Key result
Interrepetition rest periods of 20 or 40 seconds significantly attenuated the decrease in peak power during multiple sets of power cleans compared to no rest (5.5% and 3.3% vs 15.7% decrease).
Why the study?
Does interrepetition rest improve the maintenance of power output during multiple sets of power cleans in college-aged men?
RCT (n=10)
Randomized order
Does interrepetition rest improve the maintenance of power output during multiple sets of power cleans in college-aged men?
Interrepetition rest periods of 20 or 40 seconds allow for better maintenance of power, force, and velocity during multiple sets of power cleans compared to no rest.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports 20-40 s interrepetition rest to maintain power in power cleans; extends RCT evidence for intra-set recovery in explosive lifts.
The effect of interrepetition rest (IRR) periods on power output during performance of multiple sets of power cleans is unknown. It is possible that IRR periods may attenuate the decrease in power output commonly observed within multiple sets. This may be of benefit for maximizing improvements in power with training. This investigation involved 10 college-aged men with proficiency in weightlifting. The subjects performed 3 sets of 6 repetitions of power cleans at 80% of their 1 repetition maximum with 0 (P0), 20 (P20), or 40 seconds (P40) of IRR. Each protocol (P0, P20, P40) was performed in a randomized order on different days each separated by at least 72 hours. The subjects performed the power cleans while standing on a force plate with 2 linear position transducers attached to the bar. Peak power, force, and velocity were obtained for each repetition and set. Peak power significantly decreased by 15.7% during P0 in comparison with a decrease of 5.5% (R1: 4,303 ± 567 W, R6: 4,055 ± 582 W) during P20 and a decrease of 3.3% (R1: 4,549 ± 659 W, R6: 4,363 ± 476 W) during P40. Peak force significantly decreased by 7.3% (R1: 2,861 ± 247 N, R6: 2,657 ± 225 N) during P0 in comparison with a decrease of 2.7% (R1: 2,811 ± 327 N, R6: 2,730 ± 285 N) during P20 and an increase of 0.4% (R1: 2,861 ± 323 N, R6: 2,862 ± 280 N) during P40. Peak velocity significantly decreased by 10.2% (R1: 1.97 ± 0.15 m·s(-1), R6: 1.79 ± 0.11 m·s(-1)) during P0 in comparison with a decrease of 3.8% (R1: 1.89 ± 0.13 m·s(-1), R6: 1.82 ± 0.12 m·s(-1)) during P20 and a decrease of 1.7% (R1: 1.93 ± 0.17 m·s(-1), R6: 1.89 ± 0.14 m·s(-1)) during P40. The results demonstrate that IRR periods allow for the maintenance of power in the power clean during a multiple set exercise protocol and that this may have implications for improved training adaptations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hardee et al. (2012) conducted an RCT in Healthy weightlifters (n=10). Interrepetition rest (IRR) periods vs. 0 seconds IRR was evaluated on Decrease in peak power. Interrepetition rest periods of 20 or 40 seconds significantly attenuated the decrease in peak power during multiple sets of power cleans compared to no rest (5.5% and 3.3% vs 15.7% decrease).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: