Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study aimed to compare the effects of self-selected versus fixed inter-set rest intervals on muscular adaptations and training time efficiency during lower-body resistance training (RT) in resistance-trained adults. Forty resistance-trained participants were randomized to a self-selected rest interval group (SELF; n = 21) or a fixed ~2-minute rest interval group (FIXED; n = 19). Participants completed 8 weeks of supervised lower-body RT, performing four sets of 8–12 repetitions for the squat, leg extension, standing calf raise, and seated calf raise. Outcomes included ultrasound-derived muscle thickness (MT), dynamic and isometric strength, muscular endurance, training time, and session RPE. Both groups demonstrated similar improvements in MT, strength, and muscular endurance, with no meaningful between-group differences. Domain-level analyses supported these findings, showing trivial treatment effects for hypertrophy (−0.1 SD; 95% CrI: −0.2 to 0.0) and performance (0.0 SD; 95% CrI: −0.3 to 0.3). FIXED completed training sessions ~29% faster than SELF (56.0 ± 4.5 vs. 78.5 ± 15.4 min), while session RPE was similar (8.2 ± 1.0 vs. 8.1 ± 0.7 AU). Self-selected rest intervals produced comparable muscular adaptations to fixed rest intervals but required substantially more time. Prescribing ~2-minute rest intervals appears to optimize training efficiency without compromising adaptations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mohan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: