Key result
Rest redistribution training matches traditional training for jump performance while improving autonomic regulation and reducing fatigue.
Why the study?
Does Rest Redistribution Training improve vertical jump performance, HRV, and perceived exertion compared to Traditional Set Structure Training in anxious female college students?
RCT (n=14)
randomized
Does Rest Redistribution Training improve vertical jump performance, HRV, and perceived exertion compared to Traditional Set Structure Training in anxious female college students?
Rest Redistribution Training offers a low-stress alternative to traditional resistance training for anxiety-prone populations by preserving autonomic regulation and reducing perceived fatigue while maintaining equivalent performance outcomes.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports rest redistribution training as low-stress option for anxious athletes; extends set-structure evidence to autonomic and fatigue benefits.
(1) Background: This study compares the immediate effects of Rest Redistribution Training (RR) and Traditional Set Structure Training (TS) on vertical jump performance, heart rate variability (HRV), and perceived exertion (RPE) in anxious female college students. (2) Methods: In a randomized experimental design, 14 anxious female college students (ages 18–25, screened via Zung’s Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) with scores ≥50) underwent a familiarization session followed by two trials involving either a RR or TS conditioning routine. Vertical jump, HRV, and RPE were measured pre- and post-session, and during training, respectively. (3) Results: Both protocols induced significant decrements in squat jump (SJs) and countermovement jump (CMJs) metrics (p < 0.05), but no statistically significant between-group differences emerged (p > 0.05; SJ height: d = 0.059, 95% CI [−0.05, 0.05]; CMJ peak power: d = 0.253, 95% CI [−0.02, 0.02]). TS induced significant decreases in time-domain HRV indices (SDNN: d = 0.888, 95% CI [1.07, 16.13; RMSSD: d = 1.511, 95% CI [8.87, 27.63]) and high-frequency power (HF: d = 0.788, 95% CI [2.73, 379.71]), whereas RR preserved these indices. RR significantly reduced RPE compared to TS (p < 0.05; barbell bench press: d = 1.132, 95% CI [0.28, 1.48]; leg press: d = 0.784, 95% CI [0.01, 1.31]). (4) Conclusions: RR and TS protocols induced comparable decrements in vertical jump performance among untrained anxious female college students under equivalent loads; however, RR demonstrated superior autonomic regulation, reduced perceived fatigue, and equivalent performance outcomes, highlighting its potential as a low-stress alternative to traditional resistance training for anxiety-prone populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cheng et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in Anxiety (n=14). Rest Redistribution Training (RR) vs. Traditional Set Structure Training (TS) was evaluated on Squat jump (SJ) height (d 0.059, 95% CI -0.05, 0.05, p=>0.05). Rest Redistribution Training yielded comparable vertical jump performance to traditional training (SJ height d=0.059) but demonstrated superior autonomic regulation and reduced perceived fatigue.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: