjects in the SI group
rested 1 minute between sets. Depending on protocol allo-
cation, subjects then performed the unilateral incline leg press
with their other lower extremity using the VLI-SI or VSI-LI
protocols to concentric failure with 80% 1RM until the
1556
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
same LI or SI VL was achieved. Repetition tempo was stan-
dardized to 2 seconds (1 second for the concentric and 1
second for the eccentric phase of the repetition) controlled by
a metronome.
Statistical Analyses
Data are presented as mean 6 SD, relative changes, effect
sizes (ES), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Data normality
was tested by the Shapiro-Wilk test and visual inspection to
observe the presence of outliers; however, no outliers were
observed. After data normality had been confirmed, a mixed
model for repeated measures was applied for 1RM and
QCSA, with “Protocol” (LI, SI, VSI-LI, and VLI-SI) and
“Time” (pre-training and post-training) used as fixed factors,
and ‘Subjects’ as random factors. The absolute changes
(i.e., POST-PRE) in 1RM and QCSA were compared between
the protocols using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
The total number of sets, repetitions, and VL were also
compared using a one-way ANOVA. In all analyses when
a significant F value was found, the Tukey post hoc was used
for multiple comparisons. In addition, ESs were calculated
using Cohen’s d; qualitative descriptors for ES interpretation
were assigned as follows: ,0.2, negligible effect; 0.2–0.39,
small effect; 0.40–0.75, moderate effect; and .0.75, large
effect (6). The significance level set was p # 0.05. Analyses
were conducted using the SAS software v. 9.3. (SAS Institute,
Inc., Cary, NC).
Results
Maximum Dynamic Strength
No significant differences between protocols were observed for leg
press 1RM before training (LI: 168.6 6 44.7 kg, VLI-SI: 168.2 6
45.2 kg, SI: 171.1 6 35.0 kg, VSI-LI: 170.4 6 35.6 kg; p . 0.05).
After training, leg press 1RM significantly increased (Figure 2A) for
LI (within-protocol effect: p , 0.0001; 27.6%; ES 5 0.90; 95% CI
5 0.09–1.71), VLI-SI (within-protocol effect: p , 0.0001; 31.1%;
ES 5 1.00; 95% CI 5 0.19–1.82), SI (within-protocol effect: p ,
0.0001; 26.5%; ES 5 1.11; 95% CI 5 0.28–1.93), and VSI-LI
(within-protocol effect: p , 0.0001; 31.2%; ES 5 1.28; 95% CI 5
0.44–2.13). The absolute change analysis (Figure 2B) did not reveal
any significant differences between protocols for the 1RM increa-
ses (all comparisons, p . 0.05).
Quadriceps Cross-Sectional Area
No significant differences between protocols were observed for
QCSA before training (LI: 76.7 6 14.2 cm2, VLI-SI: 76.5 6 14.7
cm2, SI: 77.2 6 13.3 cm2, VSI-LI: 75.8 6 12.9 cm2; p . 0.05).
After training, QCSA significantly increased (Figure 3A) for LI
(within-protocol effect: p , 0.0001; 13.1%; ES 5 0.66; 95%
CI 5 20.13 to 1.45), VLI-SI (within-protocol effect: p , 0.0001;
12.9%; ES 5 0.63; 95% CI 5 20.16 to 1.42), SI (within-protocol
effect: p , 0.0001; 6.8%; ES 5 0.38; 95% CI 5 20.39 to 1.16),
and VSI-LI (within-protocol effect: p , 0.0001; 6.6%; ES 5 0.37;
95% CI 5 20.41 to 1.15). On the other hand, absolute change
analysis (Figure 3B) revealed that the LI and VLI-SI produced
greater QCSA increases (9.8 6 3.7 and 9.5 6 4.0 cm2, re-
spectively) than SI or VSI-LI (5.1 6 2.6 and 4.8 6 3.2 cm2, re-
spectively) (p , 0.05).
 Long vs. Short Resting Intervals (2022) 36:6
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 05/05/2023
Figure 2. A) Maximum dynamic strength (1RM, in kg) before
(PRE) and after (POST) a 10-week unilateral resistance training
program in the long resting interval (LI), volume-matched long
resting interval with a short interval (VLI-SI), short resting in-
terval (SI), and volume-matched short resting interval with
a long interval (VSI-LI) protocols. B) Absolute change in 1RM in
the LI, VLI-SI, SI, and VSI-LI protocols. *Significant within-
protocol effect (p , 0.05). 1RM 5 one repetition maximum.
Number of Sets, Repetitions, and Volume Load
The average total number of sets and repetitions performed by LI,
VLI-SI, SI, and VSI-LI were 3.0 6 0 sets and 16.1 6 5.2 reps, 4.5
6 1.5 sets and 11.6 6 5.1 reps, 3.0 6 0 sets and 9.8 6 2.9 reps,
and 2.3 6 0.6 sets and 13.4 6 5.5 reps, respectively. The LI and
VLI-SI performed a greater VL than SI and VSI-LI (133,614 6
45,683 kg and 133,648 6 45,675 kg vs. 96,392 6 25,608 kg,
96,369 6 25,603 kg, respectively; p 5 0.049).
Discussion
The present study investigated the effect of different interset rest
intervals (1 minute vs. 3 minutes), with and without equalized VL,
on muscle strength and hypertrophy after 10 weeks of RT.
Consistent with our hypothesis, our findings demonstrate that
both muscle strength and hypertrophy are not directly influenced
by the interset rest interval. Thus, we confirmed that greater
increases in hypertrophy were observed when higher VL was
performed, regardless of the interset rest interval used.
The findings of this study partially call into question some
recommendations from the literature on the use of longer inter-
vals for greater increases in muscle strength (1,11,12,24). It has
been suggested that a $3-minute interset rest interval is needed to
1557
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
Figure 3. A) Quadriceps cross-sectional area (QCSA, in
cm2) before (PRE) and after (POST) a 10-week unilateral
resistance training program in the long resting interval (LI),
volume-matched long resting interval with a short interval
(VLI-SI), short resting interval (SI), and volume-matched
short resting interval with a long interval (VSI-LI) protocols. B)
Absolute change in CSA in the LI, VLI-SI, SI, and VSI-LI
protocols. *Significant within-protocol effect (at p , 0.05);
#significant between-protocol effect compared with SI and
VSI-LI (p , 0.05).
maximize increases in muscle strength (1,24). Longer intervals
would allow for the individual to maintain a higher intensity,
perform more repetitions per sets, and consequently obtain higher
VL, which in turn would result in greater strength increases
(25,26). In fact, some authors have shown that greater strength
increases were obtained by use of longer intervals (13,23).
However, these results are not unanimous because other studies
failed to replicate this finding, even when the longer intervals
allowed a higher VL (4,8,18). Recent evidence demonstrates that
regardless of VL, the highest intensity of the RT seems to de-
termine the greatest increases in muscle strength (5,15–17,22).
Specifically, higher intensities may promote greater recruitment
of motor units, higher firing rate of motor units, and greater
changes in agonist-antagonist coactivation rate compared with
lower intensities (9,19). Our findings are consistent with recent
literature, demonstrating that under intensity-equated conditions
(80% 1RM), the higher VL attained in LI and VLI-SI did not
translate into greater strength increases compared with SI and
VSI-LI (Figure 2A, B). Collectively, these findings indicate that the
length of the rest interval does not significantly influence strength
increases, at least for durations as low as 1 minute, when training
is performed at a high intensity of load. Moreover, our findings
 Long vs. Short Resting Intervals (2022) 36:6
suggest that using shorter rest intervals can make RT sessions
more time efficient without compromising increases in strength. It
should be noted that these findings are specific to training at
a relatively moderate intensity of load (80% 1RM). General
guidelines recommend heavier loading (1RM–6RM) to maximize
strength increases (1), and our findings cannot necessarily be
extrapolated to the use of these higher loads. Future research is
warranted to better determine how manipulations of rest interval
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
length affect long-term strength adaptations with the use of very
heavy loads.
Regarding muscle hypertrophy, a higher VL was found to
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 05/05/2023
positively influence the accretion of muscle mass regardless of the
interval used in the RT protocol (1 or 3 minutes) (Figure 3B). Our
findings are consistent with results from previous studies showing
greater increases in muscle mass for protocols with longer inter-
vals when VL was higher for these protocols compared with short
intervals (4,8,23). Further support for these findings can be found
in studies showing similar increases in muscle hypertrophy when
VL was equated between protocols of long and short rest intervals
(2,13,18). In addition, throughout the literature, there is strong
evidence showing that higher VL favors greater increases in
muscle mass (1,14,20,21). Although the mechanisms are still
unclear, it is suggested that the cumulative effect of greater RT
volumes elicits higher rates of protein synthesis and intracellular
anabolic signaling thereby translating into greater hypertrophic
increases over time (20). Taken together with our findings, the
evidence suggests that rest intervals of 1 or 3 minutes produce
similar hypertrophic increases provided VL is equated between
conditions.
This study had several noteworthy limitations. First, we did
not strictly control subjects’ nutritional intake. However, the
within-subject, randomized design should have minimized any
potential confounding effects attributed to dietary variation
between subjects. Regarding the within-subject design, we
cannot rule out the possibility of a cross-education effect con-
founding strength changes, although this was probably mini-
mized given that both lower limbs were submitted to the same
training intensity (16). Second, we did not control menstrual
cycle of the women participating in this study. However, in
addition to the within-subject design, women were evenly dis-
tributed between the groups (5 women and 9 men in each
group), reducing the possible influence of this factor on results.
Third, our findings are specific to young, untrained men and
women, and as such, these results cannot necessarily be gener-
alized to other populations such as elderly or RT-trained sub-
jects. Finally, although we used a gold-standard measurement
for hypertrophy evaluation (MRI), measurements were
obtained from the midpoint of the thigh; therefore, it is not
known whether differential hypertrophic responses manifested
at the proximal and distal regions of the thigh.
In conclusion, our results show that longer and shorter inter-
vals do not affect muscle strength increases when a higher in-
tensity is similarly maintained between the protocols, despite
a greater VL with longer rest. This finding indicates that intensity
is the primary determinant in muscle strength increases. On the
other hand, the interset rest interval seems to have no influence on
muscle mass when VL is matched, suggesting that greater
increases in hypertrophy may be obtained when both longer and
shorter intervals are performed provided a higher VL is attained.
Despite the lack of blood data analysis, the aforementioned
findings challenge the theory that the acute systemic hormonal
elevations promoted by short-rest intervals are a main drive for
greater muscle hypertrophy and rather suggest that VL should be
1558
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
prioritized when selecting a rest interval to maximize increases in
muscle mass.
Practical Applications
Based on our findings, we propose that if the individual’s goal is
to maximize muscle strength increases, rest intervals should be
“sufficient” to allow for the maintenance of high intensities of
load during each set. The “self-selected” rest interval hypothesis
proposed by De Salles et al. (7) might be a viable strategy be-
cause this approach has been shown to be effective in main-
taining high levels of training intensity by taking into account
the self-reported perception of recovery. Alternatively, when
the goal is to achieve muscle hypertrophy, long intervals (3
minutes) allow for a higher VL with fewer sets to be performed,
while short intervals (1 minute) require more sets to obtain
higher VL, both of which are efficacious for increasing muscle
mass. In other words, it could be possible to use both long and
short rest intervals as long as a high VL is performed.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to all the subjects for their volunteer
efforts to take part in the study. The authors declare they have no
conflicts of interest. The results of this study do not constitute
endorsement by the authors or the National Strength and
Conditioning Association (NSCA).
References
1. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models
in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41:
687–708, 2009.
2. Ahtiainen JP, Pakarinen A, Alen M, Kraemer WJ, Häkkinen K. Short vs.
long rest period between the sets in hypertrophic resistance training: In-
fluence on muscle strength, size, and hormonal adaptations in trained
men. J Strength Cond Res 19: 572–582, 2005.
3. Brown LE, Weir JP. ASEP procedures recommendation I: Accurate assess-
ment of muscular strength and power. J Exerc Physiol Online 4: 1–21, 2001.
4. Buresh R, Berg K, French J. The effect of resistive exercise rest interval on
hormonal response, strength, and hypertrophy with training. J Strength
Cond Res 23: 62–71, 2009.
