Key result
Short-rest resistance training matches traditional training for VO₂peak but yields greater quadriceps strength gains.
Why the study?
The comparative effects of short-rest interval versus traditional multiple-set resistance training combined with endurance training in patients with cardiovascular disease during cardiac rehabilitation were unclear.
Does short-rest interval resistance training (3/7 RT) improve VO₂peak and quadriceps strength more than traditional multiple-set resistance training (3×9 RT) in patients with cardiovascular disease undergoing cardiac rehabilitation?
RCT (n=71)
Does short-rest interval resistance training (3/7 RT) improve VO₂peak and quadriceps strength more than traditional multiple-set resistance training (3×9 RT) in patients with cardiovascular disease undergoing cardiac rehabilitation?
Absolute Event Rate: 3.6% vs 4%
p-value: p=0.786
Both short-rest interval and traditional multiple-set resistance training are effective in cardiac rehabilitation, offering comparable improvements in VO₂peak with slightly greater isokinetic strength gains seen with short-rest intervals.
Short-rest interval RT offers a viable option in cardiac rehab for added strength gains; extends comparative RCT evidence on training protocols in CVD.
This randomized clinical trial compared short-rest interval resistance training (3/7 RT) with traditional multiple-set resistance training (3×9 RT) during a 12-week supervised cardiac rehabilitation program in patients with cardiovascular disease. Seventy-one participants were randomized to endurance training combined with either 3/7 RT (n=37) or 3×9 RT (n=34), performed three times per week. Primary outcomes were changes in VO₂peak and quadriceps strength; secondary outcomes included 30-s sit-to-stand performance and total lean mass. VO₂peak increased similarly in both groups (+3.6±3.3 vs. +4.0±4.6 ml/kg/min; P =0.786), as did sit-to-stand performance (+2±3 vs. +2±3 repetitions; P =0.873) and total lean mass (+1.04±1.5 vs. +0.94±1.7 kg; P =0.791). Quadriceps strength increased in both groups across multiple strength assessments but improved more after 3/7 RT than after 3×9 RT (+23±20 vs. +11±22 N·m; P =0.022) for isokinetic strength. These findings suggest that both resistance training modalities are feasible and effective within a cardiac rehabilitation program. As no consistent superiority of either protocol was observed across muscle strength measures, either modality may be considered in clinical practice, with patient preference taken into account when selecting the training approach.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gillet et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Cardiovascular disease (n=71). Short-rest interval resistance training (3/7 RT) combined with endurance training vs. Traditional multiple-set resistance training (3×9 RT) combined with endurance training was evaluated on Changes in VO₂peak (p=0.786). Short-rest interval resistance training yielded similar increases in VO₂peak (+3.6 vs +4.0 ml/kg/min; P=0.786) but greater improvements in isokinetic quadriceps strength than traditional training.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: