Muscular Adaptations and Psychophysiological Responses in Resistance Training Systems

ABSTRACT

Purpose: We investigated the effect of drop-set (DS) and rest-pause (RP) systems compared to traditional (TRAD) resistance training on muscular adaptations and psychophysiological responses. Methods: Twenty-seven trained men (age: 23.4 ± 3.4 years; resistance training experience: 5.1 ± 1.7 years) were assigned to experimental groups (DS: n = 9, 3 × 10 repetitions at 75% with 6 additional repetitions at 55% 1RM; RP: n = 9, 3 × 16 repetitions at 75% 1RM; TRAD: n = 9, 4 × 12 repetitions at 70% 1RM) and performed lower-limb training sessions twice a week for 8 weeks. Maximum dynamic strength (1RM) and localized muscular endurance (LME) tests were performed in 45° leg press at baseline and post intervention. Session-RPE was assessed 15 min after the end of each training session. Results: A significant time vs. group interaction was observed for 1RM (p = .012) and LME (p < .0001). Post hoc comparisons revealed that RP elicited greater gains in muscular strength than DS (p = .044) but not TRAD (p = .116); and DS elicited greater LME than RP (p < .001) and TRAD (p = .001). No statistical differences were observed in Session-RPE and training strain between conditions; however, RP promoted higher training monotony (p = .036) than DS and TRAD. Conclusions: The DS and RP systems have a potential role in training programs aiming to promote muscle strength and localized muscular endurance adaptations, respectively. However, RP may promote higher training monotony than DS and TRAD, even though the other psychophysiological responses are similar.

KEYWORDS:

• Drop-set
• muscle strength
• rest-pause
• session-RPE
• strength training

Acknowledgments

The authors thanks the volunteers’ engagement during research conduction. The authors thanks to Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES – Finance Code 001) and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) for their respective scholarships.

Disclosure statement

The authors certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript.

Authorship contributions

Conceived and designed the analysis: AE, DFL, GO, TPSJ; Collected the data: AE, GO, BAZS, LHBF; Contributed data or analysis tools: AE, DFL, RCA, JP; Performed the analysis: AE, DFL, JP; Wrote the paper: AE, DFL, GO, SRM, JP, TPSJ.

IRB approval

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Catholic University of Brasília.

Additional information

Funding

The authors did not receive funding to conduct the study.