ArticleJournal of exercise science and fitness2015
Maximal repetition performance, rating of perceived exertion, and muscle fatigue during paired set training performed with different rest intervals.
Article in Journal of exercise science and fitness, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acute Effects of a Percussive Massage Treatment on Movement Velocity during Resistance Training.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Trial
- A comparison of acute affective responses, physiological measures and training volume between superset and traditional resistance training in untrained adults.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
- EFFECT OF DIFFERENT FOAM ROLLING VOLUMES ON KNEE EXTENSION FATIGUE.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to examine rest interval length between agonist-antagonist paired set training (PS) on maximal repetition performance, rating of perceived exertion, and neuromuscular fatigue.
methodsFourteen trained men (age, 24.2 ± 1.1 years; height, 175 ± 5.5 cm; body mass, 76.6 ± 7.0 kg) performed two experimental protocols in random order with 2 minutes (P2) or 4 minutes (P4) between agonist-antagonist PS, which consisted of a bench press set followed immediately by a seated row set with 8-repetition maximum loads, respectively. A total of three PS were performed for each rest interval protocol. The total repetitions performed and the rating of perceived exertion were recorded for each exercise set within each rest interval protocol. Electromyography signals were recorded for the posterior deltoid, biceps brachii, pectoralis major, and triceps brachii muscles during the SR exercise. The electromyography signals were then used to calculate a fatigue index for each rest interval protocol.
resultsNo significant differences were identified in the total repetitions completed between rest interval protocols for the bench press (P2 = 22.9 ± 1.3 and P4 = 22.6 ± 0.8) and seated row (P2 = 25.4 ± 1.7 and P4 = 25.1 ± 1.3). However, a significantly higher fatigue index was found for all muscles under the P2 versus the P4 protocol.
conclusionWhen performing agonist-antagonist PS, prescribing a shorter rest interval between PS may induce higher levels of fatigue, albeit with similar total repetitions versus a longer rest interval.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.