5. Campos GE, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, et al. Muscular adaptations in
response to three different resistance-training regimens: Specificity of
repetition maximum training zones. Eur J Appl Physiol 88: 50–60, 2002.
6. Cohen J. Some issues in power analysis. In: Statistical Power Analysis for
the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates,
1988. pp. 531–542.
7. De Salles BF, Polito MD, Goessler KF, et al. Effects of fixed vs. self-
suggested rest between sets in upper and lower body exercises perfor-
mance. Eur J Sport Sci 16: 927–931, 2016.
8. Fink JE, Schoenfeld BJ, Kikuchi N, Nakazato K. Acute and long-term
responses to different rest intervals in low-load resistance training. Int J
Sports Med 38: 118–124, 2017.
9. Gabriel DA, Kamen G, Frost G. Neural adaptations to resistive exercise.
Sports Med 36: 133–149, 2006.
10. Goto K, Ishii N, Kizuka T, Takamatsu K. The impact of metabolic stress
on hormonal responses and muscular adaptations. Med Sci Sports Exerc
37: 955–963, 2005.
11. Grgic J, Lazinica B, Mikulic P, Krieger JW, Schoenfeld BJ. The effects of short
versus long inter-set rest intervals in resistance training on measures of muscle
hypertrophy: A systematic review. Eur J Sport Sci 17: 983–993, 2017.
12. Henselmans M, Schoenfeld BJ. The effect of inter-set rest intervals on
resistance exercise-induced muscle hypertrophy. Sports Med 44:
1635–1643, 2014.
13. Hill-Haas S, Bishop D, Dawson B, Goodman C, Edge J. Effects of rest
interval during high-repetition resistance training on strength, aerobic
fitness, and repeated-sprint ability. J Sports Sci 25: 619–628, 2007.
 Long vs. Short Resting Intervals (2022) 36:6
14. Krieger JW. Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercise for muscle hy-
pertrophy: A meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1150–1159, 2010.
15. Lasevicius T, Ugrinowitsch C, Schoenfeld BJ, et al. Effects of different
intensities of resistance training with equated volume load on muscle
strength and hypertrophy. Eur J Sport Sci 18: 772–780, 2018.
16. MacInnis MJ, McGlory C, Gibala MJ, Phillips SM. Investigating human
skeletal muscle physiology with unilateral exercise models: When one limb
is more powerful than two. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 42: 563–570, 2017.
17. Mitchell CJ, Churchward-Venne TA, West DW, et al. Resistance exercise
load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
men. J Appl Physiol 113: 71–77, 2012.
18. Ogasawara R, Loenneke JP, Thiebaud RS, Abe T. Low-load bench press
training to fatigue results in muscle hypertrophy similar to high-load
bench press training. Int J Clin Med 4: 114, 2013.
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 05/05/2023
19. Piirainen JM, Tanskanen M, Nissilä J, et al. Effects of a heart rate–based
recovery period on hormonal, neuromuscular, and aerobic performance
responses during 7 weeks of strength training in men. J Strength Cond Res
25: 2265–2273, 2011.
20. Sale DG. Neural adaptation to resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc
20: S135–S145, 1988.
1559
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
21. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Dose-response relationship
between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle
mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports Sci 35:
1073–1082, 2017.
22. Schoenfeld BJ, Peterson MD, Ogborn D, Contreras B, Sonmez GT.
Effects of low-vs. high-load resistance training on muscle strength and
hypertrophy in well-trained men. J Strength Cond Res 29: 2954–2963,
2015.
23. Schoenfeld BJ, Pope ZK, Benik FM, et al. Longer interset rest periods
enhance muscle strength and hypertrophy in resistance-trained men.
J Strength Cond Res 30: 1805–1812, 2016.
24. Wernbom M, Augustsson J, Thomeé R. The influence of frequency, in-
tensity, volume and mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-
sectional area in humans. Sports Med 37: 225–264, 2007.
25. Willardson JM. A brief review: Factors affecting the length of the rest
interval between resistance exercise sets. J Strength Cond Res 20:
978–984, 2006.
26. Willardson JM, Burkett LN. The effect of different rest intervals between
sets on volume components and strength gains. J Strength Cond Res 22:
146–152, 2008